Well, we do, of course. But the New York Times disapproves:
The Times disapproves of the language of war and wants “civil debate”? Great. I look forward to their denouncing everyone who says the Trump administration is fascist, or Trump is another Hitler. I can’t wait until they excoriate Tim Walz for musing about calling out the National Guard to battle ICE, or saying that Minnesota is “at war with our federal government.” Or likening his own actions to Fort Sumter, an act of war that triggered the Civil War.
I suppose the real reason the Times doesn’t like “insurgency”–I am sure they disapprove of “insurrection,” too–is that an insurgency isn’t a peaceful protest, or a mostly peaceful protest, which is the lie that the Times, along with all other spokesmen for the Democratic Party, tell about the insurrection that is going on in Minnesota.
It is touching, though, to see that the Times is concerned about “lower[ing] the bar for violence on both sides.” Hey, if this insurgency talk continues, someone might take a pot shot at Donald Trump. Or Steve Scalise. Or Charlie Kirk. Or mobs might attack the federal courthouse in Portland. Or someone in Minnesota might try to run over an ICE agent with her vehicle. You never know what might happen!
Actually, now that I think about it, the insurgents are already plenty violent. I suppose what the Times really fears is that their violence might be reciprocated.
