WATCH: Explicit Calls To Violence In Portland … If BLM Doesn’t Disavow, Should Their Accounts Be Frozen?

Written by Wes Walker on July 20, 2020

Remember all of those times we’ve heard the phrase ‘not in my name’?

It’s where someone disavows the actions of another to politically distance oneself from actions, causes, or people.

For instance, there were examples of protesters shortly after George Floyd’s death (does anyone still remember him?) that identified troublemakers and agitators in their midst, and marched them unceremoniously over to the police line and dumped them there.

Now we have speakers at an event speaking, we suppose, in the name of BLM who are explicitly denouncing the kind of protest for which Rev Dr. MLK and the recently-deceased John Lewis were celebrated.

They do not believe there IS such a thing as a non-violent protest. And they are calling for action.

This is, by definition, a call to criminal incitement, is it not?

Should she be charged? Should her organization be designated a domestic terrorist org and have its assets frozen?

What about the religious leaders standing behind her, cheering? Are they going to denounce these calls to violence that they have implicitly endorsed? Will they participate in the violence themselves? What if any members of their religious group are injured or otherwise harmed by these riots? What consolation will they offer?

And what about BLM itself? They are an organization founded by self-described ‘trained Marxists’. Are they deliberately fomenting civil unrest in hopes of triggering a revolution?

Will they publicly denounce those calling for violence done in the name of their movement? Or will they let it continue?

And if they let it continue, should they be free to use all that corporate money they are now awash with to promote other such events or to fund the bail for those who have committed violent acts?