On June 15, Generalissimo Joe Biden released his “National Strategy for Countering Domestic Terrorism,” the “most urgent threat the United States faces today.” Would that be the “unprecedented numbers of known or suspected terrorists [who] have crossed the southern border in recent months” and who now likely live among us — as revealed on 8/14/21 by retiring Border Patrol Chief Rodney Scott, forced out by Biden?

Nope. The target of Biden’s anti-domestic-terror strategy is: American conservatives.

Now, the release didn’t say that. It said “the two most lethal elements of today’s domestic terrorism threat” are “white supremacists” and “anti-government or anti-authority” extremists. But think about it. What do all leftists call all conservatives? It’s been a cliché for decades: they smear us as racist-sexist-homophobes. Recently, because the wildly overused label “racist” has lost its punch, they’ve subbed-in the ridiculous slander “white supremacist.”

The accusation is complete rubbish, since conservatives come in all colors, shapes, sizes — and we love and welcome everybody. But leftists cannot defeat us in the arena of ideas, so name-calling is all they’ve got.

And since we conservatives cherish the American Founding and adhere to its Constitutional principle of limited government, they call us “anti-government.” It is intellectual laziness, pure and simple. But they are right about something: our devotion to the American principles of liberty and the rule of law are indeed an enormous ideological threat to the unlimited authoritarian government power they crave.

So the Biden’s National Strategy is a massive, all-of-government mission: “Every component of the government has a role to play.” They’re weeding out “potential” domestic terrorists from our military and law enforcement. The U.S. government, “in close partnership with civil society” (i.e., Big Tech, social media, and multinational corporations) will protect Americans “from racial, ethnic, and religious hatred…”

It sounds so nice. But this is liberal-speak for erasing conservative voices from civil society. If conservatism equals “hate,” which is what they ludicrously claim, then how better to supposedly protect people from hatred than shutting us up?

That agenda became crystal clear on August 13, when Bidenissimo’s Homeland Security agency issued a “national terrorism alert.” On nbc News, Pete Williams reported:

dhs says this new terrorism advisory is not based on any actual threats or plots, but it says there’s a rise in anti-government rhetoric. Some of it is opposition to covid public health rules like mask and vaccine measures. Some calls for violent action are based on claims of election fraud or a belief that Donald Trump can be reinstated. And dhs says the coming 20th anniversary of the 9/11 attacks and religious holidays later this year could be catalysts for violence… This new [advisory] says domestic extremism remains a threat priority.

Did you follow that? There are no terror threats or plots — but more people are saying things critical of the government. Gasp. They’re opposing mask and vaccine mandates. Shock. They’re raising doubts that the election was on the up-and-up, and they want Trump back. Oh, no. And they’ll be remembering when our country was brutally attacked by militant Islamists! Christmas and Hanukkah are coming! Horrors. Americans memorializing our 3,000 dead on 9/11 as well as end-of-year religious celebrants are just going to run amok!

Williams threw the word “violent” in there, after reporting there’s zero evidence of that, but every other line item in this list is Constitutionally protected, legal behavior. Dissent and “belief” and religious expression are explicitly safeguarded by the First Amendment — which “every component of the government” is sworn to uphold. The particular issues delineated in this national alert are meant to describe political conservatives, who disagree with this Administration’s policies and dare to say so. This constitutes “domestic terror” to the Biden Regime.

Yes, you are in their sights. How does it feel to have the federal government’s massive, malevolent surveillance-state eye turn its gaze slowly and relentlessly toward you?

Well, it should feel familiar. Because it happens every time there’s a Democrat in the White House. In 1999 Bill Clinton actually declared, according to Salon.com: “My only enemy is right-wing religious fundamentalism.” He had tried to pin every terror event perpetrated by actual terrorists (as well as his own vices) on the vast right-wing conspiracy. He blamed Rush for the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing that killed 168 people. On 4/25/95 he said:

We hear so many loud and angry voices in America today whose sole goal seems to be to try to keep some people as paranoid as possible and the rest of us all torn up and upset with each other. They spread hate. They leave the impression that, by their very words, that violence is acceptable. You ought to see, I’m sure you are now seeing, the reports of some things that are regularly said over the airwaves in America today. Well, people like that who want to share our freedoms must know that their bitter words can have consequences…

Everyone knew he was referring to Rush, and it didn’t fly. Clinton’s people tried to walk it back. Reported The New York Times: “As soon as [Clinton] finished speaking, senior White House aides became concerned that his remarks would be interpreted as an attack on radio hosts like Rush Limbaugh and rushed to insist that the President had only been urging Americans to protect free speech by speaking out against hatred.”

Ha. The President’s aides were right to worry that Clinton had stepped in it. Rush lowered the boom — the radio boom — and turned Clinton’s words back on him: “I believe the people who have been ranting and raving about starving schoolchildren, calling those people involved in legitimate political dialogue ‘extremists,’ are in fact ‘promoters of paranoia and purveyors of hate and divisiveness.’ I’m glad to see the President speak out against them, and anyone who uses Oklahoma City for political purposes should incur the wrath of the American people and be voted out of office.” Score.

Fast forward to the early Obama Regime and the rise of the Tea Party. Clinton reprised all this in a speech on 4/16/10, “The Tragedy of Oklahoma City 15 Years Later and the Lessons for Today.” He said “right-wing radio talk show hosts” (guess who?) had kept people in “white heat” (get it? white heat? wink, wink) before the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building bombing — and he warned against that same kind of dangerous “anti-government” rhetoric aimed at Obama.

Of course, the Tea Party was the absolute essence of a peaceful movement. But Tea Partiers dared rally against and criticize Democrat spending — effectively — which put them in the same category as Timothy McVeigh, as far as Bill Clinton and Barack Obama were concerned.

So Clinton was sent out to hammer “the Leader of the Opposition,” Rush, once again: “Words matter… We can’t let the debate veer so far into hatred that we lose sight of our humanity,” Clinton said smugly, knowing full well that the entire news media would read “hatred” as a dig against Rush. (Liberals have been slandering conservative speech as “hate speech” for decades.)

Rush fired right back, as reported by abc News: “Limbaugh flipped the script, saying any domestic terror violence this time would be ‘squarely on the shoulders of Bill Clinton and Barack Obama.’ … ‘Any future acts of violence are on your shoulders, Mr. Clinton. You just gave the kooks in this country an excuse to go be violent. Nobody on the right’s doing this. Nobody on talk radio is advocating anything of the sort that you are predicting. You, sir, are predicting it. Maybe the Regime wants something like that to happen?’”

It is a fascinating question. Political violence is a currency and a tool of the left (see: Antifa). Yet liberals are forever claiming, as in Biden’s “domestic terror threat” strategy memo, that right-wing terrorism is rising. Violent terror is ever nascent on the right, in the Democrat imaginations, but somehow always lands in the hands and Molotov cocktails of card-carrying leftists.

While perennially harping on unfulfilled prophesies of right-wing terrorism, actual terrorists are coddled and released and inflicted on innocents by the left. (Case in point: Taliban spokesman Zabihullah Mujahid is allowed to post all over Twitter, but President Trump is banned.) Note the steady rise of isis and the Muslim Brotherhood under Obama, and Biden basically re-installing the Taliban. These things are not by happenstance. According to the The New York Post, 8/16/21:

The mastermind of the [Afghanistan] regime change is former detainee Khairullah Khairkhwa, the Taliban mullah whom Obama released from Gitmo even though the Pentagon classified him as too dangerous to release… Obama sprung Khairkhwa from jail along with four other top Taliban leaders in exchange for the Taliban releasing U.S. Army Sgt. Robert ‘Bowe’ Bergdahl, who was captured after deserting his post in Afghanistan… If Obama and Biden had left the five Taliban thugs to rot in Cuba, Kabul more than likely would not be back in the clutches of the Taliban right now. And maybe Americans wouldn’t have sacrificed more than 2,400 troops and $1 trillion in vain.

According to an ancient Jewish saying, “Those who are kind to the cruel will be cruel to the kind.” The left is kind — or at least accommodating — to terrorists, who have long been politically useful to them. And the calculus of this received wisdom holds true: the left is therefore inevitably cruel to those who aren’t. It is important to understand the source of this war on conservatives: the moral hazard of liberals’ error: lust for power and control over others. Grasp this, and you’ll never be blindsided again.

Illustration created for The Limbaugh Letter ©2021 Christopher Hiers; Screen grab NBC News