Two years ago, insurrectionists invaded the Capitol to overthrow the government. Hours later, a majority of one party in the House of Representatives voted in concert with them to overturn the recent election and invited more to join them, as they have. Now, an anarchy/chaos faction in that party is turning its destructive impulse inward against it, wrecking its capacity to govern.
Thus, the insurrection of 2021 continues into 2023 and beyond. The physical sabotage has now invaded the people’s house, intent on weakening the legislative branch and the people’s will. This cedes more power to the executive branch to rule during congressional paralysis, aiding the march toward authoritarianism.
We’ve been warned about the precipice on which we stand, crumbling into the abyss of factionalism and fascism, eroding with paranoia, lies, and anger. From the beginning, we’ve known our democratic republic is fragile, dependent on an informed, engaged, and cohesive citizenry.
Whether the people of this country will act with the necessary vigor to defend their right to self-determination, or surrender it to those who divide and conquer to gain power, prestige, and riches remains to be seen.
In the face of this assault, complacency is complicity.
E pluribus unum.
David Broadwater
Atascadero
This article appears in Volunteers 2023.
Just remember that these insurrectionists didn’t simply come out of nowhere. They were voted into power by legions of nihilistic, stupid, amoral lowlifes who want a fourth Reich. The slimy GQP politicians who won the House merely reflect what the party’s scummy base wants.
I agree that the country has been under assault by insurrections. In 2020, they burned and looted many of our cities, and murdered people. They seized and occupied a portion of one city, and were celebrated by the mayor seeking to curry favor with the new rulers as creating a “summer of love. Officials ” took a knee” to show fealty to the new rulers, and they were allowed to paint their slogans all over public places. Politicians scrambled to implement their demands, including the elimination or reduction of police forces. Public thoroughfares were seized, and traffic halted. Rather than just one building, the entire nation was under assault by these insurrectionists. Strangely, many cheered. Yes, insurrection must be stopped.
What a convoluted way to say, “The real insurrectionists are Black people,” John. A poorly crafted race-baiting pivot.
The vast majority of Black Lives Matter protests in 2020 were peaceful. Yes, there were several instances of bad actors burning, looting and committing crimes in an attempt to capitalize on civil unrest — just as we saw in the 1992 Los Angeles riots. There were people who protested what they believed was the unjust treatment of a Black person by law enforcement and people committed crimes as a way to seize the moment. But Americans recognized in 2020 as they did back in ’92 the difference between peaceful protest and criminal activity. Blurring the difference to generate false equivalence is a tired and dishonest racist trope.
What happened on Jan. 6, 2021 involved the former president of the United States inciting an insurrection to overthrow the American social experiment commonly known as democracy based on a demonstrably proven lie that the 2020 presidential election was “stolen” from him because the system was “rigged.” How is that remotely comparable to officials “taking a knee” or “painting slogans all over public places”? There is no comparison.
Give it a rest, John.
Gosh, Aaron, perhaps you’re the one who needs the rest.
The George Floyd riots involved plenty of white people. For example, all 3 of the people shot by Rittenhouse were white. Violence, looting and arson is not exclusive to any one group. Your relentless cry of “racism” to attack everything which annoys you, no matter how removed from race, is revealing.
Using your measure, the 1/6 riot was “mostly peaceful” as well. Of the roughly 20,000 present at the demonstration, only a few hundred rioted and attacked the Capitol. You seem to apply “situational semantic” standards according to who is demonstrating.
Trump’s stunt was never a credible coup attempt, as depicted by you hyperventilating lefties. Neither the military nor any government agencies would have accepted his self-declared presidency, and the certification would have just occurred elsewhere.
Who needs a shovel when you’re doing a great job digging a bigger hole for yourself with your bare hands?
Not sure if it’s wise to use attempted and actual homicide victims as prime examples of white people being involved in violence, looting and arson. Couldn’t you have used a better example? Forget the kid who wandered around a protest with a AR-15-type rifle during a crucial time of civil unrest, causing fear and apprehension that directly led to needless bloodshed.
Not sure if I’d describe any riot as “mostly peaceful.” I mean, sure, there was a rally that preceded the insurrection. But your claim of only a “few hundred” rioted and attacked the Capitol falls flat compared to the 978+ people who were arrested for their involvement in the insurrection (SOURCE: https://www.insider.com/all-the-us-capitol…).
Not sure the reason you’re playing down Trump’s credible coup attempt. Have you read the bipartisan Jan. 6 Select Committee’s final report? I have. Here’s a preview: If you think the coup attempt was limited to merely the events that unfolded that day, you’re sorely and laughably mistaken.
Have some decency, John.
Aaron, you reveal a lot about your thinking when you refer to violent rioters as “victims”, especially since they were shot while attacking Rittenhouse, and one of them had a gun in his hand which he was pointing at Rittenhouse. You are doing actual physical damage to the English language.
And when you refer to violent riots, with arson, looting and assault, as merely “a crucial time of civil unrest”, you compound this semantic violence. Most of us saw video of this “civil unrest”, and recognize it for what is was: A violent riot. It is obvious that you are determined to excuse any crime committed by “your side”. And you think that I am the one who should “have some decency”?
Poor John.
And poor, poor Kyle Rittenhouse, walking around a protest with a AR-15-type rifle. See, when one walks around with a weapon like that at a protest, especially when tensions are high, there are going to be people who will reasonably presume there is an active shooter situation. The testimony we heard in the case shows there was more nuance to people merely attacking Rittenhouse. For instance, Gaige Grosskreutz, the one who you referring to with the gun, testified he was at the protest to provide medical care. Grosskreutz testified that he presumed Rittenhouse was an active shooter because “people were pointing out the defendant, saying he had just shot somebody, that he’s trying to get away.” He drew his pistol based on crowd reaction (SOURCE: https://www.cnn.com/2021/11/01/us/kyle-rit…). See? Nuance.
I’d imagine a retired attorney like yourself would be a stickler for details and read testimony of a case before opining. What a shame.
Speaking of which, sorry about your lack of reading comprehension, but I didn’t describe “violent riots” as a “crucial time of civil unrest.” One has nothing to do with the other. In fact, I actually clarified the difference in my first comment in my response to you, I mean “Squidsie.”
By the way, John, hats off to you for revealing yourself as an anonymous account. It’s remarkable, really. You’re given space in the New Times for a column on a regular basis, yet you feel compelled to astroturf conservative opinion in the comments section. Talk about insecurity. Yikes!
If you don’t want to embarrass yourself any further, return to your pineapple under the sea with Spongebob.
“By the way, John, hats off to you for revealing yourself as an anonymous account”
Oops! Drinking while operating a computer can be a bad idea.