Michelle Obama Dishonestly Claims ‘Only a Tiny Fraction’ of BLM Protests Have Been Violent
The former first lady claimed President Trump was “stoking fears about black and brown Americans” by blaming, in part, what she described as “an overwhelmingly peaceful movement for racial solidarity.”
Listen to this article
With polls showing support dropping for Black Lives Matter and their protests, the push is on to rehabilitate the movement in an effort to stave off the possibility it could hurt the Biden-Harris presidential ticket one month from now.
Helping lead the charge to portray BLM in the most flattering of lights is Michelle Obama. The former first lady released a 24-minute video Tuesday titled “Closing Argument” where she tried to make the case for Joe Biden by, among other things, trotting out the usual Democrat accusations of racism against President Trump.
One argument she used in order to “prove” her point was in bringing up the supposedly “peaceful protests” that have taken place in Democrat-run cities like Portland since the death of George Floyd.
In what appeared to be an appeal to working-class white voters, Mrs. Obama talked about how it must be “frustrating to hear some folks” (presumably protesters) “say that you’re the beneficiary of privilege”:
It is frustrating to hear some folks say that you’ve been the beneficiary of privilege, that the color of your skin gives you a headstart. That is the reality for far too many hard-working decent Americans.
Trump is trying to capitalize on that frustration, she alleged, “by giving folks someone to blame other than them” and “stoking fears about black and brown Americans” by blaming, in part, what she described as “an overwhelmingly peaceful movement for racial solidarity.” There was “research”, she said, that backed up her claim:
But right now, the president and his allies are trying to tap into that frustration and distract from his breathtaking failures by giving folks someone to blame other than them. They’re stoking fears about black and brown Americans, lying about how minorities will destroy the suburbs, whipping up violence and intimidation and they’re pinning it all on what’s been an overwhelmingly peaceful movement for racial solidarity. It’s true, research backs it up. Only a tiny fraction of demonstrations have had any violence at all.
.@MichelleObama on BLM riots: Trump is “pinning [violence] on what’s been an overwhelmingly peaceful movement for racial solidarity; it’s true, research backs it up; only a tiny fraction of demonstrations have had any violence at all … What the president is doing is … racist.” pic.twitter.com/7wBsmACiCQ
— Tom Elliott (@tomselliott) October 6, 2020
This is a maddeningly dishonest and misleading claim that the mainstream media and fact check organizations, of course, will not dig into because they, too, have been touting the same U.S. Crisis Monitor study Obama is likely referencing.
But as Professor Jacobson pointed out last month, the study, which concluded that 93% of all BLM protests were peaceful, in effect really showed just how widespread protest violence really was “considering it takes just one riot to devastate a neighborhood and destroy businesses for years to come”:
If almost 1 in 10 protests is a riot, that’s an astounding percentage considering that it takes just one riot to devastate a neighborhood and destroy businesses for years to come. The Report provides no comparison to other protest movements as to the violence frequency, but can you recall a movement that had so much violence over so long a period of time in so many places?
And as Byron York pointed out at the time, the report showed there were “nearly 570 violent demonstrations–riots–in nearly 220 locations spread all across [the] country”:
Princeton University group studies 3 months of Black Lives Matter protests. Intent is to show they are 'overwhelmingly peaceful.' But report reveals nearly 570 violent demonstrations–riots–in nearly 220 locations spread all across country. https://t.co/it60GBbTZT pic.twitter.com/Ph8iECyHIf
— Byron York (@ByronYork) September 5, 2020
John Sexton at Hot Air also made a great point in response to the study’s claim about how only 7% had been violent:
If there are 100 protests and 7 of them turn violent, you could say the rate of violence is 7% which is apparently what this research did. But you could also look at those seven violent protests/riots and find that within those there were many individual acts of violence. For instance, in some cases police wind up arresting a dozen or more individuals during a riot and that doesn’t count all the violent behavior (throwing rocks, using lasers, vandalism, etc.) for which no one is ever caught or punished.
When there is rioting and looting in a city like New York or Chicago, there are likely hundreds, possibly even thousands of individual criminal acts taking place but so long as it all takes place as part of one night’s “protest” the researchers would count that as just 1 bad night. In other words, the data Michelle Obama is relying on here is obscuring as much about the violence as it’s revealing. Maybe only 7 percent of the protests became violent but that 7 percent represents thousands of violent and destructive acts doing billions of dollars of damage over a period of just a few months.
Keep in mind, too, that the Crisis Monitor report looked at the three month period between May 24th and August 22nd. The Kenosha riots started the day after that, and there have since been riots in cities like Rochester, NY, Lancaster, PA, Louisville, KY, Los Angeles, and elsewhere. Violent riots are still happening nightly in Portland, too.
Democrats and the mainstream media are gaslighting the hell out of this issue for obvious reasons. As noted earlier, support for the movement and the “unrest” that flows from it is declining steadily.
Because of that, the MSM will ramp up the sugarcoating on riots in the coming weeks and will approach stories about them from the “Republicans pounce and seize” angle rather than engage in any real meaningful analyses of what’s happening.
But try as they might, the issue isn’t going to go away. Republicans will make sure of that – and so will Black Lives Matter extremists and their Antifa allies who are assisting them in orchestrating the chaos.
— Stacey Matthews has also written under the pseudonym “Sister Toldjah” and can be reached via Twitter. —
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Inconsistent use of statistics. 7% is small but when those 7% turn violent or destructive it’s closer to black swan talk.
This is why COVID can legitimately be viewed as dangerous with much less than 7% death rate. The “worst that can happen” is very bad so appropriate caution makes sense.
Any pro-lockdown person to argue that 7% is a small, but acceptable, fraction should be asked why they are pro lockdown considering the much smaller risks of COVID
2 billion dollars ….. Devastated black neighborhoods and cities. Just collateral damage to the collective. from a multi-million dollar mansion on Martha’s, one can’t hear the suffering .
Thanks again for another photo of a look inside a toilet when someone before you forgot to flush.
The best way to separate BLM wheat from BLM chaff is to start shooting looters, rioters.
The best illustration of the granularity hack they’re using is optical.
Everybody’s seen photos of the nightside globe from space showing near everything looking lit up by that bad, evil light pollution. But, what’s the grain size? What’s the threshold of “lit?” A I R there’s even dynamic demos showing what changing grain size n threshold looks like.
Think of it like a checkerboard in which if there’s any light in a square, you turn the whole thing light. But, what does that mean for granular experience on the ground? Looking at the space picture, what’s the light-up grain size vs people’s on the ground experience. If the grain size over the earth is a checkerboard square, plenty of people in lit up squares could be in hard dark.
Or, if the lensing n grain is right, you can have plenty of people blinded by the light who look to be in the dark — the circle swept by a lighthouse is way bigger than what the beam lights up this instant. So, for “mostly peaceful” riots do we count only where somebody’s getting brained this instant, or do we count the sweep of violence, or the sweep of might-be violence?
People are afraid of possessed goblin hordes wherever they assemble, however long they last. People are afraid planning their routes, arranging their homes, stocking gear n supplies even if no hordes afe around, or have come at them yet, let alone them getting personally brained. People right now are stockpiling n planning how they’ll survive the hordes coming post-election.
I think the riot n extortion grain size reaches to something like wherever people are changing their behavior. Maybe wherever there’s impact on general economic activity. I think the antifa-hijacked riots in Portland, Seattle, Mineapolis, Kenosha, Rochester n others each and all lit up the whole US with changed behavior. Every night of every one of those was violence, reaching the whole country.
Michelle Obama is picking thresholds, definitions, n grain size convenient to the argument she’s advocating. Real people in their real lives are experiencing something very different.
Very interesting analysis. People do not like violence, do not like being afraid or like having to change their behavior. Do you think the exact same feelings surrounding Covid is why Trump has a serious re-election problem? Unfortunately, in a year or so Covid is likely to recede in importance, while the radicals’ violence will not.
Trump has a “serious re-election problem” only because the press keeps hammering over and over that he “does.”
I think a lot of the bad Kung-Flu info is a form of hacking the granularity of the risk, to keep people all something, something, something.
The notion is something like: people are uncomfortable, so it must be the president’s fault, so vote for the other guy.
They systematically won’t aim for stuff that could give people local, personal resolution of uncertainty, or individual mitigations. “Facts” about aggregates are difficult to trace to personal circumstances; the way those are being developed more so.
The only way blacks can make sense out of their situation is to openly and blatantly lie to themselves. Ergo by definition they’re going to lose. Everytime. Be it in debate or battle, such lying is always a precursor to defeat. And for what? So they can be lazy and not work. At least not at real jobs that require competence. But only in affirmative action jobs. Hence not work at all. All so they can be kept, like pets. But because of their nature no one wants to keep them. What a pathetic situation they find themselves in. Their path leads only to destruction. Self inflicted defeat. For I will not work to pay their never ending rent. There must be an end. Exile or death. It’s the only way.
I cannot not count the number of times that an Affirmative hire has been backed up with a non Affirmative assistant who does the real work.
Ironic, because on the D presidential ticket, they flipped that script. Oh, the horror. The horror.
There is another alternative – eliminate public employee unions, which even FDR opposed. Then have universal school choice – the money follows the child. This creates a pathway out of the urban public school ghetto – shall we say the modern plantation, by design – for those who want to escape. Little chance of that happening, but over a couple of generations I bet it would make a visible difference.
Leave a Comment