Violence is coming to America. Not imported through the offices of Al-Qaeda, but home grown. It would be comforting to think that there is only one source of this wave of violence headed our way, but in reality there are two sources. Both sources are fueled by the same actions, though.
Allee Bautsch, her boyfriend Joe Brown of Louisiana and Ken Gladney of Missouri were assaulted in separate events over the past 12 months. These vicious beatings were allegedly perpetrated by SEIU members (in the case of Mr. Gladney) and as yet unidentified persons in the case of Ms. Bautsch and Mr. Brown. Apparently Ms. Bautsch and Mr. Brown were assaulted by members of a left-wing protest group gathered outside a GOP fundraiser in New Orleans.
The attacks displayed racial overtones in the case of Mr. Gladney, who is black, and politics was the motivation in the case of Bautsch and Brown.
Despite the fact that the perpetrators in the Gladney case were easily identified from contemporaneous videotapes, the Missouri authorities gave them a mere slap on the wrist, and the New Orleans police are apparently viewing the assault of Bautsch and Brown as a random act of violence.
The country is now witnessing the aftermath of another act of violence, in the form of physical intimidation, in the case of the New Black Panther Party fiasco. Two members of the New Black Panther Party were videotaped in front of a Philadelphia polling place, carrying a billyclub, and threatening those whites who approached the polling place to cast their vote in 2008.
This open-and-shut case of voter intimidation, with defendants having already pled guilty, was recently dropped by Eric Holder’s Justice Department. Nothing to see here, move along now.
When violence and threats of violence are ignored by state prosecutors and the Department of Justice, the message to those who are inclined toward violence is very clear: No problem! Have a good time beating innocent citizens, as long as you vote Democrat in November.
Current political polling indicates that the Liberal/Progressive/Democrats are in significant trouble in November. There is a measurable possibility that they will lose the House, although losing control of the Senate is much less likely.
Fear of losing control of the Congress could be the trigger for more violence against Tea Party activists, Republicans, Libertarians, or anyone else who dares to challenge the entrenched power of the LPDs in Congress, or in the Executive Branch. Similar to the temper tantrum a four-year-old would have when you take away his favorite toy.
This is not to say that any such violence would be directed by Pelosi, or Reid or Obama. It does mean that the increase in potentially violent acts will be accelerated should perpetrators believe they will be protected from the any real punishment for their actions, such as was demonstrated in the Gladney case, or the New Black Panthers fiasco.
In my opening paragraph, I noted that the potential for violence has two sources. Both sources are rooted in the behavior of our LPD government. In the second case it is not those who want to retain power, or gain more power, who might foment violence but rather those from whom all power has been stripped.
Under President Obama’s leadership, the growth of big government, and the replacement of a truly federal system of governance with one of unified command based in the Washington bureaucracies will almost inevitably lead to violence.
Many citizens feel that they are losing their personal liberties and find themselves confronting a government creating legislation to control more and more of their lives. With no way to vent their growing frustrations with, and fear of, this expansion of power in Washington, the probability of violence increases greatly.
The Progressive’s classic approach to governance is over-regulation to a degree that most psychiatric professionals would class as obsessive-compulsive behavior. They are crafting legislation to control how much you can earn, where you can live, what level of health care you can receive, whether your children can be sent to schools of your choice, what newspapers deserve to survive, who will be allowed free speech (and how much each of us shall be allowed), how much salt you’re allowed to have, and on, and on, and on.
When Progressives have been given power by the electorate in the past, they tended to punish those who disagreed with them, rather than make an effort to convince them that they have misunderstood the genius of the Progressive agenda. For instance, Woodrow Wilson tossed people in jail for disagreeing with him about American involvement in WW I. He created a network of informers who essentially spied on their neighbors. Sedition became the watch word for the Wilson administration to use against their opponents.
A generation later, Franklin Roosevelt, another icon of Progressivism, inspired Rahm Emmanuel’s infamous line: “Never let a crisis go to waste”. Roosevelt had two biggies, the Great Depression and WW II, so he was top filled with such opportunity crises.
Roosevelt went so far as to regulate what foodstuffs you could grow, for your own use, on your own land. Wickard v. Filburn (1942) determined that Roosevelt could in fact prevent an individual from growing food for their personal use because such activity held the potential to impact interstate commerce. The Supreme Court decided in favor of the government, not because Mr. Filburn was creating a surplus of food, but because he would not need to purchase wheat from an interstate source and thus erode the price at which the government wanted wheat to trade. Mr. Filburn was ordered to burn the excess wheat that he had already grown and additionally to pay a fine. So Mr. Filburn was punished for NOT buying something that he felt he did not require.
Thus was born the modern socialist state.
Does the logic that says you will be punished for NOT buying something sound at all like the arguments regarding Obamacare? You will be fined, or taxed, or assessed a fee for NOT purchasing health insurance approved by Washington bureaucrats. And the fine is based on the same twisted logic that argues that to not purchase health insurance raises the rates of health insurance for others in different states, so the Congress has the Constitutional authority to control what you do or don’t do in almost any situation because is merely has the potential to impact interstate commerce.
As since the application of the commerce clause can (and inevitably will) be used to regulate every activity that can be imagined by lobbyists and bureaucrats increases well beyond merely anything related to healthcare, the level of citizen frustration will grow geometrically. And again, without a safety valve, that frustration could quickly be expressed as violence. Particularly if the citizens of the country who disagree and object begin to feel that they are viewed with disdain by the ruling elites.
Feeling disrespected and denigrated was, after all, a primary motivation behind the shootings at Columbine High School and Virginia Tech. Need there be a stronger parallel drawn?
There should be a realistic fear in Washington that there is a real potential for violence that they will not be able to counter for two reasons.
First, the speed at which the violence could spread is in itself frightening. Unless Obama and company hire a psychic, it is unlikely they would be able to pinpoint the exact moment that the fuse will be lit. And without that foreknowledge, it will be impossible to stop.
Consider how rapidly the country has gone from an impromptu rant by Rick Santelli on CNBC in February 2009 to the creation of a dominant force on the American political landscape. From one angry man to a one million angry citizens filling the Mall in Washington in less than a year.
( Note to the President: It might be in your best interest to consider those Tea Parties, the ones that you never heard, to now be an irresistible force. It’s something you should remember, because there will be a test. )
Second, for those old enough to still see images of tanks rolling into Tiananmen Square in 1989, try to recall the young fellow who had left his place of work, and was just on his way home carrying groceries. He saw a column of tanks moving to suppress the students protesting the actions of their government. Armed with only his bag of groceries, he stepped in front that column of troops…and he single-handedly he stopped a tank.
He stopped a tank!
A tank manned by soldiers of the most unforgiving totalitarian government on the planet at that time. The soldiers decided on their own that the chap with the groceries didn’t really represent the danger to the Chinese state that they were told about. They refused to gun him down, or drive over him, making an example of what happens when you resist the State. They would not willingly kill a fellow citizen just because he happened to disagree with the regime in power.
So, Mr. Obama, Ms. Pelosi, Mr. Reid, et al, what makes all of you so confident that violence will not erupt in response to your autocratic grasping for more and more power and control?
If violence actually does erupt, were you planning to use force to suppress this incipient violence?
Were you planning to use American soldiers and police officers to provide that force?
One final question – what makes you think, for even one second, that our soldiers would be on your side? Remember the man who stopped the column of tanks.
You might want to think long and hard about stopping the violence before it starts. You might want to consider removing the sources of the anger and frustration that might lead to violence.