Submitted by David Battistella
A Violent Inauguration? A Call For Peace On Inauguration Day
Now that all attempts to delegitimize President Elect Trump to this point including failed recounts, the constant drum beating about popular vote victory, intimidation, bullying and desperate pleas to the Electoral college and the attempt at cold War 2.0 have failed, will inauguration day be the last stand? Now even millionaire Catholic socialist filmmaker Michael Moore is leveraging a Trump presidency to catapult himself back into relevance while his home state is already feeling the benefits of the Trump effect.
Moore has already shown up to Trump tower with his trademark (and tired) Roger and Me shtick and he is a leading voice in calling for civil disobedience protests, a whole hundred days of them, starting on inauguration day. While this is probably a key way to gather material for his next film about how awful America is, he left out a key word in his call to action - peaceful.
While Michael Moore is calling for civil disobedience, many signs are pointing to the possibility of violent protests. All this while President Elect Trump is already putting jobs back into Moore’s home state of Michigan and the country is already seeing some signs of being hit with the Trump’s economic defribulator. What a sad pair Moore and Rosie O’Donnell make, leading the charge!
I’m sure Mr. Moore would be on his soap box had Obama done anything this useful for Michigan in the last eight years, but alas, we seem to have become so attached to identity politics that we can no longer celebrate the good even when it directly impacts issues like jobs, the one issue Michael Moore staked his entire career on back before his net worth took him into the one percent.
Meanwhile at DNC headquarters, Donna Brazile has it backwards, it’s Democrats who have a great chance to move back toward their roots and embrace Americana again by getting behind proposed initiatives that might help the American worker and stimulate a browbeaten economy.
In any case, it seems definite that there will be a wave of protests on January 20th as Americans who oppose this presidency rightly should exercise their right to free speech. The larger question though is whether those protests will turn violent and turn inauguration day into an international spectacle. This might not have a desired effect on the rest of the world.
Violence is a line, which when crossed, catapults the violent aggressor into another category beyond how civilized democracies should operate. When it comes to debate and protest I can listen to and follow any discourse, weigh the arguments and always respect a peaceful protest process. The moment that process turns to violence, looting, destruction of property, injury to peace officers and civil unrest; (to me at least) the messenger is no longer playing by the rules of a peaceful democracy. They have, in effect, suspended some of the rights afforded them and their expression of free speech.
When mired in violence respect for any cause is lost or eroded. Engaging in violence, violent behaviour and destruction of property is the moment where we move out of the realm of what civilized, peaceful democratic process is about. Think Gandhi when trying to understand how much power lies in peaceful, well reasoned, organized protest movements. Think bullying and terrorism when this important step is bypassed and a violent mob rule takes over. Smashing property is not going to garner respect. It might make a good news hit for CNN, who most probably will be looking for the violence at every turn and rebroadcasting it as the main story.
One thing is almost certain, that if there are violent outbursts during the Trump inauguration, there is a high degree of probability that the violence will be blamed squarely on Donald Trump. The logic for this might be that somehow Donald Trump, by just being Donald Trump, is enough of a reason to become violent and in some twisted form of reason, that violence would become acceptable under the circumstances. Perhaps they are mad at Russia too.
The real threat of violence is not purely blowing smoke. Check out Carl Rove talking about inauguration day security threats in 2008 and how staff security clearances played an important role with a serious threat. Zoom up to the 6 minute mark.
But I’d like to offer another suggestion though, and I know I am speaking in hypotheticals here, but any violence around inauguration day speaks squarely to the current lack of top leadership. President Obama’s passive-aggressive, fence-sitting, double-speak stance, through both his words and his omission, lends quiet support and encouragement and has contributed to creating a climate where violent protest is acceptable behavior. How well off would we all be if The outgoing President would renounce violence nearly as fast as Democrats demand renouncements and retractions on any number of issues.
Obama said at a joint news conference with German Chancellor Angela Merkel. “And I suspect that there’s not a president in our history that hasn’t been subject to these protests. So, I would not advise people who feel strongly or who are concerned about some of the issues that have been raised during the course of the campaign, I wouldn’t advise them to be silent.”
The President of the United States would not advise them to be silent? Really? So what is the take-away here when this prevailing attitude come straight from the top of the alt-left.
It’s precisely this kind of murky messaging that well funded and radical organizations use as a battle cry and even permission to turn civil disobedience and peaceful protest into intimidating, violent outburst ultimately designed not to be heard but really designed to silence others. Do these protesters not have to be extremely careful in not becoming exactly what they oppose? Folks who engage in violence need to take a very hard look not only at what they are fighting for, but exactly how they are fighting for it.
I’ve never heard the current President clearly (I mean in non wishy washy terms) renounce the use of violence, rioting, looting and destruction of property after recent cop killing and protests in major US cities. This includes the murder of Police officers (remember when we used to call them "peace" officers). His is more a conciliatory tone, an understanding of the frustrations of what arrises, but saying nothing firmly to denounce violence and encourage a deeper thinking and peaceful way forward. This kind complacency might lead to things like dead police officers in Dallas and riots in other US cities.
Obama said, “In a movement like Black Lives Matter, there is always going to be some folks who say things that are stupid or imprudent, or over-generalize, or are harsh (edit) and I don’t think that you can hold well-meaning activists who are doing the right thing and peacefully protesting responsible for everything that is uttered at a protest.”
This opinion is dangerous, more dangerous than saying nothing at all. Essentially it is saying, go ahead and organize and if something happens so be it, the leadership is not responsible for anything done, said or perhaps for violence that "breaks out”.
Should violence occur on inauguration day, a story which will emerge and quickly spread internationally will be one of a divided America, an inauguration with a violent and extreme reaction to a “divider president”, Donald Trump. But it is not Donald Trump who has been sitting in the seat of power over the past eight years using veiled encouraging statements like this to his SJW audience; that one falls squarely into the lap of the sitting president.
But in the end would violence and disruption amount to Trump’s violent entrance? Or would this be Obama’s violent exit, a stain on his scandal-free war-time Presidency?
It’s an important narrative to watch and one the MSM will ultimately need to take a great deal of responsibility for. If the MSM want to restore their place in the public trust, perhaps they should be the first to renounce any violence around the Inauguration, rather that rebroadcast it ad nauseum.
To me, any story which emerges which is not a peaceful transition and inauguration of newly democratically elected Donald Trump, (if things turn violent and we pray it does not) falls at the feet of the outgoing President and his slurping lapdog, aka the MSM.
President Bush had eggs hurled at his limo on inauguration day, which of course made it into a Michael Moore film. However, as the Obama’s have expressed, the Bush family were nothing but gracious and welcoming when their time in the White House had come to a close. Can we really say the same now while every possible barrier has been put up by a sore loser campaign a party and a President who struggles with narrative and his legacy by planting the protest seeds in the form of executive orders and last minute actions and disruptions designed as trip wires to the front door of the White House?
Cue the next narrative, “we tried real hard and we forced laws through” by abusing Presidential executive orders with "a pen", but now Trump and the Republicans (who happened organize themselves well enough to to win power across the important houses of government at every level) just want to change all the good we tried to impose through executive action.
While Obama has professed a peaceful transition his actions speak much louder. Pushing American troops the the Russian border, looking the other way on Isreal, giving himself and his VP presidential medals, last minute actions on monuments and National Parks, that pen sure has been busy Mr. Constitution. It does not seem that the Obama’s are exiting with the same kind of grace of presidents past and if Washington, NYC or any other major city do turn violent on inauguration day you could chalk it up to inaction and statements that do nothing to encourage a peaceful process. Michelle Obama's loss of hope is a great example. Maybe she is being honest, but gracious, classy, supporting peaceful process, um, no.
Add to this the whole Russian spy narrative as a reason Hillary Clinton failed (not that she was outworked or anything). Now that this narrative is being embarrassingly debunked and turned into another colossal failure the next narrative/target is the FBI through a DOJ probe. It's not into Hillary Clinton’s fast-and-loose home server, open for the world’s lamest hackers to access top state secretes by not going through official channels, but rather, the FBI departments who wanted to investigate her while she was Secretary of State selling off bits of America to the highest donor to CGI and the Clinton foundation.
What message does this all of this ultimately send?
With January 20th days away this is just a heads up to what the world hopes for out of days like this in American politics. The world looks to America to promote and preserve peace and stability.
America must represent a proactive attitude of peace, hope and prosperity. America needs to project this to to the world and be the leaders of a new global movement. No person knows how this Presidential term will turn out, but it can start on a correct path with a peaceful transition and the peaceful inauguration of a new Presidency.
Americans owe a peaceful transition to themselves, to the world and to its tattered Democratic party. However bruised, the Democrats are Americans, who with their fellow Americans, need to roll up their sleeves and get back to a work within balanced and fair democracy based on principles and ideas established in America and based on its constitution which is admired the world over.
This week and the entire lead up to the transition needs to be about peace and prosperity.
Peace is in your hands America, and that non-violent peace starts with the American people participating in a peaceful process.