Insurrection or Advocacy? Chicago Mayor Lightfoot Issues “Call to Arms” After Leaked Abortion Ruling

Chicago Mayor Lori Lightfoot (D) facing criticism over a tweet in which she issued a “call to arms” after the recent leaking of the abortion decision from the Supreme Court. In the aftermath of the firebombing of a pro-life office and the doxing of Supreme Court justices, the “call to arms” was alarming for many, particularly given the violent protests in Chicago in prior years. I do not believe that Lightfoot is encouraging anything other than peaceful advocacy. Yet, it is striking how virtually identical language has been used by Democrats to seek the disqualification of GOP members and criminal charges against figures like Donald Trump. Indeed, such rhetoric featured greatly in the second impeachment of Donald Trump.

Ligthfoot declared “To my friends in the LGBTQ+ community—the Supreme Court is coming for us next. This moment has to be a call to arms. We will not surrender our rights without a fight—a fight to victory!”


Democrats have been criticized for the use of inflammatory rhetoric in the past. One of the most notable and shocking incidents was in March 2020 when Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) stood in front of the Supreme Court to threaten Justices Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh by name: “I want to tell you, Gorsuch, I want to tell you, Kavanaugh, you have released the whirlwind and you will pay the price! You won’t know what hit you if you go forward with these awful decisions.”

During the Trump impeachment, managers replayed the comments of  Trump from prior years to show how his words fueled divisions, critics were pointing to similar statements from the managers themselves. Rep. Jamie Raskin, D-Md., the leading impeachment manager, was chided for using “fight like hell” in a 2019 interview with The Atlantic — the very words replayed repeatedly from Trump. He also used that phrase repeatedly in prior years to ramp up his supporters in fighting for Democratic control of Congress.

Speaker Nancy Pelosi blundered by appointing managers like Eric Swalwell, who is notorious for his inflammatory rhetoric. Swalwell’s comments not only include disturbing legal claims, but highly personal and offensive remarks like mocking threats against Susan Collins, R-Maine. Swalwell declared “Boo hoo hoo. You’re a senator who police will protect. A sexual assault victim can’t sleep at home tonight because of threats. Where are you sleeping? She’s on her own while you and your @SenateGOP colleagues try to rush her through a hearing.”

Managers focused on Trump statements that parallel those of Lightfoot. Trump urge his supporters to “fight like hell, and if you don’t fight like hell, you’re not going to have a country anymore.” He also told them: “We will not be intimidated into accepting the hoaxes and the lies that we’ve been forced to believe over the past several weeks.”

Yet, Trump also told his supporters that “everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard.” He said the reason for the march was that “we are going to cheer on our brave senators and congressmen and women.” As for those opposing any electoral vote challenge, Trump said “we’re probably not going to be cheering so much for some of them. Because you’ll never take back our country with weakness.”

The fact is that I would oppose impeachment or charges for either Lightfoot or Trump for such rhetoric.

The Supreme Court has long rejected fluid standards in criminalizing speech. Indeed, a case based on this speech likely would fail in federal court. In Brandenburg v. Ohio, the Supreme Court refused to allow the criminalization of speech that actually calls for “the use of force or of law violation” unless it is imminent.

During the Trump impeachment, I warned about the slippery slope created by the articles given similar language used by Democrats in both houses to “fight” for the country and to “retake” Congress. During Trump’s 2017 inauguration, Democrats denounced his legitimacy as riots broke out in Washington involving violent groups.

Rep. Maxine Waters (D-Calif.) later called on people to confront Republicans in public; Rep. Ayanna Pressley (D-Mass.) insisted during 2020’s violent protests that “there needs to be unrest in the streets.” Then-Sen. Kamala Harris (D-Calif.) said “protesters should not let up” even as many protests turned violent or deadly.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) has condemned fellow members as effectively traitors and the “enemy within.” She was criticized last year for stating, in the midst of violent protests, that “I just don’t know why there aren’t uprisings all over the country. Maybe there will be.”

Even Fired FBI director James Comey has been given to reckless rhetoric, too. He recently said: “The Republican Party needs to be burned down … It’s just not a healthy political organization.” Likewise, Washington Post columnist Jennifer Rubin declared that “We have to collectively, in essence, burn down the Republican Party. We have to level them because if there are survivors, if there are people who weather this storm, they will do it again.” Since the Republican National Committee was targeted with a pipe bomb on Jan. 6, would that constitute incitement to arson or violence? Not under Brandenburg.

The Lightfoot comments only highlight the double standard applied by Democrats over free speech. Whether it is “disinformation” or violent speech, the Democrats have often excluded themselves from such standards. What is insurrectionary language for some is advocacy language for others. The alternative is to “fight like hell” for free speech . . . for everyone.


79 thoughts on “Insurrection or Advocacy? Chicago Mayor Lightfoot Issues “Call to Arms” After Leaked Abortion Ruling”

  1. Chicago Mayor Lori Lightfoot (D) must be perp walked, charged with incitement to riot, violence, subversion, insurrection, treason and civil war, and deported, she being the descendant of freed slaves who, upon the issuance of the Emancipation Proclamation, 1863, must have been deported per extant contemporary immigration law, the Naturalization Act of 1802, which required citizens to be “…free white person(s)….”

    There is no immigration statute of limitations with reference to illegal alien status.

  2. Where are they getting this idea of LGBTQ+, or even interracial marriage being under threat of the SCOTUS?
    Or is just heated fearmongering based on nothing?

    Regardless, the rhetoric that is being put forth by people in leadership roles is reckless and dangerous.

    1. Because inter-racial marriage (Loving v. VA); the right to use contraceptives (Griswald v. CT), gay marriage Obgerfall (sp?)), and the right to abortion (Roe v. Wade), were all based on the constitutional right to privacy. In the draft opinion striking down Roe, the Supreme Court is now saying that there is no right to privacy recognized by the U.S. Constitution. Even Mitch McConnell stated a few days ago that these other rights are now imperiled. That’s why the whole thing is such a sh!tshow – rights that have been relied on for a half century are now, “oh, sorry – we made a mistake.” That Court is a joke.

      1. Loving v Virginia was based on equal protection and the strict scrutiny applied to racial classifications, not a right to privacy.

        It is also not enough for a court to conclude that a decision was wrongly decided to overturn it. The five-factor analysis of Alito’s draft would need to be applied. It is unlikely that the other substantive due process decisions would fall under this analysis.

        Nor would they fall on the basis of this precedent. Alito said at least three times that the abortion case was unique, and distinguished from all the others, because it involved extinguishing life. He said explicitly that Roe/Casey was not dictated by those precedents and that its overruling would not affect them.

      2. the Supreme Court is now saying that there is no right to privacy recognized by the U.S. Constitution.

        Not even close.

        The draft decision recognizes the conflict of rights. My right to swing my fist, ends at your nose. A woman’s right to her womb, ends when it threatens the life of baby. The State has an interest in protecting life. The ruling rightly points out when the protection starts, is a matter for the People. (not the courts)

  3. If only that were true. Not everyone is able to travel to another state for many reasons. As a pro choice woman that is not a fair outcome . Ir Roe was flawed it would have made more sense to correct the flaw in a way that did not end the protections it offered.

    1. I don’t believe it is the job of the Supreme Court to correct the flaws in a law. The Supreme Court reviews the cases brought before them. Correction of the flaws is the job of the legislative body–But IMHO, the legislative body lately is only interested in sound bites and incitement.

  4. What is it about black lesbians who lie and subvert Democracy? And this from Sucki Psaki’s suxcessor

    Glenn Greenwald
    The new White House Secretary has spread very serious doubts about the legitimacy of American democracy.
    Quote Tweet

    Karine Jean-Pierre
    · Apr 2, 2020
    Reminder: Brian Kemp stole the gubernatorial election from Georgians and Stacey Abrams.

    Glenn Greenwald
    Beyond claiming the 2018 Georgia election was “stolen,” the new White House Press Secretary also spread serious doubts about the legitimacy and integrity of American democracy by saying Trump wasn’t really president because he stole the 2016 election:
    Quote Tweet

    Karine Jean-Pierre
    · Dec 17, 2016
    Stolen emails, stolen drone, stolen election …..welcome to the world of #unpresidented Trump

  5. “[S]he issued a ‘call to arms’ . . .”

    She should enlist Smollett. He can recruit those who answer a “call to arms.”

  6. Well, Lightweight can certainly rely on a large, well armed, class of Chicagoans to answer her “call to arms”. They are zealous practitioners of “after-birth abortion” too.

  7. Well, if the fabulously gay mayor of a major city wants a fight, I think she ought to have it. We’ll take the 82nd Airborne. She can have the Village People. What’s the over/under on time needed to end Lightfoot’s Rebellion? And what will they do with Beetlejuice?

    1. “ We’ll take the 82nd Airborne”

      Sugarplum, the 82nd Airborne would never leave the ground with a fat pig like you on the plane. The neon sign at Krispy Kreme is flashing somewhere near you. Run along

      1. This is your idea of an argument – stupid insults that you just make up ?

        Are you a toddler ?

      2. Is it possible for courage to be anonymous?

        Does dastardly behavior require anonymity?

        These are questions for the ages.

        And you, ma’am, Little Miss Aninny Sugarplum, are a coward.

        Take the plug out and woman up.

      3. Aninny:

        You sound angry … and juvenile. Something got you upset? Maybe you’re realizing for the first time that there are people smarter, wittier, better read and damn better looking. It’s okay though. There’s always a first time for everything. Chuckles.

  8. My dog saw the photo of Lightfoot on my tablet, growled at it, and when I stepped away, urinated on her photo. Good dog!

  9. Turley uses this push piece to employ his standard inflammatory speech against Rubin and Swallwell.


      1. Ah, Yes, the self evidently most corrupt activities in the past 20 years are just a distraction.

          1. You do not know how allegedly normally works.

            The term alleged refers to the claim that a specific person did something.
            Not that the thing happened.

            If someone is shot in the head – he is not allegedly shot.
            He is shot by an alleged perpetrator.

  10. Turley sure loves his hypocrisy and disingenuous contextualization of the narrative he is trying to portray.

    He’s using false equivalency between the two events. Trump and his supporters spent months pushing the narrative that led to the insurrectionist assault on the Capitol including false claims of voter fraud. Mayor Lightfoot made one rhetorical statement and suddenly it’s the same thing Trump and his enabling gaggle of idiots have been saying constantly for months. Please, there’s no direct comparison and Turley is trying to make it seem it is comparable to what Trump did. No. Not even close.

  11. We all used to laugh at that old saying :”If the democrats didn’t have double standards, they’d have no standards at all – and all its iteration…”. Now it seems that the laughable joke is becoming a lethal threat to our nation and constitution; and the same could now be said about most members of their party as well.

  12. The Democrats, backed by the CCP in China, are trying to create a one-party totalitarian state just like their masters in Beijing. Everything that has gone down during the past two years can be found in Mao’s cultural revolution. While the national security state and the frenzied corporate media scream Russia, Russis, Russia, the CCP is laughing their a$$es off as everything deflects from China, who have completely captured DC, to Russia and Putin.

  13. “A call to arm’s”, I wonder if the new head of the Ministry of Fear has a video out there dressed with horned helmet and spear singing Richard Wagners “Ride of the Valkyrie’”?

    1. Why don’t you use the full sentence?

      “This moment has to be a call to arms“

      Characterization of what she said by stating the last half of the sentence changes the context completely.

      It’s disingenuous at best.

  14. “sure those are the words, but, those of adequate sophistication, understand the non-violent nuanced, sentiment expressed.”

    I forgot to translate the leftist speak. ‘if you don’t agree with my non-violent interpretation, you are nothing by an uneducated, knuckle dragging hick, who should not be allowed a voice in the public square.’

  15. The mayor should be concentrating on solving or controlling the rather high number of gun related deaths and injuries.

    1. Control “the rather high number of gun related deaths and injuries.”


      Not “gun-related dearhs”; criminal-mostly black-related deaths.

  16. Men cant have an opinion on abortion. That same logic would bar lesbians from voicing an opinion, right?

    1. Well no, obviously. Men can’t get pregnant. Lesbians can, and some do, albeit not by the “traditional” method.

      1. YOU are in trouble, because we have been told that men CAN get pregnant, and you are a bigot if you think otherwise.

      2. The only way a lesbian can get pregnant is by specific actions seeking that outcome. They have no “lived experiences”. Just like men.

  17. The alternative is to “fight like hell” for free speech

    I see the good Prof has come around and now offering full throated support of President Trump, by quoting directly from his speech.
    Jan 6, Democrat selected committee, needs to call our host in to testify.

  18. They keep poking the angry bear, and we all know that if they poke it enough….the bear is going to attack, and it WILL NOT end well for the pokers.

  19. Democrat politicians advocating for armed revolt.

    The ensuing pedantry here in comments will be entertaining…for a while.

    President Trump’ words were always taken literally, not seriously.

    Democrats get a pass, they demand to be taken seriously, and not literally. That’s where all the parsing, and rationalizing takes place. “sure those are the words, but, those of adequate sophistication, understand the non-violent nuanced, sentiment expressed.”

    1. Iowan2,

      “ Democrat politicians advocating for armed revolt.”

      No, that’s not what they are saying. Turley is falsely implying that they are.

      “ To my friends in the LGBTQ+ community—the Supreme Court is coming for us next. This moment has to be a call to arms. We will not surrender our rights without a fight—a fight to victory!”

      “This moment has to be a call to arms”. This wasn’t a literal call to arms. It was purely rhetorical. There’s a distinction and Turley knows it. But he is just using it to feed the rage and rely on the ignorance of those who can’t make the distinction to paint a false narrative and false equivalency. That’s the disingenuous nature of Turley.

      1. If you Live in a blue state and you need an abortion you have absolutely nothing to worry about. If you live in a semi blue state I bet you dollars to donuts you won’t have anything to worry about it. If you live in a strictly conservative state you might have something to worry about, up to a certain week that you can get an abortion. Outside of that, your ok. Oh, and if you live in a state or conservative state in the citizens in that state vote on it or to outlaw Inn you need an abortion you will not have any trouble driving to a state that performs them. See how easy that is.

      2. Remember when YOUR side blamed Palin for the “targets” when Gabie Gifford was shot by a whack job. Good times… Look in the mirror before blaming others for what YOUR side does ALL THE TIME!!!

Leave a Reply