You are currently browsing the archives for the Anarchy/Anarchists category.


Archive for the ‘Anarchy/Anarchists’ Category

Lots of conservatives appreciate the job that AG Jeff Sessions has done thus far. Thanks to this op-ed on the threats to free speech in the United States, people have another reason to appreciate Gen. Sessions.

One of the most impactful parts of Gen. Sessions’ op-ed came when he wrote “Our legal heritage, upon which the Founders crafted the Bill of Rights, taught that reason and knowledge produced the closest approximation to truth, and from truth may arise justice. But reason requires discourse and, frequently, argument. And that is why the free speech guarantee is found not just in the First Amendment, but also permeates our institutions, traditions and our Constitution. The Federalists against the anti-Federalists, Abraham Lincoln against Stephen Douglas, Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. against George Wallace. At so many times in our history as a people, it was speech, and still more speech, that led Americans to a more just, more perfect union.”

Gen. Sessions then wrote “This month, we marked the 230th anniversary of our Constitution. This month, we also marked the 54th anniversary of the 16th Street Baptist Church bombing in Birmingham. Four little girls died that day as they changed into their choir robes because the Klan wanted to silence the voices fighting for civil rights. But their voices were not silenced. The Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. would call them ‘the martyred heroines of a holy crusade for freedom and human dignity,’ in a eulogy that still should speak to us today. This is the true legacy of free speech that has been handed down to us. It was bought with a price.”

Antifa, the SPLC, By Any Means Necessary and other hard left organizations are trying to silence people. The best way of combatting this modern-day fascism is to insist on more liberty of all kinds. When you hear about warriors like Hannah Scherlacher and others on college campuses, support them to the fullest extent possible. In situations like this, pushing back is an indispensable tool.

This video shows the lengths to which they’ll go to silence people:

I’d strongly recommend you read this article, too. These aren’t people who play by the rules. They’re fascists, which is defined as “a governmental system led by a dictator having complete power, forcibly suppressing opposition and criticism, regimenting all industry, commerce, etc., and emphasizing an aggressive nationalism and often racism.”

It’s clear that Antifa and By Any Means Necessary will use any tools at their disposal.

When I wrote this post, I hadn’t heard of Hannah Scherlacher. When I finish writing this post, Sen. Franken will wish he’d never heard of Hannah. In my post, I wrote about Sen. Franken’s reliance on ratings from the Southern Poverty Law Center, aka the SPLC, during Amy Coney-Barrett’s confirmation hearing. To hear Sen. Franken tell it, SPLC is a neutral arbiter of who is qualified to be a federal judge. The truth is that SPLC is a bunch of bottom-feeding low-lifes who have stockpiled tons of cash in accounts in the Caribbean.

Sen. Franken, what part of that sounds legitimate? But I digress.

Hannah’s op-ed questions SPLC’s integrity from a personal standpoint. In her op-ed, Hannah wrote “It’s an understatement to say that I was dumbfounded as to how I ended up on the Southern Poverty Law Center’s (SPLC) LGBTQ hate-list — I have never said or done anything to indicate hate for the LGBTQ community. When I called to inquire, SPLC informed me that I am guilty because I did a radio interview with Family Research Council Radio (FRC). I am a program coordinator for The Leadership Institute’s Campus Reform. org. The segment was about socialism, but because FRC holds traditional family values, I was labeled an LGBT-hater just for being a guest on the show. No LGBT topics even came-up.”

Sen. Franken, have you no shame?

What US senator would rely on sloppily-gathered information from a bunch of bottom-feeders like the SPLC? Ms. Scherlacher’s sin was to do an interview with the Family Research Council, an organization whose mission statement states that their “mission is to advance faith, family, and freedom in public policy and the culture from a Christian worldview” and whose vision “is a culture in which all human life is valued, families flourish, and religious liberty thrives.”

The FRC’s vision and mission earned it a spot on SPLC’s hate map. That’s significant because that map has helped cause physical pain:

Reckless and irresponsible hate-labeling not only stifles free speech and expression, it empowers and emboldens vicious groups and individuals to violently attack people. Consider the 2012 Family Research Council shooting, when a man walked into the organization’s office in Washington, D.C., with 100 rounds of ammunition and 15 Chick-fil-A sandwiches. He planned to kill as many staff members as possible and smear the sandwiches in their faces. He said he chose his target based on SPLC’s Hate Map.

This is more than ironic:

Nowhere is the danger more real than on our college campuses where Antifa, By Any Means Necessary, and other domestic terror groups (which are not found on any SPLC hate list) now feel emboldened to attack conservative students and shut down events under the guise of, ironically, fighting fascism, hate and white supremacism.

Some of the organizations found on the SPLC’s Hate Map are legitimate hate groups. It’s indisputable that the KKK, Holocaust deniers and the Skinheads deserve to be on that map. Being a traditional values Christian shouldn’t land a person on SPLC’s hate map, though.

I’ll close this post with Hannah’s closing argument:

Groups like the SPLC threaten our constitutional rights and the very fabric that makes this nation great. We need to start pushing back. If this trend of bullying and ostracizing anyone with a different opinion continues, we can only expect a chilling, mob-rule effect and the suppression of speech and ideas in this country.

I am calling on SPLC to remove me from this list and stop engaging in the game of identity fear politics. I urge all Americans who have been bullied, silenced, and pushed into a corner by radical groups like the Southern Poverty Law Center to push back too.

Amen, Hannah.

Technorati: , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

There isn’t much dispute that Antifa’s tactics are similar to those of a domestic terrorist organization. First Amendment advocates’ arguments just got strengthened thanks to Antifa’s public stalking of the Berkeley College Republicans, aka BCRs.

According to Campus Reform’s article, it’s indisputable that Antifa’s chief tactics are bullying and intimidation. Campus Reform’s article starts with “Conservative students at the University of California, Berkeley have been actively stalked and targeted by a regional Antifa organization known for inciting violence. While the Berkeley College Republicans met at a local restaurant Wednesday evening, Berkeley Antifa took to Twitter to post the exact location of the student group online. “Antifa has taken pictures of me, followed me on the street, and tracked my location using social media. BCR meeting right now inside Eureka at 2068 Center St after drinking with Kyle Chapman and Joey Gibson at Fashy’s, I mean, Pappy’s,’ the Antifa organization tweeted. ‘Inside right now is Troy Worden, Ashton Whitty, Naweed Tahmas, Matt Ronnau, Angelie Castenada, and two others.'”

Lately, the radical Left’s 2 major weapons against free speech are the Southern Poverty Law Center, aka SPLC, and Antifa. Anyone that thinks Antifa isn’t a domestic terrorist organization needs to read this:

In late August, Ashton Whitty, one of the conservative students at the university, was stalked by several Antifa demonstrators who approached her at a gas station and pummeled her vehicle as she fled the scene. “Antifa has taken pictures of me, they’ve followed me on the street, and have tracked my location using social media,” Whitty told Campus Reform. “It’s rather odd why these people would see us as such a priority when we’re just everyday people.”

This video captures what happened to Ms. Whitty:

Antifa’s tactics are different than SPLC’s but their goal is the same: silence conservative voices through any means necessary. This is frightening:

Anyone that thinks the Democratic Party’s hardline lefties are capable of being reasoned with is foolish. Yes, that includes Sen. McCain. He wants to cut deals with people who’ve praised Antifa. Sen. McCain wants to cut deals with senators who’ve relied on the SPLC’s input on judicial nominees.

Anyone that cites the SPLC as a neutral arbiter of judicial nominees is nuttier than a fruit cake. If only I could find someone who’d recently trusted the SPLC:

Sen. Franken actually said that SPLC “tracks hate groups.” Watching the video of the young lady who was labeled by the SPLC as enabling hate for doing an interview with Tony Perkins on the subject of socialism hints that the SPLC doesn’t track hate groups. It is a hate group.

Technorati: , , , , , , , , ,

Antifa’s spinners have been trying to convince people that they aren’t a domestic terrorist organization, that they’re just misunderstood and that they come out to protect people from evil right-wingers and the police. This article demolishes that myth.

The article starts by saying “Well before the deadly Aug. 12 rally in Charlottesville and the ongoing violent clashes with white supremacists and other groups, federal authorities warned local officials the actions of left-wing extremists were becoming increasingly confrontational and dangerous.” Later in the article, it says “In previously unreported documents dating back to April 2016 and viewed by Fox News, the FBI and Department of Homeland Security wrote that ‘anarchist extremists’ and Antifa groups were the primary instigators of violence at public rallies. They blamed these groups for attacks on police, government and political institutions, racists, fascists and ‘symbols of capitalism.'”

Still later, it quotes “Brian Levin, a former New York City police officer who monitors domestic militants at the Center for Study of Hate and Extremism at California State University, San Bernardino” as saying “People in this movement allow for confronting, jostling, committing low-level types of offenses, but there has been for some time a core that have tipped the movement to confrontational violence,” he told Fox News on Friday. “The hardest edge in the Antifa spectrum comes under that category…not all Antifa are busting heads.”

That’s right. Not all Antifa thugs are into violence. Those that aren’t committing acts of violence are enabling acts of violence. This video shows what some Antifa are willing to do:

The main thing to take from the article is that the Obama administration knew about Antifa in April, 2016, then did nothing. (Perhaps, this is proof that strategic patience wasn’t just limited to causing crises around the world?)

This isn’t surprising in that President Obama didn’t hesitate in punishing his enemies. (See Lois Lerner, IRS vs. TEA Party groups.) This isn’t surprising. It’s just disgusting.

Technorati: , , , ,

This article offers readers a false choice situation. Let me explain. According to the article, “Conservative news websites and talk radio hosts gleefully publicized the enrollment decline, tying it to the unrest and outside threats related to racial issues and allegations of liberal intolerance on campus that were covered nationally last spring.” Evergreen spokesman Zach Powers “sees it differently, saying a big factor is heightened competition among small liberal arts colleges. ‘This is a situation that is ongoing and is something that we are exploring different options and solutions to,’ Powers said.”

Why fight? It isn’t a stretch to think that the campus unrest gave alumni a legitimate excuse to tell their kids not to attend. I wrote in this post about the “Mizzou Effect.” In that post, I quoted an article, which said “Emails obtained by The College Fix show that some parents pledged to keep their kids away from Evergreen in a development that’s known as the ‘Mizzou Effect.'”

It’s possible that the competition from “small liberal arts colleges” was high. That’s possibly why Evergreen couldn’t afford to be seen as having ineffective leadership. Let’s face it. Evergreen’s leadership team looked like it let the patients run the asylum for almost a month.

If you’re an alumnus, why would you send your son or daughter attend a college that’s that badly mismanaged? Further, Evergreen is forecasting a $2,100,000 budget deficit for this academic year. They’ve already announced that they’ll have to lay off faculty for next year. What parent would let his/her son/daughter attend a college that’s that unprepared to give students a good education? What parent would send their son/daughter to a campus after hearing this?

You’d be a fool sending them to a campus like that.

Mr. Powers apparently isn’t familiar with the concept of competition. If he was familiar with that concept, he’d know that his employer should improve rather than whine about competition.

When I wrote that Daryle Jenkins was Antifa’s unofficial spokesman, I highlighted how he spun things to make his cause seem justified. There’s no way Antifa can spin this article successfully.

For instance, when it’s said that “The vast majority of the 4,000-some protesters who descended on Berkeley’s Civic Center Park last Sunday to demonstrate against a small group of Trump supporters were perfectly peaceful, but some of the 100 to 200 black-clad Antifa there ganged up on the Trump fans, punching and kicking them. Other Antifa carried colorful shields painted with the words ‘no hate’ to build a barrier that Antifa claims is needed to protect anti-racist protesters from the police and right-wingers. The activist said Antifa takes to the streets ‘out of love’, keeping nonviolent protesters safe from right wing protesters and the police.”

That isn’t just spin. It’s an outright lie. This video provides verifiable proof that that isn’t what’s happening:

According to the newscaster, Antifa protesters “broke through police barricades during a rally against hate and clashed with right wing activists.” It’s impossible to explain why Antifa rioters needed to break through police barricades and fight with right wing activists while protecting “nonviolent protesters from right wing protesters.” If there’s a police barricade separating the non-violent protesters and Antifa, then all that’s needed to ‘protect’ Antifa is for them to stay separated. Let the police do their job of protecting the peace.

Later in the article, an Antifa activist said “if the police try to attack protesters, Antifa gives other people the space to stay safe.” According to the article, “violence is justified, the Bay Area Antifa member said, because the far right is trying to create a fascist state.”

I’m pretty certain that thoughtful people might dispute who’s trying to create a fascist state. Activists that crash through police barricades to attack peaceful protesters aren’t likely to be considered peaceful protesters. They’re most likely to be called anarchists and/or rioters.

I just learned that Antifa has its own spinmeister. His name is Daryle Jenkins. Recently, Vox sat down with Jenkins for an interview. Saying that most of Mr. Jenkins’ statements weren’t honest is understatement. Let’s start with Vox’s interviewer Sean Illing asking Jenkins “Let’s talk about Antifa, the militant left-wing group that has received a lot of attention since Charlottesville. You’ve emerged as one of the faces of this group. Do you own that label?”

Jenkins replied “Absolutely. I proudly stand with Antifa, and I’ve always been Antifa, even before people knew what that meant. People keep talking about Antifa like it’s a comprehensive belief system, but it’s not. Antifa, as a group, simply stands against fascists — and we fight them wherever they emerge. Once upon a time, anti-fascists were just called civil rights activists or anti-racist activists. So this isn’t exactly new or unusual.”

Let’s get serious. Antifa’s tactics look a lot like the Black Panthers. They don’t look like anything that Martin Luther King would’ve sanctioned. Jenkins’ attempt to portray himself as a civil rights activist isn’t honest. It’s spin.

As dishonest as that spin from Jenkins was, it doesn’t compare with this exchange:

Sean Illing: Antifa endorses violence as a justifiable means, and I assume you do as well. Why?
Daryle Jenkins: I’m glad you brought this up, because I’ve noticed a lot of attention has been placed on Antifa’s use of violence. But it’s not as though we’re running around like the nihilists in A Clockwork Orange looking for a nasty fight. Violence is not a central component of what we do and it’s definitely not the only thing we do. It’s not preferred or even the first option.
Sean Illing: And you, personally, how do you think about violence in defense of your political goals?
Daryle Jenkins: Look, I was a police officer in the Air Force. I was trained to deescalate situations. That’s how I approach things. I try as much as I can to deescalate, and if I can’t, I’m prepared to do what I have to do to protect myself and anyone around me.

Does this video show Antifa trying to de-escalate things:

I don’t think there’s an honest person that’d say that Antifa was trying to de-escalate the situation. The police officers that arrested these thugs later certainly didn’t think Antifa tried de-escalation. This might be the most honest answer Jenkins gave:

Sean Illing: Do you think your emphasis on de-escalation is shared by most of the people in Antifa?
Daryle Jenkins: While we do have some people who go on the offensive, that’s not what I do. I try to encourage folks to not put themselves in bad positions. I tell them to not make themselves the aggressor or the bad guy when you’re not. But what’s happened over the last couple of years is that the frustration levels have gone way up. People are lashing out now. There’s a desperation setting in and people don’t know what to do.

People of integrity know exactly what to do. Antifa isn’t made up of people of integrity. Antifa is composed mostly of thugs. Their first instinct is to react violently. This exchange is telling, too:

Sean Illing: When you say expose them, you mean dox them, right?
Daryle Jenkins: Exactly. Our belief is that we research and report on these groups and encourage communities to be proactive in dealing with them. This diminishes their ability to hide and function. This is why we expose them.
Sean Illing: So you take their pictures, find out their names, and share that information with their communities, their friends, their employers?
Daryle Jenkins: Yes, all of that. We share it with communities and employers in particular. We contact anybody that may be receptive to this particular information. Most importantly, we make sure it’s on our website. We write new stories, and we also write mini-bios of various individuals as well. And that exposes them. They don’t like that.

That isn’t all that Antifa does. This article exposes Antifa:

I expected to see a dust-up, a handful of white supremacists in MAGA hats, angry that that they’d been denied a permit to spew their reprehensible bile due to a “culture of political correctness” or some other preposterous catchphrase. What I saw was a photographer—a white guy, thirty-something, pink shorts, black tee-shirt; media affiliation, if any, still unknown—taking blows to the head and body while cradling his camera like a football recovered post-fumble. Evidently, he’d captured something the Antifas didn’t want him to document. They wanted to destroy the evidence, and he wasn’t going to hand it over.

According to this article, Democrats are rethinking their public support for Antifa. I’m still skeptical over whether these Democrats have rejected Antifa totally. The headline of the article says “Democrats’ alliance with Antifa crumbles; even Berkeley’s mayor denounces ‘street gang.'” The first Democrat who publically criticized Antifa was Nancy Pelosi.

In this post, I wrote “The Antifa riot happened on Sunday. Ms. Pelosi didn’t issue her statement until Tuesday afternoon. Clear-thinking, principled people with integrity don’t need 48 hours to know Antifa were a bunch of thugs who’d committed felonies.” I said then that I was skeptical of Ms. Pelosi, saying that “Democrats always do the right thing … when it’s the only option left.”

Democrats have shown who they are. The fact that they’re backing off their public support for Antifa doesn’t mean, IMO, that they won’t appreciate Antifa’s tactics. The next logical step for Antifa is to disappear, then re-emerge under a different name.

John Kass’s column was written before a Ms. Pelosi’s denunciation of Antifa. He raises lots of questions that still haven’t gotten answered. Democrats certainly haven’t denied his part of his column:

There has been no concerted media effort to pressure Democratic politicians to denounce Democratic muscle. So Democratic politicians have been relatively silent, as have many of their loyal pundits. A few pundits of the left have even compared the thugs with American soldiers hitting Omaha beach, a ridiculous attempt to legitimize the violence. This is all corrosive and dangerous. And in a loud political year, the silence of Democratic politicians explains so very much.

Because silence is consent.

Ms. Pelosi’s statement was required because Democrats were losing the PR fight with the American people. In this video, Antifa leadership admits that they were violent:

Violence isn’t just a tactic with Antifa. It’s who they are. It’s horrifying that Democrats think that they’ll be able to convince Antifa to be part of their coalition. One Democrat who has credibility on the issue of Antifa is retired Harvard Law Professor Alan Dershowitz. Here’s what he recently said:

Do not let the hard left, the radicals, represent the Democratic Party. There is an alt-left and we cannot deny it. The alt-left are radical people who want to deny us free speech, who want to close the campus to conversation, who want to stop people from having dialogue, who want to use violence … Antifa is not our friend. They will not help us win elections. … I do not want to give a pass to the hard radical left, which is destroying America, destroying American universities, destroying the Democratic Party.”

Professor Dershowitz has consistently fought for people’s civil rights. He’s spoken eloquently about academia and old-fashioned debate. Antifa’s picture of debate, according to the video available, is them beating people with whom they disagree with weaponized pieces of lumber.

Technorati: , , , ,

After 3 days of waiting, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi condemned the actions of Antifa. IMHO, that isn’t nearly enough. Ashton Whitty, a prominent member of the College Republicans at U-Cal Berkeley, described a frightening situation in this post.

She told a reporter for Campus Reform that she’d been “targeted and stalked during an Antifa march that left several people injured this weekend.” Campus Reform’s reporter reported that “video footage reviewed by Campus Reform appears to show Antifa members stalking Ashton Whitty, a prominent conservative student at the university and Campus Reform Campus Correspondent, as she was being interviewed by the American Freedom Keepers.”

In this video, it’s clear that Antifa was proud of their stalking activities, saying that they were “hungry for supremacists”, adding that they were “real hungry for white supremacists and there’s more of us.” Additionally, one Antifa rioter said “you guys are all bleeping racist mother bleepers.”

Monday night, Whitty told Martha MacCallum that “They came with black masks, they carried weapons, they were pounding people down with their fists and feet. I knew I had to get out of there. Everything was great until Antifa showed up.”

This video confirms that Antifa was armed with unconventional weapons and that they didn’t hesitate in using those weapons against college students with whom Antifa disagreed. Further, Antifa didn’t see the irony of them using fascist tactics to prevent so-called fascists from speaking.

These aren’t the actions of a bunch of protesters. They’re the actions of a domestic terrorist group. What type of lunatic gets that bent out of shape? Antifa’s stated goal is to highlight fascism. I’d say they’re doing a pretty good job with that. The indisputable thing is that they’re acting like fascists. It’s indisputable because video doesn’t lie.

On a different topic, Antifa was upset that they’re getting negative press. My suggestion is to have them stop acting like vigilantes and/or anarchists. I’m positive this won’t happen but it would be refreshing to see Antifa stop acting like terrorists and anarchists.

Philip Wegmann’s article and tweet suggest that conservatives should throw a parade for Nancy Pelosi for her condemnation of Antifa.

With all due respect to Mr. Wegmann, I won’t entertain the thought of throwing Ms. Pelosi anything, much less a parade.

The Antifa riot happened on Sunday. Ms. Pelosi didn’t issue her statement until Tuesday afternoon. Clear-thinking, principled people with integrity didn’t need 48 hours to know Antifa were a bunch of thugs who’d committed felonies. They knew it the minute the saw the footage of Antifa rioters hitting protesters with sticks and dumping urine on peaceful protesters.

Wegmann insists that “anyone with even an eighth grade understanding of American Civics must be welcomed as an ally.” Again, I disagree. Ms. Pelosi didn’t issue that statement because she was upset with Antifa. She spoke out because the political pressure built to an unacceptable level.

If there’s anything I’ve learned, it’s that Democrats will always do the right thing … when it’s their only option left.

Let’s put this into perspective. According to this article, Ms. Pelosi supported the Occupy Wall Street ‘movement’, starting in October, 2011. OWS, as they were nicknamed then, were dirtbags, although, to be fair, they weren’t the violent monsters that Antifa is. They were disgusting people who committed rapes, etc., but they weren’t an organized terrorist organization committed to inflicting violence.

Why shouldn’t we tell Ms. Pelosi that she needs to show more integrity before we accept her statement of condemnation as sincere? The fact that it took her 2+ days indicates to me that this was a political statement. It wasn’t a statement of principle. Here’s what she said about OWS at the time:

Those aren’t the words of a person who thinks of Antifa as domestic terrorists.