Group Threatens To “Take Down” Mike Fitzpatrick

The radical San Francisco leftist group CREDO PAC has uploaded a hate-filled video to YouTube on Kathryn Boockvar’s behalf in which they threaten to “Take Down Mike Fizpatrick.”

I wonder how long it would be after a conservative group threatened to “take down” the President before the Secret Service turned up at their headquarters to investigate.

Strangely unmentioned as part of this threatened “take down” are the concepts of “election,” “voting,” or “November,” which leaves little question about the real intent of the ad: To promote violence against Congressman Fitzpatrick.

This sort of shameful and sick threat may play in San Francisco, but it has no place in Bucks County politics.

I have already reported the hate speech and violent threat to YouTube, and I suggest others do the same.

Of course, I’m not going to embed hate speech into this site, but you can view the video here. You can also view it at PoliticsPA, where it is being heavily promoted with no mention of its factual inaccuracies or implicit threats.

Kathryn Boockvar has not spoken out against this video, posted on behalf of her election prospects, as of this writing.

7 thoughts on “Group Threatens To “Take Down” Mike Fitzpatrick

  1. Alex says:

    You cannot produce a single shread of evidence that CREDO is promoting violence in any way, shape or form. This is typical right-wing b.s. I can tell who has advocated for violence: Mike Fitzpatrick, for his shameful support of Todd Akins bill to redefine rape and opposing abortion even in the cases of rape and incest. Forcing a woman to carry her rapists child to term is the kind of shameful violence that Mike Fitzpatrick supports and condones

    • Steven says:

      We shouldn’t kill babies based on who the father is. It’s not the baby’s fault. Taxpayers shouldn’t fund abortions like Kathy Kookvar wants them to. We shouldn’t perform partial birth abortions like Kathy Kookvar wants to. Kathy Kookvar’s support of partial birth abortion is sick and disturbing. We shouldn’t kill babies born alive as the result of a botched abortion like Barack Obama voted to in the Illinois Senate.

      If CREDO is not promoting violence, then why does their amateurish video mention nothing about the election in “taking down” Mike Fitzpatrick?

  2. Righton says:

    A not so ominous threat, I say. You are right about the lingo. Recall how the political rhetoric of the “right” was criticized immediately after the horrific Giffords shooting in AZ – that is, until they learned the shooter was simply out of his mind and not a right winger.
    So now we have the Left Coast wingnuts, and their allies, after our congressman. Hey, welcome to Bucks County. Enjoy the scenery. But “take down Mike?” I don’t think so.
    Suffice it to say the D’s have a dreary, experienced-loser candidate running against him . . . That’s an embarrassment! So’s the campaign.

  3. Susan says:

    It is not a call to violence to use the phrase “Take Down” in politics. Most seasoned people know that. There are hundreds of definitions of the phrase to be found but it has to be taken in the context in which it is used. Here is the factual definition as it relates to politics from a credible source, not an opinion.
    The American HeritageĀ® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition copyright Ā©2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Updated in 2009. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.
    take down
    to lower or reduce in power, arrogance, etc. (esp in the phrase to take down a peg)

    As for abortion. It is not for anyone but the victim of rape to decide if she wants to carry a rapists baby. Easy for you to be so sanctimonious when that is never a decision you will have to make for yourself. If it were your wife or daughter or mother you might feel differently and you cannot say now how you would feel, no one can predict how in the heat of emotion and terror how they would react.

    The votes by Obama were to save Roe v Wade from being “taken down” and the aborted babies born alive already had protection ..the state law was in place that prohibited babies being allowed to die if they are viable when he voted. They never were in danger from Obama, and his vote was an act of courage in the face of the opposition which he knew would lie about it.

    No mention of an election is necessary, everyone knows there is an election and this is a campaign video. People are capable of figuring that out.

    • Steven says:

      As for abortion. It is not for anyone but the victim of rape to decide if she wants to carry a rapists baby. Easy for you to be so sanctimonious when that is never a decision you will have to make for yourself. If it were your wife or daughter or mother you might feel differently and you cannot say now how you would feel, no one can predict how in the heat of emotion and terror how they would react.

      It is not for any human being to decide to take the life of another innocent human being. It’s not sanctimonious, it’s human rights. You don’t kill children based on who the child’s father is or what horrific acts the father may have carried out in his life. She is not compelled to raise the child, but she should be compelled not to kill the child as every citizen is compelled not to kill other innocent human beings.

      The purpose of an election ad is to get people to vote. The purpose of the CREDO ad is to gin up unrest and inspire violence against Congressman Fitzpatrick. Voting is not mentioned and is clearly not the focus. A “take down” is the focus.

      During the years I spent railing against Patrick Murphy, I was very careful to always – ALWAYS – talk about taking him out at the ballot box, or removing him from office in November, or retiring him from public life. That’s because I have a respect for the kind of danger that public figures put themselves in. It’s obvious from the CREDO ad that they do not have this respect for this danger and, at the very least, do not care one way or the other whether their words put Congressman Fitzpatrick in danger.

      Even when Patrick Murphy made up threats against him which no investigation ever turned up and I made relentless fun of him, I was careful to not say anything that could be seen as putting him in danger. You people just don’t care what your words could inspire.

      • Susan says:

        When you are capable of giving birth then we can have a logical discussion about being forced to deliver the baby of a rapist. Human rights go both ways. Victims have a right not to be further victimized by the government or any one.

        The campaign is what it is. I have seen lots of signs and videos against the president that should warrant a visit from the Secret Service. And there have been some visits. Maybe you have not read the comments I have read from supporters of Fitzpatrick that are very inflammatory and ginning up hatred for him. “Take Down” has many meanings. Educated people know that. It is an campaign video, self explanatory. You are trying to make something out of nothing. Your opinion is inflammatory and accusing, and I am not going to waste my energy feeding your ego with another reply. No one is buying your accusation. Fitzpatrick has nothing to fear from anyone in his district and he knows that. Tell you what…send the video to the FBI…let them decide if its a threat as you describe. Reply if you like but I am not returning to this topic as it is now old.

        • Steven says:

          Since you’re no longer “capable of giving birth” at your advanced age, why are you allowed to have an opinion?

Comments are closed.