I think where you go off the rails is where you equate "being opposed to actions being taken by the state" with being "enemies of the state."
"Obstruction," "rebellion" and " insurrection," are not a continuum at all. "Rebellion" and "insurrection" are basically synonymous while "obstruction" is a completely different thing. One person's "obstruction" is another person's "peaceful voicing of their 1st amendment rights." A peaceful demonstration, which has a handful of individuals who commit criminal acts during its course, does not equate to an "insurrection," any more than "January 6th" was an insurrection by the Republican Party.
If you've read any appreciable amount of what I've written here, you must know I don't think everyone on the spectrum of opposition to the state is an enemy of the state. I am confident that I am much more tolerant of dissent and opposed to potential state tyranny than most contributors on this site. I was responding to a fatuous indirect suggestion that the US is on the road to some kind of tyranny.
Obstruction is something that some people used to get quite worked up about here. If you're obstructing or interfering with the legimate business of the state, you're obstructing or interfering. The particular thing being obstructed doesn't matter.
One of the problems with the current White House and those who support it are that it is entirely too quick to label voiced opposition to its policies and procedural ways of enforcing those policies as "enemies of the state." That's blatant nonsense bordering on hysterical paranoia.
Agreed, but a pointless complaint. Go watch Joe Biden's "Battle for the Soul of the Nation" speech. Politicians routinely vilify Americans as threats or enemies because of mere policy disagreement. It's as normalized as claiming someone didn't pay enough taxes. People should not have ignored, condoned, or defended that shit the previous times around.
What ought to be of much greater concern to the nation than a handful of people waving flags on the streets of Los Angeles is an executive that is riding roughshod over the legislature and judiciary and the constitution and who holds political rallies with the nation's military.
There's a lot more going on than waving (Mexican) flags. People act as if none of this would be happening if no soldiers were involved, which is untrue by observation. The only satisfactory outcome for the agitators will be for the administration to concede that it will not enforce particular federal law in areas where people demand it not be enforced.
Instead of drawing a cloud-shaped diagram of imagined lawless acts of the administration to create the impression it's common as dirt, it would be better to enumerate the specific cases where all dispute processes in the courts have been exhausted and the administration is defying the final judgement. I raise this point because every couple of weeks or so I read articles by lawyers who are not enamoured of Trump - conservatives and progressives, Republicans and Democrats - who note that the administration (and his previous one) pretty much abide by all decisions after there are no further processes for appeal. They're allowed to push boundaries and keep testing them in the courts.
It would be better if everyone sucked back their anti-Trump priors and admitted as first principles that the administration has the duty to enforce federal laws, irrespective of whether people or state or local governments prefer otherwise; and, that the federal government has the duty to protect its people and institutions, including the use of soldiers; and, that instances of errors or unlawful actions or apparent hypocrisy do not delegitimize anything else the administration might do; and, that battles being fought in courts are not lawlessness; and, that presidents challenging Congress to assert itself against presidential over-reach is undesirable but normalized.
www.military.com
