Share.

26 Comments

  1. Bromance_Rayder on

    Wear banana suits, cuddly animal suits etc. It’s very effective in exposing the completely unjustified brutality. 

  2. Quiet-Corner6150 on

    Boy, we REALLY need to pull back the meaning of “terrorist”, or else they’ll just run it into the ground like “woke” etc.

  3. Myviewpoint62 on

    Back during George Floyd protests I saw two cases of people dressed in all black instigating violence. One was the “umbrella man” in Minneapolis and a guy breaking up the sidewalk with a hammer in DC. Both were middle age white guys under the black clothes and masks. They sure looked like MAGA instigators to me, but unfortunately law enforcement never pursued.

  4. Minimum-Style-1411 on

    Grifter Erika Kirk is a terrorist  always wearing her widow weeds to bilk from the deplorables. 

  5. Choice-of-SteinsGate on

    > Eight of nine defendants on trial this month face material support for terrorism charges for wearing “black bloc” clothes at the protest. Attorney General Pam Bondi and FBI Director Kash Patel have hailed the first-ever use of terrorism charges against alleged antifa members.

    > Defense attorneys argued Wednesday that prosecutors had wildly overcharged a case that should have centered on the alleged shooter, Benjamin Song, instead of the larger group.

    Prosecutors have also presented other “evidence” to the court (mostly online posts and reading materials) to try to characterize these protestors as “terrorists.”

    But most of it is protected by the first amendment. Or at least it should be…

    Unfortunately, some don’t see it that way. Especially those on the right who believe that certain constitutional rights, freedoms, privileges, immunities, etc, only apply to *them.*

    That’s at least what I’ve gathered in recent years. That many conservatives feel entitled to these rights above others, that they almost have a moratorium on “free speech.”

    We know that the government has been using labels like “ANTIFA” and “domestic terrorist” pretty loosely in an effort to identify anti-Trump protestors as left-wing “agitators” and extremists.

    “Overcharged” is a fitting description. Prosecutors for or adjacent to the administration are trying to make an example out of Trump’s critics and dissenting voices.

    And this is made more evident by the fact that Trump has turned a once independent DOJ into his personal legal arm and is weaponizing every agency and power of the federal government to go after his political opponents, protestors, his critics in the media, and anyone who has ever wronged him in the past.

    He’s also been firing investigators who don’t toe the line, and consolidating prosecutorial power under his administration.

    He’s been threatening law firms, universities and private institutions, judges and congressmen, basically any person, branch of government or agency/organization that acts as a check against his abuses is power.

    I think the truth is, the administration is hoping for violent incidents like these so the president can continue to push the limits of his powers and so the government can justify more excessive “national security” measures while rationalizing to voters why sending troops to occupy the streets of cities around the country is necessary for the “security and safety” of the American people.

  6. PastorNTraining on

    I guess that includes all the clergy they keep shooting with pepper balls and spraying in the face with mace.

    Also the elder goths, but I dare them to try…

  7. Can’t wear black, can’t dress as a dinosaur, how the fuck can people legally fucking protest

  8. Reading the article the prosecutors evidence is even more laughable.

    The entire case is built on accusing one person of firing a firearm, and harming a police officer.
    Then trying to implecate everybody else at the location for being involved with that one person.

    A couple “that they were key members of the reading group.”
    Another for “Carrying a box, and conspiracy to carry a box, of which they try to call evidence.” according to the defender.

    Yes, the terrorists was mostly a reading group that owned a printing press, and carrying some boxes with material from said printing press. You know, first amendment stuff.

    The black clothing (and using signal) was some random guy from a far-right think tank (aka the people growing domestic terrorist). His description of antifa boiled down to wears black clothing and uses the signal chat program. Mostly brought it to hype anti-facists as some terror group. Nothing tied to the couple at all.
    Their claim being that the printing press and boxes was cover to carry antifa clothing *Facepalm*

    Welcome to Nazi-Germany, US.

Leave A Reply