Civil War-again?

[Valerie]

For those interested in this topic’s OP and subject line, without speculation or projection:

”Civil War-again?”
For awhile I’ve been sensing we may be headed for civil war- in my own lifetime I’ve never seen this country so divided & vehemently so. It even works its way into a Mennonite forum.

After that recent video of the Democrats undermining Trump as Commander in Chief ...

Yes, that's what I was referring to. But from a different perspective. That's why I wrote this:

Law enforcement is not supposed to be a paramilitary invasion. This is exactly the kind of centralized power the Constitution was written to prevent. Democracies depend on persuasion, not intimidation. Some people seem to be saying the real problem is that some people are saying there should be limits on what the President is allowed to do, implying that his authority as Command In Chief is absolute. The people who wrote the Constitution warned us against that. Wisely, I think.

Using the word "paramilitary" helps us see what is right in front of our noses. And not just in Minnesota.

We are very much talking about the same question: Does the President have the right to send paramilitary units to occupy cities, against the wishes of the governor and mayor, threatening and intimidating people? If they kill people, are they accountable to the law? Are the 1st Amendment and the 4th Amendment suspended, imposing some kind of martial law?

This is not normal law enforcement.

Conservatives used to warn about this kind of thing.

It is normal law enforcement where local police cooperate.
It is not when surrounded by rioting maniacs. Let’s talk normal here. There were over 50 arrests yesterday of rioters. You said they were peaceful protests. You do not get arrested for peacefully protesting.
Homan said, start cooperating and quit rioting & obstructing, & you will see less ICE and done much quicker.

This is a political stunt paid by democrats as we approach midterms AND to take the focus off the real story of major fraud - a terrible embarrassment that will be a domino affect in other states like CA which may be worse.
The party is corrupt.
Then you now have the new mayor of NYC quoting the Quran.
Nice choice democrats.
Step by step we have to get to “the end” it’s just not pretty to watch.

[JohnH]

Because:

1. They are paramilitary units. We can start a new thread to discuss how that is defined, if this is not clear and obvious.
2. The problem is not that they are federal agents.

When the federal government deploys militarized units into a city over the objections of the governor and mayor, openly threatening civilians, this is not ordinary law enforcement. It is a deliberate display of power and intimidation.

This is not a new thing. The government has had armed agents in the FBI, ATF, IRS-CI, and so forth for a very long time.

Wartime equipment, military-style uniforms, and anonymity is part of the show. So are the promises of absolute immunity and the clear violations of people's basic rights. It is meant to intimidate, to signal dominance, and to define these cities as a battlefield. "Look what we can do to you!"

The current styles of uniforms worn have been part and parcel for at least 20 years of being a federal agent. If you are objecting to the fashion choices of the federal government's dress code federal agents, then discuss that as a separate topic.

Of course federal agents need to "signal dominance". It's the federal government. They have supremacy over other units of government, as has was proven by the first civil war and has been affirmed in the courts over and over. What exactly do you want?

They are using social media and friendly media to celebrate this kind of military threat, boasting about their ability to do this. The visuals in their videos look like something straight out of a war movie. And videos by news agencies and bystanders do too.

I don't care about movies.

I have not seen anything that looks close to a war. A war would involve a lot more casualties. That isn't happening. This is a law enforcement operation.

Law enforcement is not supposed to be a paramilitary invasion.

It's not a "paramilitary invasion". Who exactly has been "invaded"?

This is exactly the kind of centralized power the Constitution was written to prevent.

The U.S. has had a strong federal government since the days of Lincoln, Wilson, FDR, and LBJ. I would prefer less federal power but people with my opinions lost a long time ago. But if you want less centralised power, a great place to start would be getting rid of the federal income tax. Are you on board with that?

Democracies depend on persuasion, not intimidation.

Democracies depend on accepting the results of an election and then accepting the fact that the winners run the government. Which is exactly what has happened.

The federal government has complete jurisdiction over immigration. Or would you prefer that states have more control over it?

Some people seem to be saying the real problem is that some people are saying there should be limits on what the President is allowed to do,

Are "some people" in the room with us right now?

implying that his authority as Command In Chief is absolute.

Nobody is saying that.

The people who wrote the Constitution warned us against that. Wisely, I think.

The people who wrote our Constitution didn't want the federal government imposing direct taxes, nor did they want direct election of Senators. Are you on board with repealing all of that?

Using the word "paramilitary" helps us see what is right in front of our noses. And not just in Minnesota.

No, it's a misuse of rhetoric to claim something is happening that isn't happening.

[JohnH]

Nonsense.

They had already restrained him and patted him down.

He was not restrained nor was he in custody. If he had been, he wouldn't have been able to reach for his waistband.

That's how they found the concealed weapon in the first place. Shooting someone they have already restrained and patted down is extremely rare. That's why the videos are so important, they are very clear about these things.

He was not restrained nor in custody. They found one concealed weapon, so from then on they are assuming they will find another.

As we have learned, Pretti was already prone to violence and had engaged in violence earlier (and gotten away with it). So it would appear the officers were not overreacting to assume he would engage in violence again.

Here's the part of my post you did not respond to:

I think you were one of those people. Why is it OK for protesters to carry guns openly, clearly intending to threaten others by doing so, but horribly dangerous to have a concealed carry gun that you never reach for?

I am not "one of those people". I have advised people to stay away from protests and to stop carrying guns at all.

Suppose police had shot the open-carry protesters at these other rallies because guns are a threat. Would you defend them for that?

If the protesters decided to go threaten law enforcement officers, attack and kick their vehicles, and storm buildings and trash hotels, then yes, I think the officers would be justified in using deadly force when an armed "protester" decides to present himself as a serious threat, which Pretti did.

[Bootstrap]

It is normal law enforcement where local police cooperate.

They are cooperating to the extent that the law specifies. At all levels, government should follow the law. There are always conflicts between states and the feds, between different branches of government, etc. That's what the Constitution was set up to ensure, one balancing the other, no one part of government with absolute power.

It is not when surrounded by rioting maniacs.

And they are not surrounded by rioters. Or maniacs. That rhetoric is being used to justify sending in paramilitary units.

Whatever happened to states rights? Or fear of government overreach? I assume you think Civil War is a bad thing. Shouldn't the federal government simply withdraw their paramilitary forces and rely on the law and democratic means?

[JohnH]

And they are not surrounded by rioters. Or maniacs. That rhetoric is being used to justify sending in paramilitary units.

I would consider people throwing obscene "sex toys" at the fences around the federal buildings in Minnesota to be maniacs. You can see it for yourself here (I found a link that made sure to censor the obscene stuff):

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/articl ... -toys.html

Whatever happened to states rights? Or fear of government overreach?

1861 and 1957.

States' rights is dead, and the federal government has supremacy over the states.

[Valerie]

It is normal law enforcement where local police cooperate.

They are cooperating to the extent that the law specifies. At all levels, government should follow the law. There are always conflicts between states and the feds, between different branches of government, etc. That's what the Constitution was set up to ensure, one balancing the other, no one part of government with absolute power.

It is not when surrounded by rioting maniacs.

And they are not surrounded by rioters. Or maniacs. That rhetoric is being used to justify sending in paramilitary units.

Whatever happened to states rights? Or fear of government overreach? I assume you think Civil War is a bad thing. Shouldn't the federal government simply withdraw their paramilitary forces and rely on the law and democratic means?

It’s not rhetoric about its truth. Homan, awarded by Obama used the word rioting. You don’t watch it obviously.
You don’t get arrested for being peaceful and throwing bottles at agents certainly isn’t peaceful. They were warned and they continue to riot. This is not going well for anyone in the area. It’s not line this anywhere else (presently) so
yes, they are maniacs. I watch their behavior, it’s hard to behold. My children don’t like Trump nor agree with ICE tactics but you won’t see them in riots like that.
You seem to not really understand sanctuary cities nor see the obvious as to why they’ve been incited to fight ICE.

[temporal1]

My 2 cents, P.91 / Bunny Trails: Politics / Elian Gonzalez

[Bootstrap]

Whatever happened to states rights? Or fear of government overreach?

1861 and 1957.

States' rights is dead, and the federal government has supremacy over the states.

That answer makes sense if the standard is simply “whatever helps my side win.”

But if that's the standard, there's no defense if a Democratic president uses the same federal power in ways conservatives hate. At that point, the disagreement isn’t about constitutional order at all—it’s about tribal loyalty.

And no matter who the president is, most Americans lose.

[temporal1]

Here’s an interesting article about Cades Cove and how the Civil War affected its settlers. Many of the old buildings are still there.
https://www.thesmokies.com/tragedy-cades-cove/

Tragedy in Cades Cove: The Dark History of the Smoky Mountains

How It Started: A Family Divided Between the Union and the Confederacy
Russell Gregory was born in North Carolina in 1795. Therefore, he was already approaching 50 when he moved his family to the Cove sometime in the 1840s. Gregory’s Bald – up in the high mountains – is named in his honor. He used the mountain bald to graze cattle and farm, living on the mountain in a stone hut for part of the year.

By the time the Civil War arrived, Gregory was in his ’60s and not much of a candidate for service.
However, it appears four of his sons were Civil War soldiers.
Walter – the youngest boy – joined the Union and died of measles in 1862.
Charles and John A. served the Confederacy.
The oldest son, Drewery, is listed as a Civil War soldier but I can’t find on which side he served.
To further complicate things, at least one of his sons-in-law fought on the Union side as well.

Good article, i almost overlooked it.

Growing up, i was puzzled about my mother’s palpable grief over the U.S. Civil War, after all, she was born in 1917, in my view, LONG after the war.

Only getting older did i realize how “long ago” it wasn’t.
Families and extended families were the norm then, much of that time there wasn’t even radio, oral and hand written communication was valued as has been all but forgotten. She knew her grandparents and other elders, for whom the war may have been the biggest incident of their lives+memories. They hated it.

My mother was oldest of 9, they all married, had families, lived close, had family reunions (lost after the 2020 pandemic, i believe many family traditions everywhere were lost at that time).

Our family reunions had strict unwritten rules: No politics. No work talk.
i’m sure there were other rules, These 2 i distinctly remember the adults did not compromise.

i now believe this was a direct “legacy” of the Civil War.
There was intense sorrow for, hatred of divided families, brother against brother.
This was a common message in public schools then, too.

Unfortunately, today, in social media, there seems to be great interest in another Civil War.
The words no longer convey the fear+dread they once did. Chilling “Never again!” has been replaced with “When? Where? How?”

i believe many family reunions, all ethnicities, across the country were casualties of the pandemic.
Now there are articles written about how families are the greatest nuisance, best eschewed and forgotten.

By all means, listen to the state, not your families. Don’t value life. That always works well.
Gov policies, gov schools, oof. In the pursuit of secularism, humanism, damage done.

P.8 / I think we are in trouble
https://forum.mennonet.com/viewtopic.ph ... 9&start=70

[temporal1]

i believe many family reunions, all ethnicities, across the country were casualties of the pandemic.
Now there are articles written about how families are the greatest nuisance, best eschewed and forgotten.

^^Following the 1990’s, many lost their churches, following 2020, families damaged.
Is the result society that mirrors feral or stray cats? i wonder.

A feral cat or stray cat is an unowned domestic cat (Felis catus) that lives outdoors and avoids human contact; it does not allow itself to be handled or touched, and usually remains hidden from humans.[1][2] Feral cats may breed over dozens of generations and become a local apex or mesopredator in urban, savannah and bushland environments, especially on islands where native animals did not evolve alongside predators. Some feral cats may become more comfortable with people who regularly feed them, but even with long-term attempts at socialization, they usually remain aloof and are most active after dusk. Of the 700 million cats in the world, an estimated 480 million are feral.[3][4][5]

A feral cat with a tipped ear, indicating it was neutered in a trap-neuter-return program
Feral cats are devastating to wildlife, and conservation biologists consider them to be one of the worst invasive species on Earth.[6][7] They are included in the list of the world's 100 worst invasive alien species. Attempts to control feral cat populations are widespread but generally of greatest impact within purpose-fenced reserves.

Some animal rights groups advocate trap-neuter-return programs to prevent the feral cats from continuing to breed.
Scientific evidence has demonstrated that TNR is not effective at controlling feral cat populations.[8][9]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feral_cat