Civil War 2.0?

Democrats have a long history of inciting violence. Examples abound, from starting the Civil War, to forming the KKK, to violently resisting school integration, to the Michael Brown and George Floyd riots, to the current anti-ICE riots in Los Angeles. Democrat-run cities are typically the most dangerous, poorly run environs in the U.S., and when you push the oppressor/victim narrative across the media landscape, violence gets put on the menu.

Their rhetoric ramped up during Trump 45’s administration when Democrat politicians and celebrities openly called for violence against President Trump and Republicans, even while accusing Republicans of being aggressors. And when their unhinged followers heed their suggestions, Democrats always claim to abhor violence. I heard it myself last night. I mentioned the protestors throwing bricks at federal officers, and a dinner companion said, “Well, you can only push people so far.”

Perhaps we should ask the parents of Laken Riley, Kate Steinle, Rachel Morin, and Jocelyn Nungaray how far they’ve been pushed.

The unrest in L.A. began when ICE arrested 40 individuals who were wanted on various charges. This prompted protests that quickly escalated into violence, including attacks on federal officers. One report suggested that the riots might be government-funded, pointing to ties with radical, left-wing organizations and NGOs, some of which allegedly receive taxpayer dollars. This seems plausible, as the Democrat party leadership has a historical opposition to ICE and openly supports sanctuary city policies.

Nicole Shanahan, RFK Jr.’s vice-presidential pick, echoed this sentiment, alleging a “CIA/Deep State” involvement in using violent migrants to target federal law enforcement, a claim that aligns with narratives of orchestrated chaos. LA mayor Karen Bass and California governor Gavin Newsom have been labeled as “incompetent” as they remained inactive while riots persisted. This possibly suggests a tacit endorsement of the protests, perhaps as a way to challenge federal authority under a Republican administration.

Representative Nanette Barragan (D-CA) made an Orwellian claim on CNN that the riots were “peaceful protests” while showing footage of a burning car. This strikes me as part of a coordinated narrative to downplay severity and shift blame, perhaps to justify further violence.

President Trump deployed the National Guard to LA on June 8, ordering federal agencies to “Take any action necessary” and to “Liberate Los Angeles”. Governor Newsom responded by saying Trump’s actions were “those of a dictator” and that Trump is “inciting and provoking violence.”

If Democratic leaders are rallying their base to view the protests as a defense of democratic values, it may potentially escalate into more widespread conflicts similar to those that occurred in 2020. The involvement of figures like Maxine Waters, who attempted to intervene on behalf of rioters, further suggests a political stake in the unrest, though her rebuff by law enforcement highlights the limits of such influence.

The speculative possibility of a civil war hinges on intent. If the Democrat party is orchestrating or amplifying the riots, their aim may be to destabilize Trump’s administration, leveraging the chaos to rally support for progressive causes like open borders. If the funding allegations are substantiated, they may point to a strategic investment in unrest, using groups like CHIRLA, which is linked to ActBlue, as proxies. However, this theory rests on ongoing investigations. While prominent leftists claim that the roots of the riots are organic, pre-printed signs and seemingly coordinated appearances of large numbers of protesters continue to raise suspicions. Another concerning aspect is the actions of left-leaning judges to place the interests of illegal aliens over those of American citizens.

Counterarguments exist. Taking the devil’s advocate position for a moment, the violence may simply reflect community outrage, the flash mobs being coordinated through social media. It may be a response to perceived overly-aggressive immigration enforcement, not a calculated Democratic plot. Newsom and Bass’s responses could be genuine attempts to de-escalate, not incite, while Barragán’s comments might reflect political posturing rather than strategy. However, as evidence continues to mount of taxpayer money being used to fund these protests, those arguments become ever more unconvincing.

In conclusion, while the LA riots present a volatile situation, it is unlikely that the Democrat party is officially using them to ignite a civil war, even though the party is not taking any action to quell the unrest. The combination of alleged funding, leftist rhetoric that exacerbates the tensions, and federal pushback suggests a potential for escalation, but it lacks the hard proof needed to confirm the intent to formally extend the conflict beyond LA.

The current divide, however, risks spiraling further. The Trump administration is focused on protecting American lives and enforcing the law, while the Left is intent on protecting the illegal aliens. As both sides are entrenched, it is essential that we carefully scrutinize all the narratives as events unfold.

An AP-NORC poll found that 83 percent of Americans support deporting illegal immigrants living in the U.S. illegally who have been convicted of a violent crime.

President Trump campaigned on this.

Three times.

At some point, we must ask, isn’t it time to give Americans what we want?

••••

Featured Image: Montecruz foto