Ballots vs. Bullets

Watch and listen as Joyce Kaufman, who will serve as the chief of staff to newly elected Republican Congressman Allen West of Florida, describes in July 2010 how she’d resort to armed violence if Republicans didn’t get the outcome they wanted in the 2010 midterm elections:

In addition to espousing violence as a means of dealing with electoral frustration Kaufman, a conservative talk radio host, has also advocated a rather unique solution to illegal immigration, saying on her radio show back in 2007:

“If you commit a crime while you’re here, we should hang you and send your body back to where you came from, and your family should pay for it,”

And these are the folks our “leaders” in Washington are going to have helping them make critical decisions over the next two years…



Related Articles

25 thoughts on “Ballots vs. Bullets

  1. Barack Obama said what he would do to counter Republican attacks “If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun,” Obama said on June 13 2008 in Philadelphia.

    1. “Because from what I understand, folks in Philly like a good brawl. I’ve seen Eagles fans.” – the rest of what he said. It sounded like what he was in good humor, this actually kind of serious. Still kind of tasteless, but from what I know from Philadelphia when I was there, they are known to be pretty rowdy people and that’s how they joke. Similar to how they tossed stuff at Santa and booed at him the Eagles game. They’re amazingly terrible fans. Plus there’s a history of ignoring the community of minorities there and much suppression, cruelty, and other things. I’m not justifying what they do, I’m just explaining why they might be amused at it. They have a dark sense of humor because they as a city deal with rather terrible things.

      But … if “ballots don’t work bullets will”? I mean, I’m all for gun rights but that makes me cringe. I hope that was seriously taken out way out of context. I’m all for the 2nd amendment, a dictator’s dream is to take away our guns and coming across a group of unarmed citizens. But it sounds like she’s suggesting to get a gun, and threaten the people who do not vote the same way as you. No matter what side does that, that is wrong.

      I don’t want someone suggesting we should kill or shoot someone who votes differently than us. Honestly? I’m kind of … waiting until someone actually goes too far, because it’s only a matter of time for either side. These people don’t know what they’re pushing out, by getting more extreme each time. There are some people who are genuinely unstable and they might see the chance to do something extreme finally to make a statement. Someday, someone is going to actually go on a group of kids and might kill them on the justification that they were all sinful and Unamerican – and personally I don’t want to think of the worst to happen but that is a reasonable possibility in this political climate.

  2. i don’t understand why she lost her job, she was 100% on the mark about the Witch from the West and if she had not said anything about the threat and something happened then people wopuld have been all pissed off about that.

    1. i don’t understand why she lost her job, she was 100% on the mark about the Witch from the West and if she had not said anything about the threat and something happened then people would have been all pissed off about that.

      You just answered yourself why she lost her job. Even Rush Limbaugh or Glenn Beck can’t get away with that.

  3. Espousing vs. actual intimidation/threat of violence:

    Two New Black Panther Party members brandished a nightstick at a Philadelphia polling place in 2008.

    1. You know, this would be an awesome example of hatred, intimidation, and so on if it wasn’t the same one example every single time.

      I always funny how people that have an advantage of being precieved as the normal can justify their own actions of racism, writing KKK, punching people in the face for sexual orientation and raping a person to fix them by saying ‘we’re not all like that’ yet when it comes to a minority some idiots doing one thing stupid nullifies their whole cause.

      1. Maybe we wouldn’t have to keep using that example if the Obama administration actually took it seriously and prosecuted them.

        1. And we’re prosecuting the Tea Partiers for what they’re doing … ?

          As far as I’m concerned? They’re not prosecuting either side. By that logic, we should prosecute a lot of the upper people in the Tea Party who are intimidating people to vote all the time in the very same way as the Black Panthers.

          I believe they should all be prosecuted because they are and were harassing people at the polls.

            1. I got a ton of documentation, but you’re simply going to say it’s “The Liberal Media” either way. So what’s the point?

    2. the “black panther” paty just does what the “tea party” does EXCEPT, they actually advocate for their own interest and they are more peaceful. The problem is people cant handle minorities congregating.

  4. Ok PLEASE tell me where the tea party was violent.

    The Anti-Defamation League says “the New Black Panthers are the largest organized anti-Semitic and racist black group in America.”

    What King Samir doesn’t hesitate to do is express his views on the white race.

    “I hate the white man,” he said.

    He does not exclude the use of violence in its quest for change.

    “You can’t talk about freedom without talking about bloodshed,” he said.

    Is the New Black Panther Party planning to wage war against white America? “That’s up to God. Whenever God decides to destroy this wicked white man, it will then take place,” said King Samir.

    The New Black Panthers made it further clear how they feel about whites with a sign posted at the front door that reads “Colored Only No Whites Allowed.” The members would also only allow blacks to interview and video them for this story.

    1. And why did it turn violent well ……

      One of the Tea Partiers can be seen having an argument with one of the ANSWER counter-protesters when that counter-protester pummels him with his sign.

      So it looks like it was not the TEA PArty responsible for the violence.

      1. Which goes towards the bottom:

        ANSWER alleges that the video tape is incomplete and that one of the Tea Partiers shown in the video came to the police-designated ANSWER area and attacked an ANSWER protester a few minutes before the tape begins. ANSWER also alleges that one of the Tea Partiers was swinging his tripod “in a threatening manner,” which ANSWER alleges is also left out of the video.

        They had no cameras there on their side. No real reason to for that matter. It was likely in self defense if that is the case.

  5. Also interestingly enough – there are many articles out there pointing out the ridiculous rise in memberships in white supremacist and militia groups in the US right after Obama was elected.

    Right-Wing Militias Haven’t Always Been Racist — But That May Be Changing and Officials See Rise In Militia Groups Across US.

    Well I suppose that’s to be expected. Nothing to do with the Tea Party, nope! It’s just a coincidence that the members of the Tea Party and these groups are shared.

Comments are closed.