Anti-Trump Groups Threaten ‘Largest Civil Disobedience Action of the Century’

[mystery-ak]

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/03/16/anti-trump-groups-threaten-largest-civil-disobedience-action-of-the-century/

by Aaron Klein16 Mar 20163,882
With little fanfare and almost no news media attention, some of the same radical groups involved in shutting down Donald Trump’s Chicago rally last week are plotting a mass civil disobedience movement to begin next month.

They intend to march across the East Coast in order to spark a “fire that transforms the political climate in America.”

The operation, calling itself Democracy Spring, is threatening “drama in Washington” with the “largest civil disobedience action of the century.” The radicals believe this will result in the arrest of thousands of their own activists.

“We will demand that Congress listen to the People and take immediate action to save our democracy. And we won’t leave until they do — or until they send thousands of us to jail,” the website for Democracy Spring declares, channeling rhetoric from the Occupy movement.

The group is backed by numerous organizations, including the George Soros-funded groups MoveOn.org, the Institute for Policy Studies, and Demos.

continued

[sinkspur]

Trumpbart trying to piggy-back on an action against CONGRESS, tendentiously tying it to Trump even though the groups never mention his name.

Trumpbart is a propaganda arm of the Trump campaign.

[Carling]

Trumpbart trying to piggy-back on an action against CONGRESS, tendentiously tying it to Trump even though the groups never mention his name.

Trumpbart is a propaganda arm of the Trump campaign.

Some of these groups disrupted Trump events last weekend.

Remember, you were here applauding them and blaming Trump.

[NavyCanDo]

Just heard on Michael Medved that the supposed Trump supporter that interrupted the Rubio concession speech shouting, "You lost Marco, You lost Marco, Trump for president", was not a Trump supporter at all, but has been identified as the same jackass Hillary supporter that has been crashing Trump gatherings wearing the swastika like arm ban. I'm relieved that this was not somebody from the Republican party, but how do you stop this sort of sick and twisted covert Sabotage?     

[HAPPY2BME]

I know at least a handful that will be there holding some kind of 'I hate Trump' sign.

[Carling]

Just heard on Michael Medved that the supposed Trump supporter that interrupted the Rubio concession speech shouting, "You lost Marco, You lost Marco, Trump for president", was not a Trump supporter at all, but has been identified as the same jackass Hillary supporter that has been crashing Trump gatherings wearing the swastika like arm ban. I'm relieved that this was not somebody from the Republican party, but how do you stop this sort of sick and twisted covert Sabotage?   

That's not even right.  Here, I'll show you how I responded to your false claim from last night.  He's not a HRC supporter, either.

http://www.gopbriefingroom.com/index.php/topic,198845.msg813637.html#msg813637

http://www.gopbriefingroom.com/index.php/topic,198845.msg813650.html#msg813650

[Mesaclone]

So once again the Dems are planning to suppress the 1st amendment rights of a GOP candidate and his supporters. What's new about that?

This is little more than standard Alinsky/Lenin/Ayers style tactics...when you can't win the argument with reason or facts, shout down and silence your opponent...with a touch of intimidation thrown in to really cow those who disagree with you. This is the country the Left wants...and you can see "their" America modeled on campuses across the nation....one in which conservative thought and speech are suppressed and silenced under the false pretense of needing "safe spaces" and hate free environments.

The irony is, nearly all Republicans disgusted by GENUINE hate speech and we all want every American to feel safe to express themselves...but when we see the "hate-speech" spewing from the Jeremiah Wrights, the Louis Farakhans, and the Bill Ayers of the world, we seek to refute their hate, not silence it. We don't call for safe spaces and free speech zones...we want the hate speech to be aired and seen for what it is. You fight that kind of evil by exposing it to the light of reason and letting people see it for what it is. The Left, when it sees speech it considers hateful (and the Left considers nearly ALL conservative speech to be "hateful"), has only one response....to silence it, and THAT is un-American, un-Democratic, and unconstitutional.

Dem philosophy on speech:[/b] "You have no right to utter speech with which I strongly disagree, because you've made me feel unsafe"
GOP philosophy on speech (partially stealing an old quote): "I may disagree with and even fear what you say, but I will defend unto the death your right to say it"

[libertybele]

It's going to be a long hot summer.  Even though I am not particularly fond of Trump -- the anti-Trump movement is wrong and it represents most of what I am against.  I will defend what I believe in.     

Just heard on Hannity that Trump and Cruz have stated that they will join forces if need be to stop this from going to convention.

[sinkspur]

So once again the Dems are planning to suppress the 1st amendment rights of a GOP candidate and his supporters. What's new about that?

This is little more than standard Alinsky/Lenin/Ayers style tactics...when you can't win the argument with reason or facts, shout down and silence your opponent...with a touch of intimidation thrown in to really cow those who disagree with you. This is the country the Left wants...and you can see "their" America modeled on campuses across the nation....one in which conservative thought and speech are suppressed and silenced under the false pretense of needing "safe spaces" and hate free environments.

The irony is, nearly all Republicans disgusted by GENUINE hate speech and we all want every American to feel safe to express themselves...but when we see the "hate-speech" spewing from the Jeremiah Wrights, the Louis Farakhans, and the Bill Ayers of the world, we seek to refute their hate, not silence it. We don't call for safe spaces and free speech zones...we want the hate speech to be aired and seen for what it is. You fight that kind of evil by exposing it to the light of reason and letting people see it for what it is. The Left, when it sees speech it considers hateful (and the Left considers nearly ALL conservative speech to be "hateful"), has only one response....to silence it, and THAT is un-American, un-Democratic, and unconstitutional.

Dem philosophy on speech:[/b] "You have no right to utter speech with which I strongly disagree, because you've made me feel unsafe"
GOP philosophy on speech (partially stealing an old quote): "I may disagree with and even fear what you say, but I will defend unto the death your right to say it"

Did you type that with a straight face?

From an article in National Review today:

During a Republican debate, Trump came out against the Supreme Court’s pro–free speech decision in Citizen United. On more than one occasion, he has expressed his desire to “open up” libel laws so he can punish journalists who write “mean” things about him. He has urged the FCC to suspend his critics on television. On social media, he has demanded that his critics be fired, much to the delight of his mob of anonymous supporters, who flood the accounts of those Trump has singled out. Some online Trump enforcers have even attempted to “dox” the naysayers by revealing their personal info on the Internet.

 Trump has also managed to turn his campaign into one big safe space. The Daily Dot obtained a copy of Trump’s non-disclosure agreement for campaign volunteers, which prohibits volunteers from disparaging Trump, his campaign, his company, or his family in any way, presumably for life. The contract specifically states:

"No Disparagement. During the term of your service and at all times thereafter you hereby promise and agree not to demean or disparage publicly the Company, Mr. Trump, any Trump Company, any Family Member, or any Family Member Company or any asset any of the foregoing own, or product or service any of the foregoing offer, in each case by or in any of the Restricted Means and Contexts and to prevent your employees from doing so."

Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/432848/donald-trump-opposes-free-speech-pc-left

Suppression of speech is a Trump specialty.

[libertybele]

#1 We have the right to free speech.  #2  We have the right to peacefully assemble.  Those that stand in the way of those rights are trampling upon our Constitutional rights.  Those people then are clearly the enemy period!

[sinkspur]

 
Stacey Shick SamuelsVerified account
‏@StaceyShick
Trump spokeswoman on CNN just now: "Riots aren't necessarily a bad thing."

[Mesaclone]

Did you type that with a straight face?

From an article in National Review today:

Suppression of speech is a Trump specialty.

So much hyperbole and simplification of actual positions here...where to start.

Citizens United is an important ruling, but it is also a very broad ruling and its not unreasonable to seek to scale back its application. A very reasoned argument can be made that there should be SOME limitations on "corporate" spending to influence elections. This is a VERY far cry from having limitations on the rights of "persons" to spend, speak and participate without limit in the political process. So nothing in his desire to scale back Citizens United is anti-free speech of the citizens of the nation. The real problem, is that BOTH corporations AND Unions should have some restrictions on pouring money into lobbying and elections...and that is not contradictory of the conservative concept of minimizing government. On the contrary, one of the roles of government under conservatism is to break up monopolies...and right now, Unions and Corporations are sharing a "monopoly" in the business of "buying" politicians.

As for Libel laws, the truth is anyone...even a politician...can already sue a journalist for publishing "knowingly false and malicious" facts about...anyone. So this is a bit of a moot point.

I think the conservative view on free speech, including spending, is that every American is free to speak what they will and to spend their money in any way they wish in support of candidates and causes. Its a bit more murky when it comes to corporations and unions pouring money into lobbyists and PACs...I think the real conservative solution is lift any and ALL restrictions on citizens contributing to any political cause or person. Corporations and Unions should be entirely free to conduct commerce as they wish, but they are not citizens...and having some limits on how they are allowed to pour billions into the electoral process is reasonable within conservative philosophy.

[Mesaclone]

Stacey Shick SamuelsVerified account
‏@StaceyShick
Trump spokeswoman on CNN just now: "Riots aren't necessarily a bad thing."

That Boston Tea Party riot was sure an awful thing...right?
Protesting and rioting against the Stamp Act....just awful?

No one, including Trump, condones any kind of violence against persons and property...so I guess it goes to how you define a riot. In this context, it simply refers to a vocal...even obnoxious...group of people speaking out collectively against injustice in a public venue.

[jmyrlefuller]

And yet not one of these anti-Trump groups is conservative in nature.

This is liberals against a liberal. Where is the Tea Party?

[Mesaclone]

That Boston Tea Party riot was sure an awful thing...right?
Protesting and rioting against the Stamp Act....just awful?

No one, including Trump, condones any kind of violence against persons and property...so I guess it goes to how you define a riot. In this context, it simply refers to a vocal...even obnoxious...group of people speaking out collectively against injustice in a public venue.

Further:

Let's say there was a military coup de'etat...would a riot against that be a bad thing?

For the record, Trump was not condoning rioting. He did say that were the GOP elite to subvert the democratic process and overturn the results of the primaries...a riot might ensue, and that in some ways there would be justification for it. That's a LONG ways from saying riots are a good thing in a general sense. So please quit with the non-contextual hyperbole.

[alicewonders]

Further:

Let's say there was a military coup de'etat...would a riot against that be a bad thing?

For the record, Trump was not condoning rioting. He did say that were the GOP elite to subvert the democratic process and overturn the results of the primaries...a riot might ensue, and that in some ways there would be justification for it. That's a LONG ways from saying riots are a good thing in a general sense. So please quit with the non-contextual hyperbole.

So please quit with the non-contextual hyperbole.

There's a lot of that around here!  Thanks for a reasoned comment - refreshing!

[A-Lert]

Just heard on Michael Medved that the supposed Trump supporter that interrupted the Rubio concession speech shouting, "You lost Marco, You lost Marco, Trump for president", was not a Trump supporter at all, but has been identified as the same jackass Hillary supporter that has been crashing Trump gatherings wearing the swastika like arm ban. I'm relieved that this was not somebody from the Republican party, but how do you stop this sort of sick and twisted covert Sabotage?   

Is anyone surprised by this?

[MACVSOG68]

That Boston Tea Party riot was sure an awful thing...right?
Protesting and rioting against the Stamp Act....just awful?

No one, including Trump, condones any kind of violence against persons and property...so I guess it goes to how you define a riot. In this context, it simply refers to a vocal...even obnoxious...group of people speaking out collectively against injustice in a public venue.

Well it wasn't the Stamp Act, but that's beside the point.  If Mr. trump had meant that if he is short by 100 votes there would be a real floor fight, or that the people would speak out he probably should have said that.  Some of his earlier statements about violence and this one about riots lead many to believe he wouldn't object to such reaction.

[Mesaclone]

Well it wasn't the Stamp Act, but that's beside the point.  If Mr. trump had meant that if he is short by 100 votes there would be a real floor fight, or that the people would speak out he probably should have said that.  Some of his earlier statements about violence and this one about riots lead many to believe he wouldn't object to such reaction.

Not to nitpick, but yes there were riots over the Stamp Act.

Not sure what you mean by "it wasn't the Stamp Act". I wasn't connecting it to the Tea Party, if that's what you were thinking.

I will agree that Donald should be more careful with his language BUT it is his very same penchant for frank language that drives much of his appeal...simply saying "in the old days I'd punch that guy in the face" is far more just a colloquialism than some sort of call to violence. If an idiot takes it as a call to violence, well thats on the idiot not Trump. We need to hold people responsible for what they do, not blame others because a fool decided to use common words it to justify actual violence.

[alicewonders]

Just heard on Michael Medved that the supposed Trump supporter that interrupted the Rubio concession speech shouting, "You lost Marco, You lost Marco, Trump for president", was not a Trump supporter at all, but has been identified as the same jackass Hillary supporter that has been crashing Trump gatherings wearing the swastika like arm ban. I'm relieved that this was not somebody from the Republican party, but how do you stop this sort of sick and twisted covert Sabotage?   

I think the first thing we can all do is not jump to the obvious conclusion that the media is drawing for us.  We should always be suspicious of anything we hear.  I try to ask myself, "Who benefits from this story?" 

The media knows exactly how to produce a knee-jerk reaction in us - they've been doing it for awhile.

If the story sounds incredible - it probably is not completely accurate - but based on a grain of truth that can be cited to give it credibility. 

It's tough to deal with disrupters intent on pushing the envelope - for the photo op and to spread propaganda.  You have to be tough back, while not crossing that line of too much force. 

I always remember that they wouldn't be doing it if they didn't fear what it is they are trying to subvert. 

In the end, you have to fight force with more force.  You don't "engage" with them, play patty-cake, or sing Kumbaya with them. 


 

[sinkspur]

So much hyperbole and simplification of actual positions here...where to start.

Citizens United is an important ruling, but it is also a very broad ruling and its not unreasonable to seek to scale back its application. A very reasoned argument can be made that there should be SOME limitations on "corporate" spending to influence elections. This is a VERY far cry from having limitations on the rights of "persons" to spend, speak and participate without limit in the political process. So nothing in his desire to scale back Citizens United is anti-free speech of the citizens of the nation. The real problem, is that BOTH corporations AND Unions should have some restrictions on pouring money into lobbying and elections...and that is not contradictory of the conservative concept of minimizing government. On the contrary, one of the roles of government under conservatism is to break up monopolies...and right now, Unions and Corporations are sharing a "monopoly" in the business of "buying" politicians.

As for Libel laws, the truth is anyone...even a politician...can already sue a journalist for publishing "knowingly false and malicious" facts about...anyone. So this is a bit of a moot point.

I think the conservative view on free speech, including spending, is that every American is free to speak what they will and to spend their money in any way they wish in support of candidates and causes. Its a bit more murky when it comes to corporations and unions pouring money into lobbyists and PACs...I think the real conservative solution is lift any and ALL restrictions on citizens contributing to any political cause or person. Corporations and Unions should be entirely free to conduct commerce as they wish, but they are not citizens...and having some limits on how they are allowed to pour billions into the electoral process is reasonable within conservative philosophy.

A conservative Supreme Court majority disagrees that corporations are not persons, since corporations are made up of persons.  What is so hard to understand about that?

[jmyrlefuller]

A conservative Supreme Court majority disagrees that corporations are not persons, since corporations are made up of persons.  What is so hard to understand about that?

What womb does a corporation come out of? Can it buy alcohol before it's been incorporated 21 years?

A corporation is not a person; it is a fictional legal construct designed to prevent lenders from getting money back from their borrowers.

[sinkspur]

Further:

Let's say there was a military coup de'etat...would a riot against that be a bad thing?

For the record, Trump was not condoning rioting. He did say that were the GOP elite to subvert the democratic process and overturn the results of the primaries...a riot might ensue, and that in some ways there would be justification for it. That's a LONG ways from saying riots are a good thing in a general sense. So please quit with the non-contextual hyperbole.

Trump's use of "riot" (most of his words are monosyllabic) was a dog whistle to his already-angry mob of followers:  "Listen up guys.  We might have to riot."  And, of course, there is "justification" (your word) for violence in the political process.

Twist yourself into a pretzel often?

[A-Lert]

Not to change the subject,, but has there been any updates on the alleged attack/assault on the Breitbart reporter who resigned?

[HonestJohn]

#1 We have the right to free speech.  #2  We have the right to peacefully assemble.  Those that stand in the way of those rights are trampling upon our Constitutional rights.  Those people then are clearly the enemy period!

That doesn't only apply to Trump supporters.  Those protestors had just as much a right to assemble and speak their minds.

The situation was peaceful until the Trump supporters arrived.

And now Trump says his supporters will riot if he doesn't get the nomination.  This looks like confirmation of the violent nature of Trump supporters.

 

---

(Just channeling the propaganda found at Breitbart, only with a target reversal.)