Fight Against the Multi-Front War to Diminish, Defund, or Abolish Police

Fight Against the Multi-Front War to Diminish, Defund, or Abolish Police

Antifa attacking a Portland Police station
Antifa attacking a Portland Police station
Antifa attacking a Portland Police station

By Steve Pomper 

In my most recent NPA article, I wrote, “The radicals are fighting a multi-front war with traditional America….” Three recent examples of this war strategy stood out. The first two involve the legislative and the judicial branch of local government, and the last is a chilling example of what used to be considered beyond the rules of political decorum.

Violent radicals continue to terrorize residents of cities such as, Portland, New York, Minneapolis, and Seattle, with the tacit and overt assistance of their news media and politician allies. They are using, among other tactics, these government institutions and violence and intimidation to threaten, endanger, and assault law enforcement officers, including police chiefs.

You’ll remember recently when rioters assaulted the NYPD Chief of Department, Terence Monahan, the department’s highest ranking uniformed officer. This happened even after the chief had knelt with demonstrators, ostensibly to deescalate, after they said, “kneel with us.” When will these folks realize, there is nothing they can do to placate Marxist revolutionaries?

In July, New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio signed legislation that further hobbles NYPD officers’ ability to arrest people, who are resisting, without injuring them. According to the Epoch Times, the legislation outlaws certain defensive tactics techniques officers have been using for years.

“The new city law criminalizes several safe, nonviolent martial arts techniques used by police around the country and the world to subdue resisting subjects, according to experts.” Critics believe the new law is too broad.

Many of these experts also say it leaves officers with fewer force alternatives, primarily a baton, pepper spray, taser, and firearm. Rener Gracie, a member of the famous Gracie Brazilian Jiu Jitsu family, has been teaching defensive tactics to NYPD officers for decades. According to Gracie, “Such positions are virtually unavoidable if the police are to arrest a resisting subject without using a baton, taser, or a gun….” So much for the legislative, so let’s move onto the judicial.

Now, on the west coast, leftist demonstrators have invented an audacious scheme. They’re arguing that the fact they have to purchase protective clothing to armor themselves against “violent police actions.”

KIRO 7 News reported, “A lawsuit filed Monday against the city of Seattle argues protesters’ constitutional rights have been violated by the police department’s ‘indiscriminate’ use of chemical and less-lethal crowd control tactics, which have forced demonstrators to buy ‘expensive’ protective gear in order to safely bring their message against police brutality to the streets.”

So, let me get this straight. Rioters are suing the police who have to use force against the rioters because the rioters become violent. Then the rioters say they have to buy protective clothing, which the rioters would not need, if the protests were peaceful. Do I have that right?

That even the leftwing news media report on actual “peaceful” protests that go on with no or minimal police interaction, disproves the lawsuit’s allegations the police use force on peaceful protesters.

The “protesters’” attorneys wrote that the SPD has used “unbridled force,” and that is forcing them to purchase “cost prohibitive” protective gear which amounts to “a de facto protest tax” (wait… if the stuff is cost prohibitive, then how are they buying the stuff?). They went on.

“Individual protesters subjected to SPD’s unabated and indiscriminate violence now must purchase cost-prohibitive gear to withstand munitions—even when peacefully protesting—as a condition to exercising their right to free speech and peaceable assembly.” I dare them to show video of police deploying “munitions” against people “peacefully protesting.” That does not happen.

Not a single protester has been harmed at a peaceful demonstration. Do they even know what a “peaceable assembly” looks like? Not if you watch the recent riots in Seattle, New York, and the never-ending riots in Portland. But, then again, conflating peaceful protests with violent riots is the heart and soul of their public relations campaign. U.S. Rep. Jerry Nadler D-NY), and other Democrats, call Antifa a myth.

The third tactic is to have mobs descend on government leaders’ homes, as another facet of the radicals’ multi-front war strategy. Many Seattle leaders, including the mayor and city council members, have had intimidating crowds of “mostly peaceful” protesters show up at their private residences. You can tell by the violent graffiti scrawled on their houses. In fact, it appears showing up at her private home is what finally got Mayor Durkan to sack the CHOP.

However, it’s getting even scarier. Reportedly, a few nights ago, a group of about 200 protesters attempted to descend on Seattle Police Chief Carmen Best’s home, in a neighboring county, in a rural area well north of Seattle. But, unlike in Seattle, Chief Best’s neighbors, some having armed themselves, met the radicals and prevented them from getting to the police chief’s house. Snohomish County Sheriff Adam Fortney promised extra patrols in the area of the chief’s home.

According to the Washington Times, Chief Best sent a letter to the Seattle City Council. She wrote, “A residence of mine in Snohomish County was targeted by a large group of aggressive protestors late last night,” Chief Best wrote in a letter to the city council made public Monday. ‘My neighbors were concerned by such a large group, but they were successful in ensuring the crowd was not able to trespass or engage in other illegal behavior in the area, despite repeated attempts to do so.’”

Chief Best implored the city council to condemn the protesters from demonstrating outside city leader’s private homes. KIRO 7 News reported the city council members refused to denounce the radical’s actions. How can you have civil society when even elected officials are behaving so uncivilly and refuse to condemn the radicals’ violent actions? I suppose you can’t, and now Seattle voters are reaping what they have sown.

Society cannot underestimate what these radicals are capable of doing. Whether its legislation in the nation’s largest city, a judicial ruling in a west coast city, or a radical mob showing up at a police chief’s home, this Marxist/anarchist movement has demonstrated there is no limit to what they are prepared to do to tear down this great nation.


Leave a Reply