Remember this guy was a democrat/libertarian. He seems like a non partisan old school liberal who does not carry water for either side.

https://jonathanturley.org/202...resistance-rhetoric/


Despite calls for many Democratic politicians and pundits to temper their inflammatory rhetoric, this week has proven a further escalation in this dangerous form of rage rhetoric. DNC Chair Ken Martin just told MSNBC’s “The Beat” that “we may be nearing” the moment when “elections don’t matter and then the resistance looks completely different.” Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer called on people to “forcefully rise up.” With political violence on the rise, these leaders are clearly fueling the mob in hopes that they and their party can ride the wave of rage back into power. History suggests that it is a foolish delusion. Today’s revolutionaries quickly become tomorrow’s reactionaries.

House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, D-N.Y., who pictures himself brandishing a baseball bat has previously called upon people to “fight in the streets.”

California Governor Gavin Newsom previously declared, “I’m going to punch these sons of bitches in the mouth.”

Virginia Democratic gubernatorial nominee Abigail Spanberger called upon her supporters to “Let your rage fuel you.” She then refused to withdraw her support for the Democratic candidate for Attorney General, Jay Jones, who once expressed his desire to kill his political opponents and his children.

In his podcast with co-host Al Hunt, James Carville was again spewing unhinged hate. He returned to treating Trump and others as Nazis and their supporters as “collaborators.” I previously criticized Carville for that analogy. He later attacked me.

Doubling down, Carville declared

“You know what we do with collaborators? I think these corporations, my fantasy dream is that this nightmare ends in 2029 and I think we ought to have radical things. I think they all ought to have their heads shaven, they should be put in orange pajamas and they should be marched down Pennsylvania Avenue and the public should be invited to spit on them.”

To be sure that his menacing words were not lost, he then added “The universities, the corporations, the law firms, all of these collaborators should be shaved, pajamaed and spit on.”

There was no later push back by his co-host Hunt or anyone else associated with the podcast.

As one of those Carville has already attacked, I expect he has a haircut and public humiliation in mind for me and a significant number of others deemed insufficiently committed to the resistance.

Even with the assassination of Charlie Kirk and the attempts on Trump and Justice Brett Kavanaugh, these politicians and pundits are still fueling the madness. Even with the sniper attack on ICE officers, they are still calling these law enforcement officers “Gestapo” and “Nazis.”

In my book, “The Indispensable Right: Free Speech in an Age of Rage,” I write about rage and the uncomfortable truth for many engaging in rage rhetoric:

“What few today want to admit is that they like it. They like the freedom that it affords, the ability to hate and harass without a sense of responsibility. It is evident all around us as people engage in language and conduct that they repudiate in others. We have become a nation of rage addicts, flailing against anyone or anything that stands in opposition to our own truths. Like all addictions, there is not only a dependency on rage but an intolerance for opposing views. … Indeed, to voice free speech principles in a time of rage is to invite the rage of the mob.”

The appearance of guillotines has become commonplace in left-wing protests. From protests against Trump to those against Israel, the symbol of the Terror is being rolled out as a warning to those with opposing views: “We got the guillotine, you better run.”

It is the ultimate expression of an age of rage. There is no question that it is protected speech. However, it is part of what I have called “rage rhetoric,” and it is meant to inflame others. It suggests that the only solution to these issues is what the French called “the razor of the Republic.”

In the French Revolution, the irony is that those who turned the guillotine into the symbol of revolution were themselves beheaded on the same platforms. Robespierre and others would ultimately be dispatched in the same atmosphere of rage and revelry.

As my new book discusses, most revolutions are driven by establishment figures who seek to capitalize on the wave of popular rage to gain power. We are seeing that today with many Democratic leaders using rage rhetoric to appeal to the far extremes of their political bases.

Some have. Protesters are burning cars, dealerships, and even lawyers and reporters on the left are throwing Molotov cocktails at police.

In the end, today’s pseudo-revolutionaries are likely to find themselves tomorrow’s reactionaries. Leading mobs is rarely a safe place to be as more radical elements take hold of a movement. The result is an inexorable pattern that runs throughout history as revolution devours its own.

They may find that the resistance to their “resistance” isn’t to their liking.

{sound of rifle magazines being loaded and stacked}

We’ve been nice and polite up till now with your petulant games and interference

That can change and you won’t like what OUR resistance looks like.

Can you imagine this group of libtards trying to organize, have a command structure, and actually listening to commands? It'll take an hour just to sort out everyone's dumbass pronouns and endless points of privilege like this video:

^^^
Oh for fuck’s sake!

Down twinkles…..

I remember seeing the longer version of that video several years ago. It's hilarious.

Why does Nikita Khrushchev come to mind with his "We Will Bury You!" when I hear these "invasive species" pound the table and threatening the lives of conservatives and their families.

Victor Davis Hanson

The Left is ‘Bleeding Kansas’

America again flirts with its own “Bleeding Kansas”—a cycle of partisan violence and defiance where lawless zealots are hailed as patriots and the rule of law bleeds away.

https://amgreatness.com/2025/1...-is-bleeding-kansas/

In the late 1850s, “Bleeding Kansas” was the term used to describe the escalating cycle of violence, when surrogates for the Union and soon-to-be Confederacy fought each other over whether Kansas would be admitted as a free or slave-owning state.

As the assaults and killings increased, radicals set the agenda. The logical next step was the nightmares of Fort Sumter and Bull Run.

Those calling for restraint and peaceful resolutions were considered weak and traitorous. The thuggish and violent, instead, were praised as the true idealists and patriots, the real “base” of their respective parties.

We have witnessed a growing wave of left-wing assassins and would-be assassins in the last few years: James Hodgkinson, Luigi Mangione, James Crooks, Ryan Routh, Elias Rodriguez, and Tyler Robinson, who have targeted Republican House leaders, CEOs, Donald Trump, Jews, and Charlie Kirk. For months, leftists vandalized or torched anything to do with the Tesla brand, and with virtual impunity, they sometimes went after individual Tesla owners. Jews walked in the shadows on campuses, where mobs cheered Hamas killers.

From June through October 2020, Antifa- and BLM-led rioting led to 35 deaths, $2 billion in damage, 14,000 arrests, and 1,500 injured police. On January 6, violence left five dead, four from the protesting side. But whereas the federal government immediately and often excessively jailed both violent and peaceful 2021 protesters, almost all of the 14,000 protesters and rioters of 2020 were released by left-wing blue-city and federal prosecutors and judges.

ICE officers and facilities remain under siege in a number of major cities. In this current left-wing legitimization of violence, the Democrat Party is now embracing an eerie channeling of an earlier, pre- and post-Confederate ethos. Nonstop Democrat grandees call for their resistance to hit the street, if need be, to go lower than the “gutter,” and to “let your rage fuel you.”

The demagogic, anti-ICE bluster of Illinois Governor J.B. Pritzker, Chicago Mayor Brandon Johnson, California Governor Gavin Newsom, Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass, Oregon Governor Tina Kotek, and Portland Mayor Keith Wilson is nullificationist and state-rights supremacy to the core.

New York mayoral candidate Zoran Mamdani, in the spirit of Jefferson Davis, recently summed up the left’s resistance best, bragging that he hoped to disconnect New York local governance from federal government authority entirely—at least in the obligatory rather than beneficiary sense.

But do not left-wing states’ righters also applaud rogue lower-court federal judges who create and apply all sorts of edicts to stop the enforcement of federal law?

The Democrat-appointed judges confidently and accurately assume: 1) that they will certainly be reversed but can successfully continue to fabricate laws and make up jurisdictions and rules to delay and obstruct the administration; 2) that unlike their Democrat supporters who opportunistically ignore federal authority, the targeted Trump administration will abide by their federal rulings until they are reversed; 3) that any loss of judicial reputation by their biased and unsound rulings is more than made up by their new folk status among Democrats as fanatic Never Trumper activists.

Blue-state elected officials, both local and statewide, believe not only that the federal government has no jurisdiction to enforce the laws of the land in their locales, but that they themselves have the right, and indeed the duty, to use their own resources to impede them.

But blue states and cities have a peculiar notion of “states’ rights.” Under the Obama administration, Democrats once cheered on the federal government’s blockage of former Arizona governor Jan Brewer’s efforts to use state resources to enforce federal immigration law, which an open-borders Obama White House had refused to fully do.

How odd, then, that the left supports federal supremacy when it chooses not to enforce its own laws but opposes it when it follows and enforces federal statutes.

Of course, should any red city, county, or state declare itself immune from a Democrat-run federal government—for example, local authorities ignoring federal gun registration laws or endangered species mandates—then the left would use the full force of the federal law to crush such “state-righters.”

This new one-sided, left-wing, states’-rights movement also took off during the first Trump administration. Then, some 600 state and local “sanctuary city” jurisdictions declared that they would not hand over arrested criminal foreign aliens residing unlawfully in the U.S. to federal authorities.

Currently, local Democrat officials from Chicago to Los Angeles unabashedly boast that not only will their own police forces not aid in the deportation of apprehended or criminal illegal aliens, but they will also often actively oppose federal law enforcement—whether by offering street sanctuary to violent anti-ICE protesters in Portland or ordering Chicago-area police not to come to the aid of embattled and blockaded ICE officers.

An unhinged Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) now brags she wants local California officials to arrest federal ICE officers. But the former Speaker of the House does not elaborate on what sort of “encounter” will follow when the latter federal, armed officers are lawfully enforcing the law, and the former armed state officers are breaking the law in trying to stop them. Bleeding Kansas? A mini-Fort Sumter?

The last time we saw such brazen state efforts to nullify federal law took place in 1957 at Little Rock, Arkansas (President Eisenhower versus Governor Orval Faubus); in 1962 at Oxford, Mississippi (President Kennedy versus Governor Ross Barnett); and in 1963 at Tuscaloosa, Alabama (President Kennedy versus George Wallace). Like their current counterparts, all such governors pleaded states’ rights, damned federal intrusion into their own affairs, and counted on their own state residents to protest and intervene for their shared anti-federalist and nullificationist agendas.

Social media is now ablaze, as are street protests, with attacks on federal officials and with defiant calls from state and local residents to use any means necessary to stop federal enforcement. State officials smear federal officers as “Nazis” and “Gestapo”—and then up the ante by creating electronic “ICE trackers” so that illegal aliens and their supporters can evade federal officers, dox them, and put them in physical jeopardy. The logical end to the violent designs of California nullificationist officials will be either wounded or dead ICE officers.

That 80-90% of currently arrested cohorts of illegal aliens either have prior criminal records or past-due deportation orders seems irrelevant. The cause of the current nullificationists is not so much illegal immigrants per se but rather using state resources to defy the Trump federal administration, as it acts lawfully as representatives of the U.S. government.

No wonder the antebellum firebrand and killer John Brown has become a popular blue-state rights icon—precisely because he was willing to kill his opponents. The violent left-wing “John Brown Gun Club” is now mainstream. Howard University professor Stacey Patton recently urged white liberals to “be like John Brown. Ask yourself, what am I willing to burn so somebody else can breathe?”

She apparently was advocating the sort of violence that characterized Brown’s armed raid on Harpers Ferry that helped ignite the Civil War, or his earlier 1856 Pottawatomie Massacre, where he oversaw the execution of five pro-South settlers.

The escalating violence in Chicago, Los Angeles, and Portland bears an eerie resemblance to the precursors to the “Bleeding Kansas” madness of the late 1850s, in which, eventually, local law enforcement often ignored or joined in the violence of ad hoc thugs, sometimes in opposition to the federal government.

As in the bloodletting of 19th-century Kansas, the current activist left, in the street and on social media, makes no effort to hide their glee over Charlie Kirk’s death, to mask their disappointment that Trump survived two assassination attempts, or to deny that assassin Luigi Mangione is now a popular left-wing icon.

L.A. Mayor Karen Bass, whose incompetence and left-wing blinders ensured the L.A. fire, seems unconcerned with her failed city, as she daily poses on the barricades as a resistor of federal law.

Governor Gavin Newsom has no answers for his multibillion-dollar high-speed rail catastrophe. He remains indifferent to the state government’s responsibility for dozens of horrific forest and brush fires.

Perennial candidate Newsom is unconcerned with the state’s crippling costs of insurance, gas, and electricity, or California’s record high gas and income taxes, or its now chronic multibillion-dollar budget deficit, or its $1.6 trillion in unfunded liabilities.

Instead, Newsom only comes to life to post that the federal Homeland Security Secretary will soon have a “bad day” (“Kristi Noem is going to have a bad day today. You’re welcome, America”), or that he is willing to smack the mouth of the President (“We are going to fight back and we’re going to punch this bully in the mouth.”) or to strike his Republican opponents (“We are going to punch these sons of bitches in the mouth.”).

In sum, officials both threaten and sanction violence against ICE.

When challenged by federal officers, violent street thugs run to the protection of sympathetic local police.

If an ICE officer is besieged, he has no assurance that local or state officers will come to his aid and confront his attackers.

Assassins are praised; their victims are slandered.

So we are Bleeding Kansas.

Democrats and the left nevertheless press ahead—even as they know where their madness ultimately leads.