Dems insist criticism is violence, and also violence Is good

Over the past week I’ve learned two important things from our moral, ethical, and intellectual betters on the left: 1) Free speech that criticizes a Democrat is tantamount to violence, and 2) Actual violence committed by a Democrat is a form of free speech.

(Article by Jim Treacher republished from

For the first part of this oxymoronic equation, let’s go to Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.). Last week she made the news again for summarizing the 9/11 attacks as “Some people did something.” And now she’d like you to stop criticizing her for it:

In other words, criticizing Ilhan Omar is an incitement to violence. This is now the Democratic Party line. Remember this assertion, because we’ll pick it up in a moment.

Now for part two. I don’t watch The Good Fight on CBS All-Access, because if there’s anything more baffling to me in 2019 than watching CBS, it’s paying to watch CBS. So I missed a real treat last week.

Karen Townsend, Newsbusters:

In the April 11 episode of the CBS All-Access show The Good Fight, titled “The One where a Nazi Gets Punched,” Lucca Quinn (Cush Jumbo) and Jay Di Persia (Nyambi Nyambi), two black law clerks travel to a rural community outside Chicago to be Democrat poll watchers on voting day for a special election…

The end of the episode has Jay addressing the camera with a riot around him… Jay goes full ANTIFA…

“Is it alright to hit a Nazi unprovoked? I was always taught to never throw the first punch. Never instigate. Defend, don’t attack. But then I saw a video of the white nationalist Richard Spencer being punched in the face during an interview, and I realized… Spencer was in a pressed suit, wearing a tie, being interviewed like his opinion mattered, like he should be considered part of the conversation, like neo-Nazism was just one political point of view. And then I realized there’s no better way to show some speech is not equal. Some speech requires a more visceral response. It’s like Overton’s window. That’s the term from which (sic) ideas are tolerated in public discourse. Well, Overton’s window doesn’t mean $#!+ unless it comes with some enforcement. So, yeah: This is enforcement. It’s time to punch a few Nazis.”

I assume that if I have a problem with the Columbia Broadcasting System putting out an open call for political violence, that means I like Nazis, or I’m a Nazi, or something to do with Nazis.

Richard Spencer denies being a Nazi, but he sure does pattern himself after one. According to this line of thinking, that means it’s okay to physically attack him. Indiana Jones punches Nazis in the movies, right? Captain America punches Nazis. Punching Nazis is good.

Okay, then. Who decides which guys should get punched? Which ones are Nazis? Where is the line drawn?

Is David Duke a Nazi? He’s at least Nazi-adjacent. He believes a lot of the same things. Is it okay to walk up to him and punch him, to show that his speech isn’t equal?

If so, what are we to do with this information?

Wow. David Duke really likes Ilhan Omar. He’s positively stanning her.

If it’s okay to punch Duke, and Duke finds common cause with Omar, but we’re not even supposed to criticize Omar because it’s inciting violence… That’s kind of confusing, right?

It’s almost as if these guys are just making up this nonsense as they go along. It’s almost as if they don’t care that their rationalizations for silencing people they don’t like are self-contradictory, as long as they get the job done.


It’s a big mistake to condone political violence, no matter how angry and self-righteous you feel. Not only is it morally and ethically wrong, but you look like an idiot when you justify assaulting anti-Semites and then turn right around and demand that everybody stop criticizing political speech from an anti-Semite.

But then, if they were willing or able to think these things through, they wouldn’t be Democrats.

comments powered by Disqus