Ten Questions Related to Charlottesville

 1.  Who had a permit to march in Charlottesville? 

(The answer here is interesting.  Jason Kessler, the organizer of the protest against removal of the statue had a permit, the city revoked that permit, but, thanks in part to the ACLU and their recognition and assertion that “the First Amendment applies to everyone regardless of their views,” a judge granted an injunction and reinstated the permit allowing the group to have their demonstration in Emancipation Park. 

In reinstating Mr. Kessler’s permit, the Court determined that he could likely prove that the revocation of his permit was content based (thus in violation of the First Amendment).  Supporting that finding was the fact that the city, while revoking the permit of Mr. Kessler, left in place the permits of the counter-protesters.  The Court further stated, “The disparity in treatment between the two groups with opposing views suggests that the defendants’ decision to revoke Kessler’s permit was based on the content of his speech rather than other neutral factors that would be equally applicable to Kessler and those protesting against him.  This conclusion is bolstered by other evidence, including communications on social media indicating that members of City Council oppose Kessler’s political viewpoint.  At this stage of the proceedings, the evidence cited by Kessler supports the conclusion that the City’s decision constitutes a content-based restriction of speech.”)

2.  How many understand the importance of not restricting speech based on its content?

(Note:  restricting speech the content of which you find objectionable today sets a precedent for restricting your speech tomorrow if that becomes objectionable to someone in power.  That is how a totalitarian regime operates, not our democratic republic)

3.  Why is the media primarily focused on turning this into a story about why we should dislike Trump based on exactly what he said when?  Why not focus on, or at least report, the positions of both sides involved in the conflicts and why they feel the need to march and counter-protest?  

(Hint:  the media is generally focused on Trump-bashing.  What passes for news reporting in the main stream media is little more than propaganda and is woefully biased and incomplete.)

4.  What is wrong with a president saying that violence from all sides is unacceptable?  Why must he single out one group while ignoring others?  

(Suggestion:  A president should not single out one group or another, but should be the president of ALL Americans and certainly, like all government employees, should fiercely defend the First Amendment along with the rest of our Constitution. People should not encourage the president or others to do otherwise.)

5.  How many Americans really believe in free speech for ALL ideas and not just those with which they agree?

(Thought:  this should be 100%, but sadly, I fear the number is relatively small.)

6.  For that matter, how many even know what the first amendment says or how and why it is a part of our constitution?

(“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”  The Bill of Rights, of which the First Amendment is a part, was added to the Constitution to protect the citizens from government interference with their basic rights.  The Bill of Rights applies to state and local governments via the 14^th Amendment and various Supreme Court decisions.)

7.  Does the Left understand that not all white conservatives are Nazis or White Supremacists? Do they understand that one can be a nationalist without being a racist?

(Observation:  many people today simply place people in boxes based on superficial characteristics and assume that all those given a particular label or placed in a particular group think and behave exactly alike.)

8.  Does the Left understand that by labeling people and putting them in boxes they further the discord between their identified groups?

(Thought:  placing people into categories divides them, weakening and ultimately destroying any notion that we are all one.)

9.  Do they understand that such discord is tearing this country apart?  Do they care?

(Hint:  this is seen by many to be an actual goal of identity politics, an approach used by the Progressive Democrats for the past several years)

10.  Is there a double standard regarding appropriate reactions to violence against the Right and violence against the Left?  Is all political violence provoked by the Right or by President Trump?

(Clue:  There was political violence before Trump was elected.  There is violence perpetrated by individuals associated with all sides of the political spectrum.  Violence is not OK just because its purpose is to silence views found hateful or distasteful.  When one only calls for condemnation of violence or speech by those with whom they disagree, they are hypocrites seemingly ignorant of our Constitution, and likely more concerned with themselves and their power than with taking a stand for the good of the country.)