Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Am I an Enemy of the State?
Katie Benner has gained a certain level of notoriety in these parts. She’s the New York Times reporter who informed the nation through her tweets that Trump supporters were a threat to national security; eight hours later she must have had second thoughts and deleted the tweets. But I couldn’t help thinking about all the people who genuinely believed that her perceptions were legitimate; that she was telling a truth that others agreed with, just because she was a “journalist with the New York Times.” Then I began to wonder what it would be like if I were considered to be a threat to this country. At first blush, that accusation seems ludicrous; for one, I’m only a marginal supporter of Donald Trump. But given the direction this country is headed, should I contemplate the reasons a person might contrive a persona for me that makes me an enemy of the state?
I decided to work my way through this exercise and to see where it might lead me. At the end of the process, I have to admit that I felt just a bit uneasy.
Now keep in mind that there could be a vast difference between the data that the government gathers that it determines makes me a national threat and data that only relates to my exercise of free speech without my intending to do anything insidious in this country. But the differences are just a matter of perspective, right? The list below identifies their potential conclusions about me, and I follow up that information with my own assessment. Here is what I identified:
She’s a Trump supporter—I’ve never liked Trump much, but I did vote for him. I also favored his policies. I expect their conclusion would be correct, although to make the leap to my being a white supremacist? But that’s ridiculous, right?
She’s a Conservative and a Republican—I’m a registered Republican, but my allegiance to Republican politicians is in jeopardy. But of course, any affiliation I acknowledge to either group makes me evil, degenerate, deplorable, and, well, stupid. That should just about cover most insults. And of course, I deny all those attributes. Then again, I’ll let you be the judge of “stupid.”
She attacks the Biden administration and Joe Biden—I don’t do that in writing very much, because I’m not interested in writing about the obvious. Biden’s dementia is disturbing to me, and the lack of policies or the number of stupid policies that are dangerous to this country are alarming. I also write a great deal about the alarming transgender trend; the absurdity of the climate change claims; the distortions and misperceptions about the coronavirus; the foolish steps the government is taking to try to revitalize the Iran agreement; the disaster of the no border policy; the drive toward socialism; the lies being told about teaching Critical Race Theory—well, that should cover at least some of my writing rants. So, yes, guilty as charged, I guess.
She’s Jewish—I have spoken out about the anti-Israel and anti-Semitic words and actions of those in Congress, and the unwillingness of members to condemn them and hold them to account. And the mealy-mouthed efforts of people like Nancy Pelosi and her Democrats to defend these anti-Semites is pathetic. There I go again, one more rant.
She’s patriotic—that means I speak about America’s roots, our founding, our history, with passion and commitment; therefore, I can hardly be counted on to support their globalist agenda in all its many forms.
She reads books by Conservative authors—these readings show that I am aligned with those who are critical of the government and in their own way are determined to overthrow the government. One only needs to study the work of Mollie Hemingway, Jason Riley, Ben Domenech, Victor Davis Hansen, Byron York, and Thomas Sowell to know that a cadre has formed to take down our democratic government. I do read their books. I rarely think of their creating a game plan, but I wouldn’t be surprised that others see them that way—even though the critics probably haven’t read their works.
She is anti-union—I have attacked unions, particularly the teachers’ unions on multiple fronts, and challenged their authority to act on their own behalf. That’s all true. Somehow allowing the inmates to run the asylum (which would be one way to describe unions dictating to school administrators and parents the decisions that should be made) is bizarre. But then I’ve never belonged to a union. What do I know?
She doesn’t believe that some speech should be banned— Those people who publish misinformation are endangering our country; misinformation is that data that doesn’t comply with experts’ opinions; that would apply to me. But I’ve given up on trusting almost all the experts and will decry their comments at almost every opportunity I get. Freedom of speech, except in rare situations, is woven into the very fabric of our nation. The censoring that we are seeing online is frightening. These deceptive actions to ban speech that the U.S. government doesn’t like is a violation of this precious right. And I will stand by that truth in the face of the abuse of power to act otherwise.
She is pro-gun ownership—in fact, she owns a gun. And she knows how to shoot it. Need I say more?
* * * *
It’s fair to ask why the government would come after me. But you may have already realized that these steps are not about my life, but are about any person—does that include you?– who does not buy into the government’s totalitarian efforts. Any resistance, any pushback, is seen as a threat and must be halted in just about any way possible.
Then you might ask, what might trigger these kinds of oppressive actions? That’s a much easier question to answer. First, continued failures by the Democrats and Biden have to be explained away. For many people, blaming Trump as the go-to trouble-maker is getting stale for some people; the well is running dry. A second reason is that in difficult times, scapegoating can be very powerful. When you have a rebellious population that won’t fall into line, they “obviously” must be prepared to destroy our democracy (as the Democrats often claim). Watch for increased and escalating scapegoating to happen for those who do not back the Democrats. A third reason is the reliance on lies and hyperbole. The media has been delighted to initiate or back up the administration in creating blame, exaggerating issues, and making up stories, whole cloth. Before the larger population catches on to their destructive strategies, they must make sure that no one gets in their way.
A writer from the Federalist came to the following conclusion:
So while it’s essential for our government to monitor and root out genuine domestic terrorism—and that includes Q-Anon crazies and Stop The Steal radicals who make legitimate threats to public safety—new proposals to surveil and incriminate and punish domestic extremists come at a time when people in power increasingly define domestic extremism so broadly as to include roughly half of the country. It’s a nice way for them to feel more comfortable with their classism and ignore their decades of failure.
Brenner’s tweets were not deleted because they were inaccurate. If anything, they were deleted because they were too accurate, because the logical conclusion of this definition inflation is still too radical to say aloud.
But then, I’m just a little fish in the sea. Right? What about you?
[photo by Jon Eric Marababol courtesy of unsplash.com]
Published in Domestic Policy
As a DoD civilian I guess I’m the State, kind of. Maybe I should put Member of the State or The State on my business card.
You are doing what works best for you! That’s what is important.
Me too, but not because I’m trying to disappear. I’ve just had it with large Republican/conservative organizations and I’m giving my donations mostly to my local parish and trying to keep things as close to home as possible where I am more likely to see the effect. There are some exceptions supporting online publications, but they’re few and a little more “fringe” than Ricochet.
I haven’t quite gotten there yet; however, I am pretty close. I figure making myself a target for someone who may share 50% of my views and will fold like a cheap suit at the first hint of controversy was not the highest and best use of scarce resources.
The groups that email me mostly don’t have a great track record for spending on actual political work.
Everyone emails me. Apparently I have been too active and have been marked as a (
dupe,sucker,patsy) reliable donor.I don’t donate to politicians. I never have. Not bragging nor apologizing. Our donations go to non-profit organizations that have a good reputation for using their funds well. Given the disdain I now hold for politicians, I’m glad I never contributed. (Moving from one state to another over the years probably made it harder to keep track of me, too!)
It is almost worth moving. My goal is to leave my current residence feet first, hopefully many years from now. I tried for many years to avoid giving to politicians; however, the last cycle especially I judged the stakes too high to sit out. I am now concerned that all I accomplished was to paint a target on my chest.
I wouldn’t be so hard on yourself. Re-assessing the things we do in life (instead of trying to ignore decisions we’d like to re-think) shows that we are growing and learning. And that learning contributes to better decisions–for you–in the future. Hopefully. ;-)
Then again, the day will come when you decide to donate and that person will win and you will have the satisfaction of knowing that you contributed to his or her victory. In a way, it’s an investment in the country.
Outstanding post Susan! You are a brave woman and I commend you and stand with you in all you say. We need to keep speaking the truth and calling out what is wrong and has no place in civil society, especially the only free and capitalist country left in the world.
Indeed we must, FSC! It helps a lot to know you and others are on this journey with me!
We are not a nation of laws, we are a nation of political will. – Steve Deace
I wish I had thought of this. Very good.
This gets at what I have been saying. They only discuss policy “tactically” or in this case they skipped the policy discussion.
They get some kooky idea with momentum and then they just try to shove it down everybody’s throat with tactics not rhetorical interaction to change government.
Ben Shapiro has been saying the same thing. The only differences he says they start with policy ideas that are motivated by empathy.
Act accordingly.
EDITED
I have seen a Minnesota GOP Principles First Republican endorse this. Active lawyer, too.
This is good analysis.
This is my view. Act accordingly.
I wonder if donating to conservative publications and media is the way to go, if the other options are risky.
And, don’t forget, Ashli Babbitt deserved to die because we must protect the government from the people.
People might think that he is overstating it, but this is the way it works. It’s the same thing with MMT and UBI. UBI is obvious, but even MMT means that the government controls a lot more of the economy.
Ah the law of unintended consequences rears its ugly head.
https://townhall.com/columnists/betsymccaughey/2021/08/04/farleft-democrats-want-eviction-moratorium-to-last-forever-n2593548
I passionately wish the “oh-so-smart” policy makers would — just once — suffer the consequences of their policies this side of the veil.
There’s the big name Democrat, whose name I forget, who started a bed and breakfast after leaving politics and was astonished at the number of regulations that he had to follow. It would be nice if they could suffer the consequences while still in a position to do something about it.
George McGovern. He bought the Stratford Inn in 1988. I stayed there for about two weeks that year. It was across the road from my employer. I don’t know if the sale had gone through or not.
It was a dump. I got out as fast as I could. It closed in 1991. I didn’t find out that he had bought it until years later, when he complained about the regulations.
We needed a much more libertarian economy three decades ago. Trying to get real output up in a dispersed way anymore is a real challenge because it’s so late.