The War on Words: Terrorism in San Francisco

I was asked if I could write an article calling the Board of Supervisors of San Francisco a ‘terrorist organization’.

I thought about this question long and hard, and I’ve got to tell you – they come close. In the end, however, I decided that I could not, in good conscious, call the Board of Supervisors of San Francisco a group of terrorists.

Terrorism is a word with a specific definition, involving the use of violence, against civilians, for political purposes. The San Francisco Board of Supervisors just officially labeled the NRA a terrorist organization, but even as a card-carrying member of the NRA (and thus a ‘terrorist’ myself, according to San Francisco), based on the definition of the word, I can’t return the favor, as labeling a political organization ‘terrorists’ is not, in and of itself, an act of political violence.

What I can do is to tell you how dangerous this move, by the Board of Supervisors of the City of San Francisco, is.

First off, however, let us talk about the NRA. The National Rifle Association is a political organization, with the stated role of working in defense of the Right to Bear Arms, as defined by the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution. The NRA has never condoned violence, nor carried it out, but the NRA has maintained, correctly, that the Second Amendment was written as a counter-weight to the need for a standing Federal army, and that, as such, the rights of the people to bear arms is based on the possible need to fight a standing army.

The NRA’s interpretation is exactly correct, as evidenced by the debates between the Federalists and Anti-Federalists that led to the Constitution, and the Second Amendment. The Second Amendment was literally a compromise in which the Anti-Federalists granted the power for a standing Federal army, but only under the provision that the people be properly armed to throw such a standing army down, should the need become necessary.

The NRA is no more a terrorist organization than the United States Constitution, and the Declaration of Independence, are terrorist manifestos, but by declaring the NRA to be a terrorist organization, the Board of Supervisors of the City of San Francisco is coming very close to calling the United States Constitution, and the Declaration of Independence, ‘terrorist manifestos,’ and in doing so, the Board of Supervisors of the City of San Francisco is all but asking for armed rebellion.

I have another definition I would like the Board of Supervisors of the City of San Francisco, to consider. It is the definition of the phrase ‘self-fulfilling prophesy’. The Board of Supervisors, of the City of San Francisco, has essentially declared war on those who support the Second Amendment, and in doing so, is encouraging actual terrorism.

The thing to remember is that one person’s terrorist is another person’s freedom fighter, and that when government declares war against our Constitutional rights, the government also calls upon those who believe in the Constitution to overthrow government – or as Thomas Jefferson put it, “The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure.”

Now, in fairness to the Board of Supervisors of the City of San Francisco, they are not the Federal Government, nor even a state government. We can safely take this resolution as the ramblings of sick and twisted minds. But the Board of Supervisors went a step further, calling on other cities, states, and even the Federal Government, to do the same. And the vote was unanimous.

I wrote another article, recently, about the left’s War on Words. If you have not yet read that article in it’s entirety, I encourage you to do so, for the weaponization of the word ‘terrorism’ is but another example of this War on Words. To the political left, if an organization disagrees with their agenda, they are ‘white supremacists’, and now, also, ‘terrorists’.

The word ‘terrorist’ is particularly pernicious, as it implies specific, overpowering government activity in response to it. As such, by calling the NRA a ‘terrorist organization,’ the Board of Supervisors is calling for the arrest of the NRA’s five million members, all of whom are, according to the Board of Supervisors of the City of San Francisco, ‘terrorists,’ and the federal penalty for terrorism includes death.

I want to be crystal-clear to the Board of Supervisors of the City of San Francisco, and I hope they read this: you have just proven every conspiracy theory about the left’s desire to usurp the civil liberties of the American People to be true. The ramifications of the City of San Francisco doing that are negligible, as we knew you were bat-ass crazy anyway, but your calls for other municipalities to follow suit, and for the Federal Government to follow suit, will undoubtedly be met with calls within other municipalities, and within the Federal Government, to do the same.

I can see how this would play out, should leftists, like those in San Francisco, get their way. First, the NRA is declared a ‘terrorist organization.’ Next, federal ‘red-flag’ laws are passed. Next, the five million members of the NRA are disarmed, on the grounds that they belong to a ‘terrorist organization.’ Next, other supporters of the Second Amendment are disarmed, on the grounds that they support a terrorist organization through their support of the Second Amendment. Finally, having, or wanting, a gun will be cause for disarmament, under ‘red-flag’ laws.

Or we can do like Beto O’Rourke says, and just ban the guns. According to Beto O’Rourke, the Second Amendment grants the states the right to arm the National Guard, and provides no individual right to bear arms. Beto says he’ll simply confiscate guns.

But this is not really about guns. It’s about labeling everything the left does not like as something government should stop. Don’t like socialism? You are a racist. Want guns? You are a terrorist. Like the police? You are a white supremacist. Vote for Trump? You are a Nazi.

And while San Francisco was busy voting to name the NRA a terrorist group, influential Democrats in Congress vowed to raise funds to pay for the legal defense of ANTIFA members, who engage in actual political violence, against the police.

Put this all together, and you have the weaponization of the word ‘Terrorist,’ in such a way that any political affiliation from the right is criminal, and any political affiliation from the left is protected.

At the same time, the left uses the phrase ‘hate speech’ to cover any speech in opposition to the political left.

Don’t believe me? Consider that this piece, which was essentially a third-grade civics lesson on the Freedom of Speech, proved to be highly controversial. What did I say that the left found so reprehensible? I said that there is no excuse for ever using violence to shut-down political speech.

The left sees no difference between supporting free speech, and supporting all of the horrific things people might say, if left free. And why should the left see any such difference, when the left believes that speech and violence are the same thing? According to one of our top colleges (MIT), you can commit ‘verbal rape’.

I totally get the desire to criminalize speech. The ability to speak, and particularly politically, is the power to persuade, and because of this, every totalitarian regime in world history has arrested people based on what they have said, from Stalin, to Hitler, to Mao. No totalitarian in human history has ever believed in the freedom of speech, so when a group like ANTIFA claims the right to shut speech down, take notice, and when the government begins to weaponize speech, run…

Here is a prediction: If the political left wins the Presidency, they will start Congressional investigations to see how a racist like Donald Trump could ever have been elected. These investigations will offer ideas on how to protect our election system, such that no racist like Donald Trump can ever win again.

There will be two competing recommendations. One will be to abolish the Electoral College, and to slant national elections based on intersectionality, such that each person still gets a vote, but the votes of ‘at risk groups’ count more than the groups of oppressive groups.

The other suggestion will be to use the electoral college to bring intersectionality into our Presidential elections – mandating that the makeup of the Electoral College give ‘at risk groups’ more say in who should be President.

I’ve thought for a good year that this was the direction the left was heading, but until the Board of Supervisors of the City of San Francisco declared the NRA a ‘terrorist organization,’ I had not seen anything from the left that would justify such a prediction.

Now, such a prediction seems warranted.

As for the opening question – whether or not the Board of Supervisors of the City of San Francisco is a terrorist organization, I want you to mark my words – if the police of San Francisco use force to stop the NRA, on the grounds that the NRA are a terrorist organization, then I WILL call the Board of Supervisors of the City of San Francisco a ‘terrorist organization,’ for then they really will be one…

If you support this message, please consider sharing it, with the buttons below. Also, please consider making a contribution through Patreon, at