A follow-up to JD’s post from this morning.
The screenshot actually says it all.
Let me translate this for you.
Ha! Steven Crowder says he was assaulted! That’s a laugh! Especially when he is provoking “peaceful union people” by talking to them!
Video emerges of assault.
. . . .
Talk about adding insult to injury.
[Guest post by JD]
Michigan Dems threaten violence on the floor of the House, and via Twitter, over Right To Work legislation.
There were also reports that the Kock Brothers Americans For Prosperity tent was torn down, while people were in the tent.
Their calls for civility continue to ring hollow.
UPDATE – Mr Crowder being assaulted by union thug.
Obama Monday, this is rich in irony … “We’ve got to get past this whole situation where we manufacture crises because of politics … [that] leads to less certainty, more conflict, and we can’t all focus on coming together to grow,” Obama claimed.
Maybe he should stick with get in your neighbor’s face, punch back twice as hard.
Jimmy Hoffa Jr claims there will be civil war in Michigan as a result of RTW.
As you may know, my lawyers in the Nadia Naffe litigation are Kenneth P. White of Popehat, and Ron Coleman from Likelihood of Confusion. Ken from Popehat reports on encouraging progress in the litigation:
Today I write to offer pleadings for anyone interested in the case, and a pleasing update regarding its status. As long as litigation continues, I’ll refrain for both prudential and stylistic reasons from arguing our case here, other than to say we continue to believe the case is an abusive and meritless attempt to retaliate against protected speech.
. . . .
In brief, Judge Wu agreed with us that the Complaint failed to state a claim under 42 U.S.C. section 1983 because the facts alleged do not show that Mr. Frey was acting “under color of state law,” as is required under that statute. After argument, he gave Ms. Naffe what he described as “just one chance” to amend — that is, he gave her a chance to file an amended complaint to see if she could plead facts sufficient to satisfy the requirements of Section 1983. Generally judges err in favor of giving a chance to amend.
Ken notes that, in response to our motions, Naffe dismissed all claims against my wife. He also cautions that the judge’s order
treats allegations of fact in the Complaint as true for purposes of the motion to dismiss, as is appropriate; that’s not a finding that the allegations are true. Many are not.
There are more details and links to all the pleadings at the link. If you read just one pleading, it should probably be this one (.pdf). On Ken’s and Ron’s advice, comments are closed, but I will note that I am very grateful to Ken White and Ron Coleman for their pro bono work on this case.