An Uncivil War

There is nothing Civil about a Civil War...

The "tolerant" left will tolerate nothing that doesn't comport with their radical orthodoxy. Seeing their policies rejected by the electorate, they have sought to use the government, the courts and a bullying media to force their will on others. Now they're employing a new tactic: encouraging and engaging in outright bullying and physical confrontations.

The mainstream propaganda media are providing cover and granting legitimacy for these actions both subtly and overtly. Any calls for tamping down the vitriol are tepid and feckless, at best.

The violent, radical left seems to be revising its playbook from the 1970s. We've seen their protests and demonstrations escalate since Trump's election and the 2020 election.

Civility in political discussion is now passé. Of course, name-calling, expletives, ad hominems and physical attacks are the refuge of the ignorant. It's a convenient fallback position for those unable or unwilling to defend their positions with facts.

It is also a common practice of the ignorant to automatically assign evil motives to a person or group expressing a counter-opinion. Many conclude that any person or group that disagrees politically or philosophically is somehow bad and intends to inflict as much harm or heartache as possible on their opponents.

Was "January 6th" an "insurrection"? Were all of those who protested criminals? Hardly. Yet from the discourse out of the political Left, you would think the protestors were a Junta (as if they could have overthrown anything except Nancy Pelosi's lectern).

From the way President Biden's Justice Department is about to go after anyone who was anywhere near the area and prosecute them — U.S. Attorney Matthew Graves made clear, as seen on C-SPAN, that the DOJ is now going to target Americans who were around the Capitol on January 6th but did not enter the building — you would have to question who, exactly, the enemies of the U.S. are, and whether or not they reside in Washington rather than having descended on it.

But I digress. Incivility in political discourse is not new. And anyone who takes an honest look at American history understands this. Today, to the detriment of creativity, honesty and spirited discourse, any language that is not entirely benign bears the liability of being declared hate speech by some overzealous and well-educated thought Nazi holding sway over public opinion.

Thomas Jefferson once said, "It has been a source of great pain to me to have met with so many among [my] opponents who had not the liberality to distinguish between political and social opposition; who transferred at once to the person, the hatred they bore to his political opinions."

Remember when former Rep. Charlie Rangel (D-N.Y.) told CNN's Wolf Blitzer the GOP's senatorial gains in the 2014 midterms had nothing to do with voter frustration at President Barack Obama or failed policies from his party, but were because all Republicans and Tea Party members are racist? During a campaign rally he yelled, "Everything we believe in they hate! They don't disagree, they hate!"

Jefferson's sentiment pains many of us still, because as long as the practice of vilification continues we will be opposing one another rather than mounting opposition to those in positions of power who continue to steal our freedoms by passing unConstitutional laws and steal our wealth by debasing our currency.

As the left is increasingly inciting violence, it should bear in mind the maxim that for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. There will eventually be a response by an equally radical right. Is this planned? All governments need crises, no matter how much lip service they give to "peace." Crisis is a well-known Machiavellian strategy to gain and solidify political power and persuade public opinion.

Crisis provides the stage where governments can control all sides. At least they can arrange events to "naturally" unfold. If you don't think "events" could include you, dear reader, recall Attorney General Eric Holder, who told an audience at Northwestern University Law School that the President of the United States "in full accordance with the Constitution" can kill American citizens that pose a threat to the Federal government.

Holder added that the President's authority to murder U.S. citizens without due process, trial or conviction is "not limited to the battlefields in Afghanistan" because "we are at war with a stateless enemy."

Not to worry, though. Since the federal bureaucracy has opted to do away with any recognition of the Bill of Rights, they offered their own due process of sorts. Three conditions must be met before the murder, according to Holder: First, the target must pose an "imminent threat of violent attack against the U.S." Second, capturing the target is deemed "not feasible" by the Administration. Third, the Federal government must engage the American citizen they intend to kill in a manner consistent with the rules of war: target must be deemed hostile; no excessive collateral damage; the manner chosen for the murder must not inflict unnecessary suffering.

I, for one, was shocked bullets and shells weren't fired at Jan 6th protestors.

We are living in critical times. We are seeing before our eyes the breakdown of the rule of law, which leads to the breakdown of law and order. It's increasingly obvious that mass chaos if not outright civil war is the agenda of the radical left. Remember there is nothing "civil" about civil wars.

A third-party vote may indeed be a fool's errand because a vast majority of the population of this nation is informed only by corporate-controlled mainstream media that have gone to great lengths to black out any message but that of the two (one) party status quo.

Always, guard your thinking. Scientists have discovered that just reading about polarizing topics is having a negative effect on how people feel about them. All Americans are capable of unfounded biases when ideology becomes derailed by fact. "Calling people names is not a solution," the researchers said, noting that communication is key to reaching agreement.

Yours for the truth, ~Bob Livingston

---

I approve of this message. I’ve been reading the Bob Livingston Alerts for years. C.L.

---