Virus Outbreak Protests Michigan
Protesters rally at the State Capitol in Lansing, Mich. (AP Photo/Paul Sancya)
Previous Post
Next Post

[ED: This report is indicative of the way the protests in Michigan have been portrayed by the mainstream press. Note the attempt to tar the protesters — none of whom broke any laws — with racism and associate them with un-named, mysterious, insurrectionist “far-right groups.”]

By Sara Burnett, Associated Press

Gun-carrying protesters have been a common sight at some demonstrations calling for coronavirus-related restrictions to be lifted. But an armed militia’s involvement in an angry protest in the Michigan statehouse Thursday marked an escalation that drew condemnation and shone a spotlight on the practice of bringing weapons to protest.

The “American Patriot Rally” started on the statehouse steps, where members of the Michigan Liberty Militia stood guard with weapons and tactical gear, their faces partially covered. They later moved inside the Capitol along with several hundred protesters, who demanded to be let onto the House floor, which is prohibited. Some protesters with guns — which are allowed in the statehouse — went to the Senate gallery, where a senator said some armed men shouted at her, and some senators wore bulletproof vests.

For some observers, the images of armed men in tactical gear at a state Capitol were an unsettling symbol of rising tensions in a nation grappling with crisis. Others saw evidence of racial bias in the way the protesters were treated by police.

For some politicians, there was fresh evidence of the risk of aligning with a movement with clear ties to far-right groups.

Prominent Michigan Republicans on Friday criticized the showing, with the GOP leader of the state Senate referring to some protesters as “a bunch of jackasses” who “used intimidation and the threat of physical harm to stir up fear and feed rancor.”

President Donald Trump, who has been criticized in the past for condoning extremist views, called the protesters “very good people” and urged Democratic Gov. Gretchen Whitmer to “make a deal.”

Michigan has been the epicenter of the political showdown over how to contain the spread of the deadly virus without decimating the economy. About a quarter of the state’s workforce has filed for unemployment and nearly 4,000 people have died.

Rally organizer Ryan Kelley said the event was intended to pressure Republicans to reject Whitmer’s plan to continue restrictions on work and travel. He called the protest a “huge win,” noting the Republican-controlled Senate refused to extend Whitmer’s coronavirus emergency declaration — though she said Friday her stay-at-home order remains in effect.

Kelley, a 38-year-old real estate broker, said he and other organizers are not part of a formal group but represent people who have been harmed by the stay-home order. He said he invited the Michigan Liberty Militia, which is listed as an anti-government group by the Southern Poverty Law Center, to serve as “security.” He suggested anyone who had a problem with their presence should read the Constitution and “live life without fear.”

Gun-carrying protesters outside state capitols are a regular occurrence in many states, especially in Republican-leaning ones. But rarely do such protests converge at the same time around the country like they have during the coronavirus pandemic.

In Wisconsin, about a dozen men, several wearing camouflage, carried what appeared to be assault rifles and other long guns and stood around a makeshift guillotine at a protest attended by about 1,500 people. In Arizona, a group of men armed with rifles were among hundreds of protesters who demonstrated at the Capitol last month demanding Republican Gov. Doug Ducey lift his stay-home order. Many in the crowd also carried holstered pistols.

Gun groups have been involved in organizing several of these protests — which drew activists from a range of conservative causes. Gun rights advocates believe the restrictions on some businesses and closure of government offices are a threat to their right to own a gun, said Michael Hammond, legislative counsel for Gun Owners of America, a group that bills itself as the “no compromise” gun lobby.

Hammond said he routinely gets messages and emails from people around the country, complaining that authorities are making it impossible to exercise their Second Amendment rights. In some cases, that has meant orders closing gun shops or gun ranges or offices shutting down that process permits.

But Shannon Watts, the founder of Moms Demand Action, a gun-control group, considers these protests organized by the ultra-right and not necessarily reflective of most gun owners.

While it’s legal to openly carry firearms inside some state capitols, Watts called it “dangerous to normalize this. Armed intimidation has no place in our political debate.” She said those carrying guns at protests are almost always white men, and are “a vocal minority of the country” that opposes the stay-at-home orders.

An overwhelming majority of Americans support stay-at-home orders and other efforts to slow the spread of the virus, according to a recent survey from The Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research.

The visual of heavily armed protesters, mostly white men, occupying a government building to a measured response by law enforcement is a particularly jarring one for many African Americans.

It draws a stark contrast to the images that emerged from Ferguson, Missouri, in 2014, when crowds of unarmed, mostly black men, women and children took to the streets in protest after a white police officer shot and killed an unarmed black teenager named Michael Brown. Then, National Guardsmen mounted on military vehicles shot tear gas indiscriminately to disperse the crowds, further flaring tensions between the predominantly black community and law enforcement.

“Systemically, blackness is treated like a more dangerous weapon than a white man’s gun ever will, while whiteness is the greatest shield of safety,” said Brittany Packnett, a prominent national activist who protested in Ferguson.

The Michigan demonstrators, she added, “are what happens when people of racial privilege confuse oppression with inconvenience. No one is treading on their rights. We’re all just trying to live.”

Trump, meanwhile, suggested it was Whitmer who should be moved to action.

“The Governor of Michigan should give a little, and put out the fire,” the president tweeted Friday. “These are very good people, but they are angry. They want their lives back again, safely! See them, talk to them, make a deal.”

Previous Post
Next Post


  1. What does Ferguson have to do with the Michigan Governor, in Ferguson local and out of town thugs destroy the town because a police officer had defend himself from attack. Michigan is suffering under the coronavirus and an incompetent governor.

      • More recently, the DNC and their co-conspirators raise the race card first, last, and everywhere in between.

        • When all else fails, cling to your guns. Armed intimidation is not a form of peaceful protest. Guns are for pussies.

    • Michigan is suffering from the worst of the worst would be sovereign dictators. She is head and shoulder above Ralph, black-faced baby-killer, Northam and Andrew, “no one needs 7 bullets to kill a deer”, Cuomo. This woman is a democrat, that should be the simple answer. She doubles down when the people she would rule revolt against her dictatorial edicts. There is an armed rebellion brewing in this country and if these would be dictators don’t get the message there will be hell to pay.

      • I hate to spoil anyone’s fantasy around here where it seems more than a few would love to start shooting things up, but if things continue as they are in several states even the mundane will begin protesting. Not sure about where you may be but I’m not even close to taking up arms to oust my Governor and likely wouldn’t be even if I lived in MI. If you really want to add credibility then your protest you need to incorporate a more diverse group than some gun owners…

        It’s taking time but there are many now seeing the light of the tyrannical activities of many state, local and fed officials. I don’t see how this forced shutdown can last much longer, even in hovels like NY when local sheriffs and even some mayors are refusing to “honor” the edicts of the anointed ones above them. With a bit more patience we’ll be back in control- once we get there it’ll be very important to pay those others back in Nov.

        • “With a bit more patience we’ll be back in control.”

          “We” being whom, who, what, which?

          Power, once grasped, does not easily surrender.

    • Yes, while we are comparing Lansing to Ferguson, how many stores did these terrible armed white men vandalized? How many houses they burned?

      How can even leftist AP shill draw any parallel between this legitimate protest and a riot over dead cop attacker? Disgusting.

  2. “Armed intimidation has no place in our political debate”

    Wasnt there a memo about the government having nuclear weapons a little while ago? Where was this statement then?

    • Fiundagner,

      The Left/Progressives absolutely LOVE armed intimidation as long their government henchmen are the ones wielding the firearms in support of THEIR causes.

      As usual, something is good when the Left/Progressives do it and is bad when the Right/Conservatives do it.

    • If armed intimidation doesn’t belong in the political debate. Disarm the police and armed security protecting the politicians.

    • “Armed intimidation has no place in our political debate”

      Wrong. Politicians need to be reminded that it’s not them, but the people who wields the real power, lest they forget.

  3. They are all pounding this sand….TRUMP 2045, as soon as this coronarita virus is over the stock market will soar out of control

    • Because a market with a P/E ratio of 75 is good!


      People take up arms to go get sick again, but not when PPP/EIDL given to big biz instead of small biz? Or when country is flooded with illegal aliens? Or drag queen story hour?

  4. “their faces partially covered”

    Oh, I guess she was talking about the armed state police officers…

    • Pretty sure she was talking about the surgical ect masks required by the state emergency orders and trying to make it sound sinister

    • How many shots were fired, how many arrests? Oh yeah, none and none. They’re shocked that white officers didn’t arrest white protesters for NOT breaking the law.

      “Yeah, but guns!”

      • If these officers were told “Move or die” bet they would move. Hopefully it does not come to that, but we certainly don’t result to fucking up local businesses and looting. We take the fight to the source. Why? Because guns.

        And of course there are racists there. There are racists everywhere. Black racists, Indian racists, etc etc. The difference is they do not represent the cause, unlike movements like BLM. Or even sexist movements like all those pink pussy hat gatherings. They are hiding in these groups, and not liked either. In fact, if they are exposed in these groups, they get booted. These movements are about freedom. Not race. The media just simply shows the rednecks and their trump flags that make up a small percentage of the gatherings. Fucking idiots, you are protesting trumps actions, or lack thereof. Incompetence in politics in general, and guess what, he’s a fucking politician now (cringe).

  5. Being called a “racist” is a badge of honor – it means that the Leftists are foaming at the mouth and have nothing else to say.

    • Althouhere, despite TTAG’s header, no one is calling them racist. The article asserts a racial bias in the police response, but only calls the armed protesters privileged white men, not racists.

      • While the word “racist” was not used, what, exactly, do you think the term “privileged white men” means in this context?
        Anyone in America who is literate has seen that term used to mean “racist” in so many words. Don’t let others hide behind the “niceties” they use to attempt to disguise their hatred.

        • Exactly. And then they throw in the usual cocktail of “alt-right”, “right-wing” and “guns”. The same picture as always.

    • I think you were the most cursory examination the pictures and videos from the protests in Michigan would indicate a clear racial bias.

      The prevailance of confederate flags is a clear signal to minorities, especially blacks, that the protesters yearn for a return to the days when black folk were enslaved and worked for the enrichment of white people.

      Not only that, flying the Confederate flag means supporting a treasonous, armed insurrection against a duly constituted government of the United States of America.

      Why not fly the flag of the United States of America, Old Glory, that we are fought for, perhaps along with the Michigan State flag?

      • Oh boy. Where to begin (and is it even worth the time)?

        “The prevailance of confederate flags is a clear signal to minorities, especially blacks, that the protesters yearn for a return to the days when black folk were enslaved and worked for the enrichment of white people.”

        Aaahhhh….No. Of course there are some who would support such a circumstance; they have a perfect right to their ideas or opinions. The constitution of America does not protect suppressing ideas that are reprehensible. However (you knew there would be an “however”)….symbols can be more complex than one wants. The Confederate Battle Flag is a symbol of resistance to tyranny. People who consider themselves proud of the nation can also be rebellious at the idea of government overreach. The most blatant and most recognizable symbol of resistance to tyranny is the Confederate Battle Flag. The Gadsden Flag is too subtle, and the meaning to complex for society today. The Confederate Flag permits no mistake that the bearers are pushing back on government.

        “Not only that, flying the Confederate flag means supporting a treasonous, armed insurrection against a duly constituted government of the United States of America.”

        Depends entirely on your understanding of the founding, and the purpose of the US constitution. It also depends on your idea of “duly constituted”. What became the Confederate States were states who voluntarily surrendered their sovereign power to the national government, under the condition that their particular (peculiar) notion of the propriety of slave holding. The founders had to make a compromise in the constitution, in order to have sufficient numbers of States to ratify the replacement of the Articles of Confederation (our first national constitution). The founders had no misunderstanding that the States were sovereign, and that compromising sovereignty for unity was not insignificant, nor inconsequential.

        One of the open questions at and after the founding was whether the States had entered a suicide pact among themselves. That is, did States have the right to retract their delegated powers, essentially removing themselves from the compact? The right to separate from a collection of States bent on dismantling the constitution? The question was never adjudicated in the courts of the day (it wasn’t even tested in the courts).

        As slavery was being abolished in other countries, the zest of some in the US to join in the abolition (not integration) movement resulted in growing tensions between the governments and peoples of the States. Time and again, attempts to abolish slavery via simple legislation failed. It was certain that States wanting to eliminate slavery did not have the votes necessary to change the constitution, else an amendment ending slavery would have been ratified prior to 1861. The 13th Amendment could not be ratified until 1865, when the national legislature was made up of only the abolitionist states. (four slave States remained in the union throughout the Second American Revolution).

        So, when you talk about treason, who was treasonous? The States trying to evade the constitution, or the States who rebelled at the idea of being subject to a compact with States all too willing to ignore the document they earlier agreed to? The Confederate States considered the national government had become tyrannical, rogue, overreaching, and in violation of the Constitution itself. If we, today, believe we have the right to overthrow a tyrannical US government, why should the States that became the Confederacy not make the same claim?

        Hold on a moment…..

        If you intend to argue that the reason for rebellion in 1861 was immoral, just think for a moment how morality is established. Morality is an opinion, made forceful by collecting the majority opinion, and the majority vote. So, what is it today that we are being told is moral (the opposite being immoral)? Open borders, universal (single-payer, government controlled) healthcare, unrestricted voting, promoting any and every sort of lifestyle, free college education, hate crime law, red flag law, eliminating private ownership of guns, abortion, removing religion from every vestige of the public square, placing the nation under house arrest “for the public good”, attacking and killing a commune of people simply because they had children in the commune and the adults possessed guns, and the list goes on. Under the idea that opposing a tyrannical government is treasonous because your reason for doing so is immoral, then what do we say of all the 2A defenders? Of anyone who speaks against government declared morality?

        The motive for resisting the national government in 1861 was odious, the principle that constitutionally protected rights and powers could only be altered through the amendment process was valid. We must look to the DOI for justification of abolishing/seceding from a government…usurpation of power not delegated by the States.

        • “Confederate Battle Flag is a symbol of resistance to tyranny.“

          So what tyranny were the Confederates fighting against?

          I’ve heard the states rights argument before, but what they were fighting for was the states rights to own people in violation of the ‘all men are created equal’ statement.

          It’s that simple, there wasn’t a laundry list of oppressions like in the DoI,, they just wanted the right to own people and steal the fruits of their labor for their own benefit.

          No matter how hard one tries, the issue of slavery cannot be disconnected from the Confederates’ armed insurrection against the United States of America, which begin with their unprovoked attack on fort Sumter.

        • “No matter how hard one tries, the issue of slavery cannot be disconnected from the Confederates’ armed insurrection against the United States of America, which begin with their unprovoked attack on fort Sumter.”

          The motive doesn’t matter. Slavery was protected by the constitution. How does one change a provision of the constitution? Failure to amend the constitution, and merely outlaw a protected power by majority vote is not in keeping with the principles of the founding. When government (or a mob of states) decide to remove your constitutionally protected rights without an amendment, who is the treasonous party? You for demanding (through violence if necessary) the constitution be upheld, or the people trying to violate your constitution through legislation (and force if necessary?. Might makes right, I’m more moral than you, I like chocolate ice cream and you don’t, do not justify evading and ignoring the constitution.

          People not seeing the analog in politics today is puzzling. The anti-gun people are trying to evade the constitution by rendering the Second Amendment moot through simple laws and regulations. How far are you willing to let those people go before you rebel? And if you do rebel, your motive will be immoral, according to the people trying to subjugate you.

          When it comes to deciding that the slave States were immoral, and that alone justified eliminating a constitutional protection without an amendment, then one must likewise declare that removing the RTKBA without a constitutional amendment is also justified, if legislation in the states and the national government say so.

          And we haven’t addressed the same situation as regards the First Amendment. We are seeing that immoral (hate) speech is not covered by the constitution, because the people who want to squelch speech say some speech is immoral. One cannot be a defender of the First Amendment if one favors restrictions on that speech based solely on opinion. Thus, we must defend the right of people to engage in what is called “hate speech”, until the constitution is properly amended. Otherwise, we fall into the same trap you posed…a reprehensible activity protected by the constitution can legitimately be eliminated by the popular vote of the people.

        • Unprovoked attack? You know that fort Sumter was inside South Carolina, the Confederate state, right? Of course you know. It’s not like the Confederation invaded the Union. Unionists refused to leave when repeatedly (for months) asked nicely. Union even repeatedly tried to resupply the fort instead of giving it up.
          Reasons for the secession aside, the Confederacy could not tolerate now foreign country’s military power inside its borders.

        • “Unprovoked attack? ”

          My stance was based on secession being justified. That the real treason was the political elements (backed by government action [legislation]). Once the States seceded, all territory within their borders were subject to political and legal control of the States. Sumpter was situated within the jurisdiction of South Carolina. SC demanded the treasonous army of the United States surrender South Carolina property to South Carolina. Refusal was an act of war by a foreign power (the US).

          In the end, attacking Fort Sumpter was a huge political and legal mistake. The attack ended all possibility of a different outcome. The southern States should have pursued a claim against the US for trespass. If that failed, a new nation of common interests could then use international opinion/support to leverage the US. The Confederacy should have been smarter by a whole bunch.

          The Confederacy was a sovereign nation by its own declaration. A sovereign nation has a natural right to defend its territory. The Confederacy was, literally, too quick on the trigger.

          The US triggered the secession. The Confederacy triggered the war

        • Sam, thank you for your recent replies I appreciate your effort to make your position clear.

          But I still return to the idea and black letter law, all men are created equal andendowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights.

          Just because the slaveholding states violation was long-standing, does not somehow enshrine it in law.

          “Slavery was protected by the constitution.”

          That is interesting, I’d certainly like to know where that is in the constitution. I do know there is a mention in the requirement for a census, mentioning slaves would be counted as 3/5 of a human but an actual protection of the right of owning another human being I’m not as clear.

          On the subject of institutionalized racism, the very fact that the constitution counts a black person as only 3/5 of a human is clear evidence of the racism inherent in our white society.

          It will be many years before America is clear of the poison of slavery.

        • Slavery has been dead in the US for over a century.
          But it’s still practiced in Africa and the ME. If it’s such a concern, move your ignorant ass over there and try to change it.
          But, just like liberal gun controllers you put in a pedestal, you won’t do something about ending it YOURSELF. You will just whine and cry about a battle standard.
          You are nothing but a useless sack of crap.

        • @minor
          “It will be many years before America is clear of the poison of slavery.”

          Because low IQ humans won’t let it go.

        • “Just because the slaveholding states violation was long-standing, does not somehow enshrine it in law.”

          The simple existence of slavery did not, alone, “enshrine” the practice in law. Slavery was enshrined in State laws. Such laws did not make slavery morally legitimate, but only made slavery legal (everything legal is not morally legitimate). Reading the histories and letters of the founders, one must conclude that it was a serious sticking point, and potentially fatal to the new constitution (The Articles of Confederation did not outlaw slavery). There were two points of compromise, one of which being the intentionally misunderstood (3/5th person designation).
          The first thing to understand about the constitution is that the framers determined that the central government shall have constitutional, legitimate, power unless that power is specifically delegated to the central government (see Amendments 9 and 10). This principle was such a sticking point, that the ninth and tenth amendments entailed a serious debate and struggle over whether the central government would exceed the boundaries of the constitution. The Federalists thought it clear that if a power was not included, in writing, in the text of the constitution, by default the government had no such power. The Anti-Federalists believed government would always conclude that its powers were permissive (if not specifically prohibited, government had power to act). The Ninth and Tenth Amendments were adopted in order to have the requisite number of States ratify the new constitution (and thus negate The Articles of Confederation). Hence, and this is where so many go off the rails regarding slavery in the new nation, the authority to control (abolish) slavery was not delegated to the central government; control remained with the individual States. If the central government had no delegated power to outlaw slavery, the Constitution (via Amendments 9 and 10) protected slavery as a matter of constitutional right.
          It was no secret, nor a negligible matter, that slaves were held by people in certain States; the framers did not accidentally forget to deal with it in the Constitution. Attempts to abolish slavery as a condition of establishing a new form of government (abandoning The Articles of Confederation) would have strangled the new nation in the womb. Slavery remained protected by the constitution, as that document prevented government from ending it.
          The acceptance of slavery in certain states was one of the great compromises necessary to produce, if you will, a new nation, a more mature compact of unity for the States, “…a more perfect union”. A more perfect union that structured under the Articles of Confederation. Interestingly, slavery itself is mentioned nowhere in the base constitution, nor the amendments. Yet, slavery posed an imminent difficulty (threat, you might say) to the political structure established by the Constitution. Slavery created an endless supply of eligible voters for the southern States (not at all different from the problem presented by open borders, today).
          Article 1, Section 2 of the Constitution tells us that in the representative form of government, the delegates to the House of Representatives would be allocated on raw headcount of humans in each state, with one specific exception. Section 2 states: “Representatives…shall be apportioned among the several States… according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons.”
          Section 2 gives us two circumstances wherein slavery legally exists, and is thus protected by the constitution: “…free persons (those imprisoned, and those not free – slaves), and “…including those bound to a Service for a Term of Years…” persons “bound to a Service were indentured servants and slaves (the term of years for slaves was life, unless freed by their owners).
          Now, the “three-fifths” problem. As noted prior, the rule was included in the constitution so as to limit the power of southern States, the ability to breed via slaves a population that would guarantee majority representation in the House of Representatives for the slave states. The three-fifths person rule did not deal with superiority or inferiority of slaves as a people, but only as to their contribution to the power of slave states. Without the three-fifths rule, southern States would have had even greater power to propagate slavery in new states (which gets into the decade 1850-1860, regarding whether the constitution permitted Congress to condition Statehood based on whether slavery would be permitted, or not). The three-fifths rule actually recognized, respected the power of individuals held as slaves; human power reflected in the potential of allowing a full accounting in allocating congressional representatives to the national legislature. A power perverted into the means to keep slaves in chains perpetually.
          The three-fifths rule was not a moral declaration, but a political device designed to prevent creating the potentially most populous states (slave holding states), and them being to wield what might become unsurmountable power over the non-slave holding States (not too different today, where the population centers ignore the rest of the country, politically).
          And now we come the actual issue: principle vs. expedience. Let’s consider that the constitution included a provision that no limits could be placed on the amount of interest that could be charged on a loan. That would have been a practice protected by the constitution. Think about that…interest on loans would be whatever the lender and borrower agreed to. Such a provision would be legal, and constitutional. It would be an exception to Congressional power to regulate commerce via the Commerce Clause. It would legally permit the immoral practice of bankrupting people for the purpose of acquiring wealth for the lender. Now, consider that there would come a time when a great number of people would find the lenders to be morally corrupt. The remedy to alter a constitutional principle is to alter/amend the constitution. No matter how morally repugnant, the Congress would have no power to limit interest rates. Any legislation that attempted to assert control would be unconstitutional on its face. The principle of constitutional power, authority, law would prevail; Constitution contains a “bad” practice, amend the constitution. Deciding that moral repugnance somehow negates the constitutional process of amendment means we have no real constitution, just those laws that Congress can be persuaded, extorted or paid to produce.
          In the end, imposing unconstitutional law on the public is abrogation of the oath of office to defend the constitution. Persons violating their oath are the treasonous ones. And we, the people, retain the right to remove such persons by force, if necessary. The northern States tried to negate the constitution by legislating their way around it. The southern States decided they wanted no part of a government tyranny such as that. The instant catalyst, slavery, resulted in attempts by northern politicians to negate a constitutionally protected practice. The immorality of slavery did not justify bypassing the constitution. If that immorality did, in fact, for expedience, justify bypassing the constitution, what new immorality will the government invent to justify other tyrannical actions?

        • Sam, thanks again for providing a reasoned reply, I appreciate your willingness to discuss these issues.

          “Slavery was enshrined in State laws“

          So there is no constitutional protection for slavery, and it was authorized by state laws only?

          Then the supremacy clause would allow federal laws enacted by Congress to abolish the practice.

        • “So there is no constitutional protection for slavery, and it was authorized by state laws only?”

          Not correct. I explained how the constitution preserved the powers of the States, and that the States, in constructing the constitution, retained whatever powers were not explicitly delegated to the central government. Since the central government was given no power to control/regulate slavery, the constitution protected the laws and powers of the States. Without a ratified constitutional amendment, the central government could not, through the”supremacy” clause, regulate slavery.

          The laws passed by congress are valid only insofar as such laws do not violate the constitution* . Unconstitutional law/legislation cannot access the “supremacy” clause to justify unconstitutional acts. The “supremacy” clause is not a standing constitutional amendment to be used by the federal government to do as it pleases, in lieu of an amendment.

          *Article VI:
          “This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land;”

        • “The instant catalyst, slavery, resulted in attempts by northern politicians to negate a constitutionally protected practice.”

          I am still not seeing where the constitution specifically protects the practice of slavery.

          You stated that it is enshrined in State laws but was slavery protected by a specific provision in the Constitution such as freedom of the press, freedom to assemble, etc.?

        • “I am still not seeing where the constitution specifically protects the practice of slavery.”

          Read the ninth and tenth amendments. It is clear that power not specifically delegated to the national government, via the Constitution and amendments, are retained by the States. The ninth and tenth clearly spell out that the constitution does not list all the rights of the States, or the people, and that the lack of such list is not evidence that the central has been de facto delegated such powers/rights.

          BTW, abortion is not a listed right of individuals. Some people think the SC invented a “right” out of thin air, but the central government was given no constitutional power to regulate abortion. That right is covered under the ninth and tenth amendments, making it a power of regulation reserved to the States. Unfortunately, Roe v. Wade was decided in an era where people believed that if the constitution does not specifically prohibit an activity, the government may act without limit. Thus, the SC essentially did what the Anti-Federalists feared.

          Obama was right…the Constitution is a document of negative rights for government; the constitution states what government cannot do.

        • I find it amusing that we have a discussion about events which happened in the 1860s while ignoring even more offensive events happening this week. There is a “presumptive nominee” in the current race for President of the US, who is conducting a search for a candidate to be his Vice President. He has announced to the world that he *will* select a woman (clearly and deliberately sexist), to which several women have responded, demanding that he select a *black* woman, or a “woman of color”. This demand is patently racist, yet who has pointed that out? On national TV, proudly demanding the nominee for president participate in a racist selection in order to establish an overwhelmingly racist government, with demands for everything from cabinet positions to Supreme Court nominations to be decided on the basis of gender and race. Who gives a shit about what happened 170 years ago, it is happening RIGHT NOW!!!

          And Sam, the constitution also did not grant the states or the feds control over alcohol or drugs, either. At the beginning of the last century we understood that, and outlawed alcohol by Amendment. We then decided such fidelity was unnecessary for drugs, never even considered it as a solution to the question of abortion.

        • “Who gives a shit about what happened 170 years ago, it is happening RIGHT NOW!!!”

          Because what happened 170 years ago is repeating itself? The constitutional problems of today stem from ignorance of the founding, and the intent of the nation as founded. If one is not aware of the the history since the founding, the issues of today are incomprehensible, and spawning ground for more ignorance, leading to more problems of which you speak.

          How many times have we proclaimed that all we need to do is take some one to the range to convert them into POTG? Why should we not take someone to school, and convert them to defenders of the constitution. Distorting the constitution is not something restricted to the last twenty years, or so. The distortions to date are the baseline for many people’s understanding of the nation. Reasoning backward from what is, and concluding it is the way things were designed to be is dangerous. If the constitution is thought to be merely a list of suggestions, the Second Amendment is an anachronism that long ago lost its value.

          Tracing from the beginning of the Constitution, and forcing the issues of today against that standard is a must, to counter the decay in knowledge since 1950.

      • There is no prevalence of Confederate flags on display here, first of all. But the Confederate flag means different things to different people and just because it was co-opted by racists and idiots does not mean everyone who displays it feels the same way. For many, the flag symbolizes regional or ancestral pride, for others it is meant to honor the bravery and character of the men who fought and died under it. For still others the flag represents independent spirit and rebellion against authority. Only those displaying it can tell you why they do, unfortunately people make assumptions and today that assumption is the flag flyer is racist. Personally, due to the racist connotations to the Confederate Battle Flag, which I do not personally possess, I now fly the Bonnie Blue under the Stars & Bars.

  6. “An overwhelming majority of Americans support stay-at-home orders and other efforts to slow the spread of the virus, according to a recent survey from The Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research.”

    Acording to the same polls an overwhelming majority of Americans wanted Hillary and support gun control. But when the votes were counted she lost and when a crisis hit they all went out to buy guns.

    As far the different treatment of white and black protesters, white protesters show up at state capitals and yell at their representatives with guns slung and in holsters, whereas black protester burn and loot their community and surrounding communities and shoot at police, fire, and EMS. There’s a bit of a difference there requiring a different level of force in response.

    • She won the popular vote by 3 million. Still 2nd to the number that couldn’t bring themselves to vote for either one, but claiming her EC loss shows lack of popular support is erroneous.

      • By the straight math, yes, she won. But her supporters were clustered into only a few major metro areas. This is exactly why the Founders established the Electoral College.

        But you already know that.

      • ‘Popular’ vote is meaningless.
        Cali. Where a large majority of those votes came from, registered illegals to vote.
        They use jungle primaries to shut out the conservatives.
        They use ‘ballot harvesting’ to get rid of conservative votes, because they can go through the votes and make the ones they don’t like disappear.
        Your ignorance about pretty much everything is a clear indication that you are a liberal boot licker.

        • Where are all these “2A PATRIOTS” when illegals are flooding our country? Or when they banned bump fire stocks?

        • “USS Liberty”

          I got the reference. All these years later, I still do not know how to view the Israelis. I do know that consider the US a friend, only a situational ally.

        • There is an interesting curiosity regarding “the popular vote”….the popular vote is not a vote for a presidential candidate, it is a vote for Electors from each state. The popularly elected Electors the proceed to a vote for the President of The United States. The popular vote for the Electors determines the winner. Well…sorta.

          The US Constitution established the Electoral College, but left it up to the States (capital “S” in those days) to determine how Electors would be chosen. Initially, it was possible that the choice of the Electors was whoever gained the plurality of the public vote for President. Thus, if there were enough candidates in a state, the Electors could vote for someone gaining only 10% of the public vote. Remember, this was long before the idea of “winner take all” was a thing.

          In the end, the elected candidate does win the popular vote, as reflected in the selection, and vote, of the Electors. The Electors reflect the number of Senators and Representatives allocated each state. As a result, the more populous states do have more Senators and Representatives. This would seem to merely mirror the popular vote of the citizens, and should result in the same outcome as the raw popular vote. However….

          The populous states currently do not have enough Senators and Representatives to overcome the combined votes of the lower populated states, should those smaller states choose to vote in opposition to the populous states. Such was the intent of the framers of the Constitution. Never dismiss the fact that the framers were fearful of a direct democracy, as we should be today.

          For those who believe direct democracy (majority always rules), such a situation can result in tyranny you don’t want, versus the tyranny you do want.

        • @Sam,

          “States” is still capitalized. I believe the main difference in reference (then vs. now) is more aptly shown in how the term “these United States” has been replaced by politicos by “the United States”. I still use the word these in face-to-face conversations to see if anyone notices it.

        • For my discussions of the Constitution, I use the capital “S” on the word “state(s)” intentionally. The purpose is to delineate between the US compact prior to 1868, and the status of the compact post-1868. Prior to 1868, the States were the superior sovereigns, delegating (lending) power to the central committee. Post-1868, the states were subordinate to the central committee.

          I want to make clear (switching between caps and lower case) the upending and inversion of the constitutional power structure. It is important the the people whose ancestors created the national government understand that states are mere provinces/precincts of the national government and the people in the states are, in all respects, subordinate to, and serfs of the republic their ancestors created.

        • “Sam,

          Wish I did. My hands seemed to be under someone else’s control. Every time I looked at what was being typed on screen, my left hand came off the keyboard, slapped me twice. Once I looked away, the left hand resumed work on the key board. I swear I gotta stop drinking straight Vermouth.

          Or, maybe it’s all the Singapore Slings this morning.

        • Sam. You and I both know that even the closest of allies routinely gather intel on one another. Sometimes those ops go south. It’s a high stakes game and sometimes it don’t go our way.

          IMHO the Brits and the Israeli’s are our best allies. That doesn’t mean that friction will not occur.

        • “Sam. You and I both know that even the closest of allies routinely gather intel on one another.”

          Indeed. However….

          While working for a US defense contractor, had the privilege of lunching with the Israeli Deputy Defense Minister (not remembering the official title) for aviation matters. The D-Minister had two assistants with him, neither of whom said a word.

          At lunch we gabbed about this and that. Somehow we got to the politics of foreign military aid, and aid to Israel specifically. Most of the conversation escapes me, but I remember clearly that the D-Minister told me, “When your Under Secretary of the Air Force invites me to dine, he thinks he is sitting down with one of his friends; I do not.” The overall thrust was that Israel trusts no other nation or national government.

          My takeaway, confirmed by no one, was that the USS Liberty incident was not the advertised “mistake”, but an intentional effort to ensure the US was not double-dealing in the mid-East.

        • You are forgetting the illegal alien/invader vote. In California alone, that must have amounted to a few million, at least.

        • Claimed with no supporting evidence whatsoever.

          But, the juvenile insult tacked on the end inspires confidence that you must know what you’re talking about.

        • Awe.. poor lil’ fella has to be spoon fed everything by the MSM..
          Stupid fucking retard.
          Your parents manage to have any kids with an IQ higher than 1? Because you sure don’t.
          Go bleat elsewhere, sheep.

        • Auughhh!!! Such dazzling repartee! I am wounded!

          Must… make… it.. to.. safe…space….

        • No surprise you need a safe space.
          I have to keep my replies very simple for you to understand.
          Keep grazing, little sheep..

        • Yes, I think many of us would like to see the evidence that these whiny Republicans use when they claim millions voted illegally in California.

          I mean something other than what Trump claimed, some German guy he golfed with said it was true so it must be.

          Please, crush my snowflake psyche with hard evidence of these millions of illegal votes, some sort of solid facts to prove your point.

          Otherwise it’s just empty speech, a base form of propaganda that lacks the finesse of a true professional.

        • “Yes, I think many of us would like to see the evidence that these whiny Republicans use when they claim millions voted illegally in California.”

          Direct evidence would be good, but….

          If you are facilitating someone doing something illegal, isn’t it logical serious efforts to hide the illegal action would be taken?

          We can’t be sure, one way or the other. But does it not stretch credulity beyond the breaking point to believe and insist there is zero illegal voting? If there are no safeguards allowed, then it is impossible to know the extent and influence of illegal voting.

        • Sam, just look at North Carolina. The recent election fraud by Republicans in North Carolina involved only a few thousand votes but they couldn’t keep that quiet, do you really think that millions of illegal votes in California could be concealed?

          Such a conspiracy would involve thousands of co-conspirators, all who could immediately bring the whole thing crashing down. And that was almost 4 years ago, certainly in that time a scheme involving millions of illegal voters would’ve been compromised.

          It is an extraordinary claim and it would require extraordinary evidence.

          And is a famous man once said, claims made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

        • Lol!! Guess you missed all the voter fraud in Michigan, and Cali, and NY.
          You cherry pick your stats to fit your narrative.
          You are a useless, impotent sack of crap.

        • “Sam, just look at North Carolina. The recent election fraud by Republicans in North Carolina involved only a few thousand votes but they couldn’t keep that quiet, do you really think that millions of illegal votes in California could be concealed?”

          Haven’t taken a position on “millions of illegal votes”. Have no way of knowing, one way or the other. But I do have plenty of historical evidence that people are corrupt, and politicians more so. Illegal voting has always been present in our politics. Sometimes people get caught, sometimes not. But I am old enough to know that the lack of evidence is not evidence, either way. It would be foolish to think there is never any illegal voting.

        • “the lack of evidence is not evidence, either way.“

          Interesting concept, I’m not sure I agree.

          “It would be foolish to think there is never any illegal voting.”

          Now, don’t be moving the goalposts!

          The claim I’m responding to is that there were ‘millions of illegal votes in California’ and I have never said there is never any illegal voting.

          But the claim of millions of illegal voters, without a shred of evidence to back it up, is just right wing propaganda to explain trumps failure to win the popular vote.

          And whatever happened to trumps select committee on voter fraud…

          Oh yeah, it was disbanded because they could find no evidence to support the claims of massive voter fraud.

        • The committee was disbanded because every liberal run state refused to give them access to the information.
          But you would know this if you were to watch anything other than the MSM.
          But here are a few points that price that the left has engaged in voter fraud:
          In the 2008 House race with Allen West, his opponent won with a slight margin. But several precincts in the liberal strong holds had over 100% turn out.
          In California, due to ‘vote harvesting’, the liberals were able to flip Orange County from an overwhelmingly conservative county to a blue county in 2 years. The demographics didn’t change. But they way votes were harvested, and counted, did.
          A Democratic in Michigan, who helped implement and oversee the 2018 election was found guilty of tampering with hundreds of votes. But no, there was no voter fraud, right?
          Stay ignorant, dumbass.

        • “The claim I’m responding to is that there were ‘millions of illegal votes in California’ ”

          Indeed. My point being we can never really know. Claims “yes” and claims “no” cannot be “proven”. But, whether “millions”, or hundreds, it is possible for voting to be corrupted, and every voter should be concerned that vote integrity be ensured. The beneficiary of illegal voting would be simply foolish to think they will forever be the only ones who can rig a vote. The voters of the nation would be foolish to believe that they can trust a system of voting based on the honor system.

          Not moving the goal post, simply widening the discussion beyond a single claim.

      • You need a lesson in reality:
        WE DO NOT LIVE IN A DEMOCRACY! When Ben Franklin returned from France, he told the people, that he brought them a REPUBLIC. Sure, we have some of the trappings of democracy, but the United States is a REPUBLIC. You need to keep that in mind, when discussing that “popular vote” thing.

        • But you’re completely missing the point about the polls.

          The polls didn’t ask, ‘who do you think it’s going to win’. The polls ask ‘who are you going to vote for’.

          And in that respect, the polls were exactly accurate, a majority of Americans told the posters they were going to vote for Hillary Clinton.

          And indeed, a majority of American citizens did vote for Hillary Clinton over Donald Trump, by over 3,000,000 vote.

        • “…the polls were exactly accurate, a majority of Americans told the posters they were going to vote for Hillary Clinton.”

          “Accurate” being a relative term. The “polls” didn’t indicate Hilary would win the popular vote, the polls declared she would win the presidency/election. The polls did not accurately (as it get it right) about the margin of victory. If one accepts that “landslide” is an accurate portrayal of a difference of 2,868,686 votes (2.22%), then one can promote the idea that the polls were accurate.

          The reality is that the final polls on election night showed a minimum 87% chance clinton would win election (which the unknowing equate to popular vote count). The idea that winning the popular vote was equivalent of winning the election was based on on the notion that the result had been wrong only four times prior. Essentially, the polls were likelihood predicated on likelihood; counting chickens before they hatch.

          “The polls” correctly predicted the raw outcome of the popular vote (Clinton win), but not the actual margin of victory. The media were ultimately spared the embarrassment of having to explain how a 2.87 million vote differential equated to a crushing mandate for Clinton to simply ignore the votes of Trump supporters.

          Note, when it came to the actual election of the president, how was it that Rasmussen group got it right?

        • @ miner: the majority of those polled told pollsters that they don’t own guns too.

    • Sorta correct, yet misleadingly incomplete, even for a pirate. She won the popular vote nationwide by 3 million votes. However, she won CA by 4.5 million votes, thus she lost the popular vote in 49 states by 1.5 million votes. Meanwhile, she lost 80% of counties, truly a crushing number, and 75% of states, likewise damning. And 60% of the electoral college! And 3 out of 4 categories here! Truly and resoundingly crushed. “But wait!”, you say, “those other things don’t matter!” Precisely right except for one, the electoral college is the *”ONLY”* thing that counts, and she lost that. Therefore, she LOST! Continuing to whine and make excuses for a truly dismal candidate and completely abominable person is nonsensical.

      • “She won the popular vote nationwide by 3 million votes. However, she won CA by 4.5 million votes, thus she lost the popular vote in 49 states by 1.5 million votes. Meanwhile, she lost 80% of counties, truly a crushing number, and 75% of states, likewise damning. And 60% of the electoral college! And 3 out of 4 categories here! ”

        Nicely encapsulated. Filing this away for future use. Thanx.

  7. ” Anti government, armed protestors ” were actually pro constitution- pro bill of rights patriots.

    • We should be precise here: the protesters were not “anti-government” meaning that they oppose all government. Rather, the protesters were “anti-bogus executive Governor orders”.

      While the difference is subtle, the implications are GINORMOUS.

      • I must disagree, with your claims that the protesters were not anti-government.

        To publicly march with the confederate flag, the battle flag of a group of traitors who took up arms against the United States government and killed thousands of American citizens serving their country is indeed, the most anti-government action one could take short of actually pulling the trigger.

        • Poor wittle Miner.. too stupid to know anything about current events, or history.
          Run back and go hide under your mommy’s skirt.

        • “Poor wittle Miner.. too stupid to know anything about current events, or history.”

          Miner is expressing an opinion shared by many. It is an opportunity (which I obviously took) to discuss history, the constitution, and which view point makes one guilty of treason. Read the interchanges, and feel free to add to the conversation.

        • Nope. Miner is an unthinking leftist sheep. My dog’s piles of crap are able to reason far beyond what Miner is capable of.
          He should be roundly ridicules everytime he appears.

    • All it takes to be painted as “far right” these days is to love your country, freedom, and the constitution.

      • From the pictures, it appears that that many of the protesters love a country that took up arms against the United States of America to perpetuate the institution of slavery.

  8. This is it, the point where the craziness has gone so far for so long that people don’t even comprehend what they are protesting any more.

  9. Lol armed protest so you can go get infected with a deadly disease.

    Not for Drag queen story hour or the flooding of illegal aliens or any of the other insane stuff over the last 10 years.

    • @BOOMERwaffen

      Congratulations, yours is the stupidest spin I’ve heard in quite a while. Learn to think before you type or better yet, learn how to think.

  10. Oh look, another propaganda piece. Do you know why people are starting to show up armed at protests? Because they stay peaceful that way. Antifa doesn’t show up, and the cops behave with the protesters. The cops can’t tear gas armed people to protect them from the ‘rona when there are armed people in the mix. Plus, it got Hoggy boy all twisted up if you click on the twitter link and read on. He said bring signs not guns. Others said all of these people with guns are afraid. I doubt it. Most of the people I know that own guns don’t live their lives in fear. They take necessary precautions to provide their own protection. The guns, as are signs, are a statement that the people will not be willingly or quietly be bulldozed by the government.

    • M1Lou,

      “…Do you know why people are starting to show up armed at protests? Because they stay peaceful that way. ”

      Truth!!!! This is the purpose of the 2A.

    • I may not be “normal” in several ways, but I can say:
      I carry more often than I used to, not because I’m more afraid, but because I can read. I understand that, even though the MSM doesn’t report it, property crime is up. As small businesses are closed, criminals realize that means there’s no one there, because the owners are ordered to stay home, and most do, so the buildings that house those small businesses are empty. This is a perfect opportunity for them.
      The reason the MSM won’t report this is because they know that a good economy was Trump’s best argument for re-election; anything that hurts that is a good thing to the left. Further ruination through theft of small businesses is, to the left, a good thing, and not to be discouraged.
      But this emboldens the criminals. They know that police departments are stretched thin (lots of LEOs out with the virus), and response times are longer than normal. So crimes against people in their homes are on the rise, and against those out doing necessary shopping.
      Add to that the fact that many politicians have somehow figured that releasing criminals is a good thing, only to be shocked to find that criminals do, um, criminal things.
      My response is to carry more often. Not because I’m afraid, but because I’m smart enough to figure all this out.

  11. Typical hand wringing and virtue signaling from a leftist opinion piece.
    Journalism died decades ago.

    • Hydguy,

      Yup. Further: the mainstream media has become a disease, a vector for hate, racism, and deceit.

      • Lol!!
        No, it’s an liberal opinionated screed masquerading as ‘journalism’, also known as ‘yellow journalism’.
        One day your IQ might exceed your age, but it’s highly unlikely.

        • “No, it’s an liberal opinionated screed masquerading as ‘journalism’, also known as ‘yellow journalism’.”

          Then you understand that the history of “journalism” in this country is almost exclusively partisan. We had some sort of intermission in the ’40s/’50s where somehow the press (the entire media) convinced the public that “journalism” aspired to, and could be objective and a fair reporter on events and issues. We have simply reverted to type in the last forty years, and now the mask is removed entirely. The circle is once more unbroken.

  12. What got me was, a picture in my newspaper in Florida showed the group with one guy out in the front with his black sporting rifle that they must have gotten from somewhere had to be fotoshopped, the rifle was as big and wide as he was!

    • Found it:
      Declaration of Independence

      In Congress, July 4, 1776.

      The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America, When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

      We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.–That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, –That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.–Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

      He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.

      He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.

      He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.

      He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.

      He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.

      He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the Legislative powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.

      He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.

      He has obstructed the Administration of Justice, by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary powers.

      He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.

      He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harrass our people, and eat out their substance.

      He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.

      He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil power.

      He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:

      For Quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:

      For protecting them, by a mock Trial, from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:

      For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:

      For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:

      For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury:

      For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences

      For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies:

      For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws, and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:

      For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.

      He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.

      He has plundered our seas, ravaged our Coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.

      He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.

      He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.

      He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages, whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.

      In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.

      Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our Brittish brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which, would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.

      We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.

      Button Gwinnett
      Lyman Hall
      George Walton

      North Carolina
      William Hooper
      Joseph Hewes
      John Penn

      South Carolina
      Edward Rutledge
      Thomas Heyward, Jr.
      Thomas Lynch, Jr.
      Arthur Middleton

      John Hancock

      Samuel Chase
      William Paca
      Thomas Stone
      Charles Carroll of Carrollton

      George Wythe

      Richard Henry Lee
      Thomas Jefferson
      Benjamin Harrison
      homas Nelson, Jr.
      Francis Lightfoot Lee
      Carter Braxton

      Robert Morris
      Benjamin Rush
      Benjamin Franklin
      John Morton
      George Clymer
      James Smith
      George Taylor
      James Wilson
      George Ross

      Caesar Rodney
      George Read
      Thomas McKean

      New York
      William Floyd
      Philip Livingston
      Francis Lewis
      Lewis Morris

      New Jersey
      Richard Stockton
      John Witherspoon
      Francis Hopkinson

      John Hart
      Abraham Clark

      New Hampshire
      Josiah Bartlett
      William Whipple

      Samuel Adams
      John Adams
      Robert Treat Paine
      Elbridge Gerry

      Rhode Island
      Stephen Hopkins
      William Ellery

      Roger Sherman
      Samuel Huntington
      William Williams
      Oliver Wolcott

      New Hampshire
      Matthew Thornton

      • I always enjoy pointing out this portion of the DOI (one of the 27 grievances listed in the document) to people in conversations and watching the “light go on in their heads” when they realize the Founders’ world wasn’t so different than ours, and the depravity of Man continues thru the generations:

        “He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harrass our people, and eat out their substance.”

        Sounds like our alphabet-letter agencies of today.

        • What is important to keep in mind is that it was the totality of all those grievances, not any one grievance, that led to the Declaration of Independence.

  13. “…people of racial privilege confuse oppression with inconvenience. ”

    It is pretty darn inconvenient when, because the Govennor issued draconian shut down orders, and regardless of your race, you:

    Cannot pay your rent.
    Cannot pay for groceries.
    Must stand in line at a food bank to feed your children.
    Realize your small business may never re-open.
    Are bombarded with apocalyptic news reports designed to frighten you into dependence on the state.
    See your neighbors turning on each other because of state-sponsored mis-information and fear.
    Watch the US Constitution being shredded by dictators who see this planned-demic as an opportunity to advance political agendas by degree.
    Finally realize it is up to you to be the first line of defense for your family.

    The Associated Press is merely another vector for the spread of hate.

    • I see neither “racial privilege” nor “oppression” in any of this. The “privilege” and “oppression” arguments are equally bullshit.

      It’s a pandemic. Governors are doing the right things in the wrong way, unless they are backing off now on doing the right things, as some are.

      Protesters are missing a stunningly obvious point. They are there, inside the legislature with their weapons. If this was an oppressive government, a dictator’s actions as some are saying, they would not be there. Troops and thugs from secret police outfits would have stopped them. Where are the tools of a dictator? Where are the tanks? The government snipers picking off women in the crowd (remember, that happened in Iran).

      The protests are a mixed up mess. The very presence of them, armed as they are, proves that what they fear is not what is happening.

      • Oh please, the “pandemic” has proven to be a wet fart. Setting aside the fact that the governors have zero authority to carry out ANY of this and need to be in federal prison.

        • If 66,000 dead Americans is a “wet fart”, we must all pray never to see what an “explosive diarrhea” grade of pandemic would be.

          Something out of a very bad movie I imagine.

          And the powers of governors of the States are different in some important and surprising ways than the powers of the President. The Constitution made it so, as the Founders intended.

          That so many Americans are ignorant of this fact is sad truth all by itself.

          Still they are doing it wrong, the Governors issuing orders and decrees I mean. They have screwed up badly.

          For which armed protest makes no damned sense whatsoever.

        • In a country of 330 million? Are you serious? Do you know how many people die of heart disease every year?

          If we hit 100-200k, it would still be only marginally worse than a bad flu season.

        • “If we hit 100-200k, it would still be only marginally worse than a bad flu season.”

          Taken in isolation, the comparison has some validity. It is the additive effect that is difficult to simply brush aside.

          I agree that 100,000 deaths from this new cause is a statistical nuisance, compared individually with all other causes of death. I agree that compared to overall population, the beer virus is no worse than any other high death rate we blithely accept. The question is….for what other new cause of a flu-like death rate will we happily accept house arrest?

          ~2,700,000 people die every year in this country. We don’t shut down the country in the fantasy belief that hiding in the closet will make the scary monster go away. So, now, we may end up with 2, 800,000 deaths in the nation. And that justifies destroying the economy? Let’s start with the new number of 2.8 million deaths as being the “new normal” (nothing works to stop or mitigate beer virus). How much more house arrest are we willing to accept when something new comes along, and leaves us with 2.86 million dead?

          We have become a nation afraid of the dark.

        • Hey dimwit – was it a “wetfart” Jan 23? Are you one of the idiots that BELIEVES the chicoms when they claim 3000dead (while 21m cellphones when dark in the 1st quarter). That thinks the CCP would CLOSE DOWN THEIR COUNTRY over a few million dead (or “At least 25 people are dead in China and more than 800 infected”)?

          If so you get a share of the Gold Metal for stupid.

        • Yup.

          For those who know something about mathematics and who have examined, in detail, the projections of the models used to panic the political leadership of the west into these usurpations by supposed medical emergency, yes, the COVID-19 pandemic has not remotely lived up to the models’ projections. By at least an order of magnitude.

          Further, the only places that are seeing large-scale waves of death are dense-packed urban areas. Areas which have historically bred disease, pestilence and death – forever. Clear back to the Black Death, anyone who had common sense knew that being in cities was a formula for death.

          Lastly, if one reads the medical observations and research from MD’s around the world you find that the vast majority of those who die from COVID-19 are fat. Obese. Chunky.

          And many of these obese people have two or more chronic health conditions – such as diabetes type 2, high blood sugar (ie, uncontrolled diabetes), high blood pressure, etc. The reason why so many Americans are dying is that there is a large number of Americans who are obese, and who have chronic health conditions that result from being obese (diabetes and high blood pressure are two obvious and well-known conditions resulting from obesity).

          This is part of the reason why so few people under the age of 20 are dying. They’re still of property BMI/body fat percentage.

        • “Further, the only places that are seeing large-scale waves of death are dense-packed urban areas.”

          Close to 50% of the deaths happened in NYC. It is not my question, but I will ask it….

          If Dallas accounted for near 50% of the deaths, would NYC have quietly endured the national lockdown?

      • @enuf

        Sorry dude but you got this one wrong. They let them into the capital with their guns because they prefer serapticious actions, taking on deplorables a few or one at a time. That way, either people don’t know what’s happening until it’s too late or it doesn’t seem quite as bad because fewer are involved and everyone waits for fact finding that never happens. I hear that all the time here, “let’s wait for the investigation” and, of course, none is forthcoming.

        God forbid they should have to explain why they gunned down a few hundred white protesters in fly-over country! But kill a couple of armed terrorists while serving a red flag law and it’s all good.

  14. As far as I can tell no shots were fired, no police were killed, no scuffles or fist fights, no looting, no burning ect

    If I was in elected office I would take these protesters over the Ferguson ones any day of the week. Never happen since I would probably be out there protesting ”that” Karen Governor too. She is something else when compared to mine in SC.

  15. Golly thanks for the AP drivel…I checked the (likely!)white gal’s name. Surprised it wasn’t “Karen” but Sara. If I COULD I’d carry my rifle in an ILL protest. Outlawed in ILLanoyed😕

  16. None of this is new. It’s been this way for decades.

    If anyone can be labeled as insurrectionist it’s the democrat left. The proof of that is in the last three years of anti-Trump insanity. There was even plenty of proof all through the Obama admin.

    • Nonsense. Both political parties have been heavy into demonizing the other for many years. The sad reality of these last two Republican Presidents and the mediocre performance of the last two Democrats has only fueled the great waste pit of STUPID boiling within the two parties.

        • Okay, so if the left wing Dems are insurrectionists then so too are the right wing Reps. They are both pulling this shitty act, vastly exaggerating the wrongs of the other, or inviting wrongs out of whole cloth.

          The only wrong in these actions to fight the pandemic is in the lack of leadership at every level, the needless harm thase failures bring about, and the increased death toll.

          None of which is answered by conflating a protest about pandemic containment measures with Second Amendment Rights.

          There is no need to storm the castle.

        • @Enuf
          We all watch the Dems try to overthrow an elected American president over nothing more than hatred.

          I’m not seeing many (if any) republican leaders standing in the way of constitution rights where the second amendment is concerned.

          I’m seeing Trumps’ desire for true border security and control as being much more responsible than the left trying to use this occasion to fund Ivy League schools.

          These protests are hardly “storming the castle”. We have a right to these buildings and a right to carry arms. These buildings are not castles for kings.

        • Let me just speak of one item you mentioned, the Democrats oare using the pandemic to somehow support Ivy League universities.

          The fact is, Pelosi and the Democrats were vilified because they were holding up the cares act in order to put language into the bill that would make sure true small businesses receive the help they need.

          Instead, in both the first and second incarnation of the bills, the Republicans pushed through an incomplete plan that allowed Harvard and the LA Lakers to receive millions.

          I think we could’ve waited a couple weeks and got it right rather than give shake shack 10 million. In fact, why don’t we do it like other countries did and give the money directly to the citizens in order to stimulate the economy.

        • Or, “we” (the .gov) could stop giving away money we don’t have and get out of the way. The economy will take care of itself as soon as “we” stop choking it to death.
          But hey, that would make it more likely that Trump wins again. Never mind. Here, have another couple of trillions and stay locked in your basement until it’s safe to get out. (IE never).

    • It has been this way clear back to the aftermath of the Civil War.

      The educrats have brainwashed youngsters born since the mid-70’s into thinking that the Democratic Party is a bunch of pristine do-gooders, who have as their worst crime the occasional drowning of a blonde who happened to have made an unfortunate choice of a Kennedy as the driver or pilot of her motor vehicle.

      Sadly for them, what they can’t eliminate is the actual history of the Democratic Party, and their relationship with the KKK.

      • “Sadly for them, what they can’t eliminate is the actual history of the Democratic Party, and their relationship with the KKK.”

        Am reliably and authoritatively informed, by my BIL and other liabel members of my extended family, that the Democrats completely shed their history with passage of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. The Democrats, with all Republicans voting against, single-handedly passed the legislation through both houses of Congress, and a reformed racist president signed the legislation.

        So complete was the reformation of the Democratic Party into the savior of the black community (and so complete a transformation of the Republican Party into the modern KKK), a former KKK Kleagle and Imperial Wizard of the KKK recanted his error, and went on to become Senate Majority Leader, gaining the honorable position of voting against both Thurgood Marshall and Clarence Thomas as candidates for the US Supreme Court (neither negative vote having any strings back to the Senator’s KKK days).

        Yes, indeed, the Democratic Party was once the most hateful group against black people, yet, sha-zam and gall-lee, the world flipped on its axis, and ever thang changed.

        Ya’ll should know this. It’s been all over the news for decades.

  17. I love the way things get twisted! The “democrats” have always been the ‘racists’ going all the way back to the Civil War! They were the ones that fought for slavery! Nothing has changed except the type of slavery they wish to impose! Today’s “slavery” of choice is ‘socialism’ and ‘communism’! Open your eyes and look at the world around us. “Globalism” is just another form of ‘socialism’! It’s an epidemic that must be stopped and the tide must be turned!

    The media is a tool. It always has been and always will be. The communists have used it with great success in every country where they have overthrown the existing government! The same thing can be said for ‘labor unions’! They are the breeding ground of communism and revolution! But don’t ask today’s historians. They are more revisionists than anything else! Anyone that’s been around very long, take a good look at Wikipedia. Pick a historical subject that you have actually witnessed and see how close the narrative is to the actual truth. If you do find something in error, try to get it corrected. You will be flatly told that either your memory is bad or you are downright lying! It is impossible to get a correction unless you can present “media verification”! There is the key! IF THE MEDIA DIDN”T PRINT OR PUBLISH IT, IT ISN”T ACCEPTED AS HISTORY! IT’S TIME THINGS CHANGE!

      • RE: enuf…
        Are you one of two defeated crying in your beer twits on another topic yesterday that agreed both parties are equal sht?
        Are you the pos that called the POTUS “Excrement” awhile back? It’s looking like it after you called the above individual an idiot after he posted nothing but rock solid facts about the media and democRat Party. And like a whiner you followed up your dribble with a SHOUTING complaint about his bottom line being CAPS.
        My bottom line says you are dragging around a diaper load of democrap intended to denigrate the POTUS and every now and then you can’t hide it.

        TRUMP/PENCE 2020.