Leftists who live in safe and affluent suburbs are trying to justify their support for the anarchy in the heart of some of America's Democrat-run cities.  Many of them have found profound psychic relief in a post from a young Portland woman named Valarie Smith.  I found her post enlightening, too, but not for the same reasons.  It's worth working through her soothing essay to expose the amalgam of dishonesty, ignorance, and irrationality.

Valarie Smith's Facebook post is here.  It purports to be a thoughtful, even-handed, peace-oriented look at Portland's nightly violence extravaganza.  It's not.  Still, the post has been shared over 2,000 times.

Because the post is long, in each of the following paragraphs, I first summarize Smith's point and then put my comments in parentheses.

"What the protestors want":

A $50-million cut in the police budget, with the money saved going to the black community.  (This is something that should be put to a citizens' vote rather than be decided through violent extortion.)

Free all jailed protesters.  (If you do the crime, you still don't do the time.)

Get the federal government out of Portland.  (Fine, I guess, if Portland says no to every penny of federal money it gets.)

Kick Mayor Ted Wheeler out of office.  (Appeasement level: Fail.)

A proposed police oversight committee to take on the "militarized" force.  (Again, a community decision.)

"Peaceful vs. nonviolent":

1. The protesters are committing "minor infractions," which is the difference between "peaceful" versus "nonviolent."  (A video at the end of this post shows these Orwellian "minor infractions.")

2. The protesters commit these "minor infractions" to highlight the police officers' violent responses. (The media works with Antifa on this propaganda point.)

3. It's the federal presence that causes violence.  (This is belied by the timeline from acting Homeland Security secretary Chad Wolf.)

4. The protesters operate on the theory that, if police are going to teargas them even if they're peaceful, then why shouldn't they be nonviolent?  (That assumes that the police initiate violence, rather than the protesters starting things by nightly storming the federal building.)

5. The suffragettes used property destruction to get their needs met.  (Wrong twice: [a] The suffragettes resorted to violence because they had no vote.  These protesters can all make their needs known through the ballot. [b] The lethal weapons used on the police – see here and here — puts the lie to the claim that it's only "property destruction.")

"What is the appropriate response":

1. The police forces ought to be de-escalating in the face of provocations such as firecrackers thrown at buildings.  (Two points: [a] the feds did the ultimate de-escalation for six weeks when they hoped Portland police could handle the problem and [b] firecrackers don't just go "boom."  They can ignite a building and injure a person.)

2. Targeted arrests.  (This assumes that, amid a black-clad, masked mob, police can find the offender.)

3. Tear-gassing protesters during a "PANDEMIC" is a "literal war crime[.]"  (Again, this accepts the lie that the protesters are just making a little noise and doing a little property damage.)

"Compare this to Malheur" (the Bundy standoff):

1. The Bundy takeover at Malheur Nature Reserve in 2016 didn't see tear gas and mass arrests.  (A few responsive points here: [a] the Malheur standoff was on Obama's watch, and Trump is no Obama; [b] local law enforcement immediately sent for the feds before any violence happened; [c] when the feds arrived, the Bundy crew was already in place, so there was no triggering damage to persons and property; [d] the Malheur affair took place in isolation, not in the heart of a city; [e] the Bundys were not destroying property; [f] the absence of any violence allowed the federal agents to wait out the occupiers and peacefully arrest them; and [g] LaVoy Finicum, who tried to avoid arrest, was killed.  Other than that, yes, they were comparable because both situations involve citizens believing that the law doesn't apply to them.)

"My conclusions":

1. The author is rightly worried that "violence only begets violence."  (She insists, though, that the only thing the protesters are doing is committing "property destruction," without acknowledging the lasers, Molotov cocktails, rockets, toxic substances, fire, and various projectiles aimed at law enforcement officers.)

2. This is the only way to "right the wrongs of 400 years."  (In other words, this is what American education and the New York Times have wrought: ill educated youngsters who believe that America was conceived in sin and must be destroyed.  They have no understanding of humankind's journey from savage to civilized, the history of world slavery, the Enlightenment, the Great Awakening, the Civil War, or anything else.  All they see is a call to arms and the need to destroy.  It's sad and terribly dangerous in equal parts.)

By the way, just so you understand that what's going on is not mere property damage, here's the video that the House Judiciary Committee prepared and the Democrats cut off before it finished:

Image: YouTube screen grab.