In early February 2024, a disturbing act of violence took place when an Antifa radical unleashed an improvised explosive device (IED) outside an attorney general’s office in Montgomery, Alabama. The explosive was laden with nails and metal fragments—lethal projectiles intended to cause maximum harm. A few feet difference, a slight variation in timing, and the aftermath could have involved planning funerals instead of counting blessings. Fortunately, no injuries occurred, and the attacker was apprehended. Yet this incident signifies a troubling trend where political violence increasingly masquerades as legitimate forms of expression.
Political leaders, who should set an example for society, have in many instances tacitly legitimized this form of extremism. They often seem to believe that the passion driving their supporters justifies any means to achieve their ends, even if that defies the law. In this new political climate, ethical standards appear to be fading, replaced by a willingness to engage in melodrama for attention.
The situation is particularly evident in Minneapolis, where federal investigations are uncovering extensive fraud schemes involving Somali immigrants who allegedly obtained millions in government funding for imaginary childcare centers. As ICE began enforcement actions related to these findings, tensions escalated. Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey infamously told ICE to “get the f— out of Minneapolis.” This statement, along with similar sentiments from Senator Amy Klobuchar, who claimed ICE makes the public less safe, exemplifies a dangerous way of thinking.
Such incendiary language demonizes law enforcement rather than addressing the actual lawbreakers. For those familiar with the threats posed by political violence, this rhetoric is deeply concerning. Witnessing leaders repeat mistakes that could have cost lives feels particularly maddening. The leadership in Minneapolis, by sowing confusion about permissible conduct, is essentially creating an environment where activists feel justified in resorting to intimidation tactics.
A recent incident exemplified this alarming trend. An unruly mob disrupted a worship service at Cities Church, intimidating families and accusing the pastor of being affiliated with ICE. This event was widely covered, with former CNN anchor Don Lemon participating, branding it as “Operation Pull-Up”—a tactical operation aimed at disrupting religious services. Such acts cross the line from protest to intimidation and raise serious questions about the real intent behind these demonstrations.
While some in the media dismiss disturbances as mere “peaceful protests,” they overlook the potential for infringement upon fundamental freedoms, especially when it comes to sacred practices like worship. The FACE Act is intended to penalize actions that interfere with religious expression. Yet, under the current administration, this law has been weaponized to silence pro-life activists, illustrating a troubling inconsistency in how laws are applied.
This pattern of behavior traces back to the riots following George Floyd’s death. What began as demonstrations often devolved into chaos and destruction. In the summer of 2020, unchecked rhetoric from politicians led to widespread riots that devastated entire neighborhoods. Those who could least afford it—minority and immigrant business owners—suffered greatly due to the violence that erupted under the guise of social justice.
Looking ahead, the lessons from Minneapolis cannot be ignored. The consequences of allowing political unrest to spiral into chaos are too severe and too real. The need for strong leadership is critical. A commitment to uphold the rule of law is essential for protecting citizens from intimidation and violence, especially those who seek to express their viewpoints peacefully.
To bring clarity to the situation, justice must prevail against those who violate the law, and consequences should be enforced without hesitation. As the chief law enforcement officer of my state, the reality of dealing with violent extremists underscores the importance of deterrence. Only when lawbreakers understand that they will face serious repercussions will they reconsider their actions.
During this crucial time, all leaders must decisively choose to uphold the rule of law, rejecting inflammatory rhetoric before it emboldens further chaos. Those in power are at a crossroads and must decide whether to nurture an atmosphere of disorder or cultivate stability. There is no middle ground when facing down extremist tactics; the choice lies clear.
"*" indicates required fields
