Are protesters radicals?
Listening to Laura Ingraham interviewing some WW2 vets. She does a good job of bringing out the basics.
Lots of repetition of the pat phrase "These soldiers died so today's protesters would have the right to protest."
No, they didn't.
Laura enjoys the irony or paradox of this notion, but it isn't ironic or paradoxical, it's just plain false. Our soldiers didn't die to open the streets to Code Pink. Nor was that the intention or purpose of the Framers when they laid out the Bill of Rights. Those old common-law rights were designed to allow a free flow of CIVILIZED discussion, so that problems could be fixed by the government or by others BEFORE matters could get so bad that HONEST people had to take to the streets.
Our Leninist masters, mainly since 1950, have turned this upside down. They have subverted and perverted the concept of rights, so that civilized discussion is subject to severe censorship while the "rights" of their fellow Communists to sabotage the system are fully celebrated and carefully guarded.
Sabotage, in its original and literal sense, meant to throw a wooden shoe or clog (sabot) into the workings of a mill or machine to destroy its gears and shafts.
And that's what protesters do.
Think about the verbal contents of a typical protest sign. Have you ever seen the word "START" on a protest sign? No, it's always "STOP". Protesters are never agitating for a new idea; they are attempting to STOP an existing process or idea.
Thus, by the (generally useless) dictionary definitions of Conservative and Liberal, protesters are the Conservatives or reactionaries.
They want to STOP civilization and return to savagery.
Granted, some parts of modern civilization deserve to be stopped or at least "rewound", but the protest signs never refer to the parts that really need to be stopped; they want to clog up the useful parts.