In said column, Cotton advocated for the invoking of the Insurrection Act, which would allow federal forces to patrol various U.S. municipalities.
As “The John Muir Show” noted earlier this week, this is a wise idea. It's clear that the mayors/governors of various cities/states have lost control of their cities, which are being overrun with criminal activity in the midst of violent riots (separate from peaceful protests).
These cities and their residents are being harmed in various ways. If the lower levels of government are not going to doing anything meaningful about it, the federal government should absolutely step in, before these cities are wiped out.
However, Cotton's opinion was met with outrage by various employees of the NYT. Some of these triggered leftists claimed that what Cotton is advocating for would 'put them in danger.'
Of course, there is no legitimate reason for these individuals to have hostile interactions with the authorities, if they are abiding by the law. The only way they would legitimately find themselves at odds with the authorities is if they break the law.
If a member of the authority would act out of line in a dealing with a civilian, that member of the authority should be held to full and proper account for his/her wrongdoing, as should be the case with the four officers responsible for the injustice recently done to George Floyd.
Initially, the NYT brass stood by its decision to run Cotton's op-ed. However, in the past 24 hours, the NYT brass bowed to the politically correct mob, denouncing its decision to run Cotton's piece, claiming that the piece 'violated its standards.'
At no point did the NYT explain what standards Cotton's piece allegedly violated, likely because they know that it did not violate any standard. It was merely Cotton sharing his lawful opinion on a political matter.
But the NYT says it did not deserve to be published.
For context: the NYT has published pieces from Adolf Hitler, Vladimir Putin, and the Taliban leadership. Those apparently were just fine. But, somehow, the NYT's 'line' gets drawn at U.S. Senator Tom Cotton. It's absurd!
It appears that this is yet another instance of leftist elites recognizing that their political adversary is making a legitimate point, refusing to change their stance to match that adversary's legitimate stance, and trying to instead silence that political adversary.
That is not the stuff of what has long made the United States so great in so many ways for so long. Hopefully, civility wins out.
