News Ticker >
[ September 19, 2019 ]

It’s Bibi or elections again

[ September 19, 2019 ]

“Palestinian” Poll: 61 Percent Applaud the Murder of Jewish Teen

[ September 19, 2019 ]

Justin Trudeau Shown THREE SEPARATE TIMES in BLACKFACE Makeup

[ September 19, 2019 ]

Swastika Found on Tufts Jewish Student’s Door

[ September 19, 2019 ]

Women’s March Dumps CAIR Terror Spox Zahra Billoo

[ September 19, 2019 ]

Iran imprisons bookshop owner for selling Bible as crackdown on Christianity continues

[ September 18, 2019 ]

Trenton councilwoman Robin Vaughn claims antisemitic slur ‘is a verb,’ demands leak investigation

[ September 18, 2019 ]

American Airlines Muslim Mechanic Who Sabotaged Miami Plane Had ISIS Videos on Phone, Ties to...

[ September 18, 2019 ]

Jihad-Rep Ilhan Omar who Married Her Brother Ilhan Omar Deletes 2013 Post That Revealed Her...

[ September 18, 2019 ]

RINO GOP They’re On the Other Side: GOP Senators Call in Tech Giants to Remove...

San Francisco Democrat City Leaders Designate Those With Whom They Disagree as “TERRORISTS”

32

The madness that drives the left totalitarians manifests itself is all kinds of different crazy. Nazi Germany, Communist China, Stalin’s Soviet Union, Pol Pot’s Cambodia’s Marxist–Leninist movement, etc., and San Francisco’s city leaders.

This is hardly the first insane and dangerous policy city leaders have undertaken. They issued a hate resolution against me, the first of its kind, because of my public service ad campaign highlighting oppression of gays in Muslim counties.

You Can’t Call People ‘Terrorists’ Just for Having Different Viewpoints

By Jim Geraghty, NRO, September 5, 2019 10:12 AM

Making the click-through worthwhile: San Francisco’s city leaders try to redefine the word terrorist to mean “people who we disagree with on gun policy”; the fight over Brexit in the United Kingdom takes another dramatic turn; the not-so-big NFL preview; and Joe Biden finds a way to laugh at his own gaffes.

San Francisco Tries to Redefine the Word ‘Terrorist’

We live in a time when authorities attempt to brazenly redefine the meaning of words by sheer force of will right before our eyes: “By a unanimous vote, San Francisco’s Board of Supervisors have passed a resolution declaring the National Rifle Association a domestic terrorist organization and urging other cities to follow their example.” The resolution also orders city employees to “take every reasonable step to limit” business interactions with the NRA and its supporters.

First, does the city of San Francisco have any business interaction with the NRA? Did the supervisors even bother to look before passing this resolution? Or were they too high on performative outrage to even ask?

But let’s assume the guy who heads up the company that makes the orange traffic cones that the city uses is an NRA member and big donor to the organization. Would the city cancel a contract for more traffic cones over the guy’s support for the NRA? Federal courts have overturned agency decisions to cancel contracts over perceived bias against a contractor, even when the contractor was behind schedule. “Objectivity must be the hallmark of any decision to terminate for default. Therefore, government personnel should remember to focus on the facts and make every attempt to work with the contractor before taking steps to terminate for cause.” A contractor who lost a job primarily because of his support for the NRA would probably have a winning court case.

But back to the label of “domestic terror organization.” You don’t have to like the NRA to recognize that it does not even remotely fit the definition of a “domestic terrorist organization.” What these eleven lawmakers mean to say is that they loathe the NRA and vehemently oppose their views on the Second Amendment and the right to own a gun. They’re free to have those views, but they do not have the authority to declare someone else a terrorist for having that different view.

These city supervisors aren’t the FBI. They’re not the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives. They’re not the National Counterterrorism Center.

Terrorism is a crime, not merely a viewpoint. Being a member of Occupy Wall Street does not make you a terrorist. Being a member of Occupy Wall Street and planning to blow up a bridge makes you a terrorist. Being a Trump supporter doesn’t make you a terrorist. Being a Trump supporter and mailing pipe bombs to people you see as his enemies does make you a terrorist.

Can anyone in San Francisco grasp the danger in letting politicians declare by proclamation that those who have committed no crimes but who have differing views are terrorists? Can anyone over there imagine how this mentality could turn out badly for someone they like?

For example, Ilhan Omar and Rashida Tlaib wanted to go to Israel on a trip sponsored by Mitfah, an organization that runs articles contending “the Jews used the blood of Christians in the Jewish Passover”; and an American neo-Nazi screed about how Jews control the media; as well as praising suicide bombers, Palestinian terrorists, and bus hijackers who killed people, not metaphorical terrorists. Omar and Tlaib are associating with some really unsavory characters. This doesn’t make the congresswomen terrorists. But if we all decide to follow the San Francisco city supervisors’ example, we can label them terrorists morning, noon, and night. There’s no way that could possibly lead to something bad, right?
Stay Updated with Morning Jolt

A guided tour of the news and politics driving the day, by Jim Geraghty.

Leaders of the NRA frequently argue that they’re the only organization in America who is regularly blamed for the actions of people who aren’t members. I imagine that when they say that, somewhere the Koch network, AIPAC, Focus on the Family, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and National Right to Life grumble, ‘hey, it’s no picnic over here, either, pal.’ But being declared terrorists by a city government might take the cake.

This is the same city government that wants to restrict the use of words like ‘felon’ and ‘convict.’

Some examples include changing “felon” and “offender” to “returning resident” or “formerly incarcerated person.” A “parolee” could be described as a “person under supervision.” “Convict” could be referred to as a “currently incarcerated person,” while a “juvenile offender” or “delinquent” would be described as a “young person impacted by the justice system.”

The city government wants to take it easier on people who have broken the law, while vehemently demonizing people who have not broken the law.

The Truth Must be Told

Your contribution supports independent journalism

Please take a moment to consider this. Now, more than ever, people are reading Geller Report for news they won't get anywhere else. But advertising revenues have all but disappeared. Google Adsense is the online advertising monopoly and they have banned us. Social media giants like Facebook and Twitter have blocked and shadow-banned our accounts. But we won't put up a paywall. Because never has the free world needed independent journalism more.

Everyone who reads our reporting knows the Geller Report covers the news the media won't. We cannot do our ground-breaking report without your support. We must continue to report on the global jihad and the left's war on freedom. Our readers’ contributions make that possible.

Geller Report's independent, investigative journalism takes a lot of time, money and hard work to produce. But we do it because we believe our work is critical in the fight for freedom and because it is your fight, too.

Please contribute to our ground-breaking work here.


Make a monthly commitment to support The Geller Report – choose the option that suits you best.

Contribute Monthly - Choose One

Have a tip we should know? Your anonymity is NEVER compromised. Email tips@thegellerreport.com

Pin It on Pinterest