For a movement that prides itself on non-violence, today’s left has become like Velcro for a variety of tough guys. Self-proclaimed eunuch, I mean “HillaryMan,” Peter Daou claims to have trained with Lebanese Phalange militia as a teenager. Is this true? Who knows or who cares because, well, Lebanese Phalange. The point being he THINKS this is an affirmation of his tough guy status. Ian Millhiser of ThinkProgress brags about his “martial arts” prowess…but it seems like virtually no one believes him.

So, you become accustomed to these people puffing up their scrawny chests and proclaiming they are going to “take it to the streets” or similar nonsense.

For instance, Mark Joseph Stern, who covers courts for the failed group blog, Slate, says that the left will not tolerate rulings from the Supreme Court that stop locking in the socialism and totalitarianism favored by progressives: How Liberals Could Declare War on Brett Kavanaugh’s Supreme Court.

No matter how courteously Kavanaugh behaves on the court, many Democrats will always see him as the man who blamed “friends of the Clintons” for trying to thwart his confirmation. They will dismiss his votes as the product of political bias. It might not matter much at first: So long as Republicans maintain their grasp on power, they can enforce the court’s decisions through legislation, executive orders, and, if necessary, the National Guard.

But what happens when Democrats take back the legislative and executive branches? What if Democrats pass Medicare for All, and the Supreme Court strikes it down, with Kavanaugh casting the decisive fifth vote? It’s not hard to envision Democrats marching in the streets, demanding that the president and Congress ignore the ruling. And what if they do? What happens if the Department of Health and Human Services just … implements the law anyway? It’s easy to envision the presidential statement: As the chief executive, it is my duty to enact this legislation, passed through the democratic process, and to reject the illegitimate ruling of Donald Trump’s Supreme Court. The federal government, acting on orders of the president, opens enrollment, and Congress appropriates the funds as planned. What can the Supreme Court do? Send its tiny police force to storm the White House?

And this:

The truth is that we haven’t seen massive resistance to the Supreme Court since the segregation battles of the 1950s and ’60s. And despite two presidents’ celebrated efforts to integrate schools with the help of the National Guard, the South’s resistance succeeded in slowing the pace of desegregation.

This precedent is appalling. But it demonstrates that the playbook can work. Progressives should recognize the danger in adopting the tactics of segregationists. Getting to the point of massive liberal resistance to the court would require a significant psychological shift, since the left has long viewed the Supreme Court as a saving grace. Kavanaugh’s confirmation alone won’t bring Democrats all the way there. But if he leads the court into a frenzy of reactionary jurisprudence, progressives may feel they have no other alternative.

This whole essay is fraught with unstated implications. And I don’t think we can take this as mere bluster. Two weeks ago, Millhiser called for violence and intimidation against Republicans and he had to backpedal to get away from his own statement:

https://twitter.com/imillhiser/status/1045740430229409793

By this week, his call to violence had become so common that it was being echoed by Hillary Clinton and Eric Holder.

Hillary Clinton went on CNN talking about “civility.” Perhaps she should start with herself and her own party. She leaves @dbongino no choice but that of #OwningTheLibs tonight on We Stand. Watch live at 4:30 CT/ 5:30 ET or On Demand on https://t.co/TEMG9U5CZB. pic.twitter.com/yZG4qFUR8G

— NRATV (@NRATV) October 9, 2018

Maxine Waters incites violence against @realDonaldTrump’s cabinet.

Cory Booker pleads for activists to “get up in the face of some congresspeople.”

Hillary Clinton says “you cannot be civil with” Republicans.

Now Eric Holder wants the mob even angrier. pic.twitter.com/IF91FDD321

— Ronna McDaniel (@GOPChairwoman) October 10, 2018

Last week, we saw Senators accosted in the halls of the US Senate and one senator’s wife received a video of a beheading and another was driven from a restaurant by a mob. A Democrat staffer posted the personal contact information of five GOP senators on Wikipedia. We already see this nonsense played out in cities that have basically rejected American values:

https://twitter.com/FarleyFilms/status/1049293858402517000

I think both Clinton and Holder are pandering to what they believe to be the prevailing mood of the Democrat base. They’ve seen these Antifa goons turn out to try to intimidate people and they see them as their own personal Sturmabteilung, their KKK, leading the progressive masses into battle. And there is only a small step from where Clinton and Holder are now to full-bore incitement to riot.

Advocating the use of the “massive resistance” strategy of racist Democrats in response to Brown v. Board of Education is telling. It shows the bone-deep lawlessness within the modern Democrat party. It also miscalculates a response. If the Supreme Court rules a law unconstitutional and the federal government tries to enforce it anyway…like “Medicare for all”…there is a presumption that the whole country will simply fall in line and do it. I think that is a mistaken assumption. A Democrat-controlled federal government would have immense difficulties in ignoring the Supreme Court because the people charged with actually carrying it out would be keenly aware that a) they wouldn’t be any safer than were tax collectors in pre-Revolutionary Boston, b) that the Democrats would not be in power permanently, and c) that they would face criminal liability for enforcing an illegal law. These factors all indicate that such a strategy by a Democrat president would work exactly as well as Orval Faubus blocking the doors to Little Rock’s Central High School. Would this president Stern writes about stop there? Not likely.

In Stern’s essay, what he is actually describing is a president conducting a coup against the US Constitution with the consent of the Democrat party and the use of bully-boys in the streets. Logically, if a mythical president issued a FOAD message to the Supreme Court, it would be entirely logical to expect him to use the military to assume control of the nation if for no other reason than ensuring he could never be called to account for acting illegally.

What these people are showing is that President Trump is exactly right when he says they are trying to turn the US into Venezuela.

President Trump: "If Democrats get control, they will raise your taxes, flood your streets with criminal aliens, weaken our military, outlaw private health insurance, and replace freedom with socialism. In a short period of time… they will turn America into Venezuela." pic.twitter.com/J3hGt00rXc

— The Hill (@thehill) October 3, 2018

Not only economically, but politically.

That’s why it is vital that we stop looking at those writing stuff like this, and saying stuff like Holder and Clinton, as misguided countrymen. They aren’t. They are hostile to the American project and they must be stopped before they get into power.

=========
=========
Like what you see? Then visit my story archive.
Follow @streiffredstate

I’m on Facebook. Drop by and join the fun there.
=========
=========