The left is inciting violence again.
Do you ever get the feeling of a two-year-old throwing a tantrum?
My friends,
The left is inciting violence again. Can't say it's rhetorical because we've seen the results before.
And to forestall those who would call President Trump’s words on Jan6 incitement: Despite repeated claims that President Trump incited violence on January 6, 2021, his actual words tell a different story. In his speech that day, Trump explicitly told his supporters to "peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard" as they marched to the Capitol. This statement—urging peaceful protest—is fundamentally different from the explicit calls to confrontation and harassment by Democrat politicians such as Maxine Waters and Chuck Schumer. Waters directly instructed crowds to "get out and create a crowd and push back on them" against Trump officials, while Schumer ominously warned Justices Gorsuch and Kavanaugh that they 'won’t know what hit them' if they issued certain rulings. These statements, unlike Trump’s, contained language that encouraged aggressive action, with real-world consequences—including harassment, threats, and even an attempted assassination of Justice Kavanaugh. Despite the double standard in how incitement is applied, the evidence is clear: Trump urged peaceful assembly, while Waters and Schumer’s rhetoric fueled confrontation.
The image below comes from an article in The Federalist. Here's the 10-second video from it.
Left-Wing Political Rhetoric Incites Real Violence
Political rhetoric carries consequences. While the First Amendment in the United States protects most speech, it does not protect speech intended to incite imminent lawless action, as established by the U.S. Supreme Court in Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969). This principle is critical in understanding that certain rhetoric by left-wing politicians and activists has crossed the line from protected free speech into incitement of violence. This is not speculative — real violence, property destruction, and bodily harm have resulted.
Legal Definition of Incitement
According to Brandenburg v. Ohio, for speech to be considered incitement, it must meet the following criteria:
Intent: The speaker must intend for the audience to commit violence.
Imminence: The violence must be likely to occur immediately after the speech.
Likelihood: The speech must be likely to result in violence.
Leftist politicians and activists have engaged in speech that satisfies these criteria by explicitly urging harassment, confrontation, and even violence against political opponents, often resulting in actual harm.
Notable Examples of Incendiary Rhetoric
The following examples demonstrate that left-wing politicians have incited or encouraged violence, with tangible consequences:
Maxine Waters (2018) — Harassment of Trump Officials
Statement: “If you see anybody from that Cabinet in a restaurant, in a department store, at a gasoline station, you get out and you create a crowd, and you push back on them, and you tell them they’re not welcome anymore, anywhere.”
Consequence: Following her statement, multiple Trump administration officials were harassed in public, including Sarah Huckabee Sanders, Kirstjen Nielsen, and Stephen Miller. In several cases, their safety was compromised, and law enforcement had to intervene.
Legal Analysis: Waters’ call to action was explicit, targeted, and likely to result in harassment, meeting the Brandenburg criteria for incitement.
Chuck Schumer (2020) — Threat Against Supreme Court Justices
Statement at a rally outside the Supreme Court: “I want to tell you, Gorsuch, I want to tell you, Kavanaugh — you have released the whirlwind, and you will pay the price. You won’t know what hit you if you go forward with these awful decisions.”
Consequence: This statement was followed by an assassination attempt on Justice Brett Kavanaugh in June 2022, when a man armed with a gun and a knife was arrested outside Kavanaugh’s home.
Legal Analysis: While Schumer later claimed his statement was metaphorical, the timing and context of the subsequent assassination attempt raise serious questions about whether his rhetoric contributed to the violence.
BLM Riots (2020-2021) — “Mostly Peaceful” Encouragement
Numerous Democratic politicians and media outlets downplayed or justified violent riots in 2020-2021, during which 25 people were killed, thousands of police officers were injured, and over $2 billion in property damage was recorded.
Kamala Harris promoted a bail fund for rioters in Minnesota, tweeting, “Help them out — they need bail.” Some individuals bailed out by this fund were rearrested for violent offenses.
The media’s description of the riots as “mostly peaceful” while buildings burned in the background normalized and encouraged further violence.
Legal Analysis: The promotion of bail funds for violent rioters, combined with rhetoric downplaying the severity of the violence, contributed to further lawlessness.
Rhetoric Around Trump and His Supporters
Numerous Democratic politicians and activists have made statements that could be interpreted as encouraging violence against Trump and his supporters:
Joe Biden (2020): “I’d take him [Trump] behind the gym and beat the hell out of him.”
Johnny Depp (2017): “When was the last time an actor assassinated a president?”
Kathy Griffin (2017): Posed with a mock severed head of Donald Trump.
Mainstream social media posts: Thousands of posts calling for Trump’s assassination have been documented, particularly after the FBI raid on Mar-a-Lago and during his 2024 campaign.
Consequences of Incendiary Rhetoric
The following incidents demonstrate the real-world harm resulting from left-wing incitement:
BLM Riots (2020-2021)
25 people killed, including retired police captain David Dorn.
Thousands of injuries to law enforcement officers.
$2 billion in property damage.
Assassination Attempt on Justice Brett Kavanaugh (2022)
The suspect admitted he was motivated by the possibility that Kavanaugh would vote to overturn Roe v. Wade.
Political Violence Against Conservatives
The attempted assassination of Republican congressmen during a baseball game in 2017 by a Bernie Sanders supporter.
Physical attacks on Trump supporters at rallies.
The murder of a teenager in North Dakota in 2022 by a man who claimed the victim was a “Republican extremist.”
It’s NOT Just Rhetoric
Progressives often defend their statements by claiming they are metaphorical or taken out of context. However, the following points rebut this defense:
Pattern of Violence: The consistent pattern of violence following incendiary statements suggests that these statements are taken literally by many followers.
Targeted Individuals: The rhetoric often targets specific individuals or groups (e.g., Trump officials, Supreme Court justices), making it more likely to result in direct harm.
Double Standard: When conservatives make similar statements, they are often accused of incitement (e.g., Trump’s January 6 speech). The same standard should apply to left-wing rhetoric.
Legal Precedent
Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969): Speech that incites imminent lawless action is not protected by the First Amendment.
NAACP v. Claiborne Hardware Co. (1982): Speech that causes violence but does not explicitly call for it may still be protected. However, explicit calls for harassment and confrontation, as seen in Maxine Waters’ statement, are more likely to be considered incitement.
Conclusion
The evidence is clear: Left-wing political rhetoric has incited real violence, resulting in death, injury, and destruction. Politicians who use incendiary language are not engaging in harmless rhetoric — they are playing with fire, knowing full well that their words have consequences. It is time to hold them accountable under the same legal standards applied to conservatives.
Sources
Maxine Waters’ statement, 'Tell them they’re not welcome' (1-minute video)
Chuck Schumer’s threat to Supreme Court justices (3:33 video)
Kamala Harris promoting bail fund (1:37 video)
Assassination attempt on Brett Kavanaugh, Armed man arrested near Brett Kavanaugh’s home charged with attempting to murder a US judge —
All links worked at time of publication.
Stand for America.
Being informed is just the first step. What happens next depends on us - everyday citizens who care about our country’s future. I encourage you to:
Take time to be informed, stay up to date. We’ve only accomplished Step 1.
Share information with friends and family. We need to bring back civil discourse.
Reach out to your representatives, local, state, and federal, to voice your support or concerns. If you haven’t heard, “All politics is local”, do realize that bad local politicians just move up the ladder. Don’t let them get a foot in the door.
The work of restoring our country and protecting our freedoms has only just begun. Let’s move forward together to continue the momentum to make America, health, and education great again.
If you have questions, let me know. I’m happy to help.
This message reflects my personal perspective on current events. While I strive for accuracy, please verify details through official sources linked above. If sharing, I encourage readers to include this disclaimer to ensure clarity.
United we stand. Divided we fall. We must not let America fall.
VoteTexas.gov, https://www.votetexas.gov/get-involved/index.html
Until next time…
Please share your thoughts in the comments. Or email me, and let’s have a problem-solving conversation. I welcome ‘letters to the editor’ type emails and may publish yours. I hope we can create a caucus with positive, back-to-the-founders’-dream-for-America results. Have a topic you want to know more about?
Some housekeeping…
Going forward, you may need to check your spam folder. And please mark this address as ‘not spam.’ If the newsletter isn’t in your spam folder either, you should look in the Promotions tab.
You can always see everything on the website, RationalAmerican.org.
Thanks again for reading! I’m glad you’re here!