The title of this piece refers to the lame reasoning given for the unjustified rioting of BLM/Antifa people over the course of the last year or more. Now, with unrest at the Capitol building in Washington, no such consideration is given the protesters by the lame person who thought of co-opting MLK's words for the purpose. The great irony, however, is that the expression is more appropriate now than it was to enable and support the BLM/Antifa rioting. Indeed, it is more comparable to the state of things back in King's day.
Back then, riots by black people, though still abhorrent as all rioting is, took place at a time when police actually were treating black people unfairly. Peaceful protests led by King were often met with violent responses...dogs, fire hoses, nightsticks, etc. The people weren't being heard when complaining of actual mistreatment, so that sentiment was to a large extent justified, if not always accurate for each and every instance of alleged abuse. It was enough that it was still happening with far too much frequency.
That's not the case with the BLM rioting. Their premise is false in the first place. To whatever extent there has been any racial animus at the heart of police response, they have instead chosen to lament the deaths of thugs as examples of it. These low-life individuals died as a result of their criminal activity and/or criminal response to lawful police action. They weren't innocent people minding their own business. Even Breonna Taylor's demise was brought about as a result of her connections with criminals.
But like the rioters of the 60's, those in Washington who stormed the Capitol Building were acting on the fact that their very real concerns about a very real problem with the election had gone unheard. That is, ignored, as if "only" mere conspiracy theories. The massive amount of evidence had not be scrutinized by those who should have given it serious scrutiny. It was all simply dismissed without a true hearing. (I've asked for links to stories describing actual court cases where such scrutiny has taken place and am still waiting. I've been unable to find any on my own thus far.) The blacks of the 60's had actual cases of unjustified and often unprovoked police brutality. The protesters here have actual cases of fraud. I've presented a great deal of it already.
Unlike the some, who have insisted they don't need to reiterate their desire for only peaceful protest when asked why they won't condemn BLM/Antifa burning, looting and assault, we who are conservatives are now required to condemn these protesters, as if we've ever promoted such things in the first place. I, for one, am sickened by it. Not just because it's never justified and now there may be some on my side of the divide who are acting like typical leftists/Democrats/progressives, but now lefties think they have proof of one of the lies they've been telling about Trump all this time. They're going to exploit this for all they can squeeze out of it, and it's begun already.
One of the usual suspects, who is suspect all the time, thinks conservative bloggers haven't responded fast enough. This is a guy who has to have his condemnation pulled from him like a bad tooth when it concerns the black voices upon whose every word we must hang. I've heard Doc Rivers and Steve Kerr blame conservatives for this, as if they've been outright encouraging it in the way Dems like Maxine Waters, Kamela Harris and others have continued to incite anti-Trumpers over the years. These are hypocrites and liars and those who simply don't pay attention, and are culpable in the rising rage among the right as they perpetuate all the lies and demonizing of people who simply won't condemn the nation that's been the best place in the world for their entire lives, regardless of ideology.
I don't in any way support rioting by anybody. I will never say that again because I shouldn't have to simply because some jackass on a blog demands I do what should be demanded in the first place. And especially since that jackass is part of the problem and never part of the solution to what ails this nation. This election was a travesty and a stain on our democracy and these leftist asshats are even corrupting that fact to their own ends. People are fed up with leftist crap and weak and spineless Republicans. How much are they supposed to take before they snap? How many more lies and false accusations will be leveled against them?
This is the language of the unheard. Own it, lefties. It's your doing, not Trump's. As Steve Kerr had the gall to say to those smarter than he, are you happy now?
19 comments:
What follows was sent by a friend who tried to post here. He isn't familiar enough with the blogging thing to be aware of how to deal with character limitations. So he sent it direct, and I'm re-posting it on his behalf.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The title of this piece refers to the ** lame reasoning** given for the unjustified rioting of BLM/Antifa people over the course of the last year or more.
Kirk: Who has given this lame reasoning for last year's riots?
Most of the rioting last year occurred after peaceful marchs, and under cover of darkness, making it difficult to clarify exactly who was rioting. I'm pretty sure which side the kid with the automatic weapon in Kenosha was on, however.
Now, with unrest at the Capitol building in Washington, no such consideration is given the protesters by **the lame person** who thought of co-opting MLK's words for the purpose. The great irony, however, is that the expression is more appropriate now than it was to enable and support the BLM/Antifa rioting. Indeed, it is more comparable to the state of things back in King's day.
Kirk: So are you saying the expression is not "lame" in reference to the rioters at the Capital? And that the state of the people who committed the act of insurrection at the Capital is comparable to the state of blacks in the sixties?
I find your choice of words instructive. With BLM/Antifa (two very different groups, btw - BLM is definitely an organisation; the same cannot be said of Antifa) but with them you refer to unjustified riots. Yet when speaking of the rioters who invaded the Capital and made statements about killing elected representatives and hanging the vice president, and who killed and injured Capital police, you refer to that as unrest. Why the distinction?
Back then, riots by black people, though still abhorrent as all rioting is, took place at a time **when police actually were treating black people unfairly.**
Back then, riots by black people, though still abhorrent as all rioting is, took place at a time **when police actually were treating black people unfairly.**
Kirk: Does this mean you believe that police are not currently treating blacks unfairly? I'm guessing you've heard of the expression "arrested for driving while black," as one example of unfair treatment. What is the source of your information supporting your claim that blacks are no longer treated unfairly by the police?
Peaceful protests led by King were often met with violent responses...dogs, fire hoses, nightsticks, etc. The people weren't being heard when complaining of actual mistreatment, so that sentiment was to a large extent justified, if not always accurate for each and every instance of alleged abuse. It was enough that it was still happening with far too much frequency.
That's not the case with the BLM rioting. **Their premise is false in the first place.** To whatever extent there has been any racial animus at the heart of police response, they have instead chosen to lament **the deaths of thugs** as examples of it. **These low-life individuals** died as a result of their criminal activity and/or criminal response to lawful police action. They weren't innocent people minding their own business. **Even Breonna Taylor's demise was brought about as a result of her connections with criminals.**
Kirk: Are you saying BLM's premise that black lives matter is false?
Are you saying that all blacks killed by police are thugs and low-life individuals? The events leading to George Floyd's death began when a store clerk claimed Floyd used a counterfeit $20 bill. There are a number of possibilities here. 1) The bill may not have been counterfeit. 2) Floyd may not have known it was counterfeit. 3) Floyd knowingly used a counterfeit bill. Do you think it was just for the police to kill him on the street for any of these possibilities?
Breonna Taylor's ex-boyfriend was being staked out for alleged criminal activity. Does that make her a thug or a low-life? She was an EMT, a first-responder. Here are the details of her "demise." Police broke into her house in the middle of the night. Her current boyfriend had a gun, fearing the thugginess of the previous boyfriend. He fired a warning shot, which may or may not have hit an officer. Then Breonna was shot to death, hit six times by police bullets. She was unarmed. No drugs or cash were found in her home. Thug by prior association, or low-life by prior association?
But like the rioters of the 60's, those in Washington who stormed the Capitol Building were acting on the fact that **their very real concerns about a very real problem with the election had gone unheard.**
Kirk: What was the very real problem with the election?
That is, ignored, as if "only" mere conspiracy theories. **The massive amount of evidence had not be scrutinized by those who should have given it serious scrutiny. It was all simply dismissed without a true hearing.**
Kirk: Where is the massive amount of evidence? My understanding of the reasoning of the 50-60 judges who refused to hear the cases claiming voter fraud was that the plaintiffs were not providing evidence to support their claims.
(I've asked for links to stories describing actual court cases where such scrutiny has taken place and am still waiting. I've been unable to find any on my own thus far.) The blacks of the 60's had actual cases of unjustified and often unprovoked police brutality. The protesters here have actual cases of fraud. **I've presented a great deal of it already.**
Kirk: Do you have information that Bill Barr and Chris Krebs did not have access to?
Unlike the some, who have insisted they don't need to reiterate their desire for only peaceful protest when asked why they won't condemn BLM/Antifa burning, looting and assault, we who are conservatives are now required to condemn these protesters, as if we've ever promoted such things in the first place. I, for one, am sickened by it. Not just because it's never justified and now there may be some on my side of the divide who are acting like typical leftists/Democrats/progressives, but now lefties think they have proof of one of the lies they've been telling about Trump all this time. They're going to exploit this for all they can squeeze out of it, and it's begun already.
One of the usual suspects, who is suspect all the time, thinks conservative bloggers haven't responded fast enough. This is a guy who has to have his condemnation pulled from him like a bad tooth when it concerns the black voices upon whose every word we must hang. I've heard Doc Rivers and Steve Kerr blame conservatives for this, as if they've been outright encouraging it in **the way Dems like Maxine Waters, Kamela Harris and others have continued to incite anti-Trumpers over the years.**
Kirk: Have Waters and Harris incited anti-Trumpers to illegal and violent acts?
These are hypocrites and liars and those who simply don't pay attention, and are culpable in the rising rage among the right as they perpetuate all the lies and demonizing of people who simply won't condemn the nation that's been the best place in the world for their entire lives, regardless of ideology.
I don't in any way support rioting by anybody. I will never say that again because I shouldn't have to simply because some jackass on a blog demands I do what should be demanded in the first place. And especially since **that jackass is part of the problem and never part of the solution to what ails this nation.**
Kirk: It sounds as though you have a specific jackass in mind here. How is he part of the problem and never part of the solution?
This election was **travesty and a stain on our democracy** and these **leftist asshats** are even corrupting that fact to their own ends.
Kirk: How, exactly, was the 2020 election a travesty? How was it a stain on our democracy? And what, exactly, is an asshat?
**People are fed up with leftist crap and weak and spineless Republicans.**
Kirk: "Leftist crap" is an awfully vague term. I would speculate that you are referring to anything said by AOC and Bernie Sanders. And yes, I for one am fed up with weak and spineless Republicans. I have great respect for Republicans such as Romney, Cheney, and Kinzinger, who have the courage to put their moral convictions ahead of concerns for how they are perceived by members of their party.
**How much are they supposed to take before they snap? How many more lies and false accusations will be leveled against them? **
Kirk: What, exactly are you referring to here? What lies and accusations, specifically? Do you believe feeling that one has been lied to and falsely accused in any way justifies treason?
This is the language of the unheard. Own it, lefties. It's your doing, not Trump's. As Steve Kerr had the gall to say to those smarter than he, are you happy now?
Kirk: Are you saying that the insurrection at the Capital was the doing of lefties? If so, I would ask that you greatly expand on this, as it seems to ignore Trump's numerous tweets telling his supporters to come to Washington on the 6th, and his speech to them in front of the White House, as well as claiming for four years that if he lost the 2020 election, it could only be because it was rigged.
+++++ end of original post
I must admit that I was shocked by this post, especially given that you wrote it the day after the insurrection, a historic atrocity. And comparing a mob of woefully misguided rioters who violently attacked the seat of our - and their - democracy, with the plight of blacks in the sixties, demonstrates a huge misunderstanding of both situations. I hope you can respond in a way that helps me to better understand your position. As it stands now, your remarks leave me believing you are as misinformed as the January 6th rioters. Yes, they were lied to, repeatedly, by Trump. He started the idea of a rigged election, and actively kept it alive through his entire presidency. He talked about it at all his rallies, and his supporters eventually came to believe it was true. Unfortunately for them, and eventually all of us, it was just another of Trump's fantasy-filled lies.
"Kirk: Who has given this lame reasoning for last year's riots?"
A guy named Dan Trabue who has a blog called "A Payne Hollow Visit" you can find on my blog roll. He fancies himself a champion of "the oppressed", when he's really just an enabler of bad behaviors.
"Most of the rioting last year occurred after peaceful marchs, and under cover of darkness, making it difficult to clarify exactly who was rioting."
Are you aware of any "peaceful marches" which didn't morph into violence, looting, destruction and assaults? I've asked defenders of these "peaceful marchers" and have yet to see such an example. Almost makes me doubt any existed.
"I'm pretty sure which side the kid with the automatic weapon in Kenosha was on, however."
I'm unaware of any kid with an automatic weapon. There was one kid, however...Kyle Rittenhouse...who had in his possession a semi-automatic (MASSIVE difference) AR-15...often stupidly referred to as an "assault rifle" by liars in politics and the media. He was in Kenosha after work helping to remove graffiti from a school rioters had put there. He then took part in assisting in the protection of a local dealership already heavily damaged by rioters. He sought to render medical aid to injured people and eventually got separated from the group he was assisting at the dealership. He was chased by rioters to the point of having to defend himself with his weapon, because he was seen defending the dealership, and also putting out a dumpster fire. (Rioters don't like when anyone interferes with their rioting.) So this kid was on the side of the businesses who were unjustly destroyed by rioters who were rioting to be heard.
"Kirk: So are you saying the expression is not "lame" in reference to the rioters at the Capital? And that the state of the people who committed the act of insurrection at the Capital is comparable to the state of blacks in the sixties?"
I think the expression is lame regardless of to whom it is applied...even by MLK Jr back in the day. I understand his meaning, but it tends to legitimize criminal behavior, even though that wasn't his intention when read in its original context. It's far less applicable to the rioters at the Capitol ("insurrection" is a bullshit term purposely employed to influence perceptions of the incident. "Violent protest" is far more accurate and honest, given that's what it was. More on that later if need be.)
Yet it's even less applicable to the BLM/Antifa riots that occurred throughout the year and are still ongoing in places like Portland. Both the blacks of the 60s and the rioters at the Capitol have legitimate concerns. The BLM people don't.
"I find your choice of words instructive. With BLM/Antifa (two very different groups, btw - BLM is definitely an organisation; the same cannot be said of Antifa) but with them you refer to unjustified riots. Yet when speaking of the rioters who invaded the Capital and made statements about killing elected representatives and hanging the vice president, and who killed and injured Capital police, you refer to that as unrest. Why the distinction?"
"Insurrection" is an instructive word choice, as I've explained above.
I put BLM and Antifa together because of how often they work in tandem. I don't care who likes it. They're both cut from the same cloth regardless. I don't know much about who said what or what possible threats were made against anyone by any rioters.
Side bar: at this point, there is no conclusive proof of what actually caused the death of Officer Sicknick. Medical examiners found no signs he sustained any blunt force trauma (not hit with fire extinguisher as originally reported. A commonly expressed possibility is that he had a latent respiratory issue and had a very severe reaction to various chemical sprays that were in the air in abundance that day. It would be difficult to pin his death on anyone, particularly if some of the chemicals were dispersed by law enforcement.
The distinction is due to the vast difference in degree of damage and harm caused by the asshats at the Capitol. There is no comparison between what they did there and what the BLM/Antifa morons have been doing all summer long. Yet if one were only listen to the liars in the media and the Democrat Party (sorry for the redundancy), one might think the Capitol incident was the freakin' Apocalypse. It as barely a summer shower by comparison to the BLM destruction all year long.
"Kirk: Does this mean you believe that police are not currently treating blacks unfairly? I'm guessing you've heard of the expression "arrested for driving while black," as one example of unfair treatment. What is the source of your information supporting your claim that blacks are no longer treated unfairly by the police?"
Before I go further, I want to say that much of what you ask in your questions has been dealt with in other discussions and supported with quite a bit of evidence. To round up all of it now will be time consuming, so at this point I will be referring to some of it in more general terms.
But yes, I know that police are not currently treating blacks unfairly. Not as a general practice, either intentionally or inadvertently. And sure, I've heard the expression "arrested for driving while black". It's largely bullshit.
There have been several studies looking at crime statistics, particularly with regard to alleged disparities along racial lines. One of the most notable was done by Heather MacDonald of the Manhattan Institute. You can find her stuff all over the internet.
"Kirk: Are you saying BLM's premise that black lives matter is false?"
What's false is that they expect you to believe they give a flying rat's ass about black lives. It's a hook. It makes people believe they care. They're just a marxist organization looking to overthrow our culture...true insurrectionists, in fact.
"Are you saying that all blacks killed by police are thugs and low-life individuals?"
No. But consider who the liars trumpet as "martyrs" and victims of alleged police brutality: George Floyd, Eric Garner, Michael Brown, Jacob Blake, Rayshard Brooks, etc. These guys...and you can throw Trayvon Martin in there...were in no way innocent or compliant with police who detained them. Their deaths/injuries were self-inflicted given their choices.
Referring to Floyd: "Do you think it was just for the police to kill him on the street for any of these possibilities?"
The police didn't kill him. He was dying when they first encountered the guy from the ingestion of large quantities of drugs. I can go into detail, but I'll just jump the main issue defenders of this guy as a victim like to highlight: Chauvin kneeling on is neck. This restraint technique was taught cops as a non-lethal restraint. It is not a choke-hold type of restraint, and before you mention his lament that he couldn't breathe, he was saying that from the very beginning before he asked to be laid down. The cops on the scene made two calls for an ambulance due to his condition, and the second was of greater urgency than the first, as Floyd's condition was clearly worsening. By the way, the coroner found no evidence of damage to his throat or airways.
"Breonna Taylor's ex-boyfriend was being staked out for alleged criminal activity. Does that make her a thug or a low-life?"
That makes her a victim of her own choices, just like the thugs and low-lifes listed above, as well as those with whom she spent her time. Had she not been, she'd not have had her place breached by cops. (I've also read that her boyfriend at the time, who fired on the cops, was also involved in drug trafficking. As an aside, in all my years of buying and sometimes selling weed, I've always been cognizant of the fact that there were dangers attached which could have put me in similar situations. I'd be a victim of my own choices as well.)
It's helpful to remember that cops are not obliged to take fire without a response in kind. There's nothing in their job description that mandates they must risk their lives when someone fires a gun at them. The cops were within their rights as they were fulfilling their duty. The outcome does not mitigate that fact in the least.
Thus, nothing so far indicates that any of these "victims" were indeed "victims" of police brutality or racism. Yet, the BLM types...the LeBron James types...are full of shit to hold up these people as example of angelic, innocent black people victimized by racist police brutality. If we are to concede that such police misbehavior exists, it would behoove the activists to provide examples of innocent people, complying with police directives and dying nonetheless because the cop is an asshole. The facts show that bad cops are most often arrested, tried and sentenced far more often than the activists want anyone to know.
More later...gotta hit the rack.
"Kirk: What was the very real problem with the election?"
As you know, there was a cornucopia of credible evidence of fraud, irregularities and statistical anomalies as well as cases of Constitutional violations of election law, very little if any of which was actually litigated. This was blatantly apparent to not just the 74 million Trump voters, but to some honest lefties as well. Now, of course, we're seeing shameful admissions of all this in the New York Times.
"Kirk: Where is the massive amount of evidence? My understanding of the reasoning of the 50-60 judges who refused to hear the cases claiming voter fraud was that the plaintiffs were not providing evidence to support their claims."
Your understanding is wrong. Typically in criminal cases, prosecutors won't take a case to trial unless they have what they believe is solid evidence. The plaintiffs in these cases have that evidence and it is a silly notion to say they must prove evidence before going to court...which is where that sort of thing normally happens. There, it can be explained in detail and the defense can argue against it with their own evidence if available. To say plaintiffs had no evidence to support their claims is absurd, as they wouldn't take the time to appeal to any court without it. Who does that? Whether the evidence is sound, has merit and backs up their allegations regarding voter/election fraud is what is determined in a trial...not before one.
"Kirk: Do you have information that Bill Barr and Chris Krebs did not have access to?"
As to Barr, Giuliani has stated Barr didn't approach him for info or to interview any of those who signed affidavits about having witnessed fraud. Barr also stated his department wasn't the appropriate vehicle for determining such things.
As to Krebs, he said similar after he pretended he knew this was the most secure election ever. Here's but one article providing some details those enamored with Krebs simply because he opposed Trump's allegations didn't bother to mention.
"Kirk: Have Waters and Harris incited anti-Trumpers to illegal and violent acts?"
Yes. To whatever extent any acted on that incitement is not the measure of whether or not their words were definitionally incitement. They both unequivocally encouraged confrontations of one kind or another.
"Kirk: It sounds as though you have a specific jackass in mind here. How is he part of the problem and never part of the solution?"
First, I must note that I did not type out what I meant to in the portion preceding this question. It should have read "I will never say that again because I shouldn't have to simply because some jackass on a blog demands I do what shouldn't be demanded in the first place."
The jackass I have in mind is the aforementioned Dan Trabue. He is part of the problem by promoting the false narratives so necessary for his kind to gain sympathy and thus power over the electorate. When one is corrected through easy to find information that is beyond question, but still one perpetuates falsehood, he is part of the problem.
"Kirk: How, exactly, was the 2020 election a travesty? How was it a stain on our democracy? And what, exactly, is an asshat?"
Clearly, the mountains of evidence for fraud and chicanery demonstrates just how great a travesty it is. This is further supported by the unwillingness of those alleged to have taken part or benefited from the fraud to make the slightest effort to show the election was on the up and up. Democracy is savaged when an election is so rife with questionable behaviors no one cares to give the time of day, much less actually investigate for the benefit of all.
And "asshat" is an "asshole" by another name. I first came upon the word some time ago and became enamored with it, and it is tolerated better in some circles than is "asshole". So, when I'm trying to be civil, I go no worse than "asshat". When I'm intent on getting a point across about just how bad someone is, "asshole" helps make that point better than "asshat".
Outta time. Gotta go to work. I'll finish up later.
"Kirk: "Leftist crap" is an awfully vague term."
There was a time when that might actually be true. These days it's all one gets. Case in point: the use of King's words to justify the criminal rioting of BLM/Antifa throughout all of last year. And I could likely fill a book with all the leftist crap spewed out since Trump's astounding 2016 win. It's never ending and hasn't ended yet. Impeachment 2.0 is merely the latest. But it extends far, far beyond the Trump related. Joe Manchin and Tulsi Gabbard might be the only two who express anything reasonable. Andrew Yang sometimes does. Remove those three and you can't swing a dead cat without hitting a leftist politician, pundit or celeb that doesn't spew crap and little to nothing else.
"I have great respect for Republicans such as Romney, Cheney, and Kinzinger, who have the courage to put their moral convictions ahead of concerns for how they are perceived by members of their party."
Ironically, not a one of them matches Trump in that area. He's been attacked by establishment Republicans from Day 1, yet he's stayed the course and fulfilled campaign promises far better than almost any president in our lifetimes. That's because unlike most, he actually ran with the intention to serve and has done so. Yeah, he's not shy about expecting accolades. But to pretend that's not common among the political class would be self-deceiving. Yet with him, that's about all he expected and the claim "he only cares about himself" is not at all proven by his actions as president or even as a private citizen.
As to the three you mentioned, you seem to believe that they're acting selflessly. Yet there's never been more than a handful that have been legitimately behind Trump while he was in office, and now that he's not, so many rats have been jumping ship. Romney, while I don't regret voting for him against the impotent and worthless Obama in 2012, has proven we may not have seen much different had he won than what Obama provided. I think he's been demonstrating serious sour grapes after Trump failed to find a place for him in his administration. Cheney's an establishment animal and Kinzinger would have remained an unknown had he not found fame by criticizing and opposing Trump. He's a guy who thinks he's in Washington to lead. He's not. He's there to represent. You can tell by the fact he's a member of the US House of Representatives. And if the people who elected him also voted for Trump, then he truly has failed in his job by acting against Trump.
"Kirk: What, exactly are you referring to here? What lies and accusations, specifically? Do you believe feeling that one has been lied to and falsely accused in any way justifies treason?"
Lies such as the lie that the actions of the rioters constitute treason...the irony being that those who pay attention regard the Democratic party as treasonous and the fraud and illegal rejection of election law is proof.
But more to the point, the lies that claims of fraud is baseless and debunked. Again, I've not found a case where any fraud claims were actually litigated, so how could any of them have been debunked?
Then there are the lies that Trump supporters are incapable of coming to their own conclusions without getting instruction from Trump. It doesn't work that way. They're not Democrats. They pay attention.
The left has been lying about Trump since he first came down the escalator. And they've been more than eager to attack his supporters simply for daring to support him, as if he's not been coming through for them for the last four years. Now, we're seeing even worse, as calls to "deprogram" and other nefarious suggestions are the latest examples of leftist crap that abounds like a shit-spewing Old Faithful.
So to the question of justification...more honestly worded as "justifies rioting"...the answer is "no". It does not. But to the point of this post, it is just the same another case of such behavior being "the language of the unheard". And what was unheard were concerns which are actually legitimate, unlike the false narrative of the BLM/Antifa riots of the past summer.
"Kirk: Are you saying that the insurrection at the Capital was the doing of lefties? If so, I would ask that you greatly expand on this, as it seems to ignore Trump's numerous tweets telling his supporters to come to Washington on the 6th, and his speech to them in front of the White House, as well as claiming for four years that if he lost the 2020 election, it could only be because it was rigged."
I'm saying it's more than possible. Click here to see one source who believes agitators have been identified. There's also one guy named John Earle Sullivan, who is a known leftist activist who claims to have only been filming, but was shown egging on the demonstrators. I haven't fully vetted the hyperlinked piece as yet, and there was another I could provide as well but also haven't vetted. But Sullivan is a proven case. That's not to say most of them were lefties, but were the lefties not there, it is far, far less likely any breaching would have taken place. Indeed, it's why security was so lax despite the knowledge that the rally was to take place. There's never been any reason to suspect a Trump rally would end up with such behavior, as nothing like that has EVER occurred after a Trump rally in four years. Like the Tea Party rallies, they can get loud, but never violent. Indeed, in the run-up to Nov 3, businesses were boarding up their stores in cities where BLM/Antifa had already destroyed so much property. They were doing so in anticipation of a Trump win, not a Trump loss, because threats were already made to rampage were he to have won. Now, with this rally, we're to believe he incited the people to break into the Capitol and cause harm and damage. Yeah. That makes perfect sense.
And yes, there could only be fraud to explain how he could have lost to a freaking Joe Biden...or to ANY Dem opponent for that matter. My most recent blog post provides several lists of accomplishments from his administration. To pretend he wasn't a net benefit to the nation, even allowing that few would agree with everything on those lists, is to prove one hasn't been paying attention to much more than his tweets. He was a busy guy and got a lot of great stuff done, which is why he had the outpouring of support he did and growing support from minorities.
Finally, as to his speech, I read the whole thing. Believe me...if you think it's hard to listen to him give an entire speech extemporaneously, try reading the transcript! But read it I did and there was NOTHING that justifies the slanderous and stupid charge of incitement to riot. It was no more inciting than a college football coach giving a half-time pep talk. To pretend it was is just more leftist crap and again, the flow never stops.
"I must admit that I was shocked by this post, especially given that you wrote it the day after the insurrection, a historic atrocity."
First of all, as I said at the outset, I find the use of the term "insurrection" instructive. As it's the favored term of the hateful Democrats and their media sycophants, it saddens me to see you use it. "Riot" works. "Insurrection" is leftist crap.
As to historic, how quickly we forget. It as just last summer that BLM/Antifa rioters took their carnage to DC, burning a historic church. Lefties screamed that Trump dared call out the Guard to assist in putting down the rioters. Now look at DC. Worse, let's take a trip back in the WayBack Machine to Nov 2016 to see what "insurrection" looks like! Those were far worse rioting than what took place last Jan 6. Add to that the assault on a federal courthouse in Portland last summer and I'd say this followed precedent.
"And comparing a mob of woefully misguided rioters who violently attacked the seat of our - and their - democracy, with the plight of blacks in the sixties, demonstrates a huge misunderstanding of both situations."
But I didn't make that comparison. Dan did, pretending the BLM assholes are comparable to the black rioters of the 60s. I merely state that if the expression "language of the unheard" is justified at all, and justified for the BLM rioters specifically, it is indeed justified for the Capitol rioters as well, and arguably more so, based on the fact that the complaints of the Capitol rioters (assuming they were all Trump supporters pissed with the fraudulent election) are legitimate and those of the BLM assholes are not. And again, for the record, of the three sets of rioters mentioned here, not a one of them is at all justified.
"As it stands now, your remarks leave me believing you are as misinformed as the January 6th rioters. Yes, they were lied to, repeatedly, by Trump. He started the idea of a rigged election, and actively kept it alive through his entire presidency. He talked about it at all his rallies, and his supporters eventually came to believe it was true. Unfortunately for them, and eventually all of us, it was just another of Trump's fantasy-filled lies."
I'm not misinformed at all, and I don't think you, nor anyone else, has made a case even the rioters were, either. Their actions were stupid, but their complaints were, and still are, legitimate. One of the best indicators of that is how those they accuse made no attempt to debunk their beliefs. Don't you think the Dems would've benefited by allowing the evidence to be litigated if the election was truly on the up and up? Serious scrutiny would have proven the charges were false if they truly were. Instead, they did everything they could to avoid such transparency. Now, with the article from the New York Times, we find they are now admitting to having rigged the election under the laughable guise of "protecting democracy"!!!
Given the reaction to Trump 2016 win, and then the subsequent petulance of the Democrats and NeverTrump Republicans in the fact of one success after another on behalf of all Americans, it became obvious with each passing day that it would indeed require a rigged election to deny him a second term. That or a massive misstep by him, which never occurred in any way. (Minor missteps perhaps, but nothing to prevent reelection in an honest race.) And given the outpouring of support at all of his campaign rallies, versus the three people that showed up at the few attempts at rallies when he wasn't holed up in his basement, only a true Trump-hater would regard this election as honest. Perhaps it was. We'll never know because the Trump-haters hadn't the honor or integrity to allow the charges to be litigated properly. They're now doubling down on it by trying to impeach a private citizen in hopes it will result in his inability to run against them in 2024. Why would they do that if they didn't cheat like the evil bastards honest people know they are?
As to the notion of Trump's "lies", I've been begging Trump-haters on the blogs and Facebook to provide me with an example of any of his "lies" that were...
1. Actual lies given the proper definition of the word, and
2. An example of one that is in any way worse than those told by Obama, Biden himself and the Democrat Party as found in their party platform.
To date, no one has so much as attempted such a thing, and might be counted as just a lame attempt were not lies at all.
If I haven't said it anywhere above, let me say it here: I was not a Trump supporter during the primaries leading up to 2016. When he got the nomination, I was pissed and deeply troubled knowing I had no choice but to vote for him in order to be one more vote against Hillary Obama 2.0 Clinton. She was without a doubt the greater of two evils. Yet I couldn't believe I was left with this choice. Cruz was my guy. I thought Rubio would have been OK. (I think if Kasich wasn't such an asshole, refusing to drop out when he clearly had no chance of beating Cruz or Trump, his voters would have gone for Cruz and he would have beaten Clinton easier than Trump did. Selfish prick.)
Here's the thing. You join those who say Trump lies. What greater lie to the American people has Trump said than Hillary's Benghazi lies? Note how Biden still pretends Trump said there were good nazis. Note how they both perpetuated the Russian collusion hoax. Those types of lies influence voters when deciding how to vote. How many still believe that shit even now?
Many speak of Trump's alleged history of sexual predation and attacks on women. Hillary attacked victims of her husband, knowing the allegations were true. Biden has Tara Reid who is still willing to take a lie detector test if Biden will. Her story is far more credible than any assault charge I've ever heard against Trump...and I've looked at most of them. Trump's public "attacks" on women were to those who attacked him first (breaking the GOP habit of letting lefties say whatever crap they want without slapping them down), and "punching up". That is, unlike Biden with that college kid he called a lying, dog-faced pony soldier (surely meant to be funny, but still calling her a liar without justification), and the joking of Clinton toward a rape victim against whom she was defending a guy, Trump takes on those who have power. He's never attacked an average citizen.
Some like to say Trump's corrupt and uses the presidency for his own profit. I've seen reports that his net worth has been halved since he took office. Not that he needed it, but he never took a paycheck while president. Biden traded his status for profit and so have the Clintons.
I say all this to illustrate how what has been said against Trump is proven to be true of both Biden and Clinton, his two presidential opponents. And the irony is that those who make these baseless claims against Trump voted for the two who are actually guilty of those charges. So I hope I have responded in a way that helps you better understand my position.
Don't be such a stranger on this blog. Based on our history, I know you'd bring far better than what I get these days.
Well, no one can accuse you of not have very strong opinions. But I must say I feel more confused regarding your position(s) than I did before I asked for clarifications. I'll just list my points of confusion until I hit the 4096 limit, then start a new comment.
You say somebody else used the King quote to characterize or explain last summer's rioting. But you think that person's reasoning is lame. So why did you use the quote as the title for the post?
You asked me if I was "aware of any "peaceful marches" which didn't morph into violence, looting," etc. My answer is yes, I am aware of hundreds, perhaps thousands, of peaceful marches that didn't morph into violence. I have been in many, so I speak from first hand experience. Are you just referring to the marches last summer, all the marches that resulted from police killings, or all peaceful marches? I have not followed these things nearly as closely as apparently you have, so I would have a difficult time giving examples other than - as I said - ones that I actually participated in.
You also seem to have considerably more information regarding Kenosha than I do. And more info on guns, too. Thanks for the schooling. (I'm SO GLAD I didn't stupidly refer to the kid's weapon as an assault rifle.) ;-> But help me out here. When he left Illinois to help remove graffiti from a school, did he take his AR-15 with him? Perhaps he knew there would be businesses in need of his protection? Who authorized him to protect businesses with the use of deadly force? Does Illinois law allow a seventeen year old to carry an AR-15, or to cross state lines with it? That's some kind of dedication. Did he have financial or family connections with the local dealership he chose to protect? You say he had to defend himself with his weapon because rioters were chasing him. And it sounds like you have information regarding the rioters motivations and intent. Did the survivor say he had deadly intent when he chased the kid? (Sorry about the kid thing. It's just easier than typing out his name each time. And he was 17.) The two guys he shot dead obviously weren't able to state their intentions. But you live much closer to the scene than I do, so it's reasonable to assume you have better info than I do. I guess we'll just have to wait and see what the juror's in his homicide trial decide.
You say "insurrection" is a bullshit term. My copy of Merriam-Webster's dictionary defines insurrection as "an act or instance of revolting against civil authority or an established government." What about that do you perceive as bullshit?
I'll respond to the rest of your comments in the next few days, as time allows. Thanks
"You say somebody else used the King quote to characterize or explain last summer's rioting. But you think that person's reasoning is lame. So why did you use the quote as the title for the post?"
To make the point that if he was going to use that quote to justify the far more destructive BLM/Antifa riots that occurred all over the nation for most of the year since George Floyd's death, and with far less justification, then he can't pretend the Capitol riots were any less justifiably rationalized as being "a voice of the unheard".
"You asked me if I was "aware of any "peaceful marches" which didn't morph into violence, looting," etc. My answer is yes, I am aware of hundreds, perhaps thousands, of peaceful marches that didn't morph into violence. I have been in many, so I speak from first hand experience. Are you just referring to the marches last summer, all the marches that resulted from police killings, or all peaceful marches?"
Yes. I was referring to the "peaceful" marches related to the Floyd death (not a "police killing, as coroner's report proves") and other similar marches that have morphed into riots. Of course there have been peaceful marches for a variety of other issues. I was referring to those rationalized by the guy who used the King quote.
"You also seem to have considerably more information regarding Kenosha than I do. And more info on guns, too. Thanks for the schooling. (I'm SO GLAD I didn't stupidly refer to the kid's weapon as an assault rifle.) ;->"
But you DID refer to it as an "automatic weapon". It is a semi-automatic weapons, which is what most firearms are now. It means one trigger pull results in the discharge of one bullet. Automatic weapons mean one trigger pull results in multiple bullets discharged until trigger is released.
"When he left Illinois to help remove graffiti from a school, did he take his AR-15 with him? Perhaps he knew there would be businesses in need of his protection? Who authorized him to protect businesses with the use of deadly force? Does Illinois law allow a seventeen year old to carry an AR-15, or to cross state lines with it?"
According to this story, the gun was bought for him by an older kid and stored at the older kid's step-father's house. The gun was in the older kid's name.
The US Constitution gives each of us the authority to defend life and property. It does not deny anyone the authority to defend the lives and properties of others. One is not required to have financial or family connections to another person who is being attacked in order to defend that other person.
"You say he had to defend himself with his weapon because rioters were chasing him. And it sounds like you have information regarding the rioters motivations and intent. Did the survivor say he had deadly intent when he chased the kid?"
There is a time line of video showing the kid and his actions prior to and including the events of the shootings. He was attacked. One attacker had and fired a gun, another struck him with a skateboard. He is not required to interview attackers for intent in order to be justifiably in fear for his own life.
"I guess we'll just have to wait and see what the juror's in his homicide trial decide."
It will be a severe miscarriage of justice should he be convicted of homicide rather than judged a self-defense shooting. If there are any charges related to his being in possession of the rifle, that's another issue altogether. But even there, for one not allowed to possess a weapon obtain one when in danger may also result in acquittal. I hope so in this case.
Regarding "insurrection", it's a word which doesn't really apply here. More precisely, as with the misuse of the King quote, if it applies here, then it certainly applies to all the riots that took place all summer rationalized by the same people who decry this little dust up (by comparison). This situation was far less than what has been the history of Trump supporters, conservatives who rally in general and far more common among the left. That's not even debatable. The term is used in an inflammatory manner, to make more of this event than it was, even allowing for how despicable it was. There is a tendency, a habit, an intent by the left to overstate the actions of their ideological opponents so as to appeal to sheep on an emotional level. They inflate the negatives of their opponents so as to diminish or deflect for their greater negatives. Use of the word "insurrection" is to achieve this effect. It's the dishonesty of the left.
Post a Comment