Get the Ricochet app

Ricochet will work fine in a browser on your mobile devices, but for the best experience please download our app.

Download on the App StoreGet it on Google Play

Become a member.

Tired of the toxicity of social media? Why not join Ricochet for just $5/month? Think of it as an online bar. Come in, have a drink, hang out, say whatever you want. But don’t badger, bully, or berate the other drinkers. That's our only rule.

What are We Waiting For?

Susan Quinn
@SusanQuinn
Join to bookmark22likesJoin to like89comments

As protests escalate nationwide and the violence gets worse, I keep wondering what the federal government is waiting for.

There is no sign that these activities will decrease or become less violent. The feds have sent in more ICE officers to Minneapolis, which is intended to be a show of force but also antagonizes the public. The city and state officials (meaning Walz and Frey) are only stirring the pot, making up accusations against ICE and defending the use of a vehicle as a weapon. And our dear Ilhan Omar is in Minneapolis, ramping up the emotions as well.

From my vantage point, I don’t see the atmosphere de-escalating. More protests will likely occur, more vehicles will be used as deadly weapons, more officials will encourage their citizens to take action. And the federal government won’t — can’t — back down. We have illegal aliens and criminals on our streets. The latest word is that Tren de Aragua has expanded its territory to at least 16 states as of last November. As protestors turn more violent, ICE finds itself in a two-front fight.

What can we do in response to all this violence? The Insurrection Act of 1807 :

The Insurrection Act permits the president to use the federal military domestically to suppress ‘any insurrection, domestic violence, unlawful combination, or conspiracy,’ or when state and federal law enforcement are unable or unwilling to enforce federal law and the U.S. Constitution. Historically, its use has been limited to severe instances of civil unrest — the Civil War, Reconstruction, and certain violent incidents during the Labor Movement — and to defend the rights of marginalized groups, such as during the Civil Rights Movement. Troops deployed under these circumstances are allowed to directly perform civilian law enforcement actions like making arrests, detaining citizens, and enforcing court orders. However, the Insurrection Act does not suspend the Constitution, impose martial law, or exempt the military from following all applicable state and federal laws. Troops deployed under the Insurrection Act would still need to respect First Amendment rights and civil liberties.

The government could also act against the city and state leaders by charging them with “aiding and abetting” criminal activity:

  • Aiding – the giving of assistance or support to someone else in their commission of a crime.
  • Abetting – the encouragement, or motivating someone to commit a crime. This may include rabble-rousing, goading, and instigating someone, or a crowd, to commit an illegal act.

Until the mobs are convinced that what they are doing is unlawful and unacceptable, they will continue to press forward. We must let them know that they must stop or pay a price.

This post was promoted to the Main Feed at the recommendation of Ricochet's members.

Discussion (89)

  • DonG (Here.We.Go.)@DonG
    I would rather the Feds focus on stealthy enforcement. Audit businesses and arrest the owners who hire illegals and cut off welfare to any immigrant. Take away the cheese and the mice will move on. My goal is to eliminate all illegals and legals that are a public charge.
  • Dr. Bastiat@drbastiat
    What you say is true. But that would probably lead to an instant explosion of violence and chaos that would make Black Lives Matter riots look like a Tea Party protest. Which may be ok, I guess. But remember that you have a very different perspective on this than Democrats do. Republicans view leftist violence the same way we view right wing violence - as violence. Democrats view leftist violence as free speech. They view it as a reasonable way to campaign for office. It's just politics. They would view Republican efforts to shut down violent leftist riots as infringing on free speech as Democrats campaign for office in this election year. Democrats view Democrats as virtuous, so whatever they do is by definition virtuous. Which makes any effort to restrain them evil. And evil should obviously be destroyed by any means necessary. The more brutal the better. You may view such "reasoning" as clinically insane. But that's how they see it. Maybe we should just rip the BandAid off and get this over with. But geez - that would be a big step. One which should be taken very cautiously.
  • Susan Quinn@SusanQuinn
    ReplyingtoDr. Bastiat

    Dr. Bastiat (View Comment):

    What you say is true.

    But that would probably lead to an instant explosion of violence and chaos that would make Black Lives Matter riots look like a Tea Party protest.

    Which may be ok, I guess. But remember that you have a very different perspective on this than Democrats do.

    Republicans view leftist violence the same way we view right wing violence – as violence.

    Democrats view leftist violence as free speech. They view it as a reasonable way to campaign for office. It’s just politics. They would view Republican efforts to shut down violent leftist riots as infringing on free speech as Democrats campaign for office in this election year.

    Democrats view Democrats as virtuous, so whatever they do is by definition virtuous. Which makes any effort to restrain them evil. And evil should obviously be destroyed by any means necessary. The more brutal the better.

    You may view such “reasoning” as clinically insane. But that’s how they see it.

    Maybe we should just rip the BandAid off and get this over with. But geez – that would be a big step. One which should be taken very cautiously.

    I agree with all you say, Dr. B. But how violent will it have to get to do more?

  • Sandra Blondie Bright@Blondie

    Also, the general public is ignorant of the facts you have stated in the OP. My non-political friends have no idea what is really going on. They just think some poor woman was shotnin cold blood in the street after taking her kid to school. And those 2 in Portland? They weren’t doing anything wrong. It’s ICE and the border patrol that is causing all this unrest and you won’t convince them otherwise. And these aren’t people who “take to the streets”. They don’t know that all these “activists” are paid by our worst enemies and don’t want you to inform them of it. They are like that picture with the monkeys with their hands over their eyes, ears and mouths. The best we can hope for is Trump to continue what he’s doing and pray the DOJ and FBI will finally prosecute people for being complicit.

  • EDISONPARKS@user_54742

    Have journalists continue to expose the Soros backed 501c's funding and organizing of these grassroots "organic protests".

    The Feds should investigate if the 501c's are instructing their employees paid protesters to deploy illegal tactics to interrupt and obstruct Federal law enforcement agents and criminally prosecute if there is evidence of illegality by the 501c leadership.

    Get money hungry personal injury attorneys to find injured paid protesters to file suit against the 501c's which instructed the paid protesters to so irresponsibly and dangerously expose themselves to bodily harm by inserting themselves into and obstructing active law enforcement operations.

Scroll for later comments
+84 more comments
Join the conversation

You're seeing five of 89 comments. Sign in, or join for just $5 per month, to read them all and add your own.