Protesting Violently Against Protestors

by Jack

In this election year there is an ugliness spreading across America and it is getting uncomfortably close to home.   We’ve seen it happen many decades ago with the Klan in the South and to some degree in modern times with skin heads and Neo-Nazis, but not nearly to the extent we see it now.   And ironically our liberals are looking on with some favor.

jihadijohnThe New Black Panthers, the Nation of Islam, LaRaza, Mecha, MoveOn.Org,  Weathermen, G8 rioters, ELF, Earth First, and others have turned to violence in an to attempt to silence the speech of their opposition.  Eventually, this can lead to voter intimidation and in a democracy like ours that is a sign we are approaching the beginning of the end.   At some point the politics of fear, coercion and intimidation becomes so onerous it is a direct threat to this nation.

Last Friday, a White Supremacist group obtained a permit to lawfully protest at the state capitol in Sacramento.  They were met by a much larger protest group, one with no permit and no intentions of allowing the other group to have their say.  As a result, almost a dozen people in the supremacist group wound up being stabbed and bludgeoned in a wild melee.

Now maybe the attackers thought they were defending their race or something of that nature, but the fact remains, they used extreme violence on the steps of our capitol to deny this other group their right to free speech.   This reminded me of the attacks on some of the people attending Trump rallies and the recent assassination attempt on the candidate.

As the saying goes, “I may not agree with what you are saying, but I shall defend to the death your right to say it.”  Evelyn Beatrice Hall.  

Free speech is a founding principle, a virtual cornerstone of this nation, just as is the rule of law and when large groups of Americans show such casual disregard for such things in Ferguson, Mo, Baltimore, Md, Phoenix, Az, or Sacramento, Ca., . . . you must know we’re in serious trouble and we better think long and hard on what we’re doing.


This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

22 Responses to Protesting Violently Against Protestors

  1. Pie Guevara says:

    Food for thought, Tina. Freedom of speech and freedom to peaceably assemble is a Constitutional right that Democrats, progressives (same thing), liberals (same thing), socialists (same thing) communists (same thing) fascists (same thing) and “environmentalists” (same thing) do not much care for — unless it is only applied to them.

  2. Chris says:

    While this article is mostly correct–violence should never be tolerated, and it appears the leftist group initiated the violence in this case–you are continuing to act as if the violence has all been perpetrated by liberals, and that violence by Trump supporters against protesters doesn’t exist.

    Slate has a full list of incidences of violence at Trump rallies, documenting which were started by protesters, supporters or undetermined:

    There has also been an upswing in hate crimes since Trump began to talk about Muslims and Mexicans, with some citing Trump’s rhetoric as part of their motivation.

    While violence by protesters is always wrong, the fact remains that only one candidate has openly encouraged violence at his rallies:

    If you truly care about the problem of rising political violence, don’t vote for the only candidate who has endorsed political violence against his enemies.

  3. Libby says:

    “The New Black Panthers, the Nation of Islam, LaRaza, Mecha, MoveOn.Org, Weathermen, G8 rioters, ELF, Earth First, …”

    And you know these groups were there because …? This penchant on the right for vast and unsupported assertions just makes you look … less than honest. I don’t know why you persist in doing it.

    (And the inclusion of MoveOn was good for a giggle. Thank you.)

    Oh, and one more thing. When I pull up the blog on the phone as opposed to something else, I am greeted with your Ferguson painting. Gives an impression you may or may not want to.

    • Tina says:

      “And you know these groups were there because …?”

      Jack didn’t say those groups were “there.”

      Jack’s paragraph listed the leftists groups that have been violently “protesting” through the last several decades. He was talking about how the Democrat Party actually embraces and promotes some of them..or at least never creates a degree of separation.

      It’s comical when you lefties harrumph about violence in politics…but then you are a bunch of phonies.

      • Libby says:

        If he wasn’t saying they were there, why did he mention them at all?

        If he was trying to make a case for violence on the left, he didn’t, by virtue of his very lack of specificity.

        MoveOn, indeed.

    • J. Soden says:

      Anyone who promotes a media matters link is automatically disqualified. But to combine that with a NYT link deserves a dunce cap and a time-out in the corner.

      • Chris says:

        J. Soden, the conservative bloggers and commenters here have repeatedely linked to white nationalist websites like American Renaissance, 9/11 truther sites such as InfoWars, birther sites such as World Net Daily, and of course Breitbart, which was caught just a couple weeks ago falsely accusing the Obama administration of supporting ISIS based on nothing but their own inability to read a memo.

        I think this place can handle a link to Media Matters or the New York Times every now and then without caving in on itself.

      • Tina says:

        I’ve just posted a link to the full report. The report speaks to itself.

        Hillary Clinton tells us that she has lost more sleep than anyone about the lives lost in Benghazi…she is a full blown pathological liar and totally incompetent to run a city office much less this great nation.

  4. J. Soden says:

    When protestors become violent, they are no longer protesters – they’ve become rioters. Doesn’t matter if the rioter’s skin color is black, white, green or striped. It’s time to take law enforcement’s handcuffs off to treat the rioters as they should be treated.

    Expect this is just a warm-up for the political conventions. Cleveland and Philly should be getting their high-pressure fire hoses ready . . .

    • Tina says:

      Unfortunately law enforcement has been targeted itself by none less than the president of the United States. Just as our military has had it’s hands tied by the idiocy of Obama’s rules of engagement, police officers have been intimidated and legally targeted making their jobs impossible to do effectively and creating reluctance to do so.

      This administration set the wheels of violent protest in motion the day that he accused Cambridge police officer Sgt. James Crowley of “acting stupidly” for doing his job according to the law as it applies to ALL citizens:

      “I think it’s fair to say, number one, any of us would be pretty angry,” Obama said. “Number two, that the Cambridge police acted stupidly in arresting somebody when there was already proof that they were in their own home. And number three — what I think we know separate and apart from this incident — is that there is a long history in this country of African-Americans and Latinos being stopped by law enforcement disproportionately, and that’s just a fact.

      The man wasn’t “stopped. The man was acting in an abusive manner and refusing to cooperate with an officer called out to defend HIS HOME!

      The president should know that there is a long history in the Democrat Party of violence and inciting violence for civil and political purposes: KKK, Weathermen, SDS, Black Panthers, Symbionese Liberation Army, Elf, ALF, Occupy, NBPP, Back Lives Matter.

      The President’s divisive rhetoric and his continuous intervention to hype and politicize local police investigations throughout his administration gave birth to black individuals and mobs attacking people, destroying property, targeting police officers and killing some of them, and the rise of the group, Black Lives Matter whose sole purpose for existing seems to be to create havoc and deny others their rights to assembly and speech. BLM show up to intimidate, threaten and provoke a response…is it a big surprise to anyone that a few people have taken the bait, including Donald Trump, whose disdain for such behavior and political agitation is clearly expressed in his rhetoric, including, “Get them outta here?”

      I will not sit back and silently put up with hypocritical partisan and phony concerns over heated words used by Donald Trump when the opposition party pays people to go to Trump rallies to intimidate, bully and bait!

      I will not put up with the accusations of violence from the Trump supporters when those who provoked the violence and engage in it themselves are excused and treated as victims by the likes of Chris who hides behind a thin veil of, “That is wrong too.” Give me a break. Trump supporters did not seek out the agitators the agitators and bullies seek out Trump supporters!

      The party of violence and division is the Democrat Party. The Democrat Party has no moral ground on which to stand or to throw stones, in particular given the last seven years of often violent activism and agitation, rioting and burning, all designed to silence and shame white “folks,” police officers, and any group (Tea Party) that opposes them.

      It is unconscionable that Chris stands pompously against Trump and his supporters, all the while refusing to see or take responsibility for the fact that his party and his party’s agitators set this all in motion…that it is his party’s protesters who go to Trump rallies with the specific purpose of baiting Trump supporters and causing trouble. That his party is chalk full of political bullies and hateful anti-white agitators.

      It’s time the American people awakened to the fact that the Democrat Party has been corrupted and operates more like a political faction in communist countries and dictatorships. It’s time to dump this party for the broken, ideologically and morally bankrupt party it is.

      If Chris wants equal time at the ER perhaps he should start his own blog.

  5. Chris says:

    Tina, nowhere in your comment did you demonstrate that Obama endorses or incites violence. Your suggestion that merely sharing his opinion on what he viewed as inappropriate police action was an incitement to violence is absurd. If saying the officer in the Gates case “acted stupidly” is an incitement to violence against police, wouldn’t that mean Trump’s rhetoric about Mexicans and Muslims are incitements to violence against those communities? What is the difference?

    You have also continued to ignore that Trump’s endorsements of violence were explicit, not the subtle dog whistles you falsely accuse Obama of.

    Find me the statements Obama has made that equate to this:

    “Maybe he should have been roughed up.”

    “I’d like to punch him in the face.”

    ““If you see somebody getting ready to throw a tomato, knock the crap out of them, would you? Seriously, OK? Just knock the hell — I promise you, I will pay for the legal fees. I promise. I promise. They won’t be so much, because the courts agree with us too — what’s going on in this country.”

    You can’t find them, because they don’t exist. Only one candidate has explicitly called for violence against his enemies. That candidate is Donald Trump.

    Your attempts to paint me as the hypocrite here, when you are the one defending a candidate for explicit calls to violence while simultaneously condemning the president for *imaginary* calls for violence, are embarrassing, and show once again that you are completely unable to see reason when it comes to discussing these people. Other Republicans have condemned Trump’s calls to violence; you are so poisoned by partisanship that you can’t even see he has done this, and must pretend that Obama has done it too when he hasn’t.

  6. Chris says:

    The US Chamber of Commerce has come out strongly against Trump, warning that his economic policies would be disastrous:

    Republican frontrunner Donald Trump has promised to “make American great again.” He has built his campaign on the notion that our country doesn’t “win” anymore, and that under his administration and his trade policies, the United States would finally start “winning” in the international arena again. The path to all that winning starts, he says, by building a big wall and creating big trade barriers.

    Does a recession sound “great” to you? Do 7 million lost jobs sound like “winning?” No, probably not. And yet, that’s exactly where our country would be headed under Trump’s trade policies, according to an analysis released last week. Here are the details, via The Washington Post:

    “An economic model of Trump’s proposals, prepared by Moody’s Analytics at the request of The Washington Post, suggests Trump is half-right about his plans. They would, in fact, sock it to China and Mexico. Both would fall into recession, the model suggests, if Trump levied his proposed tariffs and those countries retaliated with tariffs of their own.

    Unfortunately, the United States would fall into recession, too. Up to 4 million American workers would lose their jobs. Another 3 million jobs would not be created that otherwise would have been, had the country not fallen into a trade-induced downturn.”

    The U.S. recession would set in within the first year under Trump’s proposed trade policies, which include a 35 percent tariff on imports from Mexico and a 45 percent tax on goods coming in from China. Over the next three years, the U.S. economy would shrink by 4.6 percent and the unemployment rate would nearly double to 9.5 percent.

    This guy has no idea what he’s doing.

  7. Chris says:

    No one has answered this (I guess because I haven’t posed it as a question):

    If you are against political violence, why are you voting for the only candidate who has openly endorsed political violence?

  8. Post Scripts says:

    Trump has not endorsed political violence. If you are searching for a moment in time where Trump was speaking off the cuff in anger and said get that guy or throw that guy out… you bet he has and I agree with him. But, endorsement of violence? Nah, that’s just you being you again. When Trump says, “I endorse violence” I will believe you, but not until. You’ve taken way to many things out of context and blown up little slights/quips into some horrible disaster too many times.

  9. Chris says:

    Jack: “Trump has not endorsed political violence.”

    Of course he has. I already showed you that he has.

    Again, these are direct quotes from Trump:

    (Referring to a protester beat up by his supporters at a rally) “Maybe he should have been roughed up.”

    (Referring to another protester thrown out) “I’d like to punch him in the face.”

    And the most damning:

    “If you see somebody getting ready to throw a tomato, knock the crap out of them, would you? Seriously, OK? Just knock the hell — I promise you, I will pay for the legal fees. I promise. I promise. They won’t be so much, because the courts agree with us too — what’s going on in this country.”

    Trump later denied he ever said this, because he’s a liar who doesn’t know how cameras work.

    If you are worried about these comments being “taken out of context,” you can easily click the articles I linked to and read the full context. There were many, many articles written about these events, and many conservative Republicans have condemned Trump’s calls for violence. How is it possible you didn’t know this? No one who pays attention to politics could be unaware of Trump’s endorsements of violence.

    There is no way to argue that the statements I have quoted from Trump are *not* endorsements of political violence, which is why so many on both the left and right have condemned him for this. I hope you won’t embarrass yourself trying to argue that telling a crowd to knock people out and that he would pay the legal fees is *not* an endorsement of political violence. That would be the height of denial.

    So have I changed your mind about Trump, Jack, or will you still vote for the only candidate who has endorsed political violence?

  10. Harold says:

    I don’t know who Jack will vote for (well maybe I do) but I sure am not voting for the bag-age laden Clinton. But you liberal ideologues go ahead and feel free to turn your back on America. Obama did as well.

    I just can not understand how any one finds her an acceptable candidate representing their party. Trump isn’t my first chose, but when it comes down to him or Clinton, he’s the only choice.

  11. trumpcoin says:

    I think it would be a interesting point of discussion for your readers

Leave a Reply to trumpcoin Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published.