Donate search
close

Share

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • send Email
  • print Print

The Violence Will Be On The Leftist Media’s Heads

Were President Trump truly a tyrant in the class of Kim, or Vladimir Putin, and supported by a court system and ersatz legislature under his thumb, then it would be wholly appropriate for the media, and the "Resistance" to use mobs, and sometimes violence, to depose him. But that's not even remotely the case, even in the fantasies of women dressed in "The Handmaid's Tale" garb, or the black-masked thugs of Antifa.

Journalist Andy Ngo was beaten and had quick-setting concrete thrown on him by an Antifa mob in Portland, Oregon, Saturday. Whether you like Ngo’s work, or you think he went to the “Proud Boys” march where Antifa was there in counter protest in order to bait an attack, the obviously planned mob action must be universally condemned by media and government officials.

But it wasn’t.

In fact, as in an op-ed The Washington Post published from a Lexington, Virginia restaurateur, “new rules apply.” Whether it’s spitting in Eric Trump’s face in an upscale lounge, or besieging a sitting Senator at a Washington, D.C. restaurant, the media believes it’s time for mob action.

There is a proper role for mobs. Mobs can overthrow tyrants. Mobs can end colonial oppression. Mobs can accomplish things that traditional politics cannot. But there is no place or role for violent mobs in the United States today.

Look at the Velvet Revolution that liberated Czechoslovakia. Study the Indian National Congress and its role in ending the British Raj. Look at the Solidarity movement in 1980s Poland. (You can Google these things.) Mobs engaged in non-violent resistance can overwhelm government will to respond. It can overpower the political structure of corrupt and power-seeking governments.

However, mobs don’t always work, especially against a determined, well-armed and well-disciplined government, like the Tiananmen Square protests in June 1989. China’s Communist government responded by killing as many as it took to end the demonstration. It’s likely thousands were killed.

In America, the Civil Rights movement of the 1960s had its place, but does anyone really think Gov. George Wallace would have stood aside from the schoolhouse door at the University of Alabama had the Kennedy Department of Justice not intervened, and had JFK not federalized the National Guard? The mob had nothing to do with it, and the power of the law and the federal government had everything to do with it.

In the end, all law is ultimately enforced by the barrel of a gun. In America, this law is interpreted, legislated and enforced by separately endowed branches of government. In, let’s say, North Korea, law is whatever nugatory and pernicious thought escapes from the mind of Kim Jong-un.

Were President Trump truly a tyrant in the class of Kim, or Vladimir Putin, and supported by a court system and ersatz legislature under his thumb, then it would be wholly appropriate for the media, and the “Resistance” to use mobs, and sometimes violence, to depose him. But that’s not even remotely the case, even in the fantasies of women dressed in “The Handmaid’s Tale” garb, or the black-masked thugs of Antifa.

Clearly, President Trump has taken the media’s leftist tilt, and its members’ personal animus against him, personally. A sitting president should not do that. The presidency is not a job for a media critic. Also, Trump has incited his own mobs, in the forums of his rallies, to chant “CNN sucks” and other anti-media epithets.

The media knows that Trump’s mobs are not a threat to them. They also know that Trump’s bombastic tweets, his snubbing of White House Correspondents Association events, and his oft-told lies are not a threat to them. In fact, many times the media is fulfilling its correct role in fact-checking Trump’s statements and calling out his lies. By responding to every taunt and troll, the media has made itself ineffective and openly in opposition to the government.

None of this justifies the media’s whitewashing of truly dangerous idiotic mobs like Antifa. None of it justifies the media’s rushing to cite benighted lies about Rep. Gabby Giffords’ shooting being incited by Sarah Palin whenever there is political violence.

It doesn’t justify the New York Times publishing an op-ed by a leftist professor promoting “exposing” Border Patrol federal employees (in which he somehow, fruitlessly, tries to draw a distinction from “doxxing”) for doing their jobs to the best of their abilities, placing the outcome of a badly-handled border crisis created by Congress upon these workers.

What does the media think will result from this combination? When Antifa thugs are given carte-blanche by local police to commit violent assaults, and major newspapers encourage these kinds of assaults and fingering of individuals because of “new rules,” do they not believe they are empowering a mob over which they have no control to restrain?

At least Trump has the ability to reign in his own rhetoric, and has always, genuinely, espoused his support for law enforcement. The leftist groups founded on anarchy, and the winged-unicorn elites who praise the murderous Che Guevara as a “liberator” have no such respect for la policĂ­a.

The mobs that the left empowers are the kinds used to topple actual dictators. Except there is no actual dictator in America. All the leftist media is doing is supporting anarchy and a spiral of personal vengeance. The violence will be on their heads.

Share

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • send Email
  • print Print

Advertisement

More Top Stories

“Cats” Trailer Coughs Up a Hairball

It was a long running joke on the sitcom “The Nanny” that the lead character, Broadway producer Maxwell Sheffield had passed on the musical “Cats.” In exasperation one day he d …

The New York Times’ Disgusting Virtue Signaling on the Space Race

This weekend’s 50th anniversary celebration of the Apollo 11 lunar landing is a reminder of one of those rare, thrilling moments where the world was held in thrall by something exciting and insp …

San Francisco to remove mural of George Washington. Reason? It is offensive.

A mural of Washington painted in the 1930s is to be destroyed because students are “offended” at its depictions. In a move that probably surprises no one, the San Francisco Board of Educat …