Violence Equals Votes For Democrats

John Ransom Freelance Writer
Font Size:

The Democrats have unveiled a new strategy in their comprehensive program to move the country forward. It’s called “We’re not listening.”

And if the rest of us don’t shut up, they tell us, we’re gonna get socked on the nose. Or worse:  Coexist or we’ll kill you.

That’s the message from a top Democrat in California, and also from Obama. It’s the same message, albeit to a greater degree, which terrorists delivered in Manchester, UK this week.

Fearing the ultimate danger of free speech — free exchange of ideas –Democrats staged a planned walk-out of Notre Dame grads last week when mild-mannered vice president Mike Pence addressed a graduation ceremony at the Midwestern Catholic university. Pence said something radical defending the Little Sisters of the Poor, also Catholic, who felt their freedom of conscience was violated under Obamacare.

Oh, my: What radical little sisters.

But by the time Pence spoke, the Democrats had already absconded.

Fair enough.

Why stay, I guess they reasoned, when nothing someone says will change your mind? And before I get accused of plagiarism, I freely admit that something similar was said by Osama bin Laden, or the Mensheviks or someone equally violent, committed and immoral.

While the “We’re not listening” ruse isn’t exactly new, it’s on the rise and more than once it’s been accompanied by Democrat sanctioned violence.

Last month true conservative firebrand Ann Coulter was on again, off again at Berkley University. To put Berkley’s left-wing bona fides in perspective, it was Berkley that quite seriously put forward the notion in the 1960s that LSD was a positive good. Really.

But the good ideas never end at Berkley. They have refined the “We’re not listening” tactics to include “STFU,” with brass knuckles as punctuation. I’m not kidding.

According to Politico, Berkley demonstrators, who the publication termed “anti-fascists”, allegedly used brass knuckles, “set fires, threw rocks and smashed windows,” when a previous conservative was scheduled to speak.

What’s next? Bombings? The Radical Left was as familiar with bombings in the late 1960s and 1970s as they were with LSD.  So really, it’s not out of the question.

Just this week a Puerto Rican terrorist captured decades ago, got a hero’s welcome in Chicago, New York and other Dem bastions after Obama commuted his 70 year sentence to time served.  Oscar López Rivera founded the FALN, a violent Puerto Rican nationalist group that was responsible for hundreds of bombings that killed at least six people while wounding 130 or more according to the New York Post.

New York is literally throwing him a parade.

So it should not surprise us that one Democrat strategist—presumably an “anti-fascist”– says the violence is useful and engaging.

From Politico:

Bob Mulholland, a Democratic strategist in California, said the effect of a restrained conflict is “good for the system … as long as it doesn’t get way out of hand.” Protests that spark conflict draw media attention, he said, potentially inspiring viewers to engage in politics.

Mulholland isn’t just a strategist, however. He’s routinely mentioned as the “senior advisor and long time chief spokesperson” of the California Democrats. He’s also a member of the Democrat National Committee as an infamous super-delegate, and a member of the California Dem’s Executive Board.

The silence from Democrats about Mulholland’s brazen advocacy of violence is golden in the Golden State. He could, as we speak, be planning “restrained conflict” that might result in serious injury or death, all because someone wanted to make a speech and others wanted to shut them up.

There should be no tolerance for terror. Our former president wouldn’t say it, and apparently his party will follow suit. Or even throw a parade to celebrate violence.

And that’s the problem with Mulholland’s violent “We’re not listening, so just shut up” strategy.

Voters are listening. And they don’t like what guys like Mulholland are saying. Violence is violence, and it’s terrifying that in our republic some in a major party should advocate it because it helps turn out a parade of voters.

Mulholland will help Democrats lose more elections I can guarantee it, because he’s white and not named Obama. But he’s really bad for the country, however much he helps the GOP.

That’s because as the events in Manchester, Paris, Tel Aviv, Berkley and other terror stricken cities have learned, you only need a small group of people to listen to calls for violence, restrained or otherwise.

The country needs peace, and the Democrats are intent on war, or so it seems.

So here’s the question to my Dem friends: Why does a guy like Mulholland still have a responsible position in your party?

We’ll hang-up and listen for your answer.

That is when you finish planning the Manchester parade.