Top House Democrats evacuated from DNC headquarters due to pro Palestinian protesters Insurrection

Top House Democrats evacuated from DNC headquarters as police clash with pro Palestinian protesters - Insurrection?
CNN
Law enforcement clashed with protesters calling for a ceasefire in the Israel-Hamas war outside of the Washington headquarters of the Democratic National Committee Wednesday night, the latest eruption of tensions across the country over the Israel-Hamas war.

House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, House Minority Whip Katherine Clark and Rep. Pete Aguilar were inside as the clash between protesters and police sparked and turned violent, according to authorities.

Six officers were injured during the melee Wednesday evening and one person was arrested for allegedly punching a female officer. According to US Capitol Police, officers had worked “to keep back approximately 150 people who are illegally and violently protesting” in the area – a characterization activist groups later disputed – and escorted members of Congress, including the top House Democrats, from the area.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/top-house-democrats-evacuated-dnc-045558307.html

Insurrection footage:
https://www.yahoo.com/news/pro-palestinian-protest-outside-dnc-121341367.html

Pro-Palestinian protesters on Friday occupied the News Corp headquarters in New York City
where Fox News' headquarters are located.
Pro-Palestinian Protesters Have Stormed Fox News Headquarters in New York City "Fox News, Fox News You Can't Hide,

 

Rep. Debbie Dingell (D-Mich.), one of the lawmakers inside the Democratic National Committee (DNC) headquarters when protesters clashed with police outside the building this week, said the experience rattled her more than the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol.

“This rattled me more than January 6th did,” Dingell told The Detroit News. “I was scared. Someone is going to get hurt at one of these things. They can get out of control.”

The Detroit News reported Dingell tried to exit the building through multiple doors, but protesters had blocked the area. She told the outlet an officer stopped her at the front and pointed to a medic treating another officer who had been pepper-sprayed outside.


U.S. Capitol Police said they tried to hold back about 150 protestors outside the DNC building in Washington on Wednesday night. Protestors were demanding a cease-fire in the Israel-Hamas war.
----

The siege by the protesters is happening on premises of US defense contractors, one such violent siege was held in El Segundo area, the crowed blocked the entry to the building, shouted anti-Jewish slogans, police had to get involved, this lasted 6 hours, thanks god no one had a medical emergency, and needed an ambulance. The Jewish workers were horrified of what is happening.

University professor was arrested and charged with involuntary man slater in LA, where 68 years old Jewish protester was killed.

 

Sounds like a riot. It could only be an insurrection if the mob was meant to overthrow the government or change the outcome of a lawful election. You know, like o1/06/2021.

It's refreshing to see Fox News following Humpty Dumpty in not being constrained by dictionary meanings of words.

 

Not as destructive as BLM riots but with strong anti Jewish and Israel hate never seen before in the West.
It's clear the Political Jihad as anti Democracy force is making progress in it missions. Knowing Israel's dependency on US support and trying to disrupt it, increase the hate of Jews among all, especially Muslims and increasing the political base in Congtess, and campuses, and among other institutions.

 

I am not a member of BLM. However, respectfully, comparing the BLM protests to the anti-Israel protests surrounding the ongoing war is a false equivalency. It's comparing apples to oranges. They are not the same, and it's bewildering as to why pro-Israel supporters keep criticizing African Americans for not taking sides (it's happening a lot on social media).

African Americans have nothing to do with what's going on over there. We don't have a dog in that fight, so why are we - and we alone - being singled out? It's really perplexing! Clearly, I'm missing something and I'm not alone. Since you brought it up, would you like to explain?

 

What you say is true.

I will be so bold as to try to translate right-wing talk into English. I think when he mentions BLM he is throwing into that same pot all of the race related riots that have taken place since George Floyd was murdered. I would argue that probably very little of those riots were really BLM. The right-wing seems to hate the idea of BLM and consider the phrase "black lives matter" to be racist. The typical response being what makes you think that white lives or policemen lives don't matter. Of course, BLM really means black lives should matter as well.

Please note that I too would welcome a correction to any possible misunderstandings that I've made here.

 

Can anyone enlighten me about "BLM riots": how "destructive" they really were? My impression was that none of these events nor all of them together were anywhere near say historic LA riots in 1992. Considering how sensitive the issue is, current civil rights activists show commendable restraint. Especially compared to MAGA snowflakes.

 

... also, can someone please give an example of a left-wing "riot" messing with democratic process, Like Jan. 6th, or 2000 Brooks Brothers riot in Florida that gave us Bush presidency? And if no one can, doesn't it make a "BLM riots" narrative a manufactured moral panic?

 

Actually your question points out an inherent understanding on your part about both the real BLM movement and the bogus false beliefs on the right-wing about it. An excellent place to research this question is simply Wikipedia. The Wikipedia BLM article is well documented. Here's the first paragraph.

Black Lives Matter (BLM) is a decentralized political and social movement that seeks to highlight racism, discrimination, and racial inequality experienced by black people, and promote anti-racism. Its primary concerns are incidents of police brutality and racially motivated violence against black people.[1][2][3][4][5] It started following the killings of Trayvon Martin, Michael Brown, Eric Garner, and Rekia Boyd, among others. The movement and its related organizations typically advocate for various policy changes considered to be related to black liberation.[6] While there are specific organizations that label themselves simply as "Black Lives Matter," such as the Black Lives Matter Global Network, the overall movement is a decentralized network of people and organizations with no formal hierarchy.[7] The slogan "Black Lives Matter" itself remains untrademarked by any group.[8] Despite being characterized by some as a violent movement, the overwhelming majority of its public demonstrations have been peaceful.[9]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Lives_Matter

Note that the underlined last sentence is my underline not the Wikipedia underline. I underlined it because I think it captures both the fact about the really benign and positive nature of BLM while also touching on the false perceptions about BLM that are peddled by the right wing.

 

No to the last sentence.

Scale is different but there has been more than one attempt by leftist groups to disrupt democratic processes. Google.

Finally, the problem with the Destructive BLM riots and deaths associated with them was it was hard to tell what was BLM and what was Anarchists, ANTIFA, and other bad actors using the events to engage in their own destruction and mayhem. BLM gets blamed but it isn't always clear it was BLM. In fact many of the people doing damage looked White and BLM didn't need virtue signalling help like that, crazies looking to vent their spleen, or other people trying to use BLM for cover.

 

Googling needs more specific keywords than that. Scale must be tremendously different: Brooks Brothers riot was perpetrated by Republican campaign staffers and coordinated by a Congressman, while Jan. 6 was caused by the President as part of a coup attempt. In this context, some "leftist" threat is just a distraction. BTW, which side's extremists have more weapons stockpiled?

This.

 

Like I said the BLM Wikipedia article is well documented. Here is another apparent attempt to label BLM as a destructive force. However if one looks at reference [9] that is linked in my copy of the first paragraph of the BLM article and is the supporting documentation for the sentence that I underlined, it lists six articles that support that sentence. (Sorry that reality is once again getting in the way of right-wing political messaging.)

1. Multiple sources:
   • Mansoor, Sanya (September 5, 2020). "93% of Black Lives Matter Protests Have Been Peaceful, New Report Finds". Time.
   • Udoma, Ebong. "UConn Study: At Least 96% of Black Lives Matter Protests Were Peaceful". WSHU-FM.
   • Erica Chenoweth; Jeremy Pressman (October 16, 2020). "This summer's Black Lives Matter protesters were overwhelmingly peaceful, our research finds". The Washington Post.
   • Grace Hauck; Trevor Hughes; Omar Abdel-Baqui; Ricardo Torres; Hayes Gardner (October 24, 2020). "'A fanciful reality': Trump claims Black Lives Matter protests are violent, but the majority are peaceful". USA Today.
   • Watson, Julie (January 14, 2021). "Comparison between Capitol siege, BLM protests is denounced". Associated Press.
   • Corley, Cheryl (May 25, 2021). "Black Lives Matter Fights Disinformation To Keep The Movement Strong". National Public Radio.

 

Let's look at just one of the 6 sources of supporting documentation for the sentence that I underlined. "Despite being characterized by some as a violent movement, the overwhelming majority of its public demonstrations have been peaceful."

Specifically let's look at the Associated Press article, Comparison between Capitol siege, BLM protests is denounced. First I'll state that the Associated Press reporting is in general very accurate and trustworthy according to MediaBiasFactCheck.com.

quote:
Black activists are coming out strongly against a growing narrative among conservatives that equates the deadly siege on the U.S. Capitol with last summer’s Black Lives Matter protests of racial injustice.

Republican lawmakers defending President Donald Trump made the comparison again Wednesday while building their case against impeachment and accused Democrats of being hypocrites with selective outrage. Their comments mark the latest effort by Trump and the GOP to misrepresent the Black Lives Matter movement as an extremist, violent faction tied to anarchists.

“You can moan and groan, but he was far more explicit about his calls for peace than some of the BLM and left-wing rioters were this summer when we saw violence sweep across this nation,” Republican Rep. Matt Gaetz of Florida said in defending Trump before the House voted 232-197 to impeach the president for inciting an insurrection.

But the two events were fundamentally different. One was an intentional, direct attack on a hallowed democratic institution, with the goal of overturning a fair and free election. The other was a coast-to-coast protest movement demanding an end to systemic racism that occasionally, but not frequently, turned violent.

“The GOP has become the party of false equivalences,” said James Jones, assistant professor of African American studies and sociology at Rutgers University in Newark, New Jersey.

Many BLM protesters were responding to the death of George Floyd, a handcuffed Black man who was seen on video gasping for breath as a Minneapolis police officer pressed his knee into Floyd’s neck. Police repelled the demonstrators using rubber bullets, tear gas and military assets like helicopters.

The mob at the Capitol was fueled by baseless conspiracies propagated by Trump that the election was stolen from him through massive fraud. The rioters acted on the president’s direct urging to “fight like hell.” They attacked police with pipes and chemicals and planted bombs. They were met largely with restraint by law enforcement.
___________________________

The question that I'm pondering is why does the right-wing want to falsely believe that the simple desire for equality and fairness in BLM is a negative violent extremist movement. I think there are different reasons and different combinations of reasons for different people. Some don't think about it much and just believe whatever lies Trump tells and then gets repeated on Fox. These are the folks that are being manipulated into believing false narratives. Some don't like the idea that black lives may be as valuable as white lives. Some feel very threatened by the idea that white people are somehow being replaced. Like the gang marching through Charlottesville and chanting "Jews will not replace us." Some folks might just feel like it is far more likely that black folks would more likely be violent than peaceful. I suspect my parents would have fallen into that category. They were racist but always denied that they were racist. They truly believed that they were not racist. I believe that most racists would fall into that same category. They are racist but don't think that they are. Of course, that is much better than the racist folks that are proud of being racist.

 

No, it's not. For black people, it's better for us to know who our enemies are so we can avoid them. We don't have this option with closet racists.

 

I can appreciate the concern. I also agree that the "closet racists" are a bigger overall problem in achieving equality. Simply because they are far more numerous, at least that's my belief. What I meant though was that closet racists probably do less damage to our society per individual. ... Thinking about this more though, I'm not so sure that I'm right. Maybe my thoughts about closet racists versus conscious racists is more colored by my forgiving my parents for their racists views because they just didn't know any better. They grew up in Idaho and never knew any black folk until they were well into adulthood. There was no TV and the only black folk in the movies was stuff like Gone with the Wind. On the other hand I find conscious racists to be extremely disgusting.

Here's a bit more of my parents story, They switched from Democrat to Republican during the late 60's and early 70's. Like most racists did during that time because of the equal rights laws passed in 1964 and 1968. That's why southern states switched from Democrat to Republican, I believe. They told me that blacks were less intelligent but better athletes than white folk. They were extremely disgusted by the idea of mixed marriages. Only adding to their racist views, they were Mormons (Latter Day Saints) and the Mormon teaching at the time was that black skin was the mark of Cain. Blacks were not allowed to hold the LDS priesthood. I remember when Obama had just been elected my Mother expressed grave concern because she believed that Obama would only help black folk.

 

This is a really good conversation! I think closet racists do more damage to our society by discriminating, quietly, against African Americans in ways that negatively affect us economically. African American homeowners have had to "scrub" their homes of anything that indicated they lived there in order to get fair appraisals of their homes. Some have even resorted to having someone white pretend to be them during the appraisal. African Americans with identical credit profiles and down payments as whites have been denied mortgages, or steered toward predatory lending options. African Americans have been denied jobs, or fired from jobs, because they chose to wear their hair the way it grows out of their scalps. This is just three examples. Closet racists damage our society by hindering African Americans from reaching economic equality.

It's interesting that you bring up how most people in southern states abandoned the Democratic Party to join the Republican Party after the civil rights laws were passed. The Republican Party became the party of open racism and the Democratic Party became the party of closet racism, LOL. There are people right now who argue that African Americans shouldn't be Democrats, and should be Republicans, because it was the Democrats that kept us enslaved, etc etc, but conveniently forget that the most staunchly racist whites fled the Democratic Party and joined the Republican Party.

Historically, African Americans have known that the Democrats aren't truly for us, but they were willing to - at least - do some things here and there to make our lives a little better; whereas, the Republicans weren't willing to do anything for anybody if African Americans would also benefit even a little bit. They may have thought that African Americans were "low information voters", but we weren't... it's just that something is better than nothing. NOW, though, all bets are off with us. We're not voting for anybody if there's not real tangibles in it for us. The Asians got a hate crimes bill, the gays got a bill, and African Americans are still waiting for our hate crime bill to become reality, which is ironic because we're the top targets of hate crimes. <Where is Alanis Morissette when you need her?>

I'm familiar with the racial teachings of the LDS church. I also know that they've tried to distance themselves from them. But, that's hard to do when the Book of Mormon and the Pearl of Great Price (and, maybe, other documents) say what they say about people of African descent.

That Obama would only help African Americans is hilarious. He didn't do jack for us. Nada. Nothing. Zilch. But, also, Obama isn't African American. He has no connection to our community, except for his wife, and has no dog in our fight and he let us know that in his own way.

 

I really appreciate you sharing your views. Someone that has lived it has to be more knowledgeable in many ways than someone that has just viewed it from the outside. You make some very excellent points and have presented some excellent examples.

I'm going to come to Obama's defense a bit here. It mustn't be forgotten that he was our first black President! He wanted to be a President of all of the people. I think he wanted to be extra careful not to alienate folks with his blackness. He loosened up a bit in his second term. I think it improved his overall approval ratings. My main criticism of him is that, I think, he moved too slowly on getting stuff passed early in his administration, like the ACA (Affordable Care Act). He wanted to get as much Republican support as he could. Instead the Republicans played him and instead just slowed down the process to the point that not much else could get done in those first two years of Obama's first term when we had the Senate and House both under Democrat control.

The ACA has helped many Americans. Here's a quote.

Results. In 2013, 40.5% of Hispanics and 25.8% of Blacks were uninsured, compared with 14.8% of Whites. We found a larger gap in private insurance, which was partially offset by higher rates of public coverage among Blacks and Hispanics. After the main ACA provisions went into effect in 2014, coverage disparities declined slightly as the percentage of adults who were uninsured decreased by 7.1 percentage points for Hispanics, 5.1 percentage points for Blacks, and 3 percentage points for Whites. Coverage gains were greater in states that expanded Medicaid programs.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4940635/

So, Hispanics and Blacks got about double the benefit from the ACA compared to Whites, 7.1 and 5.1 vs. 3. This was a few years back. in the intervening 9 years many more states have taken advantage of the Medicaid expansion. Which would just make this percentage that much better. So, I don't think that it's fair to say he did nothing for blacks.

 

I think it's fair to say, in this instance, Mr. Obama did nothing for Blacks that he didn't do for all others. Everyone was treated the same - a better percentage of Blacks got a benefit because a larger percentage were deprived, before it became available.

In this, he didn't do anything specifically for Blacks - he did the same for everyone. But he didn't just do "nothing." And I really liked the Obamas - and still do. Then again, I'm not Black, or American - so what do I know?

 

I didn't mean to give the impression that I disliked Obama or that he didn't do anything that didn't benefit African Americans too. Obama is very likeable because of his charisma and being down to earth. But, he didn't do anything specifically for us. Other groups got specific things, but we didn't. It's always that way... it's okay for other ethnic or special interest groups to get things that specifically benefit them, and only them, but it's a problem when it comes to African Americans. Correction: Usually, it's like this. But not all the time, because Trump did do something specific for African Americans when he gave the money to the HBCUs.

 

Correct, he didn't do anything specifically for us and that's the problem. Other groups got things specifically for themselves. However, in American politics it's taboo to do anything specifically for us. It takes someone who is a maverick, and makes up their own rules as they go, to go against the grain. That was Trump with the money he gave to the HBCUs. That was something specific for us and he didn't care who didn't like it. One thing I like about him is his FU spirit, LOL.