WASHINGTON, June 3, 2016 — San José yesterday was the scene of a Democratic mob attacking supporters of Donald Trump and attempting to quash their right to free speech. Incompetent officials allowed the anti-Trump mob to engage in “a raucous scene where a dozen or more people were punched and at least one woman was pelted with an egg.”
According to Fox News, a group of about 300 demonstrators gathered after the Trump rally. Police stood by while a cadre of violent demonstrators attacked Trump supporters.
Instead of criticizing hateful actions of the mob, the city’s Democrat Mayor Sam Liccardo blamed it all on Trump. Liccardo, a Hillary Clinton supporter, suggested that it was actually Trump’s fault that the angry mob attacked his supporters, claiming, “At some point Donald Trump needs to take responsibility for the irresponsible behavior of his campaign.”
Will Democrat leaders take responsibility for this, asking the anger-driven thugs of San Jose not to attack people who attend Republican events? Will they remind those who support Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton that setting fires and attacking police is not an exercise of free speech, but criminal activity?
It was Trump’s right to speak to his supporters in San Jose. It was their right to gather peacefully to hear him without interference.
But that is not what this Democratic hooliganism was all about. These so-called protesters are thugs, nothing more. Would Democratic party leadership and the mayor of San Jose have been so tolerant of their behavior had they attacked an LGBT rally? Would the police have stood by? Would the mayor have suggested it was the fault of the LGBT community that they were attacked, because they showed the bad sense to gather in San Jose?
This type of criminal behavior has been condoned and encouraged by Democratic leaders and by the mainstream media. San José’s mayor would rather blame Donald Trump than use the city’s moral and legal authority to go after potential mob protesters; the media have presented a narrative of violence at Trump events, but on the part of the candidate and his supporters. They have enabled and legitimized a free-for-all against Trump’s supporters.
Hillary Clinton and her supporters at the DNC have used the imagery of war against Republicans; the “war on women” legitimizes warfare in response. The Trump supporter who was shoved and egged by anti-Trump hooligans was a woman who was exercising her right to attend a rally and engage in speech by wearing a Trump T-shirt. The war against Trump justifies another sort of war on women.
But that incident is part of a virtuous war that has nothing to do with THE “war on women.”
The smash-mouth attacks by the anti-Trump mobs are eerily reminiscent of the tactics used by fascist leaders and their supporters, to whom the left so freely compares Trump and his supporters. Who are the real authoritarians and fascists here?
The freedoms of speech and peaceable assembly were not rights that were enjoyed in the dark night of European fascist movements. But here in America, the idea that it could every be okay to assault a person in a wheelchair, a young person holding a Trump sign, or a woman wearing a Trump T-shirt is anathema. These people were engaged in protected activities; they were exercising fundamental rights.
Mayor Liccardo’s political sensibilities, like those of the thugs on his streets, owe much to Europe in the 1930s, and nothing to the U.S. Constitution.
The police eventually made their presence felt; they moved to break up the assaults on Trump supporters and a police officer. Only four people had been arrested when the mayor said, “We’re all still holding our breath to see the outcome of this dangerous and explosive situation,” according to Fox News. If the situation was dangerous and explosive, why had the police arrested only four people?
So what criteria will determine whether Americans who attend political rallies are going to be safe and protected?
Must they check to see if the mayor of the city where the event will be held is a Democrat or a Republican? Reports indicated that some Trump supporters were chased on foot when they attempted to leave the rally. Should Trump supporters wear their running shoes to political events?
Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta condemned the violence on Twitter, but it was tepid condemnation. He said that violence against “supporters of any candidate” was wrong. That wasn’t condemnation; it was a platitude.
Are there any words of outrage from Hillary Clinton herself?
There is a lesson here that Clinton and her supporters should keep in mind. In 1968, Richard Nixon was the political beneficiary of the protests that took place that year, protests which culminated in the violent riots at the Democratic convention in Chicago. Left-wing demonstrations cost Hubert Humphrey and the Democrats the presidency that year by making Nixon’s message for him.
Anger and disruption were the message. The rioters hoped that Americans and the convention delegates would hear the message as a call to revolution and rally around it.
Outside the convention hall in millions of homes, the silent majority heard the message, and they hated it. They found the protesters’ lawlessness and disorder un-American. They wanted a candidate who could restore law and order to America’s streets.
That candidate was not the Democrat. That candidate was Richard M. Nixon, and he was elected president.
Americans saw the thuggery in San Jose. They saw the burned American flag and the waving Mexican flags. They got the message: This is un-American. That’s not a message that will help Democrats in November.