For Biden's Fbi, Conservative Speech Equals Violence While Liberal Violence Is Free Speech

Have you ever heard of the FBI's use of domestic violence extremism threat tags? No? Well, you're not alone. It seems that even Miss Camp, a congresswoman, was not familiar with this term. But fear not, because we're about to dive into the world of domestic violence extremism and its curious treatment by the Department of Justice and FBI.

The Curious Case of Mr. Houck

Miss Kemp, a representative of the Department of Justice, was asked if she could point to a single situation where a pro-abortion protester, arsonist, vandalizer, or rioter was treated similarly to how they treated Mr. Houck. To everyone's surprise, she couldn't provide any examples. It seems that the treatment of individuals involved in pro-abortion acts of violence is not on par with the treatment of Mr. Houck.

But why is that? Miss Kemp deflected the question, stating that the National Abortion Federation focuses on tracking violence against those who provide and access abortion care, not other kinds of violence. So, it appears that the doj and FBI have different standards when it comes to dealing with acts of violence based on political motivations.

Weaponizing Domestic Extremism Threat Tags: A Disturbing Reality

Now let's turn our attention to Mr. Dice, who has firsthand experience working with victims of heinous crimes. He was asked if he was familiar with the committee's investigative work on the doj and FBI's weaponizing of domestic extremism threat tags and statutes against Americans' constitutionally protected rights. While Mr. Dice revealed some information, he admitted that he wasn't aware of the full extent.

However, Mr. Dice has represented clients who have faced vandalism and violence from pro-abortion groups. This raises an important question about the reality of the doj's actions. Why is the doj labeling parents who use constitutionally protected speech as domestic violence extremists, while turning a blind eye to politically motivated attacks on individuals connected to pro-life organizations?

The Face Act: Protecting Rights and Ensuring Justice

To address this alarming situation, the Face Act has been proposed. This act aims to protect individuals from acts of violence and intimidation that arise from political disagreements. It emphasizes the importance of distinguishing between speech and violence, ensuring that violent actions are treated as such, while protecting the right to free expression.

But despite the urgent need for such legislation, the doj has only returned one indictment in response to over 100 acts of intimidation and interference towards pro-life organizations in the past year. This stark contrast in the doj's actions is deeply concerning. On one hand, they prioritize the protection of law based on their preferred political narrative, which seems to favor the pro-abortion movement. On the other hand, they neglect to enforce the law when violations target the same political groups they are targeting.

The Need for Balanced Priorities

It's crucial to question the priorities set by the doj. Are there any task forces, memos, or priorities in place to protect pro-life and religious facilities under the Face Act or any other authorities? Unfortunately, there is no information available on such measures. However, Mr. Dice and his clients would welcome the inclusion of pro-life and religious facilities in the doj's focus on protecting rights and ensuring justice.

In conclusion, the treatment of individuals involved in acts of domestic violence extremism raises serious concerns about the impartiality and priorities of the doj and FBI. The lack of equal treatment for pro-abortion protesters, arsonists, vandals, and rioters compared to Mr. Houck is perplexing. It's time for a more balanced approach that protects the rights of all individuals, regardless of their political beliefs. The proposed Face Act offers a glimmer of hope in ensuring justice and upholding the principles of free expression and safety for all.