Making Terror “The Order Of The Day”: Charlottesville Leads To Call For Opposing Groups To Be Declared Terrorists

Heads_on_pikesBelow is my column in the Hill Newspaper on the call from both the right and the left for protesters to be declared domestic terrorists.  With rising anger over protests and counter protests, politicians are rushing to join calls for the government to not simply investigate these groups for hate speech but actually terrorism.

Here is the column:

BarereMore than 200 years ago, France descended into a period known as “la terreur,” or the reign of terror. Revolutionary Bertrand Barère declared at the infamous September 1793 convention, “Let’s make terror the order of the day!”

A couple centuries later, we appear to be on the brink of achieving Barère’s dream to an extent that even he could not imagine. If you read the comments from the left and the right in the last two weeks, it would seem that most everyone can be defined as a terrorist in this age of rage. There are now calls from both groups demonstrating and counter-demonstrating in Charlottesville to be declared domestic terrorists. The question is what will be left of free speech if terrorism becomes merely a type of extreme speech.

The Illinois legislature is considering a measure by state Sen. Don Harmon, a Democrat, that calls on the government to “pursue the criminal elements of these domestic terrorist organizations in the same manner and with the same fervor used to protect the United States from other manifestations of terrorism.” Harmon insists that the measure takes a “stand in total opposition to the hatred, bigotry and violence displayed by these groups.”

Screen-Shot-2017-08-14-at-4.53.09-PM-654x362-cf7cb2dYet, the racist protesters in Virginia had a permit to march and Charlottesville Police Chief Al Thomas denounced the violence on both sides. That raises the question of whether the presence of a “criminal element” on either side is enough (when combined with extreme views) to meet a new evolving definition of terrorism. Some have insisted that Nazi rallies are inherently threatening to public safety and terrorizing to various groups. The clear message is that politicians want these groups not simply denounced for hate speech but declared actual terrorists.

Conversely, over 100,000 people have signed a petition calling on the Trump administration to formally recognize the Antifa movement as a terrorist organization. The petition states, “Terrorism is defined as ‘the use of violence and intimidation in pursuit of political aims.’ This definition is the same definition used to declare ISIS and other groups, as terrorist organizations. Antifa has earned this title due to its violent actions in multiple cities and their influence in the killings of multiple police officers throughout the United States. It is time for the Pentagon to be consistent in its actions — and just as they rightfully declared ISIS a terror group, they must declare Antifa a terror group — on the grounds of principle, integrity, morality, and safety.”

A similar movement has called for Black Lives Matters to be declared domestic terrorists for the violence seen at various protests. There is a striking similarity in the rationales for declaring both sides to be terrorists. Neither side is willing to recognize, let alone respect, the right of the other side to free speech regardless of the content of their views. For years, some of us have been warning about a dangerous tide sweeping over Europe as Western countries in the criminalization of speech deemed offensive or insulting while banning whole groups deemed hateful. The West is losing faith, and patience, with free speech.

It has not worked, as history has consistently shown. Germany criminalizes symbols like the swastika or Holocaust denials. Neo-Nazis however continue to flourish and simply slightly altered their symbols and salutes. France, England and other countries routinely prosecute people for expressing views deemed hateful, but both extremism and terrorism continue unabated. The reason is simple. The enforced silence produced by these laws is purely superficial. It does not stop extreme views or change minds, it merely forces it below the surface.

As shown by Europe (and Canada), criminalizing of speech places countries on a slippery slope toward what the Framers feared as the “tyranny of the majority.” It becomes an insatiable and satisfying appetite for those who want to simply silence opposing views. For their part, politicians want to show voters that they feel their anger by declaring unpopular groups “terrorists” or unpopular speech crimes. If you are not with those declaring the other side terrorists, you look like you are not sufficiently appalled or opposed to their views.

imagesThe fact is that the two groups protesting in Charlottesville was not the largest convergence of terrorists in history. James Alex Fields is under investigation for possible terrorism in mowing down counter-demonstrators. His actions rather than his values will be the basis for any terrorism charge. Moreover, whether he meets that definition or not will not alter that likely demand for a death sentence for murder.

Like most Americans, I was disgusted by the appearance of torch marching neo-Nazis in the streets of Charlottesville. I was shocked that so many held such hateful views. Those views can clearly intimidate or scare others. However, if that is the standard for terrorism, the difference between a protester and a terrorist is merely how their speech is interpreted by others.

We have had Nazi rallies in this country going back to the 1930s, including the infamous Nazi rally in 1977, which took place after the U.S. Supreme Court supported their right to march. We tolerate such demonstrations, not because their speech has objective value, but rather because free speech as a whole has value. We have refused to limit the right to speech for everyone to combat the few.

Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University. You can follow him on Twitter @JonathanTurley.

363 thoughts on “Making Terror “The Order Of The Day”: Charlottesville Leads To Call For Opposing Groups To Be Declared Terrorists”

    1. I believe Sen. Grassley (some Senator anyway) has called for a DOJ investigation of the Charlottesville event. Perhaps all these dingbat organizations have been infilrated by Soros-organized anarchists, globalists. In any event, it’s worth finding out.

  1. DisruptJ20: The Justice Department Demands 1.3 Million IP Addresses

    and Other Information On Trump Critics

    Turley Blog – Aug 18, 2017

    Breaking News

    Government Can Search Inauguration Protest Website Records, With Safeguards

    August 24, 20175:09 PM ET

    “A judge in Washington, D.C., has approved a government request to access data from a website used to organize protests against President Trump’s inauguration — with the caveat that the Department of Justice must establish “additional protections” to safeguard users’ privacy and right to free speech.

    The DOJ already had a warrant approved by a judge to search records related to the site, which organized protests on Jan. 20. More than 200 protesters were charged with rioting, and the Justice Department is looking for evidence in some of those cases. But the Web hosting company DreamHost, which holds the records, challenged the government’s request, calling it overly broad and saying it threatens privacy and free speech.

    D.C. Superior Court Chief Judge Robert Morin told lawyers for the Justice Department that they could proceed with a narrower version of their warrant. But the government needs to develop a plan to “minimize” the exposure of “innocent users,” as he put it.”

    Looks like sufficient probable cause to discover criminal protestors.

  2. There is simply no way to equate anti-Nazi and BLM protesters with Nazis and white supremacists, even though your President attempted to do so, and to the extent this piece is a further attempt to do so, it is wrong. The net effect of equalizing both sides is to blame Heather Heyer for her own death, and that’s outrageous. She was peacefully expressing her opposition, as were the vast majority of persons protesting the white supremacists. Their opposition to the indefensible white supremacists and Nazis is not extreme nor calculated to lead to violence. The reverse is true, though.

    Meanwhile, a group of psychiatrists, led by a doctor at Yale, has publicly stated that Herr Trump is a “clear and present danger” due to his narcissistic personality and emotional instability. It’s about time that someone with proper credentials said so publicly.

    1. They are ALL hooligans afflicted with a case of severe arrested development. There absolutely is an equivalence. Hooligans and thugs (neo-Nazis & white supremacists) are nor more nor less than the hooligans and thugs on the left (neo-Marxists, anarchists). Their labels alone differentiate them. Oh, and by the way, the Nazis/KKK at least had a permit to protest/demosctrate. Their invasive hooligan brothers on the left (Antifa.BLM) did not. It’s clear who was looking for trouble. No one would have died had the police and city hall done its job and if Antifa/BLM hadn’t crashed the “party”. If I had my way, I would have transported them all to a remote open field where they would be encouraged to knock the snot out of each other. Good riddance!!

      1. The nazis did exterminate many of the jews and the kkk terrorized and murdered black people. You are presenting false equivalencies.

          1. “Hooligans and thugs (neo-Nazis & white supremacists) are nor more nor less than the hooligans and thugs on the left (neo-Marxists, anarchists). Their labels alone differentiate them. Oh, and by the way, the Nazis/KKK at least had a permit to protest/demosctrate.’ Your words.

            1. Yes, and I, being of sound mind, stand by those words. They are all hooligans and thugs whose activies and isms are unworthy of any manner of justification by us.

    2. Name one politician, aka actor, who isn’t narcissistic. One. At least Trump doesn’t feel entitled as well, which is why he’s such a “clear and present danger” to the me-first swamp rats in DC, America’s aristocracy.

      1. Name one politician, aka actor, who isn’t narcissistic.

        You’re being silly. Few of us are in a position to run a psychiatric inventory of our local mayor or state legislator. There are people in politics well-known for various sorts of pathology because they’re unable to conceal that or cannot be bothered. (The Clintons, Rahm Emmanuel, Andrew Cuomo, Marilyn Mosby, Maxine Waters, &c. Barack Obama is certainly one strange piece of work). Most politicians are not obtrusive enough for you to notice their grossness.

        1. Did any of the persons you listed ever waste taxpayer money organizing rallies for no purpose other than to hear applause and to throw red meat to their base? We have to pay for Secret Service protection at these events, and the Secret Service has already exhausted its 2017 budget. Did you hear him lie about what he said after Charlottesville? He left off the part of the condemnation speech where he said, twice, that there is blame: “on many sides, on many sides.” A couple of days later, he said there was fault “on both sides”. Those comments, which he ad libbed, are the basis for the media’s criticism of him. He lied about this at the Phoenix rally. He lies all of the time, about many things, mostly attempting to dispute things that make him look bad. The kind of lies he tells are those easily disproven, like the actual words uttered a few days ago. You cannot point to a similar pattern of lying about provable facts by any of the persons you just listed.

          A piece from Newsweek dating back to fatso’s divorce from Ivana in the 1990s quoted someone close to them who said that attention for him is like cocaine. Was and still is. Fatso obsesses over President Obama because he is severely jealous that Obama is still more popular than he is. He does something each and every day to get attention because he is emotionally immature and needy, and those characteristics render him unfit to have access to the nuclear codes.

          1. Did any of the persons you listed ever waste taxpayer money organizing rallies for no purpose other than to hear applause and to throw red meat to their base?

            Politicians go on speaking tours as a means of building support. Don’t know how this slipped by you.

            I guess BO got a pass from you because he was always hustling for bucks from Democratic Party moneybags. (Though there was that time when he had the presidential lectern installed complete with TelePrompTer’s to address a classroom filled with 6th graders).

            1. In other words, the response to my question is: “No”. “Speaking tours” and the pathetic “show me how much you love me–please” rallies held by the orange buffoon are vastly different things. Did you hear him talk all about his superior education, his lavish homes and how much money he has when comparing himself to reporters who say negative things about him? When did President Obama ever discuss his education, assets or money as a grounds for attacking reporters? Did you hear him lie about the actual words he used after Charlottesville, attacking the media for being dishonest, when it was he who was lying? None of these things seem to matter to those who support him. The purpose of Chump rallies is to feed his insecure ego. He wasn’t speaking about matters of public concern–he was attacking those who point out his lack of accomplishments, his woefully inadequate response to Charlottesville and his lack of honesty. BTW: at the Phoenix rally, did he say anything whatsoever about the 10 US sailors who just lost their lives? No. Guess that wasn’t on the teleprompter. It certainly wasn’t on his mind, because he doesn’t care. None of them was named “Trump”. To be fair, he did say, in response to a reporter’s question: “That’s too bad”. Did he explain why, now, the US taxpayers will have to pay for the wall after repeatedly telling his supporters: “trust me–Mexico will pay for the wall”? No. He even threatened to shut down the government if he doesn’t get his way, which really ought to concern you. The “rally” was all about him and his need for attention and praise. That ought to sicken you.

              1. When did President Obama ever discuss his education, assets or money as a grounds for attacking reporters?

                Obama composed two memoirs before he’d reached his 44th birthday. His accomplishments at the time the second was published consisted of 7 years in the Illinois legislature, holding a p/t teaching position (during which his scholarly publications were nil), and spending about 3 years as an associate in a law office.

                The media were extensions of the Administration (bar Sheryl Atkisson), so BO wasn’t talking back to them.

              2. The purpose of Chump rallies is to feed his insecure ego.

                You’re completely unaware of just what you sound like and what your words say about you, but you fancy you can divine the purposes of a mercurial man who does not tip his hand.

              3. “Speaking tours and the pathetic “show me how much you love me–please” rallies held by the orange buffoon are vastly different things.”

                I don’t like these rallies, for either side. Trump’s are not different things, but just the same thing with different messages and different people attending. Your indignation is completely viewpoint specific.

          2. A piece from Newsweek dating back to fatso’s divorce from Ivana in the 1990s quoted someone close to them who said that attention for him is like cocaine.

            A 27 year old article making use of an anonymous source who pretended personal knowledge germane to Trump’s marital problems. Surely absolutely reliable.

    3. Natacha – they took narcissistic disorder out of the the DSM after Obama was elected and it was clear he was a narcissist.

    4. There is simply no way to equate anti-Nazi and BLM protesters with Nazis and white supremacists,

      It’s actually quite simple for someone who isn’t a malicious idiot. Both sectors have a right to receive permits to gather on public property or thoroughfares. Both sets are obligated to mind the law while gathered. Both sets are entitled to police protection if someone tries to start something.

      I’m not aware of gangs of people from the most recent American Renaissance conference swarming university campuses attempting to prevent people from speaking. AmRen types are not numerous and university administrators and the local mayor are not conniving with them.

    5. “The net effect of equalizing both sides is to blame Heather Heyer for her own death, and that’s outrageous.”

      Actually, no. Saying that violence is wrong no matter who does it does not mean that anyone is responsible for there own death. That’s false logic.

      Let me explain this to you about when violence is allowed:

      If you hear someone break into your neighbor’s house, and chase her around the house with a knife screaming, “I’m going to kill you!”, and you run over there and shoot him, you have saved her life and will be lauded a hero. If, however, you are in your kitchen and hear through the window a guy tell his girlfriend that women are good for nothing and stupid, and you run over there and shoot him, you will be arrested and go to jail.

      There are lots of people in jail for committing violence because they were offended. The wife beater who claimed he killed his wife because she mouthed off to him and pissed him off. That is because it is against the law to hurt or kill someone because their words are offensive to you. This is what we teach little children. You can only engage in violence in defense of yourself or someone else, never because you don’t like someone’s words.

      It’s stupid to claim we should suddenly change the law so that we can kill each other over offensive words.

      And that is what Antifa wants. It thinks it is fighting the good fight to beat or kill anyone who says something offensive.

      But do you know what fighting the good fight against racism really is? It’s turning someone in to the police for a hate crime. Reporting racist graffiti. Defending someone verbally who is being discriminated against. Ensuring that race does not matter in your own hiring practices to give everyone an equal chance. Volunteering to tutor poor kids to give them the best opportunities. All of the above is productive.

      Merely punching someone in the face because of a haircut or God forbid a racist does not save anyone. It’s not shielding anyone from getting hurt in a racial hate crime, it’s not helping increase opportunities for poor minorities, and it sure as heck isn’t changing any racist’s way of thinking. It’s just lashing out to make yourself feel better, while making the streets more dangerous.

      I personally do not care to hear or watch or reach what any racist wants to say. Our time in this life is precious, and I do not want to sacrifice one second of it to a racist. I’d rather walk away and do something fun, and save my actions for when it would actually help someone.

      1. The orange buffoon EQUATED BLAME between the Charlottesville groups–said it several times, despite what he claims he said at Phoenix. The first time he said there was blame: “on many sides, on many sides.” This was his own little ad lib, not on the teleprompter, and this is what got him into trouble. After the outcry, he later said there was blame “on both sides”. Those last words he added both times are what people object to, and it is the product of his own stupidity, which is why his hackles are up. He can’t accept responsibility for his own blunders and poor judgment, so he railed against the “dishonest media”, and read the speech as his writers had drafted it, leaving out the objectionable parts he added. His speechwriters didn’t put words equating blame–he ad libbed it, and it was a stupid thing to do. It is also factually incorrect. Contrary to what you claim he said, he said there was blame “on many sides, on many sides” and “on both sides”. He didn’t generically condemn violence–he equated the Nazis and White Supremacists with those who oppose what they stand for, like Heather Heyer. That is placing blame for her death on her.

        There is not equal blame. Heather Heyer was peacefully objecting to the White Supremacists and Nazis and what they stand for. She has no blame for causing her death. What the 2 sides stand for is not equal, not by any means, and that is the huge difference here. Nazis and White Supremacists are anti-American. They have the right to free speech, as everyone does, but their message is immoral. I am dumbfounded that people can defend this lying fool.

    6. “Anti-Nazi” and Black Lice Matter protesters are criminals who committed crimes of mayhem, assault and battery.

      Nazis and white supremacists availed themselves of their constitutional rights to freedom of speech and assembly.

      The former are criminals.

      That latter are citizens with freedom.

      The American Founders provided historic relief from tyranny and oppression.

      There are no constitutional rights for you and your band of traitors to deny freedom of speech or assembly.

      The violence you perpetrate will result in your arrest and prosecution.

        1. Nazi sympathizers are

          Just say ‘poopy-pants;, Kenny. Semantic content’s the same and your audience will get a better idea of what you actually mean.

        2. Do your readers know you are a liar and a fraud?

          I doubt you can be prosecuted as the Constitution provides you the freedoms of thought, speech, assembly, etc.

          You should be good as long as you don’t cross over that line right by your foot there into actionable treason.

          Enjoy, comrade.

    7. Meanwhile, a group of psychiatrists, led by a doctor at Yale, has publicly stated that Herr Trump is a “clear and present danger” due to his narcissistic personality and emotional instability. I

      This sort of fraud has been a recurrent feature of public life since Barry Goldwater ran. No psychiatrist or psychologist with an ounce of integrity would put their name on this sort of thing.

  3. As someone who lived in Chicago during the “Days of Rage” by the Weather Underground in 1969, Antifi is beginning to resemble the beginnings of that group. An armed Antifa group called RAM – for Revolutionary Abolitionist Movement hosts anti-police workshops. They draw inspiration from convicted murderers and call for violence against the police, theft of goods, and armed insurrection. They too may grow up to blow up banks and bomb the Capitol.
    As a unrelated point of interest here the petition mentioned to name Antifi domestic terrorists is close to 300,000 signatures. Maybe they are just getting a head start to what is coming.

    1. Fake news. The only semi-reputable source (and I use the term very loosely) is the boy blunder himself,Tucker Carlson.

    2. Gabby, The Walker Report concluded that the violence at the 1968 Democratic Convention in Chicago was a police riot instigated by The CPD’s Red Squad of agent provocateurs.

      Hizzoner, Da Mare, Richard J. Daley famously disputed the claim with the rhetorical question “What trees do they plant?”

      Also, before The Walker Commission issued its report, Hizzoner, Da Mare, infamously stated that “The police are not here to create disorder. The police are here to ‘preserve’ disorder.”

      1. Gabby, The Walker Report concluded

        Exactly what did the Kerner Commission have to say that proved credible and perspicacious? You’ve had nearly 50 years of actual history to test against their contentions?

        While we’re at it, why do we consult Mayor Dealy’s enemies as if they were honest brokers?

  4. Turley’s explains that “some people” see BLM as domestic terrorists because of “violence seen at certain events.” What does that mean exactly? Violence has been seen at Trump rallies, after promises from the podium that their legal expenses would be paid and references to how people were treated in the “good old days.” BLM has never called for violence and has spoken out against it more robustly than certain Republican politicians. What those with the need to falsely classify BLM as terrorists fail to recognize is that BLM IS the nonviolent response! You really wouldn’t want that option to be taken away.

    1. Exactly. BLM isn’t a terrorist organization. The violence people are referring to, at least in the case of BLM, are opportunists and nothing more. Many of those people may not even have a political or socially conscious bone in their bodies. The black community trying to protect the black community and prevent unnecessary deaths, especially of youth (how the in the hell can we not agree on this one), is far from a terrorists agenda.

      1. As long as the well-intentioned and peaceful among the BLM openly disassociate with and condemn the troublemakers and “opportunists” within their ranks, then they are ALL hooligans and thugs. It’s up to BLM to differentiate the good, bad and ugly within its group, not us.

          1. Perhaps Jim meant that they haven’t openly ‘disassociate[d]’ with hooligans and opportunists.

              1. Jim I just saw a reply by a Jim Delany to another blog. “From my own personal and professional experience, I KNOW that irefugee resettlement has become a big business, aka the “refugee resettlement industry”, which is financed on a refugee per capita basis by taxpayers. Simply put, the more refugees who enter, the more faux humanitarian and greedy church-related refugee programs prosper.”

                Was that you?

                1. Yes, that was me. Managed refugee programs both here and overseas for nearly 30 years, but it wasn’t until 2003 that I realized the US was getting over its head with refugees. At that point, I took an early retirement. Didn’t want to sua sponte contribute to the growing disaster.

                  1. It’s a game. Churches and non profits pay a little and then the rest of us pay big time. Have a good retirement.

      2. bpw,
        There is no moral or legal justification for any individual or group to infringe the rights of any other individual or group. That should be the anchor for the entire discussion. If we cannot agree on that then the rest of it is useless moral and legal relativism. It shouldn’t matter for instance if someone is an ignorant opportunist or a strategic political activist; if you infringe the rights of others, you need to be held accountable under the law.

          1. Thank you Karen.

            I’ve been reading your comments and they are spot on. You are being rational, reasonable, logical, factual and unfortunately none of it matters to people that just don’t care. They want what they want.

        1. Olly, Good rule we should all live by.

          I don’t know enough about BLM, but here is a video and some other information.

          …And here are some thoughts about BLM video’s.

          ““Pigs in a blanket, fry ’em like bacon.” (“Pigs” was a reference to police officers, and “blanket” was a reference to body bags.)”

          “On a BLM-affiliated radio program the following month, the hosts laughed at the recent assassination of a white Texas deputy; boasted that blacks were like lions who could prevail in a “race war” against whites; happily predicted that “we will witness more executions and killing of white people and cops than we ever have before”; and declared that “It’s open season on killing white people and crackas.””

          “July 2016, a BLM activist speaking to a CNN reporter shouted: “The less white babies on this planet, the less of you [white adults] we got! I hope they kill all the white babies! Kill ’em all right now! Kill ’em! Kill your grandkids! Kill yourself! Coffin, bitch! Go lay in a coffin! Kill yourself!” ”

          It’s comments like these that give BLM the bad press and the leaders comments calling for a type of Arab Spring didn’t help either.

          If BLM doesn’t attempt to distance itself from such statements then people are correct to consider them hooligans despite the fact that some BLM supporters are peaceful protesters.

        2. Absolutely ludicrous. Where did you get your law degree, Libertarian Universty or Trump University?

          1. Absolutely ludicrous.

            Wow, as compelling as your argument is, would it be too much of a burden to ask you to explain why some or all of what I said was ludicrous?

      3. “The violence people are referring to, at least in the case of BLM, are opportunists and nothing more.”

        There seems to be a lot of those opportunists and they seem to appear at an awful lot of events.

      1. And if the Antifa and Dems have their way, it will be Stalin and Mao. Of course, I am told there are already several statues of Lenin somewhere in a northwestern state.

      2. This sounds like you have some easily verifiable proof there. Would love to see it. Of course, it may turn out to be something other than Black Lives Matter the organization causing violence or a situation where people are trying to credit an entire group for the actions of a few individuals that may or may not be members. If individual alleged Christians or Rotary Members or Moose or Elk’s or Shriners were able to bring down the whole group, it wouldn’t be long until there were no god groups left.

        1. ‘Verifiable proof’? The undocumented shopping going on in Ferguson was on the nightly news. Yes, BLM types were inciting it, including members of Michael Brown’s family.

          The whole premise of BLM is silly, of course.

          1. I know you to be capable of engaging in concise, logical arguments (trying real hard to recall the exact wording from, “My Cousin Vinny”). Make your case as to how BLM incited looting and what exactly is a “BLM type?”

        1. BS is meant for the liars who profess BLM is violent. Too many liars do not make it so.

    2. Enigma, don’t forget that those hooligans who were “assailed” by Trump supporters were interlopers bent upon creating a scene and denying free speech. I never saw Trump supporters pulling that crap in the Progressive Democrat gatherings.

      BLM and its other anti-America conspirators on the Left are no less odious and extreme than the Nazis and white nationalists are. Seeing things objectively and honestly is so important.

      1. Seeing BLM as “anti-America conspirators” kind of dispels your objectivity and honesty. Do you know what their goals are? What they value? Their methods? Or are you letting them be defined by those who see them as equal to Nazis and white nationalists which you just said?

        1. Engima, you can easily research BLM’s platform of lofty mission items and demands. Not pretty. IF you can assosciate yourself with that crap, then you are one of those weak links you are trying to ignore and downplay. Come back to reality, Enigma. For your own mental health.

        2. Actions speak louder than words and the actions of BLM in many areas have been violent and disgusting. Many of the people engaging in those violent and coercive acts were documented on videos. Those perpetrating such violence belong is jail where you can visit them and tell them how nice they have been behaving.

            1. “It is beyond my control!!”

              Yes, we know, enigma. You are incontinent. But knowing so you still soil virtually everything you touch.

      2. You are correct Jim D. Take note how easy it is to find videos where violence is being promoted by the left, but very difficult to find on the other side (except perhaps with the Nazi’s or skin heads, though I haven’t seen a video of them demonstrating they are starting the violence). I seem to remember one video where the President or someone else said that people should defend themselves (at the event) from violence and if that caused them legal difficulty it would be paid for. That was advocating self defense and not advocating violence towards others.

          1. Thanks. Here is another statement of the BLM crowd: At a December 2014 BLM rally in New York City, marchers chanted in unison: “What do we want? Dead cops. When do we want it? Now.”

            Video at

            Enigma can keep telling us how peaceful they are, but what he is really telling us is that truth has no bearing on what he says as long as BLM is able to continue in a violent manner. That is his game. He doesn’t care about the kids being killed in Chicago or that Chicago police have been threatened in such a way that good black families suffer from lack of police protection. He wants the militants stirring up problems even if people die. It must give him some type of high.

    3. “BLM has never called for violence and has spoken out against it more robustly than certain Republican politicians.”

      I disagree.

      “Cops are pigs. Fry ’em like bacon.”

      A disabled police officer recently sued the BLM organization for inciting violence against police officers, quite the opposite of what you have suggested. ( “More specifically, it claims the movement and rhetoric of its leaders inspired a decorated former U.S. Marine sergeant to unleash a torrent of bullets upon Baton Rouge police on July 17, 2016, leaving three officers dead and another three injured — including the plaintiff, identified only as Officer John Doe Smith in the lawsuit…Black Lives Matter protests erupted across the country, including a peaceful one July 7, 2016, in downtown Dallas. But it turned deadly, too, when an Army veteran named Micah Johnson ambushed law enforcement officers who were overseeing the demonstration route. Five Dallas officers were killed and seven more were wounded.” Although one of the shooters had not attended the BLM rallies, their message spread online. Their false claims that police officers were the biggest threat to black lives led to an epidemic of ambush shootings against police officers.

      “a gunman in Dallas opened fire on police at the end of a Black Lives Matter demonstration, killing five officers and wounding several others. Micah Johnson, the shooter, told a hostage negotiator that he was angry on behalf of Black Lives Matter and “wanted to kill white people, especially police officers.” Johnson’s Facebook page revealed an affinity for black nationalism, and he followed a Facebook group called the “African American Defense League,” which encouraged followers to “ATTACK EVERYTHING IN BLUE EXCEPT THE MAIL MAN” and “sprinkle Pigs Blood.”

      Read more at:

      BLM has aligned itself with Palestinian terrorists against Israel, which is considers an apartheid state. BLM is openly anti-semitic. Its members have met with terrorists, such as the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, which absolutely engages in violence. In its support of terrorists, it supports terrorism.

      1. The BLM released the following demands to the media:

        “the groups demand “an end to the criminalization, incarceration, and killing of our people,” which includes abolishing capital punishment and eliminating the use of past criminal histories to determine eligibility for jobs and other services.
        “Until we achieve a world where cages are no longer used against our people, we demand an immediate change in conditions and an end to public jails, detention centers, youth facilities and prisons as we know them,” the agenda says.”

        So they demand the end of incarceration of black people. So…black people can commit any heinous crime they want and…because of their basal melanin concentration, they don’t go to jail because that would be racist instead of justice??? And end to jails wouldn’t increase violence? It’s irrational drivel devoid of responsibility or any desire to lower the actual crime rate.

        And here is an article on how the violence celebrated by BLM has affected policing, leading to black neighborhoods being less safe because cops don’t want to get involved anymore. It’s not worth the risk to engage a black suspect. They might be accused of racism and lose everything. So some cops just sit in their cars now and let the poor communities devolve even more into third world war zones, making black people less safe than ever.

        “And that fear compounds what officers have felt for going on two years. In June of last year, the New York Daily News editorialized: “Fear has taken hold of the New York Police Department. The city’s cops have grown afraid to do their jobs.” FBI director James Comey seemed to confirm that this year, in May, when he suggested that the “viral video effect” has led police to retreat from carrying out their duties. The feelings of cops at present are chronicled exhaustively in Heather Mac Donald’s new book, The War on Cops. She quotes an officer from South Central Los Angeles describing the views of his colleagues: “Guys and gals in coffee shops are saying to each other: ‘If you get out of your car, you’re crazy, unless there’s a radio call.’” This is partly a result of the violence that Black Lives Matter demonstrations have occasioned, intentionally or not, in places such as Ferguson, Minneapolis, and Baltimore.

        Given the heightened passions surrounding the alarming deaths of Alton Sterling and Philando Castile, both shot dead by police last week, it was almost inevitable that this weekend’s protests would devolve into violence, and that’s precisely what happened. In Sterling’s Baton Rouge, 125 people were arrested; an officer struck with a projectile lost several teeth. In Chicago, protesters broke through a police barricade, and multiple people were arrested on charges of battery against police. And in Castile’s St. Paul, Minn., more than 100 protesters were arrested when protesters used an overpass over Interstate 94 to throw rocks and rebar at police, injuring 21 officers, including one who suffered broken vertebrae when a concrete block was dropped on him from above. When one officer was injured, protesters cheered: “One piggly-wiggly down!” If police are even more fearful after this weekend, they would not be without reason.

        And here is a great explanation about how hateful rhetoric is still protected free speech, and not directly responsible for violence, yet it encourages it: “Black Lives Matter is not responsible for Micah Johnson’s rampage — or the attacks on police that followed over the weekend, or incidents such as the assassination of two NYPD officers by Ismaiyl Brinkley in 2014. Even when Black Lives Matter activists chant “Pigs in a blanket! Fry ’em like bacon!” — and too many of them do — violent rhetoric is not directly responsible for actual violence. But Black Lives Matter is responsible for how it reacts to events such as Dallas. And the response of many was not only dismissal — Johnetta Elzie, one of the movement’s founding activists, suggested that Dallas was a false-flag operation by the federal government — but it pushed the agitation to an even higher pitch. That is, after Dallas, the response of activists was to willfully create the conditions that make violence more likely, not less. When tensions were high — perhaps as high as they have been since the movement began — Black Lives Matter opted to escalate the situation.”

        Read more at:

        And, no, I do not consider BLM a terrorist organization. Although it does engage in hateful rhetoric and praises violence against cops, it is not a concerted, organized effort to harm police. Gleefully celebrating the death or injury of cops is reprehensible, but a terrorist organization would be working towards the goal of killing all cops, not just celebrating it. It gives people ideas. It encourages them to hurt cops and Caucasians. It fans the flames of victimhood rage and ignores personal responsibility, or any hint that you could even slightly steer the course of your own life. It’s all rage profiteering.

        1. Great posting KAren. It seems that BLM is involved in violence quite frequently and that BLM leadership hasn’t denounced these occurences one by one. We have heard loads of video of their violence and loads of quotes, but where has BLM denounced all of these things. They haven’t except maybe early on, but as the violence got worse the leadership seems to be quiet.

          I haven’t yet placed them in the terrorist camp like Antifa, but it appears they are heading in that direction.

      2. You can point to acts of individuals but not the organization. A shame you can’t see the difference. If being sued is a criterion for contempt, your current President is among the most sued persons in history. What a member (or someone you think is a member) does or says does not equal the organization.

        1. Just as you are as strong as your weakest link, the org is properly identified by each link. As an org, you either jettison the weak/violent links or your group should necessarily and properly be identified by those links. It’s subterfuge and prevarication to conveniently do otherwise.

          1. What a slippery slope you just opened up. Let’s start by eliminating the Catholic Church because they are all pedophiles and rapists. You know many of those “very fine” Klansmen consider themselves devout Christians so they’re out. Larry Craig with his, “wide stance” was both a Senator and Republican so out with them. “Son of Sam” was Jewish, Donald Trump has been a Democrat and Republican. Clarence Thomas is black. At what point does this “weakest link” theory fall apart?

              1. I was inspired by someone’s “weakest link” claim suggesting if one member of a group (or someone claiming to be one) is bad, the whole group is reduced to the same level. In context it made sense.

            1. Enigma, surely you can see your example is not equivalent. I can’t know who are pedophiles or BLM sympathizers in my church unless and until they are exposed. And in ANY group/team I’ve managed, each member was expected to tow the line, adhere to stated mission and to work together toward achievement of that mission. If any diverged, they were removed before they incriminated, weakend the team. Get a grip. enigma. At least try to be objective and less emotional in your “analyses”. You’re kidding no one.

              1. In regard to the Catholic Church, many priests have been identified as pedophiles and unfortunately, the all too common response was to shift the offender to another unsuspecting Parish. The cover-up went to very high levels of the church in multiple jurisdictions. This is all widely known.
                People that know me would laugh at your suggestion of my emotional responses. I am far more often referred to as Spock. That would be Mr. and not Dr.

                  1. Any maybe you as well. I chose as my example actual employees and representatives of the church. The people used as examples to vilify BLM are almost always neither. Or perhaps some remote “leader” never given that title by the organization but by those who needed that person to be representative of the movement. I don’t know that it takes any more to say one is a member of BLM than to become a Catholic or member of any faith. That member no more represents the entire organization than Lt. William Calley (My Lai) represented the entire US Military.

                    1. So when the “opportunists” act out violently and the group’s leadership does not condemn them, that’s okay by you and these “opportunists” who aren’t really +BLMers can be excused. I see. So sad. So stubborn. So cognitively dissonant. You’re a BIG part of the problem, enigma. I’ve given up reasoning with you. It’s a dead end. And like an adolescent, you’ll want the last word, so have at it, but I won’t be reading or responding to it. You’ll need to pester someone else.

                    2. The groups leadership has condemned violence, you’re too busy trying to define them in a way you can minimize them to see that. I haven’t been trolling you, only responding to direct comments to me. Enjoy your day.

                    3. Jim D. You hit the nail on the head when you said, “You’re a BIG part of the problem, enigma.”

    1. People haven’t completely forgotten the lessons of WWII. Give it a few more years, when we are in the absolute minority, and that should be about the appropriate time.

      1. If the left has its way, there won’t be any history to learn from, except their own Progressive version of it. Sadly, we are destined to re-learn again the awful lessons of the past. People are so stupid.

  5. Well we had Nazism. Communism. Monkeyism. Democracynowism. Procreationism. Lots of isms or izms. So terrorism is sort of new. Never had it before did we? Call the men in the white suits.

  6. Stay ahead of the curve. Meet the Shining Path, los ilumminatis terrorists of Peru.

    1. The Constitution died with “Crazy Abe” Lincoln’s “Reign of Terror.”

      The Constitutional method of abolishing slavery was voluntary deployment of the free market economic tools of marketing/promotion, boycotts and divestiture.

      Abolitionist cotton buyers around the world needed only to have stopped buying cotton to shut down plantations employing slave labor.

      Abolitionist Investors around the world needed only to have stopped financing any part of the textile industry that employed slave labor.

  7. Mass insanity is exactly what we have here and it’s led by the Democratic politicians not the usual crazies. Maybe they should be declared personae non gratae as they seek to do to others.

    1. When I think of the odious DNC, “Nero fiddled as Rome burned” comes quickly to mind. These vermin will permit and encourage anything–ANYTHING–so long as it advances its dystopian Progressive/neo-Marxist goals. And by their cowardly silence, Republican nitwits aren’t much better…

      1. Yeah, because he is a pussy, and he was running with the herd. Sort of like the pussies at Evergreen College, or Lindsey Graham and John McCain. Sort of like the pussy CEOs who skedaddled. At the least little sign of somebody saying “racisssst!”, they fold up like a cheap suit. Sort of like the pussies who cave in on the tranny freak bathroom issues.

        That is why you guys will win, and succeed in destroying America. What was that Yeats said:

        “The best lack all conviction, while the worst
        Are full of passionate intensity.”

        Squeeky Fromm
        Girl Reporter

        1. Wrong again…his Jewish family and community were pressuring him to leave. He put Trump on notice in any case.

          1. Yeah, because they are probably Liberal Democratic Party sorts, and in on the “Let’s Smear The Crap Out of Trump Game!” Which going against the grain scares the crap out of the pussies, and for the Never-Trumper/Deep State sorts, it just provides them an excuse for them to dump on Trump, because they like the status quo!

            The same as all the “17 Intelligence Agencies” bullsh*t. It was never 17 agencies, and to date there has not been one credible shred of evidence about Russian Hacking, or “collusion” whatever that is, yet did that stop the witch hunt??? Nope. Like Van Jones cynically said,”It’s a big nothing burger.” Left unsaid was the fact that CNN was going to run like heck with it anyway! Because. Trump.

            That’s my opinion.

            Squeeky Fromm
            Girl Reporter.

            1. Fun fact: you don’t need to smear Trump. His behavior does it nicely. If that doesn’t offend your sensibilities, not on a political level, but on a human decency level (making fun of disabled people publicly, to name one of 4,768,385.666666 offenses), then I believe we are done arguing here.

              To call the Russia investigation a witch hunt is like saying that Human-caused climate change is still without scientific evidence. You’re a denier. Admit it.

              1. Well, you are simply repeating the Big Smear (which works the same way as the Big Lie – – – just repeat a smear enough, and pretty soon all the group thinkers will be repeating it, and even worse, believing it!). And give the “He teased a handicapped man!” whine a rest. It isn’t true. Trump was just gesturing with his hands, the same as numerous other times. What you should be asking yourself is, why did you fall for that lie/smear, if indeed you are even a sincere person who believes it, and not just a partisan shill.

                As far as climate change, call me a skeptic. Here is a blurb from an article about a recent study!

                She adds: “To be clear, while mainstream climate science is replete with published proxy temperature studies showing that temperatures have cycled up and down over the last 2,000 years – spiking during the Medieval Warm Period and then again recently to about 1980 – the official IPCC reconstructions (which underpin the Paris Accord) deny such cycles.

                “Through this denial, leaders from within this much-revered community can claim that there is something unusual about current temperatures: that we have catastrophic global warming from industrialisation.”

                Dr Marohasy, whose long list of credentials include setting up The Climate Modelling Laboratory and director of the Australian Environment Foundation until 2008, scathingly concludes: “The science is far from settled.”


                Time will tell.

                Squeeky Fromm
                Girl Reporter

                1. Thank you Jim D. and Squeey. It seems Badparent is listening to too many talking points and not watching what is really happening. At times Trump is a bit coarse, but he is transparent telling everyone what he thinks at the moment. That is a lot better than a President that knowingly lies and tells people “if they like their doctor they can keep their doctor”.

                  The former Trump is a transparent businessman though a bit coarse.
                  The latter, Obama is a lying politician though smooth enough to fool people like Badparent.

              2. To call the Russia investigation a witch hunt is like saying that Human-caused climate change is still without scientific evidence. You’re a denier. Admit it.

                You might consume something other than talking points.

                No one has been able to delineate just what the crime was which is being investigated, the investigator is a professional Siamese twin of the fired FBI director, the investigator is engaging in blatant forum shopping, and the investigator allocated 30% of the positions on his team to lawyers who’ve made 4-digit donations to the Democratic Party. It’s not difficult to find lawyers who do not make party donations, since only a single-digit minority ever makes such donations. Mueller isn’t hiding what he’s doing. His Bezos and Sulzberger press agents are publishing the leaks from his office and helping him keep up deniabllity.

        2. Does using a psuedonym to rage on people count as being a pussy? I didn’t think so, but it certainly sounds like I don’t have nearly the conviction or passionate intensity that you do.

          1. I hope I am wrong, being so pessimistic, but I really believe we have hit critical mass in stupidity. Worse, the stupidity is coming from those with the most education, and therefore the least reason to be sooo frigging stupid. I expect stupidity from some backwoods yokel in West Virginia, who dances around with rattlesnakes while blabbering in tongues. Sheeeesh, the guy is a part time preacher when he ain’t driving a pulp wood truck.

            But you have people dumber than that on this website. People who teach college classes, and have kids who went to Swarthmore, and people who publish poetry, and jet pilots, and people with college educations. And they believe in silly stuff like White Privilege, and Trump being a fascist racist, simply because he ran as a Republican and beat Hillary. These kind of idiots are extremely into making sure nobody spoils the mood with inconvenient facts, sooo they pump their stupid little narratives day and night, wherever they can.

            It is sooo bad that an old timey liberal named J.H. Kunstler is calling them insane on immigration policy. Not wrong. Not misguided. But flatly insane. Michael Moore has woke up in some new universe where he is now all for Mexican workers taking American jobs, when a few years ago he stalking the GM CEO for sending American auto jobs to Mexico. The only difference I can see is that when the Mexicans come here, then they can vote for Democrat, so that must be what makes all the difference.

            Not to mention the day to day stupidity of supposed anti-fascists giving the real fascist Brown Shirts of the 1930s a run for their money.

            So yeah, I think the Left is going to win, and Trump will only provide a few years respite before we continue our downward spiral. Its a form of Zombie Apocalypse, just instead of brain-dead zombies, we have a horde of brain-dead Democrats who are rampaging around making a mess of civilization.

            Squeeky Fromm
            Girl Reporter

            1. Squeeky, you’re the best. Wish I could “friend” you on my Facebook. (Not sure how that works. Techno-challenged, I’m afraid.) Would love your input/commentary. Always spot on. BTW, if you haven’t a blog, do one; if you haven’t written a book, plse do so. (BTW, I’ve written “A Patriot’s Call to Action” and “Tightrope”, both on Amazon. The former I am told is a bit text bookish about the real meaning of the Constitution, and the second is about my experience as Director of a large American humanitarian program in Laos before, during and after the Communist take over there in 1975. Both at Amazon. With age, I am increasingly more shameless, at least when it comes to promoted my meager tomes.) Again, plse write and blog. Keep me/us posted. THANKS!

  8. I totally agree with Prof. Turley’s sober analysis. Violence and related unlawful behavior is, of course, criminal, and the onus is upon local police forces–and city hall leaders–to aggressively safeguard public safety by dealing with those protesters who act criminally (Berkeley and Charlottesville come quickly to mind.) At this juncture, and until such time that Antifa, BLM, KKK and the rest of these adolescent nitwits descend into classic terrorism mode, there is no justification for dubbing these protesters and counter-protesters “terrorists”.

  9. Would a ban on wearing a mask to conceal your identity at a demonstration pass constitutional review?

  10. I agree that Antifa etc. are domestic terrorists. Events today remind me of the groups we had back in the 70s, and they might have been equally destructive then had there been a world wide web and the vast wealth of the 21st century (not to mention helicoptor parents!). ISIS call themselves freedom fighters. I do not want to see things escalate to that point in my country. There is a big difference between extreme speech and actual violence. Violence is not speech, money is not speech. These hair-brained reinterpretations have got to stop.

    1. Many in the Democrat Party dub ISIS “freedom fighters” as well–not just ISIS. Just who is the “enemy within”. Hard to tell these days. They all look so much alike–BECAUSE THEY ARE!!!!!

  11. The Boston Tea Party year 1773. Led by the sons of liberty & Samuel Adams brewer & patriot. They dressed as Indians in order to blame them. Was this terrorism?

    1. Jerry – nobody but the blind believed they were Indians. No, they were not terrorists.

      1. My favorite beer is Samuel Adams, Irish Red. After downing a few, let’s paint the town red.

    2. Jerry, If I recall that tea was later paid for.

      Violence was not in the minds of the Tea Party itself. Leaders of Antifa have openly stated that they will surpress 1st Amendment rights of others using violent force.

      ““Terrorism is defined as ‘the use of violence and intimidation in pursuit of political aims.’ This definition is the same definition used to declare ISIS and other groups, as terrorist organizations. Antifa has earned this title due to its violent actions in multiple cities and their influence in the killings of multiple police officers throughout the United States.”

      I don’t know if BLM or the Nazi’s reach that level.

        1. badp, It sounds as if you started drinking before you read my comment. Perhaps you should reread the comment and quote what you believe based upon the definition above or your own definition.

          Try doing the above absent alcohol.

            1. Also, just because the KKK, neo-Nazis, and White Nationalists didn’t commit violence (that’s an outright lie, ask Heather Heyer), look at the tradition they’re working in. Nazis? The KKK? Lynchins and mass genocide? Yes, I stand by my original comment.

              I have no idea, because I was not there, but I am under the impression that antifa RESPONDED to violence, not started it. I give not one shit for who had a permit.

              1. badparentingweb – you should care who had the permit. The ones with the permit were there legally, the ones without were trespassing. AntiFa are violent thugs.

              2. They’re all rotten to the core. DIdn’t Communism slaughter over 60,000,000 innocents? Nazi, Fascist, Communist. Same s***, but with a slightly different odor.

                1. This is the problem. Because I’m expressing views counter to yours, I’m guessing they lean right, you assume I’m communist. At what point did I declare that? I would not align myself with Pol Pot or any of the others, and most kids who might call themselves communist or socialist don’t, either, just like the kids ignorantly wearing Che shirts. These assumptions are asinine.

                  1. Ignorance among the “kids who might call themselves communist or socialist” is appalling. And ignorance IS the problem. They’ve been successfully brainwashed by dippy 60’s holdovers and their ignorance is constantly validated by their equally ignorant peers.

                    My wish–which is totally idealistic–is that EVERY kid be compelled to live in a bona fide 3rd world country for 3 months before being permitted entrance into college. They would be given $250/month to live on, so no 3-star lodgings and sumpuous buffets. Seeing how the other half really lives jump starts youth on the road to objectivity and gratefulness for what they have. It also makes them better students. Well, that was my experience anyway, although I spent many years before and after in the worst of the 3rd world. I am forever grateful of America’s liberty and wealth. Oh well. Just a little wishful thinking…

                  2. Yes, it is asinine but look who your debate opponents are. Just condemn and move on, there is not enough time.

              3. The killer apparently was a mental case and likely was not speaking for the Nazi actions. I don’t care about permits and things like that.

                One has to prove intent to commit violence and there have been many Nazi protests that are not violent. I would love to rid the world of them, but as long as their vile protests are peaceful we have no basis to do so.

                On the other hand a leader of Antifa said that their intention is to confront the Nazi’s every time they speak using violence if needed to prevent them from exercising their constitutional rights. That takes them into the terrorist camp.

                Organizing a counterprotest without a permit might have some civil repercussions, but if the gathering is spontaneous and peaceful I believe people have that right.

              4. “(that’s an outright lie, ask Heather Heyer)”

                Badparent, According to the news report the killer was mentally ill for a long time and likely was not representing the neo-Nazi’s. If it is proven that they are using violence to subvert the constitutional rights against others then they likely should be considered terrorists, but you haven’t proven that and the law requires proof.

                Based upon what a leader of Antifa said I makes it more likely that Antifa started the violence.

              1. “Nazi apologist”

                I don’t know who you are calling a Nazi apologist. I don’t think there is a person on this mini thread that is a Nazi apologist so your statement like so many others is ignorantly thought out.

                1. I don’t know who you are calling a Nazi apologist.

                  He doesn’t know, either, or what a ‘Nazi apologist is’. It sounds cooler than ‘booger-eater’, though.

            2. “I am under the impression that antifa RESPONDED to violence, not started it. I give not one shit for who had a permit.”

              Badparent, the Nazi’s (who I have utter contempt for) had a permit and carried things that could be used as weapons. My understanding is that a leader of Antifa stated that Antifa would use violence as necessary to stop the Nazi’s from exercising their constitutional rights of speech. If that is the case (I think it is) then Antifa should be considered a terrorist organization.

            1. “I think you meant neo-Nazis”

              Badparent, not sure where this comes from, but I reiterated elsewhere that though I would like the neo-Nazi’s to disappear I wouldn’t stop their freedom of speech unless proven violent. I indicated elsewhere in this threat why I believed Antifa was perhaps engaging in political terrorism.

              1. They should check out writer’s beat! That place is exactly what these sentiments were intended for! I had someone repost a blog of mine there and I was quickly swept down upon by 4,000 Trump supporters with verbal bayonets. Fromm, give it a shot! A lot more folks would be quick to sympathize! We like people who agree with us, no?

              2. Have no fear. Hotsy Totsy is hear. Like a lighting bolt in shining armor coming to the rescue. Out of duty, honor & country, Hotsy comes to the rescue & slays the oppressor with his sword of love. It’s about time!

            1. bad, I believe you when you say “not trying to act a jackass.” I can tell you’re a natural @ being a jackass.

  12. The author implies that terrorism is a type of free speech. He also fails to address third-party fomentation in Charlottesville.

    1. The author does nothing of the sort. He distinguishes between physical violence and speech. He notes that speech without violence is not terrorism and violence is a necessary element of terrorism.

    2. AND THIRD PARTY IS THE RUB!! Opportunists are the reason people see BLM as a hate group or domestic terrorists. See if those core members, ones who wouldn’t wear masks and who attend meetings other than rallies if they commit violence or condone of it!

      Paleo, if I’m interpreting you correctly, that’s a pretty huge and significant point you made.

      1. When leading a group, let commonsense be your guide. As a group leader you are duty-bound to jettison any “member”, aka opportunist, troublemaker, make-believe member, from the group. If not, you are by your inaction condoning and/or excusing their non-conforming behavior, thus rendering you and your group no more nor less than that member.

  13. Good points made, JT! You might wish to take a gander at CAIR’s new 9 steps to kill free speech.
    G. Tod Slone, Ed.
    The American Dissident

  14. “Kill the Redcoats!”
    Oh. Sorry. That sounds terrorist. After all. The Redcoats are just King and Queen’s guys on the block or at the dock, doing his and her work. We can just stay here as a colony and eat itShay the rest of many centuries.

Comments are closed.