When hundreds of women gathered in San Antonio for Turning Point USA’s Women’s Leadership Summit, protesters assembled to denounce them and disrupt their conference. One speaker told protesters to be “obnoxious” and to “show your hate” as a man dressed as death chopped the air with a sickle. Another speaker said that they were just showing that the “hateful values” have no place in San Antonio as another man in a costume mimicked the assassination of Charlie Kirk. Below is an example of what happens when speakers feed this rage addiction.
In this video, a pro-life advocate is swarmed by an angry mob. Protesters stopped her from speaking and blared ear-piercing noises next to her head.
The crushing irony is that the man who would have fought for the right of these protesters to speak was Charlie Kirk. He was hated precisely because he fought for free speech and free debate on college campuses. As here, he put himself in danger to expose the hypocrisy and hate that pervades our campuses and cities.
This video shows the face of the age of rage. What these people will not admit is that they like it; need it.
If nothing else, it is a recognition that such unhinged influencers like James Carville admits (warning foul language):
Did the intelligence services of a our Chosen Ally or perhaps rogues from our own, terminate Charlie Kirk’s command?
Enquiring minds want to know
Sal Sar
America’s Best!
Just one more in the daily train of stories reflecting that leftists have legit lost their minds.
And in New York, the state legislature spent its time and money on this: a law was recently passed replacing the word “mother” with the term “gestating parent” and “father” with “non-gestating parent.”
These people are not sane. They are mentally deranged.
Just another example of the anti-social, anti-American antics that have come to be normalized in my country. Listen to James Carville speak, and it sounds as though barbarians now occupy America from coast to coast, with anarchy treated as a fixture of life on American soil.
No one writes articles about behavior that is normalized.
Yes, they do. See the above article.
There are literally billions of things that are normal. There aren’t billions of articles about them. This article is about an unusual situation, something that isn’t normal or normalized.
Rbblum, you and Old Man posted what is basically the same comment. Funny how that goes. Estovir forgets which character he’s writing.
While I agree with several comments here (re: “activist parents” and “citizen formation,” e.g.), I think we are glossing over any consideration of WHAT MOTIVATES SOMEONE TO ACTIVISM AND PROTESTING?
Take a good long slow look at the individuals in the video clip and how they are dressed. Virtually all of them appear to be college-aged.
But, oh, it’s not enough to just be part of a protesting group. You need to STAND OUT with your message. You need to dress up in some attention-seeking mask or outfit, gas mask, military, carry the biggest sign, shout the loudest in someone’s face, SHOCK someone with the notoriety. You need to distinguish yourself, gain the respect and approval of your peers.
It’s as old as teen-dom itself: trying to define yourself, get attention, stand out, gain acceptance, seek PURPOSE, get people to notice you.
Do you really believe that anything more than even the the smallest number of these youthful protesters really care about being anti-pro-life?
Or is it the camaraderie and adrenaline rush of group energy seeking attention and approval for who can be more outlandish in word or act?
My dad used to dismiss the excess energy of what he called “dimestore cowboys” or attention-seeking punks, to say, “….al dressed up and nowhere to go…”
(lin)
lin, that’s an interesting observation because it shifts the discussion from ideology to incentives. The desire for belonging, recognition, purpose, and peer approval is probably not unique to this generation.
The question I find interesting is how a society channels those impulses. Every generation has young people looking for identity and meaning. The real issue may be whether our formation environments direct those energies toward citizenship, service, and self-government, or toward performance, outrage, and activism.
If enough people are formed by the latter, what type of citizen emerges? And what type of government does that citizen ultimately prefer?
Dedication to country over self is communism. Not sure how self-government fits in.
Are you going to self-govern an interstate highway?
The founding generation actually did build roads, maintain local institutions, serve in militias, sit on juries, and assume many responsibilities that today are often delegated elsewhere. Those activities were considered normal parts of self-government.
As society became more complex, they extended government outward. Local government was followed by colonial government, then the Articles of Confederation, and finally the Constitution. Each step was an attempt to solve larger problems while preserving the principle that government remained accountable to self-governing citizens.
The Constitution was not designed by citizens expecting government to do everything. It was designed by citizens already accustomed to governing themselves and their communities.
Perhaps the question is not whether interstate highways require government administration. Of course they do. The question is whether the constitutional system assumes a particular type of citizen. If so, are we still forming that citizen today?
Thomas Jefferson was a self-made man; except for the contingent of slaves he held at his forced labor camp.
Anonymous, and yet Jefferson authored the Declaration of Independence. Did he not recognize the hypocrisy? Of course he did. The struggle over slavery appears throughout his writings.
The thing is, two things can be true at the same time. One was rooted in enduring principles. The other was rooted in the culture of his time. The fact that Jefferson failed to fully live up to the principles he articulated does not make the principles false. In many ways, later generations used those same principles to expose the contradiction and ultimately challenge the institution itself.
That is one of the more fascinating aspects of the Founding. The principles often proved better than the people who first articulated them.
Think of it as a commune with extended family. Different times different people.
“The question is whether the constitutional system assumes a particular type of citizen. If so, are we still forming that citizen today?”
Olly, the answer to your question is “Yes.”
From a Google search:
“The concept that democracy requires an educated and virtuous population is most famously attributed to the American Founding Fathers, particularly Thomas Jefferson and John Adams. They championed the idea that a self-governing republic can only survive if its citizens are both well-informed and morally grounded.”
So the future of our so-called “democracy” looks dim.
Thank you for the reply David.
I agree with the first question. The constitutional system clearly assumes a particular type of citizen. Jefferson, Adams, Washington, Madison, and others repeatedly argued that self-government requires citizens capable of self-restraint, civic knowledge, personal responsibility, and virtue.
Where we may disagree is the second question. Are we still forming that citizen today?
My answer is not “not at all.” Exceptional citizens are still being formed. Strong families, churches, schools, communities, and mentors still exist. My concern is whether our major formative institutions, taken as a whole, are systematically producing those traits at the same rate and scale they once did.
That is the central question of my project. It is not whether good citizens still exist. It is whether the overall formation environment is strengthening or weakening the qualities that constitutional self-government requires.
Looking at civic literacy, institutional trust, social capital, community participation, self-reliance, and civic engagement, I think there is substantial evidence that the broader trend is one of weakening formation rather than strengthening formation.
Oh god no, Not the libertarians can build roads idiocy!!!!
You have found it – Kryptonite.
ROFL
Most of the roads in the world were not built by government. They have been there forever – they were ultimately taken over by government – because government hates competition.
About two decades ago a Democrat Governor in My state tried to privatize the Pennsylkvania Turnpike.
The deal almost post. Private buyers would purchase it. They would run it, they would pay the state millions each year,
They would run it cheaper than the state was currently doing and they would lower tolls.
Government is inefficient.
There is a Billionaire blogger I have followed in the past.
His Business is taking over federal and state parks – he replaces the federal or state park service.
He improves the parks – an all improvements belong to the Government, he lowers the fees for use of the parks.
And he pays the govenrment to do this.
And he become a billionaire doing this.
How ? First he is far more efficient. Next by making improvements he attracts more people to the parks.
Rates go down – but revenue goes up.
As a libertarian – interstate highways are not the hill I want to die on.
But the FACT is that Government is NOT necessary for infrastructure.
Roads, yes. Federal Interstate, no. As usual your low literacy is on display.
Ever notice how rare toll roads are?
A billionaire blogger?
Is it this one:
“When Delaware North won the Yosemite concessions contract in 1993, it secretly registered trademarks on names inside the park: the Ahwahnee Hotel, Curry Village, Yosemite Lodge, Badger Pass, the Wawona Hotel, even the slogan “Go Climb a Rock.” Some of these names are over a hundred years old. The Ahwahnee opened in 1927. The Wawona Hotel was built in 1876. Delaware North showed up with popcorn machines in 1993 and decided it owned them.
I need to say that again because it sounds like something you’d make up to lose an argument on the internet. A private hospitality company, while operating under a federal concessions contract inside a national park, secretly trademarked the names of landmarks that had existed for decades before the company arrived. Then, when Delaware North lost the contract to a competitor in 2015, it turned to the American public and said: pay us $51 million or you can’t use the names of your own places anymore.”
lin – as I also replied – while your observations are correct – TODAY the unusual attire etc. Is not reflective of a search for INDIVIDUAL identity, it is an effort to establish membership in the GROUP – as well as possibly standing within the group.
The young adult left wing nuts unusually attired are saying exactly the same thing as they would be if in a different era they were Wearing deliberately bland Mao outfits.
They are saying “I am safe within the Group, I belong”.
John, I think Desmet’s mass formation thesis gets at exactly what you’re describing. The attire is not primarily a search for individuality. It is a signal of belonging.
The message is less “Look at me” and more “I belong. I am safe within the group.”
Hello JohnSay:’ Couldn’t agree with you more………………..(except maybe your sentence, “is not reflective of a search for INDIVIDUAL identity, it is an effort to establish membership in the GROUP.”
While young adults seek cocooning in the comfort of their own “Group” they nonetheless seek the attention of self-validating individual recognition within that group.
“Hey, did you see Lin get in the face of the teacher and say XXXXX? Wow, that was kool!” “Hey, did you see JohnSay give the finger to that cop behind his back? Laughed my a$$ off!” “Hey, Olly, noticed you painted a slogan on the back of your car! Really Lit!”
That’s fairly primal (seeking recognition or individuality) (continuing on our good exchange a few days ago, J.)
But it all brings back to the forefront the protesters and Shakespeare’s, “all the world is but a stage.” or whatever he said, don’t remember exactly.
OLLY,
“The desire for belonging, recognition, purpose, and peer approval is probably not unique to this generation.”
Agreed.
However, below, you and JAFO and S. Meyer mention the possibility of foreign interference or influence. Making these young people the foreign influence their “useful idiots.” While I do think most are true believers, others just may well be the paid actors for the foreign influence. As we have seen, someone is behind all this with no small amount of money.
Some have written about how young people seemingly have embraced the idea of nihilistic violent extremism in tandem with the idea of socialism or the DSA.
I commented about the DSA “Red Rabbits,” elsewhere. I think the people behind the DSA and their “Red Rabbits” are trying to influence as many young, impressionable people as possible to try to shape them into a people whom truly believe of a reliant on the government.
They see a form of self-government to be their antithesis. For them, the hate and rage fueled by the highly emotional rhetoric is what separates them from us.
Just like we see in the picture you point out of a split screen: One group inside, politely discussing, and planning how to advance their goals in a peaceful, lawful, and within the constraints of the Constitution. Building for a better future.
The other group on the outside, screaming and yelling their hate and rage, amounting to nothing.
Ironic part is I would be willing to bet, the outsiders do gather and plan things. They are just not constructive.
As the good professor mentions, they are addicted to their hate and rage. They are clearly not willing to have a civil discussion about the differences in ideology. They killed Charlie Kirk for it.
Facing that, how do we rectify that?
As others have mentioned, starting with the parents at home? Home schooling? Private schooling that favors a well formed citizen student?
We need to do something to counteract this corrosive ideology. Preferably before it goes kinetic.
Upstate, first, thank you for the thoughtful comment. Your final question may be the most important one: “How do we rectify that?”
I suspect step one is agreeing that citizen formation is not a side issue but a central issue. We spend enormous time debating politicians, courts, media, schools, protests, elections, and government policy. Yet all of those institutions are ultimately populated by citizens.
If citizen formation is upstream of the government we get, the culture we have, and the institutions we build, then it seems we should start there. Only then do we widen the lens and ask what is participating in that formation. Family? Schools? Churches? Peers? Media? Algorithms? Entertainment? Government itself? All of the above?
It seems to me we often jump straight to arguing over the branches while skipping the root system. Before we can fix the output, we probably need a clearer understanding of the process producing it.
Charlie Kirk was on the right path. We must allow everyone to be heard and be allowed to defend their principles. If someone can’t defend their viewpoint with reason and logic, it’s ok. That conversation will influence those who hear it anyway. Perhaps not to the leftist liking, but others will take note of the points taken and how they were discussed. Nothing good comes about refusing to talk to or about opposing viewpoints.
JAFO, I sometimes wonder if what we’re witnessing is an Age of Rage colliding with an Age of Reason.
Charlie Kirk did not create that divide. He simply exposed it. The remarkable thing was not that people disagreed with him. A constitutional republic is built on disagreement. The remarkable thing was how often disagreement itself was treated as intolerable.
At least Charlie brought competing ideas together in debate. The purpose of debate is not necessarily to change minds in the moment. It is to test ideas, expose assumptions, and allow both participants and observers to examine their own thinking. What concerned me was how often the response was not counterargument, but outrage. When citizens lose confidence in reason, persuasion, and debate, disagreement can begin to look less like a normal part of self-government and more like something that must be silenced.
OLLY,
A friend of mine linked me to a gentleman by the name Selco. He is a Bosnian war survivor. He described things as “circles.”
The inner most circle is the individual themselves.
The next larger circle is immediate family.
Then friends.
Community.
Then local government.
State government.
And then federal or national government.
In this case, I think we need to affect the first four circles to affect the latter three.
But, we have forces whom are trying to influence the first four into the very last.
I think if we address the issue with the first four, the latter three would self-rectify.
Unfortunately for us, it seems those forces are ready and even actively willing to use real force if their plans are threatened.
In other circumstances, I would say what I just said sounded like serious tinfoil hat wearing conspiracy theories.
However, over the past few years, namely the COVID years, those serious tinfoil hat wearing conspiracy theories have turned out to be true.
Based off what we have seen and heard, I cannot rule it out.
The fact Maine just elected a real Nazi tattoo adorned Democrat candidate for Senate suggests the same.
The rise of the DSA and their “Red Rabbits” also suggest the same.
Upstate, thank you for the circles reference. It sparked a thought for me.
I’ve often used the Tree of Liberty as a metaphor, but your circles made me think about the rings inside the tree. The roots of our formation environment produced the Tree of Liberty. For a few generations, the rings were tight and strong because the formative conditions were dense, reinforcing, and broadly shared.
The tree continued to grow across the generations, but each era left its own ring. Those rings recorded changing conditions, changing institutions, and changing patterns of citizen formation. Some strengthened the wood. Others weakened it.
Perhaps what I’ve been measuring across fourteen eras is not simply the growth of the tree, but the changing character of the rings themselves. The size of the tree tells us that America expanded. The rings tell us how the citizens who sustained it were formed along the way.
Anonymous
Long ago non-conformity became another form of conformity for the left.
While I went to HS – a VERY VERY LONG TIME AGO – I wore a dress coat.
THAT was actually non-conformist and resulted unintentionally in more pictures in the Year Book than anyone else.
Regardless, my POINT is that while those on the left tend to present themselves in highly unusual ways that normally we would say “attract attention”.
The FACT is they are being conformist – NOT non-conformist.
Show up dressed NORMALY – and all the attention will be focused on You.
I do not personally care how flamboyantly you present yourself – though unusual attire strange hair and a large assortment of tattoos rarely makes you more attractive and often makes you significantly less. BUT NOT ALWAYS.
I am more interested in the message being sent.
And TODAY the message being sent by unusually attired, young adults with tattoos, peircings, unnatural hair colors etc is CONFORMITY not non-conformity.
John Say,
As you address appearance and dress, note the antifa thugs in this video who, when confronted with the locals, both black and Jewish, promptly kicked antifa out of their neighborhood,
https://x.com/PhuckYourVax/status/1958030872092836276
Upstate, thank you for a fantastic video. It aligns with my earlier comments about society. Take note: though NYC resources were there, they didn’t have to do much. The good citizens of Crown Heights chased them out. That is closer to how it was in colonial days. Their safety depended upon themselves.
In Other News: ” ‘Rent-a-Mob’ workers storm political party headquarters demanding $30.00 per hour”
~+~
A spokesperson for party management said, “$30.00 an hour? For this? Why should we pay anything when there are so many other Useful Idiots out there we can goad into protesting for free.”
One of the workers lamented: “Well, it’s billable hours so what difference does it make if we get it or not.”
Darren,
While I get your humor, here is something that reads like the Bee, but is reality, “Socialist ‘Red Rabbits’ are training for national uprising against cops”
https://nypost.com/2026/06/09/opinion/socialist-red-rabbits-are-training-for-national-uprising-against-cops/
Wait until you find out what the Proud Boys have been up to.
Anyway, a sensationalist piece from Rupert Murdoch? No surprise there.
I am sure you will let us know
Washington has a law they’d best avoid crossing
https://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=9A.48.120
Aside from that I’ll bet many of these rabbit types have a special button on their cell phones that calls their parents to come pick them up.
It is illegal and unconstitutional to violently assemble.
The singular American failure is the judicial branch, with emphasis on the Supreme Court.
_________________________________________________________________________________________________
1st Amendment
Congress shall make no law…abridging the…right of the people peaceably to assemble,….
George, that raises an interesting question. Are the courts reflecting the formation of the people, or are the people reflecting the formation of the courts?
Judges don’t arrive from another planet. They are products of the same families, schools, universities, media, and culture as everyone else. If the broader formation environment is changing how citizens think about rights, authority, speech, responsibility, and self-government, should we be surprised when those same changes eventually appear on the bench?
It makes me wonder whether the courts are the cause, or simply one of many institutions reflecting a deeper shift in the kind of citizens our society is producing.
While violence is generally illegal – Where in the constitution does it say that violent assemblies are unconstitutional ?
Saying that you can assemble peacefully – does not make violent assembly unconstitutional.
It just means it is not protected from state infringement.
The irrefutable logical inverse:
Congress shall make laws [it so chooses]…abridging the…right of the people violently to assemble,….
And it does.
18 U.S. Code § 2101 (Riots): This law establishes penalties (fines and/or up to 5 years in prison) for anyone who travels across state lines or uses interstate/foreign commerce (including the mail, telephones, or the internet) with the intent to incite a riot, organize or participate in a riot, or commit an act of violence.
“The crushing irony is that the man who would have fought for the right of these protesters to speak was Charlie Kirk. ”
He didn’t fight for that right. He fought to take on children in a verbal battle where he controlled when they could speak. If he didn’t like what they said, he stopped the conversation and they were directed to leave. He had people working the crowd to get advance information about what the person might say to get a jump on the attack he would use.
Seriously, did Turley never watch one of his campus events, including the last one? Man with Magaphone vs. college kids.
He became a millionaire paid by billionaires to convince the middle and lower class to become minions to oligarchs.
No one is quoting what Charlie Kirk had to say because he wasn’t trying to say anything. He certainly wasn’t fighting for the right of anyone except himself to speak where he wasn’t wanted.
Severe brain damage.
Self-diagnosis?
” He fought to take on children”
So college students, graduate students even professors are “children” ?
” in a verbal battle where he controlled when they could speak.”
Correct – it is called public order. You can not have a discussion or debate when everyone speaks at once.
Kirk PRIORITIZED the right of those who disagreed to speak FIRST,
They controlled the topic, they controlled there argument.
But they did not control Kirk.
Decades before Militon Friedman did the same thing – with the same success.
” If he didn’t like what they said, he stopped the conversation and they were directed to leave.”
False., when they had the chance to make their argument – and he responded – they were directed to leave.
Again it is called ORDER. You get to go first – but you are NOT in control and you do not get to fillibuster.
You got your chance to make your argument – and Kirk got his chance to respond.
SOMETIMES there were several exchanges – but ultimate every debate every exchange MUST end.
If those opposing Kirk did not accpet that an End was reached – Kirk ended his exchange with them.
I would note – that was the norm for Kirks speaking engagements.
Informal exchanges outside were out of Kirks control. You could continue as long as you wanted.
Though probably people would quit listening.
” He had people working the crowd to get advance information about what the person might say to get a jump on the attack he would use.”
ROFL
No he did not – nr did he need to – just as Milton Friedman did not – Just as I do not with respect to left wing nuts here.
The ideology of the left is garbage and full of self contradictions. Worse still – you left wing nuts have NO original thoughts.
No arguments raised to Friedman or Kirk or Here are not idiotic fallacies that were refuted MANY different ways often more than a century ago.
If you are reasonably well educatuted – you need no prep for the arguments of left wing nuts.
Nor do you need much prep – if you do this – even for a short period.
If you go into debating the left regularly – they Exhaust their arguments Rapidly.
After a few days or weeks you are unlikely to ever hear a new arguyment – just a permutation of an old one.
But it is worse than even that – For every idiotic and fallacious argument the left makes there are at-least a dozen different effective retorts.
The most difficult part of debating the left is choosing which ancient and proven argument to use to refute the fallacies of the left.
What Kirk did was EASY.
While he was smart.
He did not do well because he was debating children.
He did not do well because he controlled the argument.
He did not do well because he got advance warning of what left wing nuts were going to argue.
He did well because you are shilling nonsense most of which has been refuted for hundreds of years.
“Seriously, did Turley never watch one of his campus events, including the last one? Man with Magaphone vs. college kids.”
Apparently YOU haven’t.
While different events had different formats – here is Kirk at the Oxford Union – engaged in a FORMAL OXFORD debate following Oxford rules – except that it is Kirk vs. hundreds.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mlh_GfHmwts
‘”He became a millionaire paid by billionaires to convince the middle and lower class to become minions to oligarchs.”
Kirk made money the same way EVERYONE does – by exchanging what they have to offer for what others will give freely in return.
“No one is quoting what Charlie Kirk”
Because none of it is original. Because he made the same argument against left wing nut nonsense that have been made since atleast the french revolution.
And for that YOU murdered him.
“He certainly wasn’t fighting for the right of anyone except himself to speak where he wasn’t wanted.”
Of course he was – he was fighting for YOUR right to speak – including HERE – many HERE do not want YOU either.
Your claim that there is something wrong with Kirk defending the right to speak when you are not wanted is the perfect example of what is WRONG with the left today.
You are stupid enough to beleive – that because YOU do not want to hear Kirk – that No one does, or that no one on campus does.
Except that is not TRUE and you KNOW it.
No one would care if Kirk came to campus and no one showed up to listen.
YOU Care – because people did show up and listen.
YOU Care because Kirk challenged YOU to show up and to debate him – and YOU did,
and you LOST over and over and over – not because Kirk was brilliant – but because you are selling nonsense that was easily refuted often centuries ago.
Because you are so poorly educated that you believe you are advancing new ideas – not rotten garbage that was rejected often centuries ago.
If you do not wish to listen to Kirk or Shapiro or any of the myriads of people today who have dismantled your nonsense over and over
Then listen to those from the past – Smith, or Friedman, or Mill, or Bastiat or thousands of others. Pretty much any economics nobel.
“Kirk PRIORITIZED the right of those who disagreed to speak FIRST, They controlled the topic, they controlled there argument.”
Spelling fails aside, Kirk would deviate from any proposition put to him that he did not have a pre-packaged response to in favor of some unrelated direction he had rehearsed, usually involving the Bible, which he never carried lest he be asked to confirm it had in it what he said was in it. Most every discussion of fact was derailed into a recitation of Biblical faith.
Kirk fought to shout people down and needed fodder to do that.
‘”He became a millionaire paid by billionaires to convince the middle and lower class to become minions to oligarchs.”
“Kirk made money the same way EVERYONE does – by exchanging what they have to offer for what others will give freely in return.”
So do drug dealers and those who traffic pre-pubescent children to sex offenders; the fact of the transaction doesn’t convey legitimacy. Charlie’s goal was to enrich himself and was willing to do so by hurting people while doing it.
The delusional “progressive” activists really have lost their minds. They’re like a bunch of mentally stunted 7th and 8th graders that never mentally grew up. Early mental condition of adolescence is generally treated by about ten years of growing into reality; however in my opinion, what’s going on with “progressive” activists is truly a mental condition that I’m not sure is treatable.
I blame the activist’s parents for raising feral humans. “Alleged” humans, that is.
JAFO,
But then we have Charlie Kirk’s murderer. He was brought up by a supposedly MAGA family.
How and where did he go bad?
IIRC, one of his relatives said he got woke in latter high school and college.
Upstate, it’s true, one can’t always foresee the lone wolf scenario – not even the wolf’s own parents, sometimes. But that’s not the case for majority membership in the rent-a-mob trend. Younger parents are trying to “be friends” with their children rather than teach them critical thinking and/or self-discipline. Alleged “higher education” is a problem, yes. And far too many are letting “screens” raise their kids. But a strong family-first foundation from the parent(s) goes a long way to good ‘formation’, as Olly might say. Violent protesters are clearly lacking that formation.
JAFO, I agree with the formation environments you listed. What I’m increasingly curious about is not the motives of the institutions involved, but the long-term political output.
If family, schools, higher education, media, peers, and screens are all helping form citizens, what type of citizen is that overall environment producing? And perhaps more importantly, what type of government does that type of citizen naturally gravitate toward?
A constitutional republic assumes certain civic habits and capacities. If formation trends are moving in a different direction, the interesting question may not be why each institution is doing it, but where the combined effect is leading.
Completely agree.
Like the Mom of the Sandy Hook school shooter who bought the gun that her son used to kill her and then a bunch of little kids? Not something a liberal would buy as a gift for a mentally disturbed child.
Clearly raised poorly.
Rebellion against your parents is common – both on the left and right.
Generally the MORE rigid your parents were and the less freedom of thought they gave you – the more likely you are to rebel
At last, the prog/left is at the point where the masks come off and the hate and aggressive behavior that has been screen so carefully from view by their media, is emerging. Desperation on the part of ideologues finding their carefully laid plans go awry and frustration by the angry mobs that have been carefully incubated these past few generations, have allowed those masks to slip and we se, finally, the true, ugly nature of the radical left. Just attend a lecture by any radical academic , or sit in on a confab of self-described “victims” of white supremacy/oligarchy and you will feel the hate emanating from them like steam off a well-ridden horse. Too many have been asleep to all of this fomenting hate for more than half of a century now and we see just how powerful and vengeful are the prog/left soldiers.
“Once you drop a mask, you can never wear it again.”–Ljupka Cvetanova,–The New Land
These people have destroyed themselves with hate. They act like the “fascists” they condemn. They display all the love, kindness, understanding and empathy of the execrable James ‘Carvile’. The only positive to come out of this chaos is that we no longer have to guess who they are, what they want and the lengths to which they will go to get it. In their case I hope they get it; good and hard.
-g
I love the compositon of that top photo. An angel in a white dress being attacked by demons filled with hatred of human life.
because it is true.
George Carville is the perfect leader and representative of the Democratic Party. Every once in a while they expose who they really are. Wishing that Charlie Kirk’s children would die in their mother’s arms. When will the Democratic voters come to realize who the leaders of the Party are. First they say that Trump was snuggling up to a Russian socialist but then they elect a socialist in New York City and will soon elect a socialist to replace a socialist in Las Angeles. It has been become more and more obvious that the Democrats have become the party of it’s permitted to murder a member of anyone who opposes their socialist (same as fascist) political agenda. Well down here in the holler my granddaddy voted Democrat and just like him I’ll be voting Democrat till the day I die. Homeostasis of the mob mind is so very comforting.
TiT,
Oh, it is worse than that.
We AOC in DC.
Mamdani in NYC.
Katie Wilson in Seattle.
How many times did Tim Walz go to China?
Karen Bass in LA.
And now it looks like Maine voters will elect a guy as their Senate candidate, who sported an actual Nazi tattoo for 17 years, claiming he didnt know what it meant, while an ex-girlfriend says he knew full well and bragged about it.
Just when I didnt think Democrats could go any more loony, they prove me wrong.
Correction: Maine voters DID elect a guy with a Nazi tattoo as their candidate.
The Democrat party has now more in common with Putin, Xi, and Hitler.
Just look at the people they are electing.
Is Maine the entire Democratic Party? With a Nazi tattoo Trump may invite him to the White House for cold McDonald’s hamburders.
I see that numerous Republicans in government have been arrested and convicted for raping children. Care to transfer that responsibility to all Republicans? They are literally nationwide.
From Google:
Recent Convictions and Sentences
R.J. May III (South Carolina): The former Republican State Representative was sentenced in January 2026 to 17.5 years in federal prison after pleading guilty to five counts of distributing child sexual abuse material.
Raymon “Ray” Holmberg (North Dakota): The former Republican State Senator, who served in the North Dakota Legislature for 45 years, was sentenced in March 2025 to 10 years in federal prison for traveling to Prague to pay for commercial sex with underage boys.
Bo Dresner (Texas): The former Hays County Republican Party leader and sergeant-at-arms changed his plea to guilty during a 2024 trial and was sentenced to 410 years in prison on 65 counts of sexual abuse and possession of child pornography.
John Jessup (Indiana): A Republican county commissioner in Indiana pleaded guilty in November 2024 to the sexual assault of his daughter, which occurred during a trip to Massachusetts.
Active Charges and Arrests
Justin Eichorn (Minnesota): The Republican State Senator was arrested and charged by federal prosecutors in March 2025 with attempted coercion and enticement of a minor after allegedly attempting to solicit a 17-year-old girl for prostitution. He subsequently resigned from office.
Hunter Rivera (Colorado): The Weld County Republican Party Chairman was arrested in May 2026 following an internet crimes against children sting operation. He faces felony charges including attempted sexual assault on a child and internet luring.
wow, so many prevarications in one posting.
“Is Maine the entire Democratic Party?”
Is Maine unusual for the democratic party ? Is Platener unusual ?
“With a Nazi tattoo Trump may invite him to the White House for cold McDonald’s hamburders.”
If he becomes a senator – Trump likely will. He had Mamdani to the WH.
Trump is willing to work with anyone on whatever common ground they have.
That is pretty much what we want from a president.
Both Erodigan and MBS are our alies. Does that mean we approve of everything – or even most things either of them do ?
Biden pi$$ed of the Saudi’s and then could not fix it – and they screwed him.
I expect the president to try to work with all senators and representatives on whatever common ground exists.
I do NOT expect him to cave to them or buy in where there is no common ground.
But hopefully – there will be no need to work with Platner – but that is up to maine voters.
“I see that numerous Republicans in government have been arrested and convicted for raping children.”
Republicans, democrats , independents – there are pedofiles in all political persuasions.
But there is a difference – Republicans are not ENABLING pedos by making it easy for them to get a job working with kids and then engage them in inappropriate sexual discussions and conduct.
If you rape children – you should go to jail for the rest of your life – without regards for your politics.
Come On Man – filthy little Rainbow Haters Gonna Hate if it ain’t freaky enough for them! These barbell groups (little trust fund babies and woke grannies teamed up with rent-a-slob ghetto types) have to stay relevant by going after anything that moves and is not like them – way off in the orbit of Pluto!!!
I live in San Antonio. The Marriott Hotel where the gathering took place is a Riverwalk landmark visited by tourists who come to enjoy our city. This is not a peaceful protest covered by law. Arrest the trouble makers and hit them with fines and jail time. There must be consequences.