Monday, July 09, 2018 by News Editors
Do you think someone should be punched in the face for wearing a Hillary Clinton t-shirt? Should people who support abortion have drinks thrown on them in restaurants? Should Republicans harass Michelle Obama and her children when they see them in public?
(Article by John Hawkins republished from PJMedia.com)
Even though conservatives feel just as strongly about politics as liberals, I would hope the answer to those questions is still “no.” In a country with very divergent political views, we need to be able to live with each other. That means we need places where politics are set aside. That means having a certain amount of tolerance for people with differing views. That means an acceptance that every person who disagrees with you is not a Nazi.
This is a hard concept to grasp for liberals, who seem to be quite literally saying in large numbers that people who openly support Donald Trump deserve to be harassed or even attacked in public.
If you want to see how off the rails the Left has gone on this front, the Kino Jimenez case is a perfect example. Jimenez stole a MAGA hat from a teen at a Whataburger and threw his drink in his face.
Liberal #KinoJimenez assaults teen by tossing a drink with ice at the kid’s face at a Whataburger in San Antonio. Hunter Richard was eating when Jimenez showed up yelling about #Trump and took his #MAGA hat off his head and yanked some of his hair #q #qanon #TheGreatAwakening pic.twitter.com/5FAtclWHjl
— Matt Mendrun™ (@MendrunMatt) July 5, 2018
This seems to have been an unprovoked attack, although there was an incredibly irresponsible article centered around an ANONYMOUS claim that has already been modified once “due to concerns about the legitimacy of the statements” that the boys were saying all sorts of racist things. In other words, the outlet now thinks the anonymous “witness” may be lying, but it didn’t retract the story. As a starter, no reputable news agency should have made potentially slanderous accusations about high school kids based on an anonymous statement from a lone “witness” that it admits it can’t “independently verify.” (Who knows if the person even lived in the area?) This is doubly true since the video showed there was only one other person in the restaurant when the conflict actually happened and that person left with Jimenez. I mention this accounting of events because people are bringing it up, but given that there is already a question about whether the one anonymous source may have lied, it shouldn’t be treated as a credible story, nor would it excuse Jimenez’s actions even if it were.