A gang of college students at Arizona State University (ASU) committed to “social justice” as redefined by leftists are trying to get Kyle Rittenhouse kicked out of ASU’s online nursing school, calling him a “bloodthirsty murderer” who makes the campus “unsafe.” They want to “abate” the “danger” posed by Rittenhouse’s virtual presence in an online nursing class. In the real world, where many of us still live and move and have our being, this is called cancelling or industrial-strength bullying.

In addition to demanding the administration “withdraw” Rittenhouse from the school, the four oppressive, tyrannical, exclusionary, leftwing organizations—MEChA (Movimiento Estudiantil Chicanx de Aztlán), Students for Socialism, Students for Justice in Palestine, and the Multicultural Solidarity Coalition—are demanding that the school issue a public statement against the “racist murderer Kyle Rittenhouse.”

Rittenhouse is the teen who was recently unanimously acquitted of two homicide charges, one count of attempted homicide, and two counts of reckless endangerment. One count of unlawful possession of a firearm and one count of curfew violation were dismissed by the judge. There was no evidence provided during the trial proving Rittenhouse was guilty of any crime or suggesting he was motivated by racism. In fact, even the prosecution’s witnesses undermined the fantastical tale that Rittenhouse is a racist, bloodthirsty murderer, hell-bent on vigilantism. And yet, the self-identifying “social justice” warriors want Rittenhouse punished.

Their actions are worse than those of vigilantes—of which Rittenhouse is not one. Their libelous attacks against Rittenhouse and their demands that Rittenhouse—who has been found innocent of all charges—be refused entrance to a state university are the actions of vengeful criminals and petty tyrants with big egos and cultural power wielded in support of gross injustice.

The lack of awareness of their own ignorance, hypocrisy, and control-freakish impulses is not a poison affecting only leftist millennials. They’ve drunk deeply from the cup of arsenic prepared for them by leftist boomers who took control of all cultural institutions decades ago and are desperately gripping those institutions as they feel their grubby fingers being pried loose.

One of those boomers is the politically immortal harpy Hillary Clinton, who in a recent interview with MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow, said this:

[W]hat we’ve seen sadly in the last several years is not new … but it is, unfortunately, turbo-charged by the combination of demagogues, social media that is more interested, frankly, in profitability than the rule of law or unity, that feeds disinformation in a way that strips people to the core of their insecurities and their fears. …

I think we’re really on the precipice … of seeing people, particularly in the Republican Party, but not only there, who truly just want power, power to impose their views, power to exploit financial advantage, power to implement a religious point of view. …

[B]ecause of the way we are getting our information today and because of the lack of gatekeepers and people who have a historic perspective, who can help us understand what we are seeing, there is a real vulnerability in the electorate to the kind of demagoguery and disinformation that, unfortunately, the other side is really good at exploiting.

Who exactly are the “demagogues” who are more interested in “profitability than the rule of law or unity”?

Are these “demagogues” the climate alarmists who profit from frightening children? Are they the race-baiting entrepreneurs who profit from keeping hate and fear alive and then sell their snake oil seminars to government schools and corporate America to end hate and fear?

Who is least interested in the “rule of law”?

Is it those who support election integrity, border security, anti-theft laws, and the Second Amendment or those who seek to make voter fraud, illegal immigration, and looting easier and who want to jettison the Second Amendment?

Is it primarily Republicans who seek power to impose their views?

Who denies Americans the ability to choose how, where, and what their children are taught? Who insists that their sexuality beliefs and theirs alone be taught in our “inclusive” government schools? Who allows teachers to call those who disagree names like “transphobe” and “homophobe”? Who wants to teach all children the racist fiction that all white people are oppressors? Who demands all teachers use incorrect pronouns in the service of the “trans” superstition or be fired? Who is demanding an 18-year-old found innocent in a court of law be punished?

Hillary Clinton doesn’t fear that Republicans seek “power to implement a religious point of view.” She and other leftists fear that theologically orthodox Christians may remain free to exercise their religion. And she and her ideological allies seek to disseminate their divisive, bigoted, anti-Christian, anti-constitutional views all across the nation.

Clinton claims in her own special unifying and non-ironic way that “the other side” is “really good at exploiting demagoguery and disinformation.” Oh, really?

Which side created and promoted the fake Russian Collusion scam and spent $38 million dollars of taxpayer money to promote, “investigate,” and prosecute the scam?

Which side claimed in fake dudgeon that Hunter Biden’s computer was not Hunter Biden’s computer?

Which side had a New York Post story about Biden’s computer with all its unseemly content about sexual perversion and influence-peddling buried until after the 2020 Election?

Which side promoted a fantastical tale about former President Trump watching prostitutes urinate, while burying a true story about Hunter Biden frolicking naked with two prostitutes?

Who wrote endless stories about the Trump children’s legitimate businesses while saying nothing about nouvel artiste Hunter Biden earning millions on the sale of his “art” to anonymous customers?

Which side calls the Jan. 6 riot a violent armed insurrection even though no guns were fired by the “violent armed insurrectionists,” while calling months of rioting, looting, and arson during which government property and police were attacked—which is the definition of “insurrection”—”mostly peaceful protests”?

Clinton’s solution to the problems she outlined? She wants more “gatekeepers” to censor the alleged “demagoguery and disinformation” that “the other side is really good at exploiting” and more people who have a “historic perspective.” Maybe Clinton doesn’t know the difference between “historic” and “historical.” While Nikole Hannah-Jones’s 1619 Project could possibly be deemed “historic” in its inanity and in helping to fan the flames of righteous indignation under the “other side,” it certainly lacks “historical perspective.”

If Clinton wants more people who have a historical perspective, I recommend Victor Davis Hanson.

Listen to this article read by Laurie:

https://staging.illinoisfamily.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/11/Rittenhouse-and-Justice-in-a-Leftwing-Dystopia.mp3

---

This is how it’s going down, my friends—the eradication of speech rights for conservatives, that is. The stage was set years ago when “hate speech” laws were passed.

The Left argues that any rhetoric that is or may be in any distant way at any time related to acts of violence should be banned. So, if I say that volitional homosexual acts and relationships are abhorrent to God as Scripture teaches, and a lone, crazed, alienated, Godless sociopath or a few hundred alienated fatherless, Godless anarchists—people who may or may not have read my words—commit acts of heinous violence against homosexuals—my words should be banned. Of course, the banning of my words necessarily requires the banning of God’s Word as well as the words of any theologically orthodox Christian since the inception of the church.

If I say that humans born with healthy, normally functioning penises are male and can never be female, and some man deceived into having sex with a man who pretends to be a woman kills the deceiver, my expression of a moral proposition must be banned.

When Lila Rose, founder of the pro-life organization Live Action, tweeted, “Abortion is violence,” abortionist Dr. Leah Torres tweeted back this:

This is violent rhetoric. It is objectively false and meant to incite others to commit crimes against clinics, patients, and health care providers. This is what domestic terrorism looks like.

Note the three arguable claims Torres makes: 1. She says Rose’s claim is false, 2. She says Rose’s claim is meant to incite others to commit violent crimes, 3. She says Rose’s tweet constitutes domestic terrorism. How convenient that those claims are precisely the type of claims leftists now say are not protected by the First Amendment. See how that works?

Torres is also the author of this since-deleted tweet:

You know fetuses can’t scream, right? I transect the cord [first] so there’s really no opportunity, if they’re even far enough along to have a larynx.

She later claimed the “cord” was not referring to babies’ vocal cords but, rather, to their umbilical cords. So much better. So much less violent.

Those with eyes to see recognize that leftists are using their special skill in manipulating language—also known as sophistry—to turn good into evil and protected speech into violence requiring censorship.

Leftists argue that saying the election was “stolen” should be banned because some far-right anarchists who hold similar views engaged in violence. Therefore, a few words about the phrase “stolen election”—the newest bugbear used by dishonest leftists to crush the civil rights of conservatives—are in order.

The claim that “an election was stolen”—you know, like Hillary Clinton has claimed for four years—means that an election lacked integrity. Some may claim it was stolen via, for example, Russian interference, or algorithmic manipulation, or ballot-harvesting, or voting irregularities regarding signatures, or unconstitutional changes in election requirements, or the counting of late ballots, or Big Tech’s censorship of the Biden crime family’s corruption that likely affected votes, or dead people voting, or a combination of shady acts by shady actors. Someone needs to tell the liars and paranoiacs in the Democrat Party that the term “stolen election” is not a code word for “attack the Capitol.”

If, however, “stolen election” is a secret code word used to initiate violent lawlessness, then surely Hillary Clinton should be thrown in the slammer—a lot. Here are two of her many seditionist/insurrectionist statements:

You can run the best campaign, you can even become the nominee, and you can have the election stolen from you.

and,

[T]here was a widespread understanding that this election [in 2016] was not on the level. We still don’t know what really happened. … you don’t win by 3 million votes and have all this other shenanigans and stuff going on and not come away with an idea like, “Whoa, something’s not right here.

The fact that her alleged attempts to incite insurrection and/or sedition failed shouldn’t matter. The law prohibits even attempts to incite insurrection or sedition.

Trump and many other Americans said the election was “stolen” in the sense that myriad dubious acts took place that cast doubt on the fairness and integrity of the election. Some anarchists—angry about a boatload of corrosive leftist words and deeds, including election malfeasance—breached the Capitol. Therefore, leftists argue, anyone who attended the pro-Trump protest or voted for Trump must be banned from all social media, kicked out of elected office, lose their private sector jobs, or never be hired. Social media newbie Parler must lose all access to the Internet. Americans must lose their medical insurance and recording contracts.

Via a Royal Proclamation, Randall Lane, Forbes Magazine editor, has threatened to harm any company that hires Kayleigh McEnany, Sarah Huckabee Sanders, Kellyanne Conway, Stephanie Grisham, or Sean Spicer—Trump’s former press secretaries:

Let it be known to the business world: Hire any of Trump’s fellow fabulists above, and Forbes will assume that everything your company or firm talks about is a lie. We’re going to scrutinize, double-check, investigate with the same skepticism we’d approach a Trump tweet. Want to ensure the world’s biggest business media brand approaches you as a potential funnel of disinformation? Then hire away.

He actually wrote, “Let it be known.” Can the left get any more arrogant and oppressive? Rhetorical question.

Trump (again, like Hillary before him) and many decent, law-abiding citizens claimed the election was “stolen.” Some far-right anarchists also believe the election was stolen. Those far-right anarchists stormed the Capitol. Ergo, in the mad, mad, mad, mad world of cynical leftists, Trump is responsible for the storming of the Capitol. Anyone who attended the protest is responsible for the violence—including even those grandmas who abhor violence and didn’t know the violence was happening. Anyone who has prepared food for Trump is responsible because they helped sustain the life of a man who caused a 90-minute seditious violent protest. Anyone who sold food to anyone who prepared food is responsible for the violence. And any of Trump’s kids’ college friends who may have met Trump and thought he was not Hitler is responsible for the violence—obviously.

So, why aren’t YouTube, Facebook, and Twitter being tossed off the Internet, since all were used to organize both the Capitol riots and the BLM riots of 2020?

Why isn’t Kamala Harris who didn’t condemn BLM violence until late August, three months after it began, being accused of fomenting violence?

When House Speaker Nancy Pelosi waited until three months after the BLM riots began to condemn them, did she facilitate violence and property destruction through her silence?

What about Nikole Hannah-Jones, creator of the inaccurate, leftist 1619 Project, who said in the middle of the BLM riots that “Destroying property, which can be replaced, is not violence.” Was she guilty of inciting more property-destruction?

The goal of leftists isn’t really to prevent violence. Appeals to thwarting violence are merely stratagems for preventing the dissemination of ideas leftists hate. They must link ideas they hate to violence in order to undermine foundational American principles. How do I know? Because the linguistic ground is shifting. We are now hearing calls for banning or “reining in” “disinformation,” “misinformation,” and discourse that “harms,” because—the argument goes—such information may lead to violence.

AOC recently said,

We’re going to have to figure out how we rein in our media environment so that you can’t just spew disinformation and misinformation.

So, who determines what constitutes “disinformation and misinformation”? Remember Dr. Leah Torres calling Lila Rose’s statement “false”—in other words, disinformation or misinformation? And remember when just before the election CNN asserted—without conducting any investigation—that the New York Post story about Hunter and Joe Biden was “disinformation,” and then conveniently, after the election, declared it a legitimate news story?

If leftist rhetoric about violence, disinformation, misinformation, harm, and hate leads eventually to imprisonment of dissidents—i.e., conservatives—no problem. All conservatives need to do to avoid the inconvenience of imprisonment or “enlightenment camps” is agree with Big Brother, take some Soma, burn some books, and shut up.

At least leftist rhetoric won’t lead to violence—will it?

The arc of the shady leftist universe is long, convoluted, and bends toward injustice, tyranny, and a senile old man who’s shuffling around looking for his moral compass and a milkshake.

Listen to this article read by Laurie:

https://staging.illinoisfamily.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/audio_Leftists-Exploit-Violence-to-Cancel-Conservatives-.mp3

---

Subscribe to the IFI YouTube channel
and never miss a video report or special program!