It was left-of-center NBC News, not MHProNews, that first reported that perhaps 1 million pro-Trump militia members are purportedly communicating via encrypted methods as they plot to stop a President-Select Joe Biden* from taking office.
Left-of-center Snopes, a Facebook-funded ‘fact-check’ site, acknowledges that the threat from pro-Trump militia is genuine, but doubts that anywhere near a million militia members may actually show up. Certainly, Washington, D.C.’s Mayor Muriel Bowser – who some say ‘welcomed’ Black Lives Matter and Antifa riots last summer – is taking steps to make it difficult to even get into the national capitol. Air BNB and others have said that they are cancelling lodging reservations in D.C. for that week.
The party that didn’t want a border wall wasted no time putting up fencing around the Capitol Building. The “lawmakers” are seeking to protect themselves and their selected candidate before, during, and after January 20, 2021.
President Trump, perhaps sensing a setup, said at the Mexican border yesterday and on previous occasions that he has called for peace, peace, peace from his followers. But the 45th president acknowledges that what Democrats are doing through a sham impeachment effort is stoking anger – and that they should not want to further enrage people.
Then, President Trump – prudently, and MHProNews editorially concurs – once more called for peace. A just peace is obviously preferable.
There are numbers of those with an internet, radio, or TV platform from the political right who are warning against any armed protest or other moves by militia groups that back President Trump. Their rationale of those pundits includes, but is not limited to, the notion that armed protestors so will only serve to undermine or give an excuse for Democrats to further undermine or end the 2nd Amendment that protects the right to keep and bear arms.
Conservative talk radio mogul Rush Limbaugh said recently that the hard left is looking for their enemies to speak “one wrong word.” Pardon me? Do “We the People” have to choose our speech so carefully so as to self-censor? That disconnect noted, ponder the following.
Hypothetically speaking, do those making the argument about not protesting with weapons in hand stop and contemplate the subsequent bullets?
- If such “America First,” pro-Trump patriots do not act now to protect their rights, then when should they do so? Later? When things will logically only get worse, as Biden-Harris consolidates power?
- Didn’t Democratic Presidential Candidates in the 2019-2020 cycle – including candidates such as Biden, Kamala Harris, and Beto O’Rourke – already promise several times in their own way “Hell, yes, we are coming for you AR-15s” – hmmm?
- So, if the Democratic leaders – in their own words – say that they are coming for legal firearms protected by the 2nd Amendment anyway, at what point will citizens – militia or others – decide to protect that right Constitutional rights and all of their other God-given rights?
But let us be clear. It is not only the 2nd Amendment that is under assault.
The 1st Amendment is seriously on the chopping block too.
That is not only a threat against free speech from big tech, which appears to be working hand-in-glove with Democratic leadership which they overwhelmingly backed in the last “election.” President-Select Biden* (D) and Representative Alexandria Ocasio Cortez (AOC) (NY-D) are both calling for changes to the First Amendment rights to free speech.
What is next? Formally banning religious practices? Many faith leaders believe that this is absolutely coming once Biden-Harris takes office.
Additionally, millions now believe that American small businesses have been de facto targeted by RINO Republicans and Democrats in numerous jurisdictions under the guise of COVID-19. How many of them might want to resist the loss of their life’s work?
At what point will large numbers of American citizens draw the line and say no more?
To be sure, reportedly some 75 million plus Americans voted in record numbers for an incumbent president. While former President Barack Obama lost millions of votes from his first run in 2008 compared to 2012, not so with President Trump. Yet President Trump was subjected to what liberal attorney-turned-journalist (and not a Trump backer) called a “blinding propaganda.” Clearly, the Trump base is more loyal and able to sift beyond the “propaganda.” The Trump-base grew with women, minorities, and other demographic groups, despite being accused of every vile name and threat that reasonable people can imagine.
Having attempted the normal legal ways of impacting their government, what is left to frustrated people who believe that President Trump followed through on “Promises Made, Promises Kept” in office?
The list of institutional failures perceived by millions begins with the biased and/or flawed coverage by much of the news media and big tech but goes beyond them. Among the peaceful, constitutional provisions that have been attempted are these.
- Dozens of lawsuits were filed by citizens, several state Attorneys General, and the Trump Campaign. These were routinely turned away by various courts for issues such as a purported lack of standing. The merits of those claims have not been heard.
- State legislatures arguably did a far better job of holding hearings and listening to evidence. But when Vice President Mike Pence declined the requests from numerous state lawmakers to give time to review the evidence for 10 days, another lawful and peaceful path was lost.
- On January 6, by coincidence and/or by design, the constitutionally-permissible debate process that Democrats have used 3 times in the 21st century was branded as somehow being an unlawful “coup.”
- Additionally, VP Pence, and scores of House and Senate Republicans tossed away an entirely lawful – meaning constitutional – process that would have kept President Trump legally in office. Rephrased, had Republicans held party unity as Democrats so routinely do, President Trump would be taking the oath of office on January 20th, not Joe Biden or Kamala Harris.
- It is betrayals and frustrations such as those that have caused cartoonists, commentators, and tens of millions of voters such anger that indeed the threat of violence reported by NBC, CBS, and others in the left of center media is indeed possible.
Again, noting in this report and analysis of what mainstream media is reporting is not to encourage violence. It is to acknowledge that violence may be coming. Let’s also mention that these thoughts, reflections, and analysis are that of the writer and our LLC, and should not be construed to represent the views of sponsors or others.
Once again today, President Trump has urged no violence. But members of the president’s ‘own party’ are saying and doing things that arguably will only further the rage that Democratic leaders must surely realize they are stoking by impeaching a president set to leave Washington only a week from now.
Rush Limbaugh says it is a fool’s errand for Republican leaders to think the GOP will come back in 2022 or 2024. If Democrats could steal the election nationally and in Georgia, when why would it be different in 2022 or 2024?
A self-described immigrant who said she is a Cuban Jew stated on his radio show today that Donald Trump is “my president,” and that she and like-minded supporters will create their own internet and their own state if need be. There was absolutely no sense that the Cuban immigrant would accept a President-Alleged Biden. She said she was there at the Capitol protest, and she said that what occurred was a “setup.”
As House Minority leader Kevin McCarthy (CA-R), or Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (KY-R) posture and prance today about censure of scheduling a Senate trail after Biden plans to take office – perhaps in hopes of appeasing Speaker Nancy Pelosi and media outlets that will never accept their voting base – the base is abandoning the RINOs. Another caller spoke about forming a “Patriot Party.”
Good by GOP?
“So what is wrong with our party? Too many of our elected representatives are craven and self interested putting their political careers before the good of the people and the Republic,” So said Creative Destruction’s CD Media Staff on 1.13.2021. Note to new readers: MHProNews and its leadership are politically independent. That noted, CD Media staff continued with this list of what they want to see numbers of week kneed Republicans do.
“If the Republican party is serious about uniting the party, top GOP leadership and the RNC will immediately embark on a new course that includes the following:
– Unite, as a party, against the Democrat call for impeachment and false usage of the 25th amendment;
– Immediately cease any plans of censure of President Trump;
– Deliver a sharp message to members like Senator Murkowski, if you are flirting with leaving the GOP, leave, the door is open;
– Reach out to the few Democrats gravely unhappy with their own party and its vision and encourage more transitions just as we saw with Rep Vernon Jones;
– Support and call for state legislatures in key states that submitted two sets of electors to fully and openly investigate all allegations of fraud;
– Support Rep. Devin Nunes call to bring RICO charges against Twitter, Facebook, Apple and Amazon and unleash the DOJ and the FBI upon them;
– Demand for the rollback of Section 230 and end the idiotic protection of Big Tech
Every day, Republican leaders should be writing op-ed pieces in newspapers and speaking on major and local TV/ radio stations addressing all of the points above. In other words, they should be visibly fighting, yes fighting, for their electorate and for our Republic. The vicious and corrupt Democratic party has unleashed a war on the Right, Republican leaders must fight back and they must fight hard. This is a war for survival.”
CNN reported today that “Trump-supporting billionaire Ken Langone: Republicans betrayed us.” Ouch, but that is how millions feel about not all Republicans, but certainly dozens of them in Congress.
Dick Morris on Newsmax this evening said he thinks Democrats want to incite violence in Washington and in other places in the U.S. Morris, an advisor to former President Bill Clinton (D) and to current President Trump (R), noted that the 45th President’s approval has held well since January 6. Morris opined he does not think the president’s supporters will do as he asked.
Time will tell.
“A War for Survival?” Is a U.S. Tiananmen Square Approaching as #VichyUSA Looms?
If even a fraction of the “patriots,” “Trump supporters,” and “militia members” show up at the U.S. Capitol next week – say 100,000 or 200,000 instead of the million that NBC News says is possible – will they be coming to protest? Or will they have other darker ideas in mind?
- Will the National Guard be placed in the troubling position of firing on supporters of what roughly half the country believes are the supporters of the duly elected president
- Or will the National Guard called in for “protecting” Joe Biden stand down and stand aside, in keeping with their oath of office to support and defend the U.S. Constitution from all enemies foreign and domestic?
These are serious, sobering questions. As MHProNews and others have urged, Congress, the courts, and Biden-Harris could avert this if they so desired. One must wonder why so many in the halls of power are being so tone-deaf as to ignore the will of what perhaps half the nation believes was the authentic winner of the 2020 presidential election.
Let us not forget that Anthony Quinn Warner, the purported Christmas day Nashville RV Bomber, attacked the AT&T building and a communications hub. While reports are still sketchy, Warner supposedly believed in certain “conspiracy theories.” Was Warner’s purported suicide bombing that sounded a warning well in advance of the actual explosion a harbinger of things to come?
While the majority will heed the presidents requests for “no violence” and “no lawbreaking” that the Epoch Times and others are reporting, it is human nature that not all will listen.
Wikipedia says the following: “Just war theory (Latin: jus bellum justum) is a doctrine, also referred to as a tradition, of military ethics studied by military leaders, theologians, ethicists and policy makers. The purpose of the doctrine is to ensure war is morally justifiable through a series of criteria, all of which must be met for a war to be considered just. The criteria are split into two groups: “right to go to war” (jus ad bellum) and “right conduct in war” (jus in bello). The first concerns the morality of going to war, and the second the moral conduct within war.”
ThoughtCo on Learn Religions said this on February 03, 2019. “The Catholic Church’s teaching on just war developed very early. St. Augustine of Hippo (354-430) was the first Christian writer to describe the four conditions that must be met in order for a war to be just…”
Duke University produced their own graphic on the topic.
This review of the just war principles will be followed by some text from the U.S. Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution.
Perhaps the best that might be accomplished is an application of how the Just War theory may or may not apply. Let’s note that MHProNews contacted several priests, a bishop, and several Catholic sources to ask about them about this topic which is related to the formal teachings of the Catholic Church. Not one opted to respond. Perhaps that is because the topic is controversial. But what is odd – and perhaps noteworthy? – is that they could have simply said, ‘no, the Just War theory does not apply in this instance.’ Why where they silent instead?
ThoughtCo said, “In the words of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, “The evaluation of these conditions for moral legitimacy belongs to the prudential judgment of those who have responsibility for the common good.” The argument could be made that this means the lawfully elected representatives. But as MHProNews previously noted, tens of millions of messages to lawmakers was sent asking for them to step up and “#StopTheSteal.” They failed to do so, as did the courts, as noted in the bullets further above. It could thus be debated if numbers of sovereign citizens could licitly decide to take action such as some are purportedly – per NBC, CBS and other news sources – contemplating.
The Catholic League website says in part: “Over the centuries, the Church has developed this doctrine. More recently, in 1983, the United States Bishops issued a Pastoral Letter on War and Peace which elaborated on St. Augustine’s theories; “Faced with the fact of attack on the innocent, the presumption that we do no harm, even to our enemy, yielded to the command of love understood as the need to restrain an enemy who would injure the innocent.” It is on this basis that the Church evaluates the use of force as a last resort.”
That and what follows is based upon the teaching from the Catechism of the Catholic Church. Obviously, this does not necessarily apply in conscience to non-Catholics. But it is noteworthy for all people of faith in terms of a biblical and moral examination of the troubling issues that loom if a purportedly stolen election results in a losing presidential and vice-presidential candidate taking office next week. Given that the Biden-Harris team are threating a series of unconstitutional actions, and several voices are talking about ‘re-education’ of Trump supporters, taking children from their parents, and the like, does that meet the threshold of a justified warlike action by militia, current or former veterans, and law enforcement professionals who take their oath of office seriously?
As the examples from Wikipedia and Duke reflect, it is not just Catholics who hold the beliefs that follow. This is from the Vatican website. As noted above, this will be followed by some text from the U.S. Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution.
2307 The fifth commandment forbids the intentional destruction of human life. Because of the evils and injustices that accompany all war, the Church insistently urges everyone to prayer and to action so that the divine Goodness may free us from the ancient bondage of war.105
2308 All citizens and all governments are obliged to work for the avoidance of war.
However, “as long as the danger of war persists and there is no international authority with the necessary competence and power, governments cannot be denied the right of lawful self-defense, once all peace efforts have failed.”106
2309 The strict conditions for legitimate defense by military force require rigorous consideration. The gravity of such a decision makes it subject to rigorous conditions of moral legitimacy. At one and the same time:
– the damage inflicted by the aggressor on the nation or community of nations must be lasting, grave, and certain;
– all other means of putting an end to it must have been shown to be impractical or ineffective;
– there must be serious prospects of success;
– the use of arms must not produce evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated. The power of modem means of destruction weighs very heavily in evaluating this condition.
These are the traditional elements enumerated in what is called the “just war” doctrine.
The evaluation of these conditions for moral legitimacy belongs to the prudential judgment of those who have responsibility for the common good.
2310 Public authorities, in this case, have the right and duty to impose on citizens the obligations necessary for national defense.
Those who are sworn to serve their country in the armed forces are servants of the security and freedom of nations. If they carry out their duty honorably, they truly contribute to the common good of the nation and the maintenance of peace.107
2311 Public authorities should make equitable provision for those who for reasons of conscience refuse to bear arms; these are nonetheless obliged to serve the human community in some other way.108
2312 The Church and human reason both assert the permanent validity of the moral law during armed conflict. “The mere fact that war has regrettably broken out does not mean that everything becomes licit between the warring parties.”109
2313 Non-combatants, wounded soldiers, and prisoners must be respected and treated humanely.
Actions deliberately contrary to the law of nations and to its universal principles are crimes, as are the orders that command such actions. Blind obedience does not suffice to excuse those who carry them out. Thus the extermination of a people, nation, or ethnic minority must be condemned as a mortal sin. One is morally bound to resist orders that command genocide.
2314 “Every act of war directed to the indiscriminate destruction of whole cities or vast areas with their inhabitants is a crime against God and man, which merits firm and unequivocal condemnation.”110 A danger of modern warfare is that it provides the opportunity to those who possess modern scientific weapons especially atomic, biological, or chemical weapons – to commit such crimes.
2315 The accumulation of arms strikes many as a paradoxically suitable way of deterring potential adversaries from war. They see it as the most effective means of ensuring peace among nations. This method of deterrence gives rise to strong moral reservations. The arms race does not ensure peace. Far from eliminating the causes of war, it risks aggravating them. Spending enormous sums to produce ever new types of weapons impedes efforts to aid needy populations;111 it thwarts the development of peoples. Over-armament multiplies reasons for conflict and increases the danger of escalation.
2316 The production and the sale of arms affect the common good of nations and of the international community. Hence public authorities have the right and duty to regulate them. The short-term pursuit of private or collective interests cannot legitimate undertakings that promote violence and conflict among nations and compromise the international juridical order.
2317 Injustice, excessive economic or social inequalities, envy, distrust, and pride raging among men and nations constantly threaten peace and cause wars. Everything done to overcome these disorders contributes to building up peace and avoiding war:
In so far as men are sinners, the threat of war hangs over them and will so continue until Christ comes again; but in so far as they can vanquish sin by coming together in charity, violence itself will be vanquished and these words will be fulfilled: “they shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruning hooks; nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more.”112
With that in mind, the following is from the official text on the federal archives of the Declaration of Independence.
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.–That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, –That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.”
The Bill of Rights Institute has the text of the U.S. Constitution, the highest law of the land, as follows.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
No soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.
In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise reexamined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.
Reflections On The Above
The argument can and should be made that state lawmakers, state attorneys general, and the courts can still step in. They may not want to, for political reasons. Indeed, as MHProNews noted above, they have largely dodged their constitutional responsibilities.
The Declaration clearly said that:
- “But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.”
Several of the provisions of the Bill of Rights arguably apply. Not the least of which are these.
“The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.” Amendment IX
As MHProNews noted recently, the right to trial by jury may also come into play if NBC, CBS and others in the media prove to be correct.
“In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.” – Amendment VI
We are not hereby encouraging violence in providing sobering thoughts for discernment, any more than Wikipedia, the Vatican, CBS, or NBC is trying to encourage violence.
Historically speaking, there will likely be several groups that emerge in the days ahead.
- Those who think that such a course of action is reprehensible. They are often happy that ‘Biden won,’ and for them, the ends justify the means.
- There will be those who, perhaps like Ben Garrison, think that now is the time to “water the tree of liberty with the blood of patriots and tyrants.”
Those who are opposed to Biden-Harris taking office, but who may think – at least now – that violence is a bridge too far. Again, the 45th president has said he wants laws respected and peace. The question some ask, is the code talk? Note, if the speculation that President Trump and the First Lady are going to their property in Scotland is true, that would possibly mitigate against the idea he is talking in code. Time will tell on that and much more.
Those who would tacitly support pro-Trump militia and any members of law enforcement or the military who might defect Biden-Harris and support such a hypothetical effort. This might explain why the Joint Chiefs have taken extraordinary steps to say to troops what they have. Link.
Those who might on some level support pro-Trump militia but will not take up arms themselves. For instance, they may be willing to vote not guilty in jury trials if such an effort is tried and fails.
There will be those who feel like this veteran who said he can’t believe this is happening in America. These select few – how many is unknown, but NBC thinks it might be a million or so pro-Trump supporters – will do something about it.
To that last group, think not once, or twice, but at least three times. Look carefully at what the Just War teachings are. Do not think that such a move it will automatically be successfully. Think of what happens if it isn’t successful. There will be a blinding propaganda effort if this is attempted. Indeed, there may be arrests before such an effort could even get started.
MHProNews hopes that by laying out these thoughts that sober minds will do what is required, right, and just. Prayer, careful thoughts, and good works should be the guides.
Evangelical Baptist Pastor Robert Jeffress has said that he “Absolutely” has no regrets for supporting President Trump. Other pastors and faith leaders have said similarly.
President Trump released this video today.
Some will no doubt be horrified that an article like this is even being written. Some might think this is yelling fire in a crowded theater. Hardly, when Duke, Wikipedia, and religious thinking are all laid out.
Ponder the difference between this and singer/star Madonna saying she thinks about blowing up the White House, or ‘comic’ Kathy Griffin who held up for the cameras a mock head of what looked like the bloody head of a decapitated and obviously dead president Trump. There is nothing remotely like that in this review of the facts and moral issues.
Rephrased, this is more balanced than NBC and CBS have done in their reporting. Some will read the above and likely say, ‘no, this type of effort is not for me.’
In sharing this article, keep in mind what Limbaugh said recently. The enemies of the president and the #MAGA movement are looking for “one wrong word.” With that in mind, be mindful the odds are that your emails are being scanned and so are your social media Big tech has proven that in purging content, it means they have and/or can rapidly scan and identify. Post, share, and message with care. You could say in a share, for instance, something like this: ‘Look at what this guy says? Isn’t it over the top?’ You can share without agreeing.
Those who want to republish this on their website may do so, as long as ALL of the content above is provided without change, and a proper link back and credits are given. Once posted, please email to let us know that you are seeking to meet those conditions to republish copyrighted material.
There are few things beyond prayer that could be more important than to share thought provoking insights that will lead to just behavior.
To learn more, see the related reports linked above and below. That’s a wrap on this installment of manufactured housing “Industry News, Tips, and Views Pros Can Use” © where “We Provide, You Decide.” © ## (Affordable housing, manufactured homes, reports, fact-checks, analysis, and commentary. Third-party images or content are provided under fair use guidelines for media.) (See Related Reports, further below. Text/image boxes often are hot-linked to other reports that can be access by clicking on them.)
By L.A. “Tony” Kovach – for MHLivingNews.com.
Tony earned a journalism scholarship and earned numerous awards in history and in manufactured housing. For example, he earned the prestigious Lottinville Award in history from the University of Oklahoma, where he studied history and business management. He’s a managing member and co-founder of LifeStyle Factory Homes, LLC, the parent company to MHProNews, and MHLivingNews.com. This article reflects the LLC’s and/or the writer’s position, and may or may not reflect the views of sponsors or supporters.
Connect on LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/latonykovach
Recent and Related Reports:
The text/image boxes below are linked to other reports, which can be accessed by clicking on them.