ChrisWeigant.com

Where To Draw The Lines On Public Protests

[ Posted Thursday, May 12th, 2022 – 16:21 UTC ]

What is and what is not acceptable when it comes to public protest? This question has been growing for the past few years, and has come to the forefront with the leaked release of a Supreme Court draft opinion on abortion. So I thought it was worth exploring in general, even though (spoiler alert!) I do not personally have a clear answer or conclusion to that question.

I should state from the start my own biases. In general, I love political protest and even what I like to call "political theater." The People making their voices heard is a time-honored tradition, and getting the media's (and thus the public's) attention is always a tough thing to do. People who have never lived there or experienced it on a day-to-day basis usually don't realize how many protests happen in Washington D.C., since there are dozens (hundreds, even) of protests that happen every year that gain little-to-no coverage and are thus only seen by those who happen to walk by them (to D.C. residents and workers, protests are something to be mostly ignored and avoided, in the same way a native New Yorker dodges their way around the tourists gawking at how high the skyscrapers are). Getting your protest on the news is a true accomplishment for an activist, and creative ways to accomplish this have been the tactics of protesters for decades. But how much is too much? How far is too far?

There's one easy answer to that question, but also plenty of nuance after that line is drawn. Violence or threats of violence or incitement to commit violence are all too far. Violent demonstrations cross the line between protest and mob intimidation tactics. Sometimes protests are met with violence from government forces, but fighting back is almost always counterproductive to your cause. Non-violent protest is the only universally accepted protest, to put this another way. Rioting and smashing windows and looting and burning property are all criminal activities, not protected First Amendment speech, plain and simple. It doesn't matter how just your cause may be, any protest which adopts such tactics is going to be seen as illegitimate by most people.

But forswearing violence (or even threats of violence) still leaves a lot of questions unanswered. Which is where we are right now. Is demonstrating in front of a politician's house a legitimate form of protest? How about in front of a judge's (or justice's) house? Those are the questions in the news today.

The First Amendment guarantees all Americans the right to free speech, freedom of assembly, and the freedom to petition the government for redress of grievances. All are building blocks for what might be called the freedom to protest. If the citizens are angry about some government action or policy, they are allowed to say so in public. Or they can express their support for a policy -- it does not matter what political position you may espouse, your right to do so in public is guaranteed at the very start of the Bill of Rights.

The question at hand is really where you are allowed to do so. A protest in front of the U.S. Capitol or White House or the Supreme Court building is obviously a constitutionally-protected aspect of the right to petition the government for redress of grievances, since these are all public edifices where the three branches of government work. The White House is a bit different, since it is also where the executive resides.

Public protest is legally limited to public property. Private property or government property with some sort of security perimeter is not the same as a public sidewalk or other area in front of or beside such buildings. You cannot stage a protest on the steps of the Supreme Court building, or in the driveway of the White House, or inside the Capitol chambers. These are pretty easy dividing lines to see.

But what about people's private houses? Other than the White House (and, for governors, state-supplied mansions or other residences), everyone else who works in government has to live somewhere. So is a protest in front of a senator's or representative's house legitimate? How about an aide or staffer to a politician? Or a non-political civil servant? And the big question now being raised: What about a Supreme Court justice's house?

I suspect that most people would answer questions like this depending on what is being protested and which side you happen to be on. Is writing a polite and non-violent message on the sidewalk outside the house of Senator Susan Collins acceptable? How about a march or vigil outside her house? Liberals would probably agree that all of these are acceptable, but they probably felt a lot differently about protests in front of the houses of elections officials during the aftermath of the 2020 election.

The real question is probably what constitutes "intimidation" rather than just "redress of grievances." Even without threats, a crowd of angry people shouting on the sidewalk each and every night is not a fun thing for any family to live with. Now, you can say that this is merely the price politicians (and perhaps even civil servants) have to pay in the course of the jobs they signed up for, but these are human beings -- some with families including small children. That has to be at least acknowledged.

Some might say that protests in front of politician's homes are allowable, but that civil servants never signed up for such political grief and perhaps should not be allowed. And in the case of judges or justices, there is an actual federal law prohibiting such protests:

At issue is a statute enacted in 1950: Title 18, Section 1507, of the U.S. Code. The law states that it is illegal, "with the intent of influencing any judge," to:

  • picket or parade "in or near a building or residence occupied or used by such judge, juror, witness, or court officer"
  • "or with such intent," to resort "to any other demonstration in or near any such building or residence"

You'll note the list of people this covers: "judge, juror, witness, or court officer." This makes a lot of legal sense, since witness-tampering or intimidation clearly should be illegal. Judge-tampering or intimidation goes hand in hand with that idea. Judges are somewhat like civil servants, in that they are not elected politicians, and so should be outside the political process (including protests).

Supporters of the protests which have sprung up outside Supreme Court justices' houses would counter by saying that Supreme Court justices are obviously political creatures, and that there simply is no appeal from their decisions --they are absolute and final. So what other way is there to protest?

Well, they could protest in front of the Supreme Court, but (due to previous controversies) this means whatever the court police deem to be a "First Amendment area" outside the grounds of the court. Only "public sidewalks or areas" count, in other words. And then there's the hypocrisy that the high court has ruled multiple times in favor of protesters' rights outside abortion clinics. As well as the fact that the justices are bemoaning their lack of privacy when they are apparently about to strip that right from half the country's citizens. So why should they be spared from hearing what some of those citizens have to say about it?

It is also more than a little ironic hearing conservatives bemoan the illegality of these protests when most of them at least tacitly now support the mob who violently besieged and invaded the United States Capitol in an insurrection attempt on January 6th. So far all of the sidewalk protests for the justices have been entirely peaceful, unlike the mob who tried to prevent Congress from accepting the Electoral College results.

The other sidewalk protest in the news was that chalked message outside Senator Collins's house. This made the news largely because of her own overreaction -- Collins apparently called the cops and insisted the crime of "defacing public property" had just happened. As in most places, it's not "her" sidewalk (it is owned by the local government), so she couldn't claim trespassing or that her own property was defaced, so instead she tried to get the cops to go after the protesters for defacing public property. The cops, intelligently, decided that chalk is non-permanent and no real defacement had happened. A cleanup crew was called, and taxpayer money paid for the sidewalk to be washed off. Which is why it all hit the news in the first place.

The chalkers came back the next day and left a few other (equally polite and non-violent) messages in response, and even had a discussion with Collins's husband (who, in an audio recording reportedly falsely claimed she was "defacing my sidewalk"). This time, hubby was left to hose off the chalk instead of calling up the public works department. Senator Collins is obviously in the running for the World's Biggest Snowflake, since she didn't even have an actual protest in front of her house, just a few politely-worded entreaties to do the right thing for her constituents, left there for her to read.

Opinions on such protests are varied, at this point. When asked about the protests at Supreme Court justices' homes, the White House merely cautioned everyone to be peaceful. Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer said he was already used to facing such protests on a regular basis: "There's protests three, four times a week outside my house. The American way to peacefully protest is okay." However, Senator Dick Durbin had a different take: "I think it's reprehensible. Stay away from the homes and families of elected officials and members of the court."

There's a saying that "the right to swing your fist ends where my nose begins," but constitutional questions abound as to where that actually is, when considering the balance of opposing rights. People do have a right to be at peace within their own homes. Remember the people who live in Ottawa who were going crazy because the truck convoy was honking their horns all day and night out in front of their apartments? Didn't they have the right to some peace and quiet (granted, they are Canadian and not American, but they're the best example to use, in a general sense)? But the First Amendment was written because sometimes peace and quiet isn't adequate enough to let the government know that people are upset. Free speech includes obnoxious speech, offensive speech, and loud speech. But does that really universally apply outside a family's home?

On the other hand, should anyone in government be allowed to sequester themselves so completely that they never hear any protest? That would seem to make all protest meaningless, because if you can't get your message out to the people who matter then they'll never know anyone's angry.

It's tough for me to decide how I feel about where that line should be drawn. While I do support the people desperately trying to get a very important message to the five people who will be responsible for any abortion decision, I can also see the point of judicial independence from the fray of politics. Nobody would support loud angry protests outside the house of a key witness to an organized crime court case, after all, because it would be seen as an attempt at suborning that witness's testimony. It would be seen as intimidation, and rightly so. So why should a judge not have that same protection? Plus, there is that federal law (although it could indeed be challenged on constitutional grounds -- all the way up to the court that is currently being protested, ironically enough).

Letting "a politician's home be his or her castle" makes sense to me too, on one level. The politician is a member of government, but spouses and children are not. But on another level, it doesn't. The woman who first chalked the sidewalk in front of Susan Collins's house stated that "Susan Collins hasn't held a town hall meeting for her constituents in over 20 years. When we email her, when we call her, all we ever get back is whatever form letter response she's sending out that week. We're sick of being ignored and dismissed and thought that we should try a more creative approach." Since Collins refused to hear any other "petition... for a redress of grievances," the sidewalk looked like the only viable route left to take, in other words. And leaving a passive and polite message in a medium that easily washes off is not the same thing as mounting a protest (whether loud or a silent vigil) in front of someone's house, or spray-painting a message on a wall.

I suppose it all boils down to how the word "intimidation" is defined. People screaming outside a county clerk's house or an election worker's house would seem rather intimidating, but by that measure you can see why some would also think people screaming outside a Supreme Court justice's house would qualify as intimidation too.

No matter where you personally draw the line (like condemning violence), it should be applied consistently. Everyone should condemn tactics like firebombing an anti-abortion facility (as recently happened in Wisconsin), no matter where you stand on the abortion issue. Even with nobody inside (it happened at night), property destruction is both illegal and wrong and meant to intimidate. But by the same token, everyone should also denounce a mob protesting police violence by burning or looting in an inner city. The condemnation should be content-free, in other words, and consistent.

If politicians are fair game to confront at home, then perhaps Supreme Court justices should be too. They are not some local judge ruling on a local case, they are setting policy for the entire country with their decisions, and their word is final. So it's not really the same thing as threatening a witness in any individual case. But that also might mean protesting a government official whose job it is to accurately count and certify elections should also be acceptable.

Wherever the line is drawn for acceptable behavior, it should be the same for all similar protests. Maybe the line should be drawn differently for different government officials (exempting lower-level or non-partisan ones, for example), but even in this case it should be content-neutral and consistently applied no matter what the protesters are advocating for or against. That's about the only thing I am sure of, in contemplating how far should be seen as "too far." Wherever the line is drawn, it should stay there no matter what the protest is about, in other words.

-- Chris Weigant

 

Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant

 

59 Comments on “Where To Draw The Lines On Public Protests”

  1. [1] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    I heard that in Georgia you are not allowed to protest with a sign that says "No justice- No peach". :D

  2. [2] 
    Michale wrote:

    Is demonstrating in front of a politician's house a legitimate form of protest?

    No....

    How about in front of a judge's (or justice's) house? Those are the questions in the news today.

    Not only NO, but it's also ILLEGAL...

    Not that Democrats care anything about what's legal or not..

    Now, you can say that this is merely the price politicians (and perhaps even civil servants) have to pay in the course of the jobs they signed up for, but these are human beings -- some with families including small children. That has to be at least acknowledged.

    Oh, how kind of you.. {/sarcasm}

    What kind of MONSTER would want to terrorize a small child?

    Oh, we're talking about Democrats here..

    So that answers THAT question..

    You'll note the list of people this covers: "judge, juror, witness, or court officer." This makes a lot of legal sense, since witness-tampering or intimidation clearly should be illegal. Judge-tampering or intimidation goes hand in hand with that idea. Judges are somewhat like civil servants, in that they are not elected politicians, and so should be outside the political process (including protests).

    Yes. They should.. And if they are not, then protesters should be arrested and thrown in jail..

    But, of course, DEMOCRAT violent thugs (Is there another kind? :^/ ) are given a pass by a DEMOCRAT administration..

    t is also more than a little ironic hearing conservatives bemoan the illegality of these protests when most of them at least tacitly now support the mob who violently besieged and invaded the United States Capitol in an insurrection attempt on January 6th.

    You are comparing apples and alligators.. Also, I will remind you of the FACTS.. The vast majority of those people who "violently besieged and invaded the US Capital" were INVITED into the grounds by LEOs...

    So, that dog just WON'T hunt...

    Opinions on such protests are varied, at this point. When asked about the protests at Supreme Court justices' homes, the White House merely cautioned everyone to be peaceful.

    Which is EXACTLY what President Trump did with the 6 Jan protesters.. So, obviously, President Trump is off the hook as to being responsible for 6 Jan..

    I am glad I have that on record..

    No matter where you personally draw the line (like condemning violence), it should be applied consistently.

    And THAT is exactly the problem here. It's NOT applied consistently.. By ANYONE here..

    No where is this more apparent than Democrats getting downright hysterical over a SINGLE Right Wing violent protest in a SINGLE building at a SINGLE location over the span of a few hours while IGNORING 22+ years (collectively) of DEMOCRAT violent riots that left dozens dead, tens of thousands injured and tens of billions of dollars in damages..

    The HUNDREDS of Left Wing riots Democrats ignore.. The ONE SINGLE Right Wing riot Democrats get hysterical about..

    Where's the consistency??? Nowhere to be found..

    The condemnation should be content-free, in other words, and consistent.

    Yes it should.. But is it?? See above.. :^/

    Wherever the line is drawn, it should stay there no matter what the protest is about, in other words.

    Which certainly applies to here in Weigantia as well..

  3. [3] 
    Michale wrote:

    A perfect example that shows the mindset of these Democrat scumbags..

    In the wake of the historic leak, pro-choice protesters have targeted the homes of Supreme Court justices, with a massive demonstration in front of Alito's home Monday evening. They have also repeatedly targeted the homes of Justices Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett. Some have even protested outside Roberts' residence, although the chief justice reportedly does not support overturning Roe.

    They don't care that Roberts is actually on their side.. They are just pissed and pissed at ANYTHING and ANYONE that is Right Wing so they are going to harass EVERYONE... Even the people that are ostensibly on the side of the protesters..

    That is not legitimate protest..

    That is being nothing but a thug and a coward...

  4. [4] 
    Michale wrote:

    Credit where credit is due..

    Biden's 'Great MAGA King' slam backfires, as Trump posts 'Lord of the Rings' meme: 'The Five'

    Trump responded by posting a 'Lord of the Rings' meme.

    President Biden ripped Donald Trump by calling him "The Great MAGA King," but the right wing instead embraced the term, while some midterm Democratic candidates hedged on whether they want Biden's support, the panel on "The Five" discussed Thursday.

    In response, Trump co-opted the nickname, posting a meme to his Truth Social account depicting him as a sword-wielding monarch from "Lord of the Rings."


    THE RETURN OF THE GREAT MAGA KING

    https://www.foxnews.com/media/biden-great-maga-king-slam-backfires-trump-lord-of-the-rings-meme-five

    Weigantian Administration called that one..

    Biden's handlers totally screwed da pooch with the ULTRA-MAGA and THE GREAT MAGA KING cracks...

    Apparently, Biden's handlers took a lesson from Hillary's "deplorable" comment that worked out SOOO well for Democrats.. :eyeroll:

  5. [5] 
    Michale wrote:

    Biden and his handlers have been PWNED by President Trump, The Great MAGA King!!! :D

  6. [6] 
    Michale wrote:

    "So I believe that Biden has such difficulty communicating that even his nicknames [and] smears are ineffective."

    Biden's handlers tried to out-Trump President Trump. And, as per the norm, it fell flat because there is ONLY ONE President Trump..

    "THERE CAN BE ONLY ONE!!"
    -HIGHLANDER

  7. [7] 
    Michale wrote:

    And now we come to the segment about Democrats always trying to change definitions or create new definitions to fit their depraved agenda..

    Johns Hopkins center against child sexual abuse hires professor who defended 'minor-attracted persons'

    The JHU center for preventing child sexual abuse hired Allyn Walker, a professor notorious for trying to normalize the phrase 'minor-attracted persons'
    https://www.foxnews.com/us/johns-hopkins-center-child-sexual-abuse-hires-professor-minor-attracted-persons

    It's amazing this pedo prof wasn't hired on as a 1st grade teacher at some Democrat run Elementary School..

    :eyeroll:

  8. [8] 
    Michale wrote:

    And this pedo prof is a trans person..

    Well THAT explains a lot..

    Like I said.. ABNORMAL psychology... Mental Health sickness...

    It needs to be CURED... Not catered to...

  9. [9] 
    Michale wrote:

    And, in the DEMOCRATS LOSE AGAIN segment.. Apologies that there are so many DEMOCRATS LOSE AGAIN segments.. But Democrats just CAN'T seem to stop LOSING...

    Don't kill the messenger.. :D

    Hillary Clinton-hired oppo research firm must turn emails over to Durham probe, judge rules

    Clinton campaign lawyer Michael Sussmann is one of three people charged so far

    GPS Fusion, the research firm Hillary Clinton’s 2016 campaign hired to dig up dirt on Donald Trump’s supposed ties to Russia, must turn over nearly two dozen emails to special counsel John Durham, a federal judge ruled Thursday.

    Those emails – which are largely exchanges between Clinton campaign lawyer Michael Sussman and Fusion GPS – are part of a batch that prosecutors subpoenaed last year.
    https://www.foxnews.com/politics/hillary-clinton-oppo-research-firm-must-turn-emails-durham-probe

    Democrat chickens are coming home to roost.. And at the WORST possible time!! :D

    It's a really REALLY bad time to be a Democrat, eh??

    If only Democrats hadn't cheated to win the election..

    Karma tells us that CHEATERS NEVER PROSPER..

    That is being proven in spades in the here and now, eh? :D

  10. [10] 
    Michale wrote:

    And, in our BACK THE BLUE segment...

    Republican leadership unveils 'back the blue' legislative priorities in anticipation of midterms red wave

    The GOP lawmakers are unveiling their plan to back the blue ahead of National Police Week 2022

    EXCLUSIVE: Top House Republicans have put together a future-forward plan to push law enforcement friendly legislation, in anticipation that the GOP will become the majority party in Congress after the November midterm elections.

    Last year, House Republican Leader Kevin McCarthy, R-Calif., established the American Security Task Force, which is headed by House Committee on Homeland Security Ranking Member John Katko, R-N.Y. Katko met with law enforcement on the front lines of the crime and border crises over the last year as part of the task force, and developed solutions that Republicans plan to implement when back in power.

    The final list of four priorities, exclusively shared with Fox News Digital, include ensuring resourcing and funding for law enforcement, addressing and tackling recruitment issues, taking action to stop violence against officers and penalizing "progressive" prosecutors.
    https://www.foxnews.com/politics/republcian-leadership-unveils-law-enforcement-legislative-priorities-anticipation-midterms-red-wave

    Buck up, Democrats!! Yer FINALLY going to get Police Reform!!!

    Just not the COP-HATE kind of "reform" Democrats WANTED.. :D

    It's a great day to be an American, eh?? :D

  11. [11] 
    Michale wrote:


    #@&^*! Biden!!!

    hehehehehehehehe

  12. [12] 
    Michale wrote:

    Kick has gone away again... :^(

    I wanted to thank her once again for showing me the ropes on BLOCKQUOTE..

    It makes things so much nicer here in Weigantia, don'tcha think... :D

  13. [13] 
    Michale wrote:

    I am trying a new format for my morning comments..

    I'll get more in depth about this new format when I am done..

    Then we can discuss ya'all's input and requested changes..

    Stay tuned!! :D

  14. [14] 
    Michale wrote:

    And now we turn our attention to the Democrat Party's MY WAY OR THE HIGHWAY/TOE OUR PARTY LINE OR BE FIRED portion of our show...

    I Criticized BLM. Then I Was Fired.
    The data about police shootings just didn't add up, but no one at Thomson Reuters wanted to hear it.

    Until recently, I was a director of data science at Thomson Reuters, one of the biggest news organizations in the world. It was my job, among other things, to sift through reams of numbers and figure out what they meant.

    About a year ago, I stumbled on a really big story. It was about black Americans being gunned down across the country and the ways in which we report on that violence. We had been talking nonstop about race and police brutality, and I thought: This is a story that could save lives. This is a story that has to be told.

    But when I shared the story with my coworkers, my boss chastised me, telling me expressing this opinion could limit my ability to take on leadership roles within the company. Then I was maligned by my colleagues. And then I was fired.

    This is the story Reuters didn’t want to tell.
    https://bariweiss.substack.com/p/i-criticized-blm-then-i-was-fired?s=r

    Please. Tell me again how Democrats are all about SCIENCE and FACTS??

    Because, from all the REAL facts, that claim is a load of malarky.. :^/

  15. [15] 
    Michale wrote:

    In 2020, I started to witness the spread of a new ideology inside the company. On our internal collaboration platform, the Hub, people would post about “the self-indulgent tears of white women” and the danger of “White Privilege glasses.” They’d share articles with titles like “Seeing White,” “Habits of Whiteness” and “How to Be a Better White Person.” There was fervent and vocal support for Black Lives Matter at every level of the company. No one challenged the racial essentialism or the groupthink.

    This concerned me. I had been following the academic research on BLM for years (for example, here, here, here and here), and I had come to the conclusion that the claim upon which the whole movement rested—that police more readily shoot black people—was false.

    You see, Democrats aren't interested in FACTS...

    Democrats are only interested in TRUTH.. THEIR "truth"...

    "THEIR TRUTH IS NOT YOUR TRUTH!!!"
    -Oracle Of Yonada, STAR TREK TOS

    The facts that PROVE this are overwhelming and conclusive...

  16. [16] 
    Michale wrote:

    The data was unequivocal. It showed that, if anything, police were slightly less likely to use lethal force against black suspects than white ones.

    Statistics from the most complete database of police shootings (compiled by The Washington Post) indicate that, over the last five years, police have fatally shot 39 percent more unarmed whites than blacks. Because there are roughly six times as many white Americans as black Americans, that figure should be closer to 600 percent, BLM activists (and their allies in legacy media) insist. The fact that it’s not—that there’s more than a 500-percentage point gap between reality and expectation—is, they say, evidence of the bias of police departments across the United States.

    But it’s more complicated than that. Police are authorized to use lethal force only when they believe a suspect poses a grave danger of harming others. So, when it comes to measuring cops’ racial attitudes, it’s important that we compare apples and apples: Black suspects who pose a grave danger and white suspects who do the same.

    Unfortunately, we don’t have reliable data on the racial makeup of dangerous suspects, but we do have a good proxy: The number of people in each group who murder police officers.

    According to calculations (published by Patrick Frey, Deputy District Attorney for Los Angeles County) based on FBI data, black Americans account for 37 percent of those who murder police officers, and 34 percent of the unarmed suspects killed by police. Meanwhile, whites make up 42.7 percent of cop killers and 42 percent of the unarmed suspects shot by police—meaning whites are killed by police at a 7 percent higher rate than blacks.

    If you broaden the analysis to include armed suspects, the gap is even wider, with whites shot at a 70 percent higher rate than blacks. Other experts in the field concur that, in relation to the number of police officers murdered, whites are shot disproportionately.

    There has been only one study that has looked at the rate at which police use lethal force in similar circumstances across racial groups. It was conducted by the wunderkind Harvard economist Roland Fryer, who is black, grew up poor, had his fair share of run-ins with the police and, initially, supported BLM. In 2016, Fryer, hoping to prove the BLM narrative, conducted a rigorous study that controlled for the circumstances of shootings—and was shocked to find that, while blacks and Latinos were likelier than whites to experience some level of police force, they were, if anything, slightly less likely to be shot. The study generated enormous controversy. (In 2018, Fryer was suspended from Harvard over dubious allegations of sexual harassment.)

    OK, I am not going to quote the rest of this article as it is really long..

    But it IS a very good read and it proves CONCLUSIVELY that the claims that Democrats/BLM makes are complete and utter bullshit...

    BLM is the WORST thing that has ever happened to black Americans since slavery...

  17. [17] 
    Michale wrote:

    Apparently, Democrat strategy for the mid-terms is going to concentrate on President Trump..

    Biden Ramps Up Trump Insults as Midterm Prospects Grow Bleaker
    https://www.newsweek.com/biden-ramps-trump-insults-midterms-prospects-democrats-1705925?piano_t=1

    Yea, cuz THAT worked so well for Terry McAwful.... :eyeroll:

  18. [18] 
    Michale wrote:

    And, in the continueing saga of Democrats trying to change definitions to fit their agenda and ideology....

    Twitter mocks the Pro-Choice Caucus for saying the word 'choice' is 'harmful'

    Planned Parenthood originally said it's time to 'retire' the phrase 'pro-choice'
    https://www.foxnews.com/media/twitter-pro-choice-caucus-word-choice-harmful

    TRANSLATION: Democrats are conceding that it's NOT a "choice" it's a BABY...

    So now Democrat marketing and focus groups say that Democrats need a new word..

    Kinda like changing "global warming" to "climate change" because Democrat "science" didn't focus-group well.. :eyeroll:

    Hint for Democrats..

    If your "science" has to be focus-grouped, it AIN'T science..

    It's propaganda...

  19. [19] 
    Michale wrote:

    "Pro-Choice Caucus decides its own name is harmful LOL."

    Democrat agenda is, indeed, harmful... :^/

  20. [20] 
    Michale wrote:

    And, opening the DEMOCRATS ARE PETRIFIED OF ACTUAL FREE SPEECH folder....

    Biden, Dems despise Elon Musk now and hope antitrust claims can derail his Twitter takeover

    The FTC is reportedly reviewing Elon Musk’s purchase of Twitter, possibly setting up a lengthy investigation of potential anti-trust issues

    Elon Musk, Time magazine’s 2021 Person of the Year, is under attack. Why? Because he is bucking the liberal establishment and wants to make sure that you can too.

    The FTC is reportedly reviewing Elon Musk’s purchase of Twitter, possibly setting up a lengthy investigation of potential anti-trust issues with the acquisition. A probe which could delay and possibly torch the deal if investors get nervous and withdraw their support.

    We should have seen this coming. The Joe Biden White House – and their leftist allies in the media and the Democratic Party -- will stop at nothing to prevent Musk’s takeover of the important social media site. Why? Because the billionaire entrepreneur advocates for free speech.

    Their opposition tells us how extraordinarily threatened they are by dissenting opinion, and the vice-like grip they have over the flow of information in our country.
    https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/biden-democrats-elon-musk-antitrust-twitter-takeover-liz-peek

    Anyone care to explain to me EXACTLY what "Anti Trust" issues are involved here??

    Elon owns a Space Company, a Car Company and a Digging Company...

    How is wanting to add a Social Media Company an ANTI TRUST issue???

    Answer: It's not.. Democrats are simply PETRIFIED and SCARED SENSELESS that they won't be able to control the message...

    Heh..

    "Senseless"... The Democrat Party's normal state of being... :^/

  21. [21] 
    Michale wrote:

    Lest you think we’re exaggerating, recall that Joe Biden’s Department of Homeland Security issued a terrorism bulletin in February highlighting possible dangers stemming from "domestic threat actors" disseminating "mis- dis- and mal-information" about "widespread election fraud and COVID-19."

    "Disinformation" that might include, for instance, evidence that Covid vaccines do not prevent people from becoming sick with the virus, contrary to Joe Biden’s promises, or that some shots carry risks – the kind of information that has gotten people banned from Twitter.

    Or, consider the Disinformation Governance Board set up by DHS head Alejandro Mayorkas, a Soviet-sounding secretive agency apparently tasked with ferreting out controversial – read: non-conforming – speech. That the U.S. government would even contemplate such an Orwellian operation is frightening.

    Does ANYONE here actually BELIEVE it's a coincidence that Biden's handlers would roll out a MINISTRY OF TRUTH in the immediate aftermath of Democrats losing control of TWITTER??

    If anyone here DOES believe that....???

    I have some swampland in Florida I want to sell you.. :^/

  22. [22] 
    Michale wrote:

    And ANOTHER entry in the DEMOCRATS LOSE AGAIN department..

    Federal court rules Kansas teacher can speak according to her religious beliefs regarding transgender students

    The school policy mandates teachers use preferred names and pronouns of students, and hide that information from parents
    https://www.foxnews.com/media/federal-court-kansas-teacher-speak-according-religious-beliefs-transgender-students

    No, Teachers.. You CANNOT hide things from parents regarding their children.

    The courts says you can't...

    Yunno... I have confessed on MANY occasions that I am NOT tired of winning..

    But this begs the question...

    Are Democrats tired of losing??? :D

  23. [23] 
    Michale wrote:

    OK, let's circle back to the subject at hand...

    Alito reluctant to discuss state of Supreme Court after Roe leak
    https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/alito-reluctant-to-discuss-state-of-supreme-court-after-roe-leak/ar-AAXcO9E

    Looks like things aren't all hunky dorky in the SCOTUS..

    My guess is now that we know it was Sotomayor/Sotomayor's clerk that leaked the draft copy of the SCOTUS decision to overrule RvW, things are a bit chilly between the conservative justices and the cabal of left wing justices...

    If Sotomayor had ANY decency here, she would resign....

    But AFTER President Trump is back in the Oval Office and the GOP has a lock on the Senate... :D

  24. [24] 
    Michale wrote:

    TikTok is sued by family of Philly girl, 10, who died during dangerous 'blackout challenge': Lawsuit alleges game 'was thrust in front' of her by app's 'For You' page

    Nylah Anderson, 10, was found hanging from a purse strap in her
    mom's closet

    Her mom says TikTok is to blame for promoting 'blackout challenge' videos

    The challenge encourages viewers to choke themselves until they pass out

    Nylah spent five days in the pediatric ICU and died on December 12 of last year
    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10811481/TikTok-sued-family-Philly-girl-10-died-doing-dangerous-blackout-challenge.html

    If only Biden's handlers had listened to President Trump and followed thru with President Trump's ban on TikTok...

    Poor little Nylah would be alive today...

    :^/

  25. [25] 
    Michale wrote:

    Where was BLM after Nylah died??

    Apparently, black lives DON'T matter unless they are justifiably killed by LEOs.. :eyeroll:

  26. [26] 
    Michale wrote:

    I couldn't help but notice that, over the past 4-5 days, the comments here have really dried up...

    Since the Great Weigantian Flame Wars have all but been eliminated, I have to wonder if Weigantians are just not that enthused with all that is going wrong with and for the Democrat Party...

    Is that it?? Are Weigantians frustrated by how Democrats seem to lurch from one disaster to the other??

    Is it the penguin?? Did the penguin make ya'all not comment?? :D

  27. [27] 
    Michale wrote:

    And Florida STILL leads the way!!! :D

    Gov. DeSantis signs bill fortifying rights for crime victims

    Gov. Ron DeSantis has signed a multi-prong measure to bolster crime victims’ rights.

    The proposal (SB 1012), signed Thursday, would require law enforcement to inform crime victims of their right to counsel. It would also encourage the Florida Bar to develop a list of attorneys willing to work pro bono for crime victims.

    The measure, set to take effect July 1, passed the House and Senate unanimously this Session. Zephyrhills Republican Sen. Danny Burgess sponsored the bill, and Lakeland Republican Rep. Colleen Burton sponsored the House version.

    The bill contains a slew of secondary provisions. Among others, it would clarify state law by saying crime victims may “upon request” attend or be heard at a criminal proceeding. Currently, attendance is permissible “when relevant” or at a “crucial stage” so long as it “does not interfere with constitutional rights of the accused.”
    https://floridapolitics.com/archives/524491-gov-desantis-signs-bill-fortifying-rights-for-crime-victims/

    To hell with the "rights" of the accused..

    When the rights of the accused conflict with the rights of the victim, ANY and ALL benefit of the doubt should go to the victim and NOT the accused..

  28. [28] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    @m,[26]

    My guess is that nobody wants to address their failure to come up with a coherent argument against pie.

    JL

  29. [29] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    (26)-
    Maybe your morning comments are more fun for you than their mourning comments are for them. :D

  30. [30] 
    Michale wrote:

    My guess is that nobody wants to address their failure to come up with a coherent argument against pie.

    That can't be it.. Everyone knows that it's CAKE that steals people's hearts.. :D

  31. [31] 
    Michale wrote:

    Bette Midler slammed for ‘obtuse' tweet on baby formula shortage telling mothers, 'TRY BREASTFEEDING'
    'Bette, respectfully, this is a very bad take,' wrote former NARAL head Ilyse Hogue.

    https://www.foxnews.com/media/bette-midler-slammed-obtuse-tweet-baby-formula-shortage-mothers-try-breastfeeding

    So much for Democrats and their views on CHOICE, eh? :^/

  32. [32] 
    Michale wrote:

    "Imagine having a large gay fanbase, many of whom are raising kids in two-dad households, and thinking this is a good suggestion."
    -Tonight Executive Producer Tim Carvell

    Midler must be homophobic. :^/

  33. [33] 
    Michale wrote:

    "Dear @BetteMidler, meet 9mo old Molly. I cannot start breastfeeding her now. I tried breastfeeding all of my children. Always had to supplement. I did everything I could. It wasnt enough. Please don't be this insensitively obtuse about an incredibly frightening thing for parents."

    Midler is just another Democrat who hates on parents..

  34. [34] 
    Michale wrote:

    Twitter allows White House to make ‘clearly false’ claim that COVID vaccine wasn’t available until Biden era

    White House statement was 'very clearly false,' one fact-checker wrote
    https://www.foxnews.com/media/white-house-shares-misinformation

    It's funny how Twitter doesn't have *ANY* problem with clearly FALSE claims if the false claims come from Democrats, eh? :eyeroll:

    One has to wonder if Biden's Handlers' MINISTRY OF TRUTH will investigate clear disinformation from Democrats..

    I am betting... NOT...

  35. [35] 
    Michale wrote:

    White House buried over tweet claiming there was ‘no vaccine’ when Biden took office: ‘Delete this’

    'Biden himself has said 8% of seniors had gotten the vaccine on the day he took office. Biden was one of them,' WaPo fact-checking chief Glenn Kessler tweeted.
    https://www.foxnews.com/media/white-house-buried-tweet-claiming-was-no-vaccine-biden-took-office-delete-this

    Complete and utter bullshit from Biden's handlers...

    The response from Democrats??

    {{{ccchhhiiiirrrrppppp, ccchhhiiirrrrpppppp}}}

    Democrats *LOVE* disinformation..

    As long as it's DEMOCRAT disinformation...

  36. [36] 
    Michale wrote:

    What’s the Point of Going to Brett Kavanaugh’s House?

    Demonstrators have largely given up on changing the Supreme Court justices’ minds. But they’re still showing up.
    https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2022/05/abortion-rights-protest-justice-kavanaugh-supreme-court/629834/

    The epitome of futility...

    Ladies and Gentlemen (and NO others) I give you....

    The Democrat Party..

  37. [37] 
    Michale wrote:

    John Durham Goes to Court

    How his case against Michael Sussmann unravels the Russia collusion hoax.
    https://www.wsj.com/articles/john-durham-goes-to-court-russia-collusion-hoax-fbi-trump-clinton-sussmann-dnc-indictment-charges-11652393183?mod=djemalertNEWS

    Those who were screaming the LOUDEST about the Russia Collusion delusion all of the sudden have taken a vow of silence..

    Funny how that is, eh? :D

    And we were treated to OODLES of commentaries about Russia Collusion..

    Now, we have a dearth..

    Why, it's ALMOST as if Weigantians want to forget ALL ABOUT the Russia Collusion delusion, eh?? :D

    But THAT just can't be right, eh?? :D

  38. [38] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    Yes, Mitch's gambit to capture the courts was tactically brilliant, but there's no denying the bald faced hypocrisy. It's also going to spark an intense backlash, as these things always do. when one side overreaches in opposition to public opinion, the other side benefits at the polls.

  39. [39] 
    Michale wrote:

    Yes, Mitch's gambit to capture the courts was tactically brilliant, but there's no denying the bald faced hypocrisy.

    Sure there is.. Unless you want to concede that whoever is in the Oval Office has NO BEARTING on political maneuvering..

    It's also going to spark an intense backlash, as these things always do.

    I don't see how it can in this case..

    when one side overreaches in opposition to public opinion, the other side benefits at the polls.

    And yet, it's DEMOCRATS who are suffering in the polls, not the GOP.. And the GOP is riding high.. :D

    So, that kinda kills that theory, eh??

  40. [40] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    We'll see what happens at the polls when the decision drops and women start having to travel hundreds of miles for medical care.

  41. [41] 
    Michale wrote:

    Put another way..

    You can't tell me that if Dems had a chance to make a 6-3 DEM SCOTUS they wouldn't have done the EXACT same thing as McConnell did..

  42. [42] 
    Michale wrote:

    After all, it was DEMOCRAT short sightedness that led to McConnell's actions..

    You can thank Harry Reid...

  43. [43] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    Yes, i can tell you that Chuck Schumer or Harry Reid would not do the same thing. They may be hypocrites, but if the group only Mitch is THAT shameless about it.

  44. [44] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    Of the group.

  45. [45] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    Really the whole slippery slope was started by Ronald Reagan, when he nominated Robert bork.

  46. [46] 
    Michale wrote:

    Aren't you the one who told me, when we were discussing tax laws and such that it's perfectly acceptable for people to use the rules and game the system as long as they stay within the rules??

    McConnell's gambit is a perfect example of gaming the rules for a political advantage..

    No different than what Democrats do on a daily basis..

  47. [47] 
    Michale wrote:

    Or do I need to list all the examples of Democrat hypocrisy?? :D

    How much time ya got?? :D

  48. [48] 
    MtnCaddy wrote:

    [16]

    Dude, give me the link to this long article, please. It's eye opening to say the least and I want to read more.

  49. [49] 
    Michale wrote:

    Good ta see ya, MC.. Was getting kinda worried about ya.. :D

    Dude, give me the link to this long article, please. It's eye opening to say the least and I want to read more.

    Yer wish is my command, my friend.. :D

    I Criticized BLM. Then I Was Fired.
    The data about police shootings just didn't add up, but no one at Thomson Reuters wanted to hear it.

    https://bariweiss.substack.com/p/i-criticized-blm-then-i-was-fired?s=r

  50. [50] 
    Michale wrote:

    Really the whole slippery slope was started by Ronald Reagan, when he nominated Robert bork.

    And what, exactly, was wrong with Robert Bork that was OK with the racist Sotomayor??

  51. [51] 
    Michale wrote:

    Democrats continued to be triggered by free speech... :D

    Elon Musk triggers liberals with tweet on ‘Biden’s mistake’: ‘Proof being rich doesn’t make you smart’

    'Joe Biden’s center-right platforms might look very left-wing to a billionaire fascist,' tweeted one comedian
    https://www.foxnews.com/media/elon-musk-triggers-liberals-tweet-bidens-mistake-proof-being-rich-doesnt-make-you-smart

    I LOVE it.. :D

  52. [52] 
    Michale wrote:

    House Democrats stall measure boosting security for SCOTUS justices, claim bill should include law clerks

    Several abortion-rights protests have been staged outside justices' homes in recent days
    https://www.foxnews.com/politics/house-democrats-stall-measure-boosting-security-scotus-justices-bill-law-clerks

    Democrats are stalling..

    They want to protect Sotomayor's clerk who leaked the draft...

    Gods help Democrats if a SCOTUS Justice is actually attacked and injured..

    Democrats are violent that way..

  53. [53] 
    Michale wrote:

    "Elon’s mistake is thinking that we need his take on politics and life. Stick to your computers inside the shells of cars funded with subsidies from the very governments you lambast."
    -Cuomo Chief Of Staff Lindsey Boylan

    Ahhhh So Democrats don't like celebrity opinions when they don't fit the Democrat agenda.. :eyeroll:

    Hypocrisy much???

  54. [54] 
    Michale wrote:

    Why on EARTH would Democrats think that Mary Jankowicz would be a good Minister of Truth???

    You couldn’t have picked a worse Minister of Truth than Nina Jankowicz
    https://nypost.com/2022/05/12/you-couldnt-have-picked-a-worse-minister-of-truth-than-nina-jankowicz/

    The pick is MIND NUMBINGLY moronic!! :^/

  55. [55] 
    Michale wrote:

    I mean, creating a MINISTRY OF TRUTH is moronic to begin with..

    I think we ALL can agree on that..

    But to put THIS partisan moron in charge of it!!??

    Biden's handlers have gone WAY off the deep end!!

  56. [56] 
    Michale wrote:

    If you were trying to discredit your own regime, you would be hard-pressed to do better than create a Ministry of Truth, house it within your domestic-security apparatus and appoint a serial spewer of untruth to lead it.

    But don’t let the folly of the Biden administration’s Nina Jankowicz-led, Department of Homeland Security-housed Disinformation Governance Board fool you. The DGB is not only a discrediting and delegitimizing project but a dangerous one.

    Start with Jankowicz, the self-described “Mary Poppins of disinformation.” She is uniquely ill-suited to be an arbiter of truth — a position that has no place in a free country.

    Jankowicz is an unrepentant Russiagate collusion-monger who praised that the former British spy behind the discredited Steele dossier.

    Jankowicz also amplified the ultimate in election-interfering disinformation — that the New York Post’s censored-but-true Hunter Biden laptop story was Russian disinformation; footage Internet sleuths unearthed indicates she believes a 2020 joint Senate committee report on the Biden family’s dubious foreign dealings during Joe’s vice presidency is “disinformation” too.

    Biden's handlers could not have telegraphed MORE their intent to destroy America if they tried!!

  57. [57] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    [49]

    Interesting article. I agree with his argument concerning how police involved deaths are reported; and I do not doubt his firing stemmed from his continued insistence on discussing the topic in a manner management did not like.

    There were a few things in this that I do not agree with. One, he makes no mention that “officer involved deaths ”can include a person in police custody having a brain aneurysm and dying. This serves to boost the numbers greatly.

    The other thing I do not like is the focus on whether someone was “unarmed”. Ignore the fact that the suspect shot was trying to drive a bulldozer thru a daycare center, he was “unarmed” — a phrase that makes the public think that he did not pose any real danger.

    Lastly, I have no idea why you would compare number of officers killed by race to the number of each race killed by officers. Race has nothing to do with either! Skin color should be looked at the same way we look at hair color in this events. They are descriptive terms used only to identify an individual.

  58. [58] 
    Michale wrote:

    Russ,

    All very good points..

    Lastly, I have no idea why you would compare number of officers killed by race to the number of each race killed by officers. Race has nothing to do with either!

    Because race is ALL that BLM/Democrats care about when it comes to OI shootings..

  59. [59] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    Because race is ALL that BLM/Democrats care about when it comes to OI shootings..

    If you were being told that your race was 70% more likely to experience a use of force against them than others, it might be your focus as well. The problem with this is that no one is offering ANY explanation as to why this occurs — which leaves people assuming the worse — that cops are just bigots.

    There is already an severely flawed assumption by the general masses that no one ever discusses. People assume that the officers just happen upon crimes taking place and they choose for themselves how to define the role each person plays. Nothing could be further from the truth! I would estimate that 90% of all police action are calls for service via 911 where police are told descriptions of the suspects they need to find. We don’t have Latino men being stopped and questioned when the suspect is described as a white woman. That would be racist policing.

    We need someone to do a study on how socio-economic factors cause different sentences for the same crime. That’s where the damage is truly being done.

Leave a Reply

[If you have questions as to how to register or log in, to be able to post comments here, or if you'd like advanced commenting and formatting tips, please visit our "Commenting Tips" page, for further details.]

You must be logged in to post a comment.
If you are a new user, please register so you can post comments here.

[The first time you post a comment (after creating your user name and logging in), it will be held for approval. Please be patient (as it may take awhile). After your first comment has been approved, you will be able to post further comments instantly and automatically.]