WHY I WILL NOT BE JOINING THE PROTESTS AGAINST PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP

donald_trump_president-elect_portrait_croppedBelow is today’s column in USA Today on the protests against President-Elect Donald Trump and why, despite having a house full of family members and friends who have come to protest Trump, I will not be joining them. Instead, I will be home with my kids as we have been in every inauguration – celebrating the peaceful transfer of power in our democracy and wishing the newly elected president (and our country) the best with an inaugural toast. I criticized Trump (and Hillary Clinton) during the campaign (and I will not hesitate to criticize Trump again for policies or actions that I disagree with). However, I find the claims of illegitimacy and attacks this week to be highly disturbing. I totally respect the right of people to come to protest Trump and his policies. However, there appears to be a concerted effort to delegitimize his presidency and create a type of political mythology about this election.

In this column I discuss that mythology and, more importantly, the meaning of the day of inauguration for many of us. Regardless of my criticism of both Trump and Clinton, I always knew that on January 20th I would raise a glass to the 45th President of the United States and wish him or her . . . and us . . . the best of luck in the coming years. It is a time when we reaffirm our commitment not so much to a politician but to each other. We reaffirm a common article of faith that, despite our disagreements and divisions, we remain one country joined by our belief in democratic transition and government. There is much to celebrate this week as a glance around the world at places like Gambia will readily confirm. Donald Trump will be the 45th President. Our President.

DONALD TRUMP IS OUR LEGITIMATE PRESIDENT

It is inaugural week and Washington is again the rallying point for hundreds of thousands of people. Indeed, my house in McLean, Virginia is hosting roughly a dozen people from Illinois and Florida. They are not, however, coming to celebrate but to protest. My brother Chris, his family, and various friends will be joining thousands protesting the inauguration and then will join the “Women’s March.” I will not be joining them. While I fully support their exercise of free speech and share some of their concerns, I believe that this week is about celebrating the 71st time that a democratically elected president has taken the oath of office (and our 58th formal inauguration). I was highly critical of both Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton during the campaign. However, there is a time to protest and there is a time to come together, even if only for an inaugural ceremony.

Over 50 Democratic members of Congress have publicly announced that they will not attend the inauguration, including some like Rep. John Lewis, D-Ga., who has insisted that Trump is not the legitimate president. (Lewis and other members also boycotted George W. Bush’s inauguration in 2001 because they insisted that he was not the true elected president.) Ironically, many of these members were the same people joining Hillary Clinton in denouncing the “horrifying” notion that Trump or his supporters might not accept the results of the election. Clinton decried how Trump, by not stating that he would accept the results of losing, he was “denigrating — he is talking down our democracy.” That was when Clinton was viewed as a shoe-in. Then came election night.

After the election, Clinton joined others in challenging results in key states and Democrats began to question the legitimacy of the election — first due to the fact that Trump lost the popular vote and later based on Russian hacking of Democratic emails.

It is of course immaterial that Trump lost the popular vote in a system based on electoral, not popular voting. (For the record, I have long been a critic of the Electoral College.) Moreover, while references to the “Russian hacking of the election” have become common shorthand, the Russians did not hack the election. Emails were hacked and those emails were not faked or tampered with, as repeatedly claimed by DNC chair Donna Brazile. As recently confirmed by the intelligence report, they were real emails showing incredibly dishonest and corrupt practices. Although there is no question that the leak appears selective in targeting Democrats, Washington seems most aggrieved by the fact that the public was given a true insight into the false and duplicitous behavior that defines the establishment. However, according to a new CNN/ORC poll, the spin is not taking: almost 60% of voters do not believe the hacking determined the outcome of the election.

In the end, the protests are not about legitimacy. Trump is by any measure our duly elected and legitimate president. It is about a refusal to accept legitimate results. Even the title of “The Women’s March” is dubious.

While Bill Clinton insisted that his wife lost because Trump figured out “how to get angry, white men to vote for him,” the fact is that it was the Democratic leadership that secured the election for Trump. Despite long-standing polls showing that voters did not want an establishment figure, the establishment pre-selected Clinton, who is not only one of the most recognized establishment figures but someone carrying more luggage than Greyhound. She is also someone who had even higher negative polling on character and truthfulness than Trump.

More importantly, it is a well-maintained myth that Clinton was the candidate of women who overwhelmingly rejected Trump. Clinton pulled basically the same percentage of female votes as Obama did four years earlier. Indeed, Clinton actually did slightly worse this election than Obama did in the prior two presidential elections with women. She received just 54% of women’s votes while Obama received 55% against Romney and 56% against McCain. Trump handily beat Clinton among many groups of women. For example, 62% of white women without college degrees voted for him over Clinton. Even among college-educated women, Clinton only won 51%. She lost the votes of white women by a whooping 52-43% against Trump. It was her margin among black female voters (over 90%) that eked out an overall majority of women.

Moreover, Trump won basically the same percentage of white voters as Romney. Indeed, according to Pew Research, the percentage was virtually identical with Trump beating Clinton by 21 points and Romney beating Obama by 20 points. Clinton actually fell in the percentage of black voters. Trump outperformed Romney among black, Hispanic, and Asian voters. For example, despite all of the coverage of Trump’s illegal immigration comments, he received roughly 30% of all Hispanic votes.

The point is not to belittle the basis or numbers of opponents to Trump. Yet, there is an effort to establish a mythology that Trump was elected by white men and heavily opposed by women. Worse yet, there is an effort to portray him as some presidential pretender to the office. In reality, it is Democratic leaders who have abandoned tradition and denigrated our democracy by refusing to stand with the new president at his inauguration. Rep. Katherine Clark, D-Mass., said she would not attend because she did not want to “contribute to the normalization of the President-elect’s divisive rhetoric by participating in the inauguration.” That “normalization” is called the democratic process. We are celebrating not a particular victor but the fact that there was a victor — a democratically elected victor followed by a peaceful transition of power.

So, I will not be with my brother and friends at the protests. I will be home toasting the 71st oath of office . . . and, yes, the 45th president of the United States.

Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University and a member of USA TODAY’s Board of Contributors. Follow him on Twitter @JonathanTurley.

423 thoughts on “WHY I WILL NOT BE JOINING THE PROTESTS AGAINST PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP

  1. Good Going, Inclusive Anarchists, That Limo You Set on Fire Belonged to Muslim Immigrant

    An “unintended consequence,” we’re sure.

    1.26.2017 |

    News

    | Trey Sanchez |

    When the progressive anarchist thugs began destroying other people’s property on Inauguration Day, the rest of us scratched our heads as to why they would target well-known liberal establishments like Starbucks and others, which were clearly as anti-Trump as they.

    The masked mob must’ve felt real anti-fascist when they torched a stretch SUV limousine. Surely it appeared that an expensive vehicle like that belonged to some greedy corporate fat cat who deserved to watch something he owned burn for once. But as it turned out, that limo was owned by a Muslim immigrant.

    Muhammad Ashraf is the president of Nationwide Chauffeured Services in Alexandria, Virginia, and he was the one that got to watch as his $90,000 investment burned.

    “I have a different point of view,” Ashraf said, according to Red Alert. “I did not agree with many of the things [Trump] said, but that still does not give me the right to go and affect someone’s livelihood…I really don’t think we need to take this [violent] route.”

    The limo’s windows were knocked out, forcing the driver out and an anarchy symbol was spray painted next to the phrase “We the People.”

    Ashraf, a Pakistani national whose been a U.S. citizen for 30 years, told The Washington Post that he hasn’t heard from D.C. police as to the whereabouts of his vehicle and isn’t sure if his insurance will cover the damage. A limo company in Florida is hoping to help and has raised nearly $14,000.

    Ashraf’s company and the driver who was slightly injured in this incident have routinely been hired by Donald Trump for the last couple of years and described him as “always very generous.”

    Of course, the WaPo made sure to end its piece with rest of Ashraf’s quote lest President Trump sound like a nice guy: “It’s mind-boggling, sometimes, when you hear him talk. It’s a different tone.”

  2. Leftists Protest Trump Inauguration by Smashing Windows and Starting Fires

    January 20, 2017

    Daniel Greenfield

    Vandalism. Destruction. That is ultimately where the left’s passions lie. From Obama’s final malicious actions in office to his supporters wrecking everything they can get hold of. This is the left.

    Protesters who had promised to shut down the city for the inauguration of President Donald Trump were successful at several security checkpoints Friday morning, as they slowed crowds from entering onto the Mall and, in one spot, stopped them completely.

    “Shut it down!” protesters shouted at the checkpoint at John Marshall Park.

    As protesters at the spot shouted “This is what democracy looks like,” a Trump supporter countered. He pointed to the other side of the fence and said, “This is what democracy looks like but I can’t get to it because of you!”

    The protests downtown at times grew violent. Just before 10:30 a.m., a large group of black-clad protesters — self-described as anti-capitalist and antifascist — made their way south on 13th Street near K Street, throwing newspaper boxes and garbage cans into the street and trying to set them on fire, leaving them smoldering. They also broke glass at bus stops and businesses and smashed the windows of a limousine. Loud bangs sounded out from fireworks they lit.

    Some carried signs, including one that read: “No peaceful transition.” Police cleaned up behind them as they marched, and authorities used chemical spray in an attempt to disrupt the vandalism. They ultimately herded the group away from the inauguration parade route with a large number of police vehicles and officers in riot gear, and they used concussion grenades — which make a loud noise — to break up the crowd.

    Hope and Change. This is how it ended.

    Most Trump supporters walking to the inauguration past Union Station ignored protesters outside the train station, but not Doug Rahm, who engaged in a lengthy and sometimes profane yelling match with them.

    “Get a job,” said Rahm, a Bikers for Trump member from Philadelphia. “Stop crying snowflakes, Trump won.”

    Their job is hate.

    Protesters yelled in defiance as Trump was sworn in, hollering loudly and some carrying Hillary Clinton signs. Within moments of the 45th president being sworn in, rain began to fall on the crowd.

    No serious injuries were reported as a result of the skirmishes, although several arrests were made. Protesters also blocked some security checkpoints in the morning, with one Black Lives Matter group chaining themselves to metal barricades.

    In northwest Washington, Robert Hrifko, 62, a member of Bikers For Trump, said he was attempting to assist police when he was hit with a rock by an anti-Trump protester. He said the encounter deteriorated into a chair-throwing free-for-all.

    “It was just crazy, man,” Hrifko said, holding a block of ice to his bloody left eye.

    Police quickly moved in and had cornered a group of protesters on L Street, between 12th and 13th. Other protesters chanting, “Let them go!” shouted from behind crime scene tape as officers prepared to make arrests.

    Luis Villarroel from Virginia dropped passengers off near the corner of 13th and K Streets NW and then parked in front of the Washington Post building. He got out of his Lincoln MKT limo when he heard loud noises — “hundreds of masked men” coming his way.

    “They threw food at me,” he said, and started beating his limo. They threw a flare inside the limo, which was still visible on the seat.

    “This is my business. Why are you destroying my stuff? It took me years to build,” he recounted after the crowd left.

    Because they’re the left.

    Julie Godshaw, a 27-year-old social work student from Queens, said her goal is simply “to be heard and to represent those who can’t be heard.” But she said this is the start of her commitment to organizing and protesting against Trump’s policies.

    “I will fight for you and I will love you with every ounce of my soul,” read her sign, which she said is directed at minority communities that could face the brunt of issues in the new administration.

    Unless you work for a living. In which case we’ll try to set your car on fire.

  3. I am sorry to say that you were not missed. The protests were peaceful, interesting and hopeful. People are justifiably concerned about the threat this man and his cabinet and some of his supporters pose to a land we love, a freedom we cherish and have fought for. Your statistics and numbers aside, this is different. I dont care if 98% of americans think he is legitiate or illegitimate. I care that he is egomaniacal and vengeful. And in way over his head…and not just like anybody would be as a new president, but in a truly dangerous way for the world. So tip your glass and celebrate democracy your way…and I will celebrate it my way.

    • Peaceful. Ahh, yes, peaceful. The protests, against Trump, were peaceful in the same way that the protests in St. Louis, upset over the death of Mike Brown, a thug and a menace to society, were peaceful. Millions of dollars in lost revenue for businesses, looted and set ablaze, during those peaceful and calm protests. In the words of Maurice Chevalier, ah, yes, I remember it well. The chants of death to the police and roasted pigs, splayed on tables, wearing police-issued hats, kinda peaceful. The protests were peaceful in the same manner that the protests in Baltimore were peaceful. That’s right. As long as the stores, owned by the vilified bourgeois elite, had windows which were smashed and trade, brought to a standstill, didn’t specifically belong to you or yours, the protests, in DC, were, of course, peaceful. You see, you actually have to create something, of your own, like a business, to get it. As long as your livelihood wasn’t impacted, where patrons of your own business were terrified of the unruly and violent crowds to even enter your establishment, the protests were peaceful. As long as your car, which you worked and saved to purchase for your family, wasn’t torched and set afire, the protests were peaceful. As long as you didn’t get a frantic phone call, from a relative, demanding that you urgently arrive at the hospital to see your gravely injured mother, father, sister or brother, who was hit in the face or head by a flying rock, launched by one of those docile fellow protesters, the protests were peaceful. Yes. More than 200 innocent and peace-loving protesters were unfairly arrested for doing nothing more than simply sprinkling daisy petals. Violence? Banish the thought. You are a disgrace to this country, whether you, in fact, actively participated in the various forms of violence or not. You emboldened and encouraged the criminal element and fellow vermin who thrive in these so-called peaceful demonstrations, by your very presence, and, as such, are as just as culpable, just as guilty, as those who did resort to smashing windows, torching cars or throwing rocks at law enforcement. Those criminal acts were well anticipated, and claiming no knowledge that said acts would occur at your peaceful protests, is blatantly false. Any blood shed, during those protests, is on your hands, as well. You should be ashamed, but, shame is a concept only understood by one with a conscience and empathy. You have neither, so you’re in luck.

        • Not one fact, which I mentioned, was fake. Of course you’re not ashamed. As I said, your kind never is ashamed. Hurry. I hear there’s another protest, about something, somewhere, going on. You don’t want to miss your one and only opportunity in life to feel relevant.

    • And Madonna was eloquent and rational. If a tea party speaker had leveled that screed at Obama, we’d still be hearing how racist they were.
      Kind of sad to see people taking a fit because the woman they supported, lost. The woman who enabled decades of abuse of her fellow women. The woman who tolerated her surrogate saying “drag a $100 bill through a trailer park, you don’t know what you’ll come up with” .
      A woman who campaigned for “women’s issues” on the same stage with celebrity backer JZ. The same JZ with the hit song “I got 99 problems and a bitch ain’t one”. But that’s ok, he supports Hillary.
      It would be easier to take the whole tantrum seriously if it had even a smidgen of principle behind it.

        • Insults and buzzwords are no substitute for constructive reason.
          FoxNews! FoxNews! Run!

          How about you refute or even challenge one point I raised? I am open to hearing it.

      • “Taking a fit” is a perfectly rational response to the election of Trump. It is a demeaning way to put it, but whatever. This was my first and last visit to this blog site. Better things to do. JT…what happened?

        • What happened is that we, the people, are sick and tired of you and your fellow scumbags attempting to turn this great country into some Third World cesspool, where violent riots, fill the streets, every time there is a change in power. There’s a new sheriff in town who isn’t about to de-ball law enforcement under his watch. You’ll learn, pretty quickly, what awaits those who burn down entire communities, looting and destroying as they engage in those famous peaceful protests. Don’t like the election results? Don’t just leave the blog. Leave the country. Still want to stay? Go back and protest. You don’t want to miss out on mingling with those desperate, lonely, bizarrely angry and hostile, grossly overweight, acne-covered, moustache-wearing, hairy and unshowered and unattached single ladies at these marches. A real bonanza for you.

      • Madonna, and I quote, said the following:

        YES, I HAVE THOUGHT AN AWFUL LOT ABOUT BLOWING UP THE WHITE HOUSE.

        Now, the $60,000 question, to which we all know the answer:

        Will JT expend even a modicum of energy or effort into pressing the authorities to now charge, and, ultimately, prosecute, Madonna’s very public and widely disseminated, not to mention, dangerous and inflammatory, statement as a terroristic threat against the President, his family and the staff? Three guesses, and the first two don’t count. You know, defending the rule of law, including demanding that the lives and safety of the First Family not be the subject of death threats, just doesn’t have the same je ne sais quoi of, for example, fighting to get some dirtbags the right to marry multiple wives and destroy the very fabric of our society. Now, that’s what is crucial in this society–working, tirelessly, to secure the right of perverts to do as they please, regardless of the long-lasting harm and consequences, under the guise of Constitutional protections. Securing the right of the President and his family, however, to be free of open and publicly broadcast pronouncements which, unequivocally, threaten their very lives? Ehh. Not so much.

        The protesters, who participate in these bogus and bizarre demonstrations, so desperate to feel relevant and alive, remind of those old films, shot in Romanian orphanages, showing the secluded and brain-damaged children, repeatedly banging their heads and bodies against the walls. Remember those? I do. The protesters, so devoid of any real meaning, direction, connection or significance in their lives, resort to behaving as those poor, unfortunate orphans who were continuously deprived of affection and human contact. The need to act out and connect with others, in large groups, reminds them that they are still alive. Still viable. The underlying cause is irrelevant. Participating in these marches gives their small, insignificant lives meaning, much like the orphans fervent desire to inflict pain upon themselves in an effort to bring about some sense of stimulation. Some sense of feeling alive. The similarities, between the two groups, is remarkable.

        • bam bam – I did hear that Madge (to her 2 friends) walked back the threat on the President and is expecting a visit from the SS about this matter. An arrest, strip search and night in jail will give her and the cause street cred.

          • What I had in mind for Madge was a far more serious form of punishment or penalty than a single, solitary night spent in jail. Her so-called celebrity status doesn’t impress me, one iota, and it surely doesn’t protect or immunize her from being charged and prosecuted for making a terroristic threat against the First Family. I must admit–I would have an entirely different level or respect and admiration for people, such as JT, if they weren’t so, obviously, inconsistent and hypocritical in their choices to allegedly pursue justice and freedom. The dregs of society, seeking to turn our way of life, on its head, and seeking the government’s sanctioning of multiple wives, earns his attention, time and devotion, in an attempt to uphold his slanted view of Constitutional principles, yet, a publicized and openly reported threat, against the inhabitants of the White House, is met with his dead silence. Quite troubling as to who, and what, he wishes to protect and secure. As far as street cred is concerned, gang members routinely murder other rivals in a display of power and authority, which is, of course, meant to secure that invaluable street cred, of which you speak. It doesn’t, however, immunize them from prosecution. How low have we, as a nation, sunk–to what depths–that law professors fervently and aggressively seek to secure the rights of polygamists, yet they remain strangely mute and absent in the face of irrefutable threats to the White House? Beyond troubling.

  4. The marches are not to claim illegitimacy, they are against the hatred, racism and abusive language and disrespect of women the President of a country that claims to be the largest democracy in the world. And what about his first act denying many of his own followers health care,while claiming he would give power back to them. What about denying journalists the right to ask questions, claiming they are fake news?

    • When the answer appears wrong check premises one or more will be false. First the country does not claim to be nor is a democracy it is a republic that uses representative democracy at it’s base or foundation. Only one segment of the population claims it to be what it is not.

      We go on. In reviewing what I have of the health care question I find that the previous administration took health care from those who had it and gave it, at no charge to those thought to not have it even though then as now health care is mandatorily provided at no charge by law from any and all medical establishments.So False Premise number two and number three I’ve found nothing about denying health care and a very large emphasis on on ensuring the availability of health care.

      Three strikes your out? No that’s baseball. Here you get an unending number. He claimed to give power back. That doesn’t mean instantly but it does mean in terms of conscious awareness. In fact all that was needed as many learned in time for November 8th the public the citizens always had that power but someone i.e, the education system and the media FAILED to remind then of that fact. The Founders referred to the citizens as the ultimate source of power. Something they always had and still have to this day. Nothing new there except to the uneducated.

      Denying journalists? No. Pointing out the differences between journalists and propandists would be the accurate descriptions.

      Five so far false premises which of course puts you at level one monad in realm of philosophy and that is the level of unconscious awareness of ….something. That beats Columbus Discovered America by two false premises though not in five words. Now you have a goal and that can be answered by a close study of Radical Reasoning,

      If your collective ruling class allows such knowledge. I submit that would be my first false premise so I choose not to use it.

    • LS – you are painting with a broad brush here. CNN is fake news. And as President he gets to decide who he calls on during press conferences. It is going to be different from when you (as a journalist) had to submit your questions 3 days in advance and then Obama would call on you.

      • Smile. Thanks for that reminder on freedom of the not free press as presidential pawns and mouth pieces. This is going to be fun watching the worm turn….and squirm.

    • You can’t be serious! The vile, disgusting language by several of the speakers, Madonna being the most extreme, and you claim the high ground?
      What is missed, maybe deliberately in the hyperventilating, is that the denial of a question was aimed at a particular individual. The agency, CNN, had been given a question prior. Their feud with Trump doesn’t give them the right to monopolize the presser.
      Does every reporter who yells, get the right to a question every time? If Trump had declared this reporter off limits or tried to ban CNN, I’d be with you. That is unless the reporter had displayed a pattern of conduct that made a case for removal of his credentials.

      The problem with being a hypocrite is that it requires a good memory. It is hard to take you seriously when you do not cite the example of the Obama Administration trying to delegitimize the largest cable news organization as, you guessed it, fake news.
      Do you remember the stand the pool had to take when Obama tried to freeze out FoxNews? I’m sure you were incensed at that. I’m sure you were outraged when the Holder DOJ collected James Rosen’s emails, tapped his parents’ phone and named him as a coconspirator to a judge.
      Of course those actions pale in comparison to Trump insulting a loud and rude reporter who demanded to be heard.

  5. What he gained was the nail in the coffin of his existence. Not a serious individual but an intellectural light weight who couldn’t stop campaigning. After eight year the conclusion drawn, inescapably, he was trying to convince himself or …..something.

  6. I thought abortion t this carefully because it is not an easy thing to conclude that the President of the aunties States would sabotage the country but I have become convinced that Barack Obama has. It’s is clear to me that despite his talk of peaceful transition and cooperation, the 44th President took steps to disrupt said transition.
    Not only did he take steps on the world stage that have set traps for Donald Trump but he is likely behind the boycott. Abstaining from the UN Security Council vote, imposing sanctions on Russia and moving armor into Poland and Germany, are actions that limit the options for his successor and create potential pitfalls.
    I am asked to believe, absent any evidence, that nothing happens at high levels in Russia without Putin’s approval. I think that Obama is powerful enough within the Democratic Party to say the same about him. Does anyone think that if he let it be known that the boycott would be a stain on his legacy, which in my opinion it is, that the Democrats would not call it off?
    He was given a chance to address the matter at his presser and pointedly declined to comment. Strange that he could comment on a disorderly conduct arrest by local police but could not see his way clear to address an insult to the system by elected members. What he has done is purchase plausible deniability while working behind the scenes to undermine things. That is treachery, not treason but it speaks volumes about his low character.

  7. My comment is you did an excellent job writing this article.
    You are a person who respects the truth and not twisting it
    around. I am extremely happy there is someone who is not afraid of standing up for their beliefs. Thank you

  8. Oh, and another thing— exactly where does the U.S. Constitution give citizens the right to “protest.”??? Because I can’t find that “right” anywhere in there.

    This is a legal blog, and people are always saying that “right”exists, but where???

    Squeeky Fromm
    Girl Reporter

    • Sorry for the delay the net was jammed with all the festivities. Your answer is as follows with two sources of the many available….

      First Amendment | Constitution | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute
      https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/first_amendment

      Amendment I. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution
      The First Amendment (Amendment I) to the United States Constitution prohibits the making of any law respecting an establishment of religion, ensuring that there is no prohibition on the free exercise of religion, abridging the freedom of speech, infringing on the freedom of the press, interfering with the right to …
      ‎Freedom of speech · ‎Establishment Clause · ‎Right to petition · ‎Freedom of the press

      Take note of freedom of speech, right of peaceable assembly, and right to petition for redress of greivances.

      Match this up with the other portions of the Constitution on definition of use of violence.

      These people have ignored the Constitution for almost a hundred years. Now it’s their turn to cry.

      The acts are probably treated as those of common ordinary garden variety criminals, arrest, trial, sentencing and so forth with a criminal record. BUT at some point someone is going to declare it an act of terrorism for which under the law there is no protection. Probable cause is replaced with ‘suspicion of.’ No attorneys, rights read, courts nor judges. That’s the part Obama just broadened, lengthened and strengthened at the end of 2015- buried in side the end of the year budget bill.

      If you remember it the article with Cusak I just references to another poster. John Cusak details a lot of these ‘grievances’ against the former administration.

      Worth reading again.

      Again please excuse the delay.

      .

      • As I discussed with Mespo, on the other thread, the operative word is “peaceably assemble.” Peaceable assemblies do not require police in riot gear. What we currently call “protesting” has simply been conflated with “peaceable assembly”, to the point where pundits and others say, “But people have a right to protest!” But they don’t got a right to throw rocks, Molotov Cocktails, interfere with traffic, etc.

        Several court decisions have enshrined a broad right to “protest”, but there has always been some proviso that the action isn’t violent. Yet, as a practical matter, many of these protests almost involve some degree of violence. Sooo, I think we have to start looking at it more narrowly, and go back to the “right to peaceably assemble.”

        IMHO.

        Squeeky Fromm
        Girl Reporter

        • I believe the 60’s are over for a while. Easier to come down hard and back off when things are under control than the other way around. My view would be to NOT treat them as ‘culture warriors or some such nonsense at the federal level but as plain ordinary criminals at the local level. Unless they local governments starts talking that sanctuary stuff. For sure don’t make martyrs out of the bums. The locals and media will do that anyway. Say can we get the media for inciting to riot? That is not a protected free press activity.

          • That would work. Another approach might be to treat the Professional Violence Inciter, the same way we treat other criminals after they get out of jail. For example, Peter robs Paul and is convicted and given 5 years. When he gets out, in most states he has forfeited his right to own a firearm. That is a bona fide Constitutional Right, yet we deprive ex-felons of that right.

            Perhaps if one is convicted of rioting and mayhem, we similarly restrict their right to “peaceably assemble”.They still have Free Speech, and can write an editorial, or get on a soapbox in the park, or write a letter to their Congressperson. But they can no longer participate in a group of people who assemble to seek redress. That will end the folks who travel from place to place and make a living put of protesting.

            Squeeky Fromm
            Girl Reporter

            • It’s Congressional – gender neutral and it refers to both Senators and Representatives also gender neutral.

              CongressperSON is sexist. Why? Is there are perdaughter? I don’t THINK so!!!

              I absolutely hate PC and especially the parts that serve no purpose except to lazy to open a dictionary.

              Now the Navy is agonizing over that when it’s simple. Sailor doesn’t work there are no sails on Navy ships. Mariners work fine as does Marines. Military Sealift Command with it’s civilian crews uses Civilian Mariners.

              But then the Navy calls some of their uniforms ‘ensembles.’ Now that’s eyebrow licking sexist.

              “They can still call their Congressional.

              Another one is some reportere saying Obama went back to civilian life. He was a civilian. So are non military police or any kind of non military LEA.

              Only the military is military and everyone else is/are civilians.

              For sailors use the word Crew. For city Council man or woman use Councilor. or Counsel. Nothing like a dictionary to defeat a fictionary.

  9. What happened to all the Hillary won stuff? Did they finally get permission from Soros and Carville? Yuck yuck yuck yuck.

  10. First 30 minutes of Obama Free passed

    The flag is back up where it belongs.

    Celebrate today and get out the mops tomorrow lot of cleaning up and disinfecting to be done.

  11. Kellyanne is a former student of JT. He wrote a post about his former student. JT has enormous respect for this extremely intelligent and dedicated woman. Fixating on what someone wears is shallow and petty. Just like Pelosi wearing a political button at the inauguration.

      • Both Presidential candidates were Caucasian. Unless every single POTUS from now onward was a minority, the President would be white at some point again.

        What’s the point of his or her skin color?

        It troubles me that Liberals have done a 180 on MLK, Jr’s famous speech, that he wanted his children to be judged on the content of their character instead of the color of their skin.

        Today, all that matters is skin color, and content or intent matters not.

        Sad.

        • As a black man, I couldn’t agree more. Liberals use race as a tool to divide and manipulate us. Listen to a Hillary campaign speech. It was a litany of demographic or minority groups. Nothing about us as Americans. They are not reverse racists. They are simply RACISTS.

          • Every bit of information helps. Important thing is to not put up with racism, sexism, bigotry in any way shape, type, or form of words spoken or written. When the majority shuns doing wrong and teaches their children the same we can put all of that behind us….and not perpetuate. Two wrongs do not make a right they only make two wrongs.and the lesser of two evils only makes those who choose one or the other a supporter of evil.

        • You are so right Karen, it’s so sad that people now a days all they care about is the color of someone’s skin and being racists against other skin color except their own. Content & intent is a thing of the past. Let’s give President Trump a chance and see what he can do, he might surprise all those who protest and don’t want to “hear” otherwise.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s