Trump Is Not Responsible for Violence Against Him

by | Mar 16, 2016 | Free Speech

You don’t have to like Donald Trump, or his positions, to be uspet about what’s happening to freedom of speech and association in America.

Donald Trump was forced to cancel a rally in Chicago due to threats of violence. Apparently, even the police were afraid. Black Lives Matter, a group which openly supports violence to attain its goals of socialism, cheers the shutdown. They tweeted such comments as, “Way to go Chicago! Someone finally shutdown a Trump rally!” And: “It is time for a new movement. We must focus our attention to shut down Trump #ShutDownTrump #BlackLivesMatter.”

Ted Cruz said Friday that Donald Trump was right to cancel his Chicago rally out of public safety concerns but that the front-runner “bears responsibility for creating an environment when the candidate urges supporters to engage in physical violence to punch people in the face.” “The predictable consequence of that is it escalates,” he told reporters outside a hotel in Rolling Meadows, Ill., in suburban Chicago. “Today is unlikely to be the last such instance.”

Is Cruz right? Is Donald Trump responsible for the violence of those who oppose him? If so, it’s a shocking and chilling idea.

Black Lives Matter is an organization of intimidation. It openly advocates violence to achieve its ends. That’s not true of Donald Trump, any more than it’s true of Ted Cruz. Trump supports things like building a wall on the Mexican border, restricting immigration, lowering the corporate tax, shutting down the Department of Education, providing medical care for all, and imposing tariffs to restrict trade with China. I agree with Trump on some things, and disagree with him on many more things. But it’s dead wrong to suggest that merely by proposing controversial things, he brings this violence on himself.

Cruz suggests that Donald Trump shouldn’t have said things like, “I’d like to punch that protester in the face” at a rally where a violent person appeared. Maybe that’s true, or maybe it’s not. It’s arguably refreshing to hear someone speak so honestly and candidly. There’s so much phoniness and political correctness amok in today’s society, where we let terrorizing bullies shoot up Christmas parties and chop off the heads of non-believing infidels, without really holding them accountable, that many people are angry and frustrated. You can argue whether Trump used the best judgment in saying this. However, to imply that Trump creates violence merely for saying controversial or upsetting things is another story.

Cruz is making Hillary Clinton’s case for her. Progressives and liberals are intolerant of dissension. Remember, they call it “hate speech” when you disagree with Obamacare, or Obama using executive orders to rewrite laws without Congress. That’s what Black Lives Matter is all about: intimidation against dissenting opinion. It’s not about individual rights, and it’s not even about black lives. It’s about imposing violence and intimidation to advance a particular leftist, socialist, wealth redistribution, collectivist point-of-view.

It’s nothing new. Leftists (and many Republicans) have been doing the things Black Lives Matter supports for decades. America is trillions of dollars in debt, thanks primarily to the wealth redistribution and social spending groups like Black Lives Matter demand. When these policies don’t make things better, and in fact make things worse, they choose to complain, scream and promote violence in retaliation for the fact that reality will not submit to their emotions. Somebody should punch people like this in the nose, when they become violent, or disrupt a private meeting or assembly.

Cruz is right about many things, and he’s also right to point out that Trump has flaws. But to imply, like leftists do, that Trump brings violence on himself by taking the positions he does is a very wrong thing to do. Even if Donald Trump is a bully, he’s not responsible for the bullying tactics Black Lives Matter wage against anyone who disagrees with them – including Ted Cruz himself, should he eventually make it to the front-runner status for the Republican nomination.

I used to think that freedom of speech would die in America in the midst of an economic crisis. We’re not in an economic crisis at the moment, at least not an obvious one like 2007 and 2008. However, the economy is in decline. It’s stagnating. The middle class is shrinking and while the wealthy get the blame, we don’t have enough wealthy people to invest in and grow the economy, like we would in a truly capitalist, free market system. We’re taxing and regulating both the wealthy and the struggling into oblivion. Millions of blacks (and others) are trapped in the welfare state because we do not have the self-responsibility and self-interest fostered by economic freedom. Groups like Black Lives Matter exploit this frustration and stagnation by intimidating people into staying home and staying quiet. That’s how you set the psychological stage for censorship.

To say anybody “bears responsibility for creating an environment” where free speech or free assembly is hampered simply by holding controversial positions is, in itself, a basis for restricting free speech. Unintentionally or not, that’s what Ted Cruz has done with his remarks. As for Black Lives Matter, they are gleeful that they have frightened even the Chicago police into relenting. Their central goal is to inspire anarchy, not because they hate government, but because they want their whims and attitudes to dominate others and rule.

You don’t have to like Donald Trump, or his positions, to be uspet about what’s happening to freedom of speech and association in America. The psychological atmosphere we’re creating is one where dissenting opinion is squelched. The whole reason some people don’t want to see Donald Trump become president is they fear he will become a fascist dictator. By allowing organized thugs like Black Lives Matter to determine when and where voters may freely assemble, aren’t we already there?

Dr. Michael Hurd is a psychotherapist, columnist and author of "Bad Therapy, Good Therapy (And How to Tell the Difference)" and "Grow Up America!" Visit his website at:

The views expressed above represent those of the author and do not necessarily represent the views of the editors and publishers of Capitalism Magazine. Capitalism Magazine sometimes publishes articles we disagree with because we think the article provides information, or a contrasting point of view, that may be of value to our readers.

Related articles

The Supreme Court Just Gave Us Hope

The Supreme Court Just Gave Us Hope

The case offers direct parallels to the censorship of Covid-related information. The Biden White House repeatedly worked through third parties – including Meta, Twitter, and Google – to censor disfavored information.

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Pin It on Pinterest