Female Patriot Prayer Member Clobbers Antifa Goon on Camera [Report/Video]
Reported By Benjamin Arie | July 5, 2018 at 2:47pm
There’s an apocryphal Chinese curse that was famously invoked by Robert Kennedy in 1966: “May you live in interesting times.” The tumultuous 1960s were without a doubt “interesting,” with riots and even assassinations tainting the decade. Politically motivated radical violence not only shattered communities, but also took the lives of figures including Robert Kennedy himself, making his statement tragically prescient.
Thankfully, the America of 2018 is not yet at that point, and no sane person wants to see that chaos return. However, violent clashes are now a reality during our era, and it’s hard to escape the comparison between today’s radicals and the leftist rioters of 50 years past.
That violence was on full display several days ago in Portland, Oregon, a distinctly liberal city. That’s where the right-leaning group Patriot Prayer was protested by the far-left and frequently violent group “Antifa,” and one video clip from the melee has gone viral.
During a clash between Patriot Prayer, Antifa, and a far-right group called the Proud Boys, all hell broke loose… but footage of a female Patriot member not just holding her own but physically dominating an Antifa goon shows that the radical left may have bitten off more than it can chew.
“#Antifa would like you to refrain from making this into a GIF and using it all the time,” wrote Adam Richard on Twitter, along with a short clip of the altercation. “It’s not good for their image when their [Antifa] ‘soldiers’ get the s–t kicked out of them by Patriot Women. #PatriotPrayer.”
You can view his tweet and the video clip here. Be advised: The fist fight is violent — and decidedly one-sided.
In the footage, a woman who is apparently part of the right-leaning Patriot Prayer group appears to have gotten the best of an Antifa rioter, and pummels him on the ground as cameras record the action. A longer video of the larger clash revealed what can only be described as chaos as various political groups battled on the streets (the clip excerpted in the Richard tweet comes about the 1:30 mark). (see below)
Let’s be clear: We don’t condone violence except in cases of self-defense.
The details around this incident are murky, but several reports indicate that Patriot Prayer members were following the law and exercising non-violent free speech when they were essentially ambushed by antifa, a group that openly advocates violence against conservative Americans whom it has labeled “fascists.”
According to the U.K. Guardian, the Patriot Prayer group — which has officially disowned racism or premeditated violence — had the proper permits to hold a lawful free-speech rally near the downtown area in Portland.
Patriot Prayer participants complied with the city’s request that they not carry weapons or defensive tools like pepper spray, but it looks like Antifa didn’t play by the same rules.
“The far-right march had started near Schrunk Plaza in the city center, where the rightwing group had held a rally, led by the Patriot Prayer founder and Republican US Senate candidate Joey Gibson,” the newspaper reported.
“As soon as the group left the plaza, they clashed with anti-fascists who had been waiting across a heavily barricaded street nearby,” the Guardian continued.
“While anti-fascists used pepper spray, Patriot Prayer members had been unable to take theirs into a federal park. The melee lasted several minutes before Portland police revoked the permit for the march and cleared the street,” the paper stated.
Many participants and organizers of the right-leaning rally expressed outrage that city officials had initially granted their permit to assemble, but then seemingly stood by and allowed violent Antifa members to turn what was meant as a non-violent demonstration into a bloody clash of fists.
“Regular Patriot Prayer rally attendee Katherine Townsend told the group that Portland police had ‘set us up,’ and accused them of ‘disarming us and herding us towards Antifa,’” reported the Guardian.
“Portland police allowed criminals to charge our permitted march then declared our march a riot and revoked our permit,” said Gibson, the founder of the Patriot Prayer group.
Gibson said Portland police “stand down” when it comes to allowing leftists to attack peaceful demonstrations.
Patriot Prayer, he told KOIN News had had enough.
“Portland’s the last city on the West Coast that’s doing that, so we just have to keep hitting it — I don’t see what else to do other than that,” Gibson said. “We’ll make Portland so ugly in terms of how they allow these protesters to charge us when we have a permit. The police stood down. We were told they would not stand down, so we have to challenge it.”
There are a few important takeaways from these videos. The first is just how dishonest the liberal claims of “tolerance” truly are.
As the footage shows, liberals — at least the increasingly emboldened far-left variety — have no interest in tolerating opposing viewpoints or “coexisting” with people who disagree with their politics. Instead, they want to attack and fight them, while conveniently labeling almost everyone including the president of the United States a “fascist.”
The second takeaway is that they seem to have underestimated conservatives. This viral video clip of a right-leaning woman dominating a rioter with ease is a hint that the radical left may have only awoken the proverbial sleeping giant, and it is unprepared for the consequences.
If nothing else, it seems Bobby Kennedy’s adage about “interesting times” is coming true. Those times are upon us right now, but whether they will get worse before they get better is anyone’s guess.
Reported by 
It was not enough for bakery shop owners Melissa and Aaron Klein to pay more than $136,000 fine to the Oregon Bureau of Labor and Industries. The state has now wiped out all cash from all their bank accounts too – and 
Still, closing the business and issuing a gag order was not enough for 
?)
The Last Refuge
Several politicians have recently been offering free goodies to voters. One of the most popular of these, oddly enough, is something that several state governments have already tackled: free college tuition.
The details vary by state, but Oregon, Tennessee, Georgia, Michigan, and Louisiana (among others) all use tax dollars to pay for at least some of their residents’ college tuition.
Louisiana provides a great case study for advocates of similar federal policies. Louisiana just so happens to be in the news right now because the governor is threatening to suspend his state’s version of free college tuition for everyone.
Louisiana’s Tuition Program
Louisiana’s plan is called the Taylor Opportunity Program for Students, or, more commonly, TOPS. This extremely popular program uses tax dollars to pay full tuition (and some fees) at any of Louisiana’s public universities. Other than residency requirements, all high school students qualify as long as they have a C average (2.5 GPA) and at least an 18 on the ACT.
So the Taylor Opportunity Program for Students doesn’t cover every student’s tuition, but it ends up covering it for a large chunk of middle-/upper-class families.
How It Started
The program started out in the late 1980s as the brainchild of oil tycoon/philanthropist Patrick Taylor. The program, which wasn’t originally named for him, started out as a tuition assistance plan only for low-income individuals.
In 1997 the state removed the income caps. At that point, all Louisiana students, regardless of financial need, were made eligible for “free” tuition at any Louisiana public college. Once in college, students had to maintain a C average to keep their TOPS awards.
As of 2010, approximately 70 percent of Louisiana’s high school graduates headed to college within one year. That’s nearly 20 percent higher than the rate in 2000.
Who’s Paying for It?
It’s easy to call the program a success because of this increase, but it’s just as easy to point out that the program doesn’t really provide free education. In one way or another, someone pays for it.
The eventual implosion of the program was easy to predict back in 1997 for the same reasons that pretty much any similar subsidy is destined to fail. Subsidies don’t really lower the cost of products and services; they only lower the up-front price that some people pay.
(In 1997, this program inspired my very first public critique of a government policy. Back then, I thought it was a terrible idea.)
No Such Thing as Free Tuition
A person receiving “free” tuition may not see it (or even care), but subsides actually raise the total cost of an education. The core problem is that they remove the paying customer—in this case the student—from the equation.
Without the subsidy, the paying customer receives the direct benefit for the service and bears the direct cost. If that person doesn’t think the cost is worth it, they don’t pay.
Louisiana’s program replaces this paying customer with groups of government officials. These officials neither receive the direct benefit nor endure the direct cost of obtaining an education. These groups do, however, benefit a great deal from obtaining more of your tax dollars.
And they rarely bear any direct cost from either increasing your taxes or delivering a substandard education product. (The incumbency rate is fairly high for politicians.)
On a practical level, Louisiana’s program converts tuition payments into a state budget item. In other words, a large chunk of each school’s “tuition” becomes nothing more than revenue sent in by the state bureaucracy.
In Louisiana, four separate higher education systems—each its own bureaucracy—fight over these “tuition” payments. Smaller schools inevitably get the smallest shares, but that’s kind of another story.
A Burden on University Resources
When the influx of students hits—more people going to school when tuition is “free” is pretty much a foregone conclusion—it strains universities’ existing resources. So the transfer of money has the natural tendency to lead to expanded facilities, faculty, and staff.
But these increases call for a permanently higher level of funding, and all of these effects tend to reinforce each other. That is, school officials have a built in reason to ask for larger transfers, and politicians have a built in excuse to raise taxes.
When the state’s coffers are not flush with cash, the schools’ budgets get cut. Thus, universities have every incentive to raise more money from students who are not a part of the Taylor Opportunity Program.
Of course, for any given level of Taylor Opportunity Program students, a higher posted rate of tuition results in a larger transfer from the state. If the program covered full fees and tuition for literally every student, then taxpayers would bear the full cost. But it doesn’t, so non-TOPS students bear some of the cost.
(Pretty much every student ends up paying higher fees directly, too, but that’s almost an aside.)
Non-subsidized markets don’t work this way—prices can actually fall in response to changes in demand and supply. Subsidized systems, on the other hand, are destined to result in higher—not lower—tuition.
Recent numbers support this explanation. The Taylor Opportunity Program has nearly doubled in cost since 2008, and most of that increase has been due to higher tuition.
What I failed to fully appreciate in 1997 was how bad of a deal the Taylor Opportunity Program would end up being for the smaller schools. Then I spent almost a decade teaching at Nicholls State University, a regional state school in Thibodaux, La.
Small Universities Are Hardest Hit
In one sense, the Louisiana program amounted to a cruel trick for these institutions. Smaller schools are the ones least able to sustain the permanently higher costs associated with the new TOPS-generated revenue stream.
When the state budget goes south—and it always does in Louisiana—smaller schools get slammed. (Louisiana State University has more than 25,000 students, so small changes in per-student fees go a long way).
No matter how much we want it to, subsidizing something simply doesn’t make it more cost-effective.
The Taylor Opportunity Program does give certain people a better deal on tuition at one point in time, but then it makes up for it somewhere else.
Ironically, the earlier waves of Taylor Opportunity Program graduates are among those about to get hit with a tax increase. That’s what politicians mean by free.
Aside from the subsidy/cost issue, there are many other reasons why this is bad public policy.
First of all—and I know this sounds crazy—everyone should not go to college. Some people simply aren’t cut out, and many just don’t need to. Yes, people with college degrees tend to earn more than those without, but it does not follow that everyone should go to college.
When the program was started, Louisiana public universities offered students a good value because they were relatively inexpensive. Now that Louisiana taxpayers have spent more than $2 billion on the program, tuition rates are out of reach for many students that don’t qualify for the program.
While the best solution for Louisiana would be to get rid of the program altogether (unlikely since politicians love the program), the best residents can hope for now is an increase in the program’s academic standards and some form of means testing. At least these changes would better direct subsidies to academically prepared students with more financial need.