MoveOn member attacked by Rand Paul supporters

| October 26, 2010

I don’t much like most MoveOn members, either. I’ve debated them, interviewed them and followed their ridiculous antics over the last several years. They are flaming assholes and intellectually vacant. But they don’t deserve this;

AP reported;

Lauren Valle of liberal group, told Louisville station WDRB she was trying to give Paul a fake award when his supporters took her to the ground.

Well, maybe they deserve it, but that doesn’t mean we should do it. Yeah, I said “we” because we, on the political right own actions like this. Of course, the news isn’t that while SOME Rand Paul supporters defended the woman on the ground, the news is that two or three Rand Paul supporters assaulted the MoveOn minion. Hell, I don’t even support Rand Paul (he supported Adam Kokesh during Kokesh’s primary run in New Mexico), but I guess I own this childish crap because it’s going to get waved in our faces.

I’m pretty sure the woman was doing something to get herself singled out, I know I wouldn’t know a MoveOn creep by the sight of them. But the video gets cut off to hide her recounting of the events – for a very good reason, I’m sure.

Here’s another video in which you can hear Rand Paul supporters pleading with the attackers to stop assaulting the woman which I picked up at Gateway Pundit;

And not to minimize the assault, but she wasn’t “stomped” as the Left contends. And it looks like the guy put his foot on her shoulder, not her head.

Yes, our side has been dealt some assaults, too, but that doesn’t justify this bullshit.

Welcome Atlanta Journal Constitution readers.

Category: Politics

Comments (62)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. NHSparky says:

    I guess Debra has been asleep at the switch since 2001.

  2. Debra says:

    Yah, Sparky, that’s right…

    Michael, there’s no need for you to be getting all rude and start cussing at me. I’m merely asking for you provide evidence to support your broad, sweeping statements. That’s what critical thinking requires. I looked so far at about the first half of the links you provided and I note that Michelle Malkin is not exactly an objective, unbiased source of information. That said, I’m acutely aware that there are some extreme elements of the left who consider violence to be acceptable. It has also been my observation that the larger mainstream segment of liberal activists do not. I would consider to be relatively mainstream liberal pablum, basically a tool of the Democratic Party. So within that segment, I have seen no support for the contention or insinuation that the woman who was assaulted at the Rand Paul event posed a physical threat of violence to any individual at that event, including Rand Paul.

    It has also been my personal experience that right-wing antogonists are quick to use profanity and threats against completely peaceful, non-violent activists. In words, the same thing occurs on TAH, over and over again. That’s just the reality, sad but true.

  3. UpNorth says:

    Debra, if you want examples of the left being unhinged, profane and threatening, please see any of Claymore’s forays into DU land. And, Michael’s right, you asked for examples of “the left”, not MoveOn. After you get the links, then you qualify what you sought? Talk about moving goal posts.
    And you equate MoveOn, “General Betrayus”org to be “relatively mainstream liberal pablum”? Come to think of it, yeah, they are pretty mainstream liberal.

  4. Wayne Clemmons says:

    Hey TheOldOne,

    Your right to own a Mossburg590 is covered by the 2nd amendment, not the 1st.

    What this means is you can own ’em, hunt with ’em, use them to protect your home or your person…whatever you want as long as it is in accordance with the laws of your state. But you can’t brandish one in order to “send someone a message” and think your display is covered by the 1st amendment…it’s not. You would be guilty of a crime.

    Hope that clears that one up for you. I am a true-blue Liberal, that means I believe in the rigorous enforcement of the ENTIRE Constitution as the protector of individual rights and political/numerical minorities. The 2nd Amendment should be embraced by all Liberals as an individual right that deserves staunch defense.


  5. NHSparky says:

    But you can’t brandish one in order to “send someone a message” and think your display is covered by the 1st amendment…it’s not. You would be guilty of a crime.

    Two words, clueless–“castle doctrine”.

  6. Debra says:

    I apologize that it appeared I was moving the goal post. It certainly wasn’t my intention. I simply wasn’t clear enough in the first place that I expected to see examples comparable to the large middle part within the liberal spectrum (i.e., at least not potential terrorists or even non-violent far left extremists), similar to, or the same as, the type of group we were talking about in the first place, which is Now you may not like MoveOn – and it certainly isn’t my cup of tea (heh ;-)) – but you can’t equate them with, for example, the black bloc anarchists of Portland, Oregon. Not the same thing. Now admittedly, they may all in fact be socialists, or nearly so, but there can still be a broad range even within that realm with regard to what is considered to be appropriate and acceptable activist behavior.

  7. NHSparky says:

    You can’t equate them, yet funny how they seem to show up at the same places at the same times, isn’t it?

  8. Wayne Clemmons says:

    Sparky, you’re disappointing me with your reading comprehension skills. I’ll go slow this time…see if you can follow along, m’kay?

    I said,

    “….you can own ‘em, hunt with ‘em, use them to protect your home or your person…whatever you want as long as it is in accordance with the laws of your state”.

    The “Castle Doctrine” is the law in certain states…and ensures your ability to use your gun to protect your home or your person. See ^^^^^ I covered that part up there already.

    Stay with me, now….

    I said you can’t display your gun “to send someone a message”, and think that that is a 1st amendment protected display of speech. It isn’t.

    For instance, say some big beefy Black dude has been “dating” your sweet innocent daughter very, very well, and you really don’t like that, because y’know…well….he’s Black. And big. And beefy. So you decide to go have a chat with him to voice your displeasure with the situation with your trusty Mossburg590 because y’know…well….he’s Black. And big. And beefy.

    You’d have a hard time explaining to the sherriff after the standoff with the SWAT standing around, that you really just took along the Mossburg to “send a message” to Big Beefy Black, and that message was just some “speech” that is protected under the 1st Amendment. Between munches on the doughnuts, they’re gonna laugh their asses off. Later, while you’re on your way to the county lockup, they’ll get your daughter’s number from Big Beefy.

    Still with me?…alrighty then!

  9. ROS says:



  10. NHSparky says:

    Dear Wayne,

    Lemme put this out to you in terms YOU can understand. Oh, by the way, nice “black beefy” analogy. Guess it’s not hard to see who the racist is here, or at least the race-baiter. Frankly, I wouldn’t care much WHO or what the melatonin level of the person sexually assaulting my underage daughter was, his life would be very unpleasant.

    See, even in states WITHOUT “castle doctrine” laws (such as mine, believe it or not), I’m still allowed to shoot any sonofabitch having their way with my daughter (whether she said yes or no is irrelevant given her age) in my house because justifiable homicide states that I can do so in order to prevent a sexual assault or other felonies being committed by him on my property (not just my house.)

    Now, am I allowed to follow him to his house with my shall-issue CCW permit and Smith and Wesson Model 1911 .45 pistol and threaten him? No, but if I were to see him accosting my daughter in a public place despite verbal warnings not to do so, I’m perfectly within my rights to place him under a citizen’s arrest until lawful authority (that would be “da po-po”) arrives to haul his ass off to the local jail. At that point, no sane DA would have the stones to file charges against me if he wanted reelection, nor would any grand jury return anything against me besides a “no-bill”. (That means no charges, in case you were wondering.)

    Following me so far?

    But then again, in liberal paradises such as the shithole in which you apparently infest, your police are in fact more interested in that new pumpkin-flavored donut over at Dunkin than actually enforcing the law and defending law-abiding citizens. Kinda reminds me of just one of the reasons I left the DPRK (Demokratik People’s Republik of Kalifornistan) lo these many years ago. Criminals were running the state, letting criminals run wild, and assholes like you kept perpetuating it.

    Oh, and Mossberg? Pfft. Remington 12-ga Super Express 870. 18 1/2 inch barrel, 4+1 rounds of 2 3/4″ or 3″ 00 buckshot. Very effective.


  11. Wayne Clemmons says:

    Good answer, Sparky! I like the way you think!

    I’m jus’ fuggin with ‘ya. That’s the way not to get sucked in…don’t take the bait.

    I’m a Dad too and I’d do no less myself.

  12. USMC Steve says:

    Not even close, Clemmons. The protection of the Constitution is the protection of the document and its concepts. Not the protection of the personnel seeking to use or abuse its protections. The military could even be turned against Americans and has before. Look up what happened to the veterans who marched on DC to try to get their peace bonuses promised to them by another muthafucking DEMOCRAT. MacArthur and the Army went in and busted them up, killing several. And what she did could easily be considered assault after seeing her try to lunge into the open window of Paul’s car. Harassment of anyone is a crime. Thus it is not protected behavior. Granted he is now a public figure, so it means he cannot sue when someone insults or maligns him, but her behavior was screwed, period.