by Karl Denninger, Market Ticker:
It is my contention that we are just one bad event away from a shooting civil war in America — and in fact if you ask Steve Scalise it may have already started.
The political process is often fraught with severe language, money and hard-fought contests. But in the end there are winners and losers; a person who loses by one vote still lost, while the person who wins by one vote still gets the office. The margin is immaterial and, in the context of a Presidential Election, the popular vote doesn’t matter; it is the electoral vote that counts and thus all candidates tailor their particular political process toward that outcome.
Twice now in recent history the left has refused to accept the outcome of that process. The first was Bush .v. Gore, which went to the US Supreme Court. Said court wisely refused to intervene in what was a political process, leaving said process intact, and Bush was seated as President. In doing so the issue of refusal to accept the outcome of an election was left for another day, and, for the most part, the left bided their time and then came back with a winner in 2008 in the form of Barack Obama.
But this time no such thing happened. Hillary Clinton lost. She didn’t lose by much, but by the rules of the contest she lost. Unfortunately the left not only refused to accept the outcome at the time two years later it still refuses to accept the outcome.
Let me be clear on this — if you’re bitter that there was no President Pantsuit that’s fine. Losses can be bitter, especially when you really think you should have won. But no matter what you think by the rules of the contest Hillary lost to Trump — period.
But if you go beyond being bitter, start up hashtags like “#Resist” and then put that into action both inside and outside the government to disregard and disrupt the results of a valid electoral process you are not only violating the law you are inciting a shooting civil war.
This sort of activity by people inside the government is treading right to if not over the line of insurrection. The use of government force for unlawful purpose, intentionally, meets the definition; it is an attempt to overthrow the law of the United States by corrupting the monopoly on deadly force that the government has and directing it unlawfully against certain people for political purposes. This is not a “petty offense”; it is a direct assault on and attempt to overthrow the result of a lawful elective process and according to the above link it’s still going on today.
If you’re aggrieved by an election’s results you have every right to print up a sign and go picket on a public street or other public place. You can take out all the political advertisements you wish and make your best effort to get a different result the next time around. But you do not have the right to enter into a restaurant where someone is eating dinner, which is private property, and assault said person because they happen to be a member of that political party. That is a violation of the law in that it constitutes assault and is begging for an immediate outbreak of violence in response.
If your bitterness with the outcome of an election incites you to libel people and attempt to destroy institutions because you didn’t get the result you wanted in the last political contest, such as is going on right now with Brett Kavanaugh, you are alsoinciting a shooting war. And let’s be clear; while there were plenty of people on the right who didn’t like Kagan or Sotomayer, and still don’t (I’m among them) my issues with them, along with others on the right, begin and end with their refusal to adhere to the boundaries of the written Constitution. That I didn’t like the way they might rule on this issue or that for this reason did not give me license to accuse either or both of them of felony sexual assault for political purposes and to sandbag alleged misdemeanor claims for the nakedly-explicit purpose of trying to delay a vote until after the next election takes place rather than to address an actual grievance.
It’s amusing to watch the daily smarmy-talking-heads on Tout-TV (otherwise known as CNBS around this blog and here’s looking at you, Cramer) shouting with joy as the markets make new highs on the bubble-infused schemes fueled by trillion dollar deficits that are returning less GDP expansion than the monetary expansion as a percentage of the economy. That is, said alleged “expansion” is factually false; the economy in real terms is contracting! This is basic math; if you expand the money supply by 5% ($1 trillion on a $20 trillion economy) and GDP expands by 3% then the actual result is a 2% contraction in economic output measured in the production of goods and services. Put in household terms that you can run up your credit card by an additional $2,000 when you have $40,000 of income does not make you $2,000 richer; you are in fact $2,000 poorer for doing so, plus the cost of interest! Never mind that if the current political situation continues the S&P 500 won’t matter since it won’t be trading anymore and all of those SJW-infused companies that make up the majority of its market cap will be laying in literal ashes. “What is Zero, Alex?”
There are those who think there could be some sort of “peace” in this regard but they’re cracked in the head. We have a schism now, more-or-less, among the states — there are those areas that are deep “red” and those that are deep “blue.” While the “Reds” mostly leave the “Blues” alone the converse is not true. Witness the PA AG who has sought and gained national injunctions issued all the way across the country in Washington State! He’s not content to remain inside Pennsylvania and deal with whatever admixture of political process exists there — no, he wants to exert what he sees as “his power” all the way across the country, everywhere, even though by law he lacks any jurisdictional ability to do so. He makes a direct point of bragging about this all over Twitter too — daily. Indeed his positions are only thinly disguised as part of a formal “#resist” movement.
If you have a train on a track and there is a switch up ahead set to go off a bridge that is out, and the cab of the locomotive has the control for said switch in it, then you have an obvious choice to make and only one correct choice.
Now put two people in that cab who get into a fight; one insists he will only agree to go down the safe track if the other guy is dead or permanently rendered subservient, the other says “over my dead body” since he’s unwilling to die or live as a slave — but he obviously doesn’t want to go off the bridge either.
One of the two antagonists in the cab has to kill the other, or one has to jump. If they simply tussle in the cab both die and the train wrecks killing everyone in the cars behind the locomotive. It’s a similar situation if you and the copilot decide to fight in an airplane that is flying; one of you is dying, one of you is jumping (hopefully with a parachute) or you are both going to die and the plane, along with everyone in it, will be destroyed.
When political animus spills over into action in the real world such as repeated criminal assault, as has been happening now with regularity and is being increasingly documented in video form and in their own voices by the political left there is a major problem. When that sort of activity is intentionally amplified and permitted by major corporate firms such as Facebook and Twitter while suppressing any sort of pushback whatsoever you now add an attempt to con the public into believing this is some sort of “organic” series of events — when nothing of the sort is the case. When Chuck Schumer states on CSPAN that “There is no presumption of innocence“ then the Rule of Law and due process are both dead and he is inviting, provoking and in fact inciting civil war. The conduct alleged is criminal; whenever one makes such an allegation due process rights attach. If one cannot find recourse in due process before the law then the only remaining recourse is to the law of the jungle. There are also those (Hirono) who have gone even further and stated that Kavanaugh is presumed guilty because she does not like his written judicial opinions. This is exactly identical to the Salem witch trials where one was presumed a witch because they had a black cat and were unmarried, which certain people found “distasteful.”
The media, specifically but not exclusively CNN, is even worse — they are intentionally lying and when the civil war they are inciting comes they are and should be first on the list of parties held responsible for the outcome. As just one example in the context of Ramirez they have intentionally lied about the fact that her attorneys have ignored and deflected seven separate attempts to obtain some sort of formal statement of facts and allegations made under penalty of perjury;instead her attorneys continue to insist on a trial in the media where there is no penalty for outright lies. Why is this? Might it be related to her being a board member of a far-left organization that has required, non-negotiable positions that constitute a flat-out demand to abrogate the First Amendment?
Throughout time and the history of nations there have been multiple political groups that have refused anything other than complete acquiescence and acceptance of their alleged mandates. Political Islam has been known for this for more than 1,000 years; it has rolled into nations, sometimes by force and sometimes by “migration”; in the latter case the “migrants” then multiply literally as part of their political design and, when they reach a material percentage of the whole they begin segregating society, creating “no-go” zones in which they enforce their own version of law by force and, if not challenged and driven out they eventually take over the entire civil legal authority of the country and replace it. It is this series of actions that led to the first of the Crusades; they were not, as is commonly put forward, a bunch of Christians rising up and deciding to “kill all the non-believers.” In point of fact the First Crusade was initiated as a response to demands from Islamic invaders who had occupied the land now called “Israel”, specifically Jerusalem, and forbid Christian pilgrimages. (Yes, those wars, like so many others, degenerated rather quickly….. war has a way of doing that and no, this is not a blanket claim on the rest of them; there’s a clean argument that many of the other Crusades were more about trade routes than anything else.) Today we are seeing the beginning stages of the same thing in France and other parts of Europe, including the UK — never mind Sweden.