Most Read
Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

Uncivil war declared: Rep. Maxine Waters calls on #TheResistance to find and confront Trump officials

Uncivil war declared: Rep. Maxine Waters calls on #TheResistance to find and confront Trump officials

“you get out and you create a crowd and you push back on them, and you tell them they’re not welcome anymore, anywhere.”

https://twitter.com/RealSaavedra/status/1010981944056664064

Confronting Trump administration officials and supporters in public places and even at their homes is becoming the go-to tactic for #TheResistance.

Just in the last few days we have covered several such incidents:

The justification for this plan of confrontation and harassment is that the Trump administration (allegedly) are Nazis, and Nazis must be confronted and driven from public spaces.

The tactic has been endorsed by Jennifer Rubin, as relentless purveyor of anti-Trump derangement:

Nevertheless, it is not altogether a bad thing to show those who think they’re exempt from personal responsibility that their actions bring scorn, exclusion and rejection. If you don’t want to provoke wrath, don’t continue to work for someone whose cruel and inhumane treatment of others rivals the internment of U.S. citizens and noncitizens of Japanese descent during World War II. And yes, I’d have hollered at then-California Attorney General Earl Warren, who pushed for the roundup of people of Japanese ancestry, even American citizens.

There are far too many Twitter meltdowns to catalog, but this one by John Aravosis is pretty *good*:

https://twitter.com/aravosis/status/1010632782681427970

This is a slippery slope to political violence, as I noted in this tweet response:

It’s bad enough when non-politicians engage in such meltdowns and implicit calls for violence.

But now a leading Democrat politician, Rep. Maxine Waters, is openly calling on #TheResistance to find and confront members of the Trump administration:

“If you see anybody from that Cabinet in a restaurant, in a department store, at a gasoline station, you get out and you create a crowd and you push back on them, and you tell them they’re not welcome anymore, anywhere.”

Waters also made the call on MSNBC (transcript via RCP):

MAXINE WATERS: I have no sympathy for these people that are in this administration who know it’s wrong for what they’re doing on so many fronts. They tend to not want to confront this president or even leave, but they know what they’re doing is wrong. I want to tell you, these members of his cabinet who remain and try to defend him, they won’t be able to go to a restaurant, they won’t be able to stop at a gas station, they’re not going to be able to shop at a department store. The people are going to turn on them.

They’re going to protest. They’re absolutely going to harass them until they decide that they’re going to tell the president, ‘No, I can’t hang with you.’ This is wrong. This is unconscionable. We can’t keep doing this to children.

We’ve got to push back. We’ve got to say no. I, for example, have stepped way out there. I said this man needs to be impeached. I know a lot of people think we’re not ready to say that. Some people have said a long time ago he would become presidential. He will never be presidential. This man does not have any good values. I believe he needs to be impeached. As a matter of fact, a long time before he’s doing what he’s doing now with these children. I think he had done enough to undermine this country and to have us understand we cannot trust him, that we should have come with an impeachment resolution. So, I believe we cannot wait until the next presidential election. We have to resist him. I want to see him impeached.

https://youtu.be/oi1apuYZezY?t=37s

https://twitter.com/MiltonWolfMD/status/1011005688959651840

DONATE

Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.

Comments

Things are looking good in November. I recall some of my political science classes saying Name rec has more to do with being elected that actually skills. Trump beats everyone on branding.

    JohnSmith100 in reply to MarkSmith. | June 25, 2018 at 10:07 am

    Maxine needs someone following her and reporting her whereabouts, that way she could receive a steady stream comments from those who are tired of stupid and corrupt politicians like Maxine.

      Milhouse in reply to JohnSmith100. | June 25, 2018 at 10:19 am

      Visibly following her could be stalking, but certainly anyone who sees her in public should report it so people can come and assemble to let her know of their grievances against her.

She should be censured and expelled.

    Subotai Bahadur in reply to MrE. | June 25, 2018 at 12:22 am

    Not possible in America. She is a Black, Female, Commissar.

      The Friendly Grizzly in reply to Subotai Bahadur. | June 25, 2018 at 7:43 am

      I was thinking the same thing, but in a more harsh way: she can snap her fingers and start nationwide race riots.

      (completely off topic: any relation to the actor Sahym Bahadur? Just curious…)

        JohnSmith100 in reply to The Friendly Grizzly. | June 25, 2018 at 8:40 am

        Bring out the National Guard, with live ammunition. Fire on anyone looting, destroying property, assaulting others.

        Riots will promptly end.

          Milhouse in reply to JohnSmith100. | June 25, 2018 at 9:30 am

          Only if the authorities stick with it, and make it clear that no amount of protests will make them change the rules of engagement. It would probably take at least two massacres for the rest of the rioters to get the message, just as it took two bombs for the Japanese to surrender.

          It would probably also take a willingness to defy the judiciary if it tries to interfere — and to clearly communicate that to the judiciary before it makes such an attempt.

        Subotai Bahadur in reply to The Friendly Grizzly. | June 25, 2018 at 10:05 pm

        No relation. Right after 9/11 I was still working as a Peace Officer. A SGT to be precise. I had a Captain who was a political promotion, an evangelical atheist, and a far Left Democrat. At the time, we were all trying to help one of the Officers in our unit get ready to deploy [he had his orders]. He was retired Army SF, and in the Reserve SFG [5th Special Forces]. Said Captain tried to deny that we would go to war, but rather would just send some Federal Marshals to Afghanistan to arrest Bin Laden, and that would be it.

        One of the reasons I retired as still just a SGT, is that I take care of my people and am not averse to talking back to the powers that be. We discussed the matter fairly intensely, and he said I was “to the right of Genghis Khan”. I told him that he was wrong [something Captains rarely hear]. When he stopped sputtering, I pointed out that instead I was to the right of Subotai Bahadur, his chief general, “who was a REAL hard a**”. My shift cheered, the Captain threw up his hands and stalked off to his office, and we went out to crush crime.

        I have been a writer as a sideline since the 1980’s, mostly in professional military journals under my own name, until I got on the internet and found I needed a nom d’ Blog. So in honor of dealing with that particular staff weenie, I chose Subotai Bahadur

    Milhouse in reply to MrE. | June 25, 2018 at 12:58 am

    Expelling her would take 2/3 of the House, and not even the most optimistic scenarios for November give the Rs that much, so it’s a non-starter.

    JohnC in reply to MrE. | June 25, 2018 at 8:32 am

    WATERS: Fire! Fire!

    JohnSmith100 in reply to MrE. | June 25, 2018 at 8:34 am

    We need a law that in order to hold office, IQ must be at least 100. Maxine is probably about 75.

      Milhouse in reply to JohnSmith100. | June 25, 2018 at 9:58 am

      We need to be more discriminating about who can vote, not restrict whom they can vote for. If the voters in their wisdom choose to elect an idiot, that’s their right.

        JohnSmith100 in reply to Milhouse. | June 25, 2018 at 2:44 pm

        How about only those with an IQ of at least 100 can vote or hold office. Democracy does not work very well when either voters or those they elect are dull witted.

        PODKen in reply to Milhouse. | June 26, 2018 at 8:31 am

        We can only vote for who’s on the ticket (save write-ins) … and as long as the parties put crap people on the ballot … we’re hamstrung.

Obama divides and cages. Trump reunites and liberates.

We need more cowbell.

If we’re racists, homophobes, and Nazis or if Trump is supposedly a dictator-then why aren’t we seeing arrests for low-level harassment offenses?

One doesn’t need to look at too many states statutory scheme for these charges to see the elements being met

Conspiracy or inciting in my experience (I’m a lay person) require a higher level offence before they become applicable, but why are government employees and elected officials deprived the protection from these heinous acts any other citizen would enjoy?

    Milhouse in reply to rduke007. | June 25, 2018 at 1:01 am

    They’re not, but harassment would require the same person to be following someone around doing this to them repeatedly. And even then the same considerations that give them less protection from defamation than most of us enjoy would probably also give them less protection from such public expressions of disapproval.

      Cite your authority, dummy.

        The definition of harassment, dummy. It requires repeated or continuing behavior. A single incident cannot be harassment.

          The Livewire in reply to Milhouse. | June 25, 2018 at 7:44 am

          Which would be amusing if someone argued RICO about harassment.

          JohnSmith100 in reply to Milhouse. | June 25, 2018 at 2:40 pm

          At least since the Trayvon Martin, there have been a steady stream of cases where blacks have organized on a national level to persecute and threaten people. That is most certainly RICO actionable. There is a clear pattern of conduct which is every bit as bad as that of white supremacists and the KKK.

          All those cases should be acted on, prosecuted to the full extent of the law. And since they continue to persecute people, statute of limitations have not expired on those cases.

          We will either need to build lots of new jails, or contract them serving their time in the Middle East, perhaps in the tents in the middle of the desert, or possibly Russia (North of Siberia) or even North Korea 🙂

          Yes, I am baiting Milhouse 🙂

          Which group has the highest per capita rate of bald faced racists in America today?

          Not in NJ

          https://law.justia.com/codes/new-jersey/2009/title-2c/2c-33/2c-33-4

          Once is enough, and it carries up to 6 months
          Given the intent and lack of remorse, I would think these cases are ripe for the max jail time….

          https://www.flsenate.gov/laws/statutes/2011/784.048

          (b) “Course of conduct” means a pattern of conduct composed of a series of acts over a period of time, HOWEVER SHORT (emphasis added), evidencing a continuity of purpose. Constitutionally protected activity is not included within the meaning of “course of conduct.” Such constitutionally protected activity includes picketing or other organized protests.

        “The definition of harassment, dummy. It requires repeated or continuing behavior. A single incident cannot be harassment.”

        Do you even read statutes?

          Twas supposed to be a reply to Milhouse who can’t seem to correlate state statutes or elements of an offense, hoever the web browser got the better of me, and my response was incomplete before the zeros and ones decided to end my opportunity for edits…

          Except as provided in subsection e., a person commits a petty disorderly persons offense if, with purpose to harass another, he:

          a.Makes, or causes to be made, a communication or communications anonymously or at extremely inconvenient hours, or in offensively coarse language, or any other manner likely to cause annoyance or alarm;

          b.Subjects another to striking, kicking, shoving, or other offensive touching, or threatens to do so; or

          c.Engages in any other course of alarming conduct or of repeatedly committed acts with purpose to alarm or seriously annoy such other person.

          A communication under subsection a. may be deemed to have been made either at the place where it originated or at the place where it was received.

          d.(Deleted by amendment, P.L.2001, c.443).

          e.A person commits a crime of the fourth degree if, in committing an offense under this section, he was serving a term of imprisonment or was on parole or probation as the result of a conviction of any indictable offense under the laws of this State, any other state or the United States.

How can a restraining order against a mob be obtained?

    Subotai Bahadur in reply to MSO. | June 25, 2018 at 12:25 am

    I have found from personal experience that racking the action of a Remington 870 functionally acts as a restraining order against a mob. Especially when I am not the only one carrying one.

regulus arcturus | June 24, 2018 at 9:36 pm

Go for it.

Buying a MAGA hat now, wearing it wherever I can.

Come get some, Mad Maxine

First, they came after Trump. Next, they are now coming for his team. Then, they will be targeting his supporters…for more than just name-calling, that is.

You step in the wrong place, there will be no food served to you. You wear the wrong t-shirt, no beer will be served you. You support the wrong candidate, you won’t be able to see a movie.

Trump supporters will now have to go out and vote this November. It is now an urgent matter of self-protection.

    While I am no fan of RINOs, the worst RINO (even McCain) is better than the best Dem. The Democrats need to be destroyed in 2018 and again in 2020. I hope everyone is going to do some volunteering and donating and speaking to friends and acquaintances, doing everything possible to see that this happens.

    I hope to see 10 times the number of pictures of wailing Democrats after the 2018 election than we saw after 2016. Lets make it happen.

    Maybe, then again maybe there will be a tremendous swelling of publicly pro Trump establishments. Might as well just advertise your affiliation because that is what will be required from now on.

    This is a can of worms sliding down a slippery slope.

    Milhouse in reply to Leslie Eastman. | June 25, 2018 at 1:07 am

    Not just Trump supporters. But there are more of us than them, and the same constitution that protects their right to behave like this gives us the right to do the same.

      Would you mind giving out your address so these thugs can pay you a visit for your points of view?

      Thought not.

      Cleetus in reply to Milhouse. | June 25, 2018 at 6:05 am

      While this is true in theory, it is becoming less and less true in practice.
      >
      Recently five men were brought to trial for attacking a man at a rally. He was conservative and those doing the attacking were Antifa. They assaulted the man as he was being treated and the paramedics, police, and firemen had to chase the attackers away. During the trial, these men were arrogant and treated the entire flippantly, often laughing and joking about the entire trial. These alleged attackers even made the absurd claim that the man being treated had attacked them while he was having his head wound treated so they responded in self defense. The judge made several rulings that prevented the DA from providing more information to show the men’s guilt so it essentially came down to what side you believed. On one side were the police, fire department, and the paramedics who were treating the victim and on the other side were these five men with an attitude. The jury acquitted the men. (http://www.theamericanmirror.com/ jury-in-county-voting-79-for-hillary-acquits-antifa-agitators-of-beating-trump-supporter-despite-several-witnesses/#more-32555) (Remove the space for the link to work.)
      >
      Trusting the rule of law is a great idea, but what action do you have when the system is so broken that the rule of law is dead?

        Milhouse in reply to Cleetus. | June 25, 2018 at 6:20 am

        . These alleged attackers even made the absurd claim that the man being treated had attacked them while he was having his head wound treated so they responded in self defense.

        What makes the claim absurd?

          SDN in reply to Milhouse. | June 25, 2018 at 8:28 am

          If you asked that question seriously, you’re too stupid to debate.

          Milhouse in reply to Milhouse. | June 25, 2018 at 9:43 am

          So you have no answer, because the defense’s claim is not absurd. It may not be true, but there’s nothing at all implausible about it, let alone absurd. There is nothing about being treated for a laceration that prevents a person from acting as the defense claimed this person did. The police witnesses admitted that they didn’t see exactly what happened, and the jury gave the defendants the benefit of the doubt.

          forksdad in reply to Milhouse. | June 25, 2018 at 12:18 pm

          Two things of the top of my head makes the claim absurd. First, the police in attendance would have restrained the one guy if that had been an option. It’s what you do.

          Second, if you’ve got paramedics and police around you, you’re sitting down so the can treat you or even laying down, you can’t see pee-diddley. You couldn’t see your, ‘victims’ even if you wanted to.

          Don’t be such an autist all the time. People live in the real world where if you drop a hammer ten times out of ten it will hit the ground. Instead you’re always trying to sound smarter than the entire room. Adding, “but an eagle could have grabbed the hammer and flown away or gravity might reverse and throw it into orbit, or the hammer was filled with helium or made of cavorite” does not add to the conversation.

          Yes, you’re that guy. Don’t be that guy.

          Milhouse in reply to Milhouse. | June 27, 2018 at 4:57 pm

          There is nothing at all implausible about the defendants’ version of events, except that the people giving this version have no credibility, then then neither does he. The police witnesses admitted they could not contradict the defendants’ story.

          Milhouse in reply to Milhouse. | June 27, 2018 at 4:59 pm

          If you’re sitting on the pavement having your head patched, you can see just fine, and if you’re carrying a weapon (which he was) you can use it.

        JohnSmith100 in reply to Cleetus. | June 25, 2018 at 8:48 am

        This is a case where those men should be tracked down and put in traction.Maybe brand their foreheads with Antifa to mark them for life.

        ConradCA in reply to Cleetus. | June 25, 2018 at 3:19 pm

        It’s like the South during the Jim Crow era where those who committed crimes against blacks were always acquitted.

          Subotai Bahadur in reply to ConradCA. | June 25, 2018 at 10:13 pm

          In fact it would be very consistent with that era, as both those supporting Antifa and those doing the lynching are Democrats.

      Milhouse: Are you a lawyer?

      You seem obsessed with a false interpretation of harassment law.

      While someone who utters one loud annoying comment may not meet the elements of the offense, one need not persist through multiple dates and times to be guilty of harassment.

      So, no, this behavior (IMO) is NOT protected by any amendment any more than shouting “crabs” in a crowded whorehouse.

    Support the Second Amendment like your life depends on it.

    Already happening. There have been multiple incidents of Trump supporters being assaulted on the street.

    JohnSmith100 in reply to Leslie Eastman. | June 25, 2018 at 3:02 pm

    One of my kids (now young adult) has been friends with a neighbor for some years, when Trump was elected I was trying to explain to the neighbor how corrupt our Washington folks are, and that regardless of party, for the most part all are feeding from the same trough. From that she decided I was a Trump supporter, and stayed mad at both my kid and I until recently. She did this with everyone, her own family included. She apparently does not understand that for the most part no one cares if she is mad.

    Those suffering from Trump psychosis are totally irrational. All that does is make me more determined to see others like Trump elected, and Trump reelected.

      PODKen in reply to JohnSmith100. | June 26, 2018 at 8:41 am

      “Those suffering from Trump psychosis are totally irrational.”

      Dude … I live in CA … I spend 24/7 dealing with those fools.

Colonel Travis | June 24, 2018 at 9:40 pm

Apparently that Russia thing didn’t work.

These resistance people should be careful. Assault the wrong person or people and some progs could wind up dead.

    oldgoat36 in reply to Whitewall. | June 24, 2018 at 10:41 pm

    While I don’t think the brownshirt brigade want this, as it is themselves who will get the deadly push back, I would be willing to think that the Party leadership and the media (but I repeat myself) would love for this to happen.

    I fear it may be reaching a tipping point soon.

    Milwaukee in reply to Whitewall. | June 25, 2018 at 12:32 am

    Social Justice “Warriors” are cowards. They won’t attack unless they have overwhelming numerical superiority and video cameras going. Then they will set up the victim, which won’t be recorded, and blast out the response, which will be. The “wrong” person you mention, who lashes out at the mob attack, will end up in jail and legally prosecuted. By a SJW friendly DA.

She’s a criminal. One hopes that she’s criminally charged and imprisoned for life.

    Milhouse in reply to survivor. | June 25, 2018 at 12:52 am

    What crime has she committed? (Other than financial shenanigans, for which her defense may argue that she’s too stupid to understand these things.)

      dystopia in reply to Milhouse. | June 25, 2018 at 6:31 am

      Waters has enough standing that her words below are a call to action and not mere rhetoric. In my view that makes the words not protected speech. While there are a host of Statutes that could be applied., no one in the Department of Justice has the mettle to take this on.

      The words:

      “I have no sympathy for these people that are in this administration who know it’s wrong for what they’re doing on so many fronts. They tend to not want to confront this president or even leave, but they know what they’re doing is wrong. I want to tell you, these members of his cabinet who remain and try to defend him, they won’t be able to go to a restaurant, they won’t be able to stop at a gas station, they’re not going to be able to shop at a department store. The people are going to turn on them. They’re going to protest. They’re absolutely going to harass them until they decide that they’re going to tell the president, ‘No, I can’t hang with you.’ This is wrong. This is unconscionable. We can’t keep doing this to children.”

        Milhouse in reply to dystopia. | June 25, 2018 at 6:37 am

        First of all, calling to criminal action is protected speech. If your view disagrees then your view is wrong. Not in my opinion, but in reality, because this is not a disputed or controversial question. The definition of incitement is completely settled, and advocacy is not it.

        Second, even if that were not so, she is not calling for anything criminal. She is calling for people to exercise their constitutional right to confront public officials when they see them, and make their disapproval known. There’s nothing wrong with that, but she should be aware that she’s subject to the same treatment, and there are more people who disapprove of her than of Nielsen, Sanders, or anyone else in the White House.

          counsel in reply to Milhouse. | June 25, 2018 at 8:31 am

          Your statement is fine if you are judge, jury, prosecutor and her putative defense counsel. But you are not. Her statement has enough grist for an indictment. A conviction depends on a jury’s interpretation of the facts.

          “Advocacy of force or criminal activity does not receive First Amendment protections if (1) the advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action, and (2) is likely to incite or produce such action.[2]”

          State of mind is also crucial “a communication for the purpose of issuing a threat or with knowledge that the communication will be viewed as a threat.”

          At the very least she is urging her cabal of supporters to commit criminal trespass. Criminal harassment and disorderly conduct are in the realm State Law. The actions she is advocating will rise to the level of criminal activity in some of these States.

          You have an almost saccharine naivety in your arguments. Law is not cut and dried. She can be charged federally if a grand jury indicts and in many States just on an information or probable cause affidavit. It’s far from as cut and dried as you make it out.

          It’s a dead issue though. Prosecutors will view it as political suicide to engage this woman.

          Milhouse in reply to Milhouse. | June 25, 2018 at 9:56 am

          “Advocacy of force or criminal activity does not receive First Amendment protections if (1) the advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action, and (2) is likely to incite or produce such action.[2]”

          That’s exactly what I wrote. Glad you agree with me.

          At the very least she is urging her cabal of supporters to commit criminal trespass.

          No, she didn’t. Cite the words in which you claim she did.

          Criminal harassment and disorderly conduct are in the realm State Law. The actions she is advocating will rise to the level of criminal activity in some of these States.

          State law is subject to the US constitution, so no, they won’t. Cox v Louisiana.

          She can be charged federally if a grand jury indicts and in many States just on an information or probable cause affidavit.

          Sure, so can anybody, for anything, but that would be a criminal conspiracy. cf James Nifong, Marilyn Mosby, Preet Bharara, and the clowns who prosecuted Ted Stevens.

          counsel in reply to Milhouse. | June 25, 2018 at 10:53 am

          The words are a call to action. The conduct differs from Cox. Waters is calling for the harassment of specific people in private areas.

          “Let’s make sure we show up wherever we have to show up,” Waters told a crowd in California over the weekend. “If you see anybody from that cabinet in a restaurant, in a department store, at a gasoline station, you get out and you create a crowd, and you push back on them, and you tell them they’re not welcome anymore, anywhere.”

          It is a prosecutable case.

“you get out and you create a crowd and you push back on them, and you tell them they’re not welcome anymore, anywhere.”

If I thought Maxine Waters was capable of rational thought, I’d say she hasn’t thought this through. But, she isn’t, and she hasn’t.

I still say this all isn’t going to end the way they think it will end.

    Milhouse in reply to rinardman. | June 25, 2018 at 12:54 am

    I still say this all isn’t going to end the way they think it will end.

    Exactly. They have the right to do what they’re doing, but they forget that they’re in the minority, and the more they carry on like this the smaller their minority becomes.

It’s just impossible to imagine how we got to this place in our politics. I can’t imagine disagreeing with someone so much that you lose your mind. The only thing I can hope is that there still are enough sane people left in the United States. What the Republicans need to do is get a clip of crazy Auntie Maxine and use that as a commercial saying “if you want to be in a country where you’re not allowed to go to a restaurant or a movie, vote Democrat!”

    oldgoat36 in reply to rangerjagc. | June 24, 2018 at 11:57 pm

    Isn’t this what Hillary talked about when she said it is a threat to our Democracy to not accept the results of the election? Though, of course, she “knew” she would win, so now we have this going on, and I am not certain that it will stop even after someone is killed because of this.

    I can see the media playing off any violence or death brought by these leftists as just some crazy, and we need more gun control (even if a gun isn’t used). Seeing the politics as they are today, we get an idea of what things were like in the lead up to the Civil War. Our only defense these days is the intermingling of political beliefs throughout most states.

    I fear for this country. I fear this is what Obama had in mind with his actions and comments and plans for division. Soros must be gloating in glee as well.

    jakee308 in reply to rangerjagc. | June 25, 2018 at 4:16 am

    Obama

    Tom Servo in reply to rangerjagc. | June 25, 2018 at 9:47 am

    The rhetoric of the left over the last 20 years or so has guaranteed that the country would get to this state – a lot of us saw it coming, a lot of us tried to warn about where we were headed, but the left wants this.

    And this is far from the final stage – Schlicter has a good piece out this morning detailing why, when this push by the left fails to give them what they want (as it must, raw intimidation never works on people who are still free) then they will transition to overt violence. They have to; they can’t let themselves back down, and they will feel compelled to take violent acts against anyone who they see as “the enemy”.

    So that’s what is next.

    PODKen in reply to rangerjagc. | June 26, 2018 at 8:57 am

    “It’s just impossible to imagine how we got to this place in our politics.”

    Decades of deception, lying, corruption, wars, stupidity, condescension, division of the people by our elected.

    Down trend of wages … jobs lost … industries lost … increased living, education and medical expenses.

    Failure to address difficult problems.

    The almighty buck comes before all others.

    Failure to craft and implement legislation that actually works to the benefit of the people.

    Failure for the most part to put good honest people on the ballot.

    Winner take all elections.

    Don’t even get me started on the media.

    For me the reasons are cut and dried.

I think Trump supporters should be forced to drink from separate, market public water fountains. And live in separate parts of towns, marked by Division streets. They should also be forced to pay a special tax assessment, before voting. And they should be counted as 3/5 of a person compared to non-Trump supporters.

Zat about cover it for you, Mad Maxie?

Isn’t this instigation of mob rule? When are others going to step in and say this is going way too far? Aren’t their laws against this type of call to action?

    Subotai Bahadur in reply to oldgoat36. | June 25, 2018 at 12:31 am

    No Leftist is held accountable to statutory law.

    Milhouse in reply to oldgoat36. | June 25, 2018 at 12:48 am

    No, there aren’t, and there can’t be. Even if she were explicitly advocating violence it would be hard to make out a case for incitement, but she isn’t doing that so there’s not even the beginning of a case.

As always, the left overplays it’s radical hand. She should be impeached. If any violence happens due to her unhinged actions she should also be prosecuted.

All I can say is make them play by their own rules.

    Milhouse in reply to Trip. | June 25, 2018 at 12:50 am

    She should be impeached?! Can you really be that ignorant?

    And no, even if violence results from her words she cannot be prosecuted. This is firmly established law. There isn’t even a question to be asked.

      Cite your authority, dummy.

        Its not my job to repair your pig ignorance, let alone your deliberate lies. Go look up the definition of incitement.

        stevewhitemd in reply to TheFineReport.com. | June 25, 2018 at 9:14 am

        US Constitution, Article 1, section 6: “They shall in all Cases, except Treason, Felony and Breach of the Peace, be privileged from Arrest during their Attendance at the Session of their respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the same; and for any Speech or Debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other Place.”

        That has long been held to protect members of Congress in any political activity in which they engage, inside or outside the Capitol.

          Milhouse in reply to stevewhitemd. | June 25, 2018 at 10:07 am

          I don’t think that would protect her for things said off the floor of the House or its committees. What protects her is the first amendment. FineReport’s claim that if violence results from someone’s speech it loses its protection is just wrong.

    Latus Dextro in reply to Trip. | June 25, 2018 at 2:44 am

    “They’re panicking, folks. Bigly.”

    Fight with Alinsky, you die by Alinsky, or better, as you sow so shall ye reap.
    The stridor is likely to get worse before death.

uncivil civil war is right on. We are already in a civil war. If we win in November, we have the high ground. If we lose, we do not.

    oldgoat36 in reply to elle. | June 24, 2018 at 11:49 pm

    The first shots had been fired, but it was brushed off because it was an unhinged Bernie supporter, but those were the first shots. If this continues like it is, all bets are off as to when it will be declared.

DINORightMarie | June 24, 2018 at 11:23 pm

And what if the same was done to her? Hmmmmm…..wonder what the press, what her co-Congress critters, and her Dem fellow travelers would say?

#RaceCard

You see, she learned a lot from Obama…………

    Milhouse in reply to DINORightMarie. | June 25, 2018 at 1:08 am

    It doesn’t matter what they’d say. Anyone who sees her in public should confront her and let her know what they think of her.

I’ve come to a realization.

My experience with toxic online communities earlier in life is being replicated by what these left-aligned politicians, activists and so on are doing today. They are trying to will reality to bend to their beliefs, with very, very little stomach for physical actions to bring that reality about. That’s not zero, so there is still potential for problems… but they express so much rage online for an immediate emotional high, it’s difficult to convert that into action in “real life”.

Why do I say that? Because I’ve seen it before. Somehow, civilization has failed to keep this stuff out of the workplace, and people are carrying their cliques with them wherever they go as if they’re still teenagers in high school. What I walked away from, others have fallen into in order to keep rage dialed up to 13 on a scale of 10. It’s sad. But the more I understand it, the less outraged and emotional I can feel about it… because even if some nut crosses a line eventually, I know that nerds do not rule the physical world. Maybe others still need to learn that lesson.

    oldgoat36 in reply to JBourque. | June 25, 2018 at 12:01 am

    Nerds don’t necessarily need to do the physical acts of violence, that is what antifa and these flash mob hate mongers are doing. The nerds just need to feed the flames.

      I don’t think they’re that separate.. that said, yes, there’ll always be a few willing to go above and beyond. I just think, now that I see the essential nature of the group and that it’s intersecting into “real life” in relatively few places, the rage has few places to truly grow fertile. That doesn’t change the problem with the exceptions. But, I imagine this is mostly mice and not lions. That’s the nature of an online mob.

The Bell Curve has taken a lot of heat over the years.

And then you got Maxine.

LOL

This is not going to be a war against Pajama Boy. This will be a war of those who support the constitution and our God given rights V/S the mob (Chicago, San Francisco, NY, Dixie…); the cartels; the communists; the globalists; Islam and the new “elites”. We need to win the next election, We need it bad. Get down on your knees and pray.

What exactly are they resisting?

Obama spied on American citizens and Republican presidential candidate, Clinton colluded (with foreign agents in Kiev, Britain), the DNC denied the vote, and journolists covered it up in a multi-trimester warlock hunt and trials by press.

Russia only became an issue after the Western-backed coup in Kiev that was instigated in retribution to Russia’s intervention in Syria. The aftermath caught both Democrats and Republicans in a manufactured crisis, but only the latter have been targeted for prosecution by the special counsel, New York AG, mainstream and “independent” press, etc.

Transgender (e.g. homosexual) rights? Nothing has changed. “=” is still selective (i.e. exclusive).

Mass exodus from second and third-world nations? An incentive for parents and predators identifying as “parents” to exploit children? There needs to be emigration reform, so that the parents and children left behind are not forgotten. So, the at second and third-world nations reform and serve their citizens, instead of exporting them.

A cover-up of the Planned Parenthood crisis in selective and recycled-child? They are still processing their victims, life deemed unworthy, under a layer of privacy.

The end of Obamacare’s born unPlanned penalty tax? A hundred billion borrowed from granny to create an illusion of “universal” medical care, less the millions who did not qualify, and millions who were penalized for earning over the threshold? The expansion of Medicaid in a bid to avoid addressing the issue? Insurance is a regulated industry, which makes it effectively a single-payer solution. The issue is not in payment, but rather in cost.

A closure to the ISIS affair in Iraq and Syria? Libya, too? The end of the Iraq war, take one under Bush, take two, under Trump.

Government agencies prosecuting, discriminating, unmasking, assaulting, intimidating people at the Obama administration’s request?

Mr. Chairman, we do not have a crisis at Freddie Mac, and in particular at Fannie Mae
H.R. 2575—THE SECONDARY
MORTGAGE MARKET ENTERPRISES
REGULATORY IMPROVEMENT ACT
Thursday, September 25, 2003
U.S. House of Representatives,
Committee on Financial Services

Oh, well. We are still playing with asset inflation schemes, and Waters is still not a reliable source, mislead or misleading.

The justification for this plan of confrontation and harassment is that the Trump administration (allegedly) are Nazis, and Nazis must be confronted and drive from public spaces.

What if they were nazis? Wouldn’t it then be right to do this to them? Isn’t it our fundamental right, when we encounter our governors, to vigorously express our disapproval of them, if that’s how we feel? What if this had happened to Jarrett or other members of the last administration at the height of the 0bamacare fight? It easily could have done, and so long as there was no violence or racism it would have been right.

So the only problem with what they’re doing is that they’re wrong on the facts and wrong on the policy, i.e. they’re on the wrong side. That’s true, but it’s not enough to condemn this tactic. Their punishment will be the fact that the more they do this the more deranged they will appear to ordinary voters, and the bigger their loss will be.

    Please don’t assign logic to an illogical binge of emotion.

    clintack in reply to Milhouse. | June 25, 2018 at 7:36 am

    One person expressing her opinion to a politician out in public with her family — absolutely, it’s protected expression, however rude and inappropriate it might be. (Pence, Sanders…)

    A large gathering of angry, screaming people surrounding a politician out in public with her family — not the same thing, at all. (Nielsen, Bondi…)

    And if the latter keeps happening, someone is going to get hurt. Badly.

      Milhouse in reply to clintack. | June 25, 2018 at 9:26 am

      You are wrong. There is no difference between one person and many; in fact when many people express their opinion together, it’s the freedom of assembly. Nor is there any difference between expressing an opinion calmly and in a moderate tone and doing so angrily and in a loud tone. Yes, being faced with a lot of people expressing their anger at one is very intimidating. No matter how well-behaved the protesters, the subject of such expression must surely fear imminent violence. The first amendment doesn’t care. So long as there are no actual threats of violence, they are entitled to be as frightening as they like. Again, this is not simply my opinion, it is black letter law, not subject to even the tiniest bit of dispute. The courts have said this so often that nobody bothers taking it back to them any more.

        MSO in reply to Milhouse. | June 25, 2018 at 10:28 am

        Participation mystique is a well known and well studied phenomenon that occurs within mobs. Hangings were common examples of the phenomenon and is one of the reasons that mob formation is frowned upon by all civilized persons.

        clintack in reply to Milhouse. | June 25, 2018 at 10:31 am

        Um…

        You say: “…the subject of such expression must surely fear imminent violence…”

        How is that okay? Legally, morally, otherwise?

        This is practically the definition of menacing, isn’t it? — menacing actions can constitute a credible threat even in the absence of an explicit verbal threat. Right?

        California: ““Credible threat of violence” means intentionally saying something or acting in a way that would make a reasonable person afraid for his or her safety or the safety of his or her family.” (source: http://www.courts.ca.gov/1258.htm)

          Milhouse in reply to clintack. | June 27, 2018 at 5:07 pm

          It is OK legally because none of the participants individually is doing or saying anything menacing. The mere presence of the crowd is enough to put fear in amyone’s heart, but legally we have no right not to be put in such fear. The same applies when one is confronted forcefully by a larger and stronger person; so long as nothing he says or does would make a reasonable person afraid, the fact that he’s inherently frightening cannot change that.

Obama’s cash for title and Iran’s ability to finance terrorists has been confronted.

North Korean children and parents may be reunited with South Koreans. Baby steps.

How is forcing the Trump administration to spend more resources on Secret Service or other protection for its people going t o hep democracy?

That’s what you’re talking about Maxine. Make it so tough for them that they hire more security, thereby increasing the potential for violence. That just does not sound constructive.

Undeclared? Its been declared.

May waters and her loved ones be first on the bad end of the violence she advocates – and styer and soros with them.

And may they all be on the bad end of all those bullets obama bought for the federal government – and all the fema camps they built for us. (Thank God hillary klinton us such a loser.)

Remember obamas idea for a civilian security force, more funded than the military? May they all be on the business end of one if Trump has to call for martial law.

The left planned to enslave us, and it backfired when the idiots bet the whole fascist house on the queenof idiots, hillary klinton.

Re being governed by the fascist left and a creep like obama?

NEVER AGAIN.

    And may they all be on the bad end of all those bullets obama bought for the federal government – and all the fema camps they built for us.

    Thanks for the reminder of just how thoroughly nucking futs you are, and how your presence poisons this site.

      Easy, maxine.

      elle in reply to Milhouse. | June 25, 2018 at 5:38 am

      I’d like to see Milhouse’s face when he realizes that neither his witticism’s nor his mean and mighty whipping noodles are going to save him from the very real violence of the civil war he is helping to cheer on.

      I pray that enough civility still exists to prevent it. Everyone else should too.

        Milhouse is the McCain of the blog: and with boehner’s spine.

          FineReport is a paranoid lunatic and a brazen liar, who should be shunned from all polite society and should not be given a platform anywhere. He is a bad odor on the right side of politics, and should go haunt the Democrats where he belongs.

          “FineReport is a paranoid lunatic and a brazen liar, who should be shunned from all polite society and should not be given a platform anywhere…”

          Quite the little disingenous fascist you are -and cozy in the flabby bosom of your hero maxine.(Tell us: does she wear a bra?)

          Drop dead. All I did was cite your own words to prove to everyone that you are a black-helicopter lunatic.

          The Friendly Grizzly in reply to TheFineReport.com. | June 25, 2018 at 7:59 am

          Please. You and Mil. Get a room!

          Am I supposed to put up with this? You’re a moderator here — is this now officially a hospitable place for black-helicopter paranoiacs? For talk about FEMA camps and bullet caches and chemtrails?

        elle,

        Abandon all hope for civility. Soros ans Styer have paid for a civil war, and they’re gonna get one.

        We just need to win it.

        Thank God every day for a greedy democrat boob named hillary klinton, and for the incarnation of George Washinton: Donald Trump.

And yes, I’d have hollered at then-California Attorney General Earl Warren, who pushed for the roundup of people of Japanese ancestry, even American citizens.

Haha, but Rubin wouldn’t “holler” at the great Democratic demi-god FDR.

It was his signature on the E.O., not some A.G.’s.

She won’t even mention FDR’s name. What a chickenshit.

Isn’t this incitement to riot? Also note folks she represents a district that’s full of gangs. She is supported and returns the favor in gov dollars by the Crips.

She has just issued them their marching orders and I wouldn’t want to be a white Trump supporter travel through her district which is partly composed of the Airport.

This has to be criminal.

    Arguably it is.

    But you expect swamp sessions to do anything?

    Milhouse in reply to jakee308. | June 25, 2018 at 5:54 am

    No, it is not incitement to anything. First of all nothing she calls for is illegal. Second, even she were advocating criminal acts, that is not incitement, it’s protected speech.

    The definition of incitement is speech that is both subjectively intended and objectively likely to whip up the listener’s emotions and cause him to commit a crime immediately, without stopping to think about it and make his own decision.

    It’s almost impossible to do that in writing or by being quoted in the news; that sort of emotional control usually needs a physical presence.

      Gave you an up arrow by mistake.

      Water’s words will soon reap violence directly related to them.

        It doesn’t matter whether violence is directly related to her words. By definition incitement is speech that is both intended and likely to cause the listener to commit a crime immediately. Not the next week, not the next day, not even the next hour, but right away, without thinking about it and making his own decision.

    Massinsanity in reply to jakee308. | June 25, 2018 at 9:45 am

    She calls for her followers to “push back on them”. The act of pushing is certainly violent and criminal but she qualifies it by saying push “back” which is a neat little trick on her part as she turns it into a potential act of self defense.

    While it may not be explicitly incitement it seems pretty close to me. Lord knows if Trump said this it would most assuredly be classified as incitement.

      Milhouse in reply to Massinsanity. | June 25, 2018 at 10:16 am

      No, it would not.

      And please don’t pretend not to understand the perfectly ordinary English term “pushing back”. It is neither violent nor criminal, and has nothing to do with any claim of self-defense.

        Massinsanity in reply to Milhouse. | June 25, 2018 at 10:39 pm

        Not sure where your from but it is perfectly logical to assume “push back” to mean something physical. I recall my parents saying that if someone pushes you then you can push them back. I have told my kids the same thing. Don’t instigate physical violence but if you get pushed or struck then you can push or strike back.

          Milhouse in reply to Massinsanity. | June 27, 2018 at 5:11 pm

          So you’re going with pretending not to understand the term “push back”. Your pretended ignorance of the English language is not an argument.

        PODKen in reply to Milhouse. | June 26, 2018 at 9:26 am

        “And please don’t pretend not to understand the perfectly ordinary English term “pushing back”. It is neither violent nor criminal, and has nothing to do with any claim of self-defense.”

        We see it every day … where pushing back results in violence within seconds.

          Milhouse in reply to PODKen. | June 27, 2018 at 5:10 pm

          Pushing back may result in violence — by the person being pushed back against. That doesn’t and can’t make pushing back violent.

The Second Amendment: the vaccine against Maxine.

    By your own false standard, that is a threat and incitement, and if something were to happen to her you’d be responsible. Luckily for you, the first amendment doesn’t care whether you believe in it or understand it, it protects you anyway.

clayusmcret | June 25, 2018 at 6:45 am

These old ultra leftist democrats couldn’t convince the party regulars to turn the US into Venezuela, so in their old age they’ve gone for broke and rallied the fringes. The problem is the fringes can’t be controlled. OWS, the American antifa factions, etc., all started as democrat sponsored organizations and then the crazies within those groups moved into leadership positions. Now, Waters, Pelosi, etc., are spinning up the fringes to stalk and harass republicans in their daily lives. This will quickly get out of control and people are going to start dying simply for disagreeing.

Fast forward 5-10 years when the oldest like Waters and Pelosi are dead and gone (from natural causes) and this latest effort has spun out of control. The crazy movement will have devolved into the equivalent of eco-terrorists on meth. No one will be safe to represent the people. This is the start of anarchy, which by no accident, is what the fringes wanted in the first place.

“a man who is systematically trying to dismantle our democracy, ”

Not any more so than Waters and her Communist minions.

Remember: What’s good for the goose is good for the gander.

michael.scott3245 | June 25, 2018 at 8:52 am

The word for this kind of behavior is not encouragement. She is not encouraging people to go out and create civil unrest. The word is incitement. The difference is incitement is a crime.

4th armored div | June 25, 2018 at 9:01 am

Maxine Waters Net Worth is
$7 Million
Allegations of corruption

According to Chuck Neubauer and Ted Rohrlich writing in the Los Angeles Times in 2004, Maxine Waters’ relatives had made more than $1 million during the preceding eight years by doing business with companies, candidates and causes that Waters had helped. They claimed she and her husband helped a company get government bond business, and her daughter Karen Waters and son Edward Waters have profited from her connections. Waters replied that “They do their business and I do mine.”[36] Liberal watchdog group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington named Waters to its list of corrupt members of Congress in its 2005, 2006, 2009 and 2011 reports.[37][38] Citizens Against Government Waste named her the June 2009 Porker of the Month due to her intention to obtain an earmark for the Maxine Waters Employment Preparation Center.[39][40]

Waters came under investigation for ethics violations and was accused by a House panel of at least one ethics violation related to her efforts to help OneUnited Bank receive federal aid.[41] Waters’ husband is a stockholder and former director of OneUnited Bank and the bank’s executives were major contributors to her campaigns. In September 2008, Waters arranged meetings between U.S. Treasury Department officials and OneUnited Bank, so that the bank could plead for federal cash. It had been heavily invested in Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, and its capital was “all but wiped out” after the U.S. government took them over. The bank received $12 million in Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) money.[42][43] The matter was investigated by the House Ethics Committee,[44][45] which charged her with violations of the House’s ethics rules in 2010.[46][47][48][49] On September 21, 2012, the House Ethics Committee completed a report clearing Waters of all ethics charges after nearly three years of investigation.-gee whp was in charge of congress and white house?

Seriously bad idea for the left to continue this. There will be a tipping point, and it may be closer than people think. “The Resistance” clearly doesn’t understand: 1) the relationship between behaviors and consequences, or 2) that they are assuredly in the minority, likely by quite a bit. I pray that something like Civil War 2.0 can be avoided because it would be even more horrific and destructive than the original. Having said that, I’m also looking into upgrading my home defense measures, just in case.

Look, I’m going to side with Milhouse here. This is not “Incitement to Imminent Lawless Action” (I had to look it up)

HOWEVER, this is incredibly stupid, even for Maxine. She is setting herself and her party up for some loose nut to go bonkers with a non-gun weapon against Republican targets and get caught alive, babbling her words back to the TV cameras.

    I wouldn’t rule out the “gun” possibility. Nearly anything is justifiable to the left if the target is the right.

notamemberofanyorganizedpolicital | June 25, 2018 at 10:57 am

Sam Lavigne, a far-left artist and game designer, is an adjunct professor at New York University’s Tisch School of the Arts. He created a database of 1,595 ICE employees using their LinkedIn profiles and shared it to his 3,600 followers on Twitter Tuesday morning

If you are center to right-wing, why are you on social media?

Ace of spades

In these cases, we here a lot of claims of such speech being protected, 1st Amendment speech. However, it is not protected if the speaker calls for actions which are violent or could reasonably expected to become violent, or which disrupt the rest of society.

The problem with protected speech has always been the courts. Some jurists steadfastly maintain that disruptive behavior, as an expression of political views is somehow protected. But why should it be? Protected speech should only be protected IF the listener [or viewer] can escape the source of the speech. People who are trapped in a restaurant, their home, office or even on the street, by people spouting political speech should have the same right to peace as they would have if these people where singing nonsense songs to cause a disruption. After all, abortion protestors are not allowed to block abortion clinics or harass clients of those clinics. The same standards should be applied to “political” speech.

It is interesting to note that a black woman, of Maxine Waters’ age, would not notice the similarity between the tactics that she espouses and those of the KKK; intimidation by faceless mobs.

    Milhouse in reply to Mac45. | June 27, 2018 at 5:15 pm

    n these cases, we here a lot of claims of such speech being protected, 1st Amendment speech. However, it is not protected if the speaker calls for actions which are violent or could reasonably expected to become violent, or which disrupt the rest of society.

    That is simply not true. As usual, you are completely detached from facts. After all, you live in a universe where Reagan defeated Goldwater.

The Right to peaceable assembly and the Right to petition the government for redress of grievances.

Just putting this out here.

    PODKen in reply to lgbmiel. | June 26, 2018 at 9:37 am

    I’m in Berkeley once a week … they have “peaceable assembly” there. Push back to punch in the nose is just a few seconds.

      Milhouse in reply to PODKen. | June 27, 2018 at 5:17 pm

      That doesn’t make the assembly unpeaceable. Any violence is solely the responsibility of the individuals who engage in it. The rest of those assembled retain their right to do so. This is settled law.

Isn’t this sedition?

    Apparently, it’s A-OK on all fronts… legally and morally. At least that was my takeaway reading some of the, um, posts here. Throwing gasoline on a fire is sometimes legal too. Never, ever makes it a good idea. Or one that should be repeated/intensified.

    rdmdawg in reply to snopercod. | June 25, 2018 at 7:04 pm

    Not when lefties do it. There’s your Liberal Privilege for you.

    Milhouse in reply to snopercod. | June 27, 2018 at 5:19 pm

    1, it’s not sedition. 2, even if it were, laws against sedition are unconstitutional. Schenck was a disgusting decision that has been completely repudiated. Today it would go down 9-0.

So … I guess Krazy Kat’s grand goal has been lowered from impeachment to mere harassment.

The Dems must be reading some really bad polls.

Pursuing a few logical conclusions here … I wonder, if it’s now fashionable to “tell [cabinet members] they’re not welcome anymore, anywhere” merely because they work for the Administration, it must also be OK to hound and harass suckass D’rat Congresscritters because they work for … whoever the hell might be funding their nefarious activities.

I wonder if “Resistancers of Color” like Maxine and Corey might just have handed the Klan the best news it’s had in years. It’s not like traditional activities such as gathering around burning crosses are actual violence, or anything. In fact, it’s all rather freedom-of-speech-ish; if it’s ok to burn American flags, crosses can’t very well be left out. (As long as the local fire codes are observed, of course.)

May this woman forever be the face and voice of the Democrat Party.

Off topic, I was censord, silenced, kicked from disqus via Thehill.com for the following: edits? Ok. 3800 comments in this tweed, and what has advanced to concensus? Hillary is a political slut, Sarah cheers for The Razorbacks, and there is no such thing here as argumentation, private property, or civil discourse. What a bunch of cowards.

If Hitler were in charge, he’d have the whole bunch of the antifa crowd id’d by the NSA, and fitted for their own private ovens or nares-sized Zyklon B pellets.

Don’t anonymity make cowards of us all?

I was censoOrder out at Red Hen, MXDC, and the other Mexcalera somepn or other in DC. Look them up on the internet, call them and chat. They are certainly up for it.

In fact, order out a bunch. Prime rib only. Oh. Penicillin? Cultural appropriation? Brown folks didn’t invent antibiotics.

It’s one thing for a non office holder to advocate getting in the faces of people they don’t like … but it’s quite another for a member of Congress to encourage and advocate that that behavior be thrust upon their fellow office holders and appointee’s. She should be censured without delay.

Voice_of_Reason | June 27, 2018 at 6:40 am

Maxine Waters is in her way to transforming American political discourse to the histrionic, irrstional, violent level of the hutus and tutsis.

Voice_of_Reason | June 27, 2018 at 6:45 am

the left has no arguments, no ideas, just incoherent, emotional, violent rage that they aren’t getting their way.

they better stop pushing the working conservatives. although we are peaceful, we have an overwhelming superiority in firepower, training, and discipline. things aren’t going to go the way the parasites think it will.

Font Resize
Contrast Mode
Send this to a friend