The Link Between Rhetoric and Violence

It is a violation of the law to advocate violence against individuals if the proposed violence can be judged imminent and likely.  In the context of incessant violence directed at conservatives, leftists such as Eric Holder should be mindful of this legal standard when he suggests that leftists "kick" conservatives.  One of Holder's cohorts, Maxine Waters, didn't specifically advocate violence against Trump Cabinet officials.  But she did direct people to form a mob and "push back on them" and to tell them they are not welcome "anytime, anywhere."  Being surrounded by an angry leftist mob may or may not lead to violence, but it's the definition of political intimidation based on force.  Since Waters's diatribe, we have seen various conservatives confronted by angry leftist mobs.  In the case of both Holder and Waters, a case can be made that they suggested "imminent and likely" violence and intimidation.

The media clearly believe that rhetoric can lead to violence, since they accuse the president of regularly inciting violence.  If Trump's intent is to incite violence, he is bad at it.  Almost no one is listening to his "dog whistles" and "violent rhetoric."  The only significant example remotely backing up the media's narrative is one unstable career criminal mailing fake "bombs" to a list of leftists, many of whom have advocated actual violence against their political opponents.

We are seeing a dearth of violence aimed at leftists and a lot of violence aimed at conservatives.  If rhetoric and violence are linked, we can assume that the media ignore a lot of leftist agitation of violence, or leftists are easily pushed to violence.  If pressed on the question, most media flacks would say Trump is responsible for the violence on both the left and right – he's created an "environment" of anger.  But Trump has created an environment of joy and gratitude on the right, so any anger is a problem of the left.

When suggesting that Trump advocates violence, the left and corporate media will search in vain to find Trump advocating anything approaching violence against innocents or against any group whatsoever.  Instead, they invariably refer to his handful of statements at early rallies to "punch" someone or the like.  What they ignore is that Trump didn't point those people out at random, all of them were disrupting a lawful peaceful gathering.  In each case, thousands of people waited hours to hear the future president speak, but a leftist agitator decided that leftist caterwauling was what the people really needed to hear, making it impossible for Trump to proceed.  And some of them were attacking members of the audience.  Trump's quips were said in a joking manner – as always, the left is deaf to humor.  This is a perfect example of Salena Zito's maxim that the left takes Trump literally but not seriously, and the right takes him seriously but not literally.

The media, on the other hand, make a regular case for literally killing the president by saying he is a racist and suggesting that he is the reincarnation of Hitler.  This may help to explain the regular violence meted out against Trump-supporters by the left: punishment of proxies.

Thanks to constant leftist agitation, the country is still riven by race.  Any suggestion that any president is a racist should be made only with the utmost care and be based on the firmest possible evidence.  But rather than firm evidence, the media fall back on two canards: Trump's first speech and his statements after the Charlottesville clash last year.

In the first speech of his campaign, Trump said of illegals that "they're rapists."  The childish media – eager for any hammer to use against him – suggested that Trump meant all illegals, presumably including the women and children.  The age of consent in almost all Mexican states and most of Central America is 12.  On its face, that would suggest a more aggressive attitude toward sex and consent than we observe in the United States, and many illegal aliens have been charged with and imprisoned for sexual crimes.

Charlottesville was billed as a rally against the removal of confederate war statues, titled "Unite the Right" – not "Unite Fascists."  The event was hijacked by extremists who garnered all of the media coverage.  But many of the people who attended the event were there not to fly the swastika or clash with leftists; they were there to defend American heritage.  Afterward, Trump innocently remarked that there were good people on both sides, while he condemned hatred and racism.  He's not a fan of Antifa, so presumably he meant that there were good people there in favor of removing the statues and good people against their removal.  The media narrative is that the crowd consisted exclusively of three parts: peaceful leftists, violent leftists valiantly fighting fascism, and violent Nazis.  Further, the media suggest that President Trump knew this to be true and nonetheless praised the Nazis as "good people."  That interpretation seems an insane fiction, but it's a central talking point of the left and the media.  In the real world, the president refers to all American racial, ethnic, and religious groups in only the most positive and glowing terms.

The media's inference that Trump is Hitler reincarnated is more dangerous than their claim that he is racist.  They base most of this dangerous rhetoric on Trump's approach to certain foreigners who represent a direct threat to Americans or American sovereignty.  The media suggest that Trump's protections, even if merely enforcing existing law, are precursors to concentration camps and genocide.  The left and the media are hysterical, and not in the fun way.

The other justification for the media's Hitler rhetoric is that he criticizes the media purveyors of proven fake news as enemies of the people.  But he is spot on: the duty of the press is to objectively inform the public about what is happening in the country.  They generally fail to do so when the news might cast Trump in a positive light, and they simultaneously twist his words and actions to suggest the most sinister motives.  People are misled by the media into believing that very little good is happening, and a lot of horrible things are happening or are imminent.  The exact opposite is true, so the entire media picture of America in the Trump era is in fact fake news.

Identifying any leader as a new Hitler is asking anyone who takes such rhetoric seriously to kill the leader.  One doesn't have to go back in time to become a hero for the rest of human history; he can prevent endless misery, death, and upheaval by ending Trump, here and now.  But even though many leftists are getting violent and mobbing up, few of them really take the media's Hitler theme seriously, or more would take the logical next step and try to kill him.  That they haven't done so yet does not excuse the media – there is no excuse for the fake news media.  They are a dangerous political project.

If you need a reason to vote on November 6, vote Republican if only to put the fake news media in their place, and to punish them for their violent, irresponsible rhetoric.

It is a violation of the law to advocate violence against individuals if the proposed violence can be judged imminent and likely.  In the context of incessant violence directed at conservatives, leftists such as Eric Holder should be mindful of this legal standard when he suggests that leftists "kick" conservatives.  One of Holder's cohorts, Maxine Waters, didn't specifically advocate violence against Trump Cabinet officials.  But she did direct people to form a mob and "push back on them" and to tell them they are not welcome "anytime, anywhere."  Being surrounded by an angry leftist mob may or may not lead to violence, but it's the definition of political intimidation based on force.  Since Waters's diatribe, we have seen various conservatives confronted by angry leftist mobs.  In the case of both Holder and Waters, a case can be made that they suggested "imminent and likely" violence and intimidation.

The media clearly believe that rhetoric can lead to violence, since they accuse the president of regularly inciting violence.  If Trump's intent is to incite violence, he is bad at it.  Almost no one is listening to his "dog whistles" and "violent rhetoric."  The only significant example remotely backing up the media's narrative is one unstable career criminal mailing fake "bombs" to a list of leftists, many of whom have advocated actual violence against their political opponents.

We are seeing a dearth of violence aimed at leftists and a lot of violence aimed at conservatives.  If rhetoric and violence are linked, we can assume that the media ignore a lot of leftist agitation of violence, or leftists are easily pushed to violence.  If pressed on the question, most media flacks would say Trump is responsible for the violence on both the left and right – he's created an "environment" of anger.  But Trump has created an environment of joy and gratitude on the right, so any anger is a problem of the left.

When suggesting that Trump advocates violence, the left and corporate media will search in vain to find Trump advocating anything approaching violence against innocents or against any group whatsoever.  Instead, they invariably refer to his handful of statements at early rallies to "punch" someone or the like.  What they ignore is that Trump didn't point those people out at random, all of them were disrupting a lawful peaceful gathering.  In each case, thousands of people waited hours to hear the future president speak, but a leftist agitator decided that leftist caterwauling was what the people really needed to hear, making it impossible for Trump to proceed.  And some of them were attacking members of the audience.  Trump's quips were said in a joking manner – as always, the left is deaf to humor.  This is a perfect example of Salena Zito's maxim that the left takes Trump literally but not seriously, and the right takes him seriously but not literally.

The media, on the other hand, make a regular case for literally killing the president by saying he is a racist and suggesting that he is the reincarnation of Hitler.  This may help to explain the regular violence meted out against Trump-supporters by the left: punishment of proxies.

Thanks to constant leftist agitation, the country is still riven by race.  Any suggestion that any president is a racist should be made only with the utmost care and be based on the firmest possible evidence.  But rather than firm evidence, the media fall back on two canards: Trump's first speech and his statements after the Charlottesville clash last year.

In the first speech of his campaign, Trump said of illegals that "they're rapists."  The childish media – eager for any hammer to use against him – suggested that Trump meant all illegals, presumably including the women and children.  The age of consent in almost all Mexican states and most of Central America is 12.  On its face, that would suggest a more aggressive attitude toward sex and consent than we observe in the United States, and many illegal aliens have been charged with and imprisoned for sexual crimes.

Charlottesville was billed as a rally against the removal of confederate war statues, titled "Unite the Right" – not "Unite Fascists."  The event was hijacked by extremists who garnered all of the media coverage.  But many of the people who attended the event were there not to fly the swastika or clash with leftists; they were there to defend American heritage.  Afterward, Trump innocently remarked that there were good people on both sides, while he condemned hatred and racism.  He's not a fan of Antifa, so presumably he meant that there were good people there in favor of removing the statues and good people against their removal.  The media narrative is that the crowd consisted exclusively of three parts: peaceful leftists, violent leftists valiantly fighting fascism, and violent Nazis.  Further, the media suggest that President Trump knew this to be true and nonetheless praised the Nazis as "good people."  That interpretation seems an insane fiction, but it's a central talking point of the left and the media.  In the real world, the president refers to all American racial, ethnic, and religious groups in only the most positive and glowing terms.

The media's inference that Trump is Hitler reincarnated is more dangerous than their claim that he is racist.  They base most of this dangerous rhetoric on Trump's approach to certain foreigners who represent a direct threat to Americans or American sovereignty.  The media suggest that Trump's protections, even if merely enforcing existing law, are precursors to concentration camps and genocide.  The left and the media are hysterical, and not in the fun way.

The other justification for the media's Hitler rhetoric is that he criticizes the media purveyors of proven fake news as enemies of the people.  But he is spot on: the duty of the press is to objectively inform the public about what is happening in the country.  They generally fail to do so when the news might cast Trump in a positive light, and they simultaneously twist his words and actions to suggest the most sinister motives.  People are misled by the media into believing that very little good is happening, and a lot of horrible things are happening or are imminent.  The exact opposite is true, so the entire media picture of America in the Trump era is in fact fake news.

Identifying any leader as a new Hitler is asking anyone who takes such rhetoric seriously to kill the leader.  One doesn't have to go back in time to become a hero for the rest of human history; he can prevent endless misery, death, and upheaval by ending Trump, here and now.  But even though many leftists are getting violent and mobbing up, few of them really take the media's Hitler theme seriously, or more would take the logical next step and try to kill him.  That they haven't done so yet does not excuse the media – there is no excuse for the fake news media.  They are a dangerous political project.

If you need a reason to vote on November 6, vote Republican if only to put the fake news media in their place, and to punish them for their violent, irresponsible rhetoric.