The Man Who Would be King

There are those who choose to work together cooperatively. Typically, those are people who have a goal and understand that others share that same goal. They understand that it takes many ideas and many hands to achieve the goal. They are inclusive, good listeners, and incorporate others’ ideas into a strategic plan. And, they understand that those working for the goal all have talents that are needed to achieve the goal, like individual puzzle pieces creating an entire picture.

Then there are those who want to control everything. To these types of people, having control is as important as (or more important than) accomplishing the goal. They want to pick the players and control the strategy. They will determine, on their own, the road to take to achieving the goal. They will exclude free thinkers, new ideas, and different ways of looking at the steps needed to accomplish the goal. To them, power is everything.

In the end, king-makers fail, just as in the Rudyard Kipling novella and 1975 movie of the same name “The Man Who Would be King”.

Political leaders often fall into these categories as well. There are those who are quite willing to work together with other political organizations to achieve the common goal: winning elections. They understand “strength in numbers” and that everyone has something to offer, some talent in which they excel.

Then there are those who refuse to work cooperatively, sometimes to the point of attempting to sabotage and snuff out related groups working for the same goal.

We call individuals who do this bullies. We identify them as insecure people who are threatened by others’ successes. We say they don’t “play well in the sandbox”. The same can be true of organizations. As Patrick Henry so well stated in 1799, “Let us trust God, and our better judgment to set us right hereafter. United we stand, divided we fall.”

The unfortunate result of this refusal to work together, especially in the political world, is disharmony, distrust, dissension. Participants become disillusioned and stop participating. When that happens, the goal becomes unachievable. In the political world, that translates to losses at the polls.

As in the Bible, Matthew 12:25, “Every kingdom divided against itself will be ruined, and every city or household divided against itself will not stand.”

As per the novella and movie, “The Man Who Would be King” won’t recognize that until it’s too late and the opposing political party has seized control.

There’s no First Amendment right to criminal rioting

They aren’t right. They aren’t left. They aren’t white supremacists. They aren’t left wing nut jobs. They aren’t fascists. They aren’t protesters.  They aren’t peaceably assembling, and thus aren’t protected by the First Amendment.

THEY ARE CRIMINALS and deserve to be treated as such.

These CRIMINALS hijacked a situation that was poised to bring everyone together, foster a serious conversation about government – citizen relations. These CRIMINALS hijacked it for the tear down of society as a whole.

Protest peacefully during the day, but it’s time to clear the streets after 7PM. The Constitution does not give people the right to riot.

Governments are instituted among men for the protection of the whole. If these states, even with National Guard, cannot control rioters, cannot enforce their own laws, cannot protect people or private property or public property from damage, it’s time to invoke the Insurrection Act as was done in 1992 during the LA riots.

So you don’t have to look it up: 10 USC 333

Sec. 333. Interference with State and Federal law
The President, by using the militia or the armed forces, or both, or by any other means, shall take such measures as he considers necessary to suppress, in a State, any insurrection, domestic violence, unlawful combination, or conspiracy, if it–

(1) so hinders the execution of the laws of that State, and of the United States within the State, that any part or class of its people is deprived of a right, privilege, immunity, or protection named in the Constitution and secured by law, and the constituted authorities of that State are unable, fail, or refuse to protect that right, privilege, or immunity, or to give that protection; or

(2) opposes or obstructs the execution of the laws of the United States or impedes the course of justice under those laws.

In any situation covered by clause (1), the State shall be considered to have denied the equal protection of the laws secured by the Constitution.