moonbattery logo

Feb 25 2021

Merrick Garland’s Selective Definition of Terrorism

America dodged a bullet when left-wing judge Merrick Garland was kept off the Supreme Court. But we might still catch the ricochet, because he has been nominated for Attorney General. Garland is a perfect fit for the job, assuming Biden is looking for a loyal, ideologically driven “wingman” like Obama’s Fast & Furious henchman Eric Holder.

Law Enforcement Today reports on Garland’s confirmation hearing:

Garland said the attacks on federal buildings in places like Portland and Seattle were not “domestic terrorism” because they occurred during hours when business was not in session.

Garland said that unlike the attacks on courthouses by left-wing rioters, the attack on the United States Capitol occurred during business hours and was domestic terrorism.

The day/night distinction allows Garland to pretend that the handful of hooligans who exploited the negligently lax security at the Capitol were terrorists, whereas equally politically motivated leftist thugs who inflicted hundreds of riots over the past year were not.

It does not matter that when leftists attacked the Hatfield Federal Courthouse in Portland on the night of July 2–3 with commercial grade fireworks that might have burned the place down, there were employees inside.

Hundreds of police officers were injured in just the first two weeks of the long-running Black Lives Matter/Antifa riots. That’s not terrorism. The Capitol Riot is terrorism.

A more meaningful distinction than day or night would be the honest one: political violence is terrorism and should be treated as such only if it is not coming from the Left.

Comparably alarming is Garland’s willingness to facilitate the predictable Biden attack on our Second Amendment rights. From the Salt Lake Tribune, via MSN:

When [Senator Mike] Lee [R-UT] asked if Garland supports universal background checks, he said he supports checks to allow people legally entitled to buy guns to obtain them — but also to prohibit sales to those “we are concerned about because they’re a threat, because they’re felons, or for whatever reason, [are] barred by the law” from buying them.

What does “because they’re a threat” mean? What does “for whatever reason” mean?

When Lee asked if Garland would support holding gun manufacturers liable for injuries or deaths caused by their firearms, the nominee said that while the president may have pushed that, “I have not thought myself deeply about this. I don’t think it raises a Second Amendment issue.”

The leftist strategy of rendering the Second Amendment moot by suing gun manufacturers and retailers out of existence is not a secret. Garland, a member of the Left, is probably not being honest when he claims not to have thought about it.

A moonbat, so it’s not terrorism.

On tips from Dragon’s Lair and ABC of the ANC. Hat tip: Right Scoop.


YOUR SUPPORT IS CRUCIAL


Donations buy time to produce more content. If you enjoy this site, please consider donating by clicking the button below:



One Response to “Merrick Garland’s Selective Definition of Terrorism”

  1. […] post Merrick Garland’s Selective Definition of Terrorism appeared first on […]


Alibi3col theme by Themocracy