Daily Verse | Genesis 30:22
Then God remembered Rachel; he listened
to her and opened her womb.
It’s Friday and the end of another week in “2020: The Sequel.” Can’t wait for “Son of 2020” to be released next year!
Here’s some news that is a few days old but nevertheless curious. After the violent breach at the U.S. Capitol last week that was not incited by president Trump, Nancy Pelosi asked the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Mark Milley about how to prevent Trump from starting a nuclear war.
She predicated her request on what she called “an unstable president.”
“This morning, I spoke to the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Mark Milley to discuss available precautions for preventing an unstable president from initiating military hostilities or accessing the launch codes and ordering a nuclear strike,” Pelosi said in the letter.
“The situation of this unhinged President could not be more dangerous, and we must do everything that we can to protect the American people from his unbalanced assault on our country and our democracy,” she added.
“Unstable.” “Unhinged.” “Unbalanced.” “Could not be more dangerous.” Is that a clinical diagnosis, Nancy? Or is that you who’s unhinged?
Should Madam Squeaker be using hyperbole to interfere with the president’s ability to protect the country? Are we to take her assessment of Trump as the gold standard, just like Rasputin doppelgänger and nit-twit Jack Dorsey expects us to take his?
“… We have determined that these Tweets are in violation of the Glorification of Violence Policy and the user @realDonaldTrump should be immediately permanently suspended from the service,” Twitter wrote.
There seems to be a lot of concern about violence in our country these days, which is strange because the Democrats could barely register a yawn during the six months of anarchy in 2020. “People will do what they do,” said Pelosi then, as statues were pulled down and entire city blocks looted and burned to the ground.
Trump has disavowed the violence. He called it a “‘heinous attack’ that left him ‘outraged by the violence, lawlessness and mayhem.'” In a video removed from social media sites, Trump said, “we can’t play into the hands of these people. We have to have peace. So go home. We love you.”
In a video released on Tuesday evening, Trump said, “I unequivocally condemn the violence that we saw last week. Violence and vandalism have absolutely no place in our country and no place in our movement.” (If you haven’t seen it, take the five minutes to watch.)
Republicans in Congress also condemned the violence. Newly elected Congressman Madison Cawthorn, R-NC tweeted that, “As Americans we can not tolerate violence. Peacefully protest ONLY.”
Rep. Michael Waltz, R-Fla., said, “This is despicable … We were debating this through debate and discussion … Members were objecting to people’s concerns, but there is no place for violence.”
Sen. Tom Cotton, R-Ark., said, “Violence and anarchy are unacceptable.”
Sen. Ted Cruz, R-TX., said, “The Constitution protects peaceful protest, but violence—from Left or Right— is ALWAYS wrong.”
I’m in complete agreement with them. The violence that broke out at the Capitol was morally wrong, tactically wrong and obviously unlawful. In the context of our right to peacefully protest, violence is always wrong—even if Democrats remain inconsistent on enforcing that point.
But here we need to be careful to separate that kind of violence from the other kind, which is violence in service to defeating what is unlawful. Violence is permissible when it is lawful. That’s why a law enforcement officer who uses deadly force is not prosecuted. The force was used under protection of the law.
The unrest and extremism of the last several years has caused some Americans—probably on both the Left and the Right—to ask when citizens can legitimately take up arms against the domestic enemies of the Constitution. I, myself, have been sounding the alarm for years that we’re headed for another Civil War.
Some inferences can be made from Thomas Jefferson’s words in the Declaration of Independence justifying breaking away from Great Britain.
“Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security” (my emphasis).
Many of us on the Right believe that we have suffered under “a long train of abuses and usurpations” from the Left that are reducing us “under absolute Despotism.” If what Jefferson wrote is correct, then the question persists: when does it become permissible “to throw off such Government”?
In an apocryphal quote often misattributed to George Orwell, we’re reminded that “People sleep peacefully in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf.” If there were no rough men, there would be no peace.
While always a measure of last resort, violence has always been necessary. Knowing when to use that measure is a tough, but not impossible, line to draw.
[Photo by Jakob Owens on Unsplash]