Much like the stories with DHS Secretary Nielsen and Sarah Sanders, protesters screamed "shame" at her, and harassed her over policies she didn't necessarily create.
"What would Mister Rogers think about you and your legacy in Florida? Taking away health insurance from people with pre-existing conditions, Pam Bondi!" Maria José Chapa, a labor organizer, can be heard yelling to Bondi in the video. "Shame on you!"For the record, should anybody care, I've been against protesting officials when they're not at their jobs as long as this blog has been here. It came up in my first year blogging, back in 2010, when SEIU rent-a-goons went to a banker's house to protest, terrifying one of his children in a totally unwarranted, over-the-line protest. Note that the protestor quoted above is a labor organizer. Same tactics, different day.
"You're a horrible person!" another protester shouts.
In my book, this sort of thing is over the line. Protesting is fine, but people who work in any job, banker or government, are entitled to have down time when they're not at work. Following them home to protest, as has been done with Secretary Nielsen, harassing them at a restaurant or movie, or refusing to serve them in a restaurant is too far. It's clear these protesters aren't there for a conversation; it's obvious in the way they respond. None of these people are open to intelligent discussion about complex issues. They just want to yell or direct hate at someone, so what's the point, besides bullying?
I tell myself that our "cold civil war", as so many folks have called it, is likely to go hot in the next year, but then I think it went hot when that asshole, Bernie Sanders-supporting Democrat shot up the Republican congressional baseball practice. If it weren't for the fact that Steve Scalise being there brought a security force to fight back, it could have been very different and much worse.
The Wiki article says 24 Republican congressmen were at the baseball practice; what if he had managed to kill all of them. Do you think that would have changed the country? I do. I could see an epidemic of killings all over the country.
This weekend we get a news report that some bozo on MSNBC is saying (in so many words), "if you voted for Trump, you're the one separating kids from their parents, you're the Nazi".
To put it more succinctly: if you voted for Trump, you're the one we want dead.
Maybe we should do a poll about when folks think the shooting will start - or start in earnest. The world around us seems to be moving toward a crescendo, and sooner or later push will turn to shove will turn to sticks and batons will turn to shooting. I've never seen it like this. History buffs I know say the US hasn't been this divided since before the War Between the States.
(Pam Bondi, AP Photo, captioned: In this March 29, 2017 file photo, Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi speaks at the Women's Empowerment Panel, at the White House in Washington.)
I hope these proud leftists and their tools, like Maxine Waters, who is telling them to do more of it, remember this when the wheel turns and it's their people getting harassed. Granted, most of our side is above that, but still...ReplyDelete
The Koch-sucking Rove Republican swill are "above" it. Some of us are not.Delete
The 1964 Civil Rights Act made it illegal to freely associate with who you wished and you had to accommodate special protected groups without the right of free association. All of this discrimination to unprotected groups that is occurring now is going to push the Supreme Court into a corner where they have no choice but to get rid of special protected groups. Silicon valley discriminates on what can be said on social media, secular groups discriminate against Christian groups even though the government is supposed to protect their religious beliefs. This kind of law will not hold any longer...just wait for the avalanche of lawsuits making their way to SCOTUS.ReplyDelete
Government is not "supposed to protect" anyone's religious beliefs.Delete
They are enjoined from making any law "respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof".
NOT "protect their beliefs".
In fact, any such thing is precisely what they are expressly forbidden to attempt.
The government is to remain absolutely neutral and impartial to religion. Period.
Also, you can find your right to freely associate contained and codified in the Bill of Rights right between your right to privacy, and your rights to sodomy and abortion. You could look it up.
50 points from Gryffindor, and go back and audit your h.s. civics class.
Article [IX] (Amendment 9 - Unenumerated Rights)
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Article [X] (Amendment 10 - Reserved Powers)
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
Put that in your pipe and smoke it.
You assume, indyjonesouthere, that we are still under Rule of Law. Do you have ANYTHING to substantiate that assumption?Delete
I would note that the Supremes recently ruled that the Only Ones need to get a warrant before tracking you with your cell phone. In spite of the fact that there is no shortage of putridly corrupt "judges" who will grant a warrant without cause, do you REALLY think that the pigs are going to follow that decision?
Got it, McChuck.Delete
So, following your theory of the Constitution, anything not there can be invented into it.
Mr. Chief Justice Burger approves heartily.
The point was that if you can't source the origin of your rights, real or imaginary, you probably shouldn't cite legislation and the attendant case law in your defense.
Sit down and read Judge Silberman's masterful exposition, upheld by SCOTUS, of Heller v. D.C.
wherein the judge wanders from modern times to Roman law and through the pages of 17th century English dictionaries to arrive at the correct judgment on the individual right to keep and bear arms.
I'm neither against privacy nor free association per se, just the slovenly assumption that such rights exist based on sloppy research and shallow understanding.
As Kurt Schlichter noted, the Left won't like it when the New Rules get applied to them.ReplyDelete
As far as when the shooting will start, it can't come soon enough, but only provided it actually progresses to full-on national cleansing.
We can't keep doing this half-assed schism, and it's going to get to the point that once the cork comes out, this isn't going to stop until one side or the other is completely gone.
Civil wars are anything but, and always fought until the bitterest end, for at least one side.
The Left is still trying to figure out which bathrooms to use, and the other side has between 500M-1B guns, and 100-100X that much ammunition. The lunatards are going to find out that their only safe space is inside a pine box.
Martin Luther King was vocally only about non-violent protest, because unlike Malcolm X, the Black Panthers, and the current Left, he could do math.
When the equation is "How many times can 1B bullets go into 70M registered Democrats?" the correct answer is going to be "Once."
Ya I don't think they fully comprehend what they are agitating for. A billion rounds sounds ridiculously lowball too, thats not even close. I don't want that, but eventually they are going to push too far and a lot of people's gloves are going to come off. I'm honestly surprised it hasn't happened yet for a lot of people. I think the reason most of us on the right are so civil is because we have jobs, families, and lives to maintain and can't just throw it all away because people depend on us. Most of these leftists, not so much.Delete
You are certainly correct that if this ever comes uncorked, theres no way to stop it.
Aesop, the Bill of Rights is a dead letter, a law that is no longer being enforced. Use a shoelace and a rubberband to convert a gun to full auto, and the judge won't even let your lawyer mention 2A.ReplyDelete
Current events aren't anywhere near as violent as 1972, much less the civil war.
_1972: The Year That Made 2018 Seem Sane_
For those contemplating exactly how out of control America was then compared to now, the most pertinent evidence is the book's compendium of a near-constant series of terror bombings.
The authors describe explosions in New York at National Guard headquarters, police headquarters, and three Manhattan banks; bombings in San Francisco's Presidio and at a church during a police officer's funeral; Molotov cocktails tossed in Wisconsin city halls and Connecticut ROTC offices; post offices, courthouses, and draft boards lit up across the country; 81 sticks of dynamite found at a Kansas university; and rocks, bottles, and eggs tossed directly at Nixon and California Gov. Ronald Reagan.
According to Bryan Burrough's 2015 book Days of Rage (Penguin Press), the U.S. suffered nearly five bombings every day during one 18-month period in 1971--72. Hijackings had become so common -- 33 in 1969 alone -- that the president's family was barred from flying commercial.
Being old enough to remember '72 clearly, pretty much everything from about '63 or so forward, I take this "things ain't so bad" approach in my more sanguine moments. One of the major differences between that period and this is the lack of political assassinations: JFK, RFK, need I go on? Not that the baseball practice shooter wasn't trying for that.Delete
I also think that in '72 there were no school shootings (or none that I ever heard about) and the bad kids ("hoodlums") carried a switchblade knife to school. SWATTING couldn't exist, and neither could cyber stalking, DOXXING and a thousand other things. Society as a whole was quite different.
Part of what the Weathermen and the other "radical" bombers were doing was trying to destroy that civilization; they now have half a century of results from those efforts.
I like the saying "history doesn't repeat itself but it rhymes". There's no particular reason to think we aren't getting closer to a shooting war because bombings haven't started yet. Shooting could start before the bombings.
Calling up the specter of The Seventies without noting that we were amidst a grossly unpopular war, taking thousands of casualties per annum and doling them out in the tens of thousands, by dropping metric fucktons of bombs on a Turd-world country the approximate size of Georgia, kind of misses the point.Delete
It also overlooks entirely the rather salient point that at the time, airline security was mainly provided by asking you to fasten your seatbelt, and the whole of America was one monstrous soft target to everything from malicious mischief to outright terrorism, from sea to shining sea.
had we simply sent forth the hue and cry, and declared open season on the miscreants at the time, they wouldn't have been around in 2008 as college professors to cheer on their protégé to become the first foreign communist president of this republic.
We are, by any objective standard, at relative peace with the world at this point in time compared to 1972, and even the paltry protest movements against what we have done and are doing militarily would fit inside a phone booth at most places and times, from 2001 to present.
The current violence is expressly directed at actually overthrowing the elected government, and specifically attempting to undermine the whole of society, not protest of a foreign war, and the simple fact is that even amidst the Sixties and Seventies, no one sane (note that fact recurs then and now) was even remotely advocating burning everything down because of self-hatred and loathing.
The current violence is unprecedented in scope because such self-destruction is the entire point, not to correct a perceived wrong, but to purge a perceived evil, root and branch.
That's the sort of thing that begets bloodshed on a scale approved of and witnessed previously only by the likes of Mao, Stalin, Hitler, and Robbespierre.
It's never been tried AFAIK in world history against a well-armed opposition, and previous experience hereabouts suggests days like Antietam may be on the rosy side of what's to come.
Compared to the last two years, 1972 was laughably irrelevant hijinks.
The current madness isn't a movement to change your mind; it's a fervent wish to blow out your brains.
That is going to end in nothing short of blood and tears, mark my words.
It is important to know and understand that the far left in 72 (or 67) was full of communists and communist's money which directed the violence. Todays far left violence is full of communist influence and money also. This is anti-American outsider meddling just as it was in the 60's and 70's. The goal is and always has been to move America to the far left.Delete
You and I are of the same age, persuasion, and beliefs SiGraybeard.ReplyDelete
What HRH Maxine Waters does not yet comprehend are two major points: 1) simple math (Marxists vs Freedom Lovers and the gun/ammo owners vs. gun banners) and 2) the old historical maxim:
"When blacks riot, then cities burn; when whites riot, continents burn."
Mebbe Ms. Waters, born, bred, and steeped in "public school indoctrination" still can't "do" real math. Just sayin'...
Did you know that blacks really believe they are in the majority? I'm not kidding. They are so poorly educated, and mostly live in such concentrated areas, that they really believe that America is and always has been about 80% black. They believe that The White Man has been keeping them down by lying to them about how many of us there really are.Delete
You just can't make this stuff up. Nobody would believe you.
This public confrontation biz is practice for the real animal, that the leftists are going to present. Remember, they are quality cowards and they'll make sure some actual very violent goons will do their dirty work. Which they will promptly blame on the right, as they tried to do with the ball practice shooter. Remember, the left is comprised of life long and professional liars, and they know some people will always believe their lies.ReplyDelete
Just saw a BBC on the British suffragette movement. VERY interesting parallels.ReplyDelete
In all these cases there is clearly a physical threat of violence. I do not understand why the person who is being attacked could not walk into a court and get a restraining order immediately. I know that Some people will laugh at that pointing out that restraining orders don't prevent a dedicated person from committing violence and that is true. However there are some serious immediate problems for the person that the order is against AND if the violate the order they can be jailed. An RO would be very effective against this type of threat.ReplyDelete
A restraining order might work - if we still lived under "Rule-of-Law". But we do not. We live under "Pretense-of-Law". Almost no one is going to be prosecuted for violated an R.O - especially when there are Leftists Judges and Prosecutors holding offices. And it will be a completely moot point anyway for the next victims of group violence.ReplyDelete
You could not be more wrong. If you defy a RO you will be arrested, you will go to court and there is a real good chance you will spend time in jail, Second time you will go to jail.Delete
Want to get a glimpse of the coming War between Left and Right in America?ReplyDelete
All 37M of them believe that?
And you know this to be a fact how, exactly...?