Civil War II

Starting this week and running through at least Inauguration Day, armed protests by Trump supporters are being planned at all 50 state capitals and at the U.S. Capitol, according to an internal FBI bulletin.

The FBI has received information that pro-Trump groups are planning to “storm” state, local, and federal government courthouses and administrative buildings in the event Donald Trump is removed from office prior to Inauguration Day. The groups are also planning to “storm” government offices in every state the day President-elect Joe Biden will be inaugurated, regardless of whether the states certified electoral votes for Biden or Trump.

Thanks to Donald Trump and all of his GOP enablers, we can expect more bloodshed in the coming week after last week’s deadly siege at the U.S. Capitol building. The United States is under siege and the second American Civil War is about to commence.

31 thoughts on “Civil War II

  1. newepicauthor January 12, 2021 / 8:19 am

    There is no limit to what chaos this madman will cause before he is booted out.

    Liked by 1 person

  2. rugby843 January 12, 2021 / 9:32 am

    I really feel for the Biden family. All the work and years of service and to have this be the culmination, so disappointing. Through all this turmoil, he’s showing what a president should be.

    Liked by 2 people

  3. slmret January 12, 2021 / 9:55 am

    I was, and continue to be, appalled at what I saw last week. I certainly hope the division in the country hasn’t devolved to the status of civil war, although I’m afraid you’re probably right. The next couple of weeks will tell a strong story — I hope that it can be ended quickly and the country can return to effective self-governance..

    Liked by 1 person

  4. Carol anne January 12, 2021 / 1:24 pm

    wow! That is so scary! I hope there is not going to be lives lost, but well, thats probably wishful thinking on my part!

    Liked by 1 person

    • Fandango January 12, 2021 / 11:06 pm

      I hope there won’t be anymore lives lost, too.


  5. Marleen January 12, 2021 / 1:38 pm

    I think the first link is to a right-leaning if not right-wing site. I wanted to quote from it but found that their software isn’t great; while they say you get three free articles, they count each time you look at one article (such as if you go to compose a post elsewhere at a different place, like here on Fandango’s site, and then come back to their article). Now, I can’t see the article at all. Some news sites do better about this. Phooey. Anyway, I think it’s a very good article. I would ask that people read it.

    Then, I have a more moderate source with an article from longer ago. It’s interesting and looks at a different aspect of what there is for us to consider. The author used Ocasio-Cortez as a vehicle for entry into the subject. What I think is most important is that everyone needs to learn different angles of looking at our challenges. I’m not sure the author has such a perspective, but it is my perspective for most citizens. Based on other recent reporting, AOC has learned during her time as a representative.

    Then there is the last of the links I’m including. I’d say that third source is more left, as usual perceptions go. All three have merit. And I think the first one is most relevant to what happened Wednesday and what might be coming up in our experience very soon.
    This is what I can give you from where I clicked on a list of choices: Against a Domestic Terrorism Law | The New Republic.
    {If anyone is so inclined, I’d appreciate if the article could be copied and shared in the comments. Or maybe in parts by a few people.}

    There’s obvious merit to the argument that the U.S. government is not equally concerned by all forms of extremism; the emphasis, still, is on Islam, an obsession fixed in place by prejudice. But the prospect of a new domestic-terror law raises serious free-speech concerns. A White House role dedicated to monitoring domestic terror invites similar worries — though, in the absence of any detail, it’s difficult to know exactly what the incoming Biden administration intends. The instinct to create one, however, is the wrong instinct. We already know that the U.S. government can and will use any such law to punish protesters, critics, and whistleblowers as harshly as possible. There’s a temptation, generally, to treat riots principally as criminal matters. A mass outburst is proof we need better security: more police, tougher crowd control, stiffer penalties. The arm of the state is not long enough, and the fist it makes is too weak. It’s a tendency that protects police departments from oversight.

    Liked by 2 people

    • Marleen January 13, 2021 / 7:37 am

      Krystal and Saagar [at The Hill]: AOC STANDS UP Against … Calls For New Domestic Terror Law

      Liked by 1 person

    • Fandango January 12, 2021 / 11:08 pm

      I, too, hope not, but I’m very, very worried.


  6. Marleen January 12, 2021 / 3:08 pm

    Paragraphs 9-12: The U.S. government already has the legal authority and actual power to stop what happened at the Capitol. It doesn’t need more manpower, more weapons, more checkpoints, more barriers and walls and surveillance equipment—there are enough troops and cops and weapons and equipment in Washington under the control of the federal government to repel a foreign invasion. The reason why a domestic uprising got so far is not because security forces lacked the resources to stop it.

    As one Washington resident, bemoaning the inevitable expansion of Fortress D.C., put it: Our domestic security forces, including the police who are in charge of securing “public” spaces, “do the petty shit because it’s easy. And they don’t do the hard shit because either they couldn’t or didn’t want to.” That dynamic already accounts for a lot of American police behavior; considerations of what is or isn’t “against the law” hardly enter into it. It is easier to police a bicyclist than a mob, and easier to fight a self-avowedly nonviolent demonstration than an armed and insurrectionary mob. In that respect, and really only in that respect, the storming of the Capitol does resemble the burning of Minneapolis’s Third Police Precinct building. No new law—against, say, having political reasons for burning down police stations or sacking federal government buildings—could have prevented either.

    “The NYPD never would have let the U.S. Capitol get taken by these losers,” a former press secretary to Mayor Bill de Blasio said on Wednesday as the chaos unfolded, an apparent endorsement of the unrest-suppressing expertise of a department that has become notorious—like police departments across the country—for meeting political demonstrations with overwhelming force. Of course, as the Proud Boys could already have attested, that expertise has really only been tested against the left. And the question of what the NYPD, or at least one element of it, would’ve done on Wednesday may not be purely hypothetical: On Monday, NYPD Commissioner Dermot Shea told local news station NY1 that the department was investigating an officer who may have participated in the riot [Wednesday, the sixth of January].

    The police (not to mention the rest of the state security apparatus in Washington) already have the ability to meet almost any demonstration with overwhelming force. They have developed and perfected methods of mass detention and arrest. The political question is whether and when and against whom we want them to be able to use these powers, and who commands them.

    Quoting from fourteen paragraphs in: The state is extraordinarily good at using violence to suppress activists on the streets. It does not need more capability for violence. It has plenty. The problem (for democracy, at least) was less that the Capitol was breached than what the people breaching the Capitol intended to do—whether to “merely” interrupt the democratic process or potentially to do much worse. The answer to such a threat—especially in a country already as heavily policed as our own—is politics, not security.

    What would a political response to January 6 look like? As my colleague Osita Nwanevu has written (and written), the only way forward for a democratic United States is for the liberal majoritarian coalition to treat the rotten contemporary GOP as a threat to the survival of liberal democracy and use whatever means possible to suffocate it.

    To think of January 6 as a political event, and not a terrorist attack or National Security Issue, is to think almost instantly of ways it could have been prevented. Rigorous audits and reclassification of 501 nonprofits would do more to disrupt right-wing organizing than any new domestic terror law as interpreted and enforced by our current security state. The rally was funded by the same forces that fund the rest of the right. A wealth tax would do more to secure our democracy than any new terrorism law.

    The answer, instead, will likely be more fences, and more funding for the very agencies and police departments currently investigating their own officers for insurrectionary sympathies. Just out of self-preservation, if nothing else, our elected officials ought to stop assigning every difficult political task to our hopelessly compromised security agencies. Read More [Here, there is a link to the New Republic article. (And there are many links to additional information throughout.)]

    Liked by 1 person

    • Marleen January 12, 2021 / 3:31 pm

      First four paragraphs: On Monday, Opposite Office, an “activistic architecture studio” based in Munich, released design materials for what it called “Capitol Castle,” a plan that would encircle the entire U.S. Capitol with 36-feet-thick brick walls. The concept was not serious—or, at least, it was “serious” but not intended to be built. It was, depending on how charitable you feel about “activistic architecture studios,” a design meant to spark a debate on democracy and division, or one meant to get written up by the architecture press and shared widely on social media.

      But even if these German architects don’t sincerely propose physically walling off the Capitol after right-wing insurrectionaries stormed the building on January 6, it is far too easy to imagine a similar proposal being carefully considered, right now, by someone in Washington with the power to make it happen.

      It seems inevitable that there will be additional physical security at and around the Capitol—the trend around federal government buildings and major financial centers has not exactly been “more public and open” since Oklahoma City in 1996 or the World Trade Center in 2001—raising the question of what additional security measures we can expect …

      As with the physical space, if very recent history is any guide, the impulse of nearly everyone in official Washington will be to further enlarge the security state that failed them instead of examining how and why it came to fail them.

      Liked by 1 person

    • XingfuMama January 12, 2021 / 3:37 pm

      Interesting. There was a lot of new information for me. Thank you for this informative post.

      Liked by 1 person

      • Marleen January 13, 2021 / 9:52 am

        I’m so glad 🙂! Thank you for saying so.

        My post from 1:38pm, yesterday, hadn’t gotten through yet at that point. I had put in three links and not separated them into different posts.

        As can be seen, the 3:08pm comment consists of contents (via another site) from one of the articles I’d linked to earlier… the first of the three.

        Liked by 2 people

        • Fandango January 13, 2021 / 9:52 pm

          Marleen, just so you know, if a single comment has more than two links in it, it goes right into my trash folder.


          • Marleen January 14, 2021 / 11:14 am

            Yes, I’d realized my mistake after I’d done it.

            Liked by 1 person

            • Marleen January 14, 2021 / 11:16 am

              Wait. Two? I thought one.

              Liked by 1 person

            • Fandango January 14, 2021 / 10:41 pm

              It’s actually two or more. So yes, if more than one.


  7. XingfuMama January 12, 2021 / 3:47 pm

    The real power that regular people have is spending power. I believe that the one force that could prevent more violence is big money. They control the Republican Party and keep the more moderate (at this point saying “moderate” and “Republican” together is an oxymoron) members of the party from stepping out of line. The way to prevent further violence is to reduce all spending to a minimum because of the armed insurrection. If big money decided they wanted Trump out, the Republicans in the Senate would get their hindquarters back to DC and he’d be out by close of business Thursday. If I knew how I’d organize a spending fast until T was incarcerated and I bet it would happen by weekend. The other domestic terrorists would be captured and in jail as well. Money talks…and bullshit walks the halls of congress. They can act they just won’t unless motivated.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Marleen January 12, 2021 / 5:32 pm

      It’s sounding, right now, like bigger-fish Republicans are starting to provide “cover” so to speak (or starting to let others out from the demanded lock-step from leadership) so more senators could vote Donald Trump out.

      Liked by 1 person

      • XingfuMama January 12, 2021 / 5:55 pm

        Yes. I’m afraid I will believe it when I see it. I caught a few seconds of him speaking on the news and it sounds to me very much like Trump is threatening to unloose his goons again. Republicans aren’t renowned for either courage or honesty.

        Liked by 1 person

        • Marleen January 12, 2021 / 6:23 pm

          I’m waiting to “see it” (the Republicans grow just a little bit of a spine or a greater fear of what might happen if they don’t shape up slightly) as well. I’ve heard (like a few minutes ago) what the president said, today, too. He’s so horrid.

          Liked by 2 people

      • Marleen January 12, 2021 / 6:16 pm

        Rob Portman, who is the incoming top Republican on the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, is both slow-rolling the confirmation of Alejandro Mayorkas—despite the fact that Trump’s acting head of Homeland Security has resigned—and proposing a “blue-ribbon” commission on fabricated voter fraud. Both of which are pretend gestures meant to appease Trump supporters even though they are compounding real-life catastrophes that are actually happening and ongoing.

        [Internal screaming.]



        Liked by 1 person

      • Fandango January 12, 2021 / 11:13 pm

        They see the handwriting on the wall.


    • Fandango January 12, 2021 / 11:12 pm

      You’re right, money talks. I wish it could get their attention.


  8. Laura January 12, 2021 / 7:53 pm

    I’ve been growing more certain of this for about a month (the violence, not this timeline) but people thought I was being an alarmist. I’m hoping everyone now sees this for what it is and protects themselves. My family won’t be in a capitol city for a long while.

    Liked by 2 people

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.