It appears that words no longer matter to Nancy Pelosi. For years, Pelosi and other Democrats have blamed President Donald Trump and Republicans for their “inciteful rhetoric.” In seeking Trump’s impeachment, Pelosi bellowed that the use of “words such as a cry ‘to fight like hell'” produces violence and added, “words matter. Truth matters. Accountability matters.” No longer. After all, she explained, “we can’t take responsibility for the minds that are out there and how they hear it.”
Democrats and the media have long applied a double standard to political violence. CNN made “fiery but mostly peaceful” protests a national joke in describing riots that caused massive property damage and deaths. CNN’s Chris Cillizza even denounced Trump for using the word “riots” to describe the violent protests in Kenosha in 2020. Violence on the left cannot be riotous; it is righteous.
Pelosi has shown the same relativity. When a mob destroyed statues, Pelosi brushed aside the criminal conduct and said, “People will do what they do.”
Pelosi’s latest pivot comes as Democratic leaders whip supporters into a frenzy over the impending death of democracy and the need to “fight back.”
Despite objections from many of us that the rhetoric was pushing supporters to violence, Democrats have continued to call for resistance to tyranny or oligarchy.
Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D, Mass.) declared, “Elon Musk is seizing the power that belongs to the American people.” Rep. Jamie Raskin (D, Md.) claimed on MSNBC’s “The ReidOut” that Musk and Trump were conducting a “rapidly expanding and accelerating coup.”
Sen. Ron Wyden (D., Ore.) appeared to be working off the same talking point and declared that a “coup” was being carried out. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D., N.Y.) warned that Musk was “taking away everything we have.”
Many are using the very words that Pelosi previously said were not just impeachable but criminal incitement. Democrats ratcheted up claims of a “coup” and called for Democrats to “fight in the streets.”
House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D., N.Y.) has called for people to take to the streets to save democracy and posted a picture brandishing a baseball bat.
Jeffries has also called for Democrats to fight “in the streets.”
Former Democratic National Committee deputy chair Keith Ellison, now the Minnesota attorney general, once said Antifa would “strike fear in the heart” of Trump. Liberal sites sell Antifa items to celebrate the violent group.
California Governor Gavin Newsom declared, “I’m going to punch these sons of bitches in the mouth.” It follows other violent rhetoric from Democratic leaders.
Rep. Maxine Waters (D., Cal.) said, “We are here to fight back.” Sen. Cory Booker (D., NJ) called on citizens to “fight” and declared, “We will rise up.”
Rep. Jasmine Crockett (D., TX) yelled, “We are gonna be in your face, we are gonna be on your a–es, and we are going to make sure you understand what democracy looks like, and this ain’t it.”
Rep. LaMonica McIver (D., N.J.) added: “God d—it shut down the Senate!…WE ARE AT WAR!”
Such rhetoric can inspire unhinged citizens who actually believe that this is a war against a coup. It is the type of rhetoric that can prompt anti-Republican Nicholas John Roske to try to assassinate Justice Brett Kavanaugh or Sanders supporter James T. Hodgkinson to try to massacre Republican members playing softball.
Democrats have admitted that the rhetoric is causing many to consider violence. One House Democrat told Axios, “Some of them have suggested … what we really need to do is be willing to get shot.”
Yet another admitted that constituents have told them to prepare for “violence … to fight to protect our democracy.” Others reported that liberals are talking about the need “to storm the White House and stuff like that.”
One explained that “They’re angry beyond things.” Another said, “It’s like … the Roman coliseum. People just want more and more of this spectacle.”
Some are discussing triggering or staging violence. One member said, “What I have seen is a demand that we get ourselves arrested intentionally or allow ourselves to be victims of violence, and … a lot of times that’s coming from economically very secure white people.”
In one encounter, a lawmaker told Axios: “I actually said in a meeting, ‘When they light a fire, my thought is to grab an extinguisher’. And someone at the table said, ‘Have you tried gasoline?’”
However, when such arson and other violence occur, Democrats are mystified that anyone would point to their own rhetoric and responsibility. When the alleged shooter of Charlie Kirk was found to have scrawled antifa messages on his bullets, the response was again denial and deflection.
At CNN, the network repeated its “fiery but mostly peaceful” approach to reporting. It told CNN viewers that there were “phrases related to cultural issues.” The wording was so painfully awkward and overly evasive that it only caused greater attention from viewers. CNN later admitted that the writing involved antifa references.
Sen. Brian Schatz (D-HI) was even angry with those acknowledging that the shooter was motivated by leftwing causes. He posted on X: “What f**king difference does it make if this murderer was left or right. Pull yourself together, read a book, get some exercise, have a whiskey or walk the dog or make some pasta or go fishing or just do anything other than let this algo pickle your brain and ruin your soul.”
Imagine if a MAGA supporter shot a Democrat. Would Schatz be calling for library and yoga visits?
However, Pelosi insists that words no longer matter. She may be speaking the truth when it comes to the left and the media. They do not matter if they convey righteously violent messages. It then becomes little more than “phrases related to cultural issues.”
Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro professor of public interest law at George Washington University and the author of the best-selling “The Indispensable Right: Free Speech in an Age of Rage.”
This is a right wing attempt to blame democrats for the violence hanging heavy in the air, while throwing shade on the constant calls for violence by the trumplicans. Trump has, since the beginning, been using calls to physically attack those who protest his ugly rhetoric. And the closing arguments, to “ imagine a MAGA killing a Democrat “ is pathetic. Only three months ago four democrats were brutally shot. Two died, one Melissa Hartmann, was a State Senator. And the press didn’t want to use the word “assassination “.
They were murder by a person who was picked by the Governor Timmy W
Nice try.
Boelter was registered to vote in Oklahoma as a Republican for the 2004 United States presidential election, though on a state document in 2019, Boelter wrote that he had “no party preference
I can’t recall any calls for violence from the Right. Can you cite an example please?
Abortive ideation, liberal license, and life deemed a “burden” h/t Obama, unworthy of life, and transgender spectrum (e.g. homosexual, simulant) pride are a toxic combination. #HateLovesAbortion
List out the constant calls by Republicans for violence, as the professor has in this contribution. Even a leftist postmodern spin isn’t going to get it.
We are waiting for that list.
Was Charlie Kirk sympathetic to Russian terrorists (Putin, Lavrov, etc.)?
Or the Obama/Biden/Clinton terrorists who backed the overthrow of democracy in Ukraine in a Slavic Spring, launched a civil war, followed Clinton’s script to deny essential services to Ukrainians in Crimea, then with Kiev and aligned axis terrorists targeted Ukrainians in the East. Presumably because they were classified as a “burden”. That, and DEIst (e.g. racist) motives.
Also, Zelensky and that guy who preceded him. Hamasidal maniacs in DEIst (e.g. racist) blocs.
Did Charlie Kirk cause the death of Iryna Zarutska?
No. Had Biden the Butcher not squashed the tentative peace deal in Istanbul in the spring of 2022, Iryna would of been in her home country, and not had to flee the death and destruction Biden caused.
Would it be more correct to say that Russian fascists and terrorists have been causing the death and destruction in Ukraine?
Did you ever grow a brain? Sure doesn’t look that way.
Were you raised by a pack of Jerry Springer audience members?
Comparing Charlie Kirk to Joseph Goebbels is stupid. The lunatic Left can’t stop going back to the same old well – anyone who disagrees with them is Hilter.
The Left also calls Charlie Kirk a ‘right wing extremist’. That is the same old ad hominem attack of someone you don’t agree with.
Charlie Kirk seemed like a decent person. His willingness to politely debate a topic with anyone was, given the current political environment, special.
Sometimes the truth hurts. Blaming the messenger is the mark of an idiot.
Fish – this three-day-long Goebbels thing is the result of a George Soros memo to his mindless drones telling them to clutter up comment sections with asinine comparisons and sea-lioning questions. Best to just point out that they’re Soros drones and encourage people to ignore them. With that said, I admit it is entertaining when someone like John Say answers their inanities and makes them look even more ridiculous than they already are.
Does the right ever make ad hominem attacks against the left?
We disagree, but we don’t condone murder like the left does. That answer your foolish question
Why did the former newspaper called the New York Times publish to tens of thousands of readers that Charlie Kirk made an antisemitic statement, when in fact he quoted someone else’s antisemitic statement so he could criticize it? Why did the NYT decide to propagate the falsehood that Charlie Kirk was antisemitic when he is on record as being a staunch supporter of Israel? Why did the NYT publish to tens of thousands of people that that was Charlie Kirk’s statement and then, when caught in their lie, publish a retraction at the bottom of page 36B where it would be read by around 17 people?
Given that, and the fact that the NYT also won the Pulitzer Prize for publishing the Russia-Collusion hoax as if it were true, isn’t it true that the NYT has a habit of lying, and basically publishing falsehoods, so that the fairness and accuracy of its reporting is basically nonexistent? And given that, isn’t the term “Fake News” an accurate description? And shouldn’t the NYT and WAPO voluntarily give back their Pulitzer?
Old Man,
The NYT buried the Holocaust in it’s inner pages. Enough said.
That’s who I cancelled my subscription to the NYT 20 years ago.
I am still waiting for the NYSlime to return the Pulitzer Prize for Walter Duranty’s Stalin’s Russia. 1932
Why is the good and decent man Corey Comperatore not with his wife and children right now, protecting and providing for them?
Why is the good and decent man Charlie Kirk not with his wife and children right now, protecting and providing for them?
Why is Karen Diamond not with her husband, children, and grandchildren right now, dispensing wisdom and enjoying life.
Why are Yaron Lischinsky and Sarah Lynn Milgrim not planning their wedding right now, looking forward to a full life of happiness, children, and grandchildren?
What does it mean when you are admired by Russian fascists?
^ Paid CCP troll. Ignore. ^
Nothing
If it means something, then is your reply a falsehood?
“What does it mean” a person keeps asking questions that amount to: When did you stop beating your wife?
Was there this much grief over the death of Goebbels?
^ Paid Chinese Communist Party troll. Ignore. It’s probably a bot, whose only purpose is to divide Americans. The more divided we are, the weaker we are, which is to China’s benefit.
He committed suicide – he was not assassinated.
And, unlike Charlie Kirk, he was a first-rate coward, as was Hitler himself.
Why did the Russians like Charlie Kirk so much?
^ Paid Chinese troll. Ignore. See above responses.
Fallen women like Nancy Pelosi, who facilitated San Francisco’s ruin during her 38 years as its congressional representative, is a key member of a cadre of heinous politicians who’ve turned America into the shameful city upon a hill.
What harm won’t she inflict on America in her pursuit of power and riches?
What must the decent people of the world think of this country of so many wonderful people when they see the likes of her?
Charlie Kirk’s assassination was an act of LETHAL CENSORSHIP …
Censorship is about controlling what is heard, read, and seen by the population, you and me. The individual being censured – or killed – is just the target of the moment.
Which is why this is much deeper than the death of a single activist, speaker, person.
It’s a personal tragedy for Charlie Kirk, his family and friends – and a brutal attack on the single most important requirement for a civilized society in America and around the planet: FREE SPEECH.
Ms. Squadster AOC stroking the dark coals of illogical, irrational hate-speech this July on X: “Freedom from kings. Freedom from fascism. Power to the people forever.”
In Orwell’s 1984, the Party uses Newspeak to narrow speech and subsequently, thought, limiting individuals’ cognitive ability to articulate rebellion. This technique aims to create a society of semi-conscious beings, effectively inhibiting dissent against the regime.
Charlie Kirk moved millions away from 1984 and the Socialists couldn’t deal with that.
Is there a conservative group-think in this blog?
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.
-Senator Chuck Schumer (D-NY).
Some time later a leftist traveled to Justice Kavanaugh’s house with a gun, ammo, other weapons, and a mind full of hate, intent on assassinating the Justice. But no, no connection between the two things.
Don’t you think a fair presentation of this would give the dates of the speech and the attempt and what Schumer said on the Senate floor that clarified his speech remarks?
No.
OMFK did not take schumer out of context – you can cite the entirety of his remarks that will not improve them.
Remarks at another time and place are not context.
John Say – thanks for answering the anonymous dweeb. The kind of question she asked is obvious sea-lioning. The anonymous dweeb does that a lot, and I ignore it, but when you point out the obvious it’s still satisfying.
most of the time I am replying to idiots – they are not the audience.
My objective is to demonstrate the error in their post to others.
Once in a while I bump into someone intelligent on the left and the engagement is worthwhile.
But I have not seen an intelligent person on the left online in years.
Your efforts are appreciated. I enjoy seeing them being put in their place.
And I agree – why is it so hard to find intelligent leftists to debate with? The ones on here are so absurd. As you may know, I’ve often said we have plenty of worthy allies, but our distinctive curse is that we lack worthy opponents. The mean, dumb leftists on this site prove their lack of humanity and lack of basic logic skills every day, and every day we feel the absence of a worthy adversary to debate with.
Yes John Say and Old Man are the smartest people on the blog and everyone they debate are idiots, dweebs, and lack logic and humanity.
No, just the leftists. The fellow conservatives we debate with are generally pretty reasonable people.
The would be assassin saw schumers remarks being glorified on MSNBC
He didnt see Schumers remarks in the Senate
Why didnt schumer stand on the steps of the SCOTUS and apologize for his remarks??
GFY
In 2010, I considered Nancy Pelosi the most dangerous woman in America.
And she never disappoints.
How long after that was she quoted as saying ‘you have to pass the bill to see what’s in the bill?’
What in God’s name look hold of her brain to make her say something as stupid as that?
Here is an explanation that you may be interested in reading: http://speakeremeritapelosi.house.gov/newsroom/vox-nancy-pelosi-was-right-democrats-had-to-pass-the-bill-so-people-could-find-out-whats-in-it
Do you really think Democracy exists when nobody knows what’s in a bill before it becomes law? I mean I know the left is anti-democratic, but that’s more, it’s insanely stupid.
Apparently, San Fran Nan is too old for dodge ball. It’s time for her to simply go away.
“The alleged assassin who fatally shot Charlie Kirk earlier this week was living with a male partner who is allegedly in the process of “transitioning” to being a female and who is currently ‘cooperating’ with investigators, sources familiar with the investigation told Just the News on Saturday.”
– Just the News
___________________
Young parasitic liberal communist wackjobs listen to old parasitic liberal communist wackjobs.
They demand the Enslavement of Karl Marx’s Communist Manifesto over the Freedom and Self-Reliance of the American Founders’ Constitution and Bill of Rights.
They really, really, really want all of Other People’s Money.
They really, really, really want state care and solicitude from womb to tomb.
They really, really, really want the murder of separate and sovereign human beings in the womb.
They really, really, really want the dominion of unnatural, deviant, and aberrant perversions and freaks of nature.
They listen to any idiot who falsely promises it.
I’d rather hear what you think would make our country better. When all you do is mind read your adversary, it’s hard to tell if you have anything of your own to contribute. In other words, it’s easy to rant as a critic — you don’t have to take any responsibility for policy decisions that way.
For example, what degree of non-conformance in matters of pair bonding would be acceptable? Why?
The only meaningful and lasting thing any form of self-governance can do for the benefit of citizens is to provide freedom that allows the “pursuit of happiness.”
Communism falsely promises “from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs,” which requires the forcible imposition of Karl Marx’s “dictatorship of the proletariat”—a lethal contradiction.
Under the Constitution, you are completely free to wallow in all your aspects and facets of weirdness, deviance, incoherence, and mysticism as long as you can continue to support yourself without taxpayer subsidies.
It is not mind reading to take people at their word.
Nor is there some obligation to provide an alternative to STUPID.
Anything that is not obviously stupid will do.
“I’d rather hear what you think would make our country better. ”
Undo most of what the left has done in the past century.
“it’s hard to tell if you have anything of your own to contribute.”
Calling out stupidity is a contribution.
“In other words, it’s easy to rant as a critic”
The left makes that easy
“you don’t have to take any responsibility for policy decisions that way.”
Correct – undoing bad a century of bad policy decisions improves things.
You do not need to prove some special insight to say left wing nut policies failed,
lets return to what we had before – that was less bad, and think before we rep[eat similar stupid mistakes.
“For example, what degree of non-conformance in matters of pair bonding would be acceptable? Why?”
What has that to do with anything ?
I do not care about your non-conformance – so long as you do not use force aka government on others and you leave Children the F#$K alone.
What you do as an adult that harms no one other than our self is your business.
That however does not prevent the rest of us from taking Note that a factor in the Kirk Killer’s motivation was some SPECIFIC elements of left wing nut trans ideology.
Being free to do things does not make them moral or ethical and does not preclude the rest of us from judging you for it – so long as we do not use force or government
I am pretty sure Charlie Kirk said much the same thing – and you murdered him for it.
And that is the really core point – it is not the specific nonsense that you beleive that matters.
It is that rather than enter a debate with reason facts and logic you will use force to shut those with different views down.
You will use govenrment force to censor them. And when you can not do that – atleast some of you will use violence.
Well Put.
PT, tragedy.
Lin, try the strawberry jam.
Back on planet earth it’s beautiful. The air is heavy with oxygen and on cloudy autumn days it’s thick with water. People say how do you do, good morning and thank you in happy peace. Nothing ever happens and the president speaks once per year followed by the speaker.
It’s a very nice place.
^^^^*. Strawberry jam is the reward for best all time comment regarding stochastic terrorism.
The best I could do was link it to the training in Machurian Candidate.
Thanks for the identification of the specific psyops being used.
Censorship and Abridgement Protest Here: communists (liberals, progressives, socialists, democrats, RINOs, AINOs) are allowed to burn the American Flag but Americans are not allowed the freedom of speech on the Turley blog.
WTF, over?
First Amendment
Congress shall make no law…abridging the freedom of speech….
Turley blog is NOT funded or owned by the US government. You moron.
Jezz the left is such fools.
Of possible interest: some mourners were holding a peaceful vigil honoring Charlie after his brutal assassination, and a liberal activist crashed it, shouting F–k Charlie Kirk, and brawling with the mourners. Stay classy, liberals.
https://www.foxnews.com/us/video-captures-fight-erupting-charlie-kirk-vigil-after-activist-reportedly-shouts-profanity-crowd
And so it begins.
Thank God for Boise, Idaho.
Explain. Don’t be like Tyler Robinson and use coded messages.
There are Americans in Boise.
The “coded messages” are gibberish to distract from the point. They have no meaning beyond that.