I'm sick and tired of the insurrection. End it

The federal government ended the Stand at the School House Door. Attempting to block integration at the University of Alabama, Governor of Alabama George Wallace stands at the door of Foster Auditorium while being confronted by US Deputy Attorney General Nicholas Katzenbach. Wallace stepped aside and the school was integrated in opposition to public opinion in the state.

The federal government ended the racist "Stand at the School House Door." Attempting to block integration at the University of Alabama, Governor of Alabama George Wallace stands at the door of Foster Auditorium while being confronted by US Deputy Attorney General Nicholas Katzenbach. Wallace stepped aside and the school was integrated, contrary to public opinion in the state.

Insurrection: "A rising or rebellion of citizens against their government, usually manifested by acts of violence." -- Legal definition.

Under federal law, it is a crime to incite, assist or engage in such conduct against the United States. Federal law empowers the federal government to "to address an insurrection, domestic violence, unlawful combination or conspiracy, in any state, which results in the deprivation of Constitutionally-secured rights, and where the state is unable, fails, or refuses to protect said rights (§ 253)."

There is no question that what is happening now across America is insurrection. There are too many instances of domestic violence and possible conspiracy to list here. All the rhetoric about "peaceful protest" and justifiable protest has nothing to do with it, other than triggering the violence.

The violence has violated the civil, human, natural, property and other rights of thousands of Americans. And too many politicians, mainly from the left and some from the right, are standing by while this grave injustice is committed against Americans.

The most absurd and insulting explanation is that states alone are responsible for "securing the domestic tranquilly," although those words are found in the preamble of the U.S. Constitution as one of the grave responsibilities of the federal government.

If the states do not act, fail to act or refuse to act, the power to get involved rests with the federal government, and with the chief executive in particular. And too many governors are allowing this outrage to continue, even though citizens of their own states are victims.

From early on, the federal government has put down insurrections. The first president, George Washington, led the troops against the Whiskey Rebellion. The Insurrection Act has been exercised 18 times by 11 presidents. The wisdom of each use of the act can be debated, but among them were some very good reasons:

  • Ulysses S. Grant in 1871 to suppress the Ku Klux Klan. (The same guy whose statue was toppled for some reason.)
  • Franklin D. Roosevelt to confront the 1943 Detroit race riots.
  • Dwight D. Eisenhower to protect the nine black students who were integrating Little Rock High School in the face of the governor's opposition.
  • John F. Kennedy, three times in 1962 and 1963 to enforce desegregation orders.
  • Lyndon B. Johnson in 1968 to end the Chicago race riots.
  • George H.W. Bush to suppress race riots.

I don't claim to know how the deployment of federal troops will end. Violently? But it has reached the point that if government authorities continue to deprive their citizens of equal protection of the law and their other rights, there is no choice. It's obvious that reason does not work with these punks and punkesses.

The people call for redress and justice.

dennis@dennisbyrne.net

Comments

Leave a comment
  • Sure! To, in the words of the preamble to our constitution, "insure domestic Tranquility," Donald Trump should declare war against his people. Other dictators do it, so why not here?

    It is always best to be suspicious of either legal or political advice you may pick up in a barbershop.

  • In reply to jnorto:

    It is probably better to dismiss the legal and political responses of an anonymous poster. One should have the courage to create a profile and use his first and last legal names.

  • In reply to Richard Davis:

    Address the issue. Is the barbershop proprietor correct in advocating that the United States Army go to war with Americans?

  • What a load of utter and complete crap.

    Just because you don't like something, label it treason or sedition or some other meaningless crime and call for it to be ended.

    Just as all cops are not wanton murderers, all protesters are not violent. 95% of all the activity since George Floyd's death have been peaceful CONSTITUTIOALLY GUARANTEED protests.

    Institutional racism may not seem like a problem, but that's only because it's not a problem for YOU.

    Sorry if people thronging in the streets creates an inconvenience for you. Police shooting unarmed black men in the back seems like a much more concerning inconvenience.

    I find your words specious, intellectually dishonest and hateful. End it.

  • In response to Bob and jnorto:
    You guys are the masters of deflection. I did not attack peaceful protestors. I did not suggest that "people thronging in the streets" were an "inconvenience. I did not say that all protestors are violent. I did not say that the U.S. Army should go to war against Americans. I didn't deny that the right to protest is not constitutionally guaranteed.

    Maybe if you read the entire post you wouldn't be making these errors. But then again, maybe you read the whole thing, but decided to ignore the words there and create your own straw man.

    Let's address the issues that I raised: The violence fits the various definitions of insurrection, etc. There is a legal basis for regarding it to be so and using the power of the government to put down an insurrection.

    In your opinion, is the violence not happening, something that the right-wing media made up? Is no one getting hurt, their property getting destroyed? Are innocent people helpless in the face of this mob-caused violence? Or do you believe that these victims deserved it? What about the Democratic lawmaker in Wisconsin who was beaten? Or were the beaters right-wing nuts who were masquerading as protestors?

    Do you believe that Eisenhower and Kennedy sending in the troops to enforce desegregation of southern schools an "going to war on our own people?" Maybe you do, because the overwhelming belief of the people in the south at the time was opposition to desegregation.

    Do you have a way to stop the violence? Defund the police? Send in some social workers to stand in front of stores that are about to be set on fire?

    Damn right, Trump is not above the law. Be neither are the looters and rioters. Or do you believe that they are above the law, that the acknowledged wrongs of police have been so wrong that violence is justified?

    Or maybe like you, I should find your comments so offensive that I should end them.

  • Dennis, you can withdraw into your shell whenever you choose to do so and try to silence those who disagree with you. Until then, I for one will point out your errors.

    For one thing, you are equating violence with insurrection. You gave a dictionary definition of insurrection, but you do not recognize that over the decades courts have interpreted 10 USC Sec. 251, one of the statutes you are relying on to justify military action against United States citizens. In fact, violence does not equal insurrection. For one thing, the Circuit Court for the Second Circuit said "For there to be an “insurrection” there must be an intent to overthrow a lawfully constituted regime. Pan Am. World Airways, Inc. v. Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co., C.A.2 (N.Y.) 1974, 505 F.2d 989.
    By calling the violence which you condemn insurrection, you mislead your readers and egg on an unstable president to his own needless acts of violence.

  • In reply to jnorto:

    So how would you define "CHAZ"/"CHOP" Seattle "cop-free" zone if not "an intent to overthrow a lawfully constituted regime"? I'm really curious.

  • As I mentioned to Dennis, the intent to interfere with government operations is not an intent to overthrow the government.

  • Looting and arson are crimes subject to arrest and prosecution. They, by themselves, hardly justify invoking the Insurrection Act of 1807 or its subsequent interpretations. You seem to implicate the peaceful protesters in the recent instances of looting and arson by saying that these crimes were 'triggered' by protesters.
    If anyone triggered the looting and the arson it was the white supremacist groups like Boogaloo who infiltrated the peaceful protesters.

  • In reply to Aquinas wired:

    So, the rampage and physical assault in Madison the other night, I suppose that was perpetrated by "Boogaloo" too?

  • In reply to Aquinas wired:

    I’d be delighted if it weren’t an insurrection and routine police work would end the violence no matter who is causing it. Again, what do you suggest?

  • If I were trying to silence anyone you would have been long gone. Have you not been listening to the rhetoric? The intent to tear down and overthrow is openly stated.

  • Why are you threatening to take down your critics if you don't intend to do so?

    Some protesters do intend to interfere with government operations. Some interference is allowed under the First Amendment. Violent acts may be crimes. But, an intent to interfere with government operations is not an intent to overthrow the government.

  • In reply to jnorto:

    But engaging in violence will proclaiming your intent is. Once again, and again and again, what do you two proposed to do about the violence?

  • VIOLENCE! What to do about violence, that is the question. Or is it?

    This country was born in violence and stitched back together in violence.

    You cheered when Chicago cops charged us with night sticks in Grant Park, so please don't drag out your woebegone, feigned sensitivity to violence.

    You condemned Colin Kaepernick's peaceful appeal for justice, so what do you expect? It's not likely that those feeling oppressed and outright hunted would follow some barber shop protocol for expressing their fear and their anger.

    As for insurrection, the only true insurrection was in 1860 when 11 states seceded from the United States over the issue of white people owning black people. 400,000 Americans died during that insurrection.

    The statues being torn down are not Confederate era statues, but Jim Crow era statues. The Confederate flag is not a symbol of anyone's heritage, but a display of white supremacy brought back during the civil rights movement.

    Why aren't those symbols of INSURRECTION banned in this country, Dennis? Answer me that and we may well be on our way to figuring out how to salve an open wound that has never been allowed to heal.

  • In reply to Bob Abrams:

    I totally agree, Bob.

  • In reply to Bob Abrams:

    Dont waste your time reasoning with a fucking Nazi. Best thing to do is putt a bullet in him and his twisted kids.

  • In reply to Bob Abrams:

    Bob, you said: "You [meaning me] cheered when Chicago cops charged us with night sticks in Grant Park, so please don't drag out your woebegone, feigned sensitivity to violence."

    Jeez, Bob. How do you know? Were you there? I didn't cheer the cops. I quite agreed with the Kerner commission that it was a police riot. Incited by people who showed up to incite the riot.

    I didn't "condemn" Colin Kaepernick.

    How about the U.S. Grant statue? How about the Hans Christian Heg one? Slave owners? Confederates? Jim Crow era racists?

    Take down the Confederate statues; I don't care. But it's not for a mob to decide.

    Call the damage done to people and property whatever you want. I still wonder how you would stop it. Do you deny that it happened? Do you think that it shouldn't be stopped?

  • So Basically what you are advocating for is GENOCIDE.

  • You want the protests to end then you have a choice. Either recognize black people's right to exist or we will take way your right to exist.

Leave a comment

  • Advertisement:
  • Advertisement:
  • ChicagoNow is full of win

    Welcome to ChicagoNow.

    Meet our bloggers,
    post comments, or
    pitch your blog idea.

  • Visit my new website

    I'm a freelance writer, editor and author. I can help you with a wide variety of projects. Check out my new website at www.dennisbyrne.net

  • Subscribe to The Barbershop

    Enter your email address:

    Delivered by FeedBurner

  • Dennis Byrne’s Facebook Fan Page

  • Like me on Facebook

  • Our National Debt

  • Twitter

  • Tags

  • Recent Comments

  • /Users/dennisby/Desktop/trailer.mp4
  • Latest on ChicagoNow

  • Advertisement: