This weekend saw a fierce discussion regarding the “No Kings” protest movement, as CNN commentator Scott Jennings asserted that liberal demonstrators are fostering a troubling spirit of political violence. Jennings posted his remarks on X (formerly Twitter) during a time when threats against conservative figures are becoming more pronounced, especially in the wake of the July 4th weekend protests.
In his tweet, Jennings noted, “While MOST of America spent time with family or watched college football this weekend, the ‘No Kings’ rallies took place.” He characterized these demonstrations as misguided, protesting against a non-existent monarchy in a country that would not tolerate such rallies if it truly had one. Jennings framed the protests as not only unnecessary but also dangerous.
His assertion reached a boiling point when he claimed, “Right below the surface — the desire to commit violence against political enemies. To wish for their DEATHS.” This comment struck a chord, revealing Jennings’s belief that a deeper, more sinister motive lurks among the protest participants, one that mainstream media often overlooks.
In a CNN panel discussion following his tweet, Jennings confronted Adam Mockler of MeidasTouch, who argued that the rhetoric of former President Donald Trump incited the unrest. Jennings countered with examples highlighting left-wing violence, pointing to recent events to reinforce his claim that this threat is not confined to just one political spectrum.
The case of Joshua Jahn, who faces charges for shooting into an ICE facility, is particularly alarming. Jennings mentioned how Jahn had expressed leftist views online, further fueling the conversation about political radicalization. “So you think it’s Donald Trump’s fault that a deranged leftist climbed up to the top of a building and shot up the ICE facility?” Jennings asked, reinforcing his point that such acts emerge from a broader political hostility.
Moreover, Jennings used the discussion to highlight another tragedy: the still-undetermined circumstances surrounding the death of Charlie Kirk, founder of Turning Point USA. His comments implied media bias when covering threats against conservatives compared to those on the left. “It is NOT President Trump’s fault that Charlie Kirk got murdered,” he insisted, suggesting that the media downplays risks from the far-left while sensationalizing those from the right.
The “No Kings” protests occurred in cities across the United States, characterized by signs and speeches that sometimes escalated to confrontations with law enforcement. Many of these demonstrators claim they are standing against Trump’s authoritarianism. However, critics argue that this movement has devolved into platforms for extremist language and ideas. Jennings called for immediate investigations into any individuals advocating violence during these protests. “You have no 1st Amendment to do that,” he said, firmly stating that the threshold between acceptable protest and criminal behavior has been crossed.
Supporting Jennings’ claims, it has been noted that several demonstrators employed threatening language in their posts. While the more aggressive sentiments may not originate from official organizers, they have nevertheless shifted the atmosphere surrounding the movement. Various intelligence agencies have begun tracking an increase in threats linked to far-left networks, suggesting that the narrative surrounding these protests is growing increasingly alarming.
In response to the rising tensions, Trump recently pointed out, “The radical left is causing this problem, not the right… and it’s going to get worse.” His identification of Antifa as a domestic terrorist organization reflects a move towards a harder stance against perceived leftist violence.
Conversely, some liberals, like Mockler, believe that Trump’s rhetoric contributes to the polarized environment. Mockler remarked, “His claim to fame was saying that Obama wasn’t born in America,” implying that Trump’s history of incendiary comments has helped escalate societal tensions.
Yet Jennings maintained that these arguments merely divert attention from the real issue. “The left can gaslight all they want,” he stated, emphasizing that the threats are tangible and cannot be dismissed as isolated incidents. His insistence on the seriousness of the situation aligns with recent data from the Center for Strategic and International Studies, showing a shift in the nature of domestic threats, particularly those linked to individuals rather than organized groups.
Concerns have also emerged regarding the influence of paid protest organizers. In a segment earlier this year, a commentator highlighted the speculative element of who finances the “No Kings” protests. The allegations suggest that these demonstrations are not as organic as they appear, potentially undermining the authenticity of public sentiment.
The role of misinformation cannot be overlooked either. With AI-generated content muddying the waters, security researchers have debunked false narratives claiming to show massive “No Kings” protests in places like the UK. Concern over the reliability of information has certainly erupted amid these developments, as noted by experts urging the public to verify sources.
Amidst all these issues lies a significant national divide. Events that begin under the guise of civil discourse now face the threat of being overtaken by extreme actions and manipulated narratives. Jennings warned of a dangerous allure within the protest movement: “The desire to commit violence against political enemies… is infecting the liberal grassroots.”
As political violence rises, alongside the risk to established institutions, one must consider when protest transcends into a genuine threat. For Jennings and others, that critical line appears to have been crossed, with consequences that are becoming impossible to ignore.
"*" indicates required fields
