Below is my column in the Hill on the murder of Charlie Kirk, the latest victim of our age of rage. The evidence of Antifa scribblings and indoctrination of the shooter came as no surprise. For months, some of us have been warning Democratic leaders about their dangerous rhetoric and how it would be received by the most radical elements in the Antifa movement.
Here is the column:
“Prove me wrong.”
For years, that tagline of Charlie Kirk and his group, Turning Point USA, enraged many on the left. In “an age of rage,” nothing is more triggering for the perpetually angry than an invitation to debate issues.
Indeed, someone has now killed him for it.
What is most chilling about the assassination is that it was not in the slightest degree surprising. This follows two attempted assassinations of President Trump and the killing of a pair of Minnesota politicians.
I heard of the assassination in Prague as I prepared to speak about the age of rage and the growing attacks on free speech. I was profoundly saddened by the news. I knew Charlie and respected his effort to challenge the orthodoxy on college campuses. We all have received regular death threats (and Charlie more than most), but there is still a hope that even the most deranged will leave these threats at the ideation rather than the action stage.This killer left Charlie’s wife, Erika, and her two young children as the latest victims of senseless violence against someone who refused to be silenced.
We do not have to know much about the shooter to recognize the rage. The person who killed Charlie did not view him as a father or even as a person. That is the transformative, enabling effect of rage.
In my book, “The Indispensable Right: Free Speech in an Age of Rage,” I write about rage and the uncomfortable truth for many engaging in rage rhetoric: “What few today want to admit is that they like it. They like the freedom that it affords, the ability to hate and harass without a sense of responsibility. It is evident all around us as people engage in language and conduct that they repudiate in others. We have become a nation of rage addicts, flailing against anyone or anything that stands in opposition to our own truths. Like all addictions, there is not only a dependency on rage but an intolerance for opposing views. … Indeed, to voice free speech principles in a time of rage is to invite the rage of the mob.”
Charlie was brave, and he was brash. He refused to yield to the threats while encouraging others to speak out on our campuses.
He was particularly hated for holding a mirror to the face of higher education, exposing the hate and hypocrisy on our campuses. For decades, faculty have purged their ranks of conservatives and libertarians. Faced with the intolerance of most schools, polls show that a large percentage of students hide their values to avoid retaliation from faculty or their fellow students.
Charlie chose to change all that. TPUSA challenges people to engage and debate them. The response from some on the left has been to trash their tables and threaten the students. Recently, at UC Davis, police stood by and watched as a TPUSA tent was torn apart.
Charlie is only the latest such victim, and he is unlikely to be the last.
For months, some of us have warned about the rise in rage rhetoric. Some believe that they can ride a wave of rage back into power. House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D., N.Y.) has called for people to take to the streets to save democracy and posted a picture of himself brandishing a baseball bat.
Likewise, California Governor Gavin Newsom (D) declared, “I’m going to punch these sons of bitches in the mouth.”
Various radical groups welcome such rage rhetoric, particularly Antifa. The most violent anti-free speech group in the U.S., Antifa has long attacked journalists and others with opposing views. In his “Antifa: The Anti-Fascist Handbook,” Professor Mark Bray noted that “most Americans in Antifa have been anarchists or antiauthoritarian communists. … From that standpoint, ‘free speech’ as such is merely a bourgeois fantasy unworthy of consideration.”
Alleged shooter Tyler Robinson, 22, reportedly left telltale Antifa markings on evidence, including marking bullets inscribed with the lyrics: “Bella Ciao, Bella Ciao, Bella Ciao, Ciao, Ciao”(from an Italian anti-fascist anthem) and “Hey, fascist! Catch!”
I previously testified in Congress about the dangers of Antifa, and I discuss the group in my book. Despite such warnings, Democratic leaders have dismissed those dangers or actually embraced Antifa.
Former Democratic National Committee deputy chair Keith Ellison (D), now Minnesota’s attorney general, previously celebrated how Antifa would “strike fear in the heart” of Trump. Liberal sites sell Antifa items to celebrate the violent group, including onesies for “Antifa babies.”
Some politicians have privately expressed alarm at the rising violent speech in their ranks. One Democratic member told Axios, “Some of [our supporters] have suggested … what we really need to do is be willing to get shot.”
Protesters are burning cars and dealerships. Even lawyers and reporters on the left are throwing Molotov cocktails at police. Some on the left have rolled out guillotines and chanted, “We got the guillotine, you better run.”
Just before he was shot at Utah Valley University, Kirk rallied the group with its signature chant of “prove me wrong.” Someone responded by killing him.
Of course, the murder proved nothing except that senseless hate is sweeping over our country. Someone preferred to kill Kirk rather than engage with him or others who held opposing views.
It is precisely the lack of debate and dialogue that has triggered this type of violence. For those dwelling deep in the hardened silos of our news and social media, dissenting voices become increasingly intolerable.
Charlie is still exposing that hypocrisy. As I prepared to address Charlie’s murder in Prague, anti-free speech groups were already using his murder to justify even greater limits on free speech to combat hate and disinformation. This is the ultimate dishonoring of his life and his legacy. Charlie died in the fight for free speech, challenging speech codes and censorship.
Greater censorship will not make political violence less likely; it will only make the likelihood of another Charlie Kirk less likely. Europe shows that extremists flourish under speech controls. The neo-Nazis are having a banner year in portraying themselves as victims.
It is the rest of us that are deterred by speech codes. According to polling, only 18 percent of Germans feel free to express their opinions in public. Fifty-nine percent of Germans do not even feel free expressing themselves in private among friends. Only 17 percent feel free to express themselves on the internet.
Charlie was hated because he exposed the left’s intolerance of opposing views … all in the purported cause of achieving greater tolerance. By challenging others to debate, he triggered a generation of speech-phobics who are more interested in silencing others than speaking on their own account.
Charlie was hated for stripping away the pretense and self-delusion of those canceling, blacklisting, and attacking others for holding opposing views. He did so by standing in harm’s way.
The conservatives that Kirk coaxed out of the shadows can honor his memory by showing that they will not be silenced. They can step forward and renew his same challenge: “Prove me wrong.”
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.”
Professor Turley is participating in the right’s attempt to gaslight the left, continuing a trend that has emerged in the days following Charlie Kirk’s assassination. The inflammatory rhetoric is primarily coming from the right, and Professor Turley appears reluctant to criticize them for actions that the left has been condemning since the beginning.
For several days, supporters of Trump and individuals on the right have been consumed in a craze of emotions, caught up in a swirl of groundless speculation and stirring rumors in the absence of concrete facts. Once the identity of the shooter was finally confirmed, it became obvious that he did not fit the villainous portrayal that many on the right had created in their minds, linking him to an imagined far-left agenda. At this point, the reasons behind his actions remain unknown, yet professor Turley has already started to draw conclusions—echoing the hasty assumptions that many on the right have made over the past few days regarding the significance of the inscriptions found on the bullet casings. The shooter came from a conservative mormon family who according to reporting had been frequenting far-right forums where white supremacists like Nick Fuentes and like-minded far-right extremists who were not fond of Charlie Kirk.
Professor Turley brings up ANTIFA without understanding what they stand for or why they emerge only when extremist far-right groups like the Proud Boys show up. He uses ANTIFA as an excuse to gaslight and smear the left. ANTIFA opposes extremist far-right groups. The majority of the time they show up to counter-protest the far-right and the authoritarians who actually meet the definition of fascists hence their acronym ANTIFA. They are almost always accused by the right whenever there is a need to scapegoat someone for something that is a problem coming from both sides. The right does not want to accept or acknowledge accountability for their own rhetoric.
Professor Turley deliberately avoids addressing the right directly; he sidesteps even using the term “right” when he aims to criticize them. He uses the term sparingly whenever there is legitimate criticism of the right. As we have seen online any harsh criticism of the right brings swift backlash and hysterics, because they take great offense at being called out.
Tyler Robinson “did not fit the villainous portrayal that many on the right had created in their minds, linking him to an imagined far-left agenda. At this point, the reasons behind his actions remain unknown . . .”
If the assassin’s motivations are “unknown,” then how do you know that the Right’s portrayal of him is wrong?
Free tip: Put more space between your contradictions. That makes it harder to spot them.
Speaking of gaslighting:
Antifa is benign. They merely oppose “fascists hence their acronym ANTIFA.”
Antifa is “anti-fascist” just like communists (which is what they are) are anti-fascist. And just like Crips are anti-Bloods. They are a totalitarian, criminal gang fighting another criminal gang, over who gets to control, loot, and rule people.
excellent
Sam,
“ If the assassin’s motivations are “unknown,” then how do you know that the Right’s portrayal of him is wrong?”
There is a constant assertion from the right, claiming without evidence that the left was responsible and suggesting the shooter was a leftist, long before any actual evidence or details about his identity or motivation were available.
We don’t know his motivations. What we do know is he frequented far right forums created by Nick Fuentes and like minded individuals in places like 4Chan, or Rumble. He was radicalized online and in those forums Charlie Kirk was not popular, especially when he had disagreements with Trump. We also know his family a conservative Mormon family who, as reported their grandmother claims they were Trump supporters.
Once they identity of the shooter was known and his family the whole leftist narrative collapsed and fell back into blaming mental illnes rather than admit this was not a leftist. The right spent a LOT of time and energy blaming the left without evidence instead of waiting for the facts to come out and found themselves pivoting and making excuses for how wrong they were.
I’ve pointed out that we should be patient and wait until the facts come out, but the right and MAGA die hards needed to lay blame and point fingers anyway regardless of evidence. That is the rage rhetoric professor Turley talks about, but rarely associates with the right because doing so would make him a target for the same rage that is aimed at the left now.
X
If the assassin’s motivations are “unknown,” then how do you know that the Right’s portrayal of him is wrong?”
*******************
You would be wrong. The FBI says something totally different. They have found his internet postings.
Another left wing terrorist.
More mental gibberish from a looneytune.,
The FBI? Kash Patel’s incompetent outfit? Really? Patel the goofy looking FBI director barely had any idea what they were doing.
“Once they identity of the shooter was known and his family the whole leftist narrative collapsed and fell back into blaming mental illnes rather than admit this was not a leftist. “
George Svelaz, the unfortunate thing you present to the world is that leftists and Democrats are mentally ill.
S. Meyer, if you can’t read well, how do you understand what you read? MAGA and right-wing internet sleuths quickly claimed the shooter was a radical leftist just an hour after the shooting. It didn’t take long for them to shift blame and reasons after finding out his family was conservative and Mormon and say he was indoctrinated at the University. Some people suddenly became experts on mental health and claimed he had schizophrenia. The constant narrative coming from the right were guesses, speculation, and conclusions. Then, when the facts came out, their story changed almost completely to focus on mental illness and more guesses and opinions as to his motives. The right was spewing violent rhetoric and wanting blame the left for something that was not even directly related to the left. I understand they want to save face after screaming and pointing fingers at the right and finding out he was not who they wanted him to be.
I read quite well, leaving one question, if you can read at all. You rapidly prove the point that most leftists and Democrats are mentally ill, somethiing, unfortunately, true in your case.
You are drawing a distinct relationship between the ideology of parents and their children forgetting that ideology frequently changes. Do you recognize the oft-repeated popular saying that a conservative is a Liberal who has been mugged? Likely not, but even if you had, your basic problem is your lack of critical thinking skills.
SM, What Svelaz George X presents to the world is a vivid reminder of their mental illness and while it’s unfortunate they are out there, it’s fortunate that we see reminders of it every day.
Olly, you and I stand together. Mental illness among democrats is astoundingly high. TDS has taken its toll, becoming a real disease. Does George Svelaz have serious TDS? I don’t think so because he doesn’t know what is happening. All he does is take leftist positions, reversing the words of a conservative commentator. This is not a critical thinking skill; instead, it represents ignorance.
Yes we do SM. Given his contributions on this blog, I truly believe he’s more like one of many tools in a toolbox. I’ve said this before; anyone here can write his posts for him. Pick any subject presented by JT and just reverse the reality, use whataboutism, employ emotion over logic, dismiss actual evidence, and lastly move the goalpost standards. Every single effing time. Now is he a failure at this being effective? Of course. Remember, he’s a tool, one of many in that toolbox. When one isn’t working, out comes a different tool. Hence the name changes. It really doesn’t matter if it’s TDS or a mental illness. He’s just a tool that is far too predictable.
Sam,
“ Antifa is “anti-fascist” just like communists (which is what they are) are anti-fascist. And just like Crips are anti-Bloods. They are a totalitarian, criminal gang fighting another criminal gang, over who gets to control, loot, and rule people.”
Some people who are part of ANTIFA hold communist views, but they are not fascists. ANTIFA is not one single group; it includes different views regarding authority. Some of them counter-protest against far-right groups. Most people in ANTIFA are not violent; only a few anarchists try to challenge authorities during peaceful protests. Even fewer are actual communists. The right often mixes different ANTIFA groups together to make it easier to criticize and attack. It would be like accusing everyone on the right as having the same ideology as Nick Fuentes.
ANTIFA usually gets mentioned when there are protests involving far-right groups like the Proud Boys. These groups which include authoritarian and fascist individuals, like white supremacists and ultra-nationalists. They believe deeply the “great replacement theory,” believing they are losing their cultural power to non-white immigrants. This idea is similar to what the Trump administration is tacitly promoting, they support white immigrants over non-white ones. American fascists, like Stephen Miller, openly admit that they don’t want legal immigrants unless they are non-white and share the same beliefs.
Professor Turley uses ANTIFA to fear-monger the right, you know, rage rhetoric to incite animosity towards anything involving the left.
LMAO
WOW you are so wrong.
What party supports BLM & Antifa.
After reading some of these post, was Tyler Robinson a member of John Browns Gun Club?
What a stupid question.
What’s so stupid about that question, look what he did.
What did he do actually? There is no admission, at this point everything is alleged. Do you understand that?
He admitted it to his father. An admission of a crime is an exception to the hearsay rule.
Ironic, the great Charlie Kirk is not even in his grave and Turley is plugging his book. Ghoulish.
That struck me a rather sick I read the article. Anything for money eh Turley.
You appear to be afraid that people will read his book.
Regardless, if you have a problem with money – I have far more work than I can manage, and I will give you sea shells.
Have you read it? You did not, if you had, you would include it in a response. So how can you support it if you haven’t read it?
You write a lot of garbage, this is just typical of a small minded child.
Um, lets see here: Have you read it? Didn’t think so. You appear to be afraid people will find it irrelevant, just a money grab.
Let’s hope K Patel takes ANTIFA more seriously then his predecessor, remember this statement: “more of an ideology than an organization”.
A bunch of nuts running around in Antifa t-shirts doesn’t make for Antifa civil war. It takes a gullible mind to fall for that nonsense. Gaslighting!
Armed Queers group trains radical Marxists to shoot just miles from where Charlie Kirk was murdered
https://justthenews.com/nation/extremism/armed-queers-trains-radical-marxists-shoot-just-miles-where-charlie-kirk
I’m not sure if you’re within the area that’s describing the article you attached, but I hope not.
You don’t know what the word “gaslighting” means, do you?
Never been to Portland have you. Antifa controls that city
You can hope…Patel probably does take ANTIFA seriously, but the FBI, which he ostensibly leads, does not. ANTIFA would not exist if the rank and file FBI agents out there in the field, who see these scum every day, were not prepared to tolerate them. You can only blame leadership under Obama and Biden so far, if the rank and file agents were not willing to sit by and let them run riot, ANTIFA would not long exist.
Let me ask, have you ever encountered Antifa? I didnt think so. Its just Trump & Co. found a legitimate excuse to expand the Kirk case. I
You’re mind is working too hard. Antifa is a myth, just so Reps have a boogeyman to target. Its just a buch of guys running around in black.
Tell the people in Portland, OR that Antifa is just an idea, moron!
No, I asked if anon @ 9:03 ever encountered, not you. And you then indirectly confirmed that you NEVER EVER ever encountered Antifa. So who’s the moron huh?
Boom! Smackdown for anon.
I have never encountered a Russian – that does not mean they do not exist – there is about 150M of them.
How do you equate Antifa and Russians? Try harder.
Both Antifa and Russians exist as an empirical fact. Try to keep up!
ATS – more word games.
It is really odd – that the left in one sense celebrates antifa, and in others denies they exist.
Regardless, there are alot of vile left wing nuts out there doing evil things.
It is irrelevant what you call them.
They tend to call themselves Antifa – and so do most of the rest of us.
“Let me ask, have you ever encountered Antifa?”
The entire country did — during the “summer of love.” As do the people in Portland, to this day.
It is more of an ideology than an organization. The only time they engage in violence is when far-right extremists show up at protests. Their ideology is about opposing far-right authoritatians and fascists like the Proud Boys.
A few years ago perhaps two years ago if I remember correctly armed ANTIFA members stood guard protecting a drag show performance at a cafe where kids were present. They stood guard against Proud Boys antagonists and did not allow the disruption of the event. That does not show anti-free speech behavior. They were protecting free speech. Being that they were armed legally forced the proud boys antagonists to ‘behave’.
https://nypost.com/2022/08/30/armed-antifa-proud-boys-clash-at-texas-kids-drag-brunch/
That event did not end up in violence. But the Proud boys were intent on stopping the event. Who is protecting free speech? ANTIFA or the far-right Proud Boys? Looks like ANTIFA in Texas knows how to send a messge to the proud boys by exercising their 2nd amendment rights. How ironic.
Wow, rewrite history.
Did you read the article ?
A couple of dozen Armed Antifa and ONE proud Boy and no violence
BTW TX protect Children has protested many of these events.
Protest is free speech.
The only violence at any of them has been by Antifa.
X
Did you really think before you posted this?
A few years ago perhaps two years ago if I remember correctly armed ANTIFA members stood guard protecting a drag show performance at a cafe where kids were present.
What a moron. This must be george
Look in a mirror.
The little insignificant weasel who murdered Charlie Kirk has brought shame to his family and destroyed another family. For what? He destroyed his own life as well. He will eventually face the firing squad in Utah.
Perhaps his executioners can inscribe their casings as well. “Here! Catch!”
Insignificant you say. he’s got the entire world in suspense. That hardly makes him insignificant. He’s the prime suspect.
Charlie Kirk’s concept of “free speech” is much more precise in demanding authenticity-engagement than Prof. Turley’s. Charlie was a practitioner of Socratic dialog. In this mode, an authentic thinker exposes his ideas to constructive criticism, in order to gradually improve them. He would define constructive criticism as avoiding ad-hominem attacks, and tackling the strengths and weaknesses of ideas in a spirit of mutual trust and goodwill.
That is a far cry from the style of today’s rage infowarfare, which is premeditated with militancy, and intending to silence, intimidate and humiliate perceived opponents. It’s designed to kill meaningful dialog, and push forward knee-jerk policies whether they are likely to work or not.
Prof. Turley, what are we to do about the latter? You’ve given us but one way to respond — following your daily example, we should cherry-pick the most outrageous utterings and actions of our political opposites, and use media to call them out. You don’t give us any expansion of media law that might stir an ounce of deterrence, such as repealing or restructuring Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. While civility fades to black, you give us no toolset (legal) to uphold it.
Take defamation for example. In your book, you do carve out an exception to freedom of speech, drawing the line at outright falsehoods that cause damage to reputation. You support civil lawsuit as the remedy — and the threat thereof as a deterrent. What about deliberate falsehoods meant to dupe the public for political advantage (where nobody in particular is defamed)? Those are not actionable through torts? What difference does it make morally?
The defamer’s intent is primarily to dupe the public — the reputational harm is often incidental. What about the harm to public confidence and sound public decisionmaking?
Most Americans find militant “speech tactics” like doxxing and cancellation vile and repugnant. What are our legal options going forward? I simply cannot accept that a leading Constitutional law professor would take a position “You just need to put up with it — because, well, “free speech”.
In my opinion, any laws that are proposed or made against “speech tactics” would be a violation of free speech. Thus Prof. Turley, I think, does not offer an alternative or a suggestion of a law that would restrict free speech except what has been approved by the Supreme Court.
As much as I dislike what is going on with the hate, doxing and attacking verbally as well as physically, the only actionable act, I think, is the physical attack on someone.
Any suggestions that you may have would be helpful to evaluate and discuss.
pbinca
because, well, “free speech”.
**********************
NOT murder…. huge difference.
The white supremacists of old, the KKK, skinheads, Aryan Youth, etc. (as this is largely a movement of the young and usefully idiotic) – they really were a scourge at one time, rightfully marginalized. The likes of Antifa are from the same cloth and have handily taken their place and are too stupid to see it. We should regard them as such. These people are well funded, and have tools like Reddit and TikTok the morons of the past could only dream of; and unlike then, the modern left has devolved into a power hungry beast that endorses, supports, and possibly funds them; there is certainly approval through acquiescence if nothing else (part of the stochastic terrorism that has been discussed here of late).
There are too many factors at this point that led us here to list, but it is clear most of us have had just about enough. Thank you for the excellent and brave piece, Professor Turley.
King Moron’s rhetoric leading up to and on J6 and his subsequent pardoning of those ~1,500 criminals are entirely separate, but one gun-loving Mormon dude from a Utahn family is somehow the marching minion of a grand “they” who are brainwashing millions into a sleepwalking murder machine. The pearl-clutching is hilarious.
Kirk with his gross worldview should still be here. It’s unacceptable what happened to him.
Meanwhile the “F your feelings” mob are oh so sensitive when it comes to sentiments that are critical or, oh my, offensive. I thought cancel culture was being canceled, no?
Everyone – why is it the heros in your stories are always those who murder people.
Who killed more people ? Tyler Robinson assassinated Charlie Kirk, or the 1500 protestors on J6 neither killed nor seriously injured anyone, but two J6ers were murdered b the CP.
Yes, there is a world of difference – no political assassination is NOT pearl clutching or Feelings.
Every American left or right has the absolute right to
assemble
protest,
speak – especially on political issues and petition the govenrment.
The United State capital is the pre-eminent free speech forum in the world.
You may not close it to the public while congress is in session.
J6 protesters were all exercising those constitutional rights when the CP at the west tunnel entrance – where all the violence was accidentally tear gassed themselves and then the crowd.
The CP initiated the violence. Law enforcement may not initiate violence against people who are lawfully acting within their first amendment rights.
Two people were killed on J6 – both Murdered by the Capital Police.
Rose Boylan and Alishi Babbit.
If the assassin is convicted and the death sentence imposed, here is a modest proposal: since Utah allows for execution by firing squad, include in the firing squad the gun that fired the round at Charlie to terminate his assassin. Maybe etch on the 30.06 cartridge: “This might sting a bit…”
After he’s shot you can cut out his heart and eat right?
Good Lord, I hope you don’t live near me.
BTW, got any normal friends?
I prefer Old Sparky the malfunctioning electric chair.
Are you a turn him loose judge and have abnormal friends?
Still no news that Robinson’s father will receive the FBI $100,000 reward.
Now why would anyone ever ask that questions. You’re a ghoul.
I’ll ask a question. Are you a stooge?
STFU stooge
Sum one big mad.
If you are a registered voter and a one issue voter about “mad” then join Venezuela president Nicolás Maduro Moros
If I had a child that turned “left” and did this unspeakable act, I would turn him/her in immediately, with a very heavy heart.
Thank you for speaking out with clarity and honesty, Mr. Turley. The current tendency to hate, and even kill, those with whom one disagrees is a direct result of the rhetoric of the hard Left. It is fed by the dishonesty of groups like Occupy Democrats, who spin and spew half-truths and hatred on social media, with no one fact-checking..
Excellent column today Professor. The Antifa of today bear a very close resemblance to the SDS of the 1960’s. They were almost as obnoxious and ,of course, never really joined in debate. They were more disjointed and local and had organization but it was not as close to what they have today. We know from records from the East Germans and Russians that the anti war protests were financed to a great deal by the Russian bloc. The Antifa of today are certainly far more organized, far more brazen and it is obvious they have a lot more money. It was amazing what equipment suddenly appeared on the side walks earlier in the year in LA when the “protest” and obstruction got going. Piles of bricks, bats, masks and shields,
There is a lot of money being spent for these groups. You stop that and the rage will certainly diminish. I will not say it will stop but the decibels will decrease.
Antifa are essentially brownshirts for Biden. The Biden crime family is a capitalist organization. One of its major successes – that keeps on giving – is the war in Ukraine. True fascists started that, and the CIA engineered it. Left is the new right.
Kevin… brownshirts huh? So even reps use nazi tropes/ Guess there is no difference between R and Ds.
Whoa! Smackdown bigtime.
I do not think the characterization of Antifa as brownshirts for Biden is very accurate – Antifa might be anti-Trump but they are not pro any democrat.
I am not sure however that most people especially on the left understand that Brownshirts were nazi’s
As Nazi references go it is pretty tame.
Antifa members are revolutionary communists and anarchists who wish to destroy the fabric of America so they can create their Utopia. They sided with Biden only because Biden was destructive to America.
It is much easier to hate than to think.
Wise
This guy sure didn’t think
___________________
CAUGHT ON CAMERA: Leftist DESTROYS Charlie Kirk Memorial.
Talk about sick… the left just keeps digging deeper.
Wise you say. You’re just as stoopid. A real dimwit.
OOOOOO I’m so hurt. Try again
you responded, game set match. Boom!
Easier hate than think. Really? How do you figure that Aristotle? Deduction?
Another smackdown.
Forget about carbon emissions as the existential threat to life on Earth. Leftist hate and its furious companion — uncontrolled insanity — will finish the task that carbon footprints could never hope to achieve.
It is crystal clear today that the Democratic National Communist (DNC) are losing the civil battles. Their only other option to a Constitutional Republic is violence and Murder. Here we are……..
No it is not crystal clear, it just your imagination working overtime.
Check the polling bud. The left is losing
Dust, if you had a brain you’d be… well, stoopid.
Oh oh, here we go again… pushing that stupid book. Maybe Turley should get a real job that’s pays instead of begging this crew of of dunces to but that book. Maybe become a plumber. I know plumbers who are looking for apprentices. Send me an email.
Go cry some where else child.
Don’t feed OCD stupidity
Dustoff, isn’t it odd that someone would come to a site owned by a person they don’t like? I wouldn’t go to Joy Reid’s site and complain about her, I just vote with my feet and my wallet and I ignore her. But libs can’t ignore, they have to try to cancel the opposition, or attempt to ruin the site of someone they disagree with or just visit to show the hatred that they can’t manage to suppress.
Anon is a Site fluffer operating under multiple names phishing for responses to idiotic queries. Flush
What? Now I know why you call yourself madman. Because you are.
HullBobby,
All they have is hate. They put it on display here on the good professor’s blog everyday. This is the mental illness that is consuming leftists. One would think they might sober up in light of recent events but they dont. Instead the double down on their illness displaying it with their sick and twisted calls for a “next” assassination list. There is no reasoning with these people. They are not reasonable.
For a farmer you sure are here a lot, like all day. Can’t being growing much while whining here. You’re not a farmer, just a dunce.
Oh! What is the matter annony moron?? All of your lies, gaslighting, conspiracy theories have been proven wrong and now your narrative is also failing. So, like a petulant child, you have to resort to petty little comments that amount to nothing.
How marvelous!!
HAHAHAHAHAAHHAAH!!!!
Smackdown by anon. Upstate has been bloodied and bruised. Game set match for anon.
Love it.
What are you ? Four ?
What kind of argument is it that someone who posts on the internet is not a farmer – because they post on the internet ?
That is your idea of a smackdown ?
Is there anyone on the left with the maturity of atleast a teenager ?
Upstate, these weasels aren’t even adult enough to create a name so that we can know which insane juvenile we are dealing with when they comment.
To all posters that go by Anonymous, if you are one of the normal people that comment here please create a name so that we can get to know you, get to understand your perspectives and get to ignore the ugly morons that fail to create a name.
HullBobby,
Well said. Their narrative is falling apart and fast. They are increasingly desperate as evidence by their lame, juvenile comments. The slow and dumb one is trying to float leftist conspiracy theories that fail from the start. One of Robinson’s relatives stated “He hates conservatives and Christians,” “He hated us. He was not raised that way, but he, over the years, has become really detached [and] been radicalized.”
“He has obviously gotten progressively worse the last year or two,”
“always very angry.”
Who is “they”. You seeing things? Lay off the turnips.
Oh boy the karens are whining again.
Oh oh Karen is mad.
Water Main,
You have no legitimate point to make in response to the post, so you turn to an attack on the author for writing a book, thereby proving his point. You are part of the problem.
Your criticism of Professor Turley for publishing a popular book makes sense. You probably have never read a book.
“crew of of dunces to but that book” who is the dunce aqua?
ANTIFA is trolling the Professor….
Oh my! Antifa! Gosh, you’re a real idi*t.
Better yet, send Water Main instructions on how “to to” proofread before hitting “send.”
Oh oh, another karen in the crowd.
Why are you here if you don’t like Turley or his book? Odd
Why are you here? This your best shot?
Plumbers, isn’t that what they called Nixon’s helpers.
Turley has multiple real jobs – in one of those EVERY DAY he posts something on this blog about law – especially free speech issues for you to read – gratis.
And you piss on him for recommending his book ?
Why is this surprising, this is what Communists do. Just look back in history, The Red Terror, Vietnam, the Cold War, Czechoslovakia. They have nothing but lies to offer so when the lies are exposed they resort to violence.
Maybe you’re too stoopid to understand written words. Can’t go thru life watching cartoons all day.
You’re a loony tune.
Getting worse
BREAKING: Two men arrested for placing a bomb on a FOX 13 media vehicle in Salt Lake City, Utah.
Adeeb Nasir, 58, and Adil Justice Ahmed Nasir, 31 have reportedly been arrested.
The Salt Lake City Police Department Bomb Squad and the Unified Fire Authority Arson/Bomb Squad say a real explosive device was found under the vehicle.
Is this your calling in life dustoff, reposting anti muslin headlines? BTW, looks like you got a big hate for Arabs.
Folks, these so called conservatives a have a big hate towards non whites, don’t you think?
Why do you presume this post or story was anti-muslim or anti-white ? or about Arabs ?
Dustoffs comment does NOT mention religion, or race.
Sounds like YOU made racist, assumptions.
Welcome to 1984.
Seems some people just can’t grow up… its 2025.
You mean the Left…. I agree.
Putting aside Antifa, a group hell-bent on destruction, the American professorate also agrees with the elimination of Charlie Kirk. That their careful work of years of “thought reform” could be undone by a simple afternoon campus visit by Charlie Kirk’s is clearly anathema to their brilliance. They are downright jealous of Kirk. Sure, they are spiritual, though most have no clear definition beyond being more than a wet cell with neurons. They deny that a universal spirituality exists in any form outside a musty manifesto. This spirituality is what Kirk represented. He is gone, and the far left, the professors, the Antifa, and all, are still not satisfied; they hate him now even more.
Does anyone really know (FBI etc.) how many Antifa cohorts are out there? Guessing the media, both side, are just gaslighting the public about the number.
You expected the FBI to find out during the Biden years, LOL
The reality is that Charlie was the consolation prize for Trump. I don’t think Charlie was really hated for himself or his words. He was a very nice guy. I think the assassination attempts on Trump awakened a bloodlust in the left. The celebration of his death by random people who barely knew who Charlie even was just confirms that Charlie’s death wasn’t about Charlie. It was about Trump or, more accurately, about Hillary. The truth is that all this hate for Trump et al fundamentally stems from the left’s rage at losing in 2016.
Bloodlust on the left? You’re in a Qult.
‘There’s None So Blind as Those Who Will Not See’…and you sure are blind. The cult is you murderers on the hateful side of America.
A group affiliated with Rutgers University sampled 1200 people. Respondents were asked to classify their political ideology from one of these choices: Far Left, Liberal, Slightly Liberal, Middle of the Road, Slightly Conservative, Conservative, Far Right, No Affiliation and Something Else. The pollster then aggregated the results those who self-identified as Far Left, Liberal, and Slightly Liberal into “left of center”.
Among those polled who are left of center, 55% said it would be somewhat justified to murder Trump. 48% of the same group said the same about Elon Musk. Here’s the press release announcing the poll’s results.
https://networkcontagion.us/wp-content/uploads/NCRI-Assassination-Culture-Brief.pdf
As I said before, assuming the sampling and questions are fairly designed to present an honest representation of views, and 55% of those sampled said it is somewhat justified to murder the President of the United States, then can you try to explain why calling that “bloodlust” is an unfair characterization?
Just 1200?
Then why did a leftist kill Charlie Kirk? Why are there tens of thousands of leftists celebrating his death? Why do they want a “next” list of people to be assassinated?
Have you been on TikTok or instagram lately ?
You may wish to (re-think) that comment. The left has been full if hate since Nixon.
More stupid stuff eh dusty. Or maybe the Reps have failed America since Nixon and in typical form cretins like you always blame others.
If you had a brain you’d be dangerous. But you don’t.
Failed… LOL Who put us in NAM?
Who turned the blue cities into killing zones.
DustOff,
It appears our leftists friends are in a tizzy as all their lies, gaslighting about the assassin have been proven wrong. All their attempts to paint Robinson as MAGA have fallen flat in front of the facts. Once again, they are losing and they know it. We all see it.
So true Upstate.
Upstate and Dustoff, Jonathan Chait went so far as to say that conservatives couldn’t find any leftists celebrating this murder so they have gone out and created these lies. As if seeing the leftist’s own quotes isn’t proof of the truth and proof of the utter hatred in their hearts as well as the absurd lack of knowledge of what Charlie Kirk actually said rather than what liars are saying he said.
HullBobby,
Somewhat funny leftists are embracing wild, made up conspiracy theories.
PS. The left’s hatred started against Nixon when he was just a congressman and he was going after their idol of the day Alger Hiss, A SINCE PROVEN COMMUNIST SPY.
Nixon is an enigma. He was possibly our most brilliant president on foreign policy.
But his domestic policy was completely disastrous and left of center.
He did get us out of Vietnam as he promised, though it took longer than promised.
The united states experienced the longest period of sustained prosperity in its history from 1982-2008
That is Reagan, Reagan, Bush, Clinton, Clinton, Bush, Bush 5 Republican terms and two democrat.
Most in this country would be very happy with 30 years of sustained 3% growth.
Clinton was a pervert, and abysmal on foreign policy – but he was conservative on domestic and economic policy and a successful president.
Had Obama been as successful as president as Bill Clinton Hillary would have been elected in 2016.
“but he was conservative on domestic and economic policy and a successful president.”
I would say he was successful in economic policy because there he was more of a pragmatist than an ideologue. The Republican Congress didn’t hurt.
False. The hate goes back to Truman. He is the first Democrat President to say Republicans are Hitler wannabe fascists. Here’s a New York Times article published October 26, 1948 proving it.
https://www.nytimes.com/1948/10/26/archives/president-likens-dewey-to-hitler-as-fascists-tool-says-when-bigots.html
What makes Truman’s rhetoric so utterly repulsive is that FDR had sent the sons of Republican families to die in Europe to defeat Hitler just a couple of years prior to Truman’s vile remarks. Multiples more came home with war injuries and psychological damage. But this repulsive piece of sh@t Truman had an election to win so he called the northeast liberal Republican nominee for President a Hitler wannabe. Worse, he was rewarded for doing so by winning the election. It worked, so that’s why Democrats have continued with that messaging strategy in EVERY presidential cycle since Truman.
That’s right. Every one.
Daniel Horowitz has researched rhetoric used in every presidential election since Truman pioneered the use of this disgusting slur, and he documented that in every cycle there was at least one elected Democrat who compared the Republican nominee to a fascist, Nazi, Hitler, etc. There were no exceptions.
Sort of ironic that it was Democrat Presidents who sent several tens of thousands of boys to die in WWI, WWII, Korea, Vietnam, but it is Republicans who falsely get smeared as war mongers and fascists.
The Left has been full of hate since the French Revolution, and since 1848 in other parts of Europe as well.
Or maybe the lefties are genuinely insane. Hard to imagine that people can carry hate in them that long. It must be exhausting.
Is it possible that Tylenol is not only responsible for the increase in autism but also mental disorders?
Yawn…. they were talking about babies.
No, about dustoff. Seems yo mama was a tylenol addict.