By John Q. Hosedrinker 
An Air Force veteran and congressional candidate, Mark Davis, is continuing to use the “8647” messaging despite its controversial association with an indictment of former FBI Director James Comey. The numbers, with “86” meaning to get rid of and “47” representing President Trump, have become a symbol for those opposing the president. Davis, who displays the numbers on his campaign materials, maintains that “86” is a restaurant term and dismisses the interpretation of it as a threat, vowing to wear his “8647” merchandise throughout his campaign. This defiant stance comes as similar merchandise featuring the numbers is readily available across various online platforms.
Read the original article here
The recent indictment of James Comey has ignited a firestorm, not just in political circles, but also among those who see it as a blatant overreach of authority. This sentiment is powerfully captured by an Air Force veteran who is now selling merchandise emblazoned with the numbers “8647,” defiantly daring authorities to arrest them. This bold stance stems from the perceived illegality and absurdity of penalizing certain numerical combinations, particularly when contrasted with what many view as the lack of consequences for far more serious alleged offenses.
The core of this veteran’s protest lies in the notion that the numbers 8, 6, 4, and 7 have become, in a symbolic sense, “illegal” in the eyes of the powers that be, at least as it pertains to Comey. This is juxtaposed with the deeply troubling assertion that a former President faces no repercussions for allegations of rape, a stark and morally reprehensible double standard. The veteran’s message is clear: if invoking these numbers, seemingly without any direct threat, is grounds for legal action, then the entire system is fundamentally broken.
Adding another layer to the commentary, the number “86” itself carries a specific meaning in certain circles, particularly within the restaurant and bar industry. It’s a slang term that means to “take it off the menu,” or to remove something entirely. In this context, when applied to a person, especially in a political or confrontational sense, it can imply getting rid of them or removing them from a situation. The combination “8647” thus takes on a more charged, albeit still coded, significance for those familiar with this vernacular.
The idea of “8647” merchandise becoming a symbol of resistance against what is perceived as fascism is gaining traction. This concept, often referred to as the “Streisand Effect,” suggests that attempts to suppress information or symbols can inadvertently lead to their wider dissemination and increased popularity. By attempting to make these numbers taboo, authorities might, paradoxically, be fueling their adoption as a shorthand for defiance.
The veteran’s call to action, “Arrest us, I dare you,” is a direct challenge to the very principles of free speech. The argument presented is that if the simple act of displaying these numbers on merchandise is seen as a prosecutable offense, then the boundaries of protected expression are being alarmingly narrowed. This is particularly resonant for a veteran who has sworn to uphold the Constitution, which includes safeguarding such liberties.
The absurdity of the situation is further highlighted by comparing the potential legal repercussions for displaying “8647” with the alleged lack of accountability for more egregious actions. The implied threat of indictment over a numerical sequence feels disproportionate and, to many, nonsensical, especially when set against the backdrop of serious criminal allegations that appear to be unaddressed.
The broader conversation also touches upon the potential for this “8647” phenomenon to become a powerful meme, a readily shareable symbol of dissent. The hope is that it could trend, appearing on hats, shirts, and protest signs, becoming an unmistakable marker of opposition to the current political climate. This organic, grassroots movement is seen as a testament to the ingenuity of those who wish to express their discontent.
Furthermore, the effectiveness of banning or suppressing such symbols is questioned. It’s argued that attempting to outlaw “8647” or similar expressions only serves to amplify their significance and draw more attention to them. The more an item or phrase is restricted, the more desirable and potent it can become as a symbol of rebellion.
The discussion also brings up other instances of perceived censorship or selective prosecution. For example, the mention of Jack Posobiec and his “8646” post raises the question of whether authorities will pursue similar actions against others who use comparable numerical codes. This highlights a perceived uneven application of the law, further fueling the sentiment of injustice.
The connection to other events, such as the pardoning of individuals involved in the “Hang Mike Pence” chants, further underscores the perceived hypocrisy and inconsistency in how political dissent and potentially threatening speech are handled. The veteran’s outrage is not an isolated incident but part of a larger pattern of perceived double standards.
The idea of the “Streisand Effect” is central to the veteran’s strategy. By openly selling and promoting “8647” merchandise, they are actively encouraging the very attention that authorities might wish to avoid. This deliberate act of provocation aims to expose the perceived overreach and absurdity of any attempts to criminalize their expression.
Ultimately, the veteran’s defiant stance and the accompanying merchandise represent a potent form of protest. It’s a visual and numerical declaration that challenges the status quo, daring the system to take action and, in doing so, potentially validate the very grievances that fuel the dissent. The message is simple yet profound: if these numbers are illegal, then the definition of illegality has become dangerously distorted.