Progressives openly signaling the arrival of political violence as a tactic to obtain power

Thomas Lifson   "The message is being sent out loud and clear: the American left is moving toward violence as a tactic in its quest to grab the political power to which it believes it is entitled.  John Daniel Davidson is absolutely correct in his observation that the "The American Left is talking itself into Violence."  He cites a lot of examples.  Here is a sample:

Jennifer Carnahan, the new chairwoman of the Minnesota Republican Party, received a torrent of racist hate mail and at least one threat of physical violence that forced her from her home for a weekend. Carnahan, who is Korean-American, was targeted after publically apologizing and calling for the resignation of those responsible for an offensive image posted to the 7th Congressional District Republicans Facebook page.

It didn't matter that Carnahan didn't post the image, or that she did everything right. The folks sending the hate mail called her racist, and threw a few racial epithets directly at her for good measure.

Last month, left-wing activists in Oregon caused the cancellation of the 82nd Avenue of Roses Parade by threatening to drag "fascists" off the parade route – and by fascists, they meant the Republican Party of Multanomah County. In an email, the activists warned, "we will have two hundred or more people rush into the parade into the middle and drag and push those people out as we will not give one inch to groups who espouse hatred toward lgbt, immigrants, people of color or others."

. . .  "Good trouble" is a wonderful (yet horrifying) catchphrase.  It is memorable and readily defensible.  Yet in the minds of the violent factions of the left, it can be appropriated to provide blanket permission to misbehave.  The expression "good trouble" can be picked up by anyone from nonviolent demonstrators seeking "symbolic arrests" to antifa thugs to (God forbid) potential future Weathermen-like terrorists.

"From the standpoint of Lewis, it is not an explicit call to violence, of course.  He is citing nonviolent Civil Rights-era heroes, and he is one himself.  So he is bulletproof in uttering these words.  But his words exist in the context that John Daniel Davidson chronicles."