Skip to content

About that elephant.

November 15, 2016

OK, let’s talk about the elephant in the room. The one holding the big sign that says

When do we start fighting fire with fire?

The election was supposed to put a period on the last 18 months, and in so doing begin to bring the country together.

Of course it didn’t do that, as evidenced by the all-out push by groups allegedly funded by the likes of George Soros to sabotage the results. Using a series of national flash mobs led by paid agitators is one of the oldest subversive tactics in existence.

That’s why you have the usual media outlet contributors stating they wish President Trump failure.  Actually it isn’t Trump that they want to fail, it’s the United States in general.

Perhaps even more disturbing are the number of hashtags calling for actual physical violence as a result of the election.

Let’s face it, social media isn’t exactly a platform for rational discourse. Some of the stuff that pops up there makes you wonder why we did away with insane asylums.

It is also tremendously powerful as an organizing tool.

Most of us can see the overheated election responses for what they are, but there is a fringe element on both sides that takes everything they read on Twitter and its social media cousins as gospel truth.

The danger is that some unbalanced crackpot will actually answer the dog whistle and act out.

It brings up the age-old question.

When does freedom of speech slop over into the realm of anarchist rebellion and more vexing, what do we do about it?

There are two schools of thought on the best way to take care of that problem.

Option one is obviously to meet one screwball tweet with another screwball tweet. That approach does have its supporters, but it only activates the crazies on both sides and sooner or later that’s going to go bad, big time.

The other school wants to turn the entire resources of Homeland Security, the FBI, CIA where applicable, as in the case of foreign agitators, and other national law enforcement agencies toward getting rid of the root of the problem.

The latter group says forget about Hillary Clinton.  She was just the well-worn public face of the problem, a damaged branch on a very well-rooted tree.

Obviously cutting off a branch from the tree doesn’t kill the roots, making option number one both counterproductive and ultimately ineffective.

The left only lost the battle, not the war.

What many fail to understand is that there was no downside to Mrs. Clinton’s defeat for the left.

The election left the propaganda machine, i.e. the liberal press intact. It also gave the left a plethora of causes to promote.

The outgoing president isn’t going to be able to do anything to halt any real violence. First, he has spent his political capital. Second, as a former community organizer he, more than most, knows how engineer the pseudo-legitimate protest to its maximum advantage.

Local law enforcement is caught in the mother of all Catch-22 scenarios and the radical left knows it. If they do nothing and someone dies, they are weak and ineffectual.  If they clear the streets they are jack-booted thugs.

That’s why you see kids under 18 being recruited and marshaled into line.  As juveniles they are more unlikely to be prosecuted for their acts of vandalism, and no cop in their right mind would beat up or shoot one of them. It’s same mindset that uses under-age kids to run dope.

That leaves President Trump and his more thoughtful backers.

Fighting fire with water.

Sometimes setting a backfire just results in a bigger fire.

At some point the President-elect is going to have to back up his law and order campaign promises with action.

That doesn’t have to mean armed conflict.

It is already illegal to threaten the life of the President-elect, making one wonder where the Feds are in this war of words. They certainly took threats against President Obama seriously.

Convenient skirmish-ready weaponry would be the Federal Treasury and the FBI, although the latter’s credibility under Director Comey  has surely been compromised.

So why not start with the Federal money now showered down upon sanctuary cities and their front groups?

The Obama administration proved how effective that tactic can be when it withdrew access to Federal funding from for-profit colleges.  ITT Tech and other for-profit technical schools shut down almost immediately.

The pitfall inherent in that strategy is that it is the monetary equivalent of carpet bombing. A lot of Federal funding goes to support programs that are beneficial, so you wind up hurting the very people you are trying to help.

Not a good PR move.  Besides, the whole city may not be in sync with their more left-wing political establishments, meaning that you would be punishing your own supporters.

How about just arresting the scofflaws?

That’s what would happen to any normal citizen. Ignore or defy a law and pay the price. Try telling  a cop you don’t agree with a law that requires you to buy a driver’s license or car tags and see how far that gets you.

Yes, that would allow their supporters to claim martyrdom, but when enough people are on the inside looking out, it might send a message.

Laws apply to everyone, not just the backward masses.


From → op-ed

Leave a Comment

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: