March 13, 2016

When protesters prevent people from hearing the speaker they came out to see: It happened to us here 5 years ago in Wisconsin.

"Why did the anti-Palin protesters think it was right and good to shout her down?" — I wrote in April 2011. It was a Tea Party rally featuring Sarah Palin at the Wisconsin Capitol, coming at a time when the Capitol had been dominated by anti-GOP protesters for 2 months. In video shot by Meade and me, we are surrounded by protesters chanting, booing, and blowing vuvuzelas. We were near a loudspeaker but could barely hear Palin:



About a minute into that, I turn around to the man who's been yelling "shame, shame, shame" right behind me. He doesn't like being on camera. He vigorously asserted his right not to be photographed depriving me of my right to hear Palin. He switched to a threat of violence: "I will knock those cameras out of your hands." And Meade says, "No, you won't. That would be assault." He says: "You're here to see the damned rally. Turn around and watch it." "Watch" was the right word, because I couldn't hear, since he went back to shouting "shame."

I have another video montage of that day. In this you hear a 14-year-old girl, speaking from the podium and getting heckled. A woman actually bellows "Corporate thief!" and "Koch suckers!" at this child. Hang on until the end and you will hear a voice you may remember — beginning at 3:35 — telling the protesters to "go to Hell."



That's Andrew Breitbart. The protesters laugh at him.

Here's one more video from that day featuring a little boy banging on a plastic bucket "drum" and lots of cowbell ringing. The 14-year-old speaker is heard over chants of "Go home! Go home! Go home!" and when the girl ends with "God bless America" the protesters boo:



So for those of you who think Donald Trump has given rise to a new phenomenon of protesters aiming to destroy a rally, I can tell you with personal experience and my own video evidence that this was done 5 years ago in Wisconsin. And a lot of the protesters came here from Chicago. Keep an eye out for the CPD hat — CPD = Chicago Police Department — and the White Sox jacket. We were very familiar with the Chicago presence at the Wisconsin protests. I'll never forget the band of union protesters who marched onto the scene with the chant: "Chicago is up in the house! Chicago is up in the house!"



ADDED: If the anti-Trump protests continue, Trump has a fine opportunity to do an endorsement press conference, if, in fact, Scott Walker supports Trump. Walker could bring some great perspective on these issues of protest and free speech.

AND: Scott Walker mostly stayed off the scene during the Wisconsin protests, but one time he came out on the Capitol steps to honor some Special Olympians, and protesters — dressed as zombies — got between the Governor and the honorees.

241 comments:

«Oldest   ‹Older   201 – 241 of 241
Mark said...

The Professional Progressive Left is Donald Trump's biggest recruiting tool. And this time I'm sure the thought tickles them, because their goal is to eliminate the competition, i.e. anyone who disagrees with them. The thought of destroying the Republican Party must be making a lot of them, well, frisky.

In other words, they're happy to be Trump's Useful Idiots, and will be right up until the point he passes the 270 EV mark, and then they'll wonder what the hell happened.

Anonymous said...

The Left fully expects Trump to win the nomination. None of us on the left would wonder what happened, we already know what happened to the Republican Party and the conservative base.

Scooter P said...

Having seen the protests on Friday in Chicago reminded me of the Madison capitol Act-10 occupation and specifically about the Tax Day Tea Party rally in March, 2011. Yours truly attended. Prof. Althouse's retelling of the situation is far too mild. Perhaps 1500 or so of us patriotic Americans attended the rally and it started off by reciting the Pledge of Allegiance. An estimated 5000-6000 rent-a-mob union thugs that gathered behind us started booing, banging on their 5 gallon bucket and blowing their vuvuzelas. Then we sang the national anthem. The booing got even louder. Many of us turned around and could not believe our eyes. Our fellow citizens were booing the national anthem by the thousands. Why? Because we dared to exercise our right to address grievances to our elected representatives at the capitol and to support Gov. Walker's reforms.
For many of us in Wisconsin the left's war on American became clear on that day. The socialists do not tolerate dissent. Never forget it, for they don't give up and must be crushed politically.

YoungHegelian said...

@Amanda,

Maybe Cruz doesn't consider Trump a "fellow Republican"

Then Cruz is an even bigger idiot. Aside from the basic nominalism of the matter, i.e. Trump is running as a Republican candidate, if Cruz wants to win either the nomination or the general he has to recover that massive tranche of the Republican electorate that not only thinks Trump is a Republican, but thinks that he is the Republican.

SukieTawdry said...

Trump is deliberately provocative. It's a calculated move. And the ANSWER/BLM/anarchist crowd is playing right into that calculation.

I would dearly love it if all concerned would stop with the drama queen theatrics and proceed on a basis of deliberation and substance, but I guess that would be asking for more than the various players are capable of delivering. So, here we are. What a spectacle we've become.

Hyphenated American said...

The only solution to liberal disruption of conservative rallies is simple: all republican leaders must call on able-bodied conservative men and women to go to liberal rallies and shout them down. Bring recording devices to make sure e erything is on tape.

Anonymous said...

Donald Trump ratcheting up the drama. This could get very interesting.

http://reverbpress.com/politics/donald-trump-now-threatening-bernie-sanders-violence-chaos/

"Donald Trump Is Now Threatening Bernie Sanders With Trump Supporter Violence

Donald Trump is determined to undermine the American presidential election system in every way possible. It’s not enough that he goads his brainless, racist supporters to attack peaceful protesters. Now he’s aiming to turn his attack dogs on Sanders.

In a tweet (that I still can’t believe hasn’t been deleted) posted a few hours ago, Donald Trump called Bernie Sanders a liar. Okay, politicians accuse each other of lying all the time big deal. It’s what else the tweet says that’s cause for alarm.

"Bernie Sanders is lying when he says his disruptors aren't told to go to my events. Be careful Bernie, or my supporters will go to yours!""

Hyphenated American said...

Amanda, if Bernice's goons go to Trump's rallies and disrupt them, then it's only fair if republican people go to Samder's fascist rallies and disrupt them. I believe trump should follow Obama's advise, "punch twice as hard" and "get in their faces".

Anonymous said...

If Trump truly believes Sanders was in on the protest at his Chicago rally, he should press charges, IF there are charges to press in such a case. Now he has publicly threatened to send over Trump supporters to Sanders rallies ( to do what exactly?), that just doesn't seem like a very smart thing to say, for millions to read.

Anonymous said...

Hyphenated, I say "bring it"! Especially now after Trump publicly made the threat. Dumb man, very dumb. This man wants to be President?

Bricap said...

I seem to remember that when Gov. Walker exited the race early, he urged other longshot candidtates to get out ASAP to clear the way for the the candidate with the best chance to beat Trump. I would be very surprised if he endorsed Trump given that history.

Hyphenated American said...

"If Trump truly believes Sanders was in on the protest at his Chicago rally, he should press charges, IF there are charges to press in such a case."

Amanda, do you believe that the liberals goons who shut down Trump's rally did something illegal? If not, then Trump has no other choice to fight back - he needs to call on all republicans to shut down Hillary's and Sander's rallies.

"Now he has publicly threatened to send over Trump supporters to Sanders rallies ( to do what exactly?), that just doesn't seem like a very smart thing to say, for millions to read."

Why? Amanda, give me one good reason why republicans should not do to Hillary and Sanders what liberal goons did to Trump?

Hyphenated American said...

"Hyphenated, I say "bring it"! Especially now after Trump publicly made the threat. Dumb man, very dumb. This man wants to be President?"

I want Trump to show that he can fight back against liberal fascists. Trump should not threaten to fight back, he needs to give liberals the taste of their own medicine. Communist thugs don't understand nice words and logic - they need to be confronted.

Dr Weevil said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Dr Weevil said...

I'm reminded of the French epigram about (appropriately enough) the elephant:
"Cet animal est très méchant, quand on l'attaque il se défend."
For those (like Amanda) who know no French but are too proud to admit it, this means:
"This animal is very wicked. When he is attacked, he defends himself."
Amanda thinks it would be very wicked of the right to begin doing to the left what the left has been gleefully doing to the right for years - this post gives just one example from five years ago - even if that is the only way to convince the left to stop it. She likes the double standard. Of course, she's almost certainly paid to post her lies and misrepresentations here, just as most of the anti-Trump thugs were paid to attack his supporters.

Michael K said...

Amanda may not know much but she is proud to tell us so.

"they're happy to be Trump's Useful Idiots, and will be right up until the point he passes the 270 EV mark, and then they'll wonder what the hell happened."

Then the Amanda bot answered:

"The Left fully expects Trump to win the nomination. "

I doubt she even knows what the implication of "270 EV" means.

Michael said...

Amanda

It is perfectly OK for Trump supporters to go in the thousands to disrupt Sanders' rallies. He more or less has asked for it with his intemperate descriptions of Trump and his voters. No problem. Bernie asked for it.

cubanbob said...

Amanda and her kind are starting to get a bad rumble in their bowels as Trump is the kind of guy who will use payback tactics on Sanders and Clinton. Trump just isn't going to play by the Left's ROI. They think they are being clever in their tactics thinking Trump will lose the general when its more than likely they are making it likelier he will win the general election and have the coattails to keep the Congress Republican.

Once its clear (from Trump's perspective) that he will win the nomination he will go full out on Clinton and Sanders and then the fun will really start. Its going to be a joy watching the Democrats defend the felonious criminal and the old Communist. And from there Trump will tie Obama to the felonious traitor so even if the FBI and the DoJ cast their primary votes in favor of Clinton, both Clinton and Obama and by extension anyone tied to this Administration is done for. No indictment? Corruption at the DoJ. Indictment? Corruption at the State Department and the White House. At this moment don't recall which commenter made this observation on another thread but this lose-lose for the Democrats is inevitable. I hope Cruz is the nominee but I just know Trump is the guy with the stones to go all out of the Democrats. At his age and with his wealth he has nothing to lose.

Dr Weevil said...

It's only been a couple of weeks since Amanda was laughing at Trump for 'not knowing what a nuclear triad was'. As someone else pointed out, her phrasing demonstrated that she doesn't either: there's only one nuclear triad, and it's still a bedrock of U.S. strategic defense, so anyone who knew anything at all about it would have said 'not knowing what the nuclear triad is'. And then there's her French . . . .

clint said...

We need to stop calling these people protestors.

Protestors want to be heard.

These people want others *not* to be heard.

It's a totally different thing.

Anonymous said...

@Amanda:
Donald Trump is determined to undermine the American presidential election system in every way possible. It’s not enough that he goads his brainless, racist supporters to attack peaceful protesters. Now he’s aiming to turn his attack dogs on Sanders.
"..

On behalf of all the brainless, racist, attack dogs I want to thank you for condescending to come to this blog and revealing our manifest shortcomings.
I concede to your mental and moral superiority. Your joining the resistance to the facistnazixenophoberacistnincompoop Trump is an inspiration to us all.
Crushed by the irrefutable logic in your arguments, I will be voting for senator Sanders this Tuesday.

Birkel said...

Young Hegelian:

But the commenters here know better and persist regardless. Accepting the press on faith is never a characteristic I share.

I will grant the Great Dishonesty of the press should always be calculated, however. And on that score I yield. The LIVs need their sound bite.

n.n said...

Efforts to disrupt, discriminate, and intimidate a class of people is classified as a hate crime. Will the protestors be prosecuted by Obama and Lynch?

Will the SPLC, ACLU, NAACP, CAIR, et al condemn the actions of the hate mob?

Speaking of hate crimes, the human rights groups never condemned the human rights violations (i.e. genocide, torture, cannibalism) committed by reactive and Planned Parenthood under the State-established pro-choice cult.

cubanbob said...

Blogger SukieTawdry said...
cubanbob said...

On the other hand under the premise that payback is a bitch maybe the Trumpkins ought to do the same to Sanders and Clinton; have organized 'protesters' disrupt those rally's. The wails from the Left will be most entertaining.

Another commenter suggested Republicans start attending Clinton and Sanders rallies and shout out things like "Clinton lied! Stevens died!" Would almost be worth a price of admission.

3/13/16, 5:01 PM

I'll gladly watch on pay per view.

Anonymous said...

http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/poll-bernie-sanders-better-than-hillary-clinton-against-donald-trump

http://www.nbcnews.com/meet-the-press/how-trump-rubio-cruz-would-fare-against-clinton-november-n534191

Sanders would easily beat Trump in the general in this NBC Wall Street Journal poll. Even Hillary beats him.

Hillary Clinton or Bernie Sanders would handily defeat Donald Trump in a general election match-up, while a clash between Clinton and Texas Sen. Ted Cruz or Florida Sen. Marco Rubio would be a toss-up, according to a new NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll.

"The poll shows that Trump, who frequently boasts in interviews and campaign appearances that he would beat Clinton in November, would lose a one-on-one contest against her by double digits. In a head-to-head fight, Clinton gets the support of 51 percent of registered voters compared to 38 percent for the real estate mogul."

Anonymous said...

"For Sanders, the margin of victory would be even greater, the poll shows.

The Vermont senator gets 55 percent support in a hypothetical two-person race against Trump, while the GOP front-runner would get just 37 percent."

chickelit said...

@Amanda: Can you point to any poll in the recent past that has been quantitatively correct? It seems to me that a lot of them have been wrong by several point spreads. In close elections, these things matter.

One thing that polls do is to create a false "look at me I'm right" sense of security.

Anonymous said...

Trump claims polls indicate that he would win over Hillary or Sanders, but he never seems to cite any specific poll. Trump doesn't make a speech without mentioning polls. Perhaps Trump shouldn't rely on polls as much as he does.

chickelit said...

Perhaps Trump shouldn't rely on polls as much as he does.

Indeed he shouldn't. Especially if they turn out to be wrong.

chickelit said...

That being said, nor should you rely so heavily on polls to make your points.

Anonymous said...

Chicklet,
I'll take your advice under consideration, but these polls that continually show Sanders and Clinton winning in a landslide in the general, warm the cockles of my heart. Being the fine feathered specimen of poultry that you are, I'm sure you understand cockles.

Oh sorry, a cockle is a clam. Sounds like it should be something a rooster exclaims on a bright sunny morning.

chickelit said...

One number that I'd like to see is a tally of how many people have voted for each of the candidates to date in aggregate. We keep hearing that Dem voting is down and that Republican voting is up. Such a running tally could be a fair indicator of the popular vote in the general.

Drago said...

Chuck: "Why all of these personal attacks on me? What is the point?"

The point is that you are lefty posing as a conservative in classic lefty troll fashion as evidenced by your continuous stream of nonsense spouted in stereotypical lefty fashion which no "real conservative" would put forth.

By your "substance" (or lack thereof) you shall be known.

Your complete and utter ignorance of the lawfare that the left engaged against Palin in an attempt to bankrupt her or force her from office was only one of many items that gave you away.

Again, it might be time for a different troll to be launched into the Althouse blog. Your value in that regard is completely gone.

chickelit said...

Sounds like it should be something a rooster exclaims on a bright sunny morning.

I hear chiachhierare.

HoodlumDoodlum said...

The Left is all "who will rid of us this troublesome Trump?" and then blames Trump supporters for the unrest.
Be careful what you wish for, assholes.

Big Mike said...

If it's Donald Trump against Hillary Clinton I predict a 45 state landslide. For Mr. Trump.

A vote for Hillary Clinton is a vote for official corruption on a level not seen since the Grant administration. Except that once out of uniform Grant was a hapless, too-trusting person who was never personally involved in the scandals. Hillary will be the ring-leader of the scandals.

Mark said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Mark said...

Amanda, what I expect you'll find surprising will be Trump hitting the 270 Electoral Votes necessary to win the Presidency by about 8:30 PM on the evening of November 8, 2016.

Then the clown won't be so funny to y'all who care more about beating those nasty Republicans than you do about the political health of the country. Maybe then you'll realize the two aren't necessarily the same thing. (Or maybe you should contemplate that Bernie is screwed by the Dem Establishment and has zero chance of overcoming the Super Delegate system, and that the media gets to ignore it is because - wow, look at that Trump Train Wreck! You might wonder if the two phenomena are actually independent of one another.)

Don't get me wrong, if it's close in New York I will vote for whatever Democrat is running against Trump. (Otherwise Gary Johnson will get my vote.) Then again, if it's close in New York Trump won't need New York to win.

MartyH said...

Some asked about vote totals:

Clinton: 4.95 million
Trump: 4.32 million
Cruz: 3.58 million
Sanders: 3.26 million
Rubio: 2.42 million
Kasich: 1.05 million

(R) Votes: 11 million +
(D) Votes: 8 million +

Rusty said...

Capitalism is pretty much dead.

That's funny. But not for the reason you think.

Little known fact; Marx was pretty much supported by Engles who owned a factory that exploited "the workers". Marx also never paid his housekeeper.

Rick said...

Amanda said...
None of us on the left would wonder what happened, we already know what happened to the Republican Party and the conservative base.


Really? Doesn't Trump's success undermine Amanda's Dominionist paranoia? He's not offering to incorporate biblical tenets into law. Trump is proving she already knew conservatives even though he's the exact opposite of her earlier criticisms?

Why it's almost like Amanda doesn't even understand her own beliefs about conservatives.

«Oldest ‹Older   201 – 241 of 241   Newer› Newest»