The riots in Berkeley were described as "peaceful" until about 150 masked anarchists arrived and began to commence violence. That is the "fake news" lie being pushed on the American public. The riot was planned and attended by protesters until their violent wing could arrive, it was not a coincidence and it was not organic. These are not even riots, they are para-military movements, they are anti-government terrorist acts.
There is a vast difference between protesting the illegal and unconstitutional acts of your government and rioting to shut down free speech. What few genuine protesters were in the crowds, either the Women's March or Berkeley, are misguided and should be ashamed of what happened to their "peaceful" protest, but largely they are not ashamed and feel justified in their hatred for America and Americans with different views. I heard none of the "peaceful" protesters coming out today to denounce the actions of the anarchists.
There is no correlation to the Tea Party, who were constantly described as "anti-government" which always seemed a bit odd since most of them were carrying copies of the Constitution in their pockets, whereas these rioters hate the Constitution, hate free speech, hate free assembly, hate the Second Amendment. Some of them just hate for the sake of it and riot for the thrill of unbridled violence.
This is a little of what I was writing about in the pervious post. There must be a counter to these acts of violence to protect the people who would have otherwise attended the speech. Yeah, I know, so what am I doing about it? Well, nothing, so far. I recognize that there needs to be an interdiction, an engagement with these punks. There needs to be a rapid deployment of supporters to flood the area and stand between these rioters and the venue.
The trouble I have is this is mostly taking place in liberal zones that I would just as soon watch burn to the ground. I am right now in the middle-ground between watching to see how bad all of this hurts the left and whether pushing to have federal funds removed from sanctuary cities, public universities and such will have the impact that it should. I guess, in other words, it is the government's role to defend itself and its laws. How will the federal government react to this illegality? But, I also know that there is something beyond what the federal government will do and what I am willing to do.
One must also understand that Milo is doing this on purpose. His college-tour is to expose the violent intolerance of the left. It is, to some extent, a PR stunt. Again, letting this play out a little is probably the wiser move, but I am not willing to sit back and watch innocent people harmed because of their belief in this nation, because it is more than that. It is a resistance to the forces of globalism who have planned this strategy of constant riots (I will not dignify them with the pretense of a protest).
My point is simply that at some point it will come down to what we are willing to do to defend the society that has led us to the prosperity and strength that we have enjoyed over the past couple of hundred years. It is a defense of Christianity against Islamism. It is a defense of freedom against collectivism. It is a defense of liberty against imprisonment. This nation is coming apart, because the Republicans in the House and Senate were too weak and too traitorous to defend the Constitution when it needed to be defended. Now, it is nothing more than an expression of natural law, without the ability to enforce it. That will have to happen by force, probably by us.