DON'T BLAME PRESIDENT TRUMP. THERE'S PLENTY OF BLAME TO GO AROUND ON THE CHARLOTTESVILLE SITUATION.


THE KUHNS REPORT

LAS VEGAS - Hello America, and how is the world treating you?

This is a dark Saturday. A rally in Charlottesville. VA, turned violent. At the time of this writing , one woman is dead, run over by a car, driven by a hateful driver, from Ohio, who apparently was a participant in the  violent confrontation in  the streets of Charlottesville. There are also approximately 20 people injured, six in critical condition, and two  law enforcement officers killed. A tragic day indeed.

President, Donald Trump came out with a  strong statement condemning the violence in the city. He said such things as: (paraprhrased)- "Hate and division must stop right now." He condemned the violence in the  strongest terms. President Trump said: "We condemn in the strongest possible terms this egregious display of hatred, bigotry and violence on many sides, on many sides."

Note: Republicans snipe and criticize the president:

The president made mention that the violence which occurred in Charlottesville was caused by many sides,-- Note: (which is a true and factual statement). But following the presidents statements, a number of talking heads from CNN and the left started to dump on, and take swipes, at the president saying the presidents statements were "not" strong enough. Then, some of the presidents own Republican party, like Senators Orrin Hatch  (R-Utah) and Marco Rubio (R-Florida), decided to pile on and snipe and take swipes  at president Trump.

Senators Hatch and Rubio, were two Republicans that wanted to be president but couldn't cut it, and never made the grade . I am a great believer in speech and acknowledge that  in America everyone has a right to speak out and say what they want. So I say to all of  these people that  are criticizing the president and telling others what the president "should have said," these individuals should just say what they themselves think about the situation,without taking shots at what the president "should have, or should not have said." And then move on. It's easy to "Shoulda, Coulda, Woulda,, when you're looking for face time on the news.

The president made his statement which he though was appropriate, which was based on the facts that he had at the time. He doesn't need petty back-biting from sore losers in his own party. If these Republicans wanted to give their own statements which they think should be more presidential, they should have had the strength and stamina to win the White House through the election process .Then they could have offered their statement as POTUS.

It's frustrating to see senators in president Trumps own party take unwarranted swipes at their commander-in-chief. It's expected from the Democrats and news media like CNN,and MSNBC, but fellow Republicans? Shame on them.

It seems president Trump is up against the Democrats, the fake news media,  a deep entrenched group within the current government -"the deep state," and those in his own party, "RINOs" (Republicans In Name Only),who are constantly bombarding  president Trump with roadblocks, insults, lack of cooperation, etc.--

It's to the point where president Trump is "damned if he does, and damned he he don't." Nobody wants to give  the president a break.

Folks, it is a fact, just as president Trump made mention -- fault can be laid at "many sides." You had the protesters "Unite the Right" who filed for the permits for the rally, on one side. And then you had  the "counter-protesters" on the other side, who showed up without obtaining a permit . And it was clear to anyone watching the television  news  throughout the day that both sides were combative, violent and in riot mode. Punches, fist and kicks were being tossed around by both sides. So, as  disgusting as a "white nationalist" group may seem, it was not only that group of individuals who were committing violence. The "counter-protesters"instigated and took offensive action against the protesters. People,  this rally can be  compared to the "gangs of New York", and/or the "union  busting gangs"  back in the early part of the century,  One group carrying clubs, baseball bats, torches, tire irons, and rocks, and bottles. They would  line the street and the other side, (the other gang, or union busters) would  line up facing them. They would being shouting  at each other and scream, "let's rumble", then clash, maiming, wounding, and even killing one another.

This rally was  no different. Each side lined up, shouting at each other and wound up causing injury, mayhem, and murder.

Note: Governor Terry McAuliffee:

What perplexes me is governor Terry  McAuliffe. He said he was prepared for this confrontation . He said the city and state police  practiced for such an event. Are you kidding me? If he was prepared the city would not have allowed the situation get out of control to the point of assaults and murder. The governor also went before  the cameras and blamed only the protesters.  But he failed to fault the "counter-protesters."

McAuliffe, like me, and many other Americans in this country do not agree with the vile, hateful views of the "Unite for Right" group. But he stood there and said: "Get out of  my state." What? The governor ordering American citizens out of the sate of Virginia? Wow! My point: This showboat governor cannot order American citizens out of his state --"just because he doesn't like what they say, or doesn't like their views."  Remember the constitution governor. It's there for a reason.  You shouldn't act like one of the  radical counter-protester groups.

Governor, what you and your  fellow lawmakers should have done was allow the group to spout off, say their piece, march down the street and leave. But you should not get down in the gutter, taking sides -- that would be no better than one of the counter protesters trying to shut the other side down. If you believe in free speech, let it flow.

McAuliffe and the city lawmakers were aware that a confrontation between different factions were eminent. A week or two before the rally took place the  threat of possible violence and confrontation was voiced over and over again, both on the air and the world wide web.

I submit that the governor had more than sufficient time to "activate and deploy" the National Guard , under orders to act as a protector of both side (protesters and counter-protesters).  It's a dumb move to activate the guard and then not deploy them.  Without the deployment of the guard, it's like the guard not being activated at all.  That's an exercise in futility. I further submit that if, in fact, the guard had "deployed, it's a reasonable possibility that the fatalities may not have occurred.

Let's review: The white nationalists, "Unite the Right" filed for a permit to demonstrate. The city, county, and state knew what this organization represented.  Both the city an state had ample opportunity to "deny" the permit, but they did not. The lawmakers in the city, along with  at least one judge gave the known hate group their blessing, and invited them to protest.The same state and city officials knew for certain that "counter-protesters" would show up to the rally. What did they really expect?

If the city and state wanted to have control over the protest: First, before issuing the permit to protest, the lawmakers could have met with the leaders of the protest group, where at that time, could have clearly set up parameters as to where and how the protesters could air their grievances. The city could have set up boundaries and protocols which the protesters were expected to adhere to, with the  understanding and stipulation that if any of the boundaries, rules and regulation were violated in any way, the protest would "immediately" be  shut down, and canceled."

Second:  Prior to the start of the rally the city should have advised the  "counter-protesters," many belonging to "Black Lives Matter" and  "leftist fascist" groups which included the violent "antifa" mob who was armed and intent on violence, that violence against the protesters is forbidden. The city should have  set up  specific lines for the counter-protesters to stand behind. There could have been areas indicated where the counter-protesters would be prohibited from crossing.  They should have been told that if they crossed the line they would  "immediately" be arrested. Free speech is great. It should be exercised. And, I believe that if the National guard and the law enforcement  had been "deployed" and stationed accordingly prior to the start of the march, both the protesters and counter-protesters would have adhered to the rules.  It is very obvious that there was no substantial pre-planning for this rally.

Note: My Personal Views

Personally, I do not agree with the views of any White Power group, the KKK or Nazi organization. I do not agree with the views of  Leftist fascist groups or the Black Lives Matter group either, even though this group was invited to the White House and praised by both president Obama and Hillary Clinton. I consider myself something of an American patriot. I served my country in the Marine Corps.  I strongly believe in the flag, the American way, God and country, and the constitution.
That said,

1.  I again remind everyone that  the "Unite for Right" White Nationalist group, who matched on Saturday, obtained a legal permit to march, courtesy of the lawmakers in the city and state of Virginia.

2.  The group exercised their right to Free Speech, by obtaining all the legal permits required. And folks, you  and I, may not like the content of their speech or views they hold. But they have an absolute and constitutional right to voice them.

3. As American's we have the obligation to defend and show respect for the  constitutional right to free speech toward all of those  with whom we disagree. I submit that if we  don't do that we cannot expect those groups or individuals to respect  our constitutional right to free speech.

If the city would have taken the proper steps to make sure both the protesters and the counter-protesters were on the same page and both groups understood the rules before commencing the rally, the chance of violence would probably be small.  Once both sides understood the rules, and the rally started,  protesters and the  counter-protesters could scream, shout, yell, use profanity, shake their fists,  display their signs and flags against one another until the cows came home.  That's free speech. Then disperse and  go home.

BUT, it appears like in the cities of Ferguson, Missouri and Baltimore and the protests at Berkeley campus, where law enforcement  did not intercede at the start of violence, there were fires set, property damage done, and physical assaults were committed. Things like that shouldn't have happened but the politically correct lawmakers and city administrators advised their police to hold back, stand down. At what point does the police intervene. When the police see either a protester or a counter -protester throw a punch, a fist, or assault someone, that person should be taken into custody and arrested on the spot.  I don't care if it's one person, two people, or a group. If they begin to assault one another, they should be arrested, --  no if's, and, or buts about it. But handcuffing good law enforcement people and not allowing them to do their police duties is a slap in the face for  the hard working officers around the country. How many people (protesters and counter-protesters) have to be be  pushed, punched, and assaulted before the  police officer can step in and arrest someone?

The sad part of this tragedy is that the police,who was fully geared up with protective gear, face masks, and shields, lined up and stood by (without intervening), like a bunch of tin soldiers as the protesters and counter-protesters began to escalate  the dangerous situation. Even as the officers observed the two combative groups using  make shift weapons and physical violence against each other, they still stood by, "doing nothing." And, as a reporter stated, when the protesters began throwing tear gas at each other, the police officers retreated and left the area. When the reporter asked a few of the officers why they were leaving, their response was, "We don't want to get hurt."

Can you believe it? The police  retreating from a situation where they could have stopped the violence from the get-go. If the city political correct administrators told the police to stand down, that's unacceptable, and a sad day in the history of law enforcement. On the other hand, if the officers were not ordered to stand down but made the decision to retreat of their own volition to a safe place, that is a serious problem. I can understand why  the National Guard had to be called in on on a state of emergency stance. The locals could not or would not control the situation.

In a few instances over the last few decades I have observed the failure of police failing to act in a timely manner.  The Columbine  High School tragedy comes to mind. In that case the police was on the scene for hours but they waited outside the high school, refusing to go inside, even while at least one teacher was pleading and begging for help.  Apparently some officers told the media that  they didn't know what to expect inside the school and they didn't want to risk their lives.  It's reported that the teacher eventually bled to death. Basically, the same situation occurred during the  recent Berkeley campus riots. Protester's were throwing metal barricades and chairs through glass windows, and setting fires, but the police stood down. They just stood by watching the scene unfold. When some of them were asked why they did not intervene to quell the riot. Some said, they did not want to be hurt. Sometimes I think the police should take a page from their firefighting brothers playbook. The fireman always run toward and into the fire. Not away.

In Charlottesville, it  appears some of the protesters and counter-protesters showed up at the rally with shields, clubs, the size of  baseball bats, spears, etc., --why did the city allow that? It's obvious that if there was to be a peaceful protest rally, it could be done without clubs and protective shields.  The city could, and should have banned such things prior to the start of the rally. The  participants on both sides could  have been ordered to surrender their make shift weapons to law enforcement prior to commencement of the rally. If they refused,those individual(s) could have been ordered to leave the rally area. Keep in mind the city had  at least one  month to organize and set the rally policy, but chose not to.

Proper barricades between protesters and counter-protesters should have been strictly defined . If the city of Charlottesville knew they did not have enough city police to have strict control  of the crowd, they could have arranged to have an additional law enforcement presence from the county and/or state prior to the protest commencing. The city didn't do that. They lost control and then had to call a state of emergency, calling up the National Guard. It appears quite a few things were done, BUT only after the fact in this situation.

My question: Why did the city of Charlottesville issue a permit for this rally in the first pace? There is no doubt that the lawmakers in the city and the  judge(s) knew counter-protesters would show up at a rally such as this. The lawmakers had  sufficient time to consider the ramifications that might occur in allowing  such a rally to take place in their city.  The template had already been set, with the cities of Ferguson, Baltimore, and  the Berkeley campus riots. So what would  make Charlottesville politicos think they could handle a rally like this without setting strict and enforceable ground rules (with both sides,  "Unite for Right" and counter-protesters) prior to the rally; having sufficient law enforcement presence on hand prior to the rally; and allowing the local and state police to enforce those rules and laws at the first inkling of trouble --arresting each and every violator.

Finally,  there's enough blame to go around in this Charlottesville fiasco. The  Governor of Virginia should  not point fingers at just one group, nor should he and other  lawmakers imply or insinuate in any way, shape, or form, that president Trump's elevation to the oval office allowed this rally to happen. For those that forgot, I remind you that this rally was asked for by this White Nationalist group to protest the removal of  the Confederate statute of  Robert E. Lee. I see many people responsible here. We have the hate group, "Unite For Right,"; the  battling counter-demonstrators -"Black Lives Matter and leftist fascists"; the city council, the mayor and city fathers, and the judge in Charlottesville who reviewed and had a say in issuing the rally permit. All of these people have to share in the  chaos, the death and destruction that occurred on this fatal Saturday, in August. And I suggest that the Mayor, the City Council and the Police Chief have a lot to answer for.-- And, that's my opinion. Make your own decisions, You decide.

BRADLEY W. KUHNS, Ph.D., O.M.D.
_________________________________
Dr. Kuhns can be reached by email at:
bradleykuhns@gmail.com