Portland Man Assaulted For Wearing MAGA Hat

We previously discussed the media coverage of politically motivated violence. A new such case has raised in Portland after Luke Lenzner was attacked by a man and a woman simply because he was wearing a “Make America Great Again” (MAGA) hat. Leopold A. Hauser and Adebisi A. Okuneye were arrested after the attack.

The attack occurred around 12:50 a.m. at the Growler’s Taproom. Lenzner was out with his wife when he was attacked on the patio because of his MAGA hat. The two alleged assailants were a few blocks away.

What is astonishing is how people do not seem to recognize that attacking people for their political beliefs is the very heart of signature of the fascism that they say they oppose.

168 thoughts on “Portland Man Assaulted For Wearing MAGA Hat”

  1. Dude with the red hat looks and sounds and is out of control, everyone else is calm. He’s in agro-mode looking for a fight. He deserved whatever he got. Turley has it dead wrong.

  2. There is more to this story. The man went to several area bars looking to provoke a fight and was cought on film attempting to start fights just 2 hours before his alleged “assault” so it seems the so called victim may actually be the antagonist is this case.

    But why let FACTS stand in the way of propeganda?

  3. When are people gonna start carrying!!!!! You come at me I’m defending myself

    1. First of all, write this down for your Russian troll friends since you obviously don’t know much about America or concealed carry laws: It’s illegal to carry a concealed weapon in Oregon or almost any other state while under the influence of alcohol.

      Every gun owner knows that, so if by chance you actually are American, you’re just an ignorant moron making violent-sounding noise.

      Now, this guy was going bar to bar trying to start fights, and he was drinking, and that’s shown very clearly on the VIDEO if you bothered to watch it. In case not, here it is again:


      Secondly, lots of responsible people carry in Oregon — including I’m sure employees of the bars he walked into — and no one drew a weapon on this idiot. I think that says a lot about our city’s civility and restraint, just like your ignorant comment says a lot about your lack of it.

  4. Mr. Turley, in light of the video that emerged of this man seeking fights in another bar and causing a disturbance, it is extremely unethical of you to allow this article to stand as it is, and to claim that this man was attacked for his political beliefs. Unless you agree that one’s political beliefs can include going into bars and trying to pick fights with innocent patrons for no reason whatsoever.

    You can see the response of people in this bar the guy initially tried to attack, attempting to calm him and just get him out of there after he was asked to leave.

    It is beneath you to allow this to stand, and to allow your followers to believe they are “victims” of people who don’t like their political point of view. That is not what happened here, as you can see very clearly in this video:


    1. You are right. He should add an update showing the additional video. In some ways, you have helped balance the information by providing it yourself. Thank you.

  5. This is a typical tactic of the left, they call you what they are in their hearts. They’re intolerable with anyone who doesn’t share their views/ thoughts. They are the fascist, racist, & bigots. I only wonder if they know it.

    1. So Road King, are you saying you support what this guy did going bar to bar, trying to start fights with ordinary citizens? Have you watched the video?

      1. Josh,
        Road King was very unclear as to what he is referring. Could be you and your post, could be something from the older comments; it is unclear what prompted his comment.

        Based on what he wrote, it is a poor discussion tactic to rephrase inaccurately what he said, inserting your own assumptions of his intentions.

        So what you’re saying is…

        1. The TOPIC of this thread is the violent idiot who ran around trying to start fights. Road King made a mealy-mouthed statement that didn’t address the topic. Whether he was responding to me or not, he wrote it in a thread about what took place the other night a few blocks from my house in Portland. I think I have every right to ask how his views pertain to what this guy did, whether he supports getting drunk and starting fights, and whether he supports this guy in particular after seeing video of him. If his statement and your statements have nothing whatsoever to do with the topic at hand, and you can’t address that topic, then why post here?

          I’ll answer that for you: His posted a random anti-leftist comment, purely in an attempt to color everyone who this guy encountered in his night trying to fight the town, and everyone who’s pointing it out, as a “leftist”, and then impugn anyone who criticizes this valor-stealing moron as intolerant. What a load of bull. If you watch the video you’ll see that none of the other people at that bar had any political agenda at all. But apparently, Road King can’t answer a direct question, and you feel the need to step in and explain that he shouldn’t have to… because asking a direct question about the topic at hand is somehow, what, off topic? That’s some rather twisted logic.

          Tell you what: You’re losing by choosing this guy as a hero, just like you lost with Andy Ngo. Because the public now has documentation of what your heroes were actually up to, instigating violence and then claiming to be victims. It’s not going to work because EVERYONE HAS A PHONE.

          1. Josh,
            I am sorry the incident took place near your home. That would be very upsetting.

            You are right, the topic of this thread is the assault of Lenzner. However, people do not always stay perfectly on topic here, so it is unfair to assume as such. You could have asked him what prompted the comment; then, at least, you’d have more to go on and not have to make an assumption about why he wrote it.

            “I think I have every right to ask how his views pertain to what this guy did, whether he supports getting drunk and starting fights, and whether he supports this guy in particular after seeing video of him.”

            Of course you have a right. No one implied you did not. What I pointed out was the manner in which you asked him. Nothing about what he said indicated that he supports a drunk who starts fights or that he had even looked at your video.

            “If his statement and your statements have nothing whatsoever to do with the topic at hand, and you can’t address that topic, then why post here?”

            Why post here? To have a conversation. You can initiate a conversation, you can comment on peripheral issues, like the problem of ad hominems.

            My statements have primarily been in response to things other people have said. Perhaps you missed some of my comments. For instance, on the first page of comments, at 7:28pm, I flatly disagreed with someone making an inflammatory statement. Then, I agreed below with Anonymous at 7:13pm that Lenzner was an @ss. I agree with you, by extension, too, that Lenzner was an @ss looking to instigate trouble. The people who assaulted him, though, shouldn’t have taken the bait. Both sides look vicious.

            “But apparently, Road King can’t answer a direct question, and you feel the need to step in and explain that he shouldn’t have to… because asking a direct question about the topic at hand is somehow, what, off topic?”

            That wasn’t a direct question. It twisted what he said into what you assumed he intended. That isn’t a fair way to converse. A direct question would be, “Road King, why do you say the left is ‘intolerable with anyone who doesn’t share their views/ thoughts.’? Why do you think this?

            Another assumption on your part:
            “Tell you what: You’re losing by choosing this guy as a hero, just like you lost with Andy Ngo.”

            You assume that I chose this guy as a hero, and, you assume I chose Andy Ngo as a hero, too. Wrong on both counts. You know nothing, apparently, of my beliefs, assuming that because I disagreed with your manner of questioning that I am entirely in opposition to you. Maybe I do disagree with you on some points, but maybe I also agree with you on some, too. I don’t know what you think outside of what you post. If I am not sure, I’ll ask. Your assumptions are not helping win people to your concerns.

            You have, in some ways, reinforced Road King’s perceptions about people on the left. You made unfair assumptions about me and my beliefs and you twisted what he said to suit your assumptions. Both modes of conversing are counterproductive to solving the problems at hand.

            1. Prairie, your concern posts are decidedly one sided. You ignore Road king’s attacks – and many others by righties here everyday – and question Josh for not keeping a cool head while idiots like road king slander his city, neighborhood, and more than half the country – “leftists” to people like Road King – based on false information.

              If you want to be a site cop you have to call them both ways.

              1. Anon1,
                I do try to call them both ways. I have responded to both Cindy Bragg, Estovir, and indydog001(and others over many yesrs) when I thought they said something unfair or out-of-line. I have done my best to be fair. I am not perfect. Also, I cannot respond to absolutely everything–I do not read absolutely everything, and, if I did respond to absolutely every snotty remark, I would not be able to do much else.

                I do not want to be ‘a site cop’. I would rather have productive conversations. Productive conversations cannot be had when people are being unfair, rude, or inflammatory or when they mischaracterize people’s intentions or what they say.

                If no one pushed back against such things, would the manner of conversation improve? Would people be able to understand one another better, would bridge-builfing be possible?

                I doubt it. The status quo would persist, which is not good. Or, as things tend toward entropy, the current rancor would escalate and everything would get worse.

                Fair-minded conversation, and its social reinforcement, should be on many people’s minds.

                Which way do you want the scales to tip?

              2. Anon1,
                “Road king’s attacks”

                How did Road King attack?

                How did Road King “slander his city, neighborhood, and more than half the country – “leftists””?

                I said the other day that, unfortunately, individuals can, fair or not, influence people’s perceptions of groups. It cuts both ways. People on both sides need to shape up.

                “Leftists” do not comprise ‘more than half the country. They are probably about 1/3. The other two-thirds being centrist or conservative.

                Both sides have been lobbying ad hominems at one another for decades, mischaracterizing their beliefs and values. This is a good time to be introspective, though.

                One should ask honestly have I done something idiotic (or has someone on ‘my’ side done something idiotic) to make someone say “[the left is] intolerable of anyone who doesn’t share their views/ thoughts”.

                At that point, perhaps a good-faith discussion of problems, attempts to understand one another, and reasonable solutions can be sorted out.

      2. Lenzner is an ass who was out to provoke. Unfortunately for all involved, he found people who took the bait. So, there’s still the matter of the actual assault.

        Hauser (Antifa) and Okuneye (Antifa/BLM) are both known to Portland police:



        1. Agree they shouldn’t have taken the bait. Given that Lenzner came out of the bar and shouted fighting words at a stranger: “Hey bitch do you like my hat?” I’d say she had a right to punch him if she felt physically threatened and was acting in self defense. I don’t think that should be a hard sell to the people around here saying “too bad more people don’t carry”.

      3. “so ……are you saying….”

        verbiage from a manipulating liberal using a sock puppet account

        Correct the Record isnt getting their moneys worth

        1. Apparently Vladimir Putin isn’t getting his money’s worth, because no one in your office seems capable of writing a single word in response to that video.

Comments are closed.