Black Lives Matter Protester Interrupts Rally- Trump Says THIS Should Be Done To Him, Sparking Firestorm

Protesters looking for trouble at Donald Trump’s rallies are going to find it, and the Republican presidential candidate is not the least apologetic for that.

On Sunday, Trump defended the actions of security and supporters who none-too-gently escorted Black Lives Matter activist Mercutio Southall from a Birmingham, Ala., rally after Southall began screaming at Trump.

“Maybe he should have been roughed up because it was absolutely disgusting what he was doing,” Trump said Sunday on Fox and Friends. At Saturday’s rally, Trump told security, to “get him the hell out of here.”

  Trump has said he is not planning to allow protesters who come looking for trouble to walk away empty-handed, or to succeed in disrupting his rallies. “The man that was — I don’t know, you say ‘roughed up’ — he was so obnoxious and so loud. He was screaming. I had 10,000 people in the room yesterday — 10,000 people. And this guy started screaming by himself,” Trump said Sunday. “I have lot of fans and they were not happy about it. And this was a very obnoxious guy, who was a troublemaker who was looking to make trouble,” he said.

Southall insisted he was badly injured, but did not seek medical attention. He said he was taunted by racial slurs, although none are audible on tapes of the incident. Apparently amazed that supporters of a candidate he came to trash did not like his rant, he said he felt in the presence of a “lynch mob” after he started screaming.

A Black Lives Matter supporter blamed Trump for the entire situation.

“When you have a candidate going around spewing hatred and racism, that’s to be expected,” said Carlos Havers of the National Action Network, who was with Southall at Birmingham. “He (Trump) was really inciting the entire thing.”

“He does condone it because he was the one saying, ‘Yeah, get them out of here.’ He was the one telling the supporters to do what they needed to to get them out of here,” Havers said. “We want an apology from Donald Trump himself. We want him to sit down with us and explain why he did what he did and why’s he’s going around the country spewing hatred and racism.”

Trump, meanwhile, showed disgust Saturday not only with the antics of protesters who come to steal the spotlight, but the media that lets them get away with it.

“Look at those bloodsuckers back there,” Trump said Saturday at the rally as the media followed the fuss and not the event. “They’re turned around, and they’re following the people, right? Because you have a small group of people that made some noise and are being thrown out on their a–. Right?”

The crowd then cheered Trump.

h/t: TheBlaze

Look: Bakery Posts Controversial Warning Sign To Customers And Sparks Huge Backlash

A provocative placard prominently posted at the entrance of Springfield, Ohio’s Schuler’s Bakery has received media attention – and a wide-ranging reception. The sign served as a “notice” to incoming customers, advising anyone uncomfortable with the business’ ideology “are welcome to leave.”

WHIO initially reported the story after a viewer posted an image of the sign to the network’s Facebook page.

“This store is politically incorrect,” the sign states. “We say Merry Christmas [and] God bless America.”

Among the other ideals expressed by the store’s owners is gratitude “to our troops, police officer and fire fighters.”

The controversial message ends with “In God we trust.”

Nearly 1,400 Facebook comments poured in during the first six hours after WHIO posted a link to the story. Many users defended the bakery and, by extension, the First Amendment.

One such sentiment rose to become the post’s top comment:

Freedom of speech! Glad to see some people are still politically incorrect. There is hope for us all!

A common consensus among detractors, however, related to the perception that any backlash against the actions described on the sign is largely exaggerated or imagined. Another popular comment stated:

There is no war on Christmas. There is no war on the rest of those things. They need to look up the definition of ‘politically incorrect.’ Doing the things listed on the sign would not be offensive. Having that sign on the door of a business is just stupid.

Do Brainwashed Fanatics On College Campuses And Terrorists Have Something In Common?

As I have mentioned in some recent posts, 21st Century civilization (if I may call it that, regardless of how uncivilized it is) now has to deal with a rise in actual aggression in the name of fighting “microaggression.” And there is the “Islamist threat,” such as it is. I think that both phenomena are related.

And it isn’t just because so many among the world’s population are poisoning their brains with Big Pharma drugs, Big Agra’s corn-poison and other chemicals as well. People world-wide, in developed countries and those not-so-developed, are so heavily intoxicated on propaganda, religious and political, they are really brainwashed and acting in a very threatening manner toward others, and I don’t like it.

For starters, the new Orwellian culture we are enduring and suffering in Amerika now seems to consist of young people who feel “traumatized” and “triggered” by the slightest word or phrase uttered, or the most innocent picture, video, or symbol that causes them so much anguish they call the police or 911. Or worse, they shout and disrupt, or physically assault, other young people who are minding their own business as a way to get attention. Even college administrators and faculty members are kowtowing and defending the aggressions and disturbances of other people’s peace. University staff who don’t play along will be shown the door by the kooks in control.

But not all the young people are in college, thank God. There are those roughly 35% of the young people who either decided to delay college or opt out entirely, or those who were in college but dropped out, who actually work to provide for themselves. And some of those are married and have families already at a young age. But I digress.

But what is it now that’s causing all these young people to need a “safe place” or a safe room, as though everywhere else is unsafe? Why are they so terrified of just about everything (or say they are)? And why are those who are activists behaving so angrily and behaving so uncivilly and belligerently toward others?

And I ask myself, what was it that my generation (I’m in my 50s) did to these young people? But then, I look at my generation and I see many among them acting irrationally as well.

One thing I have observed is that 9/11 really did change things. The college-aged young people at age 18-24 (or in their later 20s) were born from 1991-1997. That means that they were between age 4 and 10 when the September 11th attacks of 2001 occurred. So, all the post-9/11 government and media propaganda and fear-mongering not only had a lasting effect on many adults, but must have really affected those who were little kids at that time. No wonder some of them have an irrational need for a “safe room.” The little ones must have had nightmares, not really as much because of the actual events of 9/11 but more because of the 2001-2003 repeated reminders of the 9/11 events and the constant scare tactics of George W. Bush, Dick Cheney and all their mainstream media minions in propagandizing Americans to support another new war against Iraq in 2003. Many of the younger supporters of war at that time probably didn’t even know there was a previous U.S. government war on Iraq in 1991, the “Persian Gulf War.”

Add to that bit of terrorism inflicted by the Washington bureaucrats the “global warming” propaganda and fear-mongering of the Al Gore activists (who are still at it!). I clearly remember during the 2000s how the schools were implementing the global warming fanaticism into their everyday school curricula and imposing all that on impressionable little kids who were already terrorized by their society’s constant Islam this and Saddam that bunch of stuff. And I recall news articles on how school kids were waking up at night having nightmares because of the in-school global warming terror that was being foisted on them.

So I can understand what particular factors might be influencing the young people of college age now, in their irrational feelings of paranoia, their feeling traumatized by every little thing and their need for a “safe place.” They have been not only conditioned to react to every little thing and fear this or that, but they have also been brainwashed by years of the government and media’s fear mongering following 9/11 and associated with global warming. Their brainwashing causes them to act in an unthinking and irrational way, combined with the ideologies being instilled in them by their school teachers and college professors (such as “black lives matter but white lives don’t,” and “microaggressions,” etc., etc.), as well as their pop culture icons and idols, many of whom are on the Left.

But since 9/11, many of the “adults” were also in some ways brainwashed, by hours and hours of post-9/11 government propaganda TV-watching, day after day, and for years. No wonder the South Carolina debate-goers were booing Ron Paul when he mentioned the Golden Rule. “Christian” America no longer believes in the Golden Rule, that if you don’t want people breaking into or bombing your home then you shouldn’t do it to them. And when Dr. Paul or others brought up the history of pre-9/11 U.S. government interventionism, invasions and occupations of foreign countries, that makes people very uncomfortable. It’s difficult for people who love their country to acknowledge their own government’s criminal acts against foreigners which had done nothing but provoke the foreigners. But denial of the truth is much more unhealthy.

Besides the teen and 20-something young people in America who had grown up being bombarded with fear-mongering and propaganda by the government and media after 9/11, there are the young people in the Middle East who have been terrorized by actual bombs and bullets, as well as being propagandized by years of supposedly “Islamic” ideology. Many of them also were little kids during and after 9/11.

Many of those young Middle Easterners had suffered during their own growing up years, not as much at the hands of their “Islamic” authoritarian elders raising them, but being terrorized by all the bombs, invasions, occupations, murders and assassinations, renditions, torture at the hands of U.S. government forces and other Western government war criminals. So those Middle Eastern young people, now in their teens and 20s, grew up in fear and terror of when the next drone will pass over them, when the next bomb will be dropped in their neighborhood, when the invaders would break into their home, rape their mothers and shoot their fathers, and if they will actually survive all that criminality. I don’t think that many Americans can understand or empathize with them, being such narcissistic “Exceptionalists,” and also being so propagandized by the U.S. government and media. (But I could be wrong.)

And no, I am NOT defending “Islamic terrorists,” but one reason many Americans don’t have an understanding of what it’s like from the perspective of those whose lives are terrorized and tortured by invading armies is that most Americans have never experienced such violence against them. (Except those victims of American police violence, of course.) Another reason why most Americans actually don’t care to understand the perspective of their government’s foreign victims is that most Americans are ignorant and go by the propaganda fed to them by their government’s well-trained media sycophants. Most Americans are also ignorant of what their own government had done to those Middle Eastern foreigners prior to 9/11.

So traveling from Middle Eastern countries to Europe now, there are thousands of young people, many of them Muslim and male, who grew up being either the victims of or in fear and terror of the U.S. government’s massive campaigns of violence. And now they supposedly fear ISIS.

Now, I know that a lot of commentators and talk radio crusaders are expressing concern that many of those migrants or refugees might be Islamic jihadists who want to do more of what was done to Paris, and might come here to the U.S. and commit jihadist violence. But supposedly, many of them are not unmarried but actually do have wives and kids they left behind, assuming that the rest of their families will be welcomed when these new arrivals settle somewhere in Europe. Apparently, such a travel is very difficult, grueling and dangerous, and a good reason why females and children might not be able to endure such a trip.

To me, the refugees’ expecting to settle somewhere in Europe isn’t very realistic. European countries are welfare states, with massive redistribution of wealth schemes just like in America, which negatively affect productivity, housing and employment. Eventually, they will probably have to go back to Syria, Iraq, and so on (and I have heard that many of them are from other countries as well, not currently being victimized by so-called ISIS).

But just what will be left in Syria and Iraq after the so-called ISIS takeover? How will the ruling forces of Islamic State rebuild what they and others destroyed? And also, the “fanatics” are destroying many historic buildings as well. And I’ve been hearing that some insiders and disgruntled “former ISIS” participants are saying that with the higher-ups of ISIS, it really isn’t a fanatical imposition of Islam into society and culture there, but “it’s all about money.” In other words, they are really just criminals, stealing wealth and property from others not any different from the typical gang, or the mafia, or, more like a typical government racket in most countries. But given the history of U.S. government bureaucrats in those three-letter agencies, I think we can guess the answers to the questions as to who is breeding the jihadists, who is training them, and so on (besides the Saudis, that is).

But I think that there really are Middle Eastern Muslims who really are brainwashed to follow Islam in the same kind of zombie-like way as the American youngins seem to be brainwashed, propagandized and terrorized to believe in global warming, to believe ideologies such as “hate white people” and “hate males,” “rape culture,” “black lives matter,” and act like destructive, uncivilized creeps. Those college campuses are now breeding grounds for future culture jihadists who will see their violence against others as justified, in the name of this or that ideology.

So who are the world’s worst terrorists? In my view, government bureaucrats, government worshipers,government fanatics and jihadists. And if there are any identifiable culprits in breeding all the aforementioned creatures, I would say it’s mainly the bureaucrats of the U.S. government, their enforcers and soldiers, and all the little minions who obediently follow them.

This article originally appeared at Scott’s blog

Watch: Hillary Just Said 8 Surprising Words About Muslims That Are Catching Everyone’s Attention

Hillary Clinton is known for her politically correct statements, and her recent one about Islam is sure to generate controversy.

Clinton recently addressed the Council on Foreign Relations, a famous international affairs think tank, about the relationship between terrorism and Islam.

The Democratic presidential contender stated “Islam is not our adversary,” and that “Muslims are peaceful and tolerant people” who “have nothing whatsoever to do with terrorism.”

She went on: “The obsession in some quarters with a clash of civilizations, repeating the specific words ‘radical Islamic terrorism,’ isn’t just a distraction, it gives these criminals, these murderers, more standing than they deserve.”

Clinton is not the only Democratic leader to take issue with saying that such terrorists are members of radical Islam. This past February, Barack Obama explained why he refuses to call the movement “radical Islam.”

Obama stated at the White House: “They are not religious leaders; they are terrorists. We are not at war with Islam. We are at war with people who have perverted Islam.”

The president also said: “They no more represent Islam than any madman who kills in the name of Christianity or Judaism or Hinduism. No religion is responsible for terrorism. People are responsible for violence and terrorism.”

Donald Trump, unsurprisingly, has taken the opposite side of the issue. He said on Monday that the White House should focus more on fighting “radical Islamic terrorism,” a phrase he said the White House should be using.

He said: “We have a president that nobody can understand, he doesn’t want to use the term… whether you like it or not, it’s a very gruesome fact; a very serious problem… unless you are going to use the term, you aren’t going to solve the problem.”

What do you think of Hillary Clinton’s problem with calling the movement “radical Islamic terrorism”- and her statement that Muslims “have nothing whatsoever to do with terrorism?”

Here’s What Freedom Of Speech Means To Me

For me, freedom of speech isn’t just about spoken words but is a general category also including freedom of thought and conscience, and different forms of expression, such as in writing and various artistic means of expression.

A society that protects and champions freedom of speech and thought is especially important for those with a moral conscience who encounter wrongdoing to expose such wrongdoing.

And if someone disagrees with a social trend, then of course she should have the freedom to express such a disagreement.

For example, an encouragement by a Yale professor for Halloween tolerance was recently attacked by a mob of hyper-sensitive students who apparently felt that such an encouragement threatens their “safe space.” (Bubble Boy, anyone?)

In 2015 America, the most harmless words and phrases are now perceived as a threat to today’s authoritarian snowflakes, the offspring of the flower children of yesteryear.

Many of these young people are being brainwashed to worship nonsense. They are being trained to think and act like irrational dictatorial robots, crying over nothing that actually exists.

Intolerant and authoritarian, these young punks are the future leaders of America, in which it may become illegal to criticize them, or report on them, as well as criticize members of the ruling class.

And regarding the right to exercise one’s moral conscience, many of the authoritarians on the opposite side of the college punks, the “right-wingers,” are the ones who really believe that Bradley Manning and Edward Snowden are “traitors” for revealing government “secrets” which exposed various elements of the U.S. government and military as the real traitors in their corruption and criminality.

You see, freedom of speech means that the whistleblower who exposes corruption and criminality is not punished for such revelations with solitary confinement for years before his kangaroo trial on bogus “espionage” charges, when his actions were clearly not on behalf of some foreign regime but on behalf of the American people.

Manning truly understood that the American people have a right to know the truth, pointing out that “information should be in the public domain,” and that “without information, you cannot make informed decisions as a public.” And that includes so-called “classified” information, because, as was the case from his initial hearing, as one military officer testified at Manning’s kangaroo trial, not one item of information Manning released was of any threat to any American here in the U.S. or overseas. If you believe otherwise, then perhaps you’ve been too influenced by propaganda distributed by the government and its obedient mainstream media lapdogs.

So freedom of speech includes freedom of thought and conscience, freedom of inquiry and investigation (“The Press”), the right to express your views and criticisms of those in power, and the right of those with a moral conscience to reveal evidence of the power-wielders’ criminality and corruption. Sadly, many authoritarians and nationalists disagree with me on those points. For them, the First Amendment has limits. Unfortunately, their limits are the very rights which are protected by the First Amendment, especially the right to “petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

Here in America, our right to criticize, investigate, report on, and discipline or shame our stupid and incompetent rulers was meant to be protected, supposedly, by the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

But the truth is, bureaucrats just don’t like to be criticized, so they have their S.W.A.T. raids criminally breaking into reporters’ or government whistleblowers’ homes and stealing or hacking their computers, and so on, and jail or murder critics to shut them up.

And there are sheeple in America — millions of them — who defend the government’s crackdowns, gullibly believing that it’s right, usually in the name of “national security.”

The authoritarian besieging of freedom of speech and thought seems to be turning a once-free America into just another totalitarian nightmare.

For example, in some Islamic countries, the ruling class arrests, detains, lashes, or executes those who have merely criticized those rulers, the country’s governmental administrators. The rulers say the punishment is for “insulting Islam” or “insulting Muhammad.”

Saudi Arabia is one of those extremely repressive countries. If I were in Saudi Arabia, I would probably not have the freedom to ask those officials, “How do you know that Muhammad feels insulted by criticism of the Saudi government or of the clerics? Did you talk to Muhammad? Did you have a seance? How do you actually know he’s insulted?”

Based on what I’ve read about the “Prophet Muhammad,” there is no indication that he would have felt “insulted” by Saudi citizens criticizing their ruling government. So it’s really the royal Saudi King, who is also the head of the government there, and his fellow bureaucrats who don’t like their rule being criticized by those who actually live there.

And I’m sure this might “offend” some people, but in my view there are plenty of authoritarians and nationalists in America who also have that same kind of mindset.

Just bring up the flag-burning issue, and many people will react very emotionally.

There are people who see the American flag as some kind of sacred symbol, and they refer to flag “desecration,” which reminds me of the aforementioned “crimes” in Saudi Arabia of “insulting Islam” or “insulting Muhammad.” I know, I know, “How offensive!” to compare some authoritarian Americans to the barbarians in the Middle East who torture or murder innocent people merely for their disobedience and defiance. But when the American flag is burned at a protest, just look in the comments section of news articles and you’ll see just how some Americans value freedom of speech.

You see, there is this emotional attachment that some people have to a flag (or to the Bible or the Koran, etc.). They would rather see a flag-burner be killed than see a flag set on fire.

So there are “triggers” that elicit strong feelings in many people, the American flag wavers, the Saudi rulers and clerics, the Iranian Ayatollahs, the college snowflakes who need a “safe room,” the race-obsessed community organizers, and the Israel Firsters.

Oops. I’m not supposed to refer to “Israel Firsters.” And I’m also not supposed to make any critical comments about Christianity or the Bible, as Obama had done during his first Presidential campaign, referring to people “clinging” to their Bible, and so on.

But when it comes to Israel, many Bible believing Christians refer to critics of the Israeli government or military as “anti-Semitic” or anti-Jewish, or a “self-hating Jew.” Even beyond our criticizing Israeli militarism, the name-calling toward critics is even worse if one criticizes of Zionism itself. The Zionists, or really the Christian Zionists, would claim that Israel is God’s “Promised Land” for the Jews, for all Jews, who are apparently the “Chosen People.” But that’s a very collectivistic notion. The true believers do not seem to understand that we are all individuals, some good, some not so good.

And such assertions are also somewhat condescending toward Jews, frankly.

However, I would say that it was a mistake to gather Jews into one small area completely surrounded by Muslims and Arabs and call that a “safe haven for Jews.” The reason why the Zionists would not accept any other place but Israel was not based on practicality but based on the Bible.

But I’m not allowed to make those observations, even in modern America, as doing so would be “politically incorrect.”

I would ask the Bible believing Christians the same kinds of questions I would like to ask the clerics in Saudi Arabia regarding the Koran, such as, “How do you know that God ‘chose’ Jews as special beneficiaries of a particular territory in the Middle East?” And they might say, “Because the Bible says so. The Bible is the word of God.” Many people believe that, but there is no real proof that the Bible is the word of God, or that morally the Bible’s assertions have any validity. So the faithful believe it all based on … faith.

And Glenn Beck is constantly saying how we need to turn back to God and all that. But why is it that people need to have some sort of authority figure to worship, such as God or Jesus, or Allah or Muhammad? Or the government, police or military for that matter. Many people worship those guys as well.

So now that I’ve probably offended many Muslims, Christians, Jews and flag-wavers, as well as brainwashed college zombies, now on to the atheists. I really don’t worship any “God,” but I do believe that we were created, and not by creators with particularly kind motivations. But to the atheists, I would point out just how complex our own bodies are, the brain, the heart, and the concepts of vision and reproduction, and the extremely tiny odds of all that occurring from random and spontaneous matter or particles forming life. You would have to believe that it all just happened randomly as a matter of faith. I look forward to the day when atheists admit that their beliefs are as much out of faith as the Bible believers’ beliefs.

But even in 21st Century America, there is still so much intolerance of other points of view that violence against them is the preferred choice rather than tolerance. I am talking about tolerance of ideas as well as tolerance of challenging authority.

How long ago was it that the flower children had “Question Authority” bumper stickers? But now the “climate change” (formerly “global warming”) fanatics want to jail “deniers.” And the college campus fascists want to expel the Press from covering their protests. Huh?

And can you imagine how a lot of true believers might react if there were a Charlie Hebdo-like “Jesus-drawing contest” in the same way that Pamela Geller had her “Muhammad-drawing” contest? “Freedom of speech for me but not for thee,” and all that.

So freedom of thought and association includes the right to have and express ignorant attitudes that others might find to be repugnant, and the right to “hate.” Yes, that’s right, “hate.” Hate is just an emotion.

That is why “hate crimes” legislation also goes against freedom of speech. If someone physically assaults another, it is irrelevant if the motivation for the assault was “hate.” So with those kinds of laws, we have the criminalization of certain kinds of thought. But thinking and emotions are not crimes. “Hate” can’t hurt anyone, except hurt someone’s feelings.

Remember, you don’t have a right to not have your feelings hurt, or a right to not feel offended.

The LGBT activists who take Christian conscientious objectors to court for not providing labor involuntarily, and the “transgender” police, are exposing the destructive nature of “civil rights” laws. With the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the U.S. government went beyond merely repealing fascist Jim Crow laws. It erased the line between public and private property. So rather than just applying “civil rights” to public property and government-run functions such as the buses, the schools, parks, City Hall, etc., the social intruders succeeded in empowering themselves to force their way into privately owned businesses. The pretext was “public accommodations,” but nevertheless applying to private property. The activists and bureaucrats made private property less privately owned and more publicly owned from that point onward.

But of course people have a right to associate with whomever they want and a right to not associate with whomever they don’t want to associate. And for any darn reason. That might bother a lot of guilt-ridden people who are afraid to say the truth about freedom of thought and conscience, and freedom of association, but so what? The important distinction here, as Lew Rockwell referred to recently, is private property.

People do not have a “right” to forcibly enter someone else’s property or to force others to associate with them, or to silence those perceived as “hateful” or hurtful or those with whom they disagree. The totalitarian idea of thought crimes needs to find its way into the dustbin of history, really.

Scott Lazarowitz [send him mail] is a libertarian writer and commentator. Please visit his blog.

This commentary originally appeared at and is reprinted here under a Creative Commons license