Image 01 Image 03

Excusing disruption of Trump’s Chicago event is dangerous

Excusing disruption of Trump’s Chicago event is dangerous

It’s not about Trump, it’s about protecting candidates and the political process.

One of the most difficult things in politics is to defend the rights of politicians you otherwise might not want to defend.

One of those cases was the defense of Sarah Palin against a vicious left-wing smear machine that targeted even her youngest child, who was mocked not only for having Down Syndrome but for not having been aborted. The sexist distortions and outright lies about Palin reached an apex when she was blamed by left-wing bloggers for the shooting of Gabby Giffords and murder of others by Jared Loughner. The excuse was that Palin allegedly used incendiary words and created a climate of fear; a national electoral map she used which had crosshairs over some districts was blamed directly.

In reality, Loughner was a psychotic person who, to the extent his politics were of this world, leaned left. There is no evidence Loughner ever saw the map in question. Loughner was held mentally unfit for trial. Yet Palin was blamed, and even some Republicans joined in the chorus.

I wrote at the time that the defense of Palin was not a defense of Palin the person or politician, but of the principle that if Republicans enabled such dishonest tactics against her, then no Republican politician was safe:

If Palin is taken down politically over the Tucson shooting, there is not a single Republican candidate who can survive the coming onslaught.

Friday night was another of those occasions, regarding the organized disruption of a Donald Trump event at the University of Illinois – Chicago.

The event devolved into mayhem and scuffles when a large number of pro-Bernie Sanders and other protesters entered the venue for the very purpose of disruption.  If you’ve seen the videos, you should agree that it probably was a smart decision to cancel the Chicago event. bragged afterwards about keeping Trump from speaking, and that it was proud of the result. I expect that many of the “protesters” were hardcore Occupy, anarchist and professional radical types who have a strong presence in Chicago.

One person even tried to take over the podium before Trump took the stage. Taking over a political candidate’s podium is crossing a line — it’s a direct security threat and an act qualitatively different than mere protest outside or even in the audience. If you think things are bad now, just wait until some person insistent on stopping a candidate’s “hate” speech gets on stage with a weapon.

Another attempt was made to rush the podium while Trump was on stage today in Ohio. I would not be surprised to see more of that.

Many Republicans, unfortunately, have blamed Trump for the violence and conflict at the UI-Chicago venue because he has contributed to an atmosphere of confrontation. Yet the specific violence and suppression of speech Friday night was not caused by Trump, any more than the Gabby Giffords shooting was caused by Sarah Palin’s rhetoric or map.

Blurring Trump’s rhetoric and the specific disruption Friday night is misguided. There should have been an unequivocal condemnation of the line that was crossed, both because it’s dangerous and because it’s likely to be crossed against other Republican candidates on a variety of issues.

Shout-downs and disruptions of non-leftist speech have become common on campuses. Remember, Chicago is one of the places where they tried to ban Chick-fil-A because it allegedly spread hate. So it doesn’t take much for leftists to shout about “hate” and to use that as an excuse to suppress the rights of others.

Disruption of opposing speech is THE preferred tactic among campus leftists. If you think the disruption of Trump’s event was about Trump, then you haven’t paid attention to what is going on on campuses.

If Donald Trump is not the nominee, there still will be disruptions of the Republican nominee. Because that has proven to be a successful tactic, one partially enabled by Republicans who — out of hate for Trump — are willing to look the other way.


Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.


Damn, Perfesser — with a course in remedial reading we might yet make a constitutionalist out of you.

    Hold on there, Spanky, I’m just about sick to death of you people attacking this site, the professor, and LI writers. We are all Constitutionalists; can you verify that Trump has ever read the Constitution or that, if he did (which seems highly unlikely), he actually understood it?

    If you don’t like what we say here, the solution is obvious. We aren’t changing our values to suit you, so YOU, not we, have a choice to make. Make it.

      Skookum in reply to Fuzzy Slippers. | March 12, 2016 at 8:39 pm

      Fuzzy Headed One,

      “We are all Constitutionalists; can you verify that Trump has ever read the Constitution or that, if he did (which seems highly unlikely), he actually understood it?”

      Not one of you is a legitimate constitutionalist, or you would read the natural-born citizen clause within the principles of constitutional construction, which prohibits you from expunging the word “natural” from the clause. You guys are nothing more that corrupt pseudoconservatives who wipe your rear ends with those parts of the Constitution that hinder your cultural Marxist agenda.

      “If you don’t like what we say here, the solution is obvious. We aren’t changing our values to suit you, so YOU, not we, have a choice to make. Make it.”

      Your values are clearly anti-American. My choice is to call you on your corruption.

        You’re a bizarre one, Skookum. So you read this site, where you know literally no one here, shares your views simply to troll?? Okay. If that’s what makes your life feel complete, have at it. This is, however, the last time I rise to your troll bait. Just blather to the winds from here on out, and I hope it makes you feel like a real person.

        Skookum: Exactly who designated you the Official Authority on Conservatism and Americanism? Your assertions are laughable, your insults trite, and your opinion is worthless to anyone seeking intelligence, reason, and insight.

        If you are unhappy with the dialog at Legal Insurrection, then as the Goddess of Capitalism and champion of free market principles, let me urge you to find another website to bookmark. In fact, I am in such a generous mood, I have located one I think suits your needs perfectly:

        You are most welcome, and I look forward to never reading another opinion from you soon!

          Hear, hear! Leslie! Brilliantly stated.

          beekster in reply to Leslie Eastman. | March 16, 2016 at 1:09 pm

          Thank you Leslie for your very fair approach to the brash arguments that this “air headed constitutionalist” used in such an awkward attempt to take the Prof. to task, as if he could do so anyway. It’s obvious that he’s simply not in the same league as those who write
          for L-I. I appreciate anyone who visits this site as a means to better understand certain of the events that challenge us almost everyday rather then taking issue with them. I think it’s the perspective that I enjoy the most!

        nordic_prince in reply to Skookum. | March 12, 2016 at 9:30 pm

        “Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak out and remove all doubt.”

        Sanddog in reply to Skookum. | March 13, 2016 at 3:22 am

        Still waiting for you to trot out US Code defining the term “natural born citizen”.

    JimMtnViewCaUSA in reply to Skookum. | March 12, 2016 at 11:55 pm

    Just out of curiosity, does anyone here remember the John Doe case in WI?
    Has any Dem yet paid a price for that?

    DaMav in reply to Skookum. | March 13, 2016 at 1:27 am

    What a bizarre comment. Jacobson’s take on this was right on target. Unlike your childish remark.

Making yourself heard is protest. Silencing people who disagree with you is tyranny.

Agreed professor.

Bernie Sanders, asked to disavow violence among his supporters, refused to do so and instead blamed Trump’s policies.

This means that a vote for Bernie is a vote for rule of America by violent thugs.

Cruz, Rubio, and Kasich ought to stand up for Republican voters. Why the hell would Republican voters vote for somebody who would excuse attacks made on Republican voters? Repblican leaning voters, not Donald Trump, were who were being attacked in Chicago.

Their reactions are shameful.

Move took partial credit for this riot. Move is a billionaire democrat funded pot of money funding community organized flash mobs. Do they take credit for the behavior of the protestors, including physical attacks and firing guns into the air?

Is Chicago a no go zone, not part of Democratic America anymore, or does the newest ‘stop Trump’ plan of the globalist billionaires include mass violence in the streets?

    rotten in reply to rotten. | March 12, 2016 at 9:55 pm

    The guy who rushed Trump in Dayton once made a propaganda video for ISIS!

    Can’t we all agree to condemn ISIS attacks on American Presidential candidates? Apparently not. The guy is back on the street on $3,000 bail.

      JimMtnViewCaUSA in reply to rotten. | March 13, 2016 at 12:13 am

      What happens to Dem protestors at these demonstrations, riots and town burnings? Do they get convicted, is there a significant sentence?

      “The guy who rushed Trump in Dayton once made a propaganda video for ISIS!”

      Is that true, or did you read it at The Trumpservative Trumphouse?

        Barry in reply to Amy in FL. | March 13, 2016 at 1:32 pm

        Amy, does it really matter where the truth is written?

        You are shooting the messenger because you don’t like the news.

          My point was, that many breathless headlines from that blog turn out not to be true. See also “Robert King Bullock RIP.” And I’m pretty skeptical that the Dayton stage-rusher is ISIS as well.

People from the far left, far right, and immoderate center need to reorient their axis if they hope to keep their American country.

I wonder what triggered the violent, visceral response to Trump’s candidacy that is unlike anything that preceded it in recent memory. They are not Americans. Americans are tolerant, even gracious, to a fault, despite the radical changes implemented in domestic, foreign, and religious/moral affairs.

Are the press uniformly victim-blaming as well? I don’t watch any of the networks anymore.

    I don’t even have a TV, but from what I’ve seen online, it looks like the answer to that one is “yes.” In addition, a lot of the alerts I was getting from the “Breaking News” app on my iPad made it really unclear who was actually causing the trouble and starting the fights — the Trump supporters or the anti-Trump protestors.

    All of the headlines I saw from major news sources seemed positively gleeful for the chance to link the words “Trump” and “violence.” Whereas, I kept thinking, if it were the Tea Party pulling a stunt like this on an Obama rally back in 08, they wouldn’t be linking the words “Obama” and “violence” that way, the headlines would all be about “Tea Party violence.”

“Yet the specific violence and suppression of speech Friday night was not caused by Trump, any more than the Gabby Giffords shooting was caused by Sarah Palin’s rhetoric or map.”

I agree with that EXCEEDINGLY carefully worded construction, Prof.

Palin was entirely innocent of provoking a nut-bag killer. At all, any, in part or whole.

And T-rump was not responsible for the acts of very sane, terribly wrong people.

He DAMN SURE IS responsible for creating the atmosphere he HAS in the country, rousing the rabble on BOTH fringes of the political spectrum, and nobody can claim differently and be truthful.

    Skookum in reply to Ragspierre. | March 12, 2016 at 8:44 pm

    What cultural Marxist tripe. Obama has been rousing the rabble for seven years, and so has the GOPe by their unwillingness to try to counter Obama’s illegal actions. So blame Trump for telling the truth about the situation? Buy a clue, Rags.

      Ragspierre in reply to Skookum. | March 12, 2016 at 9:54 pm

      Cruz wins the Wyoming caucuses with an OVER 6:1 schlonging of Der Donald.

        Wisewerds in reply to Ragspierre. | March 12, 2016 at 10:22 pm

        It’s Wyoming, Jake

        DaveGinOly in reply to Ragspierre. | March 13, 2016 at 3:12 am

        Skookum made a point that you evaded, Rags. The Trump phenomenon is the result of Republican’s lethargy and spinelessness for the last 7 years. If they had been doing their jobs (defending the Constitution), Trump would still be on a reality TV show, and maybe we’d have an honest-to-god Republican candidate with actual republican (as in “the republic”) bona fides. The GOPe has nobody other than itself to blame for Trump’s success as a candidate.

    malclave in reply to Ragspierre. | March 12, 2016 at 8:55 pm

    “He DAMN SURE IS responsible for creating the atmosphere he HAS in the country, ”

    Trump didn’t create it.

      Sanddog in reply to malclave. | March 13, 2016 at 3:25 am

      That “atmosphere” has been around for quite a while. After 2001, the left decided there were no limitations on their behavior and we’ve been paying the price since then.

        Matt_SE in reply to Sanddog. | March 13, 2016 at 11:34 pm

        There is a certain type of troll that has only appeared in the Trump era. Everyone here knows what I’m talking about:
        They invade certain cites, act obnoxiously, derail conversations, and suppress anything critical of Trump.
        THAT is the atmosphere Trump created, because it sure as hell didn’t exist before recently.

    Lady Penguin in reply to Ragspierre. | March 12, 2016 at 9:25 pm

    No,it’s not Donald Trump who created the atmosphere of “hate” in this country. That can be laid at the door of the current president, who has aided and abetted every racial lie and phony grievance he could. Bill Ayers hates this country, and he was Obama’s mentor. Sadly, your hate is so great, it blinds you horribly.

    But dishonesty is not something that can be excused, and too many people are promoting that – in our own party.

      Ragspierre in reply to Lady Penguin. | March 12, 2016 at 10:20 pm

      All you say about Barracula is true.

      But YOU are being dishonest if YOU excuse the rabble rousing of T-rump.

      I’ve been saying for months there is MUCH more similarity between Barracula and Der Donald than difference.

      And, AGAIN, it isn’t a question of anyone’s right to say really bad things. It IS a matter of responsibility and consequences.

      I’m appalled at the histrionics of posters here.

        Barry in reply to Ragspierre. | March 13, 2016 at 1:08 am

        I’ve been telling the lie for months there is MUCH more similarity between Barracula and Der Donald than difference.

        Fixed it for you.

        Your pathetic.

        malclave in reply to Ragspierre. | March 13, 2016 at 4:27 am

        “I’m appalled at the histrionics of posters here.”

        You mean histrionics like claiming Trump is responsible for the atmosphere of hate?

    Bigurn in reply to Ragspierre. | March 13, 2016 at 4:10 am


    Good morning. Hope all of you are well. I’m sitting 6000 miles away, watching the country have a temper tantrum. I can feel the emotion in the comments here, which is unusual for this crowd in the 4 or 5 years I’ve been reading this excellent blog (hi perfesser!)

    I believe in personal responsibility, and in the principle that this responsibility increases with authority. I suspect many of you join me. With this as a guide, I watched the videos feeling general disdain for the protesters AND for Donald. The protesters had no business doing this, but Donald had set the tone months ago with his rhetoric. We need better behavior from our citizens and from our leaders.

    In all, Ted Cruz nailed it for me. He was obviously politicking, and maybe shouldn’t have said anything, but he was pretty much spot on. And Rags is too. Be nice to everyone you meet…….

      Insufficiently Sensitive in reply to Bigurn. | March 13, 2016 at 12:54 pm

      but Donald had set the tone months ago with his rhetoric.

      That’s the mantra from all the lefties on FB this morning, justifying ‘shutting down’ speakers they disagree with.

      A sordid and shameful position.

    ConradCA in reply to Ragspierre. | March 13, 2016 at 4:56 am

    Tyrant Obama the Liar and his progressive fascist cronies are responsible for the rise of fascist tyranny in the USA.

“Blurring Trump’s rhetoric and the specific disruption Friday night is misguided. There should have been an unequivocal condemnation of the line that was crossed, both because it’s dangerous and because it’s likely to be crossed against other Republican candidates on a variety of issues.”

Blaming Trump for Soros’ calculated disruption isn’t just misguided it is evil. Any Republican taking such a line should be shunned, period. Having said that, good comments Prof! You done good.

Yes, this should all be obvious enough. But, as we saw last night, it’s not.

I was quite surprised to see far too many people who proclaim themselves “conservatives” miss this entirely. Their equation of Trump-inspired “violence”—-in preserving his right to speak to his audience by forcible (not violent) removal of disruptive hecklers—with this violent invasion of his venue was just incredible … but I witnessed it here and on other sites. Yes, I realize Trump phobia is a wonderful thing, able to reduce otherwise semi-capable persons to room-temperature-IQ buffoons, but yesterday’s performance by the supposedly “Right” Internet and MSM punditry and commentariat was simply inexcusable.

Even Cruz joined in the fun; I can only speak for one voter, but after his statements of and about this incident, I can’t consider him a suitable candidate.

I found the whole spectacle to be quite enlightening. Surprising, disappointing … but enlightening.

    Wisewerds in reply to tom swift. | March 12, 2016 at 10:24 pm

    I am a Cruz supporter, but I was very disappointed in his comments on this subject. I am hopeful that after a little thought he will adopt the right approach outlined very well in this article.

      Notanymore in reply to Wisewerds. | March 13, 2016 at 2:34 pm

      Sometimes it takes one incident to completely open your eyes. I hope you use this to see exactly who and what Cruz represents. I dare say if you look deeply you will find this is not the only thing he has said or done that proves he is not to be trusTed.

    Milhouse in reply to tom swift. | March 12, 2016 at 10:47 pm

    Their equation of Trump-inspired “violence”—-in preserving his right to speak to his audience by forcible (not violent) removal of disruptive hecklers

    That is not what is being equated. It’s the actual violence by Trump’s supporters, which he actively encourages at every opportunity. He is running blackshirt rallies and is responsible for the results.

      myiq2xu in reply to Milhouse. | March 12, 2016 at 10:59 pm

      One 78 year old man in NC is hardly an army of violent blackshirt (or brownshirt) fascists.

      murkyv in reply to Milhouse. | March 12, 2016 at 11:15 pm

      Hundreds of thousands, if not over a million people have attended Trump rallies in scores of locations around the country, attending both inside the venue and outside. There has been precisely ONE, count’em ONE old man pop a loud mouth disrupter in all of that time.

      I hardly call that a trend.

      Barry in reply to Milhouse. | March 13, 2016 at 1:11 am

      millhouse pops in to tell his lies.

      Probably had a tough day riding a train with people that are too noisy to suit him.

    Sanddog in reply to tom swift. | March 13, 2016 at 3:28 am

    I am extremely disappointed in Cruz. He really screwed this up.

Bravo, professor, I couldn’t have said it better myself. Over the last 24 hours I’ve watched so-called conservatives march in lock-step with the worst progressives. They’ve completely excused the protesters’ role in this. organized the event with the express purpose to make things happen? Nope, doesn’t matter. It’s all Trump’s fault. Hell even told their followers they weren’t responsible for their actions once they were at the event.

Anyone who thinks this was just because or about Donald Trump, and that it won’t happen to their candidates is an outright moron. It absolutely WILL happen again. It will happen over and over again during the general election until it escalates into actual, major violence. Unless we stop it and hold the left responsible for the actions they commit against freedom, regardless of who the target is.

Unfortunately I doubt that’s doing to happen. Because Trump or something.

    rabidfox in reply to Radius. | March 12, 2016 at 11:37 pm

    The almost universal blame being thrown at Trump for causing the violence is just more evidence of the Uniparty giving out their marching orders.

So is political speech now qualifying as “fighting words” ?

    It will.

    A prediction: we will see more stringent calls for speech codes and hate speech laws after this. It might take a few days, it might take a few weeks, but it will happen. Trump will be cited as the reason, with this incident being directly cited. Political speech has gotten too dangerous, they’ll say. We have to limit it to protect the children.

    The left will lead the cry, of course; speech codes are something they have wet dreams about. Soon, though, voices on the right will join in. The RINOs will be the only ones calling for limits on free speech…at first. Then we’ll see some of the more respected members of the right take up the call. The president will get involved, and demand that Congress pass a law and get it to his desk.

    Leftist bloggers will be over the moon, of course, and will vigorously advocate for this. Some of the so-called conservative bloggers, however, will also offer tacit support. They’ll nod sagely as the pundits talk about how dangerous the public discourse has become. They may not come out in full support of speech codes…but they wont do anything to stop it. After all, America will descend into despotism if speech gets too dangerous.

    I expect free speech will be, at best, on life support just in time for November.

    Milhouse in reply to Neo. | March 12, 2016 at 10:52 pm

    No, but Trump’s affirmatively encouraging violence — over and over again — is.

I have 2 thoughts on this episode of sanctioned rioting in Chicago yesterday:
1)The other 3 candidates have just mortally wounded their campaigns by not immediately standing up and loudly condemning in no uncertain words that actions of these “protesters”.

2)You have not seen anything yet, just wait for the GOP nominating convention.

    great unknown in reply to OldNuc. | March 12, 2016 at 9:31 pm

    I think you’re right. Cruz, in particular, might as well withdraw.

    Well put, OldNuc.

    As you can see here on the comment log, Trump’s poll numbers and state wins has sparked some into a full blown mania of vile seething hatred and counter-hating back at them. Sane folks look at them, divert their eyes, and walk quickly past.

Sanders is a leftist. Leftist use thuggery and train their young to hate an act out like sociopaths in furtherance of silencing (or killing) political opposition.

Brownshirts, the Red Guard, Castro, Che, Khmer Rouge, and on and one — they all were taught ‘triggers’ – to the point where they were programmed to pull them on living people.

Don’t be a victim. As a threshold matter, handle Sanders’ and Obama’s goons the way Reagan did as governor of CA:

Instead of blaming Trump or Sanders, we should all be blaming the community organizer Barack Hussein Obama. Remember before Move on we had Acorn who’s chief spokesman was non other then Obama. Chicago is Obama’s home territory where he organized the same kind of groups that are now attacking free speech. Look at Europe where anything negative about Islam can get you put in prison or fined. This is one of the goals of these savages that are attacking Trump. Its also Obama and Hillarys goal to silence those who speak the truth about Islam. Islam is at war with the free world. Look at whats taking place in Europe. Europe is being invaded by Muslims who once there are already raping women, and demanding the folks who took them in change their ways for them. Its happening here in this country. Our schools are being used to indoctrinate our children into thinking Islam is a religion of peace. Look at whats taking place in many parts of the islamic world. Christians, Jews, Hindus and others are being murdered by Muslim savages. The Crusades ended hundreds of years ago. The war being waged by Islam never ended.

Ugh. With all this happening, I really want to be able to vote for Trump. But he keeps opening his obnoxious pie hole. Tonight he was crowing that the left wasn’t interested in disrupting Cruz or Rubio– and again, tossing unsubstantiated greasy personal insults at the two of them.

Reds vs. Brownshirts. Nobody will win. With God’s grace, in 50 years, we will resemble Germany. But I think God may be sleeping.

Congratulations, Obama: you killed America.

    CloseTheFed in reply to Scott Anderson. | March 13, 2016 at 11:40 am

    I must say, one thing I find distasteful about Trump, is one thing I like about Trump: His obnoxious piehole.

    He assaults politically correct speech every time he speaks. He’s right to say that we don’t have time, and I loathe, politically correct speech. Politically correct speech gets you 3/4 of the way to thought crimes.

    So, although I find him boorish, his one-man hit job on politically correct speech earns him a shot at my vote.

Barack HUSSEIN Obama vowed to fundamentally transform America.
And that’s probably the only promise he’s ever kept.

The lying fraud has degraded this nation in every way possible – which fits ever so nicely with the international elitist blue print for the New World Order.

Hillary would continue the tradition approved by Rove, Soros, Bilderberg, Carlyle Group, et al . . . the list of puppet masters goes on. And Jeb! would have been pure putty on a string.

Say what you will about imperfect Mr. Trump – he’s thrown a monkey wrench into the machinery and threatens the powers that be.

All hell from all sides is breaking loose to stop him.

Mr. Toad’s Wild Ride.

    rabidfox in reply to clafoutis. | March 12, 2016 at 11:42 pm

    Trump isn’t gaining ground because Obama significantly transformed America, he is gaining ground because the GOP not only let him but actively participated.

      forksdad in reply to rabidfox. | March 13, 2016 at 1:25 pm

      And it is a bad thing for your front runner to be gaining in leaps and bounds? Whomever is our front runner gets my support. Do you really want Hillary or Bernie?

Gary Johnson 2016

The best analogy for what happened in Chicago is the Battle of Cable Street. The commies were responsible for the violence, and they were completely in the wrong, and those leftists who to this day are proud of that moment should be ashamed of themselves, but at the same time their “victims” deserved no sympathy because they were just as despicable. The BLM and Occupy thugs has no right to attack Trump’s blackshirt rally, and all decent people must condemn them for it, but it couldn’t happen to nicer people.

For years I have watched conservatives complain that the people they elect won’t fight. They also talk about building the party so they can re-take the White House.

Along comes Trump who does both, and they hate him.

    Ragspierre in reply to myiq2xu. | March 12, 2016 at 11:37 pm

    Speaking only for myself, your straw men don’t work.

    I hate a fraud, and I hate a liar.

    T-rump is both.

    If he fights to further his fraud, that is no virtue.

    If his lies “re-take the White House”, I want no part of that “re-taking”.

    No conservative “hates” Der Donald because he fights or he’s a successful populist. We hate him because he’s in the mode of Huey P. Long. Or worse.

    nisquire in reply to myiq2xu. | March 13, 2016 at 12:49 am

    That’s a very good point. Why don’t we hear any more about the Republicans’ “big tent”? Maybe since Ringling Bros. is getting rid of its elephant act, the GOP feels it need not have a big tent, either.

mumzieistired | March 13, 2016 at 12:03 am

There is more than one thing going on here.

First, there is the professional protesting class – many literally being paid to protest – which is working to stir up trouble. It wouldn’t surprise me if this is happening with Obama’s approval and Soros’ funding.

Second, there is at LEAST a low level of anger (for me, it’s actually a very high level of anger) among the voters, because most of the people we elect do not do what we elect them to do. They are not governing with the consent of the governed, and it’s no big deal for them.

Third, Mr. Trump has given at least rhetorical support for violence. He has frequently used language that promotes violence on the part of his supporters. There has been actual violence from his supporters directed toward protesters at his rallies. There has been at least one case of violence from a member of his campaign staff directed toward another person.

Mix all three together – the professional protesters, the anger, and the “tough guy” atmosphere – and you shouldn’t be surprised if violence breaks out.

Mr. Trump cannot do anything about the first problem (the professional protesters).
He cannot do much about the second (the anger).
But he most certainly can and should – ASAP – (1) stop promoting violence at his rallies (even if he has merely been trying to sound like a “tough guy”, which is what I believe – I don’t think he has really been wanting violence) and (2) let his rally-attenders know that violence will not be tolerated.

Until he does these two things, he will certainly continue to have problems. The professional protesters are just looking for an outlet where provocations will be easy. Trump should not give it to them.

Cruz has correctly blamed the actual violence on the protesters and rally attenders who became violent. But he has also correctly stated that a candidate bears the responsibility for the tone of his rallies.

    Sanddog in reply to mumzieistired. | March 13, 2016 at 3:37 am

    McCain had a conciliatory tone. Romney had a conciliatory tone.

    Obama talked about getting in people’s faces and bringing guns to knife fights. Who won again?

      mumzieistired in reply to Sanddog. | March 13, 2016 at 4:30 pm

      I’m not talking about taking a “conciliatory tone”. I’m talking about taking a “violence will not be tolerated” tone.

      The two are quite different.

      And I hope you’re not trying to say that Trump needs to be even more like Obama (?)

    Lady Penguin in reply to mumzieistired. | March 13, 2016 at 10:33 am

    It’s still implying that Trump is the culprit. I watched my 1st ever speech last night by him, and other than the usual political rhetoric (of which all candidates engage in) there isn’t anything in there that incites VIOLENCE…Intended violence, disruption, and interference with the people’s right to peaceably assemble and in the ccompany of the people they chose.

    Trump isn’t a bigot, no more than millions of Americans who simply don’t want Open Borders, and unvetted and uncontrolled migration. Actually, if the immigration laws we already have on the books were enforced, quite a bit of this wouldn’t be the 24/7 news story the malignant media is making it out to be.

    BlackLivesMatter,, anarchists, Bill Ayers and “Hate” the police groups are who showed up (along with Bernie Sanders supporters) – all evidenced by photo and social media – were organized and planned a week in advance to bring chaos and violence to the rally. George Soros is funding these things – and as far as I’m concerned they’re involved in domestic terrorism – a state that Obama and the Left want to happen.

    Cruz (who I voted for) only briefly made reference to the protesters being the bad guys – the past 48 hrs. it’s been 24/7 Cruz, Rubio and Kasich, and the Media pushing the horribleness of Trump.

    Those are regular American people who are at his rallies and the hate directed towards them by the Establishment GOP, let alone the left, is indeed similar to the vile treatment of Sarah Palin. It’s a depraved culture run amok that supports this kind of treatment of decent people.

    If one can’t see that the Left is seeking to create a Ferguson, Baltimore, Zimmerman travesty, then we’ll all at risk. The alligators don’t care who they eat first…

Forget Chicago, it is not part of the conservative march to the WH. Forget blaming the other candidates for not supporting Trump. Think back a week ago and consider what Trump was saying about the other three. But that is not the noble thing to do is it? We are supposed to rally around a man who has no qualifications to be president nor to be a leader of men/women. He is an exploiter of human beings for his own greed. Sure there is the burning in all of our hearts to defend the downtrodden but Trump isn’t one of them. He has highlighted some of the problems in our country today but instead of offering logical solutions he offered hate and bias. We all know that muslims will not assimilate with us and we know that most Mexicans do not want to become Americans but there is a better way to address the issue. The answer is to talk about the law. Trump dwells on emotion and that is no way to govern. All dictators have used emotion to conquer the hearts and minds of the masses but when it comes to governing it won’t work. All of our freedoms are based on law and not feelings or emotions. Without that we are nothing but a vigilante. The left is doing what they always do and that is deny the rights of their opponents. They are the name callers and the silencers. No conservative group has ever disrupted a liberal speaker from speaking. That is the way of all socialist dictatorships. Look at the university system today in our country. It is totally liberal and anti 1st amendment.

This is setting up like 1968. The riots following MLK, Jr’s. murder (themselves preceded by the awful Detroit riots in 1967) and the Democratic Convention in Chicago set the stage for Richard Nixon’s election. “Law and Order” became the dominant theme. If leftists and racialists think Donald Trump won’t be able to exploit (or, since he’s in business, “leverage”) their efforts to suppress speech with fascist antics, they’re crazy.

    Ragspierre in reply to nisquire. | March 13, 2016 at 11:13 am

    Part of their number are crazy. Part of them don’t think in any meaningful way at all. And another part…say the Bill Ayers part…EXPECT that T-rumpites will be radicalized and are planning on that effect. Radicalize and polarize, so that you are left with two tribes, with anyone who advocates a civil society in the middle of a nutcracker.

What a clear, concise, and excellent piece by Professor Jacobson. One of the best things I have read on LI.

“There should have been an unequivocal condemnation of the line that was crossed, both because it’s dangerous and because it’s likely to be crossed against other Republican candidates on a variety of issues.”

There was NOT ‘an unequivocal condemnation’! Instead, Rubio, Cruz, and Kasich used this incident of mob rule to attack Trump. Their handful of sycophants here joined in, implying Trump bore some responsibility for speaking too bluntly or obnoxiously.

This is the LEFT wing position on free speech: It doesn’t protect hate speech and hate speech is whatever I disagree with.

Some here have clearly lost your way, driven by your blinding rage against Trump and his supporters. Read Prof Jacobson’s piece carefully and regain your senses. If the left shuts down Trump they will come for Cruz, or whoever threatens their Socialist transformation. If we don’t stand united against the mob we will be torn apart and defeated.

    clafoutis in reply to DaMav. | March 13, 2016 at 10:35 am

    What a clear, concise, and excellent response befitting the clear, concise, and excellent post by the Professor.

Professor – thanks, perfectly written.

And I knew you would.

Breaking: Trump supporter found dead of gunshot wounds following Chicago Rally

    It’s generally not a wise move to believe everything you read at The Trumpservative Trumphouse. They’re so gullible, and so easily excitable, that they fall for any and every fake story people throw their way. The 4chan kiddies have even gotten them to bite on some of their faked-up “scoops” — then they go back and laugh at y’all.

    In this particular case, it looks like even Mark eventually realized he’d been punk’d, since he’s now taken down his post:

    It’s not nice that people keep punking you guys, but such is life. You just have to work on being a little more discerning.

    DaveGinOly in reply to rotten. | March 13, 2016 at 3:30 am

    I had asked earlier (in a post to a related story here on LI) if the organizers of the protest could be charged for violating the civil rights of Trump or the rally attendees, and if they could possibly be guilty of violating any federal election laws. But here’s an opportunity for this man’s family to civilly sue the protest organizers for his death. The organizers are responsible for the forces they unleashed and subsequently failed to control, just as a dog owner is responsible for his animal when it gets loose.

      You might want to ascertain whether it even happened, before jumping on the bandwagon. Every single mention I can find of it traces back to one dodgy-looking website which also had this “scoop” back on December 23rd last year:

      BREAKING: Christian Times Newspaper has learned that Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada, North Carolina, and Florida have all REMOVED Trump’s name from their state’s upcoming Republican primaries!

      Google “Robert King Bullock” and see what you come up with. I’m not seeing any reliable sources for the story myself.

      murkyv in reply to DaveGinOly. | March 13, 2016 at 5:26 am

      Text of the Federal Restricted Buildings and Grounds Improvement Act of 2011

      (c)In this section—
      (1)the term restricted buildings or grounds means any posted, cordoned off, or otherwise restricted area—

      (A)of the White House or its grounds, or the Vice President’s official residence or its grounds;

      of a building or grounds where the President or other person protected by the Secret Service is or will be temporarily visiting; or

      (C)of a building or grounds so restricted in conjunction with an event designated as a special event of national significance; and

      (2)the term other person protected by the Secret Service means any person whom the United States Secret Service is authorized to protect under section 3056 of this title or by Presidential memorandum, when such person has not declined such protection.


        murkyv in reply to murkyv. | March 13, 2016 at 5:29 am

        (1)knowingly enters or remains in any restricted building or grounds without lawful authority to do so;
        (2)knowingly, and with intent to impede or disrupt the orderly conduct of Government business or official functions, engages in disorderly or disruptive conduct in, or within such proximity to, any restricted building or grounds when, or so that, such conduct, in fact, impedes or disrupts the orderly conduct of Government business or official functions;
        (3)knowingly, and with the intent to impede or disrupt the orderly conduct of Government business or official functions, obstructs or impedes ingress or egress to or from any restricted building or grounds; or
        (4)knowingly engages in any act of physical violence against any person or property in any restricted building or grounds;
        or attempts or conspires to do so, shall be punished as provided in subsection (b).
        (b)The punishment for a violation of subsection (a) is—
        (1)a fine under this title or imprisonment for not more than 10 years, or both, if—
        (A)the person, during and in relation to the offense, uses or carries a deadly or dangerous weapon or firearm; or
        (B)the offense results in significant bodily injury as defined by section 2118(e)(3); and
        (2)a fine under this title or imprisonment for not more than one year, or both, in any other case.

        murkyv in reply to murkyv. | March 13, 2016 at 3:39 pm

        Downvotes don’t bother me, but I am a bit curious about them since I merely posted what seems to be applicable law.

        I had hoped the legals here could share their opinion if it is or isn’t.

        Oh well…

“Trump-inspired” violence would have Trumpsters disrupting Democratic candidates’ events. But that’s not what happened. Somehow the violence that Trump is allegedly promoting didn’t inspire his supporters to violence, but inspired his opponents to violence! Seriously, we’re supposed to believe that? The reality of the situation is that those behind the violence only needed a pretext, and although Trump may have given them that pretext, they are still the people actually responsible for the violence. The fact is that they are “offended” by people who don’t think as they do. It’s telling that they’re not attacking other Republican candidates – that means they’re not offended by their messages. I think that’s an indication that there’s something wrong with the other Republican candidates and their messages, not with Trump’s.

Once again, Professor, you are absolutely on point.

I have to admit that sometimes I have to remind myself, “Amy, the enemy of your enemy is not necessarily your friend.” I’ve made no secret of the fact that I really don’t like Trump, and I think he would make an awful President. But I also see a lot of “othering” tactics and eliminationist rhetoric being used against him that I can’t get on board with, because I know that if Trump didn’t exist, they’d be using it against someone else. And in fact, they have used shades of it before in attacking the Tea Party. Just google “Paul Krugman Climate Of Hate” for a refresher on where this started.

I’m not really enjoying being put in the position of defending Donald Trump, but on the other hand, I know that if I go along with the Trump-bashers on this one, I’ve just empowered them to do the same or worse to some candidate I *do* support.

    DaMav in reply to Amy in FL. | March 13, 2016 at 5:59 am

    You are not defending Trump. You are defending his right to speak, and his supporters right to peaceably assemble.

    Respect to you for discerning the importance of that.

    Don’t worry, everyone here knows you think Trump has cooties. And you have every damn right to say that all you want. You knew that.

      Lady Penguin in reply to DaMav. | March 13, 2016 at 10:45 am

      And that’s where so many don’t get it. People have been attacked all over for being defenders of Trump, even if they’re not supporters. I’ve been for Cruz all along, but the incredible vitriol, dishonesty, and treatment directed towards the people who defend or support Trump, has made me see the cancer in the Establishment conservative movement.

    forksdad in reply to Amy in FL. | March 13, 2016 at 1:20 pm

    Excellent comment.

Over a hundred protesters injured. One killed.

Are Cruz, Kasich, and Rubio going to denounce the shocking violence? Is the ding-dong dinkydau commenter going to hold him responsible for
“creating the atmosphere” and “rousing the rabble”?

I assume a lot of people here have seen this, it’s an interview with a young Trump supporter surrounded by people intent on denying him his say.

What might be more interesting is where I found it, namely at Reddit, home of the Bernie Sanders supporters.

Bernie’s supporters are disappointed that he excused the bad behavior.

Meanwhile, my local paper, the San Diego Union-Tribune, ran this headline: ‘Rallies, clashes expose new GOP anxiety: Violence at Trump events exemplifies anger boiling within Republican Party.”

This headline is disingenuous, to say the least, because the violence is not coming FROM the GOP or Trump supporters. There is an online campaign to disrupt and shut down Trump rallies, violence is explicitly part of it, and, which has endorsed Sanders, has gleefully claimed it.

If the beginning of this speech at his Kansas City rally is any indicator, Donald Trump is emphatically not calling for violence by either his supporters, or his security. (I posted this link on this website, before).

So I have a question: Does anybody have a link showing Donald Trump encouraging violence by his supporters? That is what he has been accused of, by at least Bernie Sanders and Ted Cruz, and right now, I don’t believe it. Those politicians may be operating of “reporting” that is as usual, misleading to say the very least. I would like to know if there is any actual evidence.


Donald J. Trump Verified account

Bernie Sanders is lying when he says his disruptors aren’t told to go to my events. Be careful Bernie, or my supporters will go to yours!

And some of you will excuse THIS threat AND any realization of the threat.

Der Donald doesn’t give a rat’s ass about the concept of free expression…except for himself. He’ll crush YOU…or try hard…if you use it in a way he doesn’t like.

Professor you have nailed it. Unfortunately, Trump’s opponents do not care for the truth or for the only ethical message here.

What is that message? Don’t compare Trump to the any totalitarian group or paramilitary while denouncing this violence and intimidation. Everything you do before or after that vile accusation invalidates whatever else you say.

Don’t equivocate, be civil, focus on the evil of the left. We can quibble all we want when it’s between us. When the thugs are kicking in our door quit arguing about where to place the silverware or who does the chores. Go kick Lefty Ass. Stand shoulder to shoulder and condemn in no uncertain terms the left.

We are called the stupid party for a reason and it is not entirely unearned. The West has many, many examples for us to follow, from Ronald Reagan to Don Jon of Austria there is no shortage of men and women who made the right choice, put aside their differences and stood shoulder to shoulder against the barbarians.

If Horatius at the bridge had to worry about slings and arrows from behind he he could have never saved Rome. When it is time to lock shields, do it. Stand together.

There should be no statements from the right (or any ethical person) that try to have it both ways. Condemn the democrat violence and organized thugs. Hammer away every opportunity at the literal terrorists and goons stifling free speech.

Do we really want allies that are behind Bill Ayers? Do we really want to muddy the waters to give cover to a man whose only regret is that he didn’t kill more Americans?

If we do not hang together we will surely hang separately. At no time is that more true than now. I have been warning that undermining Trump while he is the front runner would embolden the left and the squishy/turncoat right. I might just have gotten lucky in my prediction or I might have just been looking at history. It doesn’t matter now.

Do we want European style political violence or do we want to nip it in the bud? We can’t have it both ways. If it was Jeb Bush having Democrat mobsters attack him I would be firmly behind him. I don’t like him or his team but it is what a civilized man would do.

Heed the professor’s words. Stop blaming our side. This might be our last chance to stop this peacefully.

Common Sense | March 13, 2016 at 1:54 pm

EXCELLENT Comments forksdad!
Free speech is under extreme attack everywhere!
A STRONG stand needs to be taken right now!

The Republican’s have acted in shameful matter. Every freedom loving person should be outraged what happen in Chicago.
A political rally was shut down because a few radicals did not like the speech?

God help us!

It’s about an ugly hatemongering bully running for president. Aided and abetted by the corrupt msm. Sheeple gleeful.

As I’ve said… Der Donald supports violence by his supporters. He ALSO supports his own brand of speech suppression, and has for decades.

AGAIN, this NEVER excuses the conduct of OTHER thugs…

Since the protesters infringed on the civil liberties of others, freedom of speech, freedom to assemble, freedom to associate, why not sue the protesters for material damages? Cost of venue, security and personal losses should be recoverable through civil court, right?

Protesters have a right to the same, but, they do not have the right to use the soap box someone else is paying for.

Make them get their own damn soapbox.

Though it upset me when I first heard about it years ago, I understand the use of “free speech zones” now.

    Ragspierre in reply to MrE. | March 13, 2016 at 3:38 pm

    Here’s a question nobody has addressed (though it may be in the Politico piece I haven’t had time to read entirely)…

    Was this, as claimed by posters, a “closed event”?

    OR was it a public event on a campus venue?

    It makes am immense difference in terms of the whole “peaceably assemble” issue, along with trespass law.

Since this is Chicago, this will never happen, but the way to put a stop to this kind of violence is to:
A-Arrest the criminals when they break the law
B-Prosecute them
C-Jail them, even if it’s only for a few weeks
D-Fine them the cost of their crimes and the resulting punishment

It seems the Chicago police have stopped before they even reached A.

    Ragspierre in reply to georgfelis. | March 13, 2016 at 3:57 pm

    According to some accounts, the student protesters in the building had every right anyone else did to be there to “peaceably assemble”. And, according to some accounts, many were determined to do just that. Peaceably assemble.

    It was NOT, as some have been saying, a “closed venue”.

    So, while there were law violators there, who were they?

    BTW, there were a few arrests, and a few felony complaints made.

    DaMav in reply to georgfelis. | March 13, 2016 at 6:02 pm

    Unfortunately, it’s not just Chicago. The radical anti-American who rushed Trump on the podium in Ohio until tackled by the Secret Service was immediately released from jail by a judge.

    Then you have some of the Socialist Bernie/ BLM sympathizers here pretending to be conservatives while defending the rioters — claiming they “had every right to be there” to “peaceably assemble”, even though anyone with an IQ over 50 knows they came to disrupt and non-peaceably intimidate. He and his Communist sympathizing ilk will throw every legal technicality in your face if you try to detain or prosecute. They want to destroy Trump, and the heck with anything else.

    All this makes it hard to defend free speech and assembly rights from a legal perspective. There are too many termites in the beams.

    Ragspierre in reply to georgfelis. | March 13, 2016 at 6:50 pm

    Nope. I was mistaken.

    And, as usual, my own research and integrity revealed the error.

    This is how integrity looks, Gaghdad Bob. I know it burns you like salt on a slug. Exactly like.

It is probably an organized effort to assassinate Trump. If they can have a riots at his talks, then when the assassin is successful, everyone will say that is no surprise. The investigation will be about as effective as it was when the justice department investigated the IRS.

Thank you, Dr. Jacobson.

Trump supporters online keep saying “wait until they come after YOUR candidate,” but that won’t happen.
The reason BLM targets Trump is because his supporters are most likely to lash out in reaction. In fact, it’s mostly ONLY his supporters who do that.

Rubio, Cruz and Kasich have as much violence in their audiences as your average Tea Party rally: zero.
If they were set upon by BLM, you would see them react in a calm manner, waiting for the police to clear the disturbance.

I predict for this reason, you will NEVER see a BLM attack on those other campaigns.

I find these protests disgraceful.
And that anyone could possibly imagine that the Trump supporters had anything to be blamed for is unfathomable.

Yet, that is all you hear… the Hateful Trump Supporters, those awful people who were so eager to take time from their busy day to come hear him speak… they must be silenced, and punished.
I have been a Cruz supporter, but this is pushing me more each day to migrate over to the Trump camp.

The other Republicans, they are jumping aboard this charade as if it were a carnival ride.
They won’t much like it when it is their turn.