MIG Reports analysis clearly shows a potential TikTok ban in the United States is opposed by most voters. This majority views a ban as an infringement on their freedom of speech, a fundamental right in the United States.
Many voters express concern over government overreach and censorship. They argue their voices are being silenced and their ability to express themselves freely is being limited. This sentiment is particularly strong among younger Americans, who are more likely to use TikTok and other social media platforms as a form of expression and communication.
Many view the potential ban as an assault on their First Amendment rights, arguing the government is trying to control or limit platforms it has no right to restrict. They express concern about the suppression of voices, elimination of income streams, and potentially silencing certain opinions. They say without platforms like TikTok, an array of voices may not be heard.
Freedom of Speech Arguments
The concept of freedom of speech appears to be particularly important to younger Americans. They view TikTok as a platform for self-expression and community building. These users often refer to the app as a space that allows uncensored speech and promotes diversity. They fear a ban would be unnecessary and counterproductive.
There is a small contingent, mostly older voters, who support the ban. They frequently cite national security concerns. This group argues the Chinese-owned app is a risk to the United States and its citizens. Some also say big tech companies being regulated by the government is not a free speech issue. However, this sentiment is less prevalent and is mainly found among older Americans.
Arguments also spark debates about freedom of speech versus hate speech. Some say freedom of speech should not be used as a cover to promote hate or discrimination. This sentiment is seen across various age groups and political affiliations.
Gen Z and Other Digital Natives
Among younger demographics, regardless of political affiliation, opinions are largely negative towards the ban. Younger Americans view TikTok as a source of entertainment, self-expression, and even income.
This group often blames both the Trump and Biden administrations for the proposed ban, often using humor and sarcasm in their comments. They also express concern over the government's control over social media platforms.
Other Discussions About TikTok
General sentiment toward the idea of banning TikTok in the United States appears to be divided along political and generational lines. Beyond free speech and government censorship, people are discussing security, social issues, and the modern community.
National Security
Some conservative or older voters insist a ban is necessary due to concerns over national security and data privacy. They argue TikTok and its Chinese parent company ByteDance, share sensitive user data with the Chinese government.
Anti-Woke Sentiment
A significant number of voters express anti-woke sentiments, a term often used to criticize perceived political correctness or progressive social ideologies. These users voice disdain for what they perceive as liberal or “left: bias on social media platforms, including TikTok.
Anti-Racism
More liberal or progressive voters say they use TikTok as a platform to promote anti-racist sentiments and ideas. They argue banning TikTok would suppress these important conversations and movements.
Entertainment and Community
For many younger users, TikTok is primarily a source of entertainment and community. These Americans often express frustration at the potential ban, viewing it as an unnecessary restriction on their leisure activities and social interactions.
MIG Reports analysis of Joe Biden's proposed plan to grant legal status to illegal immigrants who married U.S. citizens sheds light on the heated and polarizing debate around immigration policy in the United States. The discussion shows a clear divide in opinions about the Biden policy with little room for a neutral stance.
This Biden program would provide “mixed-status couples” exemption from deporting the spouse who is in the country illegally. Critics express deep-seated frustrations over the financial burden on taxpayers, perceived threats to national security, and prioritizing foreign interests over domestic issues. They call for stricter border control measures, notably the construction of a wall along the southern U.S. border, and express anger at what they perceive as a lack of action from political leaders to address these concerns. There are also allegations of corruption and misuse of funds intended for the construction of the border wall, further fueling the controversy. The issue becomes especially touchy for Americans who feel the real-world impact of Biden's economic policies.
Supporters of the proposed policy are reacting saying criticism is misdirected and more comprehensive immigration reform is necessary. They point out the shortcomings of a wall as a deterrent for illegal immigration, suggesting alternative border control measures.
Implications on the Border Discussion
If Biden continues with the policy of granting work authorization to illegal alien spouses, it could potentially escalate the ongoing debate about immigration policies. This may lead to further polarization of public opinion, with one group arguing for the rights of these individuals and another group emphasizing the need to prioritize the interests of American citizens.
Sentiment towards border control measures is likely to remain contentious. Those advocating for stricter measures will likely stand firm in their beliefs, especially if the high number of illegal crossings does not cease. Those against a physical wall may push for more progressive immigration reform, claiming to focus on the root causes of migration and advocating for more humane treatment of immigrants.
Biden's policies on these issues will continue to be a focal point of political and public discussion, with sentiment likely to fluctuate in response to policy changes and ongoing events at the border.
Hollywood actor Alec Baldwin’s recent encounter with a pro-Palestine activist has generated sympathy from conservatives who typically criticize him. There are various reactions to Baldwin's interaction with a pro-Palestine protester, who goes by “Crackhead Barney,” in a deli. The altercation reflects the politically charged discourse around the Israel-Hamas conflict.
Anti-Israel progressives are highly critical of Baldwin's response, considering his reaction to support a Zionist perspective. Republicans and Democrats who support Israel are more likely to side with Baldwin, saying the protestor who calls herself “Crackhead Barney” acted inappropriately.
Many right leaning commentors express the sentiment that a person must be astonishingly distasteful and offensive to make conservatives defend Baldwin. A tweet from comedian Adam Corolla represents this common reaction on the right.
You know you’re crazy when you make Alec Baldwin seem chill.
Leftists and Palestine sympathizers accuse Baldwin of being a Zionist because he would not comply with Crackhead Barney’s demand that he say “Free Palestine.” These activists argue standing with humanity should involve supporting the Palestinian evoke condemnations of Israel's actions. One person accused Baldwin of acting violently against the activist when he knocked the phone out of her hand.
The New York Post tweeted images of the altercation, generating reactions criticizing Crackhead Barney for such a public display. Many say she represents the kind of activist voters are growing irritated with and who pose problems within Joe Biden’s voter base.
Overall, it seems many Americans are increasingly tired and becoming frustrated with continued anti-Irael protests and altercations.
National sentiment toward Palestine sunk below both Israel and protest topics in the last week, reaching a low of 35%.
Israel sentiment dipped to 38% percent as all three topics trend downward but remains higher than both protest and Palestine sentiment.
Voter Criticisms of Anti-Israel Activists
Anti-Israel protests continue across public events and streets, on university campuses, and in altercations like the one involving Alec Baldwin. As these demonstrations continue, American voters increasingly express several criticisms.
Accusations of Antisemitism: One of the most common complaints is that these protests often cross the line into antisemitism and harassment of Jewish people.
Disruption of Academic Activities: Critics argue say university protests disrupt regular academic activities, citing instances where universities have had to switch to online classes due to intense protests.
Violence and Intimidation: Many identify violence and intimidation from protesters who increasingly harass and endanger students and uninvolved citizens.
Support for Terrorism: Many Americans say pro-Palestine rhetoric promotes support for terrorist groups like Hamas.
Disruption of Public Order: People seem weary of protests which lead to public disorder, often inconveniencing individuals and commerce.
Impact on Relations with Israel: Some worry about the impact of protests on U.S.-Israel relations, fearing progressives may pressure Biden into abandoning Israel.
Misinformation: Critics say protesters spread misinformation about the conflict, portraying Hamas as sympathetic and Israel as violent.
If pro-Palestine protests continue to irritate American voters, sentiment could sway negatively against Joe Biden, who is often perceived as harboring or being complicit in anti-Israel sentiment. After the Biden administration’s condemnation of recent violent university protests, Democrats may alternatively run the risk of alienating progressive anti-Israel voters.
Reactions to Joe Biden's "Solar for All" program and sentiments about Earth Day, environmentalism, and Joe Biden reveal a mix of positive, negative, and skeptical sentiments.
Positive sentiments are primarily passive forms of support. Some appreciate Biden prioritizing environmental protection, understanding the importance of climate change actions, and supporting clean energy solutions. Many voters are clearly in favor of climate change initiatives and express relief and encouragement about the "Solar for All" program. They view it and similar programs as crucial steps towards safeguarding the environment for future generations, commending Joe Biden’s leadership in these matters. Mostly Democrats, this group seems to fall along political lines, further emphasizing the role of tribalism in the response to Biden's initiative.
Negative sentiments come from skeptics of climate change and critics of the policies being implemented. Some voters believe climate change is misrepresented to manipulate the public and gain power and money for politicians and corporations. They express frustration and disbelief at the perceived manipulation and voice opposition to the "Solar for All" program. They also criticize the focus on environmental protection, arguing there are more pressing issues to address, such as the debt crisis. They also doubt Biden's understanding of the problem and his ability to fix it.
Skeptical sentiments mainly come from those who believe in the impact of climate change but do not explicitly express support or opposition for specific policies or leaders. These voters may express concern about the environment and the need for action, but they do not necessarily align themselves with a particular political stance or leader.
Data suggests a large percentage of voters remain skeptical about the effectiveness of the initiative. They say, despite Biden’s claim, the initiative will not effectively tackle the enormity of the climate change problem. With an increase in conversation around this topic, data shows an immediate drop in sentiment. This suggests similar efforts from Biden’s administration to address climate issues in the future may cause a negative response as general distrust of government rises.
As Trump’s New York trial over alleged hush money payments gets underway, there’s significant partisan reactions on both sides. Republicans tend to be angry and frustrated about the trial, characterizing it as politically motivated and unjust. Democrats are more likely to celebrate the potential for punishment and criticize Trump’s behavior during the trail.
It remains to be seen whether the trial or possible convictions will impact Trump’s support in the presidential election. However, sentiment among all voters is lower regarding accusations made against Trump than the court case itself.
The top three keywords used in discussions related to Trump and allegations, according to MIG Reports data, are “Corruption,” “Accusations,” and “Biden.”
The top keywords related to Trump and legal topics are “Indictment,” “Investigation,” and “DOJ.”
Nationally, sentiment toward Trump’s legal cases hovers in the low to mid 40% range, while sentiment toward allegations against him stays mid to high 30%.
In swing states, sentiment for both topics is tighter, but averages higher for both legal and allegations.
Trump’s Gag Order
Many voters view the gag order against Trump as an unjust political move instigated by the Biden administration. Often Trump supporters, they express their frustration with politicized courts and judges who seem to be out to “get Trump.”
Furthermore, there are those who voice their concern over the potential impact of the gag order on democracy. They view the gag order as a threat to democratic principles, arguing that it hampers the ability of voters to make informed decisions as the election unfolds. This sentiment is more frequently held by Republicans and MAGA conservatives. But the concern does seem to cross party lines in some instances where voters are concerned about the integrity of the court system and elections.
Never Trumpers and Democrats tend to support the gag order, celebrating the idea that Trump should be silenced by a judge’s order.
Republicans Reactions to Jury Selection and Judge Merchan
Many Republicans view this hush money trial as politically motivated and part of a broader attempt to undermine the election. They argue Judge Merchan’s actions and the evidence allowed in the case are fueled by partisan bias and are unfair. Some suggest prosecutorial focus should be shifted to other political figures, such as Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, whom they accuse of committing crimes and violations.
Conservatives are also more likely to discuss the possibility of a biased jury. They point out that jury selection typically take longer – even in cases where the dependent isn’t a former president. This group worries that it will be nearly impossible for Trump to have an unbiased jury in a city like New York.
Democrats Are Eager for a Conviction
Democrats are largely enthralled and thrilled to witness the Trump trial. They say it is a necessary step towards holding him accountable for his alleged actions. They argue no one, including the President, should be above the law. This group often reiterates their belief that Trump undermines democracy and is a would-be dictator.
Most liberals and Democrats view the trial as a long-overdue measure of accountability. As inferred from Joy Reid's comments, some may see the prosecution of Trump as a victory for multicultural and multiracial democracy.
Democrats are also vocal about how they view Trump’s actions leading up to and during the trial. They criticize his demeanor in the court room and generally view the press's reporting on the trial as accurate and fair. Some Democrats have even called for Trump's immediate imprisonment.
Independents Say They’ll Judge the Trial on its Merits
Independent and more moderate voters have typically scattered views. Some express concern about the potential implications of a conviction if Trump should lose. Others question the timing and motivations behind the prosecutions.
Many Independents say they value weighing the facts of the case without the lens of party loyalty. They may be more focused on the legalities and the implications of the case for political norms and the rule of law. This could cause moderates to sway in Trump’s favor if they perceive a flimsy legal cause may be politicizing the court system.
Other believe Trump should face the consequences of his actions, siding with Democrats. However, in general, Independents are more likely to focus on the specific facts of the case rather than each party's rhetoric about the proceedings.
Media Coverage of the Trial
The press's coverage of the trial is similarly partisan. Conservative outlets tend to portray the trial as a politically motivated attack on Trump. They tend to focus on Judge Merchan’s actions and whether they believe the jurors can remain fair.
Liberal and mainstream outlets largely focus on describing Trump’s actions and demeanor in court. Some outlets have included analysis of Trump’s expressions and interactions in detail.
Many voters view various news coverage of the trial as biased according to political leaning. They also lament the fact that no video or audio from the trial is allowed, saying voters have a right to witness and judge for themselves.
The man who set himself on fire outside the trial has added another layer to the discussion. His extreme act has been reported widely, with his identity as an "investigative researcher" adding to confusion about his potential political affiliations.
Given recent reactions to the $61 billion aid package for Ukraine, it's clear opinions on this issue are contentious among Americans. As we look towards the 2024 election, these divisions could become even more pronounced. Many voters express concern about the amount of money being spent abroad while issues at home, such as rising food costs and threats towards minority communities, are not being adequately addressed.
Critics of the bill argue the aid package is a misuse of funds, asserting the money could be better spent addressing domestic issues.Some feel it’s an example of the U.S. involving itself in conflicts that do not directly affect the country, suggesting an “America Last” sentiment. They also express skepticism about the effectiveness of the aid and question the motivations behind the bill. Some on the right accuse Speaker Mike Johnson of pushing through the bill for political gain.
Supporters of the bill see it as a necessary measure to support allies and uphold democratic values in the face of aggression. They argue providing aid to Ukraine is in the U.S.'s strategic interest. They also claim opposing the bill equates to supporting Russian aggression and undermining democracy. However, there is stronger support for the parts of the bill that provide aid to Israel and Taiwan.
Many Americans express dissatisfaction with the bill as a whole. Their primary concern is the domestic impact, questioning why such a large sum of money is being sent overseas while American citizens are struggling with high living costs, poverty, and other social issues. They criticize the government for neglecting domestic needs in favor of foreign aid.
Another group, including some hardline Republicans, voice their opposition to the aid package for ideological reasons. They view it as fueling conflicts and promoting a globalist agenda, with some suggesting it's part of a Zionist project for world domination. They also express concerns about the potential for money to escalate conflicts in the Middle East and Asia.
There seems to be a growing sentiment of frustration among voters at the perceived neglect of domestic issues. This could potentially drive a surge in support for Trump and others who more often champions an "America First" stance.
Overall, it seems a significant portion of the population dislikes the massive foreign aid package. They believe funds should be used at home to address things like poverty, healthcare, and infrastructure. If this group becomes frustrated enough, they’ll likely support candidates in the 2024 elections who prioritize domestic issues over international ones.
The Biden administration's recent rewriting of Title IX has sparked rage and objection from conservatives and moderates who worry about women’s safety. The changes effectively expand protections for transgenders on college campuses and strip due process for those accused of sexual harassment or assault.
Biden’s changes are a reversal of policies implemented during the Trump administration, which had narrowed the definition of sexual harassment and bolstered the rights of those accused. Now, many worry that college tribunals will threaten the accused’s ability to defend themselves. They also worry it could encourage more false accusations and incentivize universities to err on the side of harsher punishments.
In the last two weeks, sentiment on transgender issues has fluctuated, dipping 40% prior to the Title IX changes.
With a spike in conversation, sentiment received a slight bump to 45%, but flattened back out as conversations emerged.
Conversation is Negative but Progressives Celebrate
Much of the discussion MIG Reports analyzed expresses strong opposition to the changes. People argue this revision allows men or "transgender women,” to compete in women's sports and use women's locker rooms. Critics argue this undermines the fairness and safety of biological women and girls participating in sports.
Critics insist the physical differences between biological males and females give transgender athletes an unfair advantage in sports. They also express concerns about potential invasions of privacy in locker rooms. Despite protests insisting there are carveouts for sports, many interpret the language of Title IX to implicitly require transgender inclusion in sports.
Those opposed frame their arguments in terms of a perceived erasure or violation of women's rights. They argue the changes to Title IX are fundamentally at odds with the original intent of the legislation, which was to create equal opportunities for women in education and sports. They also call on any Democrats or liberals claiming to be feminists to stand up for biological women and girls.
Many conservative voices express dissatisfaction and call for lawsuits to reverse the changes. A tweet from political commentator Megyn Kelly reflects a strong sentiment among many right leaning voters who view the rise of transgender activism as an attack on women.
DO NOT EVER LET ANY DEMOCRAT TELL YOU THEY CARE ABOUT WOMEN’S RIGHTS EVER AGAIN IF THEY DO NOT STAND UP TO THIS ABOMINATION OF A TITLE IX REVISION. These regs are a nuclear level attack on women’s rights and men’s due process rights. JOE BIDEN MUST GO.
Meanwhile, Democrats have largely applauded these changes. They view them as necessary to protect the rights of marginalized groups and address sexual harassment and assault in educational institutions. Many Democrats argue the changes reflect modern understandings of gender and the need to ensure equal access to education for all students. They also argue the changes will help to create a safer and more inclusive environment in schools and colleges.
Frequent Criticisms of Title IX Revisions
Some of the most vehement objections to Biden’s Title IX changes include:
Violation of Due Process
Critics argue there's an increased potential to violate the due process rights of the accused. They say the new rules will lead to a presumption of guilt by tribunals, removing the accused’s right to cross-examine their accusers.
Overreach of Federal Power
Some conservatives and libertarians argue the changes represent an overreach of federal power into local and state educational institutions. They believe decisions about how to handle sexual misconduct should be left to individual schools or states.
Infringement on Free Speech
There are arguments that lowering the bar for what is considered harassment will create enforced speech. If transgender athletes can invoke harassment for being misgendered, freedom of speech will be curtailed.
Endangering the Safety of Girls
Many insist these changes endanger the safety of female students as biological men enter their spaces. Critics say the new rules could increase accusations and punishments for misgendering transgender athletes threatening women’s safety.
Potential for False Accusations
Critics argue the changes could lead to increased discrimination and retaliation against women and false allegation victims. They argue it will be more difficult for the innocent to defend themselves.
Adverse Incentives for Schools
Some critics argue the changes lack clarity and could lead to confusion for schools trying to implement them. They also worry that schools, to maintain government funding, will enforce heavy-handed policies that hurt students.
Overall, reactions to the Biden administration's changes to Title IX reflect complex and conflicting views of gender rights and the government’s role in enforcing speech. These debates are likely to continue in the political arena, the courts, and in educational institutions across the country.
MIG Reports analysis has identified the recent pro-Palestine protests at Columbia University as part of a growing fracture within the political left’s culture. It also seems to be an ideologically isolating movement, sectioning off its adherents from ostensible allies on other issues.
Reports of anti-Israel protests at Columbia University have sparked significant controversy. Some Americans are outraged by these protests, labeling them as antisemitic and praising the White House for publicly condemning them.
The arrest of Rep. Ilhan Omar's daughter at one of these protests has further fueled these sentiments.
As a result of her daughter’s involvement, Omar saw a significant decrease in her public approval.
However, supporters argue the protesters are exercising their right to free speech, drawing parallels with other controversial issues, such as marijuana legalization and police brutality. Some question the actions of Columbia University's administration in response to the protests and argue the arrests of student protesters are excessive.
Many Americans express concerns about the safety of Jewish students amid these protests, with some comparing the situation to historical instances of antisemitism. However, others argue these concerns are overblown and the protests represent a legitimate critique of Israeli government policies, rather than an attack on Jewish people as a group.
In terms of political implications, these protests appear to reflect broader divisions in American society, and more specifically the Democratic Party. Supporters of the protests often align with progressive political movements, while critics of the protests often align with conservative ones.
Culturally, these protests have reignited debates about free speech and the limits of acceptable political discourse. They have also brought renewed attention to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, prompting Americans to grapple with complex questions of identity, history, and international relations.
How Americans are Reacting to Ongoing Protests
Factors that increase sentiment towards these protests include a sense of solidarity with the Palestinian cause, perceived injustices faced by Palestinians, and the desire for freedom of speech and expression on college campuses. In contrast, elements that decrease sentiment include reactions to antisemitism, violence or intimidation, and the disruption of academic activities.
The top discussions around the protests include debates about freedom of speech versus hate speech, the role of universities in policing student protests, the impact of these protests on Jewish students and the larger Jewish community. People also discuss the political implications, particularly in relation to U.S. foreign policy towards Israel and Palestine.
If current trends continue, protests will continue to increase, along with heightened tensions and potential conflicts in public locations. This could lead to a greater polarization of opinions, with the potential for these protests to become a significant political issue that may hurt Biden’s approval. Increased media attention could further fuel contentions as well, perpetuating friction.
In terms of policy implications, universities may need to develop clear guidelines for student protests. The public and alumni may demand institutions protect freedom of speech while ensuring the safety and well-being of all students. Policymakers and Democrat politicians may also be pressured to address this anti-Israel voter group as the election draws near.
A recent Supreme Court decision not to hear the Mckesson v. Doe case has sparked a robust online discussion. Much of the commentary seems to be from liberal and left leaning voters who support BLM and other social justice protests.
The case in question involved DeRay Mckesson, a civil rights activist, who was sued by an anonymous police officer (Doe) who was injured during a protest Mckesson organized in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, in 2016. The lawsuit alleged Mckesson was responsible for the injuries because he should have anticipated violent actions during the protest.
SCOTUS’ decision essentially upholds a lower court ruling that organizers of protests can be held responsible for violence or illegal actions that occur, even if they didn't directly participate in or endorse such actions. This decision extends to the states of Louisiana, Mississippi, and Texas. Critics argue this decision essentially criminalizes protest organization.
Many discussing this subject seem to misunderstand the court decisions, believing SCOTUS made it illegal to protest, when in fact the court had declined to hear a case, leaving a lower court's decision in place.
The event has also sparked conversation about politicized and weaponized justice. MIG Reports data suggests liberals and conservatives both entertain ideas that the government and courts could be weaponized – however they disagree about whom the weaponization is against.
National sentiment towards SCOTUS is relatively high compared to protests and police.
Sentiment towards all topics related to protests and prosecutions for protests has declined slightly in the last two weeks.
Liberals Emphasizing Mckesson’s Plight
Those arguing the decision infringes upon the First Amendment tend to lean liberal. They say it’s chilling the right to protest by making organizers potentially liable for actions they cannot control. They see this as a move to criminalize dissent and express fear about the implications for democratic freedoms.
Some voice fears this could dissuade activists from organizing protests out of fear of legal repercussions. They argue holding organizers accountable for the actions of individuals within a protest is unfair and infringes upon the constitutional right to free speech and peaceful assembly.
Supporters of the decision argue protest organizers should be held accountable for any illegal activities that occur during their events. They believe this will deter violent protests and encourage peaceful assemblies. Although these voices tend to be more right leaning, there is much less discussion of the case among Republicans and conservatives.
Those who are discussing the case either blame Democratic leadership for lawlessness during protests or criticize Republican lawmakers for eroding democratic rights. The debate around this case highlights the partisan views many hold about protest rights, depending on the cause of the protest.
Contrasting Views of Weaponized Government
The politicized view of protests seems apparent when contrasting opinions about Mckesson v. Doe and January 6 prosecutions. Those who view the events of January 6 as an attack on democracy demand protesters be held accountable. These individuals frequently use terms such as "insurrectionists," "traitors," and "seditious clowns," and appear to be among the same group discussing the Mckesson v. Doe decision.
Liberal and progressive voters are more likely to call for the arrest, conviction, and jailing of J6 participants. This group also includes elected officials who they believe incited or supported the attack like former President Trump. Many demand a thorough investigation and express satisfaction when they see arrests and convictions.
Progressive and liberal voters express a sense of double standards in how different protests are handled. They say law enforcement response to the J6 demonstrators was less severe than responses to Black Lives Matter protests.
Conservatives View J6 Convictions as Weaponized
In contrast to liberals who claim lenience for Mckesson and maximum consequences for J6 defendants, conservatives view the courts as weaponized in the opposite direction. This group is more likely to claim J6 demonstrators were merely exercising their right to protest. They criticize the media and Democrats for applauding J6 convictions while shrugging off BLM protest violence.
Right leaning voters believe there is bias in the FBI's actions, specifically in the context of the prosecution of J6 participants. They contrast this with leniency towards leftist activists who commit crimes and violence in the name of Black Lives Matter of Palestine.
Conservatives are more likely to believe in the existence of the Deep State – a group of unelected bureaucrats manipulating the government. They express frustration and mistrust towards the government and politicians who politicize federal agencies and the court system.
There is a strong perception that conservatives are being unfairly targeted and labeled "domestic terrorists" by the FBI and other institutions.
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)