“Ugh”: CNN Contributor and Law Professor Steve Vladeck Responds to Criticism Over Debunked Conspiracy Theory

I recently discussed how the Inspector General and a federal court have dismissed the widely reported conspiracy theory that the Lafayette Park area was cleared last year to make way for President Donald Trump’s controversial photo op in front of St. John’s Church. I noted that University of Texas Professor Steve Vladeck (who is a CNN contributor) was one of those claiming this theory as an established fact. Vladeck has now responded with a defense that is striking in its sheer mendacity.  It is, however, illustrative how false narratives are promulgated in the media and then, when shown to be unsupported, are dismissed or barely acknowledged. What makes this response different is the effort to shift the blame to a Hill reporter, who actually states the opposite of what Vladeck suggested. Indeed, Vladeck achieves a Trifecta of sorts in misrepresenting the Hill column, my column, and his own column.

Many of us criticized Trump’s photo op in front of the church as well as the level of force used to clear the area of Lafayette Park. Yet, media and legal experts like Vladeck went further to claim that former Attorney General Bill Barr cleared the park in order to hold the photo op. There was never evidence to support that factual conclusion.  I testified in Congress not long after the clearing of the area and stated that the conspiracy theory was already contradicted by the available evidence. I encouraged Congress to investigate the question and establish the truth of the matter. The issue was not whether it was worthy of investigation but whether it was established as fact.

We recently discussed how the Inspector General report on the Lafayette Park protests and the debunking of this conspiracy theory. Inspector General of the Department of Interior conducted an investigation over the last year and found that the clearing was not done “to allow the President to survey the damage and walk to St. John’s Church.”

This week, federal judge Dabney L. Friedrich has dismissed the lawsuit by the ACLU and Black Lives Matter as based on unsupported and unsubstantiated claims against the federal agencies. What is most striking in the opinion is the utter lack of evidence presented by ACLU, which encouraged the Court to assume a conspiracy to clear the park for the photo op and to deny the right to protest. The court found nothing but pure conjecture. Ironically, the court allowed the lawsuit against the MPD under Mayor Muriel Bowser to continue. The Bowser Administration admitted recently that it used tear gas near the park on that night and that such use was perfectly reasonable— a striking departure from what Bowser has stated publicly.

In prior columns, I have discussed the widespread repetition of the photo op myth as fact.  That included the Washington Post coverage by Philip Bump titled “Attorney General Bill Barr’s Dishonest Defense of Clearing of Lafayette Square.” Not only did the Post refer to the “debunked claim” that no tear gas was used by the federal government, but goes on to state incredibly:

“It is the job of the media to tell the truth. The truth is that Barr’s arguments about the events of last Monday collapse under scrutiny and that his flat assertion that there was no link between clearing the square and Trump’s photo op should be treated with the same skepticism that his claims about the use of tear gas earns.”

It turns out that both assertions were likely true.  Recently, Bump wrote an equally bizarre spin on the controversy where he grudgingly acknowledged the evidence supporting Barr while entirely ignoring the tear gas controversy. However, the Bump spin pales in comparison to the wholesale revisionism of Vladeck.

In the columns, I noted that there was never clear evidence to support the conclusion of Vladeck and that, within days of the operation, evidence emerged that contradicted the claim.  I wrote:

“Ample evidence emerged in the days after the protests to reinforce the account of Barr and others that the plan to clear the park area was proposed days before any plan for a photo op. There was never any evidence that Barr knew of the photo op plan before approving the operation.  Nevertheless, media and legal experts continued to claim as a fact that this was all done for the photo op.  University of Texas professor and CNN contributor Steve Vladeck continued to claim that Barr ordered federal officers “to forcibly clear protestors in Lafayette Park to achieve a photo op for Trump.” In a still uncorrected segment still up on the Internet, NPR declares “Peaceful Protesters Tear-Gassed To Clear Way For Trump Church Photo-Op.”

So there can be no question as to what Vladeck has said in his most recent comments, here is his five part defense (you can also read them here):

1/5: Turley is pulling a real Turley here, so let me be clear about what’s actually true. On June 9, 2020 (this date will matter), @rgoodlaw and I wrote a long @just_security post on the Attorney General’s power, in general, to direct military forces in response to civil unrest. @JonathanTurley

Despite the absence of evidence, legal experts like University of Texas professor and CNN contributor Steve Vladeck continued to claim that Barr ordered federal officers “to forcibly clear protestors in Lafayette Park to achieve a photo op for Trump.”

3:02 PM · Jun 9, 2021·Twitter Web App

Replying to @steve_vladeck

2/5: As *part* of that post, we quoted from and linked to a news story in @thehill reporting—based upon high-level but unnamed DOJ sources—that it was Barr who had ordered the clearing of Lafayette Park. Our post: https://justsecurity.org/70672/the-untold-power-of-bill-barr-to-direct-us-military-forces-in-case-of-civil-unrest/… The Hill piece: Barr personally ordered law enforcement to push back Lafayette Square

Attorney General William Barr personally ordered for the perimeter near the White House to be extended, pushing protesters away from Lafayette Square shortly before President Trump spoke in the area. thehill.com

3/5: One year later, the DOI Inspector General has concluded that Barr was *not* behind that controversial move. So be it. But Turley’s tweet is not saying that *The Hill* (and, thus, our reliance on it) *was* wrong; he’s saying I’ve “continued to claim” that it was Barr’s doing.

4/5: In fact, I’ve done no such thing. Ryan and I linked to a news story in wide circulation as part of a broader analysis that didn’t actually *turn* on that specific episode. Indeed, the DOI IG Report doesn’t alter the legal analysis in our post one iota. It’s still accurate.

5/5: But Turley’s too interested in misleading readers into thinking that it’s something far more nefarious—and ongoing. So he says I’ve “continued to claim” something that I wrote 365 days ago—and even then, only by citing a contemporaneous news account. Not surprising, but ugh.

The only thing we agree on is the last word “ugh.”  In truth, I am surprised by Vladeck’s denials because I still believe that, as academics, we have a duty of candor and honesty. Indeed, that is why I wanted to lay the facts bare.

  1. Vladeck Misrepresents The Hill Column

Vladeck’s first line of defense is essentially “he said it first.” The real culprit it would appear is Zack Budryk who writes for the Hill (For full disclosure, I also write as a columnist for the Hill). Vladeck insists that he was just quoting and relying on Budryk. The problem is that Budryk never says that Barr ordered the clearing for the photo op — the objection to Vladeck’s past claims.  All Budryk says is that Barr ordered the clearing. However, that was established within 24 hours by Barr himself. There was never any question that the area was cleared and that Barr ordered it. The question is the purpose of the operation and Vladeck insisted that Barr ordered federal officers “to forcibly clear protestors in Lafayette Park to achieve a photo op for Trump.”  The reason I did not say that Budryk was “wrong” is because he was not.  It was Vladeck who was wrong.

Now here is the kicker.  Budryk stated the opposite of what Vladeck suggests:

“The official told the Post that the attorney general had “assumed that any resistance from the protesters of being moved would be met with typical crowd-control measures” and that Barr had been told a bottle had been thrown in his direction.

This plan was happening, regardless of any plans of the president,” the official said.”

That was just one day after the operation and Vladeck obviously read it before making his false claim that the operation was ordered by Barr to make way for the photo op. Now, Vladeck insists that he was merely relying on Budryk to support the conspiracy theory when Budryk correctly refuted the theory.

  1. Vladeck Misrepresents My Column

Vladeck then misrepresents my article.  He states the IG report came a year later but that I falsely stated that he “continued to claim” that it was Barr’s doing.  It is another falsehood clearly contradicted by the column itself. I was referring to the fact that Vladeck made his factual claim days after the protest when countervailing evidence had already emerged. That includes the very article that Vladeck has cited. Moreover, there was no direct evidence supporting the photo op myth.  As noted above, I stated “Ample evidence emerged in the days after the protests to reinforce the account of Barr and others … Nevertheless, media and legal experts continued to claim as a fact that this was all done for the photo op.” Vladeck’s factual claim occurred a week after the operation when there was ample evidence, at a minimum, to refute any claim of photo op conspiracy as a fact.

  1. Vladeck Misrepresents His Own Column

Vladeck’s final defense is more of a shrug than a spin.  He notes “One year later, the DOI Inspector General has concluded that Barr was *not* behind that controversial move. So be it.”  That is quite a concession from claiming as a fact that Barr cleared the area for the photo op to an “oh well, maybe he didn’t.”  This theory was shredded within a week of the operation. There was no support for Vladeck’s claim when he made it (and certainly not the article that he cites, which said the opposite of his claim). Yet, Vladeck never corrected his claims over the last year or even suggested that his analysis (while popular) was likely false.  Indeed, he still does not admit error. He ends his defense with “Indeed, the DOI IG Report doesn’t alter the legal analysis in our post one iota. It’s still accurate.”

Putting aside the court decision finding no credible evidence to support this conspiracy theory, the IG Report directly contradicts Vladeck’s sensational claim.  Compare just these two factual statements:

Steve Vladeck: Barr ordered federal officers “to forcibly clear protestors in Lafayette Park to achieve a photo op for Trump.”

The Inspector General: The clearing was not done “to allow the President to survey the damage and walk to St. John’s Church.”

Yet, Vladeck is still claiming that the report (and his acknowledgment that Barr did not order the clearing for the photo op) does not change his legal analysis “one iota.” The only way to make such a ridiculous statement is to focus on the legal analysis as opposed to his statement of facts. (It is worth noting that the federal agencies under both Trump and Biden argued that they did have full legal authority for the operation and just prevailed on that basis in federal court). However, Vladeck is being criticized for his factual claim that fueled this conspiracy theory. Just as there was never any question about Barr ordering the clearing, Vladeck is simply defending a different point rather than addressing his spreading this sensational and irresponsible conspiracy theory as fact.

Ugh.

 

131 thoughts on ““Ugh”: CNN Contributor and Law Professor Steve Vladeck Responds to Criticism Over Debunked Conspiracy Theory”

  1. (off topic)

    Pssst!
    Does anyone have a spare F-15 Strike Eagle they wanna sell?

    Asking for a friend!

    And from the Babylon Bee (note: Satire for those who cannot tell the difference),
    “‘You’ll Never Beat The Government With Just Guns,’ Says Party That Also Believes Government Was Almost Toppled By Unarmed Mob On January 6”

    Better yet,
    “Emperor Palpatine Urges Citizens To Give Up Their Blasters Since They’d Need A Death Star To Beat The Empire”

    1. This one’s my fave:

      https://babylonbee.com/news/bass-pro-shops-to-hold-2-for-1-nuke-sale

      In a bit of exciting news for firearms enthusiasts and those who wish to deter their government from becoming tyrannical, Bass Pro Shops has announced that its semi-annual 2-for-1 nuke sale will be kicking off this weekend. Every nuclear weapon in the company’s arsenal will be completely free with the purchase of any other nuclear weapon…get your officially certified anti-government nuke today!”

      Bass Pro Shops also has a large selection of pre-owned nukes purchased from the U.S. government, Iran, and North Korea — available for any private citizen to come and purchase at “mind-blowing prices” this weekend only.”

      Teehee!

      1. Too late, our local Bass Pro Shops is sold out and do not know when next shipment is due in.

    2. About Biden’s silly remark that citizens don’t have a chance against a government armed with F-15s and nuclear weapons, has he consulted Viet Cong of Afghans about asymmetrical war?

      In any event, what government “of the people, by the people and for the people” threatens the people with weapons of mass destruction? Maybe one that is none of those three things.

      1. “]W]hat government . . . threatens the people with weapons of mass destruction?”

        I realize that is a rhetorical question, but for the record: A dictatorship. That’s why they stage military parades. “Hey, you uppity dissidents complaining about your rights. You seek redress for your grievances? Our response is those tanks.”

        Biden’s reply — remember whose got the nukes — would make the CCP proud.

    3. “You can’t handle the truth.”

      – Colonel Jessup
      ______________

      You can’t handle the scope and breadth of American freedom.

      Congress is provided no power to regulate a militia.

      The people have the right to keep and bear the arms they can keep and bear.

      A well self-regulated militia has the right to keep and bear any and all arms it can keep and bear, in order to be fully prepared to provide the security necessary for a free

      state, against all enemies, both foreign and domestic.

      The question is specious in that no national government is going to use weapons of mass destruction against itself, and huge amounts of collateral damage would not

      be acceptable in any aspect, therefore, the people have no need to keep and bear weapons of mass destruction.

      Wasn’t it America who denounced Saddam’s use of weapons of mass destruction against his own people?
      _____________________________________________________________________________________

      2nd Amendment

      A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

  2. (Off topic)
    Pssstt!
    Hey! Does anyone have a spare F-15 Strike Eagle they wanna sell?

    Asking for a friend!

    And, from the Babylon Bee (note: satire for those who think the Bee spreads disinformation): ‘You’ll Never Beat The Government With Just Guns,’ Says Party That Also Believes Government Was Almost Toppled By Unarmed Mob On January 6

    Or,
    Emperor Palpatine Urges Citizens To Give Up Their Blasters Since They’d Need A Death Star To Beat The Empire

  3. So this is who is “teaching” law in Texas? He sounds like the hooligans at the Texas State Bar who have filed a criminal complaint against State AG Ken Paxton.

    1. Vladeck has argued before SCOTUS several times. He’s a skilled and knowledgeable legal scholar.

      1. Anonymous the Stupid, that might be correct but Vladeck has proven himself to be a liar.

        1. Allanonymous the Stupid, who has proven himself to be a liar, regularly projects his own failings onto others.

          1. Anonymous the Stupid, look at the quotes from Vladeck provided by Professor Turley. Then why don’t you quote what I said that was a lie.

            1. “Vladeck has proven himself to be a liar” is a lie. Funny that you demand I quote you, when you haven’t quoted anything from him that’s a lie. Maybe the problem is that you relied on JT’s excerpts read out of context.

              1. Anonymous the Stupid, you have the freedom to put those words into context and obviously based on your 24/7 presence on the blog, you have the time.

  4. See, Turley, when you post your personality feuds on your blog, it basically amounts to a high school level personality appeal to get people on your side of the cafeteria argument. It’s *amazingly* immature and makes me doubt whatever respect I have for you. Buck up, man. You have to face students in the fall.

    eb

        1. Remember when Michael Avenatti was a favorite to run for the presidency. That is how smart NY and you are.

        2. ATS, awhile back you pulled the same stunt on another but when you were pushed to state what you were talking about you ran away. Let’s hear the facts you are talking about or will you run away again?

            1. Someone refuses to bottle-feed Allanonymous, and he interprets it as running away, LoL.

        1. Icing = being investigated by the office you once led and having your right to practice law in your home state suspended apparently.

          eb

    1. Sista Macy Gray and Brotha Obongo want to burn and destroy the American flag and Americans, oops, I mean white people.

      Wow! Whoever woulda thunk the barbarians at the gate would eat the entire population once they were let in?

      New York is Portland East.

      The inmates have taken over the asylum.

      And you let ’em!

      What’s new?

      1. Obama’s white mom died before he hit it big in politics, then his white grandparents who raised him both died before he got to the White House. Imagine what a different picture it would be for the country to see Obama, the first black president, photographed with his white family.

        The first black president came from a white family? Say what?

        That picture would have spoiled the whole bunch of bull that they keep selling about obama’s rise to power. He had no understanding of growing up black in America, because he grew up in Hawaii and Indonesia half a world away. What a fraud both he and his ‘story’ are.

          1. Waiting with bated breath for you to ‘splain to us what is racist about the comment…..

  5. The rioters were cleared because they damaged property and set a Church on fire. Once again the “mostly peaceful protesters” had to be controlled. Now their are those who will tell us that the IG is not to be believed. He has served with honor in the Justice Department since 2003. https://www.doioig.gov/about-us/inspector-general. What we have here is a classic case of if you don’t like the message kill the messenger.

    1. Believe the DOI IG! He admits he didn’t investigate the Secret Service’s action or their discussion with Barr.

  6. “I’ve made up my mind! Don’t confuse me with the facts.”

    Why would anyone continue to watch corporate media with the idea of learning the truth? If their viewership continues to tank, perhaps they might be forced to once again pursue the truth.,

  7. This is at least the third time you’ve tried to sell the idea that Barr and the others who accompanied the fat orange clown on his walk from the White House to Lafayette Park had no involvement in the forceful clearing of the area of peaceful protesters. Arranging for the clearing of the park, before curfew, mind you, plus the placement of 35 Secret Service officers strategically hiding in trees and bushes so the fat slob could try to recover from the wimpy image created by his hiding in the bunker, takes some doing. SOMEONE made these arrangements, and it defies logic to believe that Barr and the others had no idea that the park would be cleared of peaceful protesters, forcibly if necessary. But….Turley gets in a dig at a CNN contributor, another item on his hit list from the Hate Network. Turley…no one’s buying it. The proof may depend on someone admitting the truth, so we’ll probably never find out the details, but things like this don’t happen on the spur of the moment or without orders coming from SOMEONE in the West Wing.

    You again go after Mayor Bowser. Tear gas was used AFTER CURFEW several blocks away, and because the protests were not peaceful. This does not defend what Trump did, nor does it exonerate your pal, Bill Barr.

    1. Natacha, maybe Trump saw an opportunity to make a point that he stands with religious people and their rights. This does not mean that he ordered the clearing of the park to do it. Was Nancy Pelosi taking advantage of the moment with her photo op when she marched through China town to declare that Trump was xenophobic for limiting travel from China. Two things that we do now know. The church in Lafayette Square was set on fire and the Covid-19 virus came from China. Trump marched after the fire in support of a civil liberty and Pelosi showed with her photo op that there was nothing coming from China that we should fear. Let’s see, marching for liberty or making light of a virus that killed hundreds of thousands of U.S. citizens. I understand. If you take just a little bit of the poison every day you build up your immunity. You come before us every day to take your little sip.

      1. Trump and religion do not belong in the same breath. There’s no room in his life for any deity other than himself, and he is not religious. What religion approves of grabbing womens’ genitals, consorting with and paying off a porn star, cheating on your wife, constant lying and cheating people in business? What “rights” of “religious people” or “liberty” was he allegedly defending? Who is preventing religious people from practicing their religion, and how does a fat slob election cheater who is behind in polls posing in front of a church he does not attend, holding a Bible containing values he flaunts help the cause of any particular religion? This was a pathetic, failed photo op calculated to reel in the gullibles, including the Evangelicals, using the Bible as a prop, coming on the heels of Trump getting mocked for hiding in his little bunker. When you pivot away from Trump to criticize Nancy Pelosi you are engaging in whataboutism. The one who “made light of” COVID was your hero, who admitted he lied and downplayed what he knew to be the risk of how deadly COVID is. I refer you to the Bob Woodward interview. He constantly misrepresented the risk, the availability of tests, the proximity of a vaccine, and discouraged people from wearing masks. This conduct caused unnecessary deaths for which Trump is responsible.

        The origin of the virus is still unknown. It was first DISCOVERED and reported in China, but the origin is not known with certainty, and may never be. Since AIDS, SARS, EBOLA and other recent viruses are mutations originating from animal sources, scientists are leaning towards an animal source. But, what animal? That isn’t known. Trump IS xenophobic, and tried to blame China for COVID because he couldn’t bully them into a favorable trade deal. So, he imposed tariffs and started his grade-school-level attacks on the Chinese, even trying to re-name the virus as the “China Virus”. Trump is the worst excuse of a person ever to cheat his way into our White House.

        1. Natacha, so in your religion it’s ok for Joe Biden to insert his fingers into a women’s genitals. Dr. Fauci believes that COVID originated from China. The WHO says it does not know the origination of the virus but they do know that the first humans to get it were from Wuhan China. Please see paragraph six in the following link. https://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/handle/10665/332197/WHO-2019-nCoV-FAQ-Virus_origin-2020.1-eng.pdf We are not sure that Natacha is an alcoholic but we do know that she hides the bottle in the toilet bowl water tank. Concerning Joe Biden or Donald Trumps religious beliefs, only God knows of their sincerity. You may think that you possess the judgement of god but you do not.

        2. The origins of the virus is known. We also know that Dr. Fauci helped fund the research lab that created the killer virus. And he knew about it, but continues to lie about it.

          Joe Biden has spent his entire life living off the taxpayers and making his family filthy rich for doing nothing but cashing in, taking bribes, selling access and influence to his political office. Biden is a filthy corrupt, useless politician. Biden has no clue what it takes to work hard, run a business, or even run the country. Donald Trump knows.

          We are now experiencing the fastest increase in inflation since 1992. Under Biden, families are now paying more for less to cover the cost of Joe Biden’s incompetence, overspending, and his disastrous policies that hurt hardworking American families.

          What a disaster Biden/Harris have been since they cheated their way into power.

    2. This is at least the third time you’ve tried to sell the idea that Barr and the others ,,, had no involvement in the forceful clearing of the area of peaceful protesters

      That’s the bald face lie, you dog faced pony soldier.

      No one has denied that Barr and others ordered the clearing of the park and surrounding perimeter.

    3. Why on earth do you care about such an ultimately meaningless sliver of detail? It’s absurd!

      I remain convinced that the world is dividing into those driven insane by the very idea of Trump and those who sees merit, wherever merit is found.
      What, with the incoming tsunami of daily truth exposures, about COVID, about Fauci. about the election, about January 6, about FBI involvement in crimes, about BLM use of funds etc etc
      Observing certain individuals among us begin to spring leaks in their reservoirs of sane rationality is quite entertaining.
      This will become commonplace and more extreme. Defending ones obvious lies on this narrative or that from a year ago is one thing.
      Having to defend an entire platform of belief and sense of self after it is exposed as being built on many fabrications, deceptions, wilful ignorance and lies…good luck with that!
      But it is most entertaining to watch!

  8. As Prof points out. The govt defense rests squarely on the fact the Govt has the power to clear the area.

    Notice all the faux outrage focuses on stuff that did not happen, like use teargas (also legal), and motivation (also legal)

    I got locked in the State Fair Parking Lot for an hour when one of the Presidential candidates helicoptered in. For a photo Op. I was kidnapped for a photo Op. I guess I should have sued.

  9. Rioters were such a threat that the President was moved into a bunker for his safety. They were threatening to burn down a historic church. Why would any reasonable person conceive that the only reason they were removed was a photo op? If it were me, I would have brushed off my hands and said, “And stay out!”

    1. Trump was not moved into the bunker on June 1. No one threatened to burn down the church. Clergy were there with the protesters and were affected by the chemical grenades and pepper balls. Will you be condemning them too?

      1. Anonymous – here is an article from the day before June 1 about moving him to the bunker:

        https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2020/05/31/trump-taken-bunker-during-white-house-protests-reports-say/5303983002/

        Here is an article about the rioters setting the historic St. John’s Church on fire:

        https://www.today.com/news/look-damage-inside-historic-st-john-s-church-washington-dc-t182954

        “Officials are taking stock of the damage after a fire broke out in St. John’s Church, located across the street from the White House in Washington, D.C., during weekend protests. The fire destroyed the church’s nursery. In addition, the church was vandalized with BLM graffiti. Echos of the 16th St Baptist Church bombing that murdered 4 black girls in 1963. Next time, will BLM burn churches with people inside?

        It was actually the Metropolitan Police Department (MPD) under Mayor Muriel Bowser who used tear gas. It should be noted that Mayor Bowser strongly condemned the allegations of tear gas and force used to clear DC protestors. It was a scandal when it was discovered that she was actually responsible for the tear gas, not the feds at all.

        Are you asking me if I condemn the clergy, or the use of chemical irritants? I condemn the use of chemical respiratory irritants for crowd control. Any member of the clergy have the right of free speech. Many Churches are going far Left, unfortunately, even succumbing to the anti-semitic BDS craze. I think any clergy who participated in the BLM protests might have meant well, but they exercised poor judgement. A rudimentary perusal of BLM’s initial manifestos would have illustrated the moral failings of the organization. As long as they didn’t forget themselves entirely and pick up a brick or engage in violence, then they were just exercising free speech. Clergy, like anyone else, should obey lawful orders from law enforcement. If they were directed to disperse, but did not, then they would have been subjected to crowd control measures along with the rest.

        As an asthmatic, I have regularly criticized the use of pepper spray, mace, and tear gas for crowd control, including this instance. As I’ve pointed out on this very topic, chemical irritants are very dangerous to people like me, with respiratory disease. I’ve gotten a whiff of pepper spray in front of a club once, when a fight got broken up. I experienced a very scary reaction. I wasn’t even close to the fight, but rather waiting for my car from valet. A light breeze blew it my way.

        On a side note, scandals are mounting as the families of those lost loved ones were used to raise money for BLM are now demanding to know where the money went. How many mansions and expensive coats did BLM organizers buy? What specifically has BLM done to improve the lives of any black person other than the organizers who raked in millions of dollars in donations? How can they preach that white people are dangerous to black people, yet buy mansions in white majority neighborhoods? Why don’t BLM organizers remain in black majority neighborhoods once they strike it rich through their activism? And then there are all the questions about racism, anti-semitism, support of terrorists… Any rational person would also question why BLM deems the steps proven to produce a middle class lifestyle, namely, a nuclear family, studying hard, staying in school, punctuality, personal responsibility, and staying out of trouble, to be aspects of “whiteness” to be avoided.

        1. Your article confirms what I said, Karen: Trump was not moved into the bunker on June 1. That happened the day before, as did the church fire.

          The clergy were on church property.

          BDS is not anti-semitic.

          1. But Anonymous you just sayed that they didn’t threaten the church and now you say they set it on fire. You are very confusing or maybe confused would more aptly apply.

          2. Yes, I know what day he was in the bunker so…?

            I’m not clear what your point is. Protestors turned riotous, even setting St John’s church on fire. By June 1, they reached their limit on how much would be tolerated, and they were removed.

            Yes, BDS is anti-semitic. It is an effort to harm Israel based on economic means. And it’s based on false premises, such as that Israel is an “apartheid state.” This rhetoric began when Israel was still the British Mandate. Adolph Hitler was one of those pushing for the entire region to go to the Arabs instead of setting aside so much as a square foot for the Jews.

            Terrorists push BDS propaganda, packaged to make it acceptable to the Left, in order to weaken Israel. Israel has offered land for peace to the Palestinians 5 separate times, yet been rebuffed. This is therefore not about a Two State Solution. In point of fact, the Arabs already got their own state. It’s called Jordan. Most of the region formerly known as Palestine under the Ottoman Empire was already given to the Arabs in the form of Jordan. Only a tiny amount of land was given to the Jews for Israel. Even so, the Israelis have repeatedly offered to give even more land to the Palestinians if they would please stop trying to kill them all.

            Unfortunately, the charter of Hamas calls for the destruction of Israel and genocide of the Jews. Hence why they won’t accept any land for peace deals.

            More on the terrorist roots of BDS:

            https://jcpa.org/unmasking-bds/

            “Global BDS activists exploited the 2014 Gaza conflict to reinvigorate their political and economic warfare campaign against Israel.2 On August 20, 2014, at the height of the war, hundreds of pro-Hamas protesters in New York City carrying placards that read “Israel=Racism and Genocide” and “Palestine from the river to the sea” – a public call for Israel’s destruction – also dropped a massive flag from the Manhattan Bridge that read “Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions.”3 Observers who have followed the ongoing delegitimization campaign against Israel may have noticed that these BDS calls are not meant merely to pressure Israel toward a two-state solution. Instead, BDS is being used as a platform to advocate ending Israel’s existence as the nation-state of the Jewish people. As such, the BDS movement’s objectives parallel Hamas’ war goals.”

            Michael Gove, Britain’s Conservative Party whip, labeled European BDS calls against Israel during the 2014 Hamas-Israel war as a “resurgent, mutating, lethal virus of anti-Semitism” reminiscent of Nazi boycotts of Jews on the eve of the Holocaust.5 More generally, BDS represents a continuation of an ongoing campaign promoting political subversion and economic warfare against the State of Israel irrespective of the territories in dispute between Israel and its Palestinian neighbors. In fact, during the past decade, these broad international efforts – known as the delegitimization campaign – have sought to undermine Israel’s existence as a sovereign state. Moreover, this global crusade operates in the political, legal, academic, cultural, and economic fields, and has been characterized by “direct action” measures such as “humanitarian aid” flotillas, as well as other activities such as “die-ins” and precoordinated demonstrations and protest marches primarily in European cities and on North American campuses. In Western circles, BDS is commonly misunderstood. It is generally viewed as a progressive, nonviolent campaign led by Palestinian grassroots organizations and propelled by Western human rights groups, who call for boycotting Israeli goods produced in the “occupied” or “disputed” Golan Heights and West Bank territories captured from Syria and Jordan respectively in the 1967 war. It is also widely assumed that the global BDS movement is further limited to boycott and divestment aimed at Israel’s presence over the 1967 Green Line, resulting in international actions led frequently by the Palestinian Authority at the United Nations, at the UN-affiliated International Court of Justice, as well as petitions made to the International Criminal Court. However, a closer investigation of the BDS movement reveals a starkly different picture. BDS is more accurately described as a political-warfare campaign conducted by rejectionist Palestinian groups in cooperation with radical left-wing groups in the West. BDS leaders and organizations are also linked to the Palestinian Authority leadership, the radical Muslim Brotherhood, other radical groups, terror-supporting organizations, and in some cases even terror groups themselves such as Hamas. BDS boycott campaigns have effectively misled trade unions, academic institutions, and even leading international artists and cultural icons, with seemingly earnest calls for “justice” entailing the establishment of a Palestinian state living beside a Jewish state.”

            1. And furthermore, there is Russia’s involvement in the anti-Israel propaganda. The entire idea of Palestinians being a separate people from any other Arab living in the region is an idea with direct ties to the KGB. The family tree of BDS can be traced to this propaganda ancestry.

              Operation SIG

              http://www.inform.nu/Articles/Vol22/ISJv22p157-182Cohen6127.pdf

              “At its core, the Soviet anti-Zionist campaign of 1967-1988 was a campaign of propaganda and disinformation. It built and weaponized narratives based on made-up or twisted facts. It distorted history. It em- ployed classic propaganda tools such as deception, guilt by association, and repetition to inculcate the key messages. It shamelessly played on people’s sentiments, and it used both Soviet Jews and Muslims as instruments of propaganda.”
              Operation SIG created the cover for antisemites and antidemocratic forces, thus fulfilling the KGB’s ambition to create chaos in the Middle East…

              Here is a timeline leading up to the topic of this paper, Operation SIG:
              • One hundred years ago – Stalin coins the term disinformation, sets up a tactical office to cre- ate agents of chaos (Agitprop); organizes guerilla armies in Spain, Ukraine
              160
              • Seventy years ago –the start of organizing “peace” movements in the West to weaken de- mocracies (e.g., World Peace Council) using well-meaning “useful idiots.”
              Fifty years ago–KGB creates Operation SIG with the purpose “to instill a Nazi-style hatred for the Jews throughout the Islamic world, and to turn this weapon of the emotions into a terrorist bloodbath against Israel” (Pacepa, 2006)

              In 1948, as Israel declared independence, the armies of five Arab nations attacked the new nation. The USSR’s Joseph Stalin, hopeful that Israel’s socialist roots would lead it to join the Communist bloc, instructed a country it controlled, Czechoslovakia, to provide Israel with the arms needed for defense. However, upon later learning of Stalin’s murder of 20 million people, Israeli society rejected communism. As a result, Moscow shifted its support to Arab dictatorships (Gordis, 2019, pp. 214- 215). Arab nations became increasingly dependent on Moscow’s weapons and military training. The KGB recruited Arab agents to head up a guerilla army and propaganda campaign. In 1967, when the armies of Soviet-supported Arab countries failed to conquer Israel, this Operation SIG became Mos- cow’s primary means for advancing chaos in the Middle East against the Israeli democracy…

              One tactic to disinform is to blame all wrong on some adversary, a monstrous bogey man. For Oper- ation SIG campaign against the Jewish State, the KGB chose the Jews as the bogeymen. Arab anti- semitism was already rampant when the KGB created Operation SIG. Preexisting Muslim antisemi- tism provided a fertile field to plant fake stories and disinformation about Jews and Israel. Indeed, the genius of the KGB’s Operation SIG was that it brought into alliance Arab adherents of Pan-Ar- abism, Pan-Islamism, and Nazism around what they had in common: hatred for Jews, Israel, and de- mocracy.

              Before the KGB created the PLO, and before the establishment of Israel as a nation/state of the Jews (with both Arab and Jewish citizens), the goal of the neighboring Arab nations was to absorb the land of Israel under Arab/Muslim control. The aspiration was to ethnically cleanse the region of its Jews and creating a Greater Jordan, or a Greater Syria, or expanding Egyptian and Syrian occupa- tion of the area as part of a pan-Arabic or pan-Islamic empire (e.g., “Hamas Official Mahmoud Al- Zahhar,” 2017).
              In support of these territorial expansion strategies, in 1948 the armies of Egypt and Transjordan joined other Arab armies to invade the newly established State of Israel. Following this invasion, Egypt and Transjordan retained the lands they succeeded in conquering. Their war created two sets of refugees:
              1) Some of the Arabs of the region who left their homes before or during the war, and
              2) a larger number (almost all) of Jews ejected from their homes in Arab lands and Judea and Samaria.

              Under the guidance of the KGB, the idea of the Arab refugees as a distinct people took hold. In particular, the KGB generated a storyline that nowadays is often taken as factual:
              1. ThePLO,fromitsstart,expressedthewilloftheArabslivingthegeographicregionPales- tine, rather than the will of Moscow to create divisions and overthrow democracy.
              2. Palestineisnotjustthenameforageographicregion,butthehomeforadistinctandindige- nous people, the Palestinian Arabs. Its Jewish citizens are colonizers from some unidentified foreign country. (In contrast, the Jews consider their return to their homeland as self-eman- cipation, as witnessed in Leon Pinsker’s 1882 pamphlet “Auto-Emancipation.”)
              3. IsraelpracticesapartheidinwhichtheArabcitizensofIsraelarepreventedfromadvancing.
              4. Arab poverty in the territories controlled by Arabs is due to Israel, rather than to the Arab rules Hamas and the PLO.”

              Each of these propaganda tropes is destroyed in the paper cited.

            2. “I’m not clear what your point is.”

              That they weren’t moved because of violence. They were peaceful on the 1st.

              “Yes, BDS is anti-semitic.”

              No, it isn’t. Some people who support it are anti-semitic, and others who support it aren’t. I’m a Jew. 1 in 10 American Jews support BDS. Are you going to call all of us anti-semitic?

              Palestinians are a proper subset of Arabs. Don’t conflate them. Don’t conflate Palestinians and Hamas either.

              1. We know that you are a Jew, but Jews, despite the intelligence of the group, can individually be stupid. Jews can also be anti-semitic and self-haters. You fit the profile for a lot of these bad things, but I am not drawing conclusions.

                You are a conflicted guy. On the one hand you say you believe in MLK’s dream. On the other hand you provide support for CRT that travels in the opposite direction.

                You say you are a Jew, but are you? What does that mean? For the most part it means your mother was Jewish. You might even have had a Jewish education, but you think like a racist.

                1. Probably a good thing if Allan finallly made a case, using the actual tenets of CRT how the theory differs from anything MLK believed in. But no, his response to this will be that I don’t know what entails the make up of CRT.

                  He, in fact, has not looked into what makes up CRT despite previously on this blog tossing around Derek Bell’s name as if the man’s existense insults humanity in general. And Allan’s background with the makeup of CRT comes entirely from alt right media’s translation of what it means. He is well steeped (brainwashed) in that.

                  Perhaps Allan can give us some personal experience in how he’s come to believe what he does in relation to CRT? A compare and contrast of sorts? That actually would be insightful in seeing the progression of how alt right media has taken a concept, twisted it into a new thing entirely that it in no way was intended to be, and then was hammered out as a catch all to capture white rage and channel it.

                  Allan, being quite gullible and unable to reason for himself, is a magnificent study. It’s not really important the angle — it could be from an academic/sociological perspective, a deep dive into what makes the culture wars work. It could be from a marketing perspective, in finding out how to sell particular items and information to an easily led demographic — you can be resonably sure there are people at Fox news right now surfing these blog comments to tailor their message for sales directly at the digital archetype of someone like Allan. It can be from a sort of post game study of the wreckage wrought by trumpism, a sort of dipping the toe in the waters of possibility of whether it’s possible to recover to any degree from the pathology inspired by a con man actually taking the highest seat of a governmental superpower and using the office’s power for entirely selfish ends. That particular trend has clearly left a bunch of people existentially wandering, scorched by believing in something that never really existed and they are willing to believe what exists as a possibility in their minds and twist it into full on belief of what exists in concrete terms — Allan is a *perfect* study in that.

                  Does this mean looking at Allan primarily through the lens of mental pathology? I’m afraid it does…, but he volunteers his perspective every single day on this blog. It does present a dilemma of sorts to other viewers of this blog content…, I mean, should we speculate whether his family knows the degree to which he’s chucked a nutty and acts out on it every day here? Should we openly wonder why the moderator seemingly refuses to hold him to account for his consistently abusive forays past the civility rule, not even pausing to attempt to moderate and mitigate his behavior? Should we tickle his nose with a feather to get him to lose his mind on the finer points of an issue because it’s perversely entertaining to watch the completely predictable fall out?

                  Life presents very interesting conundrums all the time doesn’t it? As far as my position on it…., I’ll respond to him minimally and on point to the degree possible because it’s clear that he’ll openly lie about people and taunt them in order to trigger a response when presented with the silence of being ignored. I’m not sure ‘ignoring the troll’ will have a desired effect there. And even if it did have a desired effect personally, I think it’s always best to think beyond the confines of the personal and make an attempt to add something positive to group dynamic, no?

                  So, I guess that leaves things, in an immediate sense, tied to an active consideration on my part this morning to whether Allan actually hyperventilates when typing response on this blog? See, as i wait for the main activity of my day to warm up into the chaotic f&*kpit of spontaneous decision making forced by economic concern that days most often become…, well, that’s where my head is at today.

                  Wishing everyone a good journey today…

                  eb

                  1. “Probably a good thing if Allan finallly made a case, using the actual tenets of CRT how the theory differs from anything MLK believed in.”

                    Bug, I see you have decided to write one of your long tall tales today, demonstrating expertise you do not have, whether it be in grain futures or the stock market. If you had trouble affording surgery, perhaps one should consider you weren’t very good at investing in the markets. Oh, I forget your lab work at Yale. It’s laughable. If you need it, I will buy you a broom.

                    You ignorantly don’t recognize that the tenants of CRT are stated differently by many of its proponents. Still, in the end, it comes to your plain ignorance and reliance on dreams, rather than a reality, that permits you to write the BS you do.

                    CRT stresses equity rather than equality
                    CRT stresses the group rather than the individual.

                    Even though I have often said that you often remain ignorant of the discussion, which in the end, shows you to be a fool. If you don’t like my summary of CRT, you can provide an argument against it or tell us your version of CRT and link to the proof. Make sure the two people I mentioned earlier agree with you. Alternatively, tell us why you don’t accept what they say. The two people previously mentioned were D. Bell and Cheryl Harris.

                    You are a liar and fabricator in the remainder of your response. My knowledge doesn’t just come from right-wing media. I read some of D. Bell, Harris, and others and heard what CRT leaders say. You are an ignoramus who can’t stop pretending he knows what he is talking about and lies in the process.

                    1. “You ignorantly don’t recognize that the tenants of CRT are stated differently by many of its proponents.”

                      That’s a lie. The tenets, which you have yet to bring yourself to mention even one in your endless campaign to prove your idiocy around CRT, are established and accepted by “its proponents”. They are misconstrued by alt right media and PR efforts. And brought to us through the mouths of morons such as yourself.

                      “I read some of D. Bell, Harris, and others and heard what CRT leaders say. ”

                      I’d hazard a guess this, for you, came in the form of a quote taken out of context and plastered in a chiron running beneath Tucker’s frat boy face one evening.

                      “If you don’t like my summary of CRT, you can provide an argument against it or tell us your version of CRT and link to the proof.”

                      You have not yet provided a particular tenet of CRT in which you particulary disagree in order to begin discussion, despite being prompted multiple times, by multiple blog commenters. Instead you hope against hope that we’ll all fall into your basic crazy making tactic of demanding that we produce evidence which you will then immediately veer off to introduce platitude and generalization in order to cloud the issue. It’s your jam, slick. That’s what you *always* do. It’s so staggeringly obvious and disingenuous — and the only one who doesn’t get that is you.

                      A good guideline that was always put forth by CTHD was this: your claim, your burden of proof.

                      To date, your claim about CRT boils down to your belief that it’s bad and you don’t like it. First of all, of course you feel that way because it takes an ordered look at structural racism, and the people who give you your marching orders over at Fox are not willing to venture into *anything* that does that. And if you took a step back and actually looked at yourself and how you’re a walking, talking repeater of what just got hammered the previous night on Fox, well, it might be shocking to you how obvious you come across…

                      So to call back to CTHD…, your claim, your burden of proof. Produce a particular tenet of CRT that was put forth by Derrick Bell and make a case against it that is backed by data. Or just STFU. Your choice.

                      eb

                    2. “That’s a lie. The tenets, which you have yet to bring yourself to mention even one in your endless campaign to prove your idiocy around CRT”

                      Bug, take note, everything is a lie to an ignoramus because the ignoramus is ignorant. It would be much easier for you to correct the mistakes made than write all this cr-p. You don’t because you don’t know what CRT is, how it is being used, or what you are talking about. You use words, but you don’t use your brain as an intermediary to make sense of what you say.

                      Deal with the fact that Equity is not Equality even though both words start with an E. Deal with the fact that a group is different than an individual. To date, you haven’t said one thing of importance about CRT despite using an enormous number of words.

                      SM

                    3. And still not one stated tenet of CRT with a data based rationale for disagreeing with it. Impressive.

                      Most of the time I just tire of waiting for you to actually get on point and let it drift. Not this time.

                      eb

                    4. You are a dummy Bug. Equity and the group mind are what CRT involves itself in. You don’t realize that because you know nothing of CRT and demonstrate only ignorance.

                    5. Okay, after multiple promptings, I can tell you’re incapable of stating the tenets of CRT…

                      So here they are: Counter-Storytelling, the Permanence of Racism, Whiteness as Property, Interest Convergence, and the Critique of Liberalism.

                      Pick one and make your case against it, Allan. I fully expect you not to do this because you’re not familiar with them and have been spoon fed whatever alt right media has told you about CRT. In which case the deflection will be coming in your next post since you’re also incapable of not trying to get the last word in. It’ll be a good educational example of your one evasionary tactic that you use, no matter the subject.

                      eb

                    6. Bug, are you that ignorant that you don’t know the difference between what are or could be titles of articles and the information possessed within?

                      I’ll pick Whiteness as Property and you can tell us what you think we should know, but take a look at how it appears to be separating individuals into groups, black and white. One can guess the statements within will talk about equity.

                      I’m waiting for you to expand since names don’t tell very much, but then again you don’t know very much. AT least you were able to look up subject titles.

                      SM

                    7. Your claim, your burden of proof, Allan.

                      Tell us your thoughts on Whiteness as Property. What you disagree with as it relates to the tenet. Heaven forbid, what you actually agree with…

                      I’m impressed that you picked one! Looking forward to hearing your thoughts on it.

                      eb

                    8. Bug, you apparently don’t know what CRT is or what Whiteness as Property suggests. In any event you haven’t defined Whiteness as Property, so I assume my previous answers explains why you don’t know what you are talking about.

                      SM

                    9. Note: I recognize this will take some research on your part to actually familiarize yourself with the theory. Probably best to actually do it for the educational benefit, but also to steer clear of veering into generality and platitude. It will take a bit of work…, but you’re up to it, man. Looking forward to your thoughts…

                      eb

                    10. Bug, so far you have expressed nothing on the subject. You have proven yourself totally ignorant.

                      SM

                    11. “So here they are: . . .”

                      Red intellectuals peddle communism by describing it as: a worker’s paradise, a classless society, the champion of the underdog.

                      That’s called “propaganda.” And dupes swallow it.

                      Incidentally, the essence of CRT is racism — fused with Freud’s booby trap: If you admit you’re a racist, you’re a racist. If you reject that vicious accusation, you’re in denial. Heads, you’re a racist. Tails, you’re a racist.

                      CRT’s end-game is Rwanda — a tribalist America with ethnicities at each others’ throats.

                    12. Sam just checked in with the paranoid generalities and platitudes, Allan. So that path is checked off the list. Onward, to self education and rational discussion!

                      eb

                    13. Your absolute refusal to engage on the points that actually make up CRT rather than the ones alt right media spoonfeeds you yet again makes a couple things clear: one is you’re incapable of substantive discussion on any topic because you can’t get past the most surface of levels of understanding, and two, you’re a scum sucking magatron of a trump ass eater. Have fun rolling around in the slop of your ignorance.

                      eb

                    14. “Your absolute refusal to engage on the points that actually make up CRT “

                      Bug, anyone with intelligence who has read our mutual responses to each other clearly recognize that you are attempting to gaslight. You are not very good at that.

                      I will wait for any semblance of knowledge about CRT from you. You are like some type of word generator that puts sentences together correctly but says nothing. Neither you nor the word generator are able to think.

                      SM

              2. Anonymous, are you trying to say that they committed violence all the way up to May 31, and when the clock struck midnight, beginning June 1, they wanted a clean slate? I am curious why you keep insisting that they were peaceful on June 1, despite all the instances of violence and arson leading up to their dispersal. Why do you think the protestors did zero wrong on June 1, after that history of looting, arson, and assault?

                There was a pattern of violence. It is absolutely not true that they suddenly became peaceful on June 1. After having rioted for days, they resisted dispersing.

                https://www.doioig.gov/site-page/statement-inspector-general-mark-lee-greenblatt-regarding-special-review-report-review-us

                https://www.doioig.gov/reports/review-us-park-police-actions-lafayette-park

                From the above report:

                1. From May 30 to 31, at least 49 USPP officers were injured while policing the protests, and Federal and private property was vandalized.
                2. Secret Service ordered anti scale fencing to be installed. They determined that protestors would need to be cleared for the safety of the construction workers
                3. The USPP, Secret Service, and local law enforcement cleared the park

                1. ” Why do you think the protestors did zero wrong on June 1, after that history of looting, arson, and assault?”

                  Anonymous uses such comments to distract and deceive so that the subject matter changes. It is a form of lying that Anonymous uses regularly.

                  It is a dishonest way of debating, but it worked for so long he can’t debate in any other fashion.

                  1. Seth – does Anonymous think the slate wipes clean every 24 hours? Every 12 hours? Every hour?

                    I wonder how he would have reacted if Trump voters surrounded the Capitol Building in great numbers on January 7th.

              3. Anonymous. You repeatedly ignore the supporting documentation that I’ve provided to you. As a Jewish person, you have a responsibility to educate yourself on any movement that endangers Jewish people, or Israel as a whole. If you rely on propaganda, without questioning it, you could find yourself in the uncomfortable position of supporting a movement that seeks a Jewish genocide. For example, you could find yourself watching a BDS anti-Israel demonstration in the UK, on TV, where they wave signs saying they want to rape Jewish women and girls, and questioning your choices in life. What do you think would happen to the Israeli Jews if BDS succeeded in delegitimizing the entire country of Israel?

                The purpose of BDS is the destruction of Israel. I even bolded the relevant section from the article above, but here it is again. I suggest you read the articles linked above this time:

                “BDS leaders and organizations are also linked to the Palestinian Authority leadership, the radical Muslim Brotherhood, other radical groups, terror-supporting organizations, and in some cases even terror groups themselves such as Hamas. BDS boycott campaigns have effectively misled trade unions, academic institutions, and even leading international artists and cultural icons, with seemingly earnest calls for “justice” entailing the establishment of a Palestinian state living beside a Jewish state.”

                I said BDS itself is antisemitic. Your argument that it isn’t appears to revolve around your saying you are a Jew, and 1 in 10 Jews support BDS.

                You did not say if you are a Jewish person who supports BDS. I hope not because…as the article above states…BDS has misled people into thinking it just wants “justice” for Palestinians.

                The Muslims were given the lion’s share of the region formerly referred to as Palestine with the breakup of the Ottoman Empire. They got Jordan. On 5 separate occasions, Israel has offered the Palestinians land for peace, and were declined. Bill Clinton get entirely fed up at one point.

                This isn’t about land for peace.

                Destroying the Jewish homeland is antisemitic. Jews who support BDS either don’t understand its goal is the destruction of Israel, to be replaced with a Muslim nation, or they actually want Israel destroyed. Now, people can self identify any way they choose. So a someone who wanted Israel destroyed, and the ensuring genocide of the Jews therein, could still call himself a Jew. But he would be a Jewish-genocide promoting Jewish person, a real contradiction.

                I think it is more likely that Jews who support BDS are simply misled. Very naive people so eager to work for social justice that they believed propaganda, without bothering to research these claims that BDS was antisemitic. With their history of the Holocaust, Jewish people as a whole can be very concerned about claims of apartheid or persecution. All BDS needed to do to capitalize on their good intentions is to couch their rhetoric in terms of apartheid or persecution, and to leave out facts such as repeatedly rebuffed offers of land for peace.

                I find it indescribably ironic and tragic that 1 in 10 American Jews must have absolutely no idea that BDS is an antisemitic campaign to destroy Israel, or its ties to terrorist organizations. How many Americans, let alone American Jews, know the connection between the KGB and the Palestinians, or that Hitler worked to fan the flames of Muslim resistance to a Jewish state?

                Did you even read either of the articles that I linked for you? Or did you simply ignore this evidence so that you could keep repeating your beliefs, such as that BDS is not anti-semitic?

                Your claim that the protestors were not moved because of violence, because you said they were peaceful on the 1st, is absurd. For one, if a group burns down your neighbor’s house, and then stands in front of your house, would you protest their removal because they were not actively burning down your house, and were not a threat? For another, the Secret Service had ordered an anti-scale barrier, due to the repeated acts of arson, violence, and property destruction, and all the attacks on police officers. They ordered the removal for the safety of the construction workers. You can’t task employees to go into a mob that has rioted for 3 days and tell them to go put up a barrier in the midst of them. And, finally, they were cleared because of repeated acts of violence. It is irrelevant if they were actively trying to murder a police officer, again, at the exact moment that the order to disperse was given. The facts are that this mob had repeatedly engaged in unlawful behavior, including setting a church on fire, and was given a lawful order to disperse. It would be criminally negligent to allow such an unlawful crowd to remain. The slate doesn’t get wiped clean every 24 hours.

      2. Anonymous, indeed they may not have threatened to burn down the church they just set it on fire. https://www.washingtonpost.com/religion/2020/06/05/st-johns-episcopal-church-historic-church-next-white-house-set-fire-during-protests/ You can’t just make up your own history. Maybe in your case we should show mercy for your making up your own past and making up your own present. Poor poor Anonymous he showed such promise. Surely it was caused by his childhood spent in such grave poverty. Did you know that his parents never let him read a book?

        1. “Anonymous, indeed they may not have threatened to burn down the church they just set it on fire.”

          Right! Now you see why I corrected Karen.

          1. Anonymous, by your logic, if you set someone’s house on fire, you could claim you weren’t threatening to burn it down, just set it on fire.

            Does this make sense to you?

            1. That’s not a threat either. Threats are about future action. Describe it accurately: someone set fire to a room in the basement.

              1. You are acting like a worm, ATS worming your way out of a situation you put yourself in. An action today can be a threat for tomorrow, while yesterdays threat can be today’s action.

              2. Anonymous. Rioters committed arson on a historic church in DC. They assaulted people. They refused to disperse. The First Family was moved into a bunker for their safety for a time.

                Because of this violence and property damage, the feds dispersed the rioters. MPD took further action.

                It’s not a peaceful protest if you set a church on fire, if you assault police officers, or if you damage public or private property. Hence why they were dispersed.

                You seem to be chasing your tail here.

              3. Anonymous:

                I didn’t realize that you thought threats had to be verbally expressed. I have included several dictionary entires to clarify the definition of “threat” or “threaten”, noun and verb. While of course someone can verbally make a threat, it is not required. When clouds threaten to rain, they do not speak. A threatening fist does not speak.

                threat
                /THret/

                noun
                noun: threat; plural noun: threats
                1. a statement of an intention to inflict pain, injury, damage, or other hostile action on someone in retribution for something done or not done.
                “members of her family have received death threats”
                Similar:
                threatening remark
                warning
                ultimatum
                intimidating remark
                commination
                menaces
                menacing
                2.a person or thing likely to cause damage or danger.
                “hurricane damage poses a major threat to many coastal communities”

                threaten
                verb
                US /ˈθret.ən/ UK /ˈθret.ən/

                B2 [ T ]
                to tell someone that you will kill or hurt them or cause problems if they do not do what you want:
                They threatened the owner of the storewith a gun.
                [ + to infinitive ] They threatened to kill him unless he did as they asked.

                C1 [ T ]
                to be likely to cause harm or damage to something or someone:
                Changing patterns of agriculture are threatening the countryside.

                C2 [ I ]
                If something bad threatens to happen, it is likely to happen:
                Look at those clouds! There’s a storm threatening.

                verb (used with object)
                to utter a threat against; menace:
                He threatened the boy with a beating.
                to be a menace or source of danger to:
                Sickness threatened her peace of mind.

                to offer (a punishment, injury, etc.) by way of a threat:
                They threatened swift retaliation.
                to give an ominous indication of:
                The clouds threaten rain.
                verb (used without object)
                to utter or use threats.
                to indicate impending evil or mischief.

                First of all, BLM rioters were indeed threatening, and committing violence, for political purposes, in repeated acts that I believe rise to the definition of domestic terrorism.

                Second, when arsonists set multiple fires, and set a church on fire, that poses a threat to the city, the church, and everyone within reach. The act itself of setting a church on fire is a menacing threat to burn it down.

                Someone setting your front door on fire is threatening your life with their actions. Someone burning a cross in your front yard is making a threat against you, with their actions. Do any words need to be said in any of these scenarios for you to grasp that this is a threat against you?

                Is this what all your arguing is about? You think a threat must be expressed in words? Well, if you want to read blatant, verbal threats, BLM provided plenty of them over the past year. For example, during the Chauvin trial, BLM activist Maya Echols said, “If George Floyd’s murderer is not sentenced, just know that all hell is going to break loose. Don’t be surprised when buildings are on fire. Just saying.”

  10. I don’t find the Vladeck lies much different from the lies we hear every day from the left. Professor Turley should not be surprised. That is the nature of the left and their followers we see daily on the blog.

  11. Why should we be surprised? We have commenters on this forum who still believe in Russia Gate, Kids in cages, Trump said white supremacist are good people, Trump was anti Semitic when he had close family members who are Jewish, Trump told 30,000 lies, and Trump was xenophobic because he shut down travel from China when he feared the possibility of a pandemic spreading to the U.S. We have a name for it for people who see writhing snakes in the corner or pick imaginary bugs from the air to eat them. The word starts with a c and ends with a y.

  12. Vladeck:

    “I didn’t lie.”

    “And if I did, it’s someone else’s fault.”

    How do such people sleep at night?

  13. Honesty and integrity will find its just reward. Wondering, then, what “Professor” Vladecks’ reward will be

  14. My sympathies. People of honor appear to be a minority in academia and nonexistent in the media. That is why so many of us treasure this blog and your work.

Leave a Reply