The Media Normalize the Antifa Extreme

In March, "Meet the Press" host Chuck Todd made an ad for his show in which he lamented to the public: "What about our politics? Are there any rules anymore, and if so, will anybody play by them?" Todd assured viewers that he and NBC would enforce some rules. "These days, politics could use a little refereeing," he intoned. "And we're not afraid to blow the whistle."

Wrong. The rulebook is being shredded. The antifa movement, or anti-fascist movement of far-left-leaning militant groups, is justifying violent action in the streets to beat back racists and neo-Nazis. Violence -- not as an accidental outburst but as an explicit strategy -- used to be seen as a beyond-the-pale extreme. Now Todd & Co. are ushering antifa's extreme into polite society. The NBC referees believe rioting is worth at least some respect as a way to jolt the debate to the left. On the streets, the real referees, the police, are getting injured with rocks and urine-filled bottles to the head. We've lost count of the number of cops who have been murdered by Black Lives Matter supporters.

Todd used the Aug. 16 "MTP Daily" show and the Aug. 20 "Meet the Press" show to promote an author named Mark Bray, who wrote a book about antifa. Bray argued: "Nazism and fascism was not stopped by polite dialogue and reasonable debate. It had to be stopped by force." Therefore, violence is necessary.

So who was chosen to debate the antifa militant? Someone one notch to the right of antifa. At NBC, the spectrum runs the gamut from militant left to radical left. Bray's opponent was Richard Cohen of the Southern Poverty Law Center, or SPLC. The center has been smearing Christian conservative groups as "haters" for years. It just released a report on 917 alleged hate groups, including the Tea Party Patriots, Phyllis Schlafly's Eagle Forum and the Family Research Council.

In perhaps the greatest display of hypocrisy thus far in the 21st century, Cohen denounced antifa's tactics by stating, "It's a very peculiar notion of self-defense to say you can censor people."

For years, NBC has demonized conservative movements by arguing that their speech leads to violence. On Jan. 3, 1993, then-"Dateline NBC" host Jane Pauley smeared the pro-life movement by saying: "Still ahead, the latest round of bloodshed and violence at abortion clinics. The anti-abortion movement has been creeping to the edge of bloody fanaticism for a decade." A few months later, after the Oklahoma City bombing, then-NBC anchor Bryant Gumbel blamed Rush Limbaugh and the rest of conservative talk radio, claiming their anti-government invective "may embolden or encourage some extremists."

Chuck Todd isn't out there saying antifa is "creeping the to the edge of bloody fanaticism" any more than he would host a debate called "Blowing Up Abortion Clinics: Fair or Unfair?"

Eight years ago, NBC and MSNBC were warning that the peaceful tea party rallies were dangerous. Then-MSNBC anchor Contessa Brewer fretted over "A man at a pro-health care reform rally" wearing "a semiautomatic assault rifle on his shoulder and a pistol on his hip." Then-MSNBC host David Shuster suggested protesters at town hall meetings were a threat to then-President Obama's life. He said, "Is this putting our president in some sort of danger because of some wacko that will see this stuff and say, 'Oh, yes, it's fascism, and the way we dealt with Adolf Hitler was to try to kill him, so therefore, let's do this with our president.'"

The only consistent thread in any of this is that NBC and MSNBC aren't referees and they don't have a rulebook. They want to achieve the left's aims by whatever means necessary. One arm of the far left believes violence is necessary. NBC thinks it's worth discussing.

Thank you for referencing that article Kaslin. As usual, please note that the following critique is directed at the article and not at you.

"... is justifying violent action [emphasis added] in the streets to beat back racists and neo-Nazis."

FR: Never Accept the Premise of Your Opponent’s Argument

Regarding the so-called justification of violent action, patriots are reminded the following about the 1st Amendment. That amendment doesn't guarantee the “absolute right to assemble.” That amendment guarantees the right only to peaceably assemble.

"1st Amendment: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably [emphasis added] to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

What’s going on with violent uprisings is the states is the following imo.

Shown below is the Constitution’s Article IV, Section 4 (4.4) and Justice Joseph Story’s explanation for Section 4. Note that 4.4 can be though of as a federal "911" for the states to use to request military assistance to help suppress domestic uprisings that could weaken the USA.

"Article I, Section 4: The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence [emphasis added]."
”§ 1808. The want of a provison of this nature was felt, as a capital defect in the plan of the confederation, as it might in its consequences endanger, if not overthrow, the Union. Without a guaranty, the assistance to be derived from the national government in repelling domestic dangers, which might threaten the existence of the state constitutions, could not be demanded, as a right, from the national government. Usurpation might raise its standard, and trample upon the liberties of the people, while the national government could legally do nothing more, than behold the encroachments with indignation and regret. A successful faction might erect a tyranny on the ruins of order and law; while no succour could be constitutionally afforded by the Union to the friends and supporters of the government. But this is not all. The destruction of the national government itself, or of neighbouring states, might result from a successful rebellion in a single state. Who can determine, what would have been the issue, if the insurrection in Massachusetts, in 1787, had been successful, and the malecontents had been headed by a Caesar or a Cromwell? [emphasis added] If a despotic or monarchical government were established in one state, it would bring on the ruin of the whole republic. Montesquieu has acutely remarked, that confederated governments should be formed only between states, whose form of government is not only similar, but also republican.” —Justice Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution 3, 1833.

H O W E V E R …

Since local, state and federal government's are seemingly ignoring violent assemblies that are arguably not protected by the 1st Amendment, I suspect that the corrupt, post-17th Amendment ratification Congress is working in cahoots with the corrupt media and likewise corrupt state and local governments to ignore 4.4 (alleged: Who gave Charlottesville police the stand down order?), the federal "911" number, in order to promote uprisings to destabilize the USA.

Drain the ~~swamp~~ sewer! Drain the sewer!

Remember in November 2018 !

Since corrupt Congress is the biggest part of the sewer (imo) that Trump wants to drain, it is actually up to patriots to drain the sewer in the 2018 elections, patriots supporting Trump by electing as many new members of Congress as they can who will support Trump.

In the meanwhile, patriots need to make sure that there are plenty of Trump-supporting candidates on the primary ballots.

Patriots need to qualify candidates by asking them why the Founding States made the Constitution’s Section 8 of Article I; to limit (cripple) the federal government’s powers.

Patriots also need to make sure that candidates are knowledgeable of the Supreme Court's clarifications of the federal government’s limited powers listed here.

“Congress is not empowered to tax for those purposes which are within the exclusive province of the States.” Justice John Marshall, Gibbons v. Ogden, 1824.
"State inspection laws, health laws, and laws for regulating the internal commerce of a State, and those which respect turnpike roads, ferries, &c. are not within the power granted to Congress [emphases added]." —Gibbons v. Ogden, 1824.
”From the accepted doctrine that the United States is a government of delegated powers, it follows that those not expressly granted, or reasonably to be implied from such as are conferred, are reserved to the states, or to the people. To forestall any suggestion to the contrary, the Tenth Amendment was adopted. The same proposition, otherwise stated, is that powers not granted are prohibited [emphasis added].” —United States v. Butler, 1936.

Also, unlike incumbent members of Congress who wrongly remained silent while misguided state officials abridged the constitutionally enumerated rights of citizens during the lawless Obama Administration, patriots need to make sure that candidates on the 2018 primary ballots commit to the following.

Candidates need to commit to making and enforcing 14th Amendment-related laws to prosecute misguided state officials who use state powers to abridge constitutionally enumerated protections, 1st Amendment-protected religious expression and free speech for example, such actions prohibited by Section 1 of the 14th Amendment.

”14th Amendment, Section 1: All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States [emphasis added]; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

Again, drain the sewer! Drain the sewer!

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.