Il faut dire… Nous sommes dans une \u00e9poque bien audacieuse, ou bien tr\u00e8s irresponsable, ou bien ce que l’on voudra, où un magazine (un mensuel irlandais intitul\u00e9 Village<\/em>) se croit absolument justifi\u00e9, sinon m\u00eame encourag\u00e9 par le sens de la vertu publique, de publier son num\u00e9ro de janvier 2017 avec la photo de la t\u00eate de profil du pr\u00e9sident Trump et la repr\u00e9sentation graphique d’un viseur de fusil en surimpression, avec comme titre \u00ab\u00a0Why Not ?<\/em>\u00ab\u00a0<\/strong>. La suggestion de l’assassinat de Trump pour \u00eatre quitte une bonne fois pour toutes de cette engeance insupportable, qui atteint avec Village<\/em> de janvier 2017 un sommet graphique, m\u00e9rite aujourd’hui presque une bibliographie, essentiellement informatique.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n C’est avec la reproduction de la couverture de Village <\/em>que le commentateur principal de Breitbart.News<\/em>, sous le pseudonyme du grand po\u00e8te latin (Virgile, ou Virgil<\/em>), entame son tr\u00e8s long article, que nous reproduisons ci-dessous, qui constitue effectivement cette bibliographie, ou nomenclature, des diff\u00e9rentes suggestions d’assassinats plac\u00e9s dans le contexte g\u00e9n\u00e9ral de la formidable extension, essentiellement du fait de la communication, du climat de violence aux USA<\/strong>. L’article de Village<\/em> est tr\u00e8s d\u00e9taill\u00e9, car il repr\u00e9sente sans doute le texte le plus achev\u00e9 de cette veine, avec tout juste une ultime r\u00e9serve en conclusion, figure classique de la rh\u00e9torique sous cette forme que nous rappelle Virgil <\/em>de paralepsis<\/a><\/em> (ou paralipse : « figure de rh\u00e9torique qui insiste sur un objet en feignant de l’ignorer<\/em> ») ; c’est ainsi qu’on trouve au terme d’une longue explication sur la n\u00e9cessit\u00e9 d’assassiner Trump, dans une pirouette caract\u00e9ristique de l’esprit postmoderniste, le constat qu’apr\u00e8s tout il n’est pas vraiment n\u00e9cessaire de le flinguer, qu’il y a d’autres moyens (« Shooting Trump is unnecessary and disproportionate <\/em>»)… Pr\u00e9caution, certes, si jamais la chose \u00e9tait accomplie et que le coupable se plaignait d’y avoir \u00e9t\u00e9 incit\u00e9 par la lecture de l’article… Bref, c’est tout juste si nous n’en sommes pas aux arguments, sinon aux plaidoiries de la fin du proc\u00e8s de l’homme-qui-flingua-TheDonald<\/em><\/strong> (pardon dans cet univers où les sexes doivent \u00eatre trait\u00e9s \u00e0 parts \u00e9gales : \u00ab\u00a0de la-femme-qui-flingua-TheDonald<\/em>\u00ab\u00a0<\/strong>).<\/p>\n<\/p>\n Il y a d\u00e9j\u00e0 eu dans l’histoire bien des assassinats d’hommes politiques et de dirigeants, et, dans l’histoire r\u00e9cente, pr\u00e9cis\u00e9ment des USA, des attentats contre le pr\u00e9sident, r\u00e9ussis ou pas (Lincoln, McKinley, Roosevelt, Kennedy, Reagan). Aucun, jamais et dans aucun cas, n’a \u00e9t\u00e9 pr\u00e9c\u00e9d\u00e9 d’une v\u00e9ritable campagne de cette sorte, une telle surench\u00e8re de suggestions, d’impr\u00e9cations, de mal\u00e9dictions plaidant \u00e0 ciel ouvert et sans la moindre pr\u00e9caution, ni de plume ni de parole, pour l’assassinat d’un pr\u00e9sident. Dans les douze premiers jours suivant l’\u00e9lection, il y a eu autour de 12.000 tweets r\u00e9pertori\u00e9s recommandant ou r\u00e9clamant l’assassinat, infiniment au-del\u00e0 de la capacit\u00e9 d’enqu\u00eate du Secret Service, charg\u00e9 de la s\u00e9curit\u00e9 du pr\u00e9sident et qui doit en principe enqu\u00eater sur chaque menace d’assassinat.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n Ce d\u00e9luge extraordinaire, qui ne cesse pas et devient presque structurel, s’accompagne d’autres suggestions et menaces de violence, notamment contre Stephen Bannon, conseiller strat\u00e9gique du pr\u00e9sident et suppose \u00e9minence-grise du m\u00eame, et contre Breitbart.News<\/em><\/strong> dont Bannon fut le pr\u00e9sident et où Virgil<\/em> publie son texte. Le m\u00eame Virgil<\/em> nous avertit : « Ainsi Breitbart est juste une de leurs nombreuses cibles. Et, bien entendu, si la gauche peut nous attaquer, Soros & Cie ne s’arr\u00eateront pas l\u00e0. Vous serez les suivants sur la liste<\/em>. »<\/p>\n<\/p>\n On comprend alors que la suggestion publique et massive de l’assassinat de Trump constitue le symbole terrible d’un climat de violence qui doit enflammer les États-Unis dans leur totalit\u00e9, et qui est justifi\u00e9 par certains par le devoir civique du Sic Semper Tyrannis<\/em>, fond\u00e9 sur les arguments de Cic\u00e9ron, de Saint-Thomas et de Luther sur le devoir se d\u00e9barrasser des tyrans<\/strong>. Ce climat de violence, comme on le comprend, est d’abord un colossal \u00ab\u00a0bruit de fond\u00a0\u00bb de communication qui n’a pas de pr\u00e9c\u00e9dent de ce point de vue-l\u00e0 de la communication, dans aucune circonstance, ne serait-ce que par la puissance des moyens de diffusion de la communication. Ce point est \u00e9videmment essentiel pour nous dans la mesure où il y a une extension et une pression consid\u00e9rable, avec des effets multiplicateurs, qui s’exerce sans cesse sur la psychologie<\/strong>. Ce point est essentiel car l’\u00e9volution de la psychologie joue un r\u00f4le majeur en influen\u00e7ant, ou en renfor\u00e7ant et en confirmant comme c’est plut\u00f4t le cas les grands courants \u00e9v\u00e9nementiels.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n M\u00eame les plus impressionnantes sottises n’y font rien et au contraire aggravent la perception de la gravit\u00e9 des choses… \u00ab\u00a0Impressionnante sottise\u00a0\u00bb, comme celle de la Repr\u00e9sentante (d\u00e9put\u00e9e) Maxine Walters, qui veut que le pr\u00e9sident Trump soit imm\u00e9diatement destitu\u00e9e<\/a> parce qu’il veut s’allier avec Poutine qui a envahi la Cor\u00e9e et qui ne veut pas retirer ses forces de cette m\u00eame Cor\u00e9e (nous r\u00e9p\u00e9tons et insistons de crainte qu’on nous accuse une fois de plus du d\u00e9lit de coquille, – puisque Walters l’a dit et que, membre d’une minorit\u00e9, elle ne peut \u00e9videmment pas se tromper car celui qui le dirait serait \u00e9videmment suspect\u00e9 de \u00ab\u00a0racisme\u00a0\u00bb). L’\u00e9l\u00e9gante Nancy Pelosi, qui dirige la minorit\u00e9 d\u00e9mocrate \u00e0 la Chambre, a dû expliquer longuement<\/a> \u00e0 Walters qu’il \u00e9tait un peu t\u00f4t pour r\u00e9clamer la destitution, et que l’argument g\u00e9ographique sous-tendant l’exigence de la destitution de sa coll\u00e8gue pouvait pr\u00eater \u00e0 confusion.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n Cela ne semble pas s\u00e9rieux et cela ne l’est pas en v\u00e9rit\u00e9, et pourtant ce l’est sans le moindre doute dans ses effets<\/strong>. (La demande de destitution \u00e9manant de la Repr\u00e9sentante Walters est g\u00e9n\u00e9ralement compl\u00e8tement prise en compte comme tr\u00e8s s\u00e9rieuse sans s’arr\u00eater une seconde \u00e0 l’argument, par les m\u00e9dias de la presse-Syst\u00e8me adversaires de Trump, – c’est-\u00e0-dire tous les m\u00e9dias, – lorsqu’ils rappellent qu’il y a un puissant courant favorable \u00e0 la destitution de Trump au sein du Congr\u00e8s.) Encore une fois, nous observons que les effets des \u00e9v\u00e9nements, les effets de la violence au niveau du climat pr\u00e9c\u00e9dant les \u00e9v\u00e9nements de la violence r\u00e9elle dans toute leur v\u00e9ritable ampleur sans qu’il soit absolument n\u00e9cessaire qu’ils aient lieu, ces effets sont absolument consid\u00e9rables et ont la force et le poids de la chose r\u00e9alis\u00e9e<\/strong>…<\/p>\n<\/p>\n Les gauchistes qui disent qu’ils veulent rendre les États-Unis ingouvernables<\/a> en y installant une \u00ab\u00a0climat de violence\u00a0\u00bb n’ont pas tant besoin d’exercer des violences excessives pour y parvenir. La communication cr\u00e9e les effets de ce climat de violence, lequel n’est pas moins qu’une sorte de repr\u00e9sentation symbolique et bruyante de la violence \u00e9ventuellement \u00e0 venir, \u00e0 commencer par l’assassinat du pr\u00e9sident. Cette cr\u00e9ation tend \u00e0 rendre effectivement les États-Unis ingouvernables <\/strong>par fracturation et dislocation du pouvoir par affrontement des pouvoirs (comme dans le cas de la d\u00e9cision de restriction de l’entr\u00e9e aux USA, bloqu\u00e9e par le pouvoir juridique et devenue une querelle majeure) ; comme si effectivement la violence avait d\u00e9j\u00e0 lieu, et sans m\u00eame que l’on sache 1) si les gauchistes s’en aper\u00e7oivent, et 2) si c’est bien l’ingouvernabilit\u00e9 qu’ils attendent et esp\u00e8rent <\/strong>puisqu’ils ne sauraient en profiter s’ils ne r\u00e9alisent pas le fait. (On n’ose \u00e9videmment imaginer ce qu’il en serait si, effectivement, Trump \u00e9tait assassin\u00e9 demain ou dans un mois. Cette perspective, dans le climat actuel, est strictement impossible \u00e0 concevoir, dans quelque sens que ce soit.)<\/p>\n<\/p>\n Voici donc le texte du sage Virgil<\/em>, sur BretbartNews<\/em>, le 7 f\u00e9vrier 2017. Le titre original est Virgil: « The Left Whips Up a Climate of Violence — the Prime Target Is Donald Trump <\/em>»<\/p>\n<\/p>\n _____________________<\/p>\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n Is there a media-driven \u00ab\u00a0climate of violence\u00a0\u00bb? You bet there is, and it’s being whipped up by the left and the Main Stream Media, here and around the world. And it has a clear purpose: The ultimate goal is the destruction of the Trump presidency—and, for at least some, seemingly, the goal is the assassination of President Trump himself. <\/p>\n<\/p>\n But don’t take Virgil’s word for it: Have a look at the cover<\/a> of Village<\/em> magazine. That cover shows a rifle’s crosshairs superimposed on a photograph of Trump’s head. And the headline reads, \u00ab\u00a0Why not.\u00a0\u00bb <\/p>\n<\/p>\n The once-obscure magazine, published in Ireland, is now basking in worldwide attention, and American social media are happy to magnify Village<\/em>‘s glorification of a criminal act. Here’s that deadly image, for example, on Twitter<\/a>. As an aside, we might ask: Doesn’t Twitter have rules against \u00ab\u00a0hate speech\u00a0\u00bb and \u00ab\u00a0incitement of violence\u00a0\u00bb? Or are they not enforced when the target is on the right?<\/p>\n<\/p>\n The Village<\/em> article itself plays a clever editorial game. It begins by describing Trump as \u00ab\u00a0a purveyor of hatred\u00a0\u00bb and then lists all his other purported sins, including the mistreatment of refugees, an overall wrong-headed foreign policy, retrograde ideas on \u00ab\u00a0climate change,\u00a0\u00bb and opposition to abortion. <\/p>\n<\/p>\n After that litany, the magazine considers the options: \u00ab\u00a0So perhaps the solution is tyrannicide. As he might say himself—’take him out.'\u00a0\u00bb <\/p>\n<\/p>\n Next, under the heading, \u00ab\u00a0Kill Him?\u00a0\u00bb the magazine proceeds to cite philosophers and theologians who have declared tyrannicide to be justifiable, from Cicero to Thomas Aquinas to Martin Luther. And then, to rub the point in even harder, the magazine admiringly recalls the German Klaus von Stauffenberg, who nearly succeeded in killing Hitler in 1944. The message is obvious: Trump is another Hitler, and so you, the reader, must decide for yourself what to do next. <\/p>\n<\/p>\n Yet then, having raised all these issues in the most load-the-deck manner possible, the magazine pulls back, sort of, at the last moment. It writes, \u00ab\u00a0Shooting Trump is unnecessary and disproportionate.\u00a0\u00bb <\/p>\n<\/p>\n Of course, we all know what’s going on here. Indeed, Virgil recognizes the technique employed by Village <\/em>as a variant on the ancient rhetorical device known as paralepsis<\/a>–that is, raising an idea while pretending not to raise it. Having argued, vehemently and at length, that Trump is a civilization-level menace, the magazine then adds a few weasel-words about not<\/em> harming him. So Village<\/em> hopes that it has itself covered: If any bad fate befalls Trump, its writers will say, as they barely conceal their smirks, \u00ab\u00a0Gee, we didn’t want that<\/em> to happen!\u00a0\u00bb <\/p>\n<\/p>\n Indeed, even before the Village<\/em> article, the idea of killing the 45th president was out there—bigtime. Various celebrities<\/a> and rappers<\/a> have wished death, if not murder, on Trump. <\/p>\n<\/p>\n And Twitter seems to be a favored venue: The online publication Mashable reports in just the first 12 days of the Trump presidency, more than 12,000 tweets have called for the President’s assassination<\/a>. As the story notes, this volume of threats is far beyond the capacity of the US Secret Service to investigate.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n Meanwhile, the incendiary attacks keep coming. Under the header, \u00ab\u00a0Beau Willimon Declares War On Donald Trump<\/a>,\u00a0\u00bb Deadline: Hollywood details the strenuous efforts of the House of Cards<\/em> creator to bring the President down. The article details Willimon’s voluminous tweets<\/a>, including his own mock-version of the Declaration of Independence, which begins with the words:<\/p>\n<\/p>\n \u00ab\u00a0When in the course of American history it becomes necessary for the people to save our Nation from a Tyrant,\u00a0\u00bb<\/p>\n<\/p>\n We can pause over that word, \u00ab\u00a0tyrant.\u00a0\u00bb At the end of his 25-tweet rant, Willimon writes that his preferred method for getting rid of Trump is impeachment. However, a casual reader might not read all the way to the end. Or a reader with his or her own imagination might be provoked into think that stronger measures are needed; that is, by any means necessary. And Trump is, after all, a \u00ab\u00a0tyrant,\u00a0\u00bb right? Some undoubtedly will think of the Latin words spoken by John Wilkes Booth moments after he shot President Lincoln in 1865: Sic semper tyrannis<\/em>! (Thus always to tyrants!) <\/p>\n<\/p>\n Of course, Twitter, could delete all these inflammatory tweets with the flick of an algorithm, and yet it doesn’t seem interested in doing anything at all. One might even speculate that Twitter management agrees with them. <\/p>\n<\/p>\n Meanwhile, as we all remember, Twitter has always been in a quick hurry to enforce left-wing PC orthodoxy on right-wingers; it has permanently suspended the Twitter account of Milo Yiannopoulos<\/a>, as well as others, for supposed non-criminal incitement. And yet now, confronted with literal<\/em> criminal incitement, Twitter does nothing. It doesn’t take a student of classical rhetoric to recognize hypocrisy<\/em>. <\/p>\n<\/p>\n Perhaps one day, Twitter, and other social media, will get around to deleting these offensive, dangerous, and illegal posts. Of course, perhaps one day, it will be too late. Perhaps then, in the view of the anti-Trump haters, it will be a case of the end justifying the means—\u00a0\u00bbmission: accomplished.\u00a0\u00bb <\/p>\n<\/p>\n So let’s look more closely at this idea of a \u00ab\u00a0climate of violence,\u00a0\u00bb which is said to foster acts of actual violence. Sometimes this inflammatory \u00ab\u00a0climate\u00a0\u00bb is real, and sometimes it is not real. We’ve learned that while the political left usually says that it opposes this sort of violence-inducing \u00ab\u00a0climatology,\u00a0\u00bb in fact, quite often, it embraces it—even adores it. <\/p>\n<\/p>\n Yes, today, the left talks a lot about \u00ab\u00a0peace,\u00a0\u00bb \u00ab\u00a0coexistence,\u00a0\u00bb and all that. And yet, as Virgil wrote in January<\/a>, when it comes to Trump, one tool of the left, the MSM, gets notably militant; it becomes hormonally eager to reach for violent imagery. <\/p>\n<\/p>\n So it’s in this context that we must evaluate extreme anti-Trump media items, such as the semi-suggestion of Rosa Brooks<\/a>, a former high official in the Obama administration, that what’s needed is a military coup d’etat<\/em> against the Trump White House. We can note that Brooks published this piece in a well-known MSM outlet, Foreign Policy<\/em>, on January 30, and it’s still there. Nobody in the MSM, at least, seems to have a problem with it. <\/p>\n<\/p>\n More recently, in the same pro-violence spirit, the German magazine Der Spiegel<\/em>, arguably the most influential publication in that country, unveiled a cover story<\/a> showing a knife-wielding Trump holding high the bloodily decapitated head of Liberty, from the Statue of Liberty. The message to readers is clear: We must stop this madman before it’s too late. <\/p>\n<\/p>\n We can note that the Spiegel <\/em>cover was admiringly echoed all over the planet; among the admirers was The Washington Post, <\/em>which, sticking up for the American media, pointed out that The New York Daily News<\/em> had presented a similar cover back in December 2015<\/a>. <\/p>\n<\/p>\n Meanwhile, as John Nolte<\/a> has chronicled, CNN has been a serial offender: For more than a year now, it has hurled, against Trump, just about every loaded epithet imaginable. <\/p>\n<\/p>\n And it’s not just Trump. It’s also his staff that’s in the crosshairs. For instance, on February 5, USA Today<\/em> published an editorial entitled, \u00ab\u00a0What Bannon shares with ISIL leader<\/a>.\u00a0\u00bb Yes, you read that right: A newspaper that claims a readership in the many millions just equated White House adviser Stephen K. Bannon and the Islamic State leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi. As the piece asserted brazenly, the two \u00ab\u00a0share similar world views.\u00a0\u00bb <\/p>\n<\/p>\n We might pause to note that this was an editorial, as opposed to a random opinion piece. In other words, the words represent the collective judgment of the USA Today<\/em> editorial board, whose names can be found here<\/a>. Yes, this is what they really think. The sheer nuttiness of the editorial aside, we can observe that the piece is seemingly an open invitation to take, uh, strong action against Bannon. <\/p>\n<\/p>\n So, yes, the left hates the \u00ab\u00a0climate of violence\u00a0\u00bb— except when it loves it.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n And there’s a long history: Perhaps the most cynical use of the \u00ab\u00a0climate\u00a0\u00bb trope has been the way that the left has twisted the cultural and historical memory of the assassination of President John F. Kennedy in 1963. <\/p>\n<\/p>\n That tragic incident, of course, occurred in Dallas; then, and now, North Texas has been a conservative area. And so for more than half-a-century, it’s been an MSM cliche—boosted by prominent historians, such as Arthur Schlesinger, Jr.—that a local \u00ab\u00a0climate of hate<\/a>\u00a0\u00bb was somehow responsible for JFK’s death. Even today, after it’s been established beyond doubt that the assassin, Lee Harvey Oswald, was a pro-Castro communist, the \u00ab\u00a0climate of hate\u00a0\u00bb meme still persists in the MSM<\/a>. In other words, it’s the fault of Dallas, and the right, that Kennedy was murdered. <\/p>\n<\/p>\n Similarly, after the 2011 shooting of Rep. Gabrielle Giffords<\/a>, the left\/MSM immediately heaped the blame on \u00ab\u00a0right-wing media.\u00a0\u00bb And this drumbeat has continued, even after it was learned that the shooter, Jared Lee Loughner, was sexually obsessed with Giffords and was listening to nothing but the voices in his head. <\/p>\n<\/p>\n More recently still, in 2016, we were reminded that the left never objects to a climate of violence—if it’s for a \u00ab\u00a0good cause.\u00a0\u00bb Thanks to the efforts of James O’Keefe and others<\/a>, it’s easy to find abundant, we-have-it-on-tape evidence that the Clinton campaign, or at least its close allies, deliberately sent provocateurs to Trump rallies to cause trouble—trouble which then could then be blamed on Trump. In the summarizing words of Breitbart’s Joel Pollak<\/a>:<\/p>\n<\/p>\n \u00ab\u00a0Clinton’s defenders might claim she did not know anything about the tactics being used, but that defense does not suffice. The consultants who carried out the tactic, centered around Robert Creamer and his Democracy Partners organization, told O’Keefe’s undercover investigators that they had set up a \u00ab\u00a0double-blind\u00a0\u00bb system so that Clinton would not have to know directly about any particular action being taken on her behalf, but Creamer appeared to admit on video that Clinton had general knowledge about their activities.\u00a0\u00bb<\/p>\n<\/p>\n Needless to say, state and local authorities have been completely uninterested in pursuing any of these seemingly open-and-shut cases of conspiracy and incitement. <\/p>\n<\/p>\n And the beat goes on. In DC on January 21, the pop-singer Madonna, speaking to a large crowd of angry feminist protesters, mused about \u00ab\u00a0blowing up the White House.\u00a0\u00bb And she has continued to defend her remarks<\/a>, which could reasonably be construed as incitement to violence, even murder. (One can only imagine what would have happened if a conservative had said that.) And yet of course, Madonna will face no economic or legal consequences; indeed, Hollywood will probably find a way to give her some new award or endorsement gig. <\/p>\n<\/p>\n In the meantime, out west, Milo Yiannopoulos has also been the object of a \u00ab\u00a0climate of violence.\u00a0\u00bb And yet for their part, pressies have oscillated between yawning and cheering. A man was shot and critically wounded in Seattle<\/a>, and still, the MSM didn’t much care, because, after all, the man seems to have been a Milo supporter. <\/p>\n<\/p>\n And just a few days ago, at the University of California’s Berkeley campus, rioters shut down a Milo appearance. As Milo said afterward<\/a>, the rioting \u00ab\u00a0tells you something very, very clear about the left’s commitment to free expression.\u00a0\u00bb It’s worth recalling that back in 1964, Berkeley was the hub of what was grandiosely dubbed, by students, as the \u00ab\u00a0Free Speech Movement.\u00a0\u00bb Now, 53 years later, the self-proclaimed guardians of the First Amendment have had no interest in upholding Milo’s constitutional right to free speech. <\/p>\n<\/p>\n In fact, some on the left have gone the complete opposite way: toward fact-free ideological conspiracy-mongering. One such is UC Berkeley’s Robert Reich, the former Clinton cabinet secretary; Reich went on TV<\/a> to accuse the right—<\/em>and specifically, <\/em>Breitbart—<\/em>of causing the violence, as a provocation against the left. In other words, the whole fracas was Milo’s fault. Talk about blaming the victim! <\/p>\n<\/p>\n Reich’s brand of fantastic projection was too much for Rush Limbaugh<\/a>, who asked of his radio-show audience: <\/p>\n<\/p>\n \u00ab\u00a0Do you know any right-wingers capable of this kind of behavior? I mean, go to Ferguson, go to Baltimore, go to San Bernardino, go to Watts. Take any protest, any violence. Go to Oakland any time you want. Any time there is violent protests, it’s always left-wingers bought and paid for by the Hillary campaign, the Democrat Party, or George Soros, and never once have the Democrats ever condemned them, ’cause they’re proud of them.\u00a0\u00bb<\/p>\n<\/p>\n Yes, that is correct: Cutting-edge Democrats have never condemned the violent hooligans doing their dirty work, for one simple reason—they’re proud of them. <\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n And even now, Reich continues to unapologetically—make that, eagerly—spew his crackpot conspiratorializing<\/a>. Obviously Reich is a devotee of the Big Lie: that is, a falsehood, repeated often enough, equals truth. So never mind the fact that we have since learned that it was the anti-Milo protesters who were on someone’s payroll—George Soros’ payroll<\/a>. (We might also observe, not that any of the local authorities seem to have noticed, that the fomenting—and financing—of violence is a crime.)<\/p>\n<\/p>\n\n
dedefensa.org<\/em><\/h4>\n<\/p>\n
The Prime Target Is Donald Trump<\/h2>\n<\/p>\n
1. Target: Trump<\/h3>\n<\/p>\n
2. The \u00ab\u00a0Climate of Violence\u00a0\u00bb—The Left Loves It So Much<\/h3>\n<\/p>\n