The founders declared, “No taxation without representation,” as a clarion theme leading to revolution. No representation meant no vote and no voice, which lead to violent circumstances. Two systems of justice existed, one on English soil and another in the American colonies, so mobs terrified the stamp tax agents, leading to its repeal, then triggered the Boston Massacre and the Tea Party. English elites called these criminal sedition and insurrection. American leaders voiced calm, yet in the end joined in a war for independence. Are there modern echoes in the present United States?
Patrick Henry on March 23, 1775 proclaimed, “Give me liberty or give me death!” I think everyone could agree that the death part of his famous statement meant the anticipation of some type of violence. A little later, the Texans at the Alamo believed that death was preferable to living under tyrannical government, albeit Mexican. “Remember the Alamo” then fueled a Texan war for independence.
President Trump is called a populous president. His support is populous. He was and is a man for the time. Could it have been someone else with a more pristine character resume? It doesn’t seem so. I’m open to an alternative, but I haven’t seen that person in my lifetime.
The never-Trumpers of the Lincoln project, who despise Trump supporters and would relish violence against them, say that his voters were so stupid that they thought he’d be a good leader because they watched him on The Apprentice television show. I’ve never seen more useful idiots than the Lincoln ones.
Many factors led to Trump, but the quintessential motivation was an oppressive political correctness that incessantly violates rights of Americans. This is even seen in the reaction to the events of January 6 in the capitol. Political speech is not sedition and insurrection. Using the term, “fight,” as a euphemism is not a call to violence, just like saying “political target” doesn’t mean you’re going to shoot someone.
Political correctness is a kind of correctness in China, where the government says, this is correct, you disagree, saying, it’s not, and then you disappear for the rest of your life. Political correctness is a pressure to take a position at a cost for not taking it. If you know what’s good for your health, your professional career, and your mere future, this is the view you’ll need to take. Carolyn Glick writes in Israel Hayom that Democrats wish a new era of total political correctness.
President Trump says what many people are thinking in the United States. When I say many, I mean about fifty million or more. He has not “incited violence.” When Trump supporters came to Washington, DC on January 6, 2021, no elected official encouraged them to come to force their way into the capitol building and physically stop the electoral counting procedure in Congress, a violation of the law (read this account and this take). In President Trump’s speech, he didn’t suggest that. The people saying that know they are lying. They are liars.
Democrats riot, protest, terrorize, picket, intimidate, and break the law without ceasing. They not only get no condemnation but instead receive actual support from a vast majority of the media, celebrities, and educators. They use government power to prosecute their political enemies and to crush their businesses and take away their property. Even if they do not win in court, they waste the time and ruin the personal finances of their victims. They tear apart our society. They are never censored. As an example, they use their power to allow men to use the girl’s bathrooms. Opposition is litigated. They are given the widest possible bandwidth to spew the greatest possible amount of vile and deceitful discourse.
Those of the capitol mob were finished with conventional Republican or conservative way of change. They decided to imitate their political opposition and give them a taste of their own medicine. It was so odd and out of character that theories arose among conservatives that it must be someone else, that Antifa or BLM infiltrated the group, posing as them for purposes of discrediting. Can you imagine someone asking, “Can you believe the Democrat party instigated violence and supported burning, pillaging, and looting of public property through their various collaborators, Antifa and BLM?” Laughter ensues. A serial murdering abortion doctor slaughters babies born alive and Democrat lawyers line up to defend him.
President Trump gave a political speech on January 6 (read the transcript here), protected by the first amendment without any mention of violence. None. It’s true he doesn’t attempt to calm down his listeners, tranquilize them. He wants to fire them up, to inspire them. That’s what political speakers do, except for Joe Biden and a few others, but not because they don’t wish they could energize someone. No Republican has encouraged violence in any way. Everyone knows that. The people hearing Trump know that.
The crowd that rushed the capitol was enough of a surprise that the capitol police wasn’t ready for it. It is clear that a smaller faction of the gigantic crowd came to Washington DC prepared to do more than attend a rally. As a template, they had Seattle, Portland, Kenosha, earlier in Washington DC, and urban areas all over the country as an immense sample size compared to their own efforts. Those leftist mobsters took over several city blocks in Seattle and occupied them, fully armed, for weeks and those like them all over the country have incessantly toppled statues and threatened ordinary American citizens during meals and peaceful walks in public places.
What occurred at the capitol is called by the media and Democrats, an insurrection. It was an insurrection like the LA police following OJ Simpson was a “car chase.” No one shot anyone except the police an unarmed Trump supporter, military veteran, and you know the story, she was threatening no one.
I wouldn’t join them, but I get the anger inspiring the capitol hill chaos. I understand frustration of the participants. I’m quite sure that my belief in the future kingdom of Jesus Christ anesthetizes a desire for physical retribution. A true believer opts for a peaceful solution now, starting with the gospel. The party of senseless violence though is the left. They kill millions and urge to kill millions more babies. They are silent while thousands are murdered in America’s cities. They oppose all freedom of speech except for their own demented and reprobate positions.
One can judge true thoughts and standards by the consistency of the condemnation. Unless all violence is condemned, the standard of violence still stands. The left embraces violence. It wants to disarm its opposition. It uses the accusation of not-a-coup to cover its own actual coup. The so-called antifascists are the actual fascists. Who is attempting to take away rights and freedoms? The left, represented by the Democrat party, finances and supports its own violence. It condemns all violence against it. It punches you in the face, puts its glasses on, and says, “You wouldn’t hit a man wearing glasses, would you?”
The mob on capitol hill saw their votes as cancelled. I agree with them. The invention of Democrat ballot harvesting tipped the swing states. They see election laws violated without recourse and even the Supreme Court cowed from dutiful examination. There is no Republican voice allowed in the public school and state college system, the mainstream media, and the tech titans censor it on their government protected platforms. The loss of vote and voice equal violent circumstances. The people taking away freedom through their various means of state and corporate power fueled the capitol mob on January 6, not the president.
Thanks, this was very well put!
Jim
Exactly!
Hi,
I'm not going to publish anonymous negative comments on this, but I want people to know what they said.
The first one asked if I was okay with a couple of bombs found that didn't go off? Hmmmm. No, not okay, which is why I said it was wrong. Was it wrong when a Bernie former campaign staffer James Hodgkinson tried to gun down Republicans on the softball field, almost killed the Republican Whip? What about when Kamala Harris encouraged actual violence, said, keep it going, and then paid for their bail and fines when they were arrested.
The second one said there were more people who got injured. Yes, I said one person got shot. That's true. I didn't say injured. The left has a hard time with reading comprehension. No one shot anyone. There were hundreds of thousands of people and they said hundreds went into the capitol. That was the secular media that said that. I think 3 other Trumpers died of natural causes, one guy a heart attack, etc. 1 police officer died related to violence. He wasn't shot. He collapsed at the police station is what I read in the LA Times. This is the first support of police in my memory by Democrats, two total that I read that in the Democrat Senate.
So, total, 4 Trumpers, one capitol police. I condemn all violence and breaking of law and whoever led to the death of the officer should be prosecuted. Join me in condemning all illegal violence, anonymous.
You were right that states had laws against harvesting, but that didn't stop them in the mail in ballots. The coronavirus was used a means to get around the law. There is proof of this both direct evidence and then scientific data. These are the "science people."
Thanks Brother Jim.
Well stated!
All this was was violence. I completely condemn and disavow all violence no matter what the form. I do not want anything to do with this movement or its ideals, not after everything they have done and said, what they have willfully refused to condemn. There is no halfway about it. No nuances. And we as people of God cannot be associated to it in the least bit. Rather are obligated as our duty to oppose this. You have got to be kidding me with this article right now. I'm sorry but I am disappointed that you do not get this principle – Romans 14:19. I side with the Constitution of the United States in every case against those threatening it by their words and actions. And so with that, I say farewell.
Andrew,
More than just "condemning the violence" is necessary to explain what happened. One line, I condemn the violence, is not enough. By reports, there were a hundreds of thousands at that rally, and a vast majority did zero violence. No leader encouraged violence. Some perspective is needed, because this was a total outlier for these voters. My post explains what I believe it is.
The Constitution protects free speech, which is mainly political speech. We should make every effort to pursue peace. Peace is a biblical concept. How is it pursued? Do you think the Apostle Paul meant capitulation. Paul conflicted with the Roman government, with the Jews, and others. His speech was controversial. Did he cause it? Should he just have remained silent? I think you are misapplying Romans 14:19. I agree that as much as possible we live peacably with all men. I wouldn't have gone into the capitol. However, it happened and how do you explain it? You think I'm wrong in my explanation?
I am against civil disobedience and law breaking except when it is against the law of God. This post wasn't about that.
One more thing, Andrew. The cancel culture, I don't like what you said, so I'm done with you, is actually a violation of Romans 14:19. That doesn't pursue peace. Truth is the basis of peace. You've got to start with truth or there is no basis for having peace with anyone. What is the truth about what happened?
President Trump's immorality, his sexual sin, any actual lies he tells, any sin period, is evil. I condemn. So, question for anyone reading this. How did President Trump sin or any of the hundreds of thousands there, who did not enter the capitol, sin?
Kent,
Excellent article. Very well said.
Andrew,
You say you “side with the Constitution of the United States in every case against those threatening it by their words and actions” but utterly fail to understand it was violence that brought about the Constitution of the United States. I.e. 1775–1783 violence. War of Independence ring a bell?
It was reluctance violence but necessary. Today you enjoy the freedom brought about by that violence, but only to give it a black-eye. Go figure.
To have the peace of Rom 14:19 sometimes takes moments of violence. Jesus demonstrated that as well when He whipped certain people out of the temple. Do you detest that as well? If my memory serves me correct, warriors for God and freedom in the OT were frequently called mighty men of valour.
I am thankful that the men in the 18th century (and 19th for that matter, and 20th overseas), had a spine and knew what it meant to fight for freedom, versus the capitulating cowards of our day. Makes me nauseous. Like lukewarm-induced nauseous.
Reuben
Hi Pastor Brandenburg,
Out of pure respect, I would say that what real leaders do is not violence at all. What the patriots did in the 18th century was self-defense. They never did violence. That was the other side. They were the ones that were making things better, not worse. As soon as you recognize that something someone did is violence, you have no other choice but to condemn it unilaterally. Otherwise, you stand for the worst kind of barbarity, it does not matter whether you realize or intend to or not. If you don't that just means you are foolish beyond belief. The other side is violent. I firmly believe that the wicked use violence. If a movement (actually, themselves) says they are violent, I am against it. I will never side with them but rather with law and order.
So if Trump wants to tell us, tell everyone that what happened there is that, but then fail to offer a complete denunciation like he should; just as we have always condemned ALL the domestic terrorism that has spread across our country since the previous administration – that is a signal of utterly failed leadership on his part. I now want nothing to do with that administration or anything it stands for. You can call me all kinds of things, you can think what you wish it does not matter. I have had to explain to people telling them that I do not agree with any of the actions of these violences which Trump himself tells us as the leader of his own movement happened. I want nothing to do with it. He tells us they are heinous, but then takes ownership of them anyway by not voicing something other than a full and absolute condemnation. That my friends is what is disgusting about this. If you want to say I betrayed first, you can. I was a long time supporter and I disagree with that statement.
Hi Reuben,
It does not matter if even the President tells me something that goes against principles. I fully and completely condemn that movement and what it stands for now. That much, I am capable to do on my own thanks to God's help. It does not matter what it looks like to you or the outside. I believe God has someone better in store for us in the future, himself ideally.
Hopefully I have done my duty in explaining here and I can be let off.
Hello Andrew,
I don't understand, I disagree, I'm taking off forever. That's not pursuing peace. That being said, at what point does one side stand by while their rights are being taken away? I would disapprove, denounce, the people forcing their way in through the capitol police, injuring police officers, one of them died as a consequence.
The colonists weren't "defending themselves." They were fighting, doing violence, for their rights, they believed were given them by God. Some people disagree with the American Revolution, maybe you're one of them. The Boston Tea Party was a violent protest of a tea tax. The start of the revolution came when the minutemen were guarding their ammunition. A lot of evidence says the Americans shot first and the British returned fire.
If your first amendment rights are taken away, would you fight for them? That's what the Texans were doing at the Alamo. Would you just capitulate to the other side?
I don't agree with what happened on January 6, but I'm writing that I understand it. They believed their vote and voice was being taken away. I believe those two are being taken away. The right thing to do is to exhaust every legal means of getting back those rights. I don't think those have been exhausted, but that's a whole other post.
These decisions are consequential. Joe Biden becomes president, he replaces Supreme Court justices, maybe Clarence Thomas dies, with a leftist. Abortion continues. People die from these decisions, many more of them. Socialism is a form of stealing private property, just like stealing votes. Public schools become rampant places of transgenderism, like is occurring all over the country. Are you for passivism in those situations? Just let it go. Is God fine with that?
You say, "Movement." I don't know what you're talking about. What do you mean, you can't support the movement?
By the way, Alan Dershowitz writes a good take on the impeachment here: https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/opinion/impeachment-over-protected-speech-would-harm-the-constitution-opinion/ar-BB1cGZJp