DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Palus Politicus And The Violence Begins...

Meh, he's calling protests against the right wing court members violence. What's new? They fear everything that is not a lay up for them. Having people they pissed off in their faces scares the hell out of them. It is what it is. I'd rather talk about things we can agree on for one minute here and there. My rage and anger with the right can't grow any more, but hate gets old af, and I like 40, but not Trumpian troll 40... if that makes sense. He can be a good dude when he chooses, and he can have real dialogue, when he chooses.

Neither side leaves room for that anymore, because both sides scream me, me, me, not US US US like they should. BOTH sides act like spoiled brats.


I have no problem with that part.... I agree


Now you know how those who are against abortion have felt for many years.


I see that as a good chance to show others that friends can agree and disagree without taking things personal or letting a disagreement ruin a friendship.




That's the part of your comments I strongly disagree with. That sounds just like something a abusive husband says after he beats his wife or kids. YOU MADE ME DO IT, It's your fault I beat you because you wouldn't act like I wanted you too. That's the part I pointed out when I said your better than that. Now please don't take that the wrong way like you did with my comment about a bomber. I am not saying you ever abused a spouse, or any kids. I'm saying your laying the blame on others for any violence that others do to them. It's just wrong bro.

Federal U.S. code 1507, states that any individual who "pickets or parades" with the "intent of interfering with, obstructing, or impeding the administration of justice, or with the intent of influencing any judge, juror, witness, or court officer" near a U.S. court or "near a building or residence occupied or used by such judge, juror, witness, or court officer" will be fined, or "imprisoned not more than one year, or both."

But no action from the Justice Department or the Biden administration because the issue and the agenda, are more important than the Law.

Just another form of violence, aiding and abetting on their part.

The divide continues.

The math here is quite simple. This goes back much further than Trump. It's just that before Trump, making every attempt to keep our people divided wasn't shouted out loud. It wasn't made so obvious. In that regard I guess for those actually paying attention it was a blessing.

When a small minority of people maintain the vast majority of the wealth, keeping those with much less divided is your safety net. Keeping the poor and middle class thinking they are the enemy of each other keeps the attention off of you. And I'm not one to be fooled into thinking that all of the wealthy belong to one party or the other. I'm also not naive enough to think all of the wealthy are that way. Raising a man's wage to the point he can afford to live is not your enemy. Billionaires having baked in tax loopholes preventing them from paying their share of taxes is. Healthcare for all isn't your enemy. Lobbyists making sure we all pay more for prescription drugs and have the highest healthcare costs on the globe are.

People need to figure out who the real enemy is here and stop being distracted by the talking heads.

The divides go back to the Boston tea party, but to keep in in modern context., probably the vietnam war and civil rights protests is where the current divides are rooted. I am not taking any side on those issues other than to say that is where it seems the divide in public opinions started.

Very well said Sir.

Amen to that. So... where do we start?

The first step is for people to admit that "their side", whichever that might be, isn't always right.
Next step is acknowledging that the "other side" isn't always wrong.

Unfortunately I don't think we will ever even get there.
A while back I started a thread asking pro trumpers to list one thing they didn't like about trump and anti trumpers to say something positive about him.
3-4 anti trumpers said something positive. Not a single pro trumper could come up with anything negative.

Way to get the ball rolling....LOL

I think some peeps really have comprehension issues. Apparently if you make a genuine attempt to get people of differing sides to find some common ground as a starting point for discussion and it doesn't work - you get mocked around here!

Not the 1st time i've been mocked. Pretty sure it won't be the last!

The Anti-Abortion Movement Has a Long History of Terrorism. A Roe Repeal Will Make It Worse.

In the face of the recent leak of a draft opinion that confirmed the Supreme Court is set to overturn Roe v. Wade, abortion advocates and providers are bracing for a surge in clinic violence.

In the face of Monday’s unexpected leak of a draft opinion from Justice Samuel Alito that confirmed that the Supreme Court is set to overturn Roe v. Wade, abortion advocates and providers are bracing for a surge in clinic violence. In a Wednesday call, officials with the FBI and Department of Homeland Security raised concerns about an increase in violent rhetoric from far-right aggressors in the wake of the draft opinion’s release. And private intelligence groups have released reports detailing violent reactions and threats to bomb clinics and hurt pro-abortion protestors on far-right online forums in response to the draft leak.

For nearly 50 years, as anti-abortion legislators in states around the country have chipped away at the constitutional right to a safe and legal abortion, they have done so with the steady drumbeat of violence at their back.

The Supreme Court heard arguments in the most recent attack on the constitutional right to abortion last December. The question in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization is whether Mississippi’s ban on pre-viability abortions is constitutional. Under the Supreme Court precedent set by Roe v. Wade in 1973 and reaffirmed in Planned Parenthood of Southeast Pennsylvania v. Casey in 1992, the answer is clearly no.

Though violence and threats of violence directed against abortion providers have been a prominent aspect of abortion in the United States since Roe was decided, anti-abortion legislators would like to ignore this history. Instead, they try to frame the history of post-Roe abortion as a “hard issue” and one of mere “controversy” that should be settled by these same state legislators. But decades of violence make clear that the debate over abortion in America isn’t a matter of some “civil disagreement.” It is the subject of unrelenting attacks by those who have no regard for the rule of law.


In the decision expected within the next few months, if the Supreme Court overturns or severely guts Roe v. Wade, it will send an unmistakable and dangerous message: that the violence against abortion providers has worked.



Mississippi provides a dramatic illustration of how extremists have employed violence and other lawlessness to reduce access to abortion. After a rapid expansion of abortion services in Mississippi in the years immediately following Roe, anti-abortion extremists waged a campaign that included stalking, intimidation and violence against doctors who provided abortion care.

This campaign was not isolated or sporadic but sustained and pervasive. The campaign of violence and threats was effective, coinciding with a sharp decline in the provision of and access to abortion services in Mississippi. In fact, Jackson Women’s Health Organization—now the last remaining abortion clinic in Mississippi and the target of the law at issue in Dobbs—was established in response to the clinic closures that resulted from this anti-abortion violence. At the time of its founding, only one other provider offered abortions for Mississippi residents.

Although Mississippi stands at the heart of the current attack on the constitutional right to abortion, violence against reproductive health providers and clinics has cast a shadow across the entire country. March 10, 1993, marked the first-known time in the U.S. that an anti-abortion extremist committed murder. Michael Griffin joined an anti-abortion protest at a reproductive healthcare clinic in Pensacola, Fla., and then fatally shot Dr. David Gunn in the back as the doctor was walking into the clinic.

Just over a year after Gunn was murdered, Dr. John Britton and Ret. Lt. Col. James Barrett, a volunteer clinic escort and a veteran of World War II and the Korean and Vietnam wars, were gunned down in the parking lot of another Pensacola clinic. Barrett’s wife, who saw her husband and Britton murdered, was shot in the arm.


In December 1994, an anti-abortion extremist opened fire on two clinics in Massachusetts, killing both clinics’ receptionists—Shannon Lowney and Leanne Nichols—and wounding five others. In 1998, Eric Rudolph, who bombed the Olympic Games, a clinic, and a lesbian and gay bar in Atlanta, detonated a bomb at a clinic in Birmingham, Ala., killing off-duty police officer Robert Sanderson, who served as a security guard at the clinic, and critically injuring a nurse. In 1998, a sniper murdered Dr. Barnett Slepian in front of his family as he was standing in the kitchen of his home in upstate New York.

On a Sunday at the end of May 2009, Dr. George Tiller was attending services at his church in Wichita, Kan., when anti-abortion extremist Scott Roeder entered the church, raised a gun to Tiller’s forehead and shot him at point-blank range. Tiller had survived being shot in both arms by a different anti-abortion extremist in 1993.

Most recently, Robert Lewis Dear Jr. traveled to the Planned Parenthood clinic in Colorado Springs, Colo., with four SKS rifles, five handguns, two additional rifles, a shotgun, more than 500 rounds of ammunition and propane tanks, intending to wage “war” on the clinic because it offered abortion services. Dear shot at six peo- ple outside the clinic, killing two and injuring three more. He then shot his way into a clinic entrance while 27 healthcare providers, employees, patients and their companions attempted to hide, one of whom was shot during the course of the attack.

In the approximately five-hour standoff that ensued, Dear turned his weapons on law enforcement, shooting and killing one officer and injuring four more. In total, Dear fired 198 bullets during the attack. According to Dear’s documented interview with the police, he was “happy with what he had done because his actions … ensured that no more abortions would be conducted at the Planned Parenthood facility in Colorado Springs.”

The murders are, of course, the highest-profile examples of violence against reproductive health providers and clinics, but they alone don’t come close to telling the full story of the unrelenting, daily violence and harassment that anti-abortion extremists visit on providers and clinics. Attempted murder, death threats, stalking, kidnapping, bombings and arson are a routine part of life for providers and clinics.

And disturbingly, studies show that violence and threats have not only continued in recent years, but have risen.

A steady stream of examples illustrates the ever-present risk to providers, patients, staff and the public. In 2019, a 17-year-old in Texas was arrested after threatening to “commit jihad on an abortion clinic.” An Ohio man was charged with threatening to assault federal law enforcement officers after he made online threats against Planned Parenthood and others; authorities recovered more than a dozen rifles and 10,000 rounds of ammunition from his home.

In 2020, a Rhode Island man was sentenced to federal prison for stalking and sending threats after he threatened to torture and kill a university professor who supported abortion rights, and left more than 100 threatening voice mails for a clinic. And in 2021, a Delaware man pleaded guilty to federal charges after he threw a Molotov cocktail through a clinic’s window and painted a slogan associated with white supremacist groups on the clinic’s wall.

Anti-abortion extremists have employed and continue to employ violence and threats as part of a deliberate strategy to reduce or eliminate abortion, with a concerning number of anti-abortion extremists openly endorsing violence. Shortly after Gunn was murdered by Griffin in 1993, a statement signed by 34 extremists was released, stating:


Over the years since, several more versions of the statement were released, each time adding more extremists as signers.

Anti-abortion extremists have also expanded the targets of their violence beyond abortion providers. A number of prominent anti-abortion extremists were among those who participated in the siege of the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021. Individuals interviewed outside the Capitol that day cited their anti-abortion views as the reason they traveled to Washington, D.C., with one person explaining that her decision to come to the Capitol was, in part, “to fight for the unborn.” Another extremist who filmed himself at the Capitol that day was previously convicted of planning to bomb an abortion clinic in 1988, and later admitted to setting fire to that clinic and another.

Violence has also been directed toward the Supreme Court. A shot was fired through the window of Justice Harry Blackmun’s home following years of death threats that began when he wrote the Court’s decision in Roe.

Extremists have used these acts of violence and other illegal tactics to further their goal of stopping abortion by reducing or eliminating access to abortion services, which disproportionately impacts low-income women, women of color and teenage girls. Over time, the violence has contributed to a substantial reduction in the number of clinics as well as the number of physicians and other clinic staff able and willing to perform abortions. Many doctors trained to provide abortion care opt not to do so to avoid subjecting themselves to harassment and violence, and other trained providers are leaving the practice due to the stress and burdens of living with the constant threat of violence.

As one doctor explained, she stopped providing abortions altogether because she was attacked on the internet and “hunted down by protesters” who broke into her home and left behind dead animals.


There is a real risk that overturning Roe would further embolden extremists to engage in violence in their crusade to end abortion in the United States. While some states would ban all or nearly all abortions if Roe is overturned, many states would continue to allow abortion, and there is little question that providers in those states would remain targets of violence.

After all, extremist violence has not been confined to those jurisdictions that would be expected to curtail abortion rights if Roe is overturned. Six of the murders committed by anti-abortion extremists occurred in jurisdictions that would likely preserve access to abortion: Colorado, Massachusetts and New York. If anti-abortion sentiments are unable to sway legislators in some states to ban abortion outright, there are very real reasons to be concerned that extremists—who for decades have disregarded the rule of law and legitimate political process—will take matters into their own hands.

The Feminist Majority Foundation (publisher of Ms.) and a number of other women’s and civil rights organizations, represented by pro bono counsel John Hall, Elizabeth Saxe, David Zionts, Kate Thompson, Molly Doggett, Marisa Tashman and Megan Keenan of Covington & Burling LLP, filed an amicus brief with the Court last fall in Dobbs to ensure that this long, devastating history of violence is not ignored as the Supreme Court considers the most serious challenge to the constitutional right to abortion care in a generation.

In 1992, when the Supreme Court reaffirmed Roe in Casey, it said it could not “overrule [precedent] under fire.” Overturning Roe now would, whatever the Court intends or says, be perceived as rewarding anti-abortion extremists’ violent acts and would undermine the rule of law. In Casey, the Court refused to overrule a landmark precedent under threat of violence. It should not do so now, a generation later, when even more anti-abortion violence has become an undeniable part of our nation’s history.

https://msmagazine.com/2022/05/06/anti-abortion-violence-terrorism-roe-v-wade/

I can't help wondering where the GOPer cries of violence were when these things happened... And watching Fox have a faux breakdown over protests at Justices homes... Small peaceful protests are the mob/thugs/extremists, while January 6th was site seeing or barely a blip... wtaf is wrong with GOPers?

I wasn't mocking you. I just thought it was funny that you talked about sides and then pointed to an example of how your side was willing to work w/the other, and how the other side wasn't. You have to admit that is pretty funny, right? Especially if the intent is for both "sides" to work things out.

Personally, I don't care for "sides." I want what is best for my family and for all of us. This forum is an example of how "sides" can be so debilitating to our society. The amount of energy spent on trashing the other "side" is astounding and meanwhile, the divide continues to grow. The powers that be laugh down upon us as their stranglehold on the minions grows tighter. Some of us were talking about when all this started and I saw different answers like Colonial Boston and Vietnam. I thought its genesis was long before that as it was clearly evident during the Feudal Era. The tiers of wealth all the way down to the peons created factions among the people that were irreparable, divisive, and designed to elevate some and keep others down. Unfortunately, many among us have been unable to learn from the sins of others and are actually instruments in our own undoing.

Well, for that matter it probably started when the bigger caveman took the smaller caveman's wife to his cave. For me I was keeping it geared towards our country.

No doubt divides run along many different fronts and not doubt the media exposes those differences, then caters to them for their profit.

The current divide has been going on for a long time and I do feel that the media has played a big role in that. Eisenhower was the last President that pretty much everybody respected. Not everybody voted for him, but they mostly respected him. That was also when TV was still fairly young. Since JFK was elected we have had deep divides over the President and thus, the political parties.

It seems to be pretty much an attitude of "Us and Them".

I think your point about the media is huge. The media bias is so upsetting. I can't even listen or read their crap at this point.

It wasn't an attempt at common ground. At the time it read like a joke to me... particularly when he called out certain posters to participate.



BTW... "Not a single pro trumper could come up with anything negative." is not accurate. Only three "pro trumpers" participated and two certainly did say something negative. Besides, what's the point of referencing a silly Dawgtalkers post from two years prior an indicator that one side won't play fair?

Basically he's saying "both sides need to put aside their prejudices and try to work together, unfortunately one side is a bunch of a-holes"

Seems productive, right?

And Vers, your post is spot-on, again.

I wasn't pointing out that one side was willing to work and the other wasn't. I was being factual and pointing out that only 3 posters all of the members could stomach acknowledging anything opposite their stance, no matter how small.

Fate, you say I "called out" certain posters. I call it challenging the most vocal. Whatever, but I did it to both sides.
This is an example of twisting things to fit a personal agenda because you don't want to actually have a conversation.

I took his original post in the spirit in which I believe it was intended. Jester is an excellent and non combatative poster.

Referring back to his original attempt wasn't being snarky, just factual.

A personal agenda? lmao

Speaking of agenda, why did you say "not a single pro trumper could come up with anything negative" when the fact was that two of three did?

I'll make this short and sweet. Using a Dawgtalkers topic in which ten people participated as some indication that the right doesn't want to work with the left is about as lame as can be. It would be different if participation was compulsory and there was some laundry list of wingnuts that insisted their $%# didn't stink, but that example couldn't be further from the truth.

I was going by memory but the only negative thing about trump I remember was a snarky remark about how he didn't get rid of enough liberals in government. If you want to count thast as a serious criticism so be it. Maybe they came in after I gave up on the thread.

I'll try to address your question but my opinion on the matter isn't pretty.

To start off with I'll say I don't know if there's anything we can do. That's pretty much the answer in a nut shell. On the surface you might think I would say that it's the Democrats who are for taxing the billionaires, national healthcare, capping prescription drug prices and things like overturning Citizens United. That's certainly the picture they try to portray and what they say. But is that really true? I mean when you know that there's no chance in hell any of that would pass into law, it makes it easy to pander to your voters by simply saying it. But those same Democrats in most cases accept that same dark money, they bow to lobbyists and do the same things they claim to be against. Just for a different set of interests. So I'm very suspect in their sincerity.

Republicans outright fight against these things. They label the very things that would help all Americans as socialist or communist and that line seem to work well for them.

The situation can be compared to an old saying, "There's a Fox in the hen house". Only in this case the hen house is full of Foxes. Those foxes are writing the laws. They write them to benefit themselves and their future. They write them to cater to their voters to remain in power. They write them to secure jobs after they leave office from the very interests that lobbied for their support while in office.

I wish I had an answer to your question. But the only things I can come up with are why I believe it may be impossible for us to find an answer.

Yeah, it was kind of like that on both sides. But hey, at least you tried. And there was nothing wrong with the effort -- I'm not criticizing that at all.

My opinion? I think most of the reason people on the right don't post much here is the absolute fake outrage from a few posters on the left.

I mean, let's be honest, simply expressing any conservative POV in this forum will likely result in a barrage of name-calling, sarcasm, buddy-buddy banter and downright vitriol... many times shifting the subject to things you aren't even talking about. So, what's the point? If I wanted to argue with a bunch of screaming faces, I'd jog down to the local daycare center and snatch away all their juice boxes.


There was a recent poll about "political alignments", it showed that *readers* (not necessarily regular posters) are basically split down the middle. It was in response to someone stating that this board is "basically 90% left".

Why is it that most conservatives and moderates don't care to engage in the conversation??

What you have chosen to do is ignore the fact that there are people on both sides that do that exact same thing. I guess you must have missed how the names communists and socialists get tossed around on here. I think if you actually sat back and counted those who generally spoke out on both the conservative, liberal and moderate views you would see that all sides are pretty equally represented. For every OCD you have there's a Superbrown and 40. I think you are being impacted more by the comments being made by those on the extreme left while ignoring much of the comments posted by the extreme right.

I don't think any 'side' has the moral high ground. I think both 'sides' have posters who write extreme viewpoints. Neither side is without it's idiots and agitators. I think it's all too easy to get tired or frustrated - or have a 10 seconds to write a response and fall into a trap of mimicking what we don't like in the other 'side' ... doing it to make a point, but that point gets lost and the other 'side' who take that response at face value.

Where do we start ? What do we do about it ?? Per Fate's question (that I only just saw). Hell if I know. The biggest issue I see is lack of accountability and apathy. We have the government we the people deserve because we the people aren't paying attention and most don't care ... and those that are paying attention are distracted and fighting instead of educating and engaging and advocating more transparency in Government and every walk of life. If political shenanigans happen that benefit what we think is our side - we don't question or comment on the ethicality of how we got there, just celebrate the "victory" and move on. No-where is this more evident than in the Garland/Gorsuch/Barrett debacle. Reprehensible on every level by any neutral standard ... but "Politics Baby".

Good post. To piggyback off that and Pit's posts (good stuff), it seems like the first common-sense solutions (that nobody "fights" for) would be term limits and getting the almighty corporate dollar out of politics. The reason he says "not much we can do" is, at it's root level, because we are too fat, happy and lazy to stand up for these simple solutions. The bait and switch is pulled in every election cycle so that we fight over the morsels they throw us to keep us divided. It's a fail-proof strategy (to this point) that allows them to conduct business as usual.

As far as how that relates to this board, and all of social media, is the simple fact that the most vocal always seem to be at the extremes. Sadly, many people believe that this is an actual pulse for how people feel. Quite the contrary... most in the middle don't have the energy or desire to be forced to choose a side in order to have an actual voice. Crazy times, indeed.

For the record, I am not a democrat, even though it may not seem that way. I have always been an independent and pre trump I actually leaned republican on most things. In fact, if the presidential elections were held today and you could vote for anybody, 4 of my top 5 candidates are republicans.

I am however very anti trump. And I lost a lot of respect for the republican party for how they bow down in supplication to trump.
I am also very anti far right and anti far left.

I agree with your post almost entirely. The only caveat I have is the part about "we are too fat, happy and lazy to stand up for these simple solutions" in wanting term limits. I actually think for the most part Republicans, Democrats and Independent voters as a whole want term limits. There are exceptions of course. I think the biggest issue there is getting elected officials to agree with it. You do bring up a good point that voters often times get distracted by wedge issues more than the substance of the actual candidate. Some voters are even single issue voters. They feel so strongly about one or possibly just a few issues that nothing else actually matters to them. Term limits as an example simply doesn't make their top 5 list when voting for a candidate.

See, I get tagged as liberal a lot. But on many issues I'm much more of a moderate. Gun control is one such issue. I'm certainly a proponent of the 2nd amendment. I do however believe that with great power comes great responsibility. So while I promote the 2nd amendment, I do feel like anyone purchasing a firearm should undergo a background check. I believe anyone that is permitted by law to carry a firearm should be required to undergo a basic firearm safety course. On this board that gets you labeled a liberal. While I think this is a common sense issue.

When it comes to social programs I do let me religious beliefs to be combined with what I see as compassion. I don't see it as communist or socialist. Just a minimum standard of human decency. I don't expect people to agree with me if that's what they choose but let me tell you where I arrived at that conclusion....


I know many people on this board are not religious. I'm not a fan of allowing one's religious views to dictate infringing on the rights and choices of those who do not share their religious views and beliefs. But this is something that is not only biblical but something I believe on a personal level. I guess what confuses me the most is how people with strongly held religious views can label people as liberal for something the bible makes clear we should all support and do.

Oh stop. I'm far from the farthest left poster. And Fate, I engage with conservatives, I just don't tolerate the Trumpian Trump fest. Take all things Trump out of the mix and I'm not hard to get along with at all. BUT I HATE ALL THINGS TRUMP. Not hard to understand.

I know you at least one of the posters he was referring to and I won't say he's wrong. Your bombastic tirades are infamous on this board. Hell, he may have been including me for all I know. You are definately included in a ying verses yang discussion in this regard.

No crap? lol, I do have eyes you know. Some people just don't like to hear opposing opinions being passionately voiced, and I give as good as I get.

You're such a stud in your own eyes. You call for violence, often. Neat.

Well, if that's the way you really feel bro, it doesn't usually read that way. I'll be blunt and just say I think you need to work harder to quit turning things into a "Trumpian Trump fest" where one doesn't exist.

I mean that in the kindest way, although I really don't care about your feelings either.

I know I go hard at some posters and am completely intolerant of some others, I never claimed to be perfect, just close.

But seriously, Trumpism triggers me to no end. If I knew the GOP would change course and put in an actual conservative or even an old school somewhat moderate Republican, you would barely hear from me in here. But with Trump still running the show, the scotus now firmly in his grasp, I do truly fear for our democracy. Not holding back, just where I sit. Guys like me and Swish have also been shocked by what passes for patriotism these days. Having the likes of MGT out there screaming that dems are all pedos surely flies in the face of any going forward together... I think there are a lot of despicable people in politics, but no party holds the pedo crown, that I can see. Although, Matt Gaetz might bring it to the right, along with a few others who knowingly slept with underage girls. And I know all GOPers aren't dumb and all aren't racists... but we do need to work on understanding what is and isn't racist, as well as finding out what's really inside all those books before we just ban them. And we need to trust science again. Too many topics that we just don't talk about anymore because they are being weaponized by politics. One Million deaths from covid, how many of those lives could have been saved without misinformation, lockdowns, and all the anti-science BS? We will never know, because we were too busy fighting over Trump stuff or politics to give an actual damn about the dying. Some days I feel like the country has run off a cliff.

I find myself thinking more for the future of my grandkids than I do anything politically. I don't want them to inherit this mess 10 or 20 years from now. I would like to return the world to a place where people are safe in their homes, on the streets, and in their communities. A nation with a strong social safety net that makes sure nobody is screwed over or ruined by medical bills. We should make sure the basics of what everyone needs to compete and thrive in a modern economy are automatic and a shared responsibility. This includes a lot of things Bernie talks about, but also some GOPer points as well. I don't think we should spend so much on entitlement programs as they exist today. All of that money should go to a better safety net. And we do need to acknowledge that whites are not inherently bad for the sins of their forefathers. We have all entered a new era, one of instant information and instant gratification. We have kids telling old people their entire lives were racist, or any number of other attacks in this culture war. Fact is, older people grew up in different times and many things that were acceptable 50 years ago, just aren't today. I'm not so sure we don't always contend with this issue in every generation or three, but lately it has exploded, IMO.

I think both sides have far more healing to do, some changing of the ways, before we can actually move forward "together" and be a strong united country and people again. Sadly, that's just how I see it.

President Biden's administration is bracing for a wave of violence when the Supreme Court rules on Roe v. Wade in June, Fox News confirmed Wednesday.

A May 13 memo from the Department of Homeland Security details ongoing investigations into threats to "burn down or storm" the Supreme Court building. Threats against the court arose last month after a draft majority opinion overturning Roe v. Wade leaked to the press.

Abortion Activists Threaten to Burn Down Supreme Court, Kill Justices When Roe is Overturned
National Steven Ertelt May 18, 2022 10:05AM Washington, DC

The Department of Homeland Security has released a very concerning new report showing that radical abortion activists plan to burn down or storm the Supreme Court building and murder justices and their law clerks once the decision overturning Roe v. Wade is released. The report indicates these pro-abortion extremists will also target churches and other places of worship with violence and vandalism.

The last two weeks have seen a shocking amount of pro-abortion violence following a leaked U.S. Supreme Court draft ruling that overturns Roe v. Wade. Radical abortion advocates across the country are engaging in violence, firebombing pro-life groups, vandalizing and disrupting churches, forcing pregnancy centers to close and staging intimidating protests outside the homes of members of the Supreme Court.

During a public event Friday night, Justice Clarence Thomas condemned the pro-abortion protests taking place in recent days at the homes of members of the Supreme Court. And Justice Samuel Alito, author of the draft opinion overturning Roe v. Wade, said he and his colleagues will not be intimidated.

But a new DHS report indicates their lives could be at stake once the draft becomes the official opinion of the high court.

According to a Department of Homeland Security memo obtained by Axios, “Law enforcement agencies are investigating social-media threats to burn down or storm the Supreme Court building and murder justices and their clerks, as well as attacks targeting places of worship.”

The unclassified May 13 memo by DHS’ intelligence arm says threats that followed the leak of a draft opinion — targeting Supreme Court Justices, lawmakers and other public officials, as well as clergy and health care providers — “are likely to persist and may increase leading up to and following the issuing of the Court’s official ruling.”

In response to a request for comment from Axios, a DHS spokesperson said the department “is committed to protecting Americans’ freedom of speech and other civil rights and civil liberties, including the right to peacefully protest.

“DHS is also committed to working with our partners across every level of government and the private sector to share timely information and intelligence, prevent all forms of violence, and to support law enforcement efforts to keep our communities safe.”

CBS News reports that many of these threats have been made online on social media and are currently being reviewed by law enforcement agencies:

The National Capital Region Threat Intelligence Consortium — the Washington, D.C., regional intelligence hub charged with tracking domestic terrorism threats — has referred at least 25 violent online posts to partner agencies for further investigation. According to the bulletin, some of the social media threats discussed “burning down or storming the U.S. Supreme Court and murdering Justices and their clerks, members of Congress, and lawful demonstrators.”

The DHS’ Office of Intelligence and Analysis said in its bulletin that “grievances related to restricting abortion access could fuel violence by pro-choice abortion-related violent extremists and other [domestic violent extremists.]”

Arson investigators are looking into a fire that broke out inside the headquarters of anti-abortion group Wisconsin Family Action on May 8. Graffiti found at the scene read, “If abortions aren’t safe [then] you aren’t either” and included symbols “typically used by anarchist violent extremists and others to convey anti-law enforcement sentiment,” according to the DHS’ Office of Intelligence and Analysis.

Several churches have been vandalized with pro-abortion graffiti since the Supreme Court leak, including a Catholic church in Boulder, Colorado, another in Fort Collins, Colorado, the Catholic News Agency reports; and a third, the Holy Rosary Catholic Church in Houston, Texas. A Tabernacle also was stolen from Saint Bartholomew Catholic Church in Katy, Texas.

Police are investigating arson at two pro-life organizations in Wisconsin and Oregon, as well as vandalism at several pro-life pregnancy centers. Pro-life advocates also have shared videos and reports of being assaulted by abortion activists at rallies and events. And abortion advocates have threatened to bomb a church in New York City.

The protests are technically illegal in Virginia and the abortion activists should have been arrested.

According to the Code of Virginia, “Any person who shall engage in picketing before or about the residence or dwelling place of any individual, or who shall assemble with another person or persons in a manner which disrupts or threatens to disrupt any individual’s right to tranquility in his home, shall be guilty of a Class 3 misdemeanor.”

They’re also a violation of federal law.

Federal U.S. code 1507 prohibits individuals from protesting with the “intent of interfering with, obstructing, or impeding the administration of justice, or with the intent of influencing any judge, juror, witness, or court officer … in or near a building or residence occupied or used by such judge, juror, witness, or court officer.” Violators face fines and/or imprisonment of up to a year.

Alito, the author of the draft opinion, and his family were moved from their home to a secure location due to the threats of violence.

Meanwhile, some Democrat leaders have condoned the illegal activity.

“So long as they are peaceful, that’s OK with me,” Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer told reporters Tuesday.

Similarly, President Joe Biden’s spokeswoman Jen Psaki said Tuesday that the White House “encourages” the protests outside of the judges’ homes as long as they are peaceful.

In a letter to the attorney general Tuesday, U.S. Sen. Josh Hawley, R-Missouri, slammed the protests outside the justices’ homes as “flagrantly illegal.”

“Federal law makes it a crime for a person, ‘with the intent of influencing any judge, juror, witness, or court officer, in the discharge of his duty,’ to ‘picket or parade … in or near a building or residence occupied or used by such judge.’ 18 U.S.C. §1507,” Hawley said.

In a separate letter to Garland on Wednesday, Republican Govs. Larry Hogan, of Maryland, and Glenn Youngkin, of Virginia, also urged the Justice Department to “provide sustained resources to protect the justices and ensure these residential areas are secure,” the Washington Times reports.

Since the draft ruling was leaked, pro-life advocates also have been the targets of arson, vandalism, assaults and threats all across the country.

At least two pro-abortion groups have been calling for churches, especially Catholic Churches, to be the target of abortion activists’ outrage. And one group posted the addresses of the Supreme Court justices online to urge people to protest outside their homes.

“The leaked draft memo that states the Supreme Court has struck down #RoeVWade is an ATROCITY but It is not yet law & doesn’t have to be, but what they plan to do & will do if WE don’t stop them. Rise up! & RAISE HELL!” the group Rise Up 4 Abortion Rights wrote on Twitter.

Abortion activists are trying to intimidate the Supreme Court justices to change their minds and uphold Roe after the leaked draft opinion showed the majority voting to overturn the infamous 1973 ruling. The draft is not final, judges can change their minds, and it is not clear when the high court will issue its final ruling on the abortion case Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health, but many believe the court will overturn Roe and allow states to protect unborn babies again.

Polls consistently show that most Americans support stronger legal protections for unborn babies than what Roe allows. LifeNews highlighted 11 recent polls here. A new Rasmussen poll shows more Americans want Roe v. Wade overturned (48 percent) than want the ruling to remain in place (45 percent).

Since 1973, more than 63 million unborn babies and hundreds of mothers have died in supposedly “safe, legal” abortions.

https://www.lifenews.com/2022/05/18...rt-kill-justices-when-roe-is-overturned/

At least they're preparing for a possible scenario. Unlike what we saw when a president wasn't prepared for such a possible scenario.

During the time of the 'god-like' founders, they would have been dragged into the streets, beaten, tarred and feathered, then run out on a rail for this kind of underhanded BS. Anything that happens, is 100% their fault for this egregious deception. Of course whoever does anything is responsible for their own actions, but I'm not going to call for them to NOT FIGHT BACK.

The only good thing about somebody targeting justices is a few deaths would balance the court for the next hundred years. Otherwise, we are where we are due to the courts radical extremists, not the general public's ire.

So, one one thread.......the left is bashing the right for encouraging violence and on another thread, they are saying it's okay if the left becomes violent.

LMAO...............what a whacky, whacky world we live in.