After two tragic ICE-related deaths in Minneapolis, protests have escalated. Is this the path to justice—or MLK’s model? The case for protective compassion.
I appreciate you engaging with the core point. We agree that a functioning society depends on laws being enforced through constitutional means—and changed through consent, not chaos.
What’s struck me is how differently people are seeing the same events. I’ve received private emails from thoughtful readers who genuinely view ICE as lawless, which helps explain why outrage escalates so fast.
That’s why I keep returning to King’s model: restraint, discipline, and persuasion within the rule of law. The fact that we can still agree on equality under the law feels like a win, given how pervasive outrage has become — especially online.
Melanie, always great to read your insights, I truly appreciate them. They are leveled and tempered. Thank you.
I would however like to correct one thing that you said, and you may like to read my essay titled “There is no Constitutional Right to “protest”.
The Constitution makes no mention of this, just like there is no mention of “separation of church and state” or exchanging Republic with “Democracy”. I believe that these terms have been used purposely to skew the actual words of the Constitution to mean something that was never intended.
As you know, words mean things. And when we use terms incorrectly it changes the meaning of what was said or written. We need to be extremely careful in the use of certain terms that may appear on the surface to be interchangeable, but are truly not.
Michael, thank you for engaging so thoughtfully! I appreciate your essay and your insistence that words — and boundaries — matter.
And I agree with you: the First Amendment protects peaceable assembly and petition — not coercion, intimidation, or chaos. When I use the word “protest,” I’m doing so intentionally in the common-ground sense most Americans still understand, shaped by the First Amendment and role models like King. By invoking King, I’m trying to draw a contrast between principled, peaceful civic action and conduct that violates others’ rights, including disruption of worship and interference with lawful enforcement.
Doesn’t anchoring the conversation in King’s example help bring people across the spectrum back to the constitutional “common ground” you’re emphasizing?
For reasonable people, you are 100% correct. But, as you are aware, we are no longer living in reasonable times. King was reasonable. His message was clear, that violence was not the way to change.
However, the “protesters” of the 60’s and those who followed King’s lead are not the same as today’s protesters. Today’s protesters are “agent provocateurs” insistent on causing chaos and destruction. They are not interested in peaceful change, they are looking to incite riots. Calling for the defunding of police and other federal law enforcement, including sitting members of Congress puts us in a different world compared to the 60’s.
I hear you, Michael — there are absolutely actors today who want chaos, not change.
But I’d argue the 1960s weren’t “reasonable” either. Radical ideologies, riots, and political violence were widespread, and King was operating in the middle of that storm — not apart from it. What made the difference is that he refused to let the radicals set the terms. He insisted on restraint, constitutional legitimacy, and persuasion precisely because chaos was the alternative.
That’s why I invoke him now: not because the times are the same, but because the choice is: Do we allow radicals to dictate our response, or do we answer disorder with disciplined moral authority, as King did?
A tempered and measured response in a sea of anger and hate on all sides. While it is true that immigration and deportation has largely been a bipartisan issue until recently, it is also true that the current brand of ICE is extremist; while previous administrations have targeted and focused on the removal of criminals, there has unquestionably been a deliberate increase in chaotic and unruly breakup of families, and the revoking or even just ignoring of lawful status by thousands. It is provoking the anger of the people *on purpose* and we should be extremely wary of who exactly is profiting from the chaos sown by both kinds of extremism.
I don’t agree that the current brand of ICE is extremist. What’s different is ICE has been forced into doing its job in the most visible and combative way because some local governments both refuse to cooperate or deal with lawbreaking protestors. In many other cities — including blue ones like Memphis — partnership allows enforcement to happen quietly and safely, without protests or violence. ICE agents aren’t trained to manage crowds or political interference, nor should that be their job. We can care deeply about families while acknowledging the lives that have been lost because laws weren’t enforced earlier. As Melanie says, hopefully we can all agree that the law has to be enforced so that we have fewer tragedies and less chaos.
I understand why recent ICE actions feel chaotic and alarming to many — because perception matters.
What’s telling is that even ICE leadership now seems to recognize this. Tom Homan, who was honored by Obama (as I mention in the essay), has said publicly that cooperation with local authorities is the best way to reduce disruptive street operations and avoid unnecessary fear and family trauma.
That gets to my core point: enforcing immigration law isn’t extremist in itself, but as you point out, how it’s enforced matters deeply. Chaos — whether from heavy-handed enforcement or from obstruction and intimidation — erodes trust.
Hence my return to King’s model which reminds us that restraint, accountability, and equal application of the law are what restore it.
I enjoyed reading this Melanie and just read this interesting response to another article about this subject on Sen John Kennedy site -
A former military officer explains it best As a former Special Forces Warrant Officer with multiple rotations running counterinsurgency ops—both hunting insurgents and trying to separate them from sympathetic populations—I’ve seen organized resistance up close. From Anbar to Helmand, the pattern is familiar: spotters, cutouts, dead drops (or modern equivalents), disciplined comms, role specialization, and a willingness to absorb casualties while bleeding the stronger force slowly.
What’s unfolding in Minneapolis right now isn’t “protest.” It’s low-level insurgency infrastructure, built by people who’ve clearly studied the playbook.
Signal groups at 1,000-member cap per zone. Dedicated roles: mobile chasers, plate checkers logging vehicle data into shared databases, 24/7 dispatch nodes vectoring assets, SALUTE-style reporting (Size, Activity, Location, Unit, Time, Equipment) on suspected federal vehicles. Daily chat rotations and timed deletions to frustrate forensic recovery. Vetting processes for new joiners. Mutual aid from sympathetic locals (teachers providing cover, possible PD tip-offs on license plate lookups). Home-base coordination points. Rapid escalation from observation to physical obstruction—or worse.
This isn’t spontaneous outrage. This is C2 (command and control) with redundancy, OPSEC hygiene, and task organization that would make a SF team sergeant nod in recognition. Replace “ICE agents” with “occupying coalition forces” and the structure maps almost 1:1 to early-stage urban cells we hunted in the mid-2000s.
The most sobering part? It’s domestic. Funded, trained (somewhere), and directed by people who live in the same country they’re trying to paralyze law enforcement in. When your own citizens build and operate this level of parallel intelligence and rapid-response network against federal officers—complete with doxxing, vehicle pursuits, and harassment that’s already turned lethal—you’re no longer dealing with civil disobedience. You’re facing a distributed resistance that’s learned the lessons of successful insurgencies: stay below the kinetic threshold most of the time, force over-reaction when possible, maintain popular support through narrative, and never present a single center of gravity.
I spent years training partner forces to dismantle exactly this kind of apparatus. Now pieces of it are standing up in American cities, enabled by elements of local government and civil society. That should keep every thinking American awake at night.
Not because I want escalation. But because history shows these things don’t de-escalate on their own once the infrastructure exists and the cadre believe they’re winning the information war.
We either recognize what we’re actually looking at—or we pretend it’s still just “activism” until the structures harden and spread.
Your call, America. But from where I sit, this isn’t January 2026 politics anymore.
It’s phase one of something we’ve spent decades trying to keep off our own soil.
Thank you. This post on X by Eric Schwalm, along with Cam Higby’s recent “cracking” of encrypted Signal chats among the trained and funded organizers of this “protest,” shines the light on the only dimension of this subject that Melanie does not cover — namely, that this is a full blown and very sinister insurrection.
Thank you, Chad — I really appreciate you reading and weighing in, and I take your point seriously. There is clearly more going on here than isolated outrage, and anyone who cares about the rule of law should be paying attention.
My aim in starting where I did was to re-anchor the conversation in a premise I believe still has broad moral traction: that enforcing the law is not extremism, but a form of protection for ordinary people. Once that ground is re-established, it becomes possible — and necessary — to grapple honestly with the realities you’re noting, even when they’re uncomfortable.
At least I hope so. I’ve encouraged several people who’ve written me privately — and see this very differently — to read this thread (and all the comments!) so they can engage with arguments outside their usual information streams. I’m grateful you brought this perspective into the conversation; it’s one people need to hear — even if they don’t want to.
Helen, thank you for sharing this — and for reading so thoughtfully. I understand why people with security and military experience see deeply troubling patterns here, and I don’t dismiss that concern.
My focus in this piece was to start with something more basic that I think many Americans still share: intimidation and obstruction can’t replace lawful enforcement in a free society. Whether what we’re seeing is spontaneous or highly organized, the effect is the same — it puts public safety and democratic governance at risk.
I’m grateful you raised this perspective, because once people can agree on that common ground, the harder questions you’re pointing to become much easier to face honestly.
I was thinking about the other consequences that officers have to endure when they have to take a life in self defense and the rioters only care about their “feelings”. It is not an easy thing to take a life no matter how trained one is, the trauma that the officers go through in the aftermath is horrific I’m sure. I pray for them and their families for protection and perseverance. The lies the media is spreading about these officers are just as guilty as the rioters! False journalism should be prosecuted to the fullness of the law as well. I would love to see water hoses sprayed on these treasonous rioters!!! Send them back to where they came from.
You’re right that the human cost to officers is often overlooked. Taking a life — even in self-defense — is profoundly traumatic and deserves compassion too.
What’s unusual in Minneapolis is that federal immigration agents are operating in an exceptionally volatile environment, far more contentious than in most jurisdictions where enforcement occurs with local cooperation. That makes their job more dangerous and underscores the need for better training, coordination, and de-escalation tools, in my view.
But restraint and accountability matter on all sides. Enforcement is necessary, but how it’s done shapes public trust and whether tragedies multiply or diminish. Protecting officers, protecting civilians, and protecting the rule of law aren’t competing goals — they rise or fall together. That balance is what I mean by protective compassion.
I think that the ICE have shown a great deal of restraint and considering the lack of restraint on the rioters is extreme in my opinion. They are causing the violence on purpose to try and gain false empathy and the media continues to play propaganda games. The ICE wouldn’t even be there if respect for law and order and civil obedience were demonstrated. What about the violence towards all the innocent people killed, raped, set on fire, mutated by illegal criminals. I don’t see any tears or outrage by the rioters for their lives and families. I don’t see ICE destroying communities, creating chaos etc…
The ICE are doing the job they are hired to do. Yes it’s very ugly, but it is not coming from hate or prejudice or racism. The Riot Show is an ongoing attempt to create fear, intimidation, disorder etc… in order to destroy our culture and way of life. It’s one of the many moves inMarxist plan. I could go on but I can’t really agree. I see a huge difference in the Rioters from ICE.
I spent a long time with this piece because the issue is so charged, and my hope was simply to invite people to pause and consider perspectives they may not usually hear. I’m especially grateful you’re sharing it — Think again… you might change your mind is really about curiosity, not conformity. Thanks for your readership!!
I enjoyed your piece. The only item missing in your argument is the role the main stream media plays. The media which is largely left wing has become a mouth piece for the democrats and the protestors in Minn. They are only too eager to spread lies like Ice kidnapping citizens and arresting 2 and 5 year olds when with little effort the truth could have been learned. You never hear retractions when the truth does come out as they are busy spreading the latest lie. They allow politicians to freely and boldly lie and never question or confront the liars. This only emboldens the politicians as there are no consequences for their lies. I'm not sure this was the case in the MLK era. The press was not nearly as biased as it is today. I fear that we as a country will never reconcile and follow MLK's philosophical approach to resolving differences. The media will keep us at odds as that is now their business model. Kind of sad .
Today’s media environment, especially on social media, often amplifies outrage before facts. In Minneapolis, that’s clearly fueled confusion and mistrust. Seeing that, I tried to ground the essay in shared principles — facts, due process, restraint, and accountability on all sides — rather than in dueling narratives.
King’s approach depended on truth-telling and legitimacy, not just moral passion. When media outlets fail to correct errors or challenge false claims, it undermines that foundation and hardens divisions.
At the same time, I’m grateful we now have far more diversity of perspective than in King’s day, thanks to platforms like Substack that allow for more direct, thoughtful exchanges with readers like you. I still believe reclaiming those standards is possible — but only if we insist on them together.
I shuddered when I read your story about the conman. My first thought was how stupid you were, but I know you're not. You don't have to be stupid to be conned, just socially intimidated, which is what is now playing out in Minneapolis with deadly consequences. Thank's for putting a spotlight on it.
I chuckled when I read your comment — and I appreciate the thought behind it. You’re right: people don’t have to be stupid to be silenced or misled; social intimidation is often enough. That’s exactly why I shared that story, and why what’s happening in Minneapolis matters. Thank you for reading carefully.
Thank you for your thoughtful message. My life has been lived near the Mexican border. Normal, to me, was Mexican friends, Border Patrol agents, Immigration inspection stations, open passage both directions for tourism, and many day crossings by persons employed in San Diego area or seasonal agricultural work. Families came to CA after obtaining legal means. ESL and citizenship classes were well attended. Everyone seemed to have a plan for a better life in the US.
Our policies and laws were intended for persons who wanted to be Americans. That does not seem to be the goal of the majority of illegal entrants. Fairness to all as seen by Dr. King necessitates enforcement of existent laws or a means to provide welfare and safety to a transient population.
Your message poses many questions. The answers can only be found in a commitment by our congress to cooperate in a plan for citizenship and personal pride in being an American. HZ
Thank you for sharing this. Your experience along the border captures something that’s been largely lost in today’s debate: a time when immigration was ordered, humane, and oriented toward belonging — toward becoming American. When laws were enforced and citizenship was the goal, fairness and compassion reinforced one another. That’s exactly what I was trying to get at in the essay: that Dr. King’s vision depended on shared rules, dignity, and responsibility, not on disorder or indifference.
I’m especially grateful for your readership — and for your wise contribution to the conversation!
Well done Melanie. This sort of rational, thinking seems to have been discarded by the modern left who operate on emotion and memes. When visions of Nazis fill your mind, not much room left for critical thought.
Somehow, we have to get the non-brain washed to pay attention to messages like this.
Thank you! I share your concern about how quickly emotion and caricature can crowd out critical thought on all sides. That’s why I tried to write this in a way that slows the conversation and invites people back to shared principles rather than slogans.
I’m encouraged by the response to the essay — people are paying attention. I’m glad you found it useful, and grateful you’re helping amplify it.
I appreciate you engaging with the core point. We agree that a functioning society depends on laws being enforced through constitutional means—and changed through consent, not chaos.
What’s struck me is how differently people are seeing the same events. I’ve received private emails from thoughtful readers who genuinely view ICE as lawless, which helps explain why outrage escalates so fast.
That’s why I keep returning to King’s model: restraint, discipline, and persuasion within the rule of law. The fact that we can still agree on equality under the law feels like a win, given how pervasive outrage has become — especially online.
Melanie, always great to read your insights, I truly appreciate them. They are leveled and tempered. Thank you.
I would however like to correct one thing that you said, and you may like to read my essay titled “There is no Constitutional Right to “protest”.
The Constitution makes no mention of this, just like there is no mention of “separation of church and state” or exchanging Republic with “Democracy”. I believe that these terms have been used purposely to skew the actual words of the Constitution to mean something that was never intended.
As you know, words mean things. And when we use terms incorrectly it changes the meaning of what was said or written. We need to be extremely careful in the use of certain terms that may appear on the surface to be interchangeable, but are truly not.
Thanks agin….
Michael, thank you for engaging so thoughtfully! I appreciate your essay and your insistence that words — and boundaries — matter.
And I agree with you: the First Amendment protects peaceable assembly and petition — not coercion, intimidation, or chaos. When I use the word “protest,” I’m doing so intentionally in the common-ground sense most Americans still understand, shaped by the First Amendment and role models like King. By invoking King, I’m trying to draw a contrast between principled, peaceful civic action and conduct that violates others’ rights, including disruption of worship and interference with lawful enforcement.
Doesn’t anchoring the conversation in King’s example help bring people across the spectrum back to the constitutional “common ground” you’re emphasizing?
For reasonable people, you are 100% correct. But, as you are aware, we are no longer living in reasonable times. King was reasonable. His message was clear, that violence was not the way to change.
However, the “protesters” of the 60’s and those who followed King’s lead are not the same as today’s protesters. Today’s protesters are “agent provocateurs” insistent on causing chaos and destruction. They are not interested in peaceful change, they are looking to incite riots. Calling for the defunding of police and other federal law enforcement, including sitting members of Congress puts us in a different world compared to the 60’s.
Just one man’s humble opinion…
MJB
I hear you, Michael — there are absolutely actors today who want chaos, not change.
But I’d argue the 1960s weren’t “reasonable” either. Radical ideologies, riots, and political violence were widespread, and King was operating in the middle of that storm — not apart from it. What made the difference is that he refused to let the radicals set the terms. He insisted on restraint, constitutional legitimacy, and persuasion precisely because chaos was the alternative.
That’s why I invoke him now: not because the times are the same, but because the choice is: Do we allow radicals to dictate our response, or do we answer disorder with disciplined moral authority, as King did?
A tempered and measured response in a sea of anger and hate on all sides. While it is true that immigration and deportation has largely been a bipartisan issue until recently, it is also true that the current brand of ICE is extremist; while previous administrations have targeted and focused on the removal of criminals, there has unquestionably been a deliberate increase in chaotic and unruly breakup of families, and the revoking or even just ignoring of lawful status by thousands. It is provoking the anger of the people *on purpose* and we should be extremely wary of who exactly is profiting from the chaos sown by both kinds of extremism.
I don’t agree that the current brand of ICE is extremist. What’s different is ICE has been forced into doing its job in the most visible and combative way because some local governments both refuse to cooperate or deal with lawbreaking protestors. In many other cities — including blue ones like Memphis — partnership allows enforcement to happen quietly and safely, without protests or violence. ICE agents aren’t trained to manage crowds or political interference, nor should that be their job. We can care deeply about families while acknowledging the lives that have been lost because laws weren’t enforced earlier. As Melanie says, hopefully we can all agree that the law has to be enforced so that we have fewer tragedies and less chaos.
I understand why recent ICE actions feel chaotic and alarming to many — because perception matters.
What’s telling is that even ICE leadership now seems to recognize this. Tom Homan, who was honored by Obama (as I mention in the essay), has said publicly that cooperation with local authorities is the best way to reduce disruptive street operations and avoid unnecessary fear and family trauma.
That gets to my core point: enforcing immigration law isn’t extremist in itself, but as you point out, how it’s enforced matters deeply. Chaos — whether from heavy-handed enforcement or from obstruction and intimidation — erodes trust.
Hence my return to King’s model which reminds us that restraint, accountability, and equal application of the law are what restore it.
I enjoyed reading this Melanie and just read this interesting response to another article about this subject on Sen John Kennedy site -
A former military officer explains it best As a former Special Forces Warrant Officer with multiple rotations running counterinsurgency ops—both hunting insurgents and trying to separate them from sympathetic populations—I’ve seen organized resistance up close. From Anbar to Helmand, the pattern is familiar: spotters, cutouts, dead drops (or modern equivalents), disciplined comms, role specialization, and a willingness to absorb casualties while bleeding the stronger force slowly.
What’s unfolding in Minneapolis right now isn’t “protest.” It’s low-level insurgency infrastructure, built by people who’ve clearly studied the playbook.
Signal groups at 1,000-member cap per zone. Dedicated roles: mobile chasers, plate checkers logging vehicle data into shared databases, 24/7 dispatch nodes vectoring assets, SALUTE-style reporting (Size, Activity, Location, Unit, Time, Equipment) on suspected federal vehicles. Daily chat rotations and timed deletions to frustrate forensic recovery. Vetting processes for new joiners. Mutual aid from sympathetic locals (teachers providing cover, possible PD tip-offs on license plate lookups). Home-base coordination points. Rapid escalation from observation to physical obstruction—or worse.
This isn’t spontaneous outrage. This is C2 (command and control) with redundancy, OPSEC hygiene, and task organization that would make a SF team sergeant nod in recognition. Replace “ICE agents” with “occupying coalition forces” and the structure maps almost 1:1 to early-stage urban cells we hunted in the mid-2000s.
The most sobering part? It’s domestic. Funded, trained (somewhere), and directed by people who live in the same country they’re trying to paralyze law enforcement in. When your own citizens build and operate this level of parallel intelligence and rapid-response network against federal officers—complete with doxxing, vehicle pursuits, and harassment that’s already turned lethal—you’re no longer dealing with civil disobedience. You’re facing a distributed resistance that’s learned the lessons of successful insurgencies: stay below the kinetic threshold most of the time, force over-reaction when possible, maintain popular support through narrative, and never present a single center of gravity.
I spent years training partner forces to dismantle exactly this kind of apparatus. Now pieces of it are standing up in American cities, enabled by elements of local government and civil society. That should keep every thinking American awake at night.
Not because I want escalation. But because history shows these things don’t de-escalate on their own once the infrastructure exists and the cadre believe they’re winning the information war.
We either recognize what we’re actually looking at—or we pretend it’s still just “activism” until the structures harden and spread.
Your call, America. But from where I sit, this isn’t January 2026 politics anymore.
It’s phase one of something we’ve spent decades trying to keep off our own soil.
Thank you. This post on X by Eric Schwalm, along with Cam Higby’s recent “cracking” of encrypted Signal chats among the trained and funded organizers of this “protest,” shines the light on the only dimension of this subject that Melanie does not cover — namely, that this is a full blown and very sinister insurrection.
Thank you, Chad — I really appreciate you reading and weighing in, and I take your point seriously. There is clearly more going on here than isolated outrage, and anyone who cares about the rule of law should be paying attention.
My aim in starting where I did was to re-anchor the conversation in a premise I believe still has broad moral traction: that enforcing the law is not extremism, but a form of protection for ordinary people. Once that ground is re-established, it becomes possible — and necessary — to grapple honestly with the realities you’re noting, even when they’re uncomfortable.
At least I hope so. I’ve encouraged several people who’ve written me privately — and see this very differently — to read this thread (and all the comments!) so they can engage with arguments outside their usual information streams. I’m grateful you brought this perspective into the conversation; it’s one people need to hear — even if they don’t want to.
Helen, thank you for sharing this — and for reading so thoughtfully. I understand why people with security and military experience see deeply troubling patterns here, and I don’t dismiss that concern.
My focus in this piece was to start with something more basic that I think many Americans still share: intimidation and obstruction can’t replace lawful enforcement in a free society. Whether what we’re seeing is spontaneous or highly organized, the effect is the same — it puts public safety and democratic governance at risk.
I’m grateful you raised this perspective, because once people can agree on that common ground, the harder questions you’re pointing to become much easier to face honestly.
I was thinking about the other consequences that officers have to endure when they have to take a life in self defense and the rioters only care about their “feelings”. It is not an easy thing to take a life no matter how trained one is, the trauma that the officers go through in the aftermath is horrific I’m sure. I pray for them and their families for protection and perseverance. The lies the media is spreading about these officers are just as guilty as the rioters! False journalism should be prosecuted to the fullness of the law as well. I would love to see water hoses sprayed on these treasonous rioters!!! Send them back to where they came from.
You’re right that the human cost to officers is often overlooked. Taking a life — even in self-defense — is profoundly traumatic and deserves compassion too.
What’s unusual in Minneapolis is that federal immigration agents are operating in an exceptionally volatile environment, far more contentious than in most jurisdictions where enforcement occurs with local cooperation. That makes their job more dangerous and underscores the need for better training, coordination, and de-escalation tools, in my view.
But restraint and accountability matter on all sides. Enforcement is necessary, but how it’s done shapes public trust and whether tragedies multiply or diminish. Protecting officers, protecting civilians, and protecting the rule of law aren’t competing goals — they rise or fall together. That balance is what I mean by protective compassion.
Hopefully we all can agree on that!
I think that the ICE have shown a great deal of restraint and considering the lack of restraint on the rioters is extreme in my opinion. They are causing the violence on purpose to try and gain false empathy and the media continues to play propaganda games. The ICE wouldn’t even be there if respect for law and order and civil obedience were demonstrated. What about the violence towards all the innocent people killed, raped, set on fire, mutated by illegal criminals. I don’t see any tears or outrage by the rioters for their lives and families. I don’t see ICE destroying communities, creating chaos etc…
The ICE are doing the job they are hired to do. Yes it’s very ugly, but it is not coming from hate or prejudice or racism. The Riot Show is an ongoing attempt to create fear, intimidation, disorder etc… in order to destroy our culture and way of life. It’s one of the many moves inMarxist plan. I could go on but I can’t really agree. I see a huge difference in the Rioters from ICE.
Melanie, you are a genius. I am forwarding this essay to everyone I know! Bravo!
Thank you Monica — that really means a lot to me!
I spent a long time with this piece because the issue is so charged, and my hope was simply to invite people to pause and consider perspectives they may not usually hear. I’m especially grateful you’re sharing it — Think again… you might change your mind is really about curiosity, not conformity. Thanks for your readership!!
I enjoyed your piece. The only item missing in your argument is the role the main stream media plays. The media which is largely left wing has become a mouth piece for the democrats and the protestors in Minn. They are only too eager to spread lies like Ice kidnapping citizens and arresting 2 and 5 year olds when with little effort the truth could have been learned. You never hear retractions when the truth does come out as they are busy spreading the latest lie. They allow politicians to freely and boldly lie and never question or confront the liars. This only emboldens the politicians as there are no consequences for their lies. I'm not sure this was the case in the MLK era. The press was not nearly as biased as it is today. I fear that we as a country will never reconcile and follow MLK's philosophical approach to resolving differences. The media will keep us at odds as that is now their business model. Kind of sad .
I share your concern — and agree it’s sad.
Today’s media environment, especially on social media, often amplifies outrage before facts. In Minneapolis, that’s clearly fueled confusion and mistrust. Seeing that, I tried to ground the essay in shared principles — facts, due process, restraint, and accountability on all sides — rather than in dueling narratives.
King’s approach depended on truth-telling and legitimacy, not just moral passion. When media outlets fail to correct errors or challenge false claims, it undermines that foundation and hardens divisions.
At the same time, I’m grateful we now have far more diversity of perspective than in King’s day, thanks to platforms like Substack that allow for more direct, thoughtful exchanges with readers like you. I still believe reclaiming those standards is possible — but only if we insist on them together.
I shuddered when I read your story about the conman. My first thought was how stupid you were, but I know you're not. You don't have to be stupid to be conned, just socially intimidated, which is what is now playing out in Minneapolis with deadly consequences. Thank's for putting a spotlight on it.
I chuckled when I read your comment — and I appreciate the thought behind it. You’re right: people don’t have to be stupid to be silenced or misled; social intimidation is often enough. That’s exactly why I shared that story, and why what’s happening in Minneapolis matters. Thank you for reading carefully.
Thank you for your thoughtful message. My life has been lived near the Mexican border. Normal, to me, was Mexican friends, Border Patrol agents, Immigration inspection stations, open passage both directions for tourism, and many day crossings by persons employed in San Diego area or seasonal agricultural work. Families came to CA after obtaining legal means. ESL and citizenship classes were well attended. Everyone seemed to have a plan for a better life in the US.
Our policies and laws were intended for persons who wanted to be Americans. That does not seem to be the goal of the majority of illegal entrants. Fairness to all as seen by Dr. King necessitates enforcement of existent laws or a means to provide welfare and safety to a transient population.
Your message poses many questions. The answers can only be found in a commitment by our congress to cooperate in a plan for citizenship and personal pride in being an American. HZ
Thank you for sharing this. Your experience along the border captures something that’s been largely lost in today’s debate: a time when immigration was ordered, humane, and oriented toward belonging — toward becoming American. When laws were enforced and citizenship was the goal, fairness and compassion reinforced one another. That’s exactly what I was trying to get at in the essay: that Dr. King’s vision depended on shared rules, dignity, and responsibility, not on disorder or indifference.
I’m especially grateful for your readership — and for your wise contribution to the conversation!
Well done Melanie. This sort of rational, thinking seems to have been discarded by the modern left who operate on emotion and memes. When visions of Nazis fill your mind, not much room left for critical thought.
Somehow, we have to get the non-brain washed to pay attention to messages like this.
Thank you! I share your concern about how quickly emotion and caricature can crowd out critical thought on all sides. That’s why I tried to write this in a way that slows the conversation and invites people back to shared principles rather than slogans.
I’m encouraged by the response to the essay — people are paying attention. I’m glad you found it useful, and grateful you’re helping amplify it.