Today’s Lesson from the Huffington Post and Politico


angry protestors 3


Apparently it comes as shocking news to the Left to be told that they don’t have the right to “protest” (defined by the Left as loudly interrupting someone else’s right to free speech) at private rallies organized for the purpose of allowing a speaker to express his opinions for those who wish to hear it.  Interfering with the rights of others to express or hear certain views is something the bullies on the Left believe is just one of their many, many entitlements.  The headline, originated at Politico and then covered on today’s front page at Huffpo, was as follows:

“Trump lawyer: ‘No right’ to protest at rallies”

If you know anything about leftwing journalism you might have guessed that this headline is just a bit off the mark.  The true essence of what Trump’s lawyers are arguing, if we’re to sum it up in one line, is that there’s no constitutionally protected right to disrupt a privately sponsored event.  But the truth never serves to advance the Left’s agenda and the sheep, after all, must be kept with the herd, so……

Here’s the story.  Trump is being sued by a group of protesters who disrupted his private rally in Louisville, Kentucky during his presidential campaign.  They claim they were roughed up when they were forcibly removed from the venue by Trump supporters following Trump’s call to ““get ’em out of here!”  Thus their boo-boos are Trump’s fault, according to the suit, even though Trump immediately followed his instruction by saying, “Don’t hurt ‘em.”  Trump’s lawyers have responded by asserting that Trump has the First Amendment right to speak at his own rally and has no obligation to allow dissenters to have a voice in the assembly.  Furthermore, they contend, Trump was within his rights to call for the removal of the protestors and his simple instruction was not an inducement to violence, particularly since he expressly requested that they not be hurt (and need I point out that if the disrupters had left voluntarily there would have been no need for violence?).

Makes sense to me!  The leftists want the sheep to see this as evidence that Trump and his supporters suppress free speech (fascists!), but a rational person looking at the facts would see that in reality it’s the other way around.  No one is preventing people from peacefully protesting in a public place or even in a private forum where they have permission to be.  The Trump campaign presumably paid for the use of the venue to hold their rally, which means they’re entitled to call the shots.  Nothing prevents the protestors from securing their own venue if they sincerely want to engage in freedom of expression; but of course sincerity is not a quality valued by the Left.  What they really want is to prevent Donald Trump from being heard and to force their own expressions upon Trump’s audience.  That’s how “free speech” works in the leftist world, because the true free and voluntary exchange of information is the Left’s worst enemy.  And they call us the fascists.  Take a quick look at the comments at the conclusion of Huffpo’s article if you doubt my characterization of the mentality we’re dealing with.

By the way, here is exactly what it says in Trump’s motion:

“Of course, protestors have their own First Amendment right to express dissenting views, but they have no right to do so as part of the campaign rally of the political candidates they oppose.  Indeed, forcing the “private organizers” of a political rally to accept everyone “who wish[es] to join in with some expressive demonstration of their own” would “violate[] the fundamental rule of protection under the First Amendment, that a speaker has the autonomy to choose the content of his own message.”

Oh the horror and indignation!  Next thing you know they’ll be telling the leftists they can’t burn cars or destroy other people’s property.  It’s fascism!  It’s blasphemy!  Can it be that the rest of the country still doesn’t understand that only leftists have rights, and the rules don’t apply to them?  Oh the frustration!

I don’t suppose there’s any point to mentioning the hecklers who were ejected from Hillary Clinton’s speech, or from Bill Clinton’s speech in 2008, or from Barack Obama’s speech in 2015 (all leftwingers, by the way), or in asking Huffpo commenters if Obama and the Clintons are “fascists” for having their disrupters removed?  Nah, there’s no point.

The Left’s guerilla war is being waged in our courts, where they hope to be aided and abetted by officials who, ironically, are paid by the very people they are encouraged to betray.  Irony is never in short supply these days.  Quite honestly I couldn’t care less if the “protestors” were injured while being evicted from the rally they were trying to disrupt.  When you’re hurt or your rights are violated while you’re attempting to violate the rights of someone else, you’re not entitled to sympathy or recompense in my book.  Justice has already been served.

That’s what I learned at the Huffington Post (and Politico) today, where it’s always an enlightening place to visit.



Categories: Political

Tags: , , ,

8 replies

  1. A question, CW.
    I was a Tea Party person who attended my representative’s town hall and protested Obama Care outside of our courthouse. We did make it uncomfortable for our reps in those days and argued and became disruptive to a point at those meetings.

    I think the town halls today, most attended by paid outsiders should be better controlled. But can’t think of how the representatives could do that. And, what is the difference between Tea Party protests at these town halls and the left wing protests today? I know we never brought violence to the meetings but these paid agitators don’t either, really. They just make it impossible for the politician to talk.

    Your thoughts?


    • I appreciate the question, Tannngl.

      I don’t approve of being unruly at a public townhall held by a state representative either, but there’s a big difference between a public forum held at taxpayer’s expense on public property by our public servants and a political rally held by a candidate in a private venue (paid for by the candidate or his campaign) for the express purpose of spreading his own personal message. In the first instance any citizen, Republican or Democrat, should be able to attend and express his views within the limits of whatever rules have been established for that forum. Candidate Donald Trump, on the other hand, was under no obligation to tolerate hecklers and disrupters inside the venue that he’s paid for. Same for any other candidate, Republican or Democrat. If protestors want to demonstrate on the public sidewalk outside, that’s a different story.

      If the right to free speech gives a protestor license to disrupt someone’s private assembly, what’s next? Can they come into your home to lecture you on climate change or the right to choose just because they are entitled to free speech? Free speech rights do not supersede the right to decide who can come onto private property.

      I think it’s great if people show up at townhalls and express their views but I don’t agree with shouting out of turn or disrupting people when they try and speak. If I were a representative and that happened I would simply stop holding townhalls unless I could have the disruptive people removed.

      Liked by 1 person

  2. Yes, Trump in right here as you point out. In a case a few years back the Court held that protesters at military funerals was permissible because they actually protested away from the Church on public land in which they alerted the police ahead of time and they did it peacfully. Although their signs were very offensive, the Court sided with them. In this case, people are protesting at private events and do not notify the police ahead of time of their protests and they are not peaceful. They are using “fighting words” which are not protected.


    • I’m not sure what makes people think they have the right to takeover someone else’s assembly that someone else has paid for. Reminds me of one of the rare instances we saw an angry Ronald Reagan proclaim “I PAID FOR THIS MICROPHONE!” I guess that’s part of the mental disorder of liberalism.


  3. Would it be OK if I cross-posted this article to I’ll be sure to give you complete credit as the author. There is no f7ee, I’m simply trying to add more content diversity for our community and I liked what you wrote. If “OK” please respond via email.



  4. No sympathy for them here either, CW.

    When I read “Nothing prevents the protestors from securing their own venue if they sincerely want to engage in freedom of expression” I had to chuckle a little at the thought of them trying to put together complete thoughts and then put them into actual sentences, and an entire venue?? Forget about that happening!

    The Washington Post is not to be trusted either. Yesterday they printed this headline – “Berkeley gave birth to the Free Speech Movement in the 1960s. Now, conservatives are demanding it include them.”

    News flash to WaPo – our founding fathers gave birth to free speech long before you Einsteins came along, and conservatives didn’t just recently demand it. They’ve always had it and would appreciate if you stopped trampling on it.

    Enlightening, as you say, and almost comical.


    • “Berkeley gave birth to the Free Speech Movement in the 1960s. Now, conservatives are demanding it include them.”

      LOL, Kathy! That’s liberal arrogance for you. Next thing you know one of them will claim to have invented the internet. Oh wait….

      Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply

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

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

Google+ photo

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: