During the last several days of the ongoing Impeachment Trial farce, we have listened to an argument from the left that simply amounts to “because we stonewalled election integrity efforts, there is no evidence of election fraud and therefore, what happened on January 6th was unjustified.” While I agree that the actions on January 6th were indeed horrible and completely uncalled for, I also believe that anyone who opposes additional investigation into election integrity is hiding something. Joshua Shapiro, the Attorney General from the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, belongs behind bars. Shapiro’s own actions were an insurrection more than anything that was done by a few hundred Trump supporters. When a constitutional order was issued from the United States Supreme Court, Shapiro decided to not accept his own electoral outcome (as SCOTUS had followed a Constitutional Process and voted on the matter) and count votes that were ordered to be separated. He literally stole an election as evidenced and cheered by the left and the media. They believed their insurrection was justified, just as they believed the violent terrorism that occurred across the country in 2020 was justified.
The country has been so irrevocably divided by the media and their duplicitous standards that conservatives can’t help but feel like William Wallace, as they ride into battle against the lies spun by the left. But while there are those on the right that would consider some in that battle as freedom fighters, there are those on the left that would consider them terrorists. Similarly, there are those on the right that consider Antifa and BLM as terrorist organizations, while those on the left justify their actions against what they believe to be oppression.
Terrorism is defined as “The use of violence or the threat of violence, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political goals.”
Spend a moment in a thought exercise with me: Let’s say that yesterday, Donald Trump said that Democrat senators who vote to convict Donald Trump would be responsible for the violence that follows. What do we think that the left would do and say about that? We all know they would come unglued and call Donald Trump a terrorist. They would say that it was an invitation of violence against any senator who simply voted their opinion in the impeachment proceedings. Even if Donald came back out and stated that he was referring to the emboldening of the left to continue their violent marches across the country, the left would still say he was signaling his sleeper cells to launch attacks.
Yesterday, the Washington Post pubbed this article:
Opinion: If Republican senators acquit Trump, they will own the violence that follows https://t.co/qJ2VMtkDUr
— The Washington Post (@washingtonpost) February 12, 2021
To many, including myself, I saw this as a call to arms for the militant left, much like we saw in major cities across the country over the course of the last decade. It was code to their terrorist cells that unless Republicans bow to their demands, violence was coming. Despite the many manifestations under which the violence has occurred, it is undeniable that those organizations are indeed leftist, and that their violent actions have been justified by the left. Occupy Wall Street, Antifa, and BLM are all seen as the left’s freedom fighters and the right’s terrorists. Regardless, those organizations and their supporters in government, have threatened continued violence and unrest unless their political demands are met. To say that the left has not done this is the flat out denial of reasonable and truthful standards.
While WaPo’s article went on to say that the violence would come from the right, as acquitting Trump would embolden the right to commit violent acts, it ignores this blatant fact: Violence in this country primarily originates on the left. Essentially they use the threat of alleged terrorism, to threaten violence against the country. It is the equivalent of saying, if we don’t give Al Qaeda what they want, they may use violence to achieve their means. The only difference? The left has been using this canard as a means to justify their own violence for years. For instance, when Occupy Wall Street took action against private businesses, destroying them throughout the country in violent clashes with law enforcement, they were justified. They were fighting against the oppressive system that, according to their imagined slights, was less offensive than the bloodied communist regimes which they held in such high regard. Waiving communist flags and wearing Che Guevara shirts, they demonized our free-market system as predatory, ignoring the hundreds of millions of people who were systematically eliminated by the likes of Stalin and Mao. They considered Guevara as a revolutionary leader while dismissing the fact that Guevara was a coward and a murderer, who killed gay people for the crime of same-sex attraction. During this same period of time, the WaPo had no problem supporting these terrorists, instead of producing propaganda for the group, which they then used to justify their continued violent actions.
The pattern has been repeated so many times with both Antifa and BLM stating that a threat, which mind you at no time had been violent previously, was suddenly an existential threat deserving of a violent response. When Antifa destroyed Berkeley over someone speaking, the left then used the excuse that the rhetoric had the potential of inspiring violence, and as such, was deserving of a violent response. Nevermind that Ben Shapiro or Milo had never hurt a soul in their lives. It became, “they might get violent, so our preemptive action is justified.”
This pattern has been used by the likes of terrorist organizations around the world. Al Qaeda, ISIS, and others have all stated that because the US may be inserting itself into issues abroad (which I frankly, don’t disagree with), their violent actions are justified. They believe that because a threat to their security or ideology exists, they are justified in the murder of thousands.
The Washington Post’s article is no different. Their unevidenced threat that conservatives will rise up, emboldened by a Trump acquittal is a fantasy, which they will then use to justify violent actions from the left who believe they are fighting against this perceived threat. The Washington Post’s own headline was an encoded terrorist threat to Republican senators, that unless they bow to the demands of the violent left, they will use the same means employed by terrorist organizations around the world, to blame the resulting violence on them, regardless of who it comes from. If suddenly the left reacted violently to an acquittal, do you think that WaPo would blame the resulting violence on Biden and the Democrats? Of course not. This WaPo opinion piece amounted to signaling their terrorist compatriots that in the inevitable result that Trump is acquitted, any action they take will be justified, as they are fighting against their announced (and unevidenced lie) that there’s violence coming from the right.
To them, there’s no third option. Trump is guilty of incitement, which mind you is not a codified reason to impeach, despite not having issued a single violent order or having specifically instructed anyone to take any violent action against the Capitol. They simply state that Trump’s action amounts to inspiration and justification for violence, despite WaPo’s decade long history of doing the same for leftist organizations. WaPo doesn’t just hate Trump, they hate the competition. They hate that Trump has the power that they themselves want, for their own means. Their veiled political threats of violence aren’t terrorism, but Trump’s for whatever reason, are. Instead of leaving it simply to a decision for senators whether or not they believe that Trump’s behavior rose to the level deserving of conviction, they leave Republican senators with a false dichotomy: Either you vote to convict, or you’re inciting violence.
It is terrorism. It is literally demanding a political outcome under the threat of violence, either from their perceived source (the right-wing) or justified by their perceived threat as the left reacts. It’s filled with logical fallacies, another hallmark of terrorism and terrorist propaganda. Shame on The Washington Post.