Image 01 Image 03

Peter Fonda: “We should rip Barron Trump from his mother’s arms and put him in a cage with pedophiles”

Peter Fonda: “We should rip Barron Trump from his mother’s arms and put him in a cage with pedophiles”

The Resistance becomes more unhinged, and dangerous.

The media-driven frenzy about separation of illegal immigrant children from their arrested parents is reaching insane heights. This is a problem which long predated Trump, and is caused by parents who expose their children to danger by bringing them illegally across the border, rather than presenting the family through lawful means of seeking asylum.

These border crossings are attempts to evade U.S. law, to allow the illegal trespassers to enter the U.S. undetected. The asylum claims are simply Plan B, the excuse they have been coached to make if caught. Bringing children on this dangerous trek is the insurance card, or so they thought, of being released into the U.S. if caught. If they are not caught, there is no asylum claim and they enter and stay in the U.S. illegally.

If parents in the U.S. exposed their children to such dangers, there is little doubt state and local child protective services would get involved and take custody of the children.

But because of the Democrats’ open-border desire and anti-Trump derangement, these irresponsible parents are raised to hero status and the government is called a Nazi regime for not jailing the children with the parents.

There also is a dangerous movement to confront Trump administration officials in public over the issue.

Add to the noxious mix Peter Fonda (yes, he still exists), who attacked Barron Trump, Kirstjen Nielsen and Steven Miller on Twitter:

If you spend any time on Twitter, you will see that Fonda is typical of the anti-Trump crowd. He’s not an outlier.

This is the direction The Resistance has been moving since the election. Complete unhinged and deranged attacks on any and all political opponents. Total political war.

If you don’t think the midterms matter, and if like some establishment Republicans you want Republicans to lose control of Congress, then you are as unhinged as Peter Fonda.

Maybe you want to live under the thumb of The Resistance, but I don’t.

[Featured Image: Peter Henry Fonda Twitter profile pic]


Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.


We’re trying to address not progress Obama-era policies. But, go ahead with that forward-thinking, that left children in the arms of predators.

Then there are the global refugee crises (e.g. trail of tears). Uncommitted, elective regime changes have consequences. Yes, it does make a difference now and for the foreseeable future.

If the Media Keeps This Up, They’re Going to Get Somebody Killed
— Rush Limbaugh

“Okay. Folks, I’m just gonna say it here. If the media keeps this up — if they keep up generating this hysteria — somebody’s gonna get killed. I think we’re pretty close to somebody getting killed already, and I’m not being hyperbolic, and I’m not trying to call attention to myself. I’m genuinely worried about the out-of-control aspect of this. The news media’s fanning the flames. The news media is leading the way on this. It’s again an oxymoron. News media? There is no media, and none of this is news.

It’s a manufactured crisis — that is one of many — after Donald Trump committed an unpardonable sin, and that was winning the presidential election. This today is not about kids and the way they’re being treated anywhere. This is about Donald Trump winning and these people not being able to do anything about it. Look at everything they’ve thrown at Trump. They’ve had full-blown intelligence community FBI, CIA, DOJ, special counsel investigations all happening simultaneously designed to drive Donald Trump from office in six months.


Every one of them has failed.

Donald Trump’s popularity is increasing. His approval numbers are increasing. Overall satisfaction in the country is rising. In fact, if you dig deep into this latest Gallup survey, you find that all across the board in this country people are looking up, and they’re optimistic. It’s rooted to economics. The only group of people fit to be tied are Democrats, and it is just… It’s eating them alive.


The Democrats now more than ever are rabid, unhinged…

They’re becoming zombie-like. If you don’t believe me, jump on Twitter for a few minutes. It has become the refugee of human debris. People who know they’re powerless, people who know they’re ineffective… They live each and every day with hatred, self-loathing, what have you. They don’t like themselves to begin with. They’ve got no outlet for this. Hillary Clinton’s loss to Donald Trump has created a mob of political monsters who gather on Twitter to spew insane hatred — and this is bleeding over to people even in the establishment.”

This would be a lot easier with a wall that aided prospective asylum seekers. With emigres’ nations providing birth certificates and criminal records to separate parents from predators who identify as “parents”.

It would be a huge step if Mexico confronted immigration reform at its borders. We could help them, if they asked.

    tmiker in reply to n.n. | June 20, 2018 at 4:14 pm

    excellent and always overlooked point.

    JohnSmith100 in reply to n.n. | June 21, 2018 at 9:32 am

    Mexico loves illegals, they are sending more than $70 billion a year to relatives in Mexico. We should be taxing those transfers of money, thereby making Mexico pay for that wall.

Why does Fonda and Valenti still have a twitter account? Sure sounds like hate speech to me.

    Massinsanity in reply to Aluminizer. | June 20, 2018 at 8:31 pm

    He actually referred to a woman as a “gash”… how progressive.

    I don’t think I have heard the term in more than 30 years and back then I only heard it from young men who had no respect for women whatsoever.

Unhinged is right. The whole point of separating the children from the parents is so they are not held in adult detention facilities with the pedophiles.

We should turn everyone back at the border and tell them if they’re seeking asylum to seek it in Mexico. Then tell the Mexican government if they don’t believe they’re a safe state, if their citizens are seeking asylum here or Central Americans can’t seek asylum there because Mexico is too dangerous, then we’ll declare Mexico a failed state and do what it takes to fix their mess.

The Friendly Grizzly | June 20, 2018 at 3:38 pm

Another has-been straining for relevancy.

    Let’s give him his wish. In light of the Stalinist mob harassing and threatening Kristjen Nielsen until she quit her dinner, and Hodgkinson’s attempted assassinations of Republicans in 2016, prosecute this POS for his threats. He doesn’t speak of some hypothetical “they” that should rip Barron Trump out of his mother’s arms and throw him in a cage with pedophiles. He says “we” should rip him out of Melania’s arms and throw him in a cage with pedophiles.

    Plus he’s advocating doxxing ICE agents and harassing and threatening them at home and doing the same to their children at school. Again, in light of recent leftist actions, we should take him seriously. And make a serious example of him.

    He can be all kinds of relevant in prison. In a cage. With pedophiles and other deviant predators.

Captain America and Billy are ancient history when “doing your own thing in your own time” was hip. Out of touch then, out of touch now.

I’m fairly certain the idiot Progressive Left has always been subhuman and disgusting, but we didn’t get constant reminders of it before Twitter.

    notamemberofanyorganizedpolicital in reply to tom_swift. | June 20, 2018 at 5:11 pm

    Isn’t it so nice of them to “self-disclose” and document all their un-human fellings……….

What will they bitch about now that Trump has caved to Schmuck Schumer (and Squish Republican) demands and ruled by executive decree, just like His Imperial Executiveness, Emperor Barak the Nonpareil.

No, I don’t think he is just like His Imperial Executiveness, but this is a step toward acting as he did.

    tom_swift in reply to Edward. | June 20, 2018 at 4:02 pm

    Executive Orders are a perfectly legitimate way for the Executive to control his department.

    They are, of course, not a legitimate way for the Executive to try to control anything else.

    Milhouse in reply to Edward. | June 20, 2018 at 9:22 pm

    I’m sorry, I’ve been busy and not following the news as assiduously as I might have. When did he do that? I’m quite prepared to believe that he would do so, but this is the first I’ve heard that he has.

Other than a typical reject offspring of Henry Fonda, what movie did he do that he was good in? I watched Easy Ride and was not that impressed with it.

Maybe his LSD brain has caught up with him.

Whatever, has-been.

DieJustAsHappy | June 20, 2018 at 4:48 pm

Anarchy by any other name is anarchy. How we’ll find our way of the current circumstance is beyond, especially when there are so many who seem willing to fan the flames.

CaliforniaJimbo | June 20, 2018 at 4:52 pm

I’m certain that the US Secret Service would love to have a chat with Peter about his threat to members of the first family

    riverlife_callie in reply to CaliforniaJimbo. | June 20, 2018 at 7:12 pm

    Melania notified the Secret Service.

    Milhouse in reply to CaliforniaJimbo. | June 20, 2018 at 9:30 pm

    He did not make a threat. He expressed a wish, which is his God-given, constitutionally protected right.

    (Even if he’d said he was personally going to do this it still wouldn’t be a threat. By definition a threat must be something that would cause a reasonable person to fear that it might be carried out. Since this is not something he can actually do, no reasonable person could fear that he might, and thus there is no threat.)

      txvet2 in reply to Milhouse. | June 20, 2018 at 9:52 pm

      Doesn’t mean that a dozen or so demonstrators shouldn’t show up the next time he goes out to dinner. Or, that somebody shouldn’t “dox” him.

        Milhouse in reply to txvet2. | June 20, 2018 at 11:48 pm

        Sure. I’ve got no objection to that. Play by his rules. But not using government power.

          Immolate in reply to Milhouse. | June 21, 2018 at 9:51 am

          According to your interpretation, the suggestion that “We should lie in wait for him and then beat him within an inch of his life (plus or minus an inch)” would also be protected speech. I don’t think that “we should (commit a crime)” is protected speech. I am willing to be convinced otherwise.

          Milhouse in reply to Milhouse. | June 21, 2018 at 4:47 pm

          It’s not my interpretation, it’s black letter law. There is no dispute about this. Advocating that the law be broken is protected speech. Conspiring to actually break it is not. “We ought to beat him up” is protected; “If he were here right now I’d beat him up” is protected; but “Let’s beat him up” is only protected if a reasonable person would understand that you don’t mean it literally.

      So, I actually read the comment you were replying to. All he spoke about was the Secret Service having a talk with the man. There was not one word about charging him criminally. There is no constitutional bar to agents requesting a polite chit-chat about what he said. That is neither a search nor an arrest.

      And, regardless of all that, he’s still a jerk.

        Milhouse in reply to JBourque. | June 20, 2018 at 11:47 pm

        The constitutional bar on their having a “polite chit-chat” with him is the same as it would be if they were to have one with someone who criticized 0bama. It has a chilling effect on disapproved speech.

        It would be different if they had a genuine concern that he might actually harm someone (president or not). Then they could have that polite chit-chat, just to reassure themselves. But they don’t have any such concern, so they must take care not to chill speech with their chit-chatting.

          Arminius in reply to Milhouse. | June 21, 2018 at 3:36 pm

          Lots of people had that “polite chit-chat” with the USSS during the Obama years, Ted Nugent being one of the most high profile. There is no constitutional bar against the USSS, tasked with protecting the President and immediate family, interviewing someone about their borderline public rhetoric to clarify exactly what they meant by it.

          Ted Nugent’s speech was not “chilled” at all.

          Milhouse in reply to Milhouse. | June 21, 2018 at 4:49 pm

          I’m curious; are you seriously denying that the chilling effect doctrine exists?! If you are not, what exactly do you think it means, and how is this not covered?

          Arminius in reply to Milhouse. | June 21, 2018 at 10:21 pm

          The chilling effect doctrine has never applied to actual threats. You do know that, right, Milhouse? And there is no constitutional bar to the USSS investigating to determine if someone is making actual threats. Zero. Zip. Nada.

          Milhouse in reply to Milhouse. | June 24, 2018 at 4:18 am

          Actual threats are of course not protected speech. But non-threats such as this one are, and the Secret Service is prohibited from chilling them. They have no good-faith reason to suspect Fonda is planning any crime, so it is illegal for them to harass him, even with “polite chit-chat”.

      Arminius in reply to Milhouse. | June 21, 2018 at 3:29 pm

      You’re right. He didn’t make a threat. He made multiple threats. Including to doxx ICE/BP agents and mob their homes and threaten them there, and identify their children and do the same to them at their schools.

      We have numerous examples of this behavior, such as union harassment, threats and intimidation, sometimes escalating to actual violence against business owners (they love to bring bullhorns and giant inflatable rats to their front lawns, where it often gets out of control). Then there’s the recent mob harassing and menacing Kristjen Nielsen at a restaurant, the “net neutrality” mob harassing FCC chairman Ajit Pai at his house, posting his children’t names on signs around his neighborhood (there is no reason to do that unless you wish to make his children targets), and ordering pizzas every half hour to his house (if they can order pizzas, they can order a swatting, which can and has gotten at least one person killed).

      Any reasonable person would have to conclude that the threats these leftists are making against ICE/BP agents are credible and can be carried out since similar threats have been carried out in the past. No civilized society can allow a mob to threaten a campaign of fear and intimidation against its LEOs for doing their jobs.

        Milhouse in reply to Arminius. | June 21, 2018 at 4:54 pm

        Link to one threat that he has actually made. Bear in mind that the definition of a threat includes not only that it actually threatens violence but also that a reasonable person would understand from it that the speaker intends to carry it out.

          Arminius in reply to Milhouse. | June 21, 2018 at 9:32 pm

          Since when does anyone have to prove that the speaker himself intends to commit the violence as opposed to inciting others to violence?

          Arminius in reply to Milhouse. | June 21, 2018 at 9:44 pm


          You have noticed, I hope, that the purveyors of violence are calling what’s going on in Gaza “protests.” And the people flying explosive and incendiary devices into Israel “protesters.” So are you actually going to tell me that a man who thinks it’s OK to advocate throwing Barron Trump into a cage with pedophiles and pillorying Nielsen naked has purely peaceful intentions simply because he uses the word “protest,” when “protest is a word that violent actors and their apologists use for their activities?

          And are you going to tell me that Fonda can’t or won’t carry through on his threats, when others have? Or that he doesn’t intend to incite others to imminent violence when he, I dunno, incites violence?

          No, you can’t. Others have carried through on exactly what he advocates.

          Arminius in reply to Milhouse. | June 21, 2018 at 10:03 pm

          Really? You say the test is that the person “intends” to carry out the threat. No, the the test is that the person making the threat is capable of carrying it out. Almost no one admits that the people they knew “intended” to carry out the threats they make.

          Until they do.

          Milhouse in reply to Milhouse. | June 21, 2018 at 10:28 pm

          Since when does anyone have to prove that the speaker himself intends to commit the violence as opposed to inciting others to violence?

          If the charge is making a threat, then you have to prove that a reasonable person would understand the speaker to intend to commit the violence.

          Incitement is an entirely different charge, and is much more restrictive than making a threat. To qualify as incitement several things are required: The speaker must explicitly tell the audience to commit a crime, and the speech must be both intended and likely to whip the audience up to such an emotional frenzy that they temporarily lose their free will and immediately do whatever the speaker tells them to do, without stopping to think about it first and make their own decision. That immediacy is crucial to the charge; without it there is no incitement.

          Really? You say the test is that the person “intends” to carry out the threat. No, the the test is that the person making the threat is capable of carrying it out.

          You are wrong in two ways.

          The test is whether a reasonable person would believe that he actually intends to carry it out (which necessarily implies that the reasonable person would think him capable of doing so). His actual intention and capability is irrelevant.

          Milhouse in reply to Milhouse. | June 21, 2018 at 10:31 pm


          “We should” is by definition not a threat. Nor is it incitement, unless it’s both subjectively intended and objectively likely to make someone do so immediately upon being told to.

          Milhouse in reply to Cybrludite. | June 22, 2018 at 11:18 am

          Irrelevant. In that case the person is alleged to have said “I’m going to find the congressman’s kids and kill them”. If he said that, in a manner that would make a reasonable person believe that he meant it, it’s a threat.

          Nothing Fonda said is anything like that. Fonda did not threaten anything, whether seriously or in jest; he merely made a hyperbolic statement about what he thinks people like him ought to do.

notamemberofanyorganizedpolicital | June 20, 2018 at 5:09 pm

Peter always as a sick pri…. just like Jane…….

I wish The Resistance would just issue each other their Brown Shirts and get it over with. The only Fascists I see are in that camp.

Comanche Voter | June 20, 2018 at 5:28 pm

Quite a track record for Henry Fonda. He managed to raise two idiots.

Hollywood imbeciles.

Talk about ‘cults.’

If we were a civilized country, no one would ever speak to Peter Fonda again, let alone invite him anywhere or accept his invitations.

Rush is right. These are scary times. They believe the election and Trump are illegitimate, and the resistance therefore allows anything. And ‘anything’s definition is geometrically shift the sand under our feet…

After these poor people get in the country, social services can take their kids for good, because these folks are too poor to have kids, in social services estimation which is the one that counts. Social services takes kids because the parents are too poor all the time.

Eastwood Ravine | June 21, 2018 at 12:28 am

The Left’s mask has fully slipped. Trump has forced them to defend their anti-American sovereignty and anti-border security endgame.

What we are witnessing is their pre-election hysteria because they instinctively know that there will be little, if any, gains and likely significant losses in the November midterm elections. It’s driving them insane. They also know, that like the three prior Presidents of the United States, Trump is the odds-on-favorite to get re-elected in 2020; all the background that goes with that knowledge (high court and Supreme Court appointments, and a fully staffed MAGA executive branch) is making the Left dangerously rabid.

Recently, we have been treated to Liberal/Progressives likening all who disagree with their desire for a border-less world as Hitlerian NAZIS. Ironically, it is the actions of the left which are so reminiscent of the NAZI Party take over of Germany in the 1930s. We have the Brown Shirts [the thugs such as Antifa, BLM, various socialist organizations, etc.], propaganda wing of the Party [the msm] and the shadowy leadership who runs and directs the Party’s activities. You also have the politicians [mostly Democrats], the personal opportunists and the lunatic fringe which support the Party. The only thing that they lack is a charismatic leader to act as front man. And, the tactics of the Liberal/Progressives are copied right out of the play book for 1930s totalitarian regimes and movements. And, students of history know how that games plays out. Continued attacks will eventually result in the moderate and conservative portions of the citizenry taking action to defend themselves.

    txvet2 in reply to Mac45. | June 21, 2018 at 11:30 am

    I don’t recall many authoritarian governments being removed and replaced with enlightened representative government without a great deal of violence. (Colombia may be one of the exceptions – we’ll see.) Maybe we can manage it but I think the odds are against it. And once people start shooting back, all bets are off. We were lucky twice so far. Third time may not be the charm.

      Mac45 in reply to txvet2. | June 21, 2018 at 11:40 am

      This is the real danger here. In today’s world, the US could not survive a civil war. But, the Liberal/Progressives have gotten to this point because the rest of the citizenry caved in to their demands. They still think that this will happen for the reason stated above. So, something has to give. And, it may not be the moderate and conservative citizens. It will all depend upon how for the totalitarian left is prepared to go.

If Peter Fonda talked like that in Florida in front of a police officer he would be “Baker Acted” and locked up in a psychiatric facility for up to 72 hours of observation, since he is talking like he is “a danger to himself or others”.

    Milhouse in reply to CaptTee. | June 21, 2018 at 4:55 pm

    No, he isn’t, and any policeman who would do that is abusing the law and needs to be fired.

      Arminius in reply to Milhouse. | June 21, 2018 at 10:14 pm

      Now you’re an expert on the laws of all 57 states (thanks Obama), eh Milhouse. Here’s what Fonda would be guilty of in Texas.

      “Texas Penal Code – PENAL § 22.07. Terroristic Threat

      (a) A person commits an offense if he threatens to commit any offense involving violence to any person or property with intent to:

      6) influence the conduct or activities of a branch or agency of the federal government, the state, or a political subdivision of the state.”

      Given that examples of Fonda’s ideas of protest include throwing a child into a cage with pedophiles and pillorying a “g**h” naked and publicly whipping her, his threats of protest inherently involve violence.

        Milhouse in reply to Arminius. | June 21, 2018 at 10:34 pm

        He did not threaten anything. Everything he wrote is protected by the first amendment, and therefore cannot be illegal in any state or territory.

Becoming unhinged? They’ve been bomb throwing, murderous, bat shit insane perverted lunatics from day one.

While Peter Fonda has a right to express himself, he has also revealed himself to be a horrid little scumbag who doesn’t deserve the time of day from decent people.