Justifying the “Attack” on Portland

The writers of this article in The Atlantic claim, “Last night in Portland, as happened last month in Washington, D.C., peaceful protests only grew in response to the federal show of force.” The article’s title: “Nothing Can Justify the Attack on Portland: The question of whether these arrests are appropriate has a clear answer—at least in a nation that purports to live under the rule of law.”

Let’s put the question about “rule of law” to rest right now: 10 U.S. Code § 251 to 254b. Click it, read, then click “next” to review all sections. Discover that both Congress and a series of presidents concurred this authority should rest with the President to counter riots (domestic violence), rebellions and insurrections when local or state governments either cannot or will not do their job or otherwise deny the equal protection of the laws secured by the Constitution. It’s not about “who’s got the bigger stick.” It’s about safeguarding the Constitutional rights and freedoms of everyone. No government, at any level, has the authority to either infringe on rights or refuse to stop others from infringing on rights.

Local and state governments refused to do their job. Therefore, commensurate with federal law, the duly elected president of the United States is securing those rights and freedoms of others.

As for the increase in rebellion, I see this as a GOOD sign. Some times you’ve got to turn over the brush pile to flush the bugs.

Let’s examine the authors:

Quinta Jurecic, a contributing writer at The Atlantic and the managing editor of Lawfare. She writes articles such as, “Trump is campaigning on a platform of abject failure.”

Benjamin Wittes, a contributing writer at The Atlantic, the editor in chief of Lawfare, and a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution. He writes articles such as, “Trump can’t even imitate a normal president.”

Clearly, these two are undeniable anti-Trumpers, throwing pretty much everything they might say into the “WTH?” category.

Let’s examine Lawfare:

It’s a rather brain-laden group of individuals, mostly writers, some lawyers, who have created a blog, which bloomed into a business. They describe themselves as “an ongoing commentary on America’s lawfare, even as we participate in many of its skirmishes,” while claiming “our focus has been and will continue to be directed to the merits of the underlying legal and policy debates themselves—the “Hard National Security Choices” that also form part of our title.”

The articles I read there sound fairly solid, even though the blog is in a bit of disarray.

But Jurecic’s and Wittes’ article in The Atlantic is nothing but thinly-veiled anti-Trumpism sandwiched between two layers of intentional ignorance or obfuscation of 10 U.S. Code § 251 to 254b.

Let’s examine the Brookings Institution:

As a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization, Brookings describes itself as independent and non-partisan.

It is anything but. In fact, “The Washington Post has described Brookings as centrist and liberal. The Los Angeles Times has described Brookings as liberal-leaning and centrist before opining that it did not believe such labels mattered. In 1977, Time magazine described it as the “nation’s pre-eminent liberal think tank”.

Furthermore: “Starting with the 1990 election cycle, employees of the Brookings Institution gave $853,017 to Democratic candidates and $26,104 to Republican candidates. In total, since 1990, 96 percent of its political donations have gone to Democrats.”

For these two to have arrived at a wholly unsustainable and highly unlawful position is quite the stretch from the bounds of normalcy. Their unsupportable premise is the same as that of Seattle’s Mayor, who wrongly thought that if we just take a step back, all this will go away.

Neither of them realize, much less recognize that our nation has a severe infection of Illegal Thinking. As with any criminal element, giving it room to grow will never solve the problem. As an infection, it requires debridement, and that’s GONNA sting. The pain isn’t something to be shied away from, but embraced, as the infection was allowed to grow far too long on perhaps well-intentioned but otherwise blitheringly idiotic Demoncrap policies.

Once the necrotic tissue is removed, the patient can begin to recover.