A Presidential Precedent for Dealing with Violent Campus Protests

[bblhead672]

http://thepoliticalinsider.com/how-r...#ixzz4Xg40eMGq

Reagan served two terms as governor of California from 1967 to 1975, presiding over the tumultuous Vietnam War protest era of the late 1960s and early 1970s. In 1969, he called on National Guard troops to quell a protest on the University of California at Berkeley campus, saying, “If it takes a bloodbath, let’s get it over with, no more appeasement.”

Buchanan:Is the Left Playing with Fire?
http://buchanan.org/blog/left-playing-fire-126536

[Old Dog New Trick]

Those whom didn't learn history in school are oft to repeat it with the same results. (What's that they say about insanity?)

The Democrats in congress and the radical leftist financial provocateurs openly supporting this behavior will find the results will be similar to the last time we went down this bumpy road.

I say keep it up, let them riot, let them burn their own house down...eventually they will be forgotten and abandoned both politically and financially.

Morality always wins the high ground!

[atticus finch]

Originally Posted by Old Dog New Trick

Those whom didn't learn history in school are oft to repeat it with the same results. (What's that they say about insanity?)

The Democrats in congress and the radical leftist financial provocateurs openly supporting this behavior will find the results will be similar to the last time we went down this bumpy road.

I say keep it up, let them riot, let them burn their own house down...eventually they will be forgotten and abandoned both politically and financially.

Morality always wins the high ground!

concur.
So far Trump has been wise enough to not overreact to the situation as that is what these leftist thugs want.
Let the local LE deal with it and/or private citizenry defend themselves as needed.
These leftist thugs are losing the moral high ground by the day just like last time.

[LarryW]

Originally Posted by atticus finch

concur.
So far Trump has been wise enough to not overreact to the situation as that is what these leftist thugs want.
Let the local LE deal with it and/or private citizenry defend themselves as needed.
These leftist thugs are losing the moral high ground by the day just like last time.

The scumbags wearing the black outfits (probably right down to black diapers) and bashing in Starbucks windows don't give a damn about any moral high ground. They never have. All anarchists like Antifa and other vermin care about is destruction of the status quo, the promotion of being "ungovernable". They are using these demonstrations as a front to pursue their own agenda, and that is the destruction of every aspect of government. The lefty progs are blind as bats.

[Hand]

Some of them however, are willing to risk jail or personal injury in order to spread their message. The right does not have a committed group of activist with that level of determination/stupidity/conviction.

[miclo18d]

Originally Posted by Hand

Some of them however, are willing to risk jail or personal injury in order to spread their message. The right does not have a committed group of activist with that level of determination/stupidity/conviction.

Actually, they do, they're just more patient and are waiting for the line to be crossed. It will be legendary I'm sure.

[atticus finch]

Originally Posted by LarryW

The scumbags wearing the black outfits (probably right down to black diapers) and bashing in Starbucks windows don't give a damn about any moral high ground. They never have. All anarchists like Antifa and other vermin care about is destruction of the status quo, the promotion of being "ungovernable". They are using these demonstrations as a front to pursue their own agenda, and that is the destruction of every aspect of government. The lefty progs are blind as bats.

To be a bit more specific, they do care very much about the appearance of the moral high ground

It goes hand in glove with again, Alinski.

"push a negative hard enough and eventually it will break through and become a positive"

In this situation the violence, rioting, & the hostile bullying behavior they engage in is the negative and they push it as I previously mentioned to the point where an individual has only one choice in terms of dealing with it.
The use of force, be it brute force to stop the bullying and/or lethal force if it's called for. There is no reasoning with them nor , at least for the time being, separating them from our lives. And the use of force at the individual level is severely restricted due to the possible consequences under current law.
It leaves only one option, brute force at the hand of a government response at any level, local, state, federal.
Why would they want a brute force response?
Because if they can get a Bull Conner type event complete with firehoses, dogs, & trunchions or a kent state event they can create the appearance of being the morally superior underdog fighting against a tyrannical government intent on silencing their supposed 'freedom of speech'
If they can get a response like that they now can claim to be 'victims' of "Trump-the-nazi" and have the appearance of the moral high ground.
It's a given the media will treat them like a bonafide revolution & they will have one of the major things they need to try to create such a thing in this country. Hence pushing the negative becomes a positive for them.
It is why I've tried to emphasize the answer to this ploy is properly handled at the individual level IF done correctly.
That means individuals such as ourselves stand on the position of "we have a civil right to hear this individual speak and this individual has a civil right to speak his thoughts. We will not be denied our civil rights due to the threat of violence or outright violence or bullying of any sort. Neither will we allow this individual to be silenced due to the same and we will defend our bonafide civil rights in both cases to whatever extent is needed to prevent that from happening"
Any words or statements to that same exact effect prior to organizing an event and after that deal with them as their behavior demands.
Now who stands on easily demonstrated moral high ground? We do, they don't.
I'd reference what happened at to Milo at berkeley & that outright sociopath of a woman from the Tucker Carlson interview as examples of situations for what we're discussing.

[LarryW]

Originally Posted by atticus finch

To be a bit more specific, they do care very much about the appearance of the moral high ground

It goes hand in glove with again, Alinski.

"push a negative hard enough and eventually it will break through and become a positive"

In this situation the violence, rioting, & the hostile bullying behavior they engage in is the negative and they push it as I previously mentioned to the point where an individual has only one choice in terms of dealing with it.
The use of force, be it brute force to stop the bullying and/or lethal force if it's called for. There is no reasoning with them nor , at least for the time being, separating them from our lives. And the use of force at the individual level is severely restricted due to the possible consequences under current law.
It leaves only one option, brute force at the hand of a government response at any level, local, state, federal.
Why would they want a brute force response?
Because if they can get a Bull Conner type event complete with firehoses, dogs, & trunchions or a kent state event they can create the appearance of being the morally superior underdog fighting against a tyrannical government intent on silencing their supposed 'freedom of speech'
If they can get a response like that they now can claim to be 'victims' of "Trump-the-nazi" and have the appearance of the moral high ground.
It's a given the media will treat them like a bonafide revolution & they will have one of the major things they need to try to create such a thing in this country. Hence pushing the negative becomes a positive for them.
It is why I've tried to emphasize the answer to this ploy is properly handled at the individual level IF done correctly.
That means individuals such as ourselves stand on the position of "we have a civil right to hear this individual speak and this individual has a civil right to speak his thoughts. We will not be denied our civil rights due to the threat of violence or outright violence or bullying of any sort. Neither will we allow this individual to be silenced due to the same and we will defend our bonafide civil rights in both cases to whatever extent is needed to prevent that from happening"
Any words or statements to that same exact effect prior to organizing an event and after that deal with them as their behavior demands.
Now who stands on easily demonstrated moral high ground? We do, they don't.
I'd reference what happened at to Milo at berkeley & that outright sociopath of a woman from the Tucker Carlson interview as examples of situations for what we're discussing.

Haven't seen the black-flag response against individuals. Only against property. Like the river they go around the individual. The anarchist agenda is to be the "ungovernables". They move quickly in, make their mark and then run away. You're right that people need to stand their ground and demand the right to hear and be heard, but the Antifa's don't care what others want. You're also right that a brutal reply by LEOs will give them power. But their behavior shows they're not trying to recruit sympathy. They are a primal scream.