MAGA Rebranding Liberals as ‘Terrorists’ to Justify Martial Law

We’ve been hearing MAGA refer to democrats as “Antifa terrorists” more and more lately. This is puzzling, since a government calling out anti-fascists as the enemy is a bad look, and calling Antifa “Terrorists” is a stretch of the definition. Yet, MAGA continues with the rhetorical campaign for reasons that are becoming increasingly clear. Trump has signaled his intention of using the Insurrection Act of 1807 to quash dissent, and to do so, he needs Liberals to be seen as violent.

MAGA keeps pointing to things like the George Floyd protests and various other acts of political violence as evidence of Antifa violence, conveniently ignoring the fact that there have only been two law enforcement fatalities confirmed to be related to the BLM protests, and both of those were tangential to the protests, at best. David Dorn, a 77-year-old retired St. Louis police captain, was killed on June 2, 2020, while trying to protect a friend’s pawn shop from looters during the protests. Dave Patrick Underwood was a 53-year-old Federal Protective Service officer who was shot and killed in Oakland, California, while on duty at a federal courthouse on May 29, 2020; though his killer was an anti-government “Boogaloo” extremist who used the protest as a diversion to stage an attack on law enforcement. (In other words, neither BLM nor Antifa.)

MAGA then goes on to show photos of buildings burning, claiming BLM and Antifa “Burned cities to the ground,” which is ridiculous, considering all of the cities Antifa supposedly decimated are still standing, and there is no actual evidence that BLM or Antifa (As if Antifa were an organization) were responsible for any arson during the protests at all.

I can hear you saying, dear reader, “That’s great and all… I guess. But what does this have to do with a law from 1807 that Trump’s likely to use to shoot liberals?”

To answer that question, let’s look at the law itself. The most pertinent part of the law for this discussion reads as follows: “Whenever the President considers that unlawful obstructions, combinations, or assemblages, or rebellion against the authority of the United States, make it impracticable to enforce the laws of the United States in any State by the ordinary course of judicial proceedings, he may call into Federal service such of the militia of any State, and use such of the armed forces, as he considers necessary to enforce those laws or to suppress the rebellion.”

The word “rebellion” carries a lot of importance in that particular law. What does it mean to be engaged in rebellion? Legally, rebellion is defined as organized, forceful resistance or opposition to the laws and authority of a government, often involving violent acts by a civilian population; This distinguishes it from protected dissent, as rebellion implies a violent attempt to deny or overthrow governmental authority. 

The operative words in that definition are “organized” and “violent.” The easiest way to enable Trump to enact the Insurrection Act is to redefine anyone who politically lands to the left of Reagan’s ghost as “violent and organized.” If they can successfully thread that rhetorical needle, they can unleash the United States Armed Forces on American citizens and effectively alter the future course of this nation in a way that I’m not sure we could ever truly recover from. 

Featured image via The Liberal Agenda Gallery