The Frightening Violence of the Left
YIKES, WHERE ARE THEY?
Bill Maher blasts ‘keffiyeh-wearing college kids’ for silence as Hamas slaughters Palestinians in Gaza
Comedian highlights 'asymmetry' as students don't appear as vocal now
Madison Colombo By Madison Colombo Fox News
https://www.foxnews.com/media/bill-mahe … nians-gaza
My view, ---Guess they were only concerned about Palestinians when it suited them. I mean, it was always clear to me that the protesters were antisemites. They could have cared less about the Palestinians. Sick-minded hypocrites, in my book.We have had this discussion before. I don't know if you remember it. Bill Maher isn't always right.
While most campus protests in 2024 were framed as pro-Palestinian or pro-Israeli, there were notable instances where Israeli and Palestinian students joined forces to advocate for shared goals like peace, ceasefire, or academic freedom. These moments of solidarity were rare but symbolically powerful. Here are a few examples:
Universities with Joint Israeli-Palestinian Protests or Solidarity Actions
- **Columbia University**: Some Jewish and Palestinian students participated together in encampments and teach-ins, emphasizing shared opposition to violence and calls for divestment from companies tied to the conflict. Jewish Voice for Peace and Students for Justice in Palestine were among the groups involved.
- **Harvard University**: Progressive Jewish groups, including Jewish Voice for Peace, aligned with Palestinian solidarity organizations to issue joint statements condemning Israeli policies and calling for a ceasefire. These efforts sparked intense backlash but also highlighted cross-community collaboration.
- **MIT (Massachusetts Institute of Technology)**: Students from both backgrounds engaged in counter-protests and dialogues, with some Israeli students expressing opposition to the Netanyahu government and solidarity with Palestinian suffering.
- **University of California, Berkeley**: Known for its activist culture, Berkeley saw moments where Israeli and Palestinian students participated in shared vigils and teach-ins, though tensions remained high.
These collaborations were often informal and emerged from grassroots organizing rather than official university-sanctioned events. They reflected a growing trend among younger generations to challenge binary narratives and seek nuanced, human-centered approaches to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.But why would anyone think we would see the large-scale campus protests of the past?
Intimidation and fear of reprisal is the norm under this regime. Many students report being afraid to speak out due to fears of generating more conflict and facing consequences. But also, Universities have implemented new rules and disciplinary processes around protests, and pro-Palestinian student activists have faced suspensions and other punishments for their involvement in past demonstrations.... And yet some Wonder why they're not protest LOL?
Trump has bullied the shit out of these universities...
"students don't appear as vocal now"
Gosh, I wonder why that is... The answer is very obvious.They sent unidentified, masked thugs to grab a student off the street, shipped her to a prison over a thousand miles away, and tried to deport her, all because she coauthored an OpEd in a college newspaper....
Golly gee I wonder why people aren't as vocal....Or you could say that a guest in the US, who was allowed to go there since she had a student visa to study and not to protest the US government, went to the US and wrote an op ed where she suggested rebellion against the US policies. The goverment dediced to expel her and did so.
I wonder why the leftists are so conerned.Suggested a "rebellion against the US policies? "LOL. First of all, it's clear you haven't read the piece that she co-authored.... And newsflash.. it's okay to disagree with policy in this country... We have this little thing called free speech.
Hve you not heard of consequences? You can have free speech and also have consequences, which is something many of you have not figured out.
What I have figured out? You clearly understand nothing about American government or the Constitution.....
Thanks for confirming my view of rabid leftists.Your persoal attack is just that, personal, and proves a lot about your ability to defend the issues you support.
Willow is right, Doc, you do need a refresher in the fundamentals of the Constitution and the Bill of rights, have you been away for so long?
Is everything that opposes a fascistic, tyrannical point of view a personal attack? I would not think so.
If you look at the correct “diagnosis” below, there is no reason why this person is not allowed to say what she wants.
——
Rümeysa Öztürk, a Turkish doctoral student at Tufts University, was arrested by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) in March 2025. Her arrest followed her co-authoring an op-ed in the school's newspaper, The Tufts Daily, which was critical of the university's response to the conflict in Gaza.
Key details about the case:
Arrest and detention: On March 25, 2025, Öztürk was taken into custody by plainclothes ICE agents in Somerville, Massachusetts. The State Department had revoked her student visa just days before. After being moved to different locations, she was held at an ICE detention facility in Louisiana for over six weeks.
The op-ed: Co-authored by Öztürk and other students in March 2024, the opinion piece criticized the Tufts administration for its handling of pro-Palestinian student activism.
Claims by the government: While the Trump administration's Department of Homeland Security claimed Öztürk was involved in "activities in support of Hamas," no evidence was produced to support this accusation. Secretary of State Marco Rubio publicly stated that Öztürk's visa was revoked because she was acting as a "social activist" rather than a student.
Legal challenge and release: In May 2025, a federal judge in Vermont ordered Öztürk's immediate release on bail. The judge found she had raised "very substantial" constitutional claims and noted the government had failed to provide evidence justifying her detention beyond her opinion piece. Her lawyers argued her arrest violated her First Amendment rights.
Broader context: Civil rights advocates and other organizations have argued that Öztürk's case is part of a larger, politically motivated crackdown on pro-Palestinian student activists by the Trump administration.Where in the US constitution does it say that visitors to the country that entered on a student visa are able to publish papers arguing against US policies? Do you not remember that even your Biden supported Israel against the Gazan terrorists? If that person does not support what the US does she does not need to live there and can protest all she wants back in her own country.
It sounds to me like those of you supporting the "rights" of students in the US on a visa do not understand the constitution. That person can say whatever she wants if she goes back to her country to do so.There are many, many laws that are not in the Constitution. It is unfortunate that you and so many other leftists think it is okay to break those laws.
We have a Constitution that allows that. It is dictatorships that don't.
No, you do not have a constitution that allows that.
Why don't you go ahead and cite, in very specific terms where you think that exists.... This issue has already been debated and thoroughly fact-checked previously.
Why dont you go ahead and cite, in very specific terms, where it states that students on visas are allowed the same right to protest the government that the citizens of the US have? If this information is so widely accepted then I am sure it will be no problem for you.
If you knew anything about our Constitution, you would know that is not the way it is constructed. Rather than being argumentative why don't you try reading it and answer Willowarbors' question.
If you knew anything about your own Constitiution, you would realize that foreigners do not have the same rights as American citizens. I realize that you prefer to wallow in your igrnorance as it makes you feel superior and part of the leftist tribe, but why dont you pull it up and try to find something on there about student visa holders?
Again, you've made the accusations, support them.... That's how it works. Support your own posts...
AND THIS IS A CLEAR PERSONAL INSULT
"I realize that you prefer to wallow in your igrnorance as it makes you feel superior and part of the leftist tribe, but why dont you pull it up and try to find something on there about student visa holders?This is a personal attack, insult... Are you joining in?
Doc, it would be wise to pick your conversations more carefully. You're beating a dead horse.
It would probably be more wise for him to stop insulting people... And back up his own posts with citations
I suggest you read immigration law OR discuss things with someone who has actually been through the immigration process.
You would find it enlightening.
Dr Mark,
These people on the left I can guarantee have NO experience with the immigration process. The rules for deportation are very vast and wide. You can have your visa pulled for a lot of things.
The ONE that people on the left should educate them on is "Suspected Immigrant Intent." This is a judgement call by the State Department, DHS, CBP, UCIS who can ALL pull a visa.
No, you do NOT have the same protest rights as an American citizen if you're on a visa. It's the same if you have a green card. These people on the left who have never experienced immigration don't know."No, you do NOT have the same protest rights as an American citizen if you're on a visa. It's the same if you have a green card. These people on the left who have never experienced immigration don't know."
Can you back that up with a specific citation...
Everyone in the U.S., including visa holders, has the First Amendment right to peaceful protest.Where in the Constitution does it say that holders of a visa have the same rights to free speech as American citizens? It doesn't. That is the problem with people on the left. You don't know something, so you make up something to fit your narrative.
Understanding Recent International Student Visa Revocations and SEVIS
Record Terminations: Guidance for Colleges & Universities
What are the legal and practical consequences of visa revocation for
students already in the United States?
[b]The U.S. Department of State has broad discretion to revoke visas, as authorized under
the Foreign Affairs Manual and federal regulations. Grounds for revocation can include
criminal convictions, such as Driving Under the Influence (DUI), as well as other
discretionary reasons that are often not disclosed to the student.
Recent revocations appear to fall largely into this discretionary category, and affected
students may never learn the specific basis for the decision.
Importantly, visa revocation
does not automatically terminate the student’s nonimmigrant status if the student is
already present in the United States at the time of revocation. It also does not constitute
an order of removal or a requirement to immediately depart. However, once a student’s
visa has been revoked, the student may be vulnerable to enforcement actions, as
discussed in Question 9 below. Visa revocations are not subject to judicial review in
federal courts.
Some students have received email notifications from the Department of State
informing them of their visa revocation, while others have not. These notices might be
sent to the email address the student provided at the time of their visa application,
which may no longer be active or may belong to a family member. Such emails may
include language encouraging students to depart the country using the CBPOne mobile
app. These communications are concerning, as some students may interpret them as a
formal order to depart, and in fact, many students have departed the United States after
This resource is intended for information purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.
2
receiving such emails. If a student departs after a visa revocation, they will have to apply
for a new visa abroad in order to return. Institutions should encourage any student who
receives such notice to seek legal counsel before making decisions about travel or
departure
https://www.presidentsalliance.org/wp-c … sities.pdf
I suggest people on the left stop making up stuff to fit their narrative and stick with obtaining facts. Presenting your imagination is not the same as presenting facts AND facts give you credibility.You have not provided any fact whatsoever... This forum is getting really painful.
U.S. Constitution's First Amendment has been interpreted by the Supreme Court to extend free speech protections to "all persons" within the country, including visa holders....
Justice William O. Douglas's majority opinion in the 1945 case Bridges v. Wixon, established that non-citizens lawfully residing in the U.S. are entitled to these same protections.
2025, a federal judge in Boston reaffirmed First Amendment protections for non-citizens in the case AAUP v. Rubio. The judge ruled that the government could not target non-citizen students and faculty for deportation based on their pro-Palestinian speech.
Shall we go on????Here is where you are confused. Being deported is very different from having your visa revoked. Your visa can be revoked for many reasons. Anyone who has traveled anywhere using a visa knows this.
Visas revoked over criticism of Charlie Kirk
https://www.yahoo.com/news/articles/vis … 16725.htmlThe six individuals were from Argentina, Brazil, Germany, Mexico, Paraguay and South Africa, though their names were not disclosed. Screenshots published by the department on X featured an Argentine stating Kirk “devoted his entire life spreading racist, xenophobic, misogynistic rhetoric” and deserves to burn in hell, while a Brazilian wrote that Kirk “died too late.” A German posted that “when fascists die, democrats don’t complain.”
——————
These are reasonable comments, yes, Kirk did make many racist, xenophobic and misogynistic statements. It was a fair criticism, one that I would make. Do you think that you can punish me as well? Why is the Right wing view that Kirk was some sort of messiah that one dare not criticize? It is this regime that puts Kirk on a pedestal, why are people being punished for expressing an opinion? So, much for the first amendment and a very real fear of encroaching tyranny. Expressing an opinion is not a crime. Only YOUR people loved Charlie Kirk, there are many others that did not and for good reason.
This is what I mean by “abuse of discretion”.Cred,
If all of them would have just done what they agreed to when they got their visa they would all still be here.
It's the same thing when you get a visa to go to another country. Get a visa to visit russia and start publicly stating your opposition to the war in Ukraine. See what happens. I know a many from Canada who got deported from France because he said some negative things about Muslims.
When you are in a country on a visa you have to be careful with what you say and do. It's the same all over the world.
Maybe this is a problem in itself as conservatives are well known for abuse of discretion. Lets remove too much discretion and have firm rules and boundaries, so that anyone holding a visa can be ejected because of the color of their tie. I don’t trust conservatives to do ANYTHING above board.
———————-
Recent revocations appear to fall largely into this discretionary category, and affected
students may never learn the specific basis for the decision"You don't know something, so you make up something to fit your narrative. "
Excuse me????He is just showing his ignorance of our Constitution and case law. In FACT the Constitution and case law CLEARLY says that non-citizens have the right to free speech in this country notwithstanding his desire to make us look like Russia.
the Constitution doesn’t name “visa holders,” but the First Amendment (“Congress shall make no law… abridging the freedom of speech”) protects persons in the United States, and the Supreme Court has long applied that protection to non-citizens present here, including people on visas.
Congress.gov
+1
Key points, with cases:
Text: The First Amendment limits the government; it doesn’t say “citizens,” so courts read it to cover anyone within U.S. territory. The Constitution Annotated notes the Court “extended these constitutional protections to all aliens within the United States.”
Congress.gov
+1
Case law: In Bridges v. Wixon (1945), the Court recognized that lawfully present aliens have First Amendment rights (the government couldn’t deport a union leader for his associations/speech).
The Free Speech Center
Boundary of the rule: People outside the U.S. don’t get to claim a right to enter in order to speak here; Kleindienst v. Mandel (1972) upheld denying a visa to a foreign speaker if the government gives a “facially legitimate and bona fide” reason. That’s about entry, not speech rights once present.
Justia Law
+1
So: a person inside the U.S. on a visa generally has the same free-speech protections against government restriction as a citizen, subject to ordinary limits (e.g., incitement, true threats) and separate immigration consequences the government might pursue under the immigration laws.
Congress.gov
+1
CLEARLY, he is making stuff up to fit his mythical narrative.
Amazing how they will all tell us that they understand all about it though they have never had a student visa nor bothered to find out what is involved.
Maybe just provide a citation in support of your statements.....
When a user makes claims in a post, they should provide supporting evidence... That's on the poster not the reader...
The right wing posters on this forum are really getting out of hand....
These criminals that Trump pardoned keep getting arrested. Pretty much every week there is a new one....lol
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/pardoned-c … nyc-trump/The left's violence needs to end--- Too many deaths at the hands of left radicals.
During the so-called “Summer of Love” — a phrase some activists and media used ironically to describe the protests and riots following George Floyd’s death in 2020 — at least 25 to 30 people were killed over roughly a 90-day period (late May through August 2020).
I think most of us are sick of hearing this "Summer of Love" BS.... The majority of protests were peaceful and those that got out of hand were primarily attributed to opportunists....
Something a little more recent...
"A man pardoned by President Donald Trump for his role in the 2021 Capitol riot has been charged with threatening to kill the top Democrat in the US House of Representatives".
I mean why did Trump need to pardon this miscreant???"U.S. assessment finds opportunists drive protest violence, not extremists
June 3, 20203:09 PM CDTUpdated June 3, 2020
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President Donald Trump has blamed leftwing extremist groups for instigating nights of looting and violence in cities across the United States, but an intelligence assessment offers limited evidence that organized extremists are behind the turmoil.
In part of a June 1 internal intelligence assessment of the protests seen by Reuters, U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) officials said most of the violence appears to have been driven by opportunists."
Enough already....
https://www.reuters.com/article/world/u … elsewhere."To date, of the 94 U.S. Attorneys’ Offices (USAOs), more than 40 USAOs have filed federal charges alleging crimes ranging from attempted murder, assaulting a law enforcement officer, arson, burglary of a federally-licensed firearms dealer, damaging federal property, malicious destruction of property using fire or explosives, felon in possession of a firearm and ammunition, unlawful possession of a destructive device, inciting a riot, felony civil disorder, and others. Violent opportunists have exploited these demonstrations in various ways. "
Office of Public Affairs | Over 300 People Facing Federal Charges For Crimes Committed During Nationwide Demonstrations | United States Department of Justice https://www.justice.gov/archives/opa/pr … 0property.I can do this all day long, but what does it prove? Both sides have good and bad
https://sl.bing.net/kbbEHM0jMqqWhy would anyone believe the right wingers narrative of this....
One of Chicago's finest teachers --- Oh my, yeah, would you let this piece of work near your child? Sick B...
I mean, if you can stomach it watch her live---
https://www.foxnews.com/us/violent-symb … s-protestsDo you want a really go tit for tat with miscreants?
See if you can find the video of the right-wing woman waving are REAL gun out of her car at protesters (she was arrested). I wonder why the Right didn't make that go viral? Oh, I know, because it was one of their own that they can't do wrong.
Police arrested a woman in Myrtle Beach in relation to a ‘No Kings’ protest on Saturday.
Officials said a woman was seen near the planned demonstration in a vehicle, brandishing a firearm around 2 p.m., WPDE reports.
SC woman arrested for showing gun at ‘No Kings’ protest https://share.google/yt8qbA2jbQjGUgHMC
And in the mind of the right winger she represents millions? Got it...
Now, here is the truth, rather than innuendo.
1. The video of a protester making a finger‑gun gesture at her neck while a pro‑Charlie Kirk sign passes by is real and has drawn widespread online anger.
2. the allegation that the woman is Lucy Martinez—a Chicago teacher—and that she deliberately mocked Kirk’s assassination is based on social‑media claims, not on confirmed evidence.
3. Chicago Public Schools has only acknowledged that an employee was filmed at a protest and is subject to online threats
4. As Is Their Habit, Fox News treats unverified social‑media identification as fact and omits that the teacher’s identity and any disciplinary action remain unconfirmed,
5. Principal Dawn Iles‑Gomez told parents that the school had received potential threats from those influenced by the viral video (meaning right-wingers) and that police were investigating
6. Charlie Kirk spread messages of hate against minority groups and women in high volume.
7. Hate speech leads to hate crime and killing. Charlie Kirk was a significant part of that hate speech.
I, for one, while wishing Kirk had not been killed, am relieved he can no longer be responsible for some people getting harmed or killed.
More Frightening Violence from the RIGHT - man Pardoned by Trump arrested for threatening to kill the minority leader. The only question is when will Trump pardon him again. He seems like doing that for fellow felons.
https://www.cnn.com/2025/10/21/politics … ies-threatThe man stated :
“Hakeem Jeffries makes a speech in a few days in NYC I cannot allow this terrorist to live” and “Even if I am hated he must be eliminated.” He is also accused of sending a text that said, “I will kill him for the future.”
What are the chances he was fueled by the hateful, ugly rhetoric we often hear from the right?
That's not even considering Trump's daily incendiary language...Seems pretty accurate to me. These are the types of people who are most attracted to the democrat party.
I would also add over 60s liberals.The response makes no sense whatsoever....
What are the chances that the man was fueled by the ugly, vile rhetoric of the right including bullshit Barbie and a multitude of others including Trump himself in this regime?
A photo msntage was offered trying to prove violence in America is from the Left. So, I must ask:
* What leftist organization did these people belong to?
* Has anybody who speaks for the left taken responsibility for these lone wolf attacks?
* Has anybody actually linked any of these people to left wing politics or is it just being left up to the imagination?
* Or is it just assumed, without evidence, that liberals were behind any violence against the right?
* Now, why was no context provided with the photos?
* Why wasn't it mentioned that it was Kirk's own hate speech likely led the shooter, who had no known political leaning, to do what he did and was probably fearful of Kirk and that his violent words against gays put his life at risk?
* Why was it hidden that the guy who took a shot at Trump, just felt like killing somebody and Trump was convenient?
* Why wasn't the context added that Rouch supported Trump in 2016, and was pro-Ukraine (hardly leftist traits), but learned with the rest of us that Trump was, if fact, a danger to democracy. Also not mentioned was his mental issues and tried to kill himself in the courtroom after being found guilty?
* If context had been included, it would have been revealed that 93% of the Summer protests were non-violent. and that some of the violent parts were perpetrated not by left-leaning idealists but people looking for a reason to be violent, some of them from the Right trying to blame the left. That information was hidden as well.
* I don't know if the attack on Shapiro was mentioned, but that was by a mentally ill person who didn't like his religion and not his political leanings
* Why wasn't it mentioned that 70% - 75%, depending on the dataset, of all political violence in America is caused by the Right?
When all those facts become known, it simply deflates the presumption that all that violence is from the Left - because it is not. This is obviously a case of Transference or Projection by the Right on the Left.Billy Joe Cagle, the Georgia man arrested this week for allegedly planning to carry out a shooting at Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International Airport, had spent years posting online in support of Donald Trump, the Confederate flag, and expansive gun rights.
Thank God they stopped him...
https://meidasnews.com/news/atlanta-air … erate-flagThere always is a cowardly rightwing type-behind these kinds of assaults. Was he just planning to pick off airport patrons at random?
So who talking about left wing violence?Another Right-Wing act of violence - almost.
What is encouraging is that his family called it in.
North Carolina man recounts shooting after Trump banner torn from mother’s yard: 'Some people just snap'
Homeowner Mark Thomas said he believes the incident reflects the growing political divide
A North Carolina man says he was shot at by an angry motorist who tore down a Trump banner in his mother’s front yard, an incident he believes reflects the nation’s growing political hostility.
Mark Thomas, who owns a river rafting business in the Nantahala Gorge, said he was relaxing at home on Sept. 6 when the shooting occurred.
Thomas told Fox News Digital he checked his security cameras after seeing a man wearing an "Antifa-style mask" step out of a Jeep Cherokee to look at a Trump banner attached to a bus parked near his 87-year-old mother’s home.
The man, identified by police as Benjamin Michael Campbell, 38, was allegedly speeding before abruptly stopping and removing the banner.
"Being a Second Amendment believer, I reached over, grabbed my rifle and took off out there to the porch," Thomas said.
Thomas said he fired two warning shots into the air before Campbell allegedly got back into his vehicle and opened fire through the sunroof. Campbell then fled — only to return moments later and fire several more shots, striking a refrigerator inside the home, Thomas said.
https://www.foxnews.com/us/north-caroli … -just-snap
“block ICE vehicles” or “dismantle the structures like policing, surveillance, and gentrification.” Stacey Patton
When I read Stacey Patton’s recent blog post from Howard University, I felt alarmed, not just by her arguments but by how casually she seemed to elevate violent tactics as a model for allyship. Patton, who teaches journalism at the private Washington, D.C. school, published a piece titled “John Brown Didn’t Ask Enslaved People How to Be A Good White Ally,” and in it she essentially told White liberals to stop asking how to help and instead to “be like John Brown.” That line stopped me cold.
To be clear about who John Brown was: he was a militant abolitionist whose methods were violent. In 1856, during the “Bleeding Kansas” period, Brown and a band of followers dragged five settlers, at least three identified as pro-slavery, out of their homes and killed them in what we now call the Pottawatomie massacre. And in October 1859, Brown led a 21-man raid on the federal armory at Harpers Ferry, Virginia (now West Virginia), hoping to spark a slave uprising. The attack failed; several townspeople were killed in the fighting, including a freed Black man named Heyward Shepherd, and after ten of Brown’s men were killed he was captured, tried for treason, and hanged. Those are violent, consequential acts — not metaphors to be tossed off.
Patton’s praise for Brown’s decisiveness and her anger at what she calls the “paradox of white ‘goodness’” are bluntly stated in the piece. She wrote, “When White allies ask, ‘What can I do?’ here’s the answer: Be like John Brown. Ask yourself, what am I willing to burn so somebody else can breathe?” She argued that Brown didn’t need a syllabus or affirmation from the people he sought to help; he saw injustice and acted. She also wrote that the constant requests for guidance from well-intentioned White people are “exhausting as hell,” and that those efforts often force people already harmed to keep translating their pain into lessons for others. In her words, “You don’t ask the people choking on smoke to explain how to put out the blaze. You go get the damn hose.”
I find parts of her rhetoric deeply troubling. Saying “you go get the damn hose” while praising a historical figure who used deadly force blurs a dangerous line between moral urgency and endorsing violent action. She even concedes that no one has to die as Brown did — “If you don’t want to die like John Brown, fine,” she wrote, but then follows with the fatalistic, “But understand that somebody always does.” Those kinds of rhetorical flourishes may be intended to shock or provoke, but they also risk normalizing or romanticizing violence as an acceptable form of political expression.
The reason I take this seriously is that this isn’t only historical reflection; Brown’s name is invoked by real-world actors today. Benjamin Song, identified with Antifa networks, was recently charged with three counts of attempted murder of federal agents and three counts of discharging a firearm after an ambush-style attack at an ICE facility in Alvarado, Texas. Reports tied Song to the John Brown Gun Club, a group that, according to the Counter Extremism Project, is listed as a far-left organization. That link between contemporary violent actions and groups invoking Brown’s legacy makes academic praise feel less abstract and more dangerous.
Howard University did the right thing in issuing a statement condemning violence. The university told reporters it “condemns all forms of violence, particularly actions that may result in the loss of life,” and it emphasized that while it supports First Amendment protections for expression, the views of individual faculty, staff, or students aren’t the official stance of the institution. Patton declined to comment further when asked. I appreciate the university’s clarity, but I also think institutions need to be vigilant about when rhetoric crosses from contentious debate into encouragement of harm.
I’ll be blunt: I believe the leftesy have become very dangerous. When influential voices on the left start framing violent historical actors as role models and equating urgent moral action with destructive means, it contributes to a climate in which violent acts can be justified as righteous. That’s unacceptable. We need to be able to debate, organize, and pressure for change without condoning or inspiring bloodshed.
Because of that, I think we need stronger legal tools to address those who foment violence with overt hate-filled or inciting speech. Speech that clearly intends to provoke or assist violent action should carry more severe consequences than it too often does today. I’m not talking about punishing legitimate dissent or robust political speech, I’m talking about targeting those who deliberately stir people toward violent acts, who celebrate murder or ambush as a tactic, or whose messaging materially contributes to real-world attacks. If words intentionally lead to blood on the street, society should have firmer penalties and clearer enforcement mechanisms to stop that escalation before it happens.
Reading Patton’s post and seeing how Brown’s name is used in modern extremist circles convinces me that we can’t be complacent. We must defend free expression, yes, but we also must draw clearer lines and take stronger action against rhetoric and organizations that cross them and put lives at risk.
Stacey Patton, the Howard University journalism professor who wrote a blog post praising John Brown, has not been fired or disciplined. Howard University issued a statement condemning all forms of violence and clarifying that Patton’s views were her own, not those of the institution. While the university distanced itself from her rhetoric, it took no formal action against her, maintaining its stance on protecting free expression even when the views expressed are controversial.Shar,
There are SO many examples of violence on the left. They have no leadership and no message. Violence seems to be the only thing they have left. I wonder if they know how it is only making things worse for them.Mike, Yes, there are far too many cases to track down. But what troubles me most is seeing educators openly spreading messages of hate to young people. Without Trump bringing attention to these issues, much of it might have continued to go unnoticed. By cutting off funding to those who promote division, it could at least help deter some of these radicals from using classrooms to push their personal agendas. In the end, money talks louder than teachers — and let’s be honest, they’re a dime a dozen.
And there are SO many examples of violence on the Right that you never talk about. Why is that?
Stacey Patton, the Howard University journalism professor who wrote a blog post praising John Brown, has not been fired or disciplined. Howard University issued a statement condemning all forms of violence and clarifying that Patton’s views were her own, not those of the institution. While the university distanced itself from her rhetoric, it took no formal action against her, maintaining its stance on protecting free expression even when the views expressed are controversial.
————
“Overview
John Brown and Frederick Douglass Had a Complicated Friendship
Frederick Douglass initially declined to join John Brown's raid, viewing it as a suicide mission. However, he later came to view Brown as a martyr for the abolitionist cause, stating that "If John Brown did not end the war that ended slavery, he did at least begin the war that ended slavery". Douglass also paid tribute to Brown, calling him a hero who was "in sympathy a black man" and whose zeal for freedom far surpassed his own.”
—-
Someone needs a refresher in American history. It always comes down to the same mumbo-jumbo by conservatives, specifically whites who always said wait and “your time will come” from the comfort of their sofas, while the slaves are the ones out on the limb. Frederick Douglass said it for me as well as other “instigators”, Harriet Beecher Stowe, amongst them. Some forms of civil disobedience during the period then and revisited during the Civil Rights era were necessary to bring attention to a travesty of epic proportions. Violence may well be preferable to subjugation to bring attention to an issue that had to end and whose confrontation could no longer be postponed. I consider Ms Patton’s opinion as valid as anyone’s out there and there is no reason to adversely affect her career because her views find a sympathetic ear for me. Howard is being pusillanimous in backing off in fear of conservatives and their hypocrisy regarding the issue and the period in question.
Who knows, someone might actually read and listen or at least hear an alternate voice and learn something?Cred, I understand the point about historical context, and I agree that John Brown’s actions and the broader abolitionist struggle are complex and must be studied in depth. Frederick Douglass did recognize Brown’s commitment and saw him as someone who catalyzed a pivotal moment in the fight against slavery. That historical nuance, however, doesn’t automatically justify praising violent tactics as a model for today’s activism.
My concern is that Patton’s rhetoric doesn’t stay in the past; it has real-world implications. Brown’s name is invoked by contemporary extremist actors, like Benjamin Song, who was recently charged with attempted murder of federal agents and firearm offenses during an ambush-style attack on an ICE facility in Texas. ICE agents are duly sworn law enforcement performing their duties; glorifying violent acts, even in historical analogy, risks encouraging attacks on people who are simply enforcing the law.
I also want to better understand your perspective. You clearly feel that Black people have faced, and continue to face, horrendous injustices. But in the present day, what specific actions by White people do you feel warrant the kind of “hose” metaphor Patton used, violent action against others? Clarifying that would help ground this discussion in reality rather than rhetoric.
We can honor historical figures and confront past injustices without implying that violence is an acceptable path for addressing modern issues. Context matters: admiration of a historical figure and active encouragement of violence today are not the same, and conflating them can have dangerous consequences, particularly when law enforcement and civilians are put at risk. That’s the line I worry is being blurred in Patton’s post.Why no outcry for the brutality ice is inflicting on American citizens? Where is the outrage?
I would probably agree that we no longer have the problem of slavery and legalized terror for a century after it ended. A “John Brown” attitude may be a bit extreme where the problems are still here but far more muted and call for a different approach to address them if that is possible.
“Every day we live inside the matrix of white supremacy, maneuvering through traps set generations ago in laws, schools, offices, and culture. We’re dodging the shrapnel, and you’re standing there asking for directions out of a maze you built.”
I quote one of her comments which at the fundamentals is quite true.
We should not shroud and deny history just because it is oftentimes unpleasant. I wont support “Brown” tactics for every adverse situation, again depending on the magnitude of the situation and if peaceful resolution is possible. For slavery and the terror that followed, peaceful resolution approaches were exhausted. For right now, the hose metaphor is a bit over the top. But if we continue to open old wounds instead of heal them as what seems to be the Milieu of the current administration, its ideals and agenda, we may finding ourselves forced back into the intolerable.
“We can honor historical figures and confront past injustices without implying that violence is an acceptable path for addressing modern issues.”
https://www.yahoo.com/news/articles/sta … 00576.html
“Turning point”, Charlie Kirks creation is responsible for intimidating professors and authors with ideas contrary to the beliefs of its organization. With the death threats, racial slurs and misogynistic attacks, maybe this is the place we need to look first regarding the promotion of violence.
——-
Howard University is a private research university with a long history of serving Black students.
Howard University is an HBCU, where does Turning Point get the nerve to tell a majority black student body what it is that is acceptable for their professors to teach? That is enough to get my dander up, right there.Just my view
Cred, equating today’s America with “living inside the matrix of white supremacy” is a gross overreach that dismisses how far we’ve come as a nation. Of course, our history includes grave injustices, no rational person denies that. But to suggest that modern laws, schools, or offices are deliberately designed as traps is to ignore the enormous progress that’s been made through civil rights legislation, cultural change, and decades of effort from Americans of all races. It’s one thing to study and remember the past; it’s quite another to live perpetually as though we’re still trapped in it.
In my view, invoking “John Brown” logic or justifying violence, even conditionally, is deeply irresponsible. Brown’s methods were extreme even in his day, and applying that kind of militant mindset to current political or social disagreements only divides us further. When people start framing every ideological disagreement as an extension of historical oppression, dialogue becomes impossible, and violence becomes justifiable in their minds. That’s a dangerous road.
And regarding Turning Point, it’s ironic that those accusing it of “intimidation” are often the same ones defending speech codes, protest disruptions, and cancel campaigns against anyone who dares to question progressive orthodoxy. Turning Point isn’t telling anyone what to teach; it’s exposing bias in academia and giving students a voice where they’ve long been silenced. Howard University, like any institution, should welcome open discourse rather than claim immunity from critique because of its history or demographics.
At some point, we have to choose whether we want honest debate or ideological protectionism. Constantly reopening wounds under the guise of “truth-telling” keeps us stuck in resentment. Real healing starts when we stop dividing everything by race and start demanding accountability, fairness, and respect for all, no exceptions.Here is my view.
The right says we have come far, but how quickly do those “gains” become mere gossamer in the hand. Trump, his administration and his allies have been quick to reverse those “gains” through its policies and ideological foundation. How quickly all the “progress” dissolves when we remove the leash and let the dogs run….
My view is that there are some instances where violence is the only communication at hand to stop a travesty. War, has been with the human family since before the pharaohs, indicating that peace is not always absolute for every situation. For white folks, Brown’s actions were extreme, but for the slaves and their progeny, not so much. As far as the right is concerned their heroes are my villains and my heroes are their villains. History cannot be ignored nor be erased in the assessment of how and why things are. Dialogue is always possible when people listen and not continue to advocate the same course or retrench into the injustices of the past making them something the WE have to consider the possibility of its rearing its head again.
As for Mr. Charlie, there is no dancing around the issue. Why are its supporters attacking Professors with insults and death threats? That is my question? There is no denying that that is what been happening under Charlies “Professor’s Watch”. Should Patton have to endure threats from a right wing organization with an agenda contrary to everything either she or I believes? So, was Charlie qualified to determine that open discourse was not taking place, who says?
It is true, Sharlee, we have to make choices, but i would not assume that your side is not wrapping itself in ideological protections, intimidating the other side with illegal harassment. In my opinion, Trump policies are opening old wounds, that for the ultimate benefit of this country best be kept on a healing track. We have to stop pretending not to see what is clearly in front of our very faces.
“Real healing starts when we stop dividing everything by race and start demanding accountability, fairness, and respect for all, no exceptions.”
Perhaps, but that assurance is not coming from “your side”….The idea that Trump, his administration, and his allies have “quickly reversed gains” is far too sweeping. Policies implemented by any administration take years, sometimes decades, to fully manifest or shift societal outcomes. Economic growth, job creation, deregulation, border security, these are tangible outcomes of Trump’s policies that many Americans experienced as progress, not “gossamer” losses. Labeling all Republican achievements as destructive erases the nuanced ways in which policy affects people differently.
The argument that violence can be justified as “the only communication” in some historical contexts is a dangerous oversimplification. While war and conflict have indeed existed throughout human history, elevating it as a potential or acceptable tool today risks normalizing lawlessness and undermines the core principles of a society governed by rule of law. The comment tries to justify extreme actions based on past oppression, but that doesn’t erase accountability or legality in the present. If anything, it dangerously blurs the line between historical understanding and condoning current behavior.
The commentary about “your heroes are my villains and my heroes are their villains” is intellectually lazy. History is complex, but drawing a simple dichotomy along partisan or racial lines is exactly the kind of thinking that prevents constructive dialogue. Painting all of one side as villains and the other as heroes ignores the very real diversity of thought, policy positions, and moral reasoning within any political group.
Regarding Professor Patton and “Charlie,” the comment makes assumptions about right-wing harassment while simultaneously positioning one’s own perspective as morally superior. Yes, harassment and threats are unacceptable, but conflating the actions of a few individuals with an entire ideological or political group is misleading. Similarly, questioning whether someone is “qualified to determine that open discourse was not taking place” is valid, yet the comment dismisses that critique entirely. Accountability and standards for discourse must apply to everyone, not selectively.
The appeal to “real healing” is rhetorically appealing but hypocritical in execution. The comment claims that the right is the problem, while framing the left’s actions, by calling out threats or policies, as inherently just or moral. True accountability, fairness, and respect for all cannot be selectively applied; claiming moral high ground while demonizing the other side undermines the very healing the comment purports to advocate.
In short, the comment is rhetorically emotional, historically selective, and politically biased. It conflates past injustices with present political disagreements, justifies violence under certain conditions, and fails to apply the principles it claims to champion consistently. Real dialogue requires nuance, mutual respect, and acknowledgment that progress is neither easily reversed nor solely the product of one party’s policies.I appreciate your discourse on the ‘touchy” subject.
It is sweeping, Sharlee, this woke, DEI stuff, removing contributions from people of color from museums and parks, even Hegseth is a big part of it. So, without the spin, what am I to make of this? What is the purpose of it? Why should i warm up to an dept and administration that directly disrespects me and mine?
https://www.npr.org/2025/03/07/nx-s1-53 … urge-trump
For people of color, Trump has only taken whatever progress was made, backwards. But, i understand why whites are oblivious to this as they are not affected.
Rather than just a hackneyed slogan, “no justice, no peace” means exactly what it says. War is an undesirable tool in the tool box, but it is there to deal with the intractable and most oppressive circumstances. Should the Poles have just sat still while Hitler invaded their country back in 1939? Not having war as a remedy allows intolerable subjugation to exist, unchallenged. I justify the violence associated slave revolts during the first half of the 19th century as necessary. Why would i let anyone enslave me in peace? The remedy is used as tool to deal with current oppression not past ones, not to be used if peaceful resolutions are possible. I told you that I was not going the “john brown” route for any issue that affect us today. Just make sure that this society does not backtrack to where it once was when i would have advocated violence as a solution. I am clear as to the delineation between the advocacy for violence and when it is justified, and when it is not.
Intellectually Lazy? Not really, not when you look at it closely. It is not a simple dichotomy but is encompassing at close examination. We are starkly divided between racial and partisan lines, saying that it is not so does not wish it away. For BLACK people one side has created more problems than the other. My point is that those that those “heroes” that white folks, particularly conservatives put on a pedestal are not seen in the same light by most of US. Charlie Kirk is the most recent example of the dichotomy. And there are many others that are too numerous to name.
I never said anything about moral superiority. I simply say that professors of color or those having liberal inclinations need not be harassed, intimidate or threatened by Charlie’s angels. And that is what they have been doing, minimizing it does not make it go away. Your “few individuals’ were featured in the recent revelation on the Republican chat line, where Republicans not suspecting that they would be recorded try to one up one another with the levels of racial, ethnic, misogyny, homophobic slurs when they believed that they would not be heard. Don’t try to minimize this, it has been documented. The Republican Party has made endless excuses to explain it. But, this tells me if this is the future attitudes of those that are expected to take the reins of the GOP, it becomes easy to see why I take the position that I do. My only primary issue with “Turning Point” is to stop harassing college professors.
For Black people right now, the RIGHT is the problem. I am in a unique position to tell you that. We have no problems seeing that even while whites remain myopic to it.
Yes, i am politically biased, I don’t trust Republicans, conservatives or right wing advocates, but I make it clear by their behavior and policies toward those that are not male WASP, that they have earned it. It can’t be about mumbo-jumbo, but upon the facts on the ground which is contrary and discredits the platitudes and warm kumbaya talk.I see your concerns about DEI, “woke” culture, and the alleged marginalization of contributions by people of color in institutions—but I think the framing needs a closer look. First, the claim that Trump “only takes progress backward” for people of color doesn’t account for his policies that have directly benefited Black and minority communities, such as historically low unemployment rates pre-2020, criminal justice reform through the First Step Act, Opportunity Zones, and support for HBCUs. These are concrete examples of advancement, not retrogression.
Conflating policies or public rhetoric with “harassment” of professors or minorities as a reflection of an entire political movement oversimplifies a complex landscape. Targeted incidents, while concerning, do not represent wholesale intent or systematic oppression. Calling out a few bad actors in a party or organization doesn’t automatically delegitimize the entire political spectrum, nor does it justify assuming the worst about policies that affect millions of Americans.
The analogy to war, slave revolts, and violent resistance is rhetorically powerful but not analogous to modern U.S. political debates. Comparing policy disagreements or cultural conflicts to existential oppression risks conflating civil discourse with life-or-death struggle. It’s one thing to highlight systemic inequality; it’s another to frame contemporary partisan disagreements as justification for implicit or explicit threats of violence. That’s a dangerous precedent.
Your assertion that the right is “the problem” for Black Americans overlooks the fact that both parties have long histories of policies and practices that have helped and harmed minority communities. While it’s fair to critique policy impacts, painting an entire group with a broad brush because of partisan alignment risks dismissing nuanced successes or constructive engagement opportunities. Political engagement, advocacy, and debate should be grounded in evidence-based outcomes rather than solely on perceived intentions.
In short, yes, policy and rhetoric should be scrutinized, but the picture is not monochromatic. Real progress comes from understanding the nuance, recognizing achievements where they exist, and pushing for accountability without assuming malevolence across an entire political ideology.
I have to ask—do you truly feel that Black Americans have been set back and that progress has been reversed because of Trump? I also have to ask this: over the many decades in which Black voters have consistently supported Democratic administrations and Congresses with full control, what tangible progress has been achieved for your community in the last 50 years?
Now, keep in mind, my own feelings are that Black Americans have come a very long way—but I give Black Americans all the credit. They are to be at the head of the line for their work, for their resilience, for their achievements, and for the progress they have made despite the obstacles placed in their path. No one else should take that recognition away; it belongs to them fully, as it should.Well, every President since Nixon has had some sort of minority outreach program. It is routine as boilerplate in a contract, something they have all since done which is like checking a standard box in application: are you a human being. His history is far revealing regarding his real objectives in this area which wasn’t much.
You never did have an explanation for the Hegseth policy which is hard not to define as wholesale intent. There is a patent example, how do you explain that?
I never said that partisan agreement should ve the basis of implicit or explicit threats of violence. How about getting Charlies organization to call off his dogs in regards to progressive leaning professors?
The party that is causing US problems now is Republican. That was not true 100 years ago, but it is now, and now is what we are dealing with. I won’t go into the specifics because you will always have a convenient excuse to counter.
Yes, I say that Black Americans have an enemy in the Trump administration and the Republican Party in general. This is a racist culture under the skin, the fact that we have made gains and not lost a great deal has been facilitated by Democrats, their policies and approaches to the issues. While this one administration is worse than the over 100 years worth of administrations before it.
“Now, keep in mind, my own feelings are that Black Americans have come a very long way—but I give Black Americans all the credit. They are to be at the head of the line for their work, for their resilience, for their achievements, and for the progress they have made despite the obstacles placed in their path. No one else should take that recognition away; it belongs to them fully, as it should.”
That all sounds good, Sharlee, but that does not minimize what I consider a current threat to that progress, Trump, Republicans and rank and file conservatives adhering to the Trump bent in politics.
We just may have to agree to disagree on a topic that I am more than qualified to discuss.Cred,
My friend who is black and very successful, as he will tell you, without DEI. He believes this is just a way to not take responsibility for your failures. Don't be responsible but blame something like the past or the system for failure. He believes this is what keeps black people from succeeding.
This is a man who grew up in the projects with a single mother and has done extremely well.Well, mike, that is fine, but is he just no DEI because he is your friend and acquaintance? How sure are you that others are DEI if you do not know them at all. Ref: Charlie Kirks comment about a Black Airline pilot? The past may not be so much the “past” in this current environment.
"The party that is causing US problems now is Republican."
?!?! You have GOT to be kidding!!!
Democrats have shut down our government, causing millions to go without a paycheck. Just another case of simple blackmail to them.
Liberals have cranked up racist discrimination again, bringing that evil back into our country once more with their insistence on using race as a basis (through DEI) for everything they can think of.
Democrats are intentionally aiding and abetting criminals, helping them avoid the law of the country.
Democrats are creating vast amounts of confusion and discord with their constant legal filings against a legally elected President that are very nearly always found to be false - they have a tremendous track record of losing in court any more. They are spreading lies on a daily basis, such as Trump wants to be King.
Democrats are doing everything in their power to tear down what 200 years of effort and work has created. And you think REPUBLICANS are causing a problem??Democrats have shut down our government, causing millions to go without a paycheck. Just another case of simple blackmail to them.
Why has the logic changed? Why are Republicans reversing course? This is just pure BS and hypocrisy... My message to republicans, live by your own damn mantra and reopen the government... Do your freaking job.
And please, we all understand that Trump has a constant flow of legal action against him because he is constantly trying to skirt the law... We aren't that stupidNo, wilderness, i am serious as a heart attack.
No. your politicians, your future Republicans and late Mr. Charlie’s organization are opening old wounds, and this nation will endure a penalty for it. The evil has never really left and YOUR people are exacerbating it.
And we are not done with Trump, yet. And, yes Republicans are the causing the problem in my opinion.
Gross Overreach? I suspect a lot of Blacks would disagree with you.
Did you know that there was a Civil Rights Act of 1875 that gave Blacks the opportunity to live free and unencumbered in America with the protections of the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments? It took another 90 years for Blacks to regain the civil rights conservatives suppressed.
Did you know that between 1874 and 1945, the conservatives of America rolled back virtually [u]every one of those freedoms[/i]?
Did you know that it took the Civil Rights marches of the 50s and 60s and the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Voting Rights Act of 1965 to re-establish the freedoms and liberties the conservatives took away from them?
Were you aware that since 1974, conservatives are once again on the march to roll back Black civil rights?
* Milliken v. Bradley (1974): sharply limited inter-district desegregation remedies, curbing post-Brown school integration momentum.
* Washington v. Davis (1976): made discriminatory intent (not just disparate impact) the bar for Equal Protection claims, raising plaintiffs’ burden.
* City of Mobile v. Bolden (1980): extended that intent requirement to voting claims, prompting Congress’s 1982 VRA §2 “effects” fix.
* Adarand (1995): imposed strict scrutiny on federal affirmative-action programs.
* Reno v. Bossier Parish II (2000) and Georgia v. Ashcroft (2003): narrowed how VRA §5 preclearance polices retrogression, easing some map changes.
* States have repeatedly tested Section 2 limits; courts forced fixes in, e.g., Alabama (Allen v. Milligan) while other fights continue, showing narrowed guardrails since Shelby/Brnovich.
* Shelby County v. Holder (2013): invalidated §4(b) (coverage formula), effectively disabling §5 preclearance.
* 2015 AFFH (to combat segregation) was repealed in 2020 and, in 2025, HUD again shifted to self-certification/looser oversight, weakening federal leverage against discriminatory local patterns.
* 2018 DOJ memo (Sessions) raised hurdles for consent decrees with police departments, slowing a key federal reform lever (later rescinded, but the chill mattered).
* Florida SB 7066 (2019): made voting after Amendment 4 contingent on paying fines/fees—widely criticized as a modern poll tax
* Brnovich v. DNC (2021): added “guideposts” that make §2 vote-denial cases harder to win.
* Georgia SB 202 (2021): tighter mail/ID rules, drop-box limits, “line relief” restrictions (parts of which face injunctions); new 2025 evidence details racially unequal burdens.
* Texas SB 1 (2021): steep mail-ballot rejections in 2022; new research shows lasting suppression effects, disproportionately hitting nonwhite voters.
* Since 2021, GOP-led states advanced laws restricting how race/history can be taught; book removals surged, with Florida/Texas prominent in PEN/AAP reporting.
* Texas SB 17 (2023) banned DEI offices at public universities; by 2024–25, hundreds of positions/programs were cut and scholarships disrupted, shrinking supports that had broadened access and climate for students/faculty of color.
* 2025 - The Conservative Roberts' Court is set to totally invalidate the Voting Rights Act of 1965 just as the conservative Waite and Fuller Courts from 1874 - 1910 negated virtually every gain Blacks made after the Civil War.
Is there any doubt left as to why Credence feels that way he does? That is not happening to you or me because we are White - BUT it is happening to Credence and his fellow Blacks. I can easily see it happening, I wish you could to.
I'm for free speech, even when I don't agree with it.. how about you
I find it so odd that there's only outrage for views other than those sanctioned by the right... Ignoring all of the bullshit that flows from Trump and companies ugly mouths daily...
A TEACHER named Ron Gochez (in Los Angeles) made remarks that can be interpreted as referencing armed self-defense: he stated:
“They [ICE] are not the only ones with guns … The people have every right to defend themselves against masked, unidentified gunmen.” Ron Gochez
He taught at the Dr. Maya Angelou Community High School and also served as a spokesperson for the activist group Unión del Barrio.
https://www.foxnews.com/us/los-angeles- … hatgpt.com
While he says he is not “calling for violence,” the phrasing (“have every right to defend themselves”) has been interpreted by some as implying possible armed resistance.But this woman actually brandished her weapon... Mary didn't imply anything.... She went straight to threat and pointed a gun at protesters.
Mary Moriarty, a 59-year-old woman from Surfside Beach, South Carolina, was arrested and charged on October 18, 2025, for allegedly brandishing a handgun at a "No Kings" protest in Myrtle Beach. ...
SHE PLEAD GUILTY...The subject A teacher fomenting violence---
A TEACHER named Ron Gochez (in Los Angeles) made remarks that can be interpreted as referencing armed self-defense: he stated:
“They [ICE] are not the only ones with guns … The people have every right to defend themselves against masked, unidentified gunmen.” Ron Gochez
He taught at the Dr. Maya Angelou Community High School and also served as a spokesperson for the activist group Unión del Barrio.
https://www.foxnews.com/us/los-angeles- … hatgpt.com
While he says he is not “calling for violence,” the phrasing (“have every right to defend themselves”) has been interpreted by some as implying possible armed resistance.So I'm supposed to clutch my pearls over someone "on the left" possibly, potentially maybe implying something but when a right winger brandishes a gun through her car window at peaceful protesters I'm supposed to just overlook that???
LOL got itI’m not interested in veering off the topic of my post; the focus here is on teachers mentioning violence. If you’d like to discuss your other point, feel free to start a separate thread. Free speech is yours as much as it is mine, and so is free will.
Oh my, Fake Fox news again.
Well, aside from that, how is reminding people they actually have some rights in this country and he simply used NRA's main selling point for arming all Americans. Fake ICE agents are a thing and since real ICE agents rarely obey the law in identifying themselves, it seems like a reasonable thing to say (or is the NRA the only ones allowed to say such a thing?)
Are you really saying people should not be allowed to defend themselves when being chased by armed masked men refusing to show any iD?Shar,
It never stops with those on the left.
Man wearing inflatable Trump costume allegedly attacked on camera at blue state ‘No Kings’ protest: police
Cellphone video captured the incident in a North Shore town near Boston
A Massachusetts man has been charged after allegedly assaulting a supporter of President Donald Trump who was wearing an inflatable costume of the president at a political protest over the weekend, police said.
The incident occurred Saturday during a "No Kings" rally on King’s Beach in the North Shore town of Swampscott, just outside Boston.
Cellphone video captured the moment Michael Curll, 36, ran up behind the man in costume, identified as Jonathan Silveira, and allegedly kicked and tackled him from behind.
Silveira's girlfriend, Angela Mazariegos, was behind the camera during the alleged assault.
Silveira, who held an American flag while dressed in the inflatable suit, told Boston 25 News he simply "wanted to get Trump out there and show he has support" and was not seeking a fight.
"I love Donald Trump. Go Trump," he added.
Swampscott police said Curll "hooked Silveira’s legs" and wrapped his arms around his neck, knocking him to the pavement, according to a police report obtained by Boston 25.
https://www.foxnews.com/us/man-wearing- … est-policeHow about you tell us what some of your folks did?
Mike, that’s a perfect example of how tolerance from the left too often vanishes the moment someone expresses support for Trump. It’s shocking how something as harmless and good-natured as wearing a costume can provoke physical violence. What’s really telling, though, is how few on the left will actually condemn these attacks; they’re quick to decry “hate” when it suits their narrative, yet they fall silent when the victim is a conservative.
Something else worth noting is how this kind of behavior only strengthens the resolve of everyday Americans who are tired of being intimidated for their political beliefs. Each time these incidents happen, it becomes clearer who’s truly promoting division and who’s simply trying to express free speech. In a healthy democracy, everyone, regardless of party, should be able to stand in public and voice support for their candidate without fear of assault. That’s supposed to be one of the most basic rights we all share.
As for me, I have no tolerance or time for any leftist. I believe even entertaining their foolish narratives drags me down into the mud with them.
I find it amazing that some people here can so glibly criticize what they allege is hate speech by someone like Stacy Patton yet stay mysteriously silent about the fire hose of hate speech from the likes of Charlie Kirk.
That seems like the poster child of hypocrisy to me and tells me the writers are just trying to score rhetorical points rather engaging in a serious discussion.
Texas Democrat Jolanda Jones rejected former first lady Michelle Obama's famous mantra, "when they go low, we go high," during a CNN interview Wednesday, vowing to fight hard against foes by going "across your neck." (OH MY GOD!)
"If you hit me in my face, I'm not going to punch you back in your face. I'm going to go across your neck," Jones said on "OutFront," making a slashing motion across her neck.
"We can go back-and-forth, fighting each other's faces. You've got to hit hard enough where they won't come back," she continued.
Jones, a state representative running to fill a U.S. House seat in Houston left vacant after the death this year of Rep. Sylvester Turner, had caught host Erin Burnett's attention when she told Axios this week that when Republicans go low, "I'm going to the gutter."
Jones' broader point was that Democrats had to stop fighting nicely, particularly on the subject of redistricting.
"For the same way, I went to New York and spoke with Gov. Kathy Hochul, and said, 'If they're going to try to wipe us out in Texas, we need to wipe out every Republican in New York, in California, in Illinois,'" she said.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/articles/tex … 51791.html
Such a violent statement! I mean this form of language. First is really dangerous, and second, disgusting.Sounds very much like she is quoting Trump, doesn't it. For example:
Trump suggested the following:
* "“If you see somebody getting ready to throw a tomato, knock the crap out of them… I’ll pay for the legal fees.”"
* “I’d like to punch him in the face.”
* "“When the looting starts, the shooting starts.”"
* "“Disarm [Clinton’s] bodyguards… let’s see what happens to her.”
There are oh so many more from your hero. Why do you criticize someone who speaks like Trump?Sure is easy to post stuff without any proof or links to back up a claim.
But...it is also easy to ignore it.If you think WELL KNOWN quotes from Trump are false, prove it, just don't whine about it.
Imagine, how many more. This was 9 years ago!
VIDEO
They say there's no proof...
Those are words.
Do you have any actual violent acts?Words have power and you know that. Look at the Title of your forum. The Frightening Violence of the left. It's not just violence of the left. It's frightening. Which is meant to strike fear into anybody who reads it Your use of the left implies that everybody on the left is violent. Trump uses words to motivate his MAGA people to do what he wants them to do and think.
According to the Pew Research Center latest findings, the politically motivated violence is about the same on both sides. I suggest the next time you post something like this, do the research instead of posting BS. Here are those findings
https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads … asons-why/This research doesn't mention incidents of violence. It only mentions opinions about violence.
Two very different things.
There are MANY articles posted on this forum about specific violent acts from people on the left.
You should look at them.How about people on the right? You should look at them.
Again, that is not everybody on the left as you want us to believe. How many people on the left are non violent?
Am I wrong? I have been following this thread, and yes, it focuses on media reports of left-wing violence. That is the subject under discussion. I don’t believe anyone here is claiming that everyone on the left is violent. However, in my view, looking at events over the past decade, I have observed a significant amount of violence perpetrated by individuals or groups on the left to promote their agendas, and it has grown over the past year. If one were to make a list of incidents over the last ten years, it appears that left-leaning actors have been responsible for an unusually high number of such events. By contrast, I believe one would need to go back many years to find incidents of right-wing extremist violence. I would say January 6th could be cited as an example, but other than that, the list would be very short.
A study from Center for Strategic & International Studies (CSIS) finds that, for the first time in decades, the number of domestic terrorist attacks or plots attributed to left‑wing actors is on track to exceed those attributed to right‑wing actors in 2025.
https://www.csis.org/analysis/left-wing … hatgpt.comCSIS would disagree with " one would need to go back many years to find incidents of right-wing extremist violence". They prove Empirically that Long-run (1994–2024): Multiple datasets show the majority of U.S. extremist plots/attacks and fatalities have come from the violent far right (e.g., white supremacist / anti-government segments).
New America
+2
CSIS
+2The subject I spoke of "That is the subject under discussion. I don’t believe anyone here is claiming that everyone on the left is violent. However, in my view, looking at events over the past decade, I have observed a significant amount of violence perpetrated by individuals or groups on the left to promote their agendas, and it has grown over the past year. If one were to make a list of incidents over the last ten years, it appears that left-leaning actors have been responsible for an unusually high number of such events."
I added one source; here was my other source. I don't depend on AI to source. However, AI does list more violence on the part of those who lean left over the past 10 years.
Further, while left-wing incidents rose in 2025 (particularly in early months) to a historic high compared to their own past.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2 … hatgpt.com
AI - to name just a few
Occupy Movement clashes and vandalism (2011–2012) — multiple encampment confrontations, property damage and arrests (Oakland, NY, other cities).
Washingtonian
DisruptJ20 / Inauguration Day rioting (Washington, D.C., Jan 20, 2017) — large anti-Trump demonstrations, clashes with police, arrests and property damage.
Al Jazeera
Congressional baseball practice shooting (Alexandria, VA, June 14, 2017) — shooter James T. Hodgkinson opened fire at GOP practice; multiple wounded (including Rep. Steve Scalise); shooter killed; motive tied to anti-Trump/anti-GOP grievances in reporting and investigations.
Wikipedia
Assault on Sen. Rand Paul (2017) — neighbor Rene Boucher attacked Rand Paul, breaking ribs; criminal case and civil verdict followed (attack appears personal rather than ideologically motivated).
Kentucky
Tacoma ICE detention-center attack (July 13, 2019) — Willem van Spronsen firebombed an ICE facility, was shot dead by police; attacker self-identified with anarchist/antifa causes.
Wikipedia
George Floyd protest wave — nights of arson, clashes, property damage (May–Nov 2020; multiple cities) — widespread protests included episodes of arson, looting, assaults, and repeated clashes with police (Portland, Minneapolis, Kenosha, Seattle among the most intense).
Wikipedia
CHOP / CHAZ autonomous zone (Seattle, June 2020) — occupied protest zone with armed presence; shootings and at least one death occurred within/around the zone during the occupation (investigations and contested attributions).
KUOW
Attacks on pregnancy-resource / pro-life centers and churches (May–Nov 2022 and thereafter) — dozens of arsons, firebombings, vandalism incidents claimed or linked to militants using names such as “Jane’s Revenge”; DOJ and congressional reports documented widespread attacks on pro-life facilities (mostly property damage, terrorizing staff/clients).
Wikipedia
+
Disruptive/violent anti-Trump counter-protests and skirmishes (2016–2018) — multiple assaults, property damage and arrests during anti-Trump/alt-right clashes in several cities.
KUER
Assassination attempt on a Supreme Court justice (June 8, 2022) — Nicholas (now Sophie) Roske arrested near Justice Kavanaugh’s home with weapons and tools; charged with attempted murder (motive tied in reporting to anger over Dobbs leak and other issues).
Wikipedia
Attempted assassination at Trump rally (Butler, PA, July 13, 2024) — rooftop shooter fired at a Trump campaign rally; former President Trump wounded in ear, one attendee killed, others injured; shooter killed; FBI treated as assassination attempt while investigations continued.
Wikipedia
Foiled sniper-style/other plots targeting Trump-related sites (various 2024–2025 prosecutions) — federal investigations and convictions reported for plots/plans to attack Trump properties or events (cases filed and prosecuted).
cbsnews.com
Ambush at Prairieland / Alvarado ICE facility (Alvarado, TX, July 4, 2025) — coordinated attack on ICE agents; multiple suspects charged with attempted murder and ambush; officer shot and wounded; authorities linked suspects to anti-ICE/anti-fascist networks in reporting and prosecutions.
The Guardian
Repeated anarchist/antifa-linked arson, Molotov and sabotage attempts (2015–2025, multiple locales) — decentralized incidents targeting government or contract facilities (notably ICE), property damage and occasional confrontations with police.
Department of Justice
Attacks / assaults on journalists covering protests (2020 onward) — numerous reported assaults, pepper-sprayings, arrests and interference with reporters during 2020 protests and later campus/protest coverage (Press Freedom Tracker, CPJ, Reuters documentation).
Reporters Committee
Campus pro-Palestinian encampments, antisemitic incidents, harassment (Oct 7, 2023 onward; spike 2023–2025) — encampments, doxxing, threats, graffiti and harassment of Jewish and pro-Israel students; ADL, Hillel and Dept. of Education/TITLE VI investigations and tracking show large increases in antisemitic incidents on campuses.
Congress.gov
Vandalism / destruction of Turning Point USA tables and harassment of conservative student groups (multiple campuses, 2023–2025 and ongoing) — repeated tabling disruptions, overturned tables, theft of materials and arrests in several documented incidents (viral videos, local police reports).
Fox News
Reported cases of journalists and Jewish students being chased, beaten, or assaulted at protests/encampments (2023–2025) — documented assaults and threats during campus occupations and demonstrations; multiple police reports, Title VI complaints and media investigations.
“Summer of Love” / protest-period deaths referenced in coverage (2020 and related periods) — multiple fatalities occurred during 2020 protest waves and in protest occupations (deaths reported in and around CHOP/other protest zones), though individual attributions vary by case and some remain legally complex.
KUOW
Charlie Kirk was fatally shot at an event at Turning Point USA‑hosted speaking engagement at Utah Valley University in Orem, Utah, on September 10 2025.Again, your source CSIS would disagree. They say, that save for 2025, so far, "Empirically that Long-run (1994–2024): Multiple datasets show the majority of U.S. extremist plots/attacks and fatalities have come from the violent far right (e.g., white supremacist / anti-government segments).
New America
+2
CSIS
+2"
When you say "I have observed a significant amount of violence perpetrated by individuals or groups on the left to promote their agendas," - then I counter with "I have observed a significant amount of violence perpetrated by individuals or groups on the RIGHT to promote their agendas," (Actually, I have only observed it, CSIS has counted it.)
Yes, Kirk was shot by someone of undetermined political leanings. All we know is he was gay and feared for his only life and that of his trans roommate because of Kirk's hate speech against gays and his stated belief that Trans should be "eliminated".
(To be fair, it wasn't Kirk who first said that, but when he brought the asshole who did say it on his show in order to amplify rather than condemn it, he might has well have said it himself.)
Thank you. I read the entire article and it was very revealing. It's true that left violence has increased in the last few years, but the article indicates that has been since Trump has been in office. That is the main reason for the violence increasing from the left. Also, this chart shows, in past years, right wing violence has been much more than left wing violence and at a much higher incident rate than the left.
"Thank you. I read the entire article and it was very revealing. It's true that left violence has increased in the last few years, " PP
Yes, that was the point, the subject of my post, which is the subject of the thread. Please note, I listed the actual event. I offered the list. I did not bring up a comparison; I kept to the subject of the thread. It would be interesting to see some of the proven cases that right-wing extremists have committed. I have researched right-wing violence. However, I never could get substantial evidence on many of the cases to feel comfortable proving them. Someone should create a thread on the subject.So, you don't even believe your own source, CSIS, anymore?
This is from your CSIS article.
Aggressive law enforcement efforts under former President Biden hurt the right-wing extremist movement, with the January 6 investigation in particular causing disarray.17 The U.S. government brought charges against over 1,000 individuals, including many leaders of groups like the Oath Keepers and Proud Boys. In addition, like left-wing terrorism, right-wing terrorism is highly decentralized, and the vast majority of the most lethal attacks in the last 10 years have been perpetrated by lone actors linked to various networks but not tied to any group.
Trump’s election, however, appears to have changed the threat. Although it is impossible to definitively prove the link between the policies of and positions championed in Trump’s second term and the decline in right-wing terrorism incidents in the United States, it is probable that at least some extremists do not feel the need to act violently if their concerns are being addressed.
Most notably, the administration has aggressively targeted immigrants, with high-profile efforts to identify, detain, and deport them. Anti-immigrant sentiment is one of the most important violent extremist motivations in recent years. The Trump administration has also warned of “deep state” abuses, criticized and abolished programs involving diversity, promoted some conspiracy theories, and hired individuals who openly embraced white supremacy.18 In addition, Trump’s victory temporarily ended many concerns about a Democrat-orchestrated “stolen election,” a leading conspiracy that motivated many extremists in the past.19 Enrique Tarrio, the former Proud Boys leader and a convicted seditionist whom Trump pardoned, recently summed up the president’s potential psychological effect on the violent far right: “Honestly, what do we have to complain about these days?”20Again, I prefer to respect this thread and HP’s rules. The thread's subject was based on violence. During the last few months, the violence from the left, been put on full display.
This discussion is focused on left-wing violence. The topic you’re bringing up deserves its own thread, perhaps to explore and compare both left-wing and right-wing violence. It seems the conversation has veered off in a different direction.1. The title of this thread does not state "in the last few months."
2. So according to you, we are only supposed to post only those things that support why the left is becoming more violent. If I posted a thread about why Trump is in cognitive decline then according to your rules, you are not allowed to argue why he is not in cognitive decline.
3. If you didn't want others to take excerpts from your article that show that the right was more violent than the left up until Jan.6., then you should have read the entire article to see if there was anything that did not support your side of the argument.
4. Here is what you wrote two days ago:
Yes, that was the point, the subject of my post, which is the subject of the thread. Please note, I listed the actual event. I offered the list. I did not bring up a comparison; I kept to the subject of the thread. It would be interesting to see some of the proven cases that right-wing extremists have committed. I have researched right-wing violence. However, I never could get substantial evidence on many of the cases to feel comfortable proving them. Someone should create a thread on the subject.
My post was in answer to your reply. According to your article, the reason there was a decline in right wing violence is because Biden sent hundreds of the Jan. 6 rioters to jail, including the Proud Boys, and Oath Keepers. Trump pardoned them and they became happy campers who didn't see the need for violence anymore.
5. I can see why you like Trump, because you are an authoritarian just like him.
.6. Happy Trails to You.
Can you believe that 62% of Republicans STILL believe the 2020 election was stolen, I suspect that includes several in these forums.
The author of Politics, Lies, and Conspiracy Theories: A Cognitive Linguistic Perspective spends a lot of ink talking about the powerful and divisive impact the Big Lie has on the unconscious part of the brains of people already predisposed to that kink of thinking.
He notes that Hitler was well aware of the effect based on what he wrote about it Mein Kompf.
Personally, PeoplePower, it seems to me CSIS has closed the book on this forum - there is no significant "frightening violence on the left", it is all on the RIGHT.
If anything, it shows frightening violence of the Right subsided to unusually low levels in 2025 (maybe because the Trump administration is hiding the numbers) rather than the Left increasing above its 10 year very low average.
Not much else to talk about, is there?
This discussion is not about Trump or right-wing violence; the thread has a specific subject matter. It would be possible to create a separate thread dedicated to right-wing violence. Consistently diverting from the original topic is actually listed as a violation of HP rules. I have also observed that relatively few liberals start threads here, and when they do participate, discussions sometimes shift toward narratives that suit their perspective rather than the original topic.
Then there shouldn't be much to discuss then since empirical evidence shows the Left causes very little of the political violence in America.
Right! They just riot for months at a time, every day. But that's "very little" violence, right?
You do know don't you that only 7% of the protests against White cops murdering Black people were violent. Even less were full-blown riots on the scale of Trump's Jan 6th insurrection.
Your concept of what is "violent" and mind vary a great deal.
If there is harm done to property or persons then it is "violence", and this includes creating negative emotions such as fear. It includes destruction of any kind. It includes delaying peaceful, non-participants from going about their business.
With that in mind, think abut the months long riot in Portland, with violence every night.And 25 deaths attributed to the fun summer of love...
Well, Sharlee, it is the same problem that I always have with conservatives with their making comparisons without considering the extent and magnitude of one side verses the other.
———-
There is no specific number for participants in "Summer of Love riots" in 2020, as that term is not widely used; however, it likely refers to the 2020 Black Lives Matter protests. These demonstrations had an estimated 2.7 million participants, based on data from the Crowd Counting Consortium. The vast majority of these events were peaceful, with a large percentage involving no property damage or violence.
Total participants: An estimated 2.7 million people participated in the protests across the United States, though the true number is likely higher.
Locations: The protests took place in at least 3,113 cities and towns across the US.
Peaceful nature: The overwhelming majority of demonstrations were peaceful. The Pew Research Center found that 89% were non-destructive and 96% remained non-violent through September 2020.
Violence: The Armed Conflict Location and Event Data (ACLED) recorded that fewer than 570 out of over 10,600 demonstrations involved violence.
——————
So your 25 fatalities occurred between May and August of 2020, involving 2.7 million or more people. How many fatalities occurred as a result of January 6th 2021, when considerably less people were involved and it all happened during a matter of hours rather than over months? There were 2,000 participants on the 1/6 rioting with 5 deaths, so you do the math. How does that compare in that circumstance?Cred,
Only 1 person died on January 6, 2021. That was a protester, Air Force veteran Ashli Babbitt.
The 25 who were killed during the George Floyd riots were killed during the riots taking place.
The 5 you mentioned had health issues not as a direct result of what happened on January 6, 2021.
Time to be honest.Yes it is and you should be. Here is what HONEST looks like:
The ACLED/Princeton US Crisis Monitor found “at least 25 Americans” were killed during protests or related political unrest in 2020. Of those, 11 deaths happened at demonstrations (9 at BLM-linked protests, 2 at pro-Trump rallies) and 14 occurred in other incidents linked to the unrest. Not all were protesters; some were bystanders, counter-protesters, or security. The Guardian
ACLED’s own summer/2020 reports are the underlying dataset often summarized by media. They also documented that over 93% of BLM-related demonstrations were non-violent, which is why the raw “25 deaths” line can be misleading without the denominator/context. ACLED+1
So you can say “about 25 deaths were linked to the 2020 protest wave,” but avoid implying they were all caused by protesters or that they characterize the whole movement. It’s a combined count of varied circumstances, drawn from one well-known dataset. The Guardian
By contrast, In just a few hours of real rioting on Jan 6, 9 people died that were linked to that insurrection. (the same number as were linked to BLM over the whole Summer)
* 1 was an insurrectionist trying to break into the House chambers in order to harm legislators
* 1 rioter died from an amphetamine overdose
* 2 rioters died from hear attacks while rioting
* 5 officers died from the stress related to violent right-wing attack on their persons - Brian Sicknick (USCP), Howard Liebengood (USCP), Jeffrey Smith (MPD), Gunther Hashida (MPD), and Kyle DeFreytag (MPD)
It should be noted conservatives are on a quest to bury the insurrection and those valiant officers who protected the Capital from the MAGA rioters." 5 officers died from the stress related to violent right-wing attack on their persons - Brian Sicknick (USCP), Howard Liebengood (USCP), Jeffrey Smith (MPD), Gunther Hashida (MPD), and Kyle DeFreytag (MPD)"
Again, it wasn't because of January 6, they had serious underlying health issues. How many of these committed suicide?
Time to be honest.The blindly devoted to the ideology only see the facts they want to see.
The murders ...the rapes... The assassinations... Are all justified or due to them having been oppressed victims.
https://youtu.be/V22yIwLbBsg?si=pZXewFqwGGU5cuSMWhat murders, rapes, assassinations. Nobody knows what you are talking about.
Just as I thought, you were watching a right-wing propaganda piece that has nothing to do with reality in America.
You can continue to believe that and I am sure you will. But the families of each of those officers will not agree with you for they know the truth.
Time to be honest? Are you implying that he's lying???
You have read too much into my one-liner. I do not attribute the G. Floyd BLM protests to the Summer of Love protests. I see them as separate issues. Don't you? I do not argue with what you shared. I have attributed the 2020 Summer of Love protest to left extremists. There was no evidence that BLM stood behind those riots at all...
From what I’ve seen and read, Black Lives Matter never supported the violent riots in the summer of 2020. They consistently promoted peaceful protests against racial injustice, and they were not involved in how some demonstrations turned into property damage or chaos, and death. The riots were carried out by left-wing extremists, in my view.
At the January 6, 2021, riot at the U.S. Capitol, five people died in connection with the events:
Ashli Babbitt – shot by a Capitol Police officer while trying to climb through a broken door near the House chamber.
Kevin Greeson – died of a heart attack.
Rosanne Boyland – died of an accidental overdose or asphyxiation in a crowd surge.
Benjamin Philips – died of a heart attack.
Capitol Police Officer Brian Sicknick – died the next day from strokes; authorities later stated his death was due to natural causes, though it occurred after injuries sustained during the riot.
All 25 that died over the summer of love were caused by violence.But then the nature of the fatalities need to be evaluated as to how many of the people died among the 25
For instance:
The main cause of death for those who died during the 2020 riots and unrest was gunfire from a variety of sources, including altercations between citizens, self-defense by property owners, and law enforcement actions. The circumstances of these deaths varied widely across different cities and incidents.
Key points regarding the causes of death include:
Citizen-on-citizen violence: Many deaths resulted from conflicts between protesters and counter-protesters, or other individuals.
Property defense: In several cases, individuals, including business and pawn shop owners, used firearms against suspected looters or people vandalizing property, leading to fatalities.
Law enforcement actions: Some deaths were caused by law enforcement or National Guard actions, including shootings during confrontations or while attempting to clear areas.
Vehicular incidents: Protesters were killed after being struck by vehicles, in some cases intentionally driven into crowds.
Other violence: Deaths also occurred due to other violent incidents linked to the unrest, such as arson (one death was from burn injuries after being trapped in a burning pawn shop) and armed robberies.
The deaths were a mix of both protesters and non-protesters, including law enforcement officers and bystanders, and the majority were killed by other citizens rather than by police. The total number of deaths reported varied, with sources tallying over 25 fatalities across the country linked to the unrest.In my view, the Jan 6th riot produced one death by violence, the young woman who was shop. An officer felt threatened while doing his job, and was within his rights to shoot. This is ultimately factual.
Yes, the 25 deaths were for multiple reasons, but all were attributed to violence. As was the woman killed at the Jan 6 riot. She was caught up in violence and shot. No matter whose side she was on...Violence is violence. All were linked to unrest. All your examples ended in violence... did they not?But, as you say, the topic is Frightening Violence of the Left, implying there is a lot of violence committed by leftist groups or sympathizers.
The problem is, as PeoplePower showed with your source, that "frightening violence of the Left" is not particularly significant in the larger scheme of things. What is it, 5 in 2025, 8 or 9 in 2021, 2023 and maybe 1 in between?
By comparison, the Right was often 4 times those numbers.
As to not talking about the Right, what else is there to compare the Left to? One has to answer the question "Frightening Violence of the Left" - compared to what? What measure is being used to determine what is being said is reasonable or not.
To put it in terms of that book on linguistics I have been referring to -
The title of this forum is one of those metaphors used to invoke moral panic and a siege mentality. In cognitive-linguistic terms, it frames scattered episodes as a coherent campaign, repeats key phrases until they feel familiar (and therefore true), and relabels routine dissent as violence. That frame doesn’t test reality; it replaces it—substituting anecdotes for base rates and identity signals for evidence. Once you see the technique, the slogan reads less like a description and more like a persuasion script.
If you are equating the "Summer of Love" to the Seattle protest/occupation, then only two people died there and another was shot by what he took to be a racist.
But here is the context:
In the 3.5 weeks there were a total of 48 injuries severe enough to be treated at an emergency center, one of which was the shooting victim, and two homicides.
* One homicide was a personal fight between two people and not protest related.
* The other homicide is unsolved and it is unknown if it is related to the Summer of Love.
* Of the 47 remaining injuries:
** 11 were by police
** 25 were by civilians
** 8 were from falls
** 3 undetermined.
By comparison, during the 4 to 5 hour insurrection on Jan 6,
* More than 140 police were injured by people like Ashli Babbitt, many of them requiring hospitalization.
* The number of rioters that were hurt while assaulting the police and Capitol is unknown. But records show at least 10 people were transported by EMS.
Hmmm, which was worse, the Summer of Love or the Insurrection? Personally, I go with the Insurrection.
"Violence: The Armed Conflict Location and Event Data (ACLED) recorded that fewer than 570 out of over 10,600 demonstrations involved violence."
That is because when liberals count left wing violence it isn't "violent" unless several city blocks are burned to the ground with at least 50 dead.
Or almost that bad, anyway.“That is because when liberals count left wing violence it isn't "violent" unless several city blocks are burned to the ground with at least 50 dead.”
And, How do you know that, how much more can expect from the rectal orifices of America?
Careful there Credence, DOIJ may suspend you (like they JUST did with two DOJ lawyers who were in the middle of trying a case but had the audacity to call the riots for what they were) or worse, charge you for spreading lies about the peaceful demonstration that happened on Jan 6.
I add this for the necessary context rather than just leaving that hanging out there:
Short answer: there is a credible “~25 deaths” figure, but it needs context.
The ACLED/Princeton US Crisis Monitor found “at least 25 Americans” were killed during protests or related political unrest in 2020. Of those, 11 deaths happened at demonstrations (9 at BLM-linked protests, 2 at pro-Trump rallies) and 14 occurred in other incidents linked to the unrest. Not all were protesters; some were bystanders, counter-protesters, or security. The Guardian
ACLED’s own summer/2020 reports are the underlying dataset often summarized by media. They also documented that over 93% of BLM-related demonstrations were non-violent, which is why the raw “25 deaths” line can be misleading without the denominator/context. ACLED+1
So you can say “about 25 deaths were linked to the 2020 protest wave,” but avoid implying they were all caused by protesters or that they characterize the whole movement. It’s a combined count of varied circumstances, drawn from one well-known dataset. The Guardian
By contrast, In just a few hours of real rioting on Jan 6, 9 people died that were linked to that insurrection. (the same number as were linked to BLM over the whole Summer)
* 1 was an insurrectionist trying to break into the House chambers in order to harm legislators
* 1 rioter died from an amphetamine overdose
* 2 rioters died from hear attacks while rioting
* 5 officers died from the stress related to violent right-wing attack on their persons - Brian Sicknick (USCP), Howard Liebengood (USCP), Jeffrey Smith (MPD), Gunther Hashida (MPD), and Kyle DeFreytag (MPD)
It should be noted conservatives are on a quest to bury the insurrection and those valiant officers who protected the Capital from the MAGA rioters.Cred and I covered this ground. thoroughly.
Permalink
https://hubpages.com/politics/forum/367 … ost4388534Were they rioters or insurrectionists?
There is a difference.
Or were they Patriots trying to defend fair and free elections... in an election that had some pretty extreme peculiarities?
I guess perspective matters when defining them.Patriots, my foot…
That rabble wanted to circumvent the electoral process and have their clown prince of crime be coronated in spite of every bit of evidence that Trump lost in 2020.My feeling is I don't think Ken thinks Trump lost. I bet he actually believes the election was rigged and the Jan 6 insurrection was staged by the FBI.
Initially the public was told there were NO FBI informants in the crowd. That turned out to be a lie. We don't know WHAT the FBI did in the crowd. There is video evidence of Ray Epps...who...it took a long time to discover...was being paid by the FBI. Epps is on video telling people in the crowd to storm the Capital. We now need to find out the behavior of the other paid FBI informants.
FBI Embedded 275 Plainclothes Agents In Jan. 6 Crowds, Blaze Reports, As House Panel Probes Informants’ Roles
Rep. Barry Loudermilk (R-Ga.), chairman of the House Jan. 6 Select Subcommittee, said this week his panel is focused on the number and role of paid informants present during the Jan. 6, 2021, demonstrations and whether intelligence from those sources was properly shared with law enforcement.
“One thing that we have learned, and this came on the tail end of the Biden administration, when their Department of Justice admitted that they had many, I mean, more than two dozen, paid informants embedded in the crowd,” Loudermilk said on Just the News, No Noise on Sept. 23, 2025. He added:
“With that many paid informants being in the crowd, we want to know how many were in the crowd, how many were in the building, but I also want to know, were they paid to inform or instigate?”
Loudermilk further asked, “But of these informants, if they were paid to inform, what information did the FBI actually get from them? How did they not know that this was coming?” and asserted: “If they had that many paid informants, I believe they did know it was coming.”
Separately, The Blaze reported on Sept. 25, 2025, citing a senior congressional source, that the FBI told Congress it had 275 plainclothes agents in the Jan. 6 crowds. The Dallas Express has not independently verified that figure.
The outlet wrote that “Depending how one reads ‘undercover’ agents versus ‘plainclothes agents,’ both statements could be true,” and did not publicly identify its source.
A Dec. 12, 2024, press release from the Department of Justice Office of Inspector General — about the FBI’s handling of confidential human sources (CHSs) — stated, “We found no evidence in the materials we reviewed or the testimony we received showing or suggesting that the FBI had undercover employees in the various protest crowds, or at the Capitol, on January 6.”
The same release said, “Our review determined that none of these FBI CHSs was authorized by the FBI to enter the Capitol or a restricted area or to otherwise break the law on January 6, nor was any CHS directed by the FBI to encourage others to commit illegal acts on January 6.”
Background
As previously reported by The Dallas Express, Loudermilk has accused the prior Jan. 6 Select Committee of failing to preserve all records, citing a forensics review that identified 117 deleted and encrypted files and a shortfall between an expected “4 terabytes” and “less than 3 terabytes” of archived data.
In a letter, he said the panel did not “archive all Committee records as required by House Rules” and sought “unedited and unredacted transcripts” from the White House and DHS.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/articles/fbi … 34839.htmlAnd Loudermilk is a liar.
Here is the TRUTH
Bottom line
There were FBI informants (CHSs) in D.C. on Jan. 6, but the DOJ watchdog found no undercover FBI employees in the protest crowds and no evidence the FBI directed anyone to enter restricted areas or incite crimes.
Reuters
+1
Ray Epps was not an FBI asset and was not “paid by the FBI.” He was charged for his conduct and received probation; fact-checks and his House testimony found no ties to the FBI. His defamation suit against Fox was later dismissed.
AP News
+3
Reuters
+3
PBS
+3
The viral claim that “275 plainclothes FBI agents were embedded” comes from unsourced or disputed reporting; fact-checks note many of the “274/275” figure were post-breach federal personnel (plainclothes responders), not undercover provocateurs, and the number has not been verified by independent records.
AP News
+2
Yahoo
+2
DOJ Inspector General (Dec. 12, 2024):
Found 26 FBI confidential human sources in/around D.C. that day; some entered restricted areas without authorization.
Found “no evidence” of undercover FBI employees in the protest crowds or at the Capitol, and no CHS was directed to break the law or encourage others.
Reuters
+1
Ray Epps claims:
Not paid by FBI / not an FBI plant. House interview and multiple fact-checks reject the “FBI operative” theory. Epps later pleaded to a misdemeanor; in Jan. 2024 he was sentenced to one year of probation. His Fox defamation case was dismissed in 2024.
AP News
+3
AP News
+3
PolitiFact
+3
“275 plainclothes agents” talking point:
Originates with partisan media citing an unnamed “senior congressional source.” Independent outlets have not verified it, and AP’s review says the documents cited don’t show agents inciting the attack—they indicate responders after the breach.
Yahoo
+1
What the record supports vs. the post
Claim in the post What the record shows
“Public was told NO informants—lie” OIG confirms informants existed, but also confirms no FBI undercover employees in the crowds and no direction to instigate. That’s not the same as “FBI ran the riot.”
Reuters
+1
“Epps was paid by the FBI” False. No evidence he worked for or was paid by the FBI; he was prosecuted and sentenced.
PBS
+1
““The ‘275 agents’ claim is unverified and conflates informants and post-breach plainclothes responders with undercover employees, which the DOJ OIG says were not in the crowds.”
AP News
+1
As I said, Loudermilk is a LIAR as is his report.Those look like lies to me... here is the TRUTH:
FBI embedded 274 plainclothes agents in Jan. 6th crowds: ‘Radical Left Democrat Scam!’
https://www.oann.com/newsroom/fbi-embed … crat-scam/
September 26, 2025 – Chris Wray lied under oath – FBI had 274 plainclothes agents in the crowd on January 6th – Fedsurrection
https://www.clintonfoundationtimeline.c … urrection/
BOMBSHELL: 200 Undercover FBI Assets at US Capitol on Jan. 6, Congressman Estimates
https://amac.us/newsline/politics/newsl … estimates/
A member of Congress investigating the Jan. 6, 2021, protest at the U.S. Capitol estimates the FBI had 200 undercover assets both inside and outside the building.
“We believe that there were easily 200 FBI undercover assets operating in the crowd, outside the Capitol, embedded into groups that entered the Capitol or provoked entry of the Capitol,” Rep. Clay Higgins, R-La., said.
Higgins appeared on the Tucker Carlson Network for an interview that aired Saturday, the third anniversary of the day now commonly known as J6. He’s among the few elected Republicans still questioning the official media narrative about the day’s events.
“Given the scope of the operation and the number of doors where entry was allowed or even encouraged—and the number of people that were actually outside the Capitol and that entered—we believe 200 [is a] conservative number,” Higgins said of his estimate.
Carlson reacted with alarm.
“It’s shocking what you’re saying and confirms everyone’s worst suspicions about this,” Carlson told Higgins. “It’s clearly true.”
Based on the evidence he’s reviewed, Higgins said FBI assets worked with the local Washington, D.C., Metropolitan Police Department and U.S. Capitol Police. The assets were dressed as supporters of then-President Donald Trump inside the Capitol, “because those were the guys that knew their way around the Capitol.”
FBI Director Christopher Wray has refused to answer questions about undercover FBI assets on Jan. 6, telling Higgins at a congressional hearing, “You should not read anything into my decision not to share information on confidential human sources.”
In remarks about the Jan. 6 anniversary, Attorney General Merrick Garland boasted Friday that more than 1,250 individuals have been charged for their involvement, with more than 890 convicted.
“Since the Jan. 6 attack, the Justice Department has engaged in what has become one of the largest and most complex and resource-intensive investigations in our history,” Garland said. “Our work continues.”
President Joe Biden used the anniversary of Jan. 6 to attack Trump in his first campaign speech of 2024.
“It was on that day that we nearly lost America, lost it all,” Biden said Friday at a speech in Valley Forge, Pennsylvania.
Carlson opened his interview with Higgins by criticizing “professional liars” who have presented a one-sided narrative about what happened on that day. Higgins, who worked in law enforcement before his election to Congress, has led the charge after being frustrated by the official congressional committee that investigated Jan. 6, which was stacked with anti-Trump lawmakers. Ever since Republicans reclaimed control of the House in 2023, members like Higgins have pressed for answers.
For example, as a member of Congress familiar with the U.S. Capitol, Higgins said it’s unfathomable to believe that everyday Americans in Washington, D.C., would know how to navigate the building without help.
“There’s no way they can come in some random door that gets opened and then get their way directly to Statuary [Hall] or the House chamber or the Senate chamber. It’s just not possible,” Higgins explained. “The FBI assets that were dressed as Trump supporters that were inside the Capitol were there, I believe, and evidence indicates that they were there to specifically wave in the Trump supporters that had gathered outside the Capitol.”
Higgins told Carlson these undercover assets guided protesters “directly to the areas where the FBI, the DOJ, and the Deep State actors” would later be able to implicate them for arrest and prosecution.
When pressed on who could have orchestrated such a massive operation, Higgins put the blame on not on a single person but rather a combination of anti-Trump actors working in cahoots with Democrats.
“It’s a complex web of FBI assets across the country that can be activated. So, if you have authority at some of the highest levels in the FBI, it doesn’t take much,” Higgins said. He added that those who planned it were “the faction within the FBI and within our intelligence services that would coordinate with the most extreme liberal factions within the Democrat Party that were desperate to keep Trump out of office.”
Higgins identified the 200 undercover assets as confidential informants, registered informants, nonregistered informants, and voluntary informants.
Ultimately, Higgins said, they had a goal of tarnishing not just Trump’s reputation but also the people associated with the Make America Great Again movement.
“Their objective was to destroy the entire MAGA movement,” Higgins said, “to forever stain the patriotic fervor that was associated with the America First MAGA movement that had won in 2016 and we believe won again in 2020.”
Higgins called the FBI’s involvement “conspiratorial corruption,” and said it predated Jan. 6 for many months when FBI assets were engaged in online forums of Americans who questioned COVID-19 restrictions and the integrity of the 2020 presidential election.
“I’m following the evidence, and to my horror, it implicates our FBI at the highest level,” Higgins told Carlson. “A conspiracy within our government at the highest level to set the stage for a compromised election cycle in 2020. And then the actions that took place on J4, 5, and 6, and then the criminal investigation, arrest, and prosecution of Americans that they were able to entrap.”
Higgins, who was first elected in 2016 to represent southwestern Louisiana, is now pressing House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., to release more information, beyond just video footage, about Jan. 6. He said the only true way to uncover what really happened is for the American people to have access.
“He has a responsibility to fully release that data,” Higgins said of Johnson. “And then the American people will see for themselves what some of us have already learned, to our horror, to be true.”
You know as well as I, not one of those things you posted is true. They have all been debunked by authoritative investigations.
They have been... really... well OK... how about these?
Testimony on the use of FBI confidential informants and assets at the capital on Jan 6th
https://c-span.org/clip/house-committee … th/5071539
No FBI agents, but 26 informants: Media divided over latest Jan 6 report
https://san.com/cc/no-fbi-agents-but-26 … -6-report/
Oh, wait... I'm sorry that was from 2024, when the lie was first starting to crack and people started admitting to some FBI assets being there...
Let me grab something more recent from 2025...
274 FBI agents were thrown into crowd control on Jan 6 against FBI standards.
That failure was on corrupt leadership.
Thanks to agents stepping up, the truth is coming out.
Transparency. Justice. Accountability.
~ FBI Director Kash Patel
https://x.com/FBIDirectorKash/status/19 … 1007880321
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/fbis-p … d-congress
OK... so... it appears I was wrong... it was Agents... not Assets?
On top of the Assets at or in the Capitol Building on Jan 6th?
Unless of course, you think your sources are better than the FBI Director...
Which... wouldn't surprise me if you do.
I must admit... I am confused... from FBI Agents to FBI Assets... what are we at now... easily over 300 people... right?
They were sent as crowd control... or they were already there... maybe now the cover story is they were called in for crowd control!!!
OK... got it... there were as of now at least 26 known FBI assets there, that the FBI was unaware of... and then... after it became a riot... FBI agents were called in for crowd control, they just showed up and got mixed in with the crowd???
Nah... still not getting it... what is the official story again?
Here's How Many Plainclothes FBI Agents Were Embedded in the Crowds on January 6
https://townhall.com/tipsheet/mattvespa … e_vignetteNone of that sh*t matters. The God's honest truth is, Trump tried to steal the election with several of his state governors creating a fake slate that showed him winning the electoral college votes. Thank God Mike Pence didn't go along with that charade,.
Wait... That is a completely different issue.
Regardless of how true or untrue it is.
That is like me switching the topic to how traitorous the Biden Administration was ...bringing in over 10 million migrants and handing out services and support to them on the taxpayer dime.
Or spending hundreds of billions through USAID for programs Americans outright reject or that go to foreign nations.
Let's stick to the topic. The FBI being used to help frame Trump and his supporters... So the incoming Biden Administration could then claim the biggest threat to America was Americans.I asked AI this;
Did The FBI help frame Trump and his supporters... So the incoming Biden Administration could then claim the biggest threat to America was Americans.?
Here are the results.
**There is no verified evidence that the FBI “framed” Trump or his supporters to help the Biden administration label Americans as the biggest threat. However, internal documents and whistleblower claims have fueled partisan debate over whether federal agencies have unfairly targeted Trump allies.**
Here’s a breakdown of what’s known and what’s contested:
---Allegations of FBI Bias Against Trump Supporters
- **Newsweek reported** that the FBI created a new category of domestic extremists focused on Trump’s MAGA supporters, citing internal data and anonymous officials. The Bureau reportedly aimed to prevent violence around the 2024 election without explicitly referencing political affiliations.
- **Senator Chuck Grassley released internal FBI emails** showing agents celebrating the indictment of Trump advisor Peter Navarro. Grassley accused the DOJ and FBI of prioritizing political prosecutions over violent crime, calling it “disgraceful and un-American”.
- **House Judiciary Republicans published a report** alleging that the FBI abused counterterrorism powers to investigate parents at school board meetings, framing it as part of a broader effort to support the Biden administration’s domestic extremism narrative.
Biden Administration’s Domestic Threat Narrative
- President Biden and DHS officials have repeatedly stated that *domestic violent extremism*, particularly from *white supremacist and anti-government groups*, is the most pressing national security threat.
- Critics argue this framing disproportionately targets conservative or right-wing groups, especially in light of the January 6 Capitol riot.
- Supporters of the administration say the focus is based on *actual incidents* and *threat assessments*, not political bias.
What’s Missing: Direct Evidence of Framing
- No official investigation or court ruling has found that the FBI *fabricated charges* or *planted evidence* to frame Trump or his supporters.
- The claims largely stem from whistleblower accounts, leaked emails, and partisan interpretations of law enforcement priorities.
- The FBI maintains that its investigations are based on threats and criminal behavior, not political affiliation.
Strategic Implications
This debate reflects a deeper tension over how federal agencies define and respond to domestic threats. The framing of “Americans as the biggest threat” is politically charged, but the underlying policy question is whether law enforcement can distinguish between *legitimate dissent* and *violent extremism*—especially in a polarized environment.
https://www.newsweek.com/2023/10/13/exc … 31836.html
https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/press/ … er-navarro
https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/press/ … er-navarro
https://judiciary.house.gov/sites/evo-s … REPORT.pdfAll of that was authoritatively established years ago now. But to a true believer of Trump, truth and fact are meaningless. They just regurgitate their mythic world.
It is SO EASY to debunk this stuff: Working down your list:
It turns out your C-SPAN source debunks every claim you made above.
Here is the TRUTH (I guess you missed it the first time I posted it):
The U.S. Department of Justice Office of the Inspector General (DOJ OIG) issued a report finding that 26 FBI confidential human sources (CHSs) were in Washington, D.C., on January 6, 2021 in connection with the events.
Congress.gov
+3
New York Post
+3
Congress.gov
+3
Of those 26 CHSs:
4 entered the Capitol building during the riots.
AP News
+1
13 entered a “restricted area” around the Capitol (but not necessarily the building).
AP News
+1
Importantly: none of the informants were authorized by the FBI to enter the Capitol or restricted areas, nor were they directed by the FBI to participate in or encourage the illegal activity on January 6 (I guess you ignored that part).
Congress.gov
+2
Congress.gov
+2
Former FBI Director Christopher Wray testified before Congress (March 2, 2021) about the FBI’s January 6 response; his testimony is broad but includes acknowledgement of intelligence failures and domestic extremism threats.
Rev
The OIG report also criticized the FBI for not canvassing its informants/field offices systematically ahead of January 6 to gather intelligence more proactively.
Newsweek
+2
Congress.gov
+2
Ken;
You are following the plan. When Trumpers can't allow themselves to believe something, they will allow themselves to believe conspiracy theories to make themselves feel better. It's called Cognitive Dissonance. Your mind will not allow you to have two opposing political thoughts at the same time. So you resort to conspiracy theories.
The GOP is supposed to have an ongoing investigation as to what happened on Jan. 6. But eventually it will die on the vine, just like Hillary's investigation did after two years of not proving anything.When it comes to following the plan... apply those sentiments to yourself.
I try not to upset those who are secure in their warm, safe, perspective of the world that has been handed to them. Well... not too much.
I am about to drop a forum on that very subject - Cognitive Dissonance
For you, it seems, one person out 1,000 throwing a brick at a building constitutes "violence", even if it only happened once in a night.
Me, I prefer to look at studies which reviewed all the coverage and not just the coverage that made it to the news.
Not that it will meaning anything to you guys but this is the kind of stuff I rely on:
The “93% peaceful” figure comes from the ACLED–Princeton Bridging Divides Initiative (BDI) US Crisis Monitor work on the 2020 protest wave:
ACLED/BDI, “Demonstrations & Political Violence in America: New Data for Summer 2020” (Sept. 3, 2020): “In more than 93% of all demonstrations connected to the [BLM] movement, demonstrators have not engaged in violence or destructive activity.”
ACLED
+1
In fact, that is apparently a low result if you just talk about more than just BLM..
ACLED press/US Crisis Monitor overview (Aug. 31, 2020): With full summer data, the project reported ~95% peaceful demonstrations overall; the widely quoted 93% refers specifically to BLM-linked events.
ACLED
+1
While the Pew Center shows people's opinions, the empirical data shows this - "Long-run (1994–2024): Multiple datasets show the majority of U.S. extremist plots/attacks and fatalities have come from the violent far right (e.g., white supremacist / anti-government segments).
New America
+2
CSIS
+2"
In full disclosure, CSIS has found that, probably due to the danger Trump represents, left-wing violence had finally [u]caught up with[/u} right-wing political violence in 2025. Normally, the data shows it is quite low.
Sharlee's post was about language:
Eso's answer was, again, about language:
In fact, you comment was too. Dont be disingenuous.
I still say that I've provided many links to news stories on this thread that demonstrate actual violent acts from the left.
I will continue to make this point as the violence of the left is something that occurs daily.
Her is one more example.
Man arrested after allegedly offering $45,000 for killing of AG Pam Bondi
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/pol … 933852007/
'RAGE RHETORIC': Alleged plot against Pam Bondi reflects volatile political climate
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k_4sxF74QQMMike, I agree. This kind of behavior is alarming and shows just how extreme rhetoric can escalate into real-world threats. It’s one thing to disagree politically, but when it crosses into plotting violence against public officials, that’s a line that can’t be ignored. And it’s particularly concerning when leftist politicians use charged rhetoric that can, intentionally or not, fuel this kind of anger. It really makes you wonder how much of this is driven by social media, mainstream discourse, and political leaders themselves.
He was released:
https://x.com/amuse/status/1982871857427779796
Judge Douglas Micko released Tyler Maxon Avalos without bail despite a lengthy violent criminal record.
The judge has been critical of the Trump administration and ordered ICE to explain why it is detaining illegals.
Avalos was arrested for putting a $45K hit on US Attorney General Pam Bondi. The Democrat judge told him not to contact Bondi.
Clearly, this judge thinks trying to get the US AG killed is no big deal... but ICE doing its duty is. No ideology at play here.
FIRST ON FOX: A former teaching assistant who was fired by Illinois State University was arrested in a joint operation by FBI and Secret Service agents on Tuesday.
Derek Lopez, 27, has been charged with threatening President Donald Trump, according to the bureau.
"The arrest follows a month-long investigation coordinated with the above agencies, which also included the Illinois State University Police Department, regarding Lopez's online and in-person activities," according to an FBI memo obtained by Fox News Digital. "Lopez is alleged to have recently made threats against a sitting President, which prompted the current federal charges."
He made his first court appearance on Wednesday afternoon.
FBI Director Kash Patel described the alleged threats as "heinous."
"The threats against President Trump allegedly posted by this individual are heinous and have no place in American society," he told Fox News Digital. "Let this be a message to all who consider threats of violence not just against public officials, but any American, that this FBI will find you and bring you to justice. I want to thank our local partners, the El Paso PD in Illinois, as well as USSS who assisted us with this case."
Lopez, who was a graduate student, was fired from his role as a teaching assistant at Illinois State University after a viral video showed him flipping over a table that belonged to Turning Point USA chapter members on campus.
He was seen in the video speaking to a man next to where the conservative group was promoting an upcoming appearance by political comedian Alex Stein.
https://www.foxnews.com/us/turning-poin … nt-job-fbiSince the veracity of Patel, and therefore the FBI, is seriously in question (Patel lies a lot), I need to see the evidence. None was presented by Fox based on this comment.
So I will use the words frequently used here on this forum - I will presume the guy innocent until proven guilty.
Y'all do know don't you for each example of Left-wing violence or rhetoric we can match that with five from the Right. Is that the contest you want to get into as you try to deflect from violence from the Right?
I admire your stamina Credence, but you are wasting your time.
Current report
U.S.
Blue state ICE agents dodge bullets, speeding cars as left ramps up tracking campaigns
Two recent shootings in Southern California highlight escalating violence against federal immigration agents
Two shootings involving U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers took place over the past 10 days in Southern California as individuals on the left continue to track its agents.
Department of Homeland Security Assistant Secretary Tricia McLaughlin said in a statement provided to Fox News Digital that an individual pulled their car in front of ICE officers on Thursday in Ontario, California. After ICE officers ordered the driver to leave the area, the individual attempted to run them over "by reversing directly at them without stopping," the DHS official said.
One ICE officer feared "for his life" and fired shots at the car, which McLaughlin said fled the area.
McLaughlin said the incident is "another example of the threats our ICE officers are facing day-in and day-out."
"ICE officers now face a 1,000% increase in assaults against them including cars being used as weapons and death threats against our agents are up 8,000%," she said. "This violence must end. Let me be clear: Anyone who assaults, impedes, obstructs, or threatens the lives of federal officers will be arrested and prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law."
In a separate incident on Oct. 21, DHS said TikTok influencer Carlito Ricardo Parias, an illegal immigrant, tried to ram his car into a law enforcement vehicle in Los Angeles.
ICE officers fired shots at Parias, hitting him in the elbow, McLaughlin said. One U.S. Marshals officer was also shot in the hand by a ricochet bullet.
Both individuals are in stable condition, and the DHS official said charges are being pursued against Parias for allegedly assaulting, resisting, or impeding federal law enforcement.
According to the Los Angeles Times, Parias has been tracking ICE agents for months before his eventual arrest, and was known by some people as "Tiktokquero," "El Señor Richard and "Richard." Attorney General Pam Bondi called out Democrats in Los Angeles, including Mayor Karen Bass, after they released plans to track ICE agents.
"Shutdown Democrats are already refusing to pay our law enforcement agents. Now, @RepRobertGarcia and @SenBlumenthal are trying to put ICE agents at risk just for doing their jobs," Bondi wrote. "@TheJusticeDept has ZERO tolerance for violence against law enforcement — we will prosecute any person who physically assaults our agents."
https://www.foxnews.com/us/blue-state-i … -campaignsYour typical Democrat...
'Get out there and ravish!' Woman 'out of food stamps' shows off stolen goods, urges others to steal at will and 'infiltrate' churches for cash
https://x.com/ViolentVixen29/status/1983475412257956005It NEVER ends with the left and their disgusting behavior.
Sister of slain firefighter Corey Comperatore receives vile letter mocking his death, sent proudly by 'another deranged Democrat'
'Can you even fathom this kind of visciousness? Imagine being so proud of it that you sign it with your first and last name, AND affix a return address label to it!'
Kelly Comperatore Meeder, the sister of fallen firefighter Corey Comperatore, who was tragically killed during the assassination attempt on President Trump in Butler, Pennsylvania, revealed she received a handwritten hate letter mocking her brother's death.
In her Facebook post, Meeder described opening what she thought was a thank-you card from a grateful family, part of her work organizing events at a local hall, only to find a venom-filled rant from what she called "another deranged Democrat."
The handwritten card, complete with a return address label and the sender's full name brazenly signed, spewed baseless attacks on President Trump while mocking the family's pain.
Imagine being so consumed by Trump Derangement Syndrome that you track down a grieving woman.
This incident is just the latest in a pattern of leftist harassment against Trump supporters and victims' families. From doxxing to death threats, the Democrats' rhetoric, fueled by mainstream media smears calling Trump a "fascist," has emboldened these cowards to act out their fantasies.
https://www.wnd.com/2025/11/pure-evil-s … -receives/Mike, what happened to Kelly Comperatore Meeder is not only cruel, it’s inhuman. There’s a point where political division crosses into moral decay, and this is one of those moments. To mock a grieving sister who lost her brother in an assassination attempt is beyond politics; it’s pure depravity. The fact that someone could take the time to write such a letter, sign their full name, and proudly attach a return address shows just how deeply hatred and delusion have eaten away at basic decency.
I truly can’t fathom how far some people have fallen into blind rage. This sort of behavior reflects a sickness that’s been festering, stoked by years of dehumanizing rhetoric and constant demonization of anyone associated with Trump or conservative values. It’s become socially acceptable in some circles to treat Trump supporters as less than human, and that mindset leads directly to things like this.
At the heart of this tragedy is a family still mourning a man who gave his life protecting others. That should command respect from every American, regardless of politics. Instead, we see people who celebrate pain, believing cruelty somehow equals moral virtue. I find that deeply disturbing. If this isn’t a wake-up call about how far our society has strayed, I don’t know what is. There must be a line, and when a grieving family becomes a target, that line has clearly been crossed.
I feel that many people have become so muddled in their thinking that they no longer seem to recognize the difference between right and wrong.IF TRUE, it is just a single anecdote which is buried beneath a mountain of counter-anecdotes from the Vile Right.
If true, it is just an anecdote and can be overwhelmed by counter-anecdotes from the Vile Right.
Sure is easy to say things without providing anything to back it up.
I try not to repeat data I have provided SO MANY times before. Also, right-wing political violence is so ubiquitous simple observation is proof enough.
We are seeing what the worst of humanity has to offer coming to the surface.
Social Media is a large part of that, things that would remain hidden or unknown by the mass population spread and reinforce bad behavior.'
Lack of Law... all the decades now of victimhood... they are not responsible for their actions... no consequences for your actions, be they theft, assault, cheating... moral social decay and decadence.
Throw in ten or twenty million people not born from here that have no idea and no concern for American norms or laws and you have a great recipe for the chaos that is becoming common place.
And now that all these entitled folks are seeing their free lunch threatened... be it SNAP or other social service payouts... it will be interesting to see how quickly civility declines.
From what limited things I have seen regarding SNAP being shut off... these people are not just entitled, they are criminal and think it is their right to get everything free.If you could back up your claims with proof and facts, without that, it is only your opinion.
I asked AI who are the people who use SNAP? Here are the results.
**SNAP recipients are overwhelmingly low-income individuals and families, including children, seniors, and people with disabilities. Most are working or actively seeking work.**
Here’s a detailed breakdown of who uses the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), based on the latest data:
Demographic Overview
- **Total recipients:** About *41.9 million people* in *22.2 million households* received SNAP benefits as of April 2023.
- **Children:** Roughly *4 in 10 SNAP recipients* are children under 18.
- **Seniors:** Around *1 in 10 recipients* are age 60 or older.
- **People with disabilities:** About *1 in 4 adult SNAP recipients* has a disability.
Employment and Income
- **Working households:** Over *half of SNAP households* with children have at least one working adult. Many recipients work in low-wage or unstable jobs.
- **Unemployed or underemployed:** SNAP also supports people who are actively seeking work or unable to work due to caregiving responsibilities or health issues.
- **Income levels:** Most SNAP households have incomes *below the federal poverty line*. Eligibility is generally capped at *130% of the poverty level*.
Household Composition
- **Single-parent families:** A significant portion of SNAP households are headed by single mothers.
- **Multigenerational households:** Some include grandparents caring for grandchildren or extended family members pooling resources.
- **Non-citizens:** Lawfully present immigrants may qualify, but undocumented individuals are excluded. Mixed-status households are common.
Geographic Distribution
- SNAP operates in all 50 states, D.C., Guam, and the Virgin Islands. Participation rates vary by state, influenced by local economic conditions and outreach efforts.
Data Visualization Resource
The USDA’s [SNAP Household Characteristics Dashboard](https://www.fns.usda.gov/data-research/ … cteristics) offers interactive tools to explore participation by state, age, income, and employment status.
I asked can criminals use SNAP? Here are the results.
**Yes, individuals with criminal records—including felonies—can receive SNAP benefits, but eligibility depends on the type of conviction and the state they live in.**
Here’s how it works:
Federal Rules on Criminal History and SNAP
- **Drug-related felonies:** A federal law (21 U.S.C. § 862a) originally imposed a *lifetime ban* on SNAP benefits for individuals convicted of felony drug offenses. However, states can opt out or modify this ban.
- **Fleeing felons and parole violators:** People actively fleeing prosecution or violating parole/probation are *federally barred* from receiving SNAP.
State-by-State Variations
- **43 states** have *fully opted out* of the federal drug felony ban, meaning individuals with drug convictions can receive SNAP if they meet other criteria.
- **6 states** have *partial bans*, requiring conditions like completing parole or drug treatment.
- **2 states** still enforce the *full ban* on drug felons.
Examples:
- **California:** Allows all felons, including those with drug convictions, to receive SNAP if they meet income and other eligibility rules.
- **South Carolina:** May deny benefits for drug felonies unless the individual completes a treatment program.
Why This Matters
Many formerly incarcerated individuals face barriers to employment and housing. SNAP can be a critical support as they reintegrate. The program is designed to prevent hunger, not to punish past mistakes.
Other Eligibility Requirements
Regardless of criminal history, all applicants must:
- Meet *income and asset limits*
- Be *U.S. citizens or qualified non-citizens*
- Not be actively violating parole or fleeing prosecutionHe just throws words out there with no evidence, just myths.
It is funny you speak of people having no idea of American norms and values. You do know you just described the lawless Donald Trump, don't you?
Civility started declining with Donald "the enemy of the People" Trump's insurrection on Jan 6. It improved some under Biden but then dropped like a rock when Trump was re-elected based on lies and a masterful con job.
"We are seeing what the worst of humanity has to offer coming to the surface."
Trump and the people he has impowered to be their worst selves.You know what is sad... a significant number of Trump's Administration are living on Military Posts, because the lunatic Leftists are showing up at their homes and attacking their families.
It is 'the Right' that are being assassinated and attacked... don't see anyone shooting at Biden or Obama, or Schumer. As best I can recollect those being assassinated or having attempts against them aren't considered Leftists/Democrats.Another made up story - that is what is sad.
Ken Burgess wrote:
You know what is sad... a significant number of Trump's Administration are living on Military Posts, because the lunatic Leftists are showing up at their homes and attacking their families.
It is 'the Right' that are being assassinated and attacked... don't see anyone shooting at Biden or Obama, or Schumer. As best I can recollect those being assassinated or having attempts against them aren't considered Leftists/Democrats.
"Another made up story - that is what is sad." ECO
Your accusations are uncalled for.
Sources
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/ar … hatgpt.com
https://www.jpost.com/american-politics … hatgpt.com
https://newrepublic.com/post/202463/ste … hatgpt.comSince he didn't provide those (never does) and his veracity is questionable, my statement was appropriate. Why is she allowed to stay in military housing because someone protested at her house? This is America after all.
A related question - why wasn't military housing offered to all those Biden administration officials when the right threatened them. Why didn't he complain when these people were threatened? (He didn't, which is why I don't take his faux-concern seriously.
Sec. Antony Blinken (State) — Months-long protest encampment outside his home; police later cleared it; organizers vowed to continue.
Axios
+2
WTOP News
+2
Sec. Lloyd Austin (Defense) — Manure dumped outside his D.C. home; Secret Service involved.
New York Post
+1
NSA Jake Sullivan (White House) — Manure dumped outside his home; bomb squad/Secret Service responded.
New York Post
+1
Sec. Alejandro Mayorkas (DHS) — Coordinated protests outside his home by immigrant-rights groups.
Wisconsin Examiner
+2
Voces De La Frontera
+2
AG Merrick Garland (DOJ) — Publicly warned of escalating threats to DOJ personnel.
Politico
+1
Dr. Anthony Fauci (Chief Medical Adviser, 2021–22) — Target of violent threats; one caller later sentenced.
AP News
Dr. Rochelle Walensky (CDC Director, 2021–23) — Targeted by threats; same sentencing noted above referenced her and Fauci.
AP News
Sec. Pete Buttigieg (Transportation) — Events repeatedly disrupted by protesters (not at home, but personal protests at appearances).
The State News
+2
https://www.kbtx.com
+2
Vice President Kamala Harris — Arrests outside her Brentwood home during protests.
Los Angeles Times
+1
Sec. Janet Yellen (Treasury) — Protective detail fired shots at suspects outside her home (law-enforcement incident at residence).
AP News
+2
Politico
+2
You can swap #8 for FBI Director Christopher Wray if you prefer an “official threats” example over event protests; Wray/DOJ have repeatedly flagged rising threats toward their workforce.
CBS News
+1
MANY of those right-wing attacks seem MUCH MORE serious than anything the Left supposedly did.First, you said this about Ken:
“Another made-up story — that’s what’s sad.” — ECO
Now you say this:
“Since he didn’t provide sources (he never does) and his veracity is questionable, my statement was appropriate.” — ECO
Once again, that’s an unfounded accusation.
I’m not interested in having a conversation with you.He's gonna have it with someone... whether they want it or not.
Whether they respond or not.
We all know, I produce plenty of links when so inclined and wish to further debate a topic.But they are all partisan YouTube opinion links. How about real data like the rest of us provide.
Ken, Agree; however, I feel that since I converse with you frequently, I can attest that you often include links to credible sources, and your conversations are always enlightening, interesting, and relevant to current topics. Since when does someone need to cite a source for an opinion? I’ll add that I’m always glad to see someone share their own thoughts rather than just posting a long copy-and-paste from AI. It’s always a pleasure to communicate with someone who offers food for thought and takes the time to share their individual views, not the view of a media headline. I might also add that I’ve recently found it a waste of time to leave sources, as I feel, from my own experience here, that some people aren’t even reading my posts, let alone viewing the sources I provide.
How is it "unfounded" when I said he didn't provide sources when he didn't? That doesn't compute. I can understand why you don't want to keep pursuing a lost cause.
"“Since he didn’t provide sources (he never does) and his veracity is questionable, my statement was appropriate.” — ECO"
He never does--- I follow Ken, and find he frequently offers links to source his comments. He also frequently shares his opinion. There is never a reason to source an opinion---
To me, it is not a lost cause to point out a blatant insult that, in my view, holds no truth at all.When has he ever offered anything more than YouTube partisan opinion pieces on these forums? I haven't seen it. Telling the truth is not an insult.
Damn! There's a whole lotta sad going on around here.
Here are a couple of Pres. Trump's favorites (the Rabbi one was Biden's favorite): 'Two guys walked into a bar, the third guy ducked ...' 'A blind man walks into a bar, and a chair, and a table and ...' A priest, a Rabbi, and a Monk walk into a bar ...'.
.GA ;-)- well placed.
I have to admit that some on the right are now moving to meet the Leftists in their own version of extremism and/or insanity.
The latest stuff from the likes of Tucker and Owens is going off the rails into coo-coo land like the Progressives with their men-are-women and kids should have the right to sex change positions.
The difference, I hope, is that these podcast voices will just be tuned out... Whereas the Leftists have shown they will turn their insanity into government policy whenever they get the chance. At least those funny jokes aren't offered as truth.
(The first Trump one was new to me and thought provoking. I didn't get it at first until I focused on the correct meaning of "bar")Ha! A little classic bar humor to break the tension — nice timing. Those old “walked into a bar” jokes never get old, especially the one about the blind man. And the bit about Biden’s favorite? That was a clever touch.
"A man walks into a bar and says, “Bartender, pour me something strong — my buddy here just called me a liar.”
The bartender says, “Well, do you want it on the rocks or under oath?”Trump walks into a bar. The bartender says, “We’ve got happy hour for SNAP recipients.” Trump says, “Great — cut it in half and call it a work requirement.” The bartender asks, “So… no food?” Trump replies, “Only if they prove they deserve it. And maybe build a wall around the buffet.”
Let's face it. THIS is who the left is. They are inarticulate and handle disagreements like petulant children. I've posted so many news stories on this post proving this point.
Unhinged voicemail exposes left-wing candidate's death threats against GOP senator
The profanity-laced voicemail was left after Sen Tim Sheehy voted to pass the GOP's One Big Beautiful Bill Act
Freshman Sen. Tim Sheehy, R-Mont., was targeted with death threats and other extreme insults by a left-wing city commissioner candidate from Montana's capital city of Helena, who called his office several weeks ago to leave her thoughts about the Republican senator over a voicemail.
The voicemail came in July, shortly after Sheehy voted with his Republican colleagues to pass the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, a sweeping tax and spending package from Republicans that angered many Democrats, including Helena city commissioner candidate Haley McKnight, following its passage.
"Hi, this is Haley McKnight. I'm a constituent in Helena, Montana," McKnight started off in her voicemail, a recording of which was obtained and verified by Fox News Digital. "I just wanted to let you know that you are the most insufferable kind of coward and thief. You just stripped away healthcare for 17 million Americans, and I hope you're really proud of that. I hope that one day you get pancreatic cancer, and it spreads throughout your body so fast that they can't even treat you for it."
But the anger didn't stop there. During the roughly minute-long voicemail that phone logs reportedly show came in on the afternoon of July 1, McKnight launches into insults about Sheehy's fertility and his children, before warning the senator not to "meet me on the streets."
"I hope you die in the street like a dog," McKnight continued. "One day, you're going to live to regret this. I hope that your children never forgive you. I hope that you are infertile. I hope that you manage to never get a boner ever again. You are the worst piece of s--- I have ever, ever, ever had the misfortune of looking at … God forbid that you ever meet me on the streets because I will make you regret it. F--- you. I hope you die."
McKnight added that Sheehy doesn't "serve Montanans," but rather just his "own private interests."
"All that you have done since you have gotten into power is do s--- for yourself."
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/unhing … op-senatorLet's face it. THIS is who the Right is. They are inarticulate and handle disagreements like petulant children. I've posted so many news stories on this post proving this point.
Anyway, it appears you want a contest. That was one anecdote (which DID NOT contain a death threat, btw), here are five that do contain REAL death threats or actual attempts. If you produce five more, I'll produce 25 and so forth, The right-wing political violence is so ubiquitous I'll never run out of examples.
See the last one.
1. Plot to kidnap Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer (2020) — Organized militia members conspired to kidnap Whitmer and discussed killing law-enforcement who resisted; multiple defendants were arrested and several convicted.
Center for Teaching and Learning
+1
2. Assault/attack tied to threats against Speaker Nancy Pelosi (Oct 2022 / aftermath) — The brutal home attack on Paul Pelosi (the Speaker’s husband) came amid a larger spike in threats against members of Congress; the suspect was federally charged in the assault. (Reporting and law-enforcement summaries documented the rise in threats that year.)
Reuters
+1
3. Threats and plots against President Joe Biden (multiple cases, 2023–2024) — Federal investigations and arrests have occurred after men allegedly threatened to assassinate or otherwise kill the president (one 2023 Utah case ended with FBI lethal force during a warrant service).
AP News
+1
4. Jan. 6-linked threats against individual Democrats (ongoing prosecutions, 2021–2025) — Some participants in the Capitol attack later threatened or harassed specific Democratic lawmakers (e.g., a rioter who threatened Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez was sentenced; others pardoned for Jan. 6 activity have been arrested for new threats).
Axios
+1
5. Recent arrest of an individual allegedly threatening House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (Oct 2025) — A man with prior Jan. 6 convictions (and later pardoned) was arrested on state charges for allegedly sending explicit death threats to Rep. Jeffries.
People.com
+1
The game is on if you are foolish enough to continue.I don't think anyone ever posted on the pardoned j6 miscreant Taranto, who showed up, with a cache of guns to Obama's house in 2023 I believe it was? Surely this is who the "right" is??
Ho, Hum...post something from 2025.
Try providing a link to an actual story.
Is easy to make stuff up.Ho hum....
The Capitol rioter arrested near Obama's home indicted on six charges : NPR https://share.google/V0sp5we20UqjDjzFf
The right wing has a long history of violence
Are you insinuating that I'm lying here? That I made something up?Didn't you just make that up? Where is your link? Where is your source?
Are you implying that I'm making things up? That I'm lying???
You can easily debunk me... Go ahead
Taranto will be on the top of my next 25 list.
Taranto is one of AT LEAST 13 (~1%) criminals Trump pardoned who have been rearrested.
Also, Trump whined that Biden didn't know who he was pardoning because he used an autopen. Well since Trump was too lazy to sign 1500 pardons himself, he used a sweeping proclamation to pardon people without caring who they were or what they had done. That is much, much more despicable, but totally in character.
Oh yes, and then there is that cyber-crime guy who made him and his family millions who he just pardoned yet claiming on 60-Minutes that "he didn't know who he was". What a LIAR and HYPOCRITE.
A student at the University of Iowa who was arrested Wednesday after police say he flipped a Turning Point USA table on campus was arrested only days prior for a similar alleged act against the school's Young America's Foundation (YAF) group.
A criminal complaint against Justin Calhoon says he flipped a YAF table on campus on Oct. 27. He was arrested on Oct. 31 and charged with disorderly conduct, fifth-degree criminal mischief and third-degree harassment, according to arrest records.
The complaint says that Calhoon left a residence hall early in the afternoon and was caught on campus surveillance approaching the YAF table and displaying "disruptive and aggressive behavior."
"Upon arrival, Defendant disrupted their assembly by flipping the groups [sic] table, made obscene gestures, and shouted profanity, including 's--- my d---,' while flipping off the group," the complaint says. It also notes that some of YAF's property was damaged.
A second criminal complaint from the same incident says a female YAF member "expressed concern for her personal safety and well-being if contact continues with the organization due to fear of potential future threats."
Only a week after his first campus arrest, Calhoon was arrested again on Wednesday when he allegedly flipped a Turning Point USA table.
Video of that incident shows a man identified by police as Calhoon lunging across the table, yanking it toward him and flipping it on its side while Turning Point promotional materials spilled onto the pavement.
He was arrested hours later and charged with two counts of disorderly conduct, fifth-degree criminal mischief and two counts of third-degree harassment.
The group of female Turning Point students was also left feeling intimidated.
"The incident left the group visibly shaken and disrupted their event," a criminal complaint from that incident said. "They were forced to reset their table and reported feeling frazzled and intimidated, particularly as all members present were female."
In response to a comment request about Calhoon's run-in with Turning Point, the University of Iowa said students are expected to adhere to certain conduct standards, but did not say whether Calhoon has, or will be, disciplined.
"All Iowa students are expected to follow the Code of Student Life, which sets standards for student behavior and conduct. While the outcome of these investigations are considered confidential, discipline is based on the severity of the violation," a university spokesperson told Fox News Digital.
The spokesperson also said the school believes in free speech. (Does that include flipping a table: LOL)
"The University of Iowa is fully committed to Free Speech, requiring First Amendment Training for all students annually and frequently communicating expectations for tolerating different viewpoints," the spokesperson said.
https://www.foxnews.com/us/student-arre … e-incident
Oh my, LYING Fox News again.
In any case, what is the point of this single anecdote unless you are claiming that represent everybody else."Oh my, LYING Fox News again."ECO
It would appear you are implying that Fox News posted an article that has misinformation. What information could be considered a lie?
Subject of the thread --- "The Frightening Violence of the Left." I consider this an instance of left-wing violence.Here is right wing violence as motivated and encouraged by The Head of The Gestapo, Stephen Miller, (Oh, that's right, according to you, I can only post comments that support the title of this thread.)
:.**Stephen Miller’s aggressive deportation quotas directly fueled a surge in ICE violence, including militarized raids, civilian injuries, and constitutional violations. His policies prioritized arrest numbers over legal safeguards.**
Here’s a forensic breakdown of how Miller’s directives escalated ICE violence:
**Quotas and Enforcement Pressure**
- **Miller set a daily minimum of 3,000 ICE arrests per day**, doubling previous targets.
- Field office leaders were threatened with termination if they failed to meet these quotas.
- In internal meetings, Miller reportedly challenged agents to arrest immigrants at places like *Home Depot* and *7-Eleven*, saying: *“Do what you need to do”*.
**Violence Linked to Quota Enforcement**
- **Chicago (Oct 2025):** ICE agents conducted a military-style raid on an apartment building, prompting lawsuits and a judge’s restraining order.
- **Illinois:** An ICE agent fatally shot a Mexican immigrant during an arrest attempt.
- **New York:** An ICE officer threw a woman to the ground at an immigration court, returned to duty days later.
- **Los Angeles:** ICE flooded the Westlake neighborhood, using tear gas, rubber bullets, and flash-bang grenades on civilians protesting the raids.
**Legal Immunity Claims and Pushback**
- Miller publicly claimed ICE agents have *“federal immunity”* and cannot be prosecuted for actions taken during deportations.
- Legal experts refuted this, noting that *Supremacy Clause immunity* only applies if actions are “necessary and proper”—not blanket protection.
- Some district attorneys pledged to prosecute ICE agents who violate state laws.
**Strategic Escalation and Protest Suppression**
- Miller’s tactics appear designed to provoke resistance, then justify further crackdowns.
- The deployment of **700 U.S. Marines to Los Angeles** amid protests was reportedly part of this escalation strategy.
- Pentagon officials scrambled to draft rules of engagement for troops facing civilians.
Strategic Implication
Miller’s quota-driven model shifted ICE from targeted enforcement to indiscriminate mass arrests, often in public spaces. This not only increased civilian harm but also created legal and political backlash that Miller used to justify further militarization.Here is right wing violence as motivated and encouraged by The Head of The Gestapo, Stephen Miller, (Oh, that's right, according to you, I can only post comments that support the title of this thread.)" PP
I wasn’t trying to tell you what you should or shouldn’t post. I was simply clarifying that I’m staying on topic
Out of respect for the original poster and the site’s rules, I’m keeping my comments focused on the subject, “The Frightening Violence of the Left.” As I mentioned before, perhaps someone could start a separate thread to discuss right-wing violence.And wouldn't violent attacks on innocent people by the right naturally lead to a few people on the left reacting to that violence in kind. People on the left actually care what happens to people and want to try to stop it. Unfortunately, and we all wish it wouldn't happen, they are DRIVEN to violence in response to right-wing violence.
Yes, based on their admitted history, I am implying exactly that. They are well known for putting out misinformation.
Why do you think that is "left-wing" violence rather than violence from a lone, mentally ill actor?
Related Discussions
- 85
Why is Antisemitism so Prevalent in the Democrat Party?
by Readmikenow 20 months ago
Cheering terrorism: Democrats must deal with their far-left antisemitism problemIf we’re ever going to obtain peace in the Middle East, we’re going to have to confront the reality of rabid antisemitism, not only in the Muslim world, but also in the the Democratic Party and in the news and cultural...
- 86
Why are Men Leaving the Democrat Party?
by Readmikenow 3 months ago
Democrats set out to study young menA widely mocked project to get under the hood about why Democrats are losing young men has sobering results.The Democrats trying to understand young American men know people are roasting their plan.All that mocking just proves their point, they said: Democrats...
- 8
A Party Unraveled: How the Modern Left Has Imploded
by Sharlee 4 months ago
Today's Democratic Party appears to be a shell of what it once was, a party that claimed to champion the working class, support American families, and value freedom of thought. Today, it's becoming increasingly difficult to recognize those foundational principles in its platform. What we’re seeing...
- 66
The Great American Divide: Gratitude vs. Bitterness
by Sharlee 15 hours ago
There was once a time, not so long ago, when Americans disagreed over policy but shared a common love for country. That time has passed. Today, it feels as though we are not simply two parties or political factions, we are two different nations coexisting uneasily within the same borders. The...
- 46
Armed and Ready to Overthrow the Government if Trump Loses in 2024
by Faye V 3 years ago
Are they serious? I don't know whether I should take this as a sensationalism or something to pay attention to? I usually expect better from Newsweek. https://www.newsweek.com/2021/12/31/mil … 60953.html
- 17
The Right, Conservatives, Republicans prefer Autocracy over Democracy?
by Credence2 4 months ago
I find this topic most disturbing as it is a reflection of the goals and aspirations of the American Right wing movement. There is no such thing as it being "fringe" as Trump, Carlson and many Republican Senators avoided direct answers or said that the Orbanz authoritarian regime in...