As Trump Takes Power, Politicians Around the US Move to Make Protesting Illegal

| |

Top Tier Gear USA

revolution-protests

by Sarah Cronin

Indiana passed a bill on Wednesday that authorizes police officers to shut down highway protesting “by any means necessary.” S.B. 285, as it is known, obliges a public official to dispatch all available officers within 15 minutes of discovering any assembly of 10 or more people who are obstructing vehicle traffic.

The bill then authorizes the responding officers to clear roads “by any means necessary.”

Critics are calling it the “Block Traffic and You Die” bill, an apt name for a bill that has co-opted the phrase “any means necessary,” used famously in speech delivered by Malcolm X during the Civil Rights movement, turning it into a threat against government dissent (with no apparent awareness of the irony).

S.B. 285 is among a collection of increasingly hostile ‘anti-obstruction’ laws that have been quietly submitted in states around the nation over the past few months. A report by The Intercept published Wednesday tracked five such anti-protest laws introduced by Republican lawmakers in different states, four of which are currently pending.

One of the most disturbing among them is House Bill N. 1203, a bill introduced earlier this month by North Dakota lawmaker Keith Kempenich in response to the Dakota Access Pipeline Protests. The bill would exempt motorists who hit demonstrators with their cars from any liability in cases where the victims were “obstructing vehicular traffic on a public road, street, or highway.” This twisted take on protest criminalization comes short of condoning manslaughter as a viable means of crowd control.

Also this month, Minnesota State Representative Kathy Lohmer led the effort on submitting H.F. 322, a bill that would re-classify obstructing highway traffic from a misdemeanor to a “gross misdemeanor” and would authorize government units to sue protesters for “public safety response costs related to unlawful assemblies.”

The proposed legislation is strikingly reminiscent of Washington State Senator Eric Ericksen’s proposal to punish protesters as ‘economic terrorists,’ which Anti-Media first reported on in November.

All of the proposed laws share a common trait in that they were all adopted in response to a major protest event in that state. H.F. 322 was submitted shortly after a judge dismissed the riot charges against protesters who took to the St. Paul Interstate last July in a demonstration against the police shooting of Philando Castille. Ericksen’s “economic terrorism” bill announcement came just days after anti-fracking protesters blocked railroad tracks in Olympia, Washington. DAPL protests inspired both the Indiana and North Dakota bills.

These retroactive responses on behalf of Republican state lawmakers are also seen as preemptive strikes against the threat of increased protests during the Trump presidency.

As ACLU staff attorney Lee Rowland expressed in an interview with The Intercept, these so-called ‘obstruction bills’ are but thinly disguised efforts to squash any government dissent.

A law that would allow the state to charge a protester $10,000 for stepping in the wrong place, or encourage a driver to get away with manslaughter because the victim was protesting, is about one thing: chilling protest,” Rowland said.

Growing tension between government officials and protesters is expected to come to a culmination on Inauguration Day in D.C., where there will already be many barriers in place to limit demonstrations.

First and foremost is the Federal Grounds and Buildings Improvement Act of 2011, known as H.R 347.

H.R.-347 is a revision of a 1971 federal trespassing law that made it a crime to “willfully and knowingly” remain in an area under Secret Security protection. H.R. 347 removes the word “willingly,” a legal technicality that effectively lowers the bar on the mental state required to be found guilty under the law.

As explained by the American Civil Liberties Union:

“Under the original language of the law, you had to act ‘willfully and knowingly’ when committing the crime. In short, you had to know your conduct was illegal. Under H.R. 347, you will simply need to act ‘knowingly,’ which here would mean that you know you’re in a restricted area, but not necessarily that you’re committing a crime.”

Under current federal law, protesting in proximity to an elected official under the protection of the Secret Service, which includes President Trump, is a crime punishable by fine and up to ten years in jail.

Protesting during Trump’s inauguration comes with additional complications as the National Park Service reserves a large portion of the inaugural parade route along Pennsylvania Ave and in Freedom Plaza for ticket sales under the exclusive discretion of Trump’s Presidential Inaugural Committee (PIC). This means the PIC can refuse to allow protesters along the route.

An activist group called Act Now to Stop War and End Racism (Answer) has been engaged in a legal battle with the National Park Service since 2005, arguing the privatization of the Inauguration is an attempt to “sanitize” the streets of dissent.

While the National Park Service has been controversially setting aside tickets for the PIC since 1980, the issue garnered more attention this year when it was discovered that the sidewalk in front of the Trump International Hotel, a significant site for protesters, would be a part of PIC’s ticket-only area.

Adding another level of bureaucracy, the Washington Post reported the hotel and plaza in front are actually under the control of Trump’s real estate agency, meaning protesters would have to literally ‘ask permission’ to remain in the space.

As the week comes to an end, it becomes apparent that dissent is being criminalized not only nationwide but on multiple fronts. Increased regulations are appearing that limit the public spaces that can be lawfully occupied in protest. Meanwhile, legislation is also being introduced to increase the negative consequences for newly unlawful protests. Should more states follow suit with Indiana, demonstrators will soon find themselves paradoxically protesting for their right to protest at all.

Delivered by The Daily Sheeple

We encourage you to share and republish our reports, analyses, breaking news and videos (Click for details).


Contributed by The Anti-Media of theantimedia.org.

The “Anti” in our name does not mean we are against the media, we are simply against the current mainstream paradigm. The current media, influenced by the industrial complex, is a top-down authoritarian system of distribution—the opposite of what Anti-Media aims to be. At Anti-Media, we want to offer a new paradigm—a bottom-up approach for real and diverse reporting. We seek to establish a space where the people are the journalists and a venue where independent journalism moves forward on a larger and more truthful scale.

Wake The Flock Up! Please Share With Sheeple Far & Wide:
  • Alice

    I disagree with the essential message of this article. I know it’s a very difficult issue however, I think if you protest along a street that’s fine; in the street, no. People have been trapped, harassed, pulled from their cars and beaten. Look at the mob doing property damage in DC and other places today. That’s what I believe we’re talking about. How do you, an honest citizen going about your business or simply trying to get to your home and a mob surrounds your car; banging on it, gesturing threateningly. I have seen this done repeatedly by those who support HRC when they caused awful problems at Trump rallies. I do not believe this law is on the slippery slope to tyranny. On the contrary, the mobs have been allowed to run wild in the streets; literally, and that is not conducive to a civil society.

    • Red Tick Alert

      Spot on.

      • Nadinenhaskins

        Google is paying 97$ per hour! Work for few hours and have longer with friends & family! !uq408c:
        On tuesday I got a great new Land Rover Range Rover from having earned $8752 this last four weeks.. Its the most-financialy rewarding I’ve had.. It sounds unbelievable but you wont forgive yourself if you don’t check it
        !uq408c:
        ➽➽
        ➽➽;➽➽ http://GoogleFinancialJobsCash698MediaLocalGetPay$97Hour ★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★::::::!uq408c:….,….

      • Robert Sanger

        AGREE, Protest is one thing but turn into riot and I feel the gov should start shooting once turn violent. Have snipers ready to take out garbage, no question asked

        • Should Walmart install snipers in their stores to shoot shoplifters, following your logic?

          • sahar

            Start Getting extra Dollars every month i received 15 Thousands Dollars Last month. I am a full time college student and just doing this job in my part time just for 2 to 3 hours daily. Everybody can do this and make some extra income online by follow the link below……..
            !qo642
            ➤➤➤

            ➤➤➤➤ https://web.facebook.com/Jobs-Home-Now-250565992049261/app/208195102528120/?ref=page_internal
            qo642

            ✪✪✪✪✪✪✪✪✪✪✪✪✪✪✪✪✪✪✪✪✪✪✪✪✪✪✪✪✪✪✪✪✪✪✪✪✪✪✪✪✪✪✪✪✪✪✪✪✪✪✪✪✪✪✪✪✪✪✪✪✪✪✪✪✪✪✪✪✪✪✪✪✪✪✪✪✪✪✪✪✪✪✪✪✪✪✪✪✪✪✪✪✪✪✪✪✪✪✪;;;.”[.,;[568895589547599687889589645556558954

          • shavager

            Walmart is a private business on their OWN property, any protestors on Walmart property MUST, MUST have permission to be on that property or can be FORCEFULLY REMOVED by law enforcement! A shoplifter is NOT involved in a violent act–it IS a criminal act but is NOT targeted at harming others physically. ANY school kid understands that–DIDya’ even go to school?

          • I guess I didn’t go to the same law school that you did, or else, I didn’t sleep through the module on private property law in public domains.

          • shavager

            Even YOU have a ‘right’ to allow or disallow ANYBODY on your property unless they have a legal right to-that means a utility observing their right of way tolerance or law enforcement by warrant. The problem with these situations such as what happened in DC Friday, local officials are reluctant to act–leaving law enforcement taking the brunt of hostilities or someone unfortunate enough to be caught up in the violence without their intent. IT SHOULD NOT BE TOLERATED–violent attack should be MET WITH VIOLENT REACTION from law enforcement. IF the ‘bully’ isn’t met with resistance, the bully only becomes a larger problem. Once a law is broken, ‘protest’ becomes an unlawful act requiring police action. Remember, the POLICE are not there to protect YOU particularly–THEIR DUTY IS TO UPHOLD LAWS OF COMMUNITY/CITY/STATE who employed them.

          • Right of way became passée with the introduction of exigent circumstances. Since police departments are standing armies, and they have been hung out to dry by too many pusillanimous courts, they have become reluctant to do anything that might be considered by some activist judge to be an application of excessive force. Once a crime has been committed, the right to protest is no longer an affirmative defence. The police have been held to never have a duty to defend anyone, just the power to enforce the will of the authorities by which they are employed, regardless of whether that will is lawful, or not. Such lawfulness is for subsequent judicial officials to determine. You have the absolute right to protect your life and property, but be careful about how vociferously you do so.

          • shavager

            Well, I don’t agree with police being a ‘standing army’, they exist for COMMUNITY and can only act in accordance with their legal districts and laws unless authorized by higher authority–Gov usually. And NO, police are NOT authorized to act outside of their authority, they are just as susceptible to punishment as civilians although they are somewhat protected by their agency IF they observe police dept training protocol. Acting outside of training jeopardizes legal protections from police unions and departments. Too bad some don’t refrain from critical mistakes but IF their life in on the line, mistake is tolerable. It’s those fools who don’t have a believable reaction for situation that makes the rest look bad–the image comes to mind of the black teen getting shot in Chicago 16 times walking away from police–even IF the officer thought Laquan McDonald reached for a weapon–16 TIMES? Or the S.C. police officer who shoots a 50 yd old man in back EIGHT TIMES as he runs away. ONLY IF he’s a “fleeing felon” who’s on run for murder–would any consideration be made but EIGHT TIMES for somebody running from traffic violation? IDIOTS like this aren’t ‘real’ police officers–they are mistakes that got into the system and make hard working, honest officers look bad.

          • Linda Lee

            dude, you can’t compare the two. Are you high or just a moron?

          • I’m just adverse to attempting to converse with those who prefer ad hominem to thoughtful debate.

    • Clarence.Worley

      ^^100

    • With common sense we can enforce current laws…this can be done with
      common sense law enforcement, attorneys, and judges. (I know) I know
      what you are thinking….but we do not need more laws to bind us down we
      need to enforce existing laws with the ability to do the right and
      honorable thing.

      Could it be we have become so morally corrupted
      and mentally challenged we cannot govern ourselves unless there is a law
      for every conceivable action or reaction? If that’s the case….or
      freedom is gone….I repeat our freedom gone…the elites have achieved
      their goal…your are a number, a human resource, with a shelf life
      determined by our Overloads who will evaluate the worthiness of your
      existence terminating you at their pleasure.

      Welcome to tomorrows Godless world of Technocracy

      Daniel http://www.knowingforyourself.com

      • c_chandler

        peaceful protest is constitutional and should not be abridged…

        • Chamele0n

          BLM and the Inauguration anarchistso were not peaceful. Blocking public events and roads should be illegal. Stand on the side of the road and hold your damn sign.

        • Protest is always peaceful. Rioting is not protesting.

      • shavager

        WE the people cannot TOLERATE violence or protesting activity that obstructs the peaceful activity of others in same areas. That means NO SHUTTING DOWN TRAFFIC! That can only be legally done by PERMIT from city officials.

        • To: shavager, chameleon, cchandler above:
          Posts make common sense to me.

    • Razedbywolvs

      You don’t need a law for this. It’s not the police or the government that lets the mobs run wild on the streets. It’s you.
      Hit a couple of these people going 65 or roll over them going 10 and there will never be another protest on the freeway. But everyone wants big daddy government to solve there problems for them.

      • Jessicaabushway

        Google is paying 97$ per hour! Work for few hours and have longer with friends & family! !ut221c:
        On tuesday I got a great new Land Rover Range Rover from having earned $8752 this last four weeks.. Its the most-financialy rewarding I’ve had.. It sounds unbelievable but you wont forgive yourself if you don’t check it
        !ut221c:
        ➽➽
        ➽➽;➽➽ http://GoogleFinancialJobsCash511ShopFaceGetPay$97Hour ★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★::::::!ut221c:….,….

        • Jimmy Yost

          Oh, I see you’re back. I had hoped you were able to take the hint and be gone permanently. You really are a glutton for punishment. Oh well, seeing as how you’re obviously all about the money, you could make a lot more money as a sexual prostitute than you are as a Google prostitute, so why not go ahead and do that and quit crapping up these comments sections with your worthless advertisements.

      • Vehicular assault or homicide is the solution? I guess some of us are unaware of the prohibition of pedestrians on highways.

        • Razedbywolvs

          Yes.
          Self defense, you were in fear of your life of an angry mob of pedestrians on the highway.

          • I define defensive driving that way, but pedestrians always have right of way.

          • Razedbywolvs

            No they don’t.
            Nineteen states require a motorist to yield when a pedestrian is upon any portion of the roadway. The rest of them you should be fine as long as there not in a crosswalk.

          • Either you don’t understand what right of way is or you don’t understand what a crosswalk is. If 19 states require you to yield right of way to a pedestrian, and the pedestrian is in a crosswalk, what makes said crosswalk not a part of the roadway?

          • Razedbywolvs
          • The white lines appear to be painted in the roadway. Do you know a roadway when you see one? If not, I hope that you do not drive.

          • Razedbywolvs

            That is a very keen observation. But why are they painted on the roadway?
            Are you really claiming that the lines aren’t specifically for designating a crosswalk from a roadway? Strange that they would just randomly paint lines on the road like that.
            Good thing your retired.

          • If you had studied traffic control from the cab of a truck in all 48 states, in addition to having perused the national traffic control code, you would know that the purpose of the markings is to provide a indication where pedestrians should walk. Experience demonstrates that most pedestrians ignore them like they do the walk, don’t walk signals. Retired is not dead or comatose. I spend more time learning than most people do working, now that I don’t have to…

          • Razedbywolvs

            We now live in a world were people spend 10 years going to collage to be a doctor and believe gender is a social construct. The amount of time you speed learning is not really reverential to anything.
            “indication where pedestrians should walk.”Ok so the lines are a suggestion and there is no legal difference between inside and outside the lines.
            Is blocking the indicated area with your vehicle legal?

          • It is legal to do anything that isn’t prohibited by law, and laws vary by jurisdiction.

          • Razedbywolvs

            Thanks captain obvious, Now is blocking the indicated area with your vehicle legal outside jurisdictions such South Pole?

          • Apparently being obvious is not a guarantee that you will get it. I can block the indicated area legally any time I want, as long as I yield right of way to pedestrians in it first. Yielding right of way doesn’t require being outside of the indicated area, just not running over or threatening the safe passage of pedestrians. I don’t know of any pedestrian crossings at the South Pole, do you?

          • Razedbywolvs

            § 1202. Stopping, standing or parking prohibited in specified places. (a) Except when necessary to avoid conflict with other traffic, or when

            in compliance with law or the directions of a police officer or official

            traffic-control device, no person shall:

            1. Stop, stand or park a vehicle:

            d. On a cross walk

          • I hope that you wouldn’t present a “citation” like that in any court of competent jurisdiction.

          • Razedbywolvs

            I won’t ever have to present that to a court because I don’t consider the sidewalk or the crosswalk a part of the roadway and wont be parking my car there.
            I also won’t be parking my person in the middle of the road because pedestrians have the right of way.

          • Standing is not parking any more than paint on a roadway makes it a crosswalk.

          • Razedbywolvs

            So the paint on a road doesn’t make it a crosswalk…
            Ether your a truck driver who thinks all the lines on the road are arbitrary, or your just to dam stubborn to admit when your wrong.

          • Markings are advisory, not enforcement.
            In addition to being a truck driver with a 40 clean driving record, I am also a paralegal with an, apparently, much better understanding of law than yourself. There is no value in being stubborn when all of the law and all of the facts on on one’s side.
            You must be one of those non-truck drivers that thinks that trucks can be driven like four-wheelers without ramification. They can’t. Much of driving a truck has to do with avoiding running over ignorants like yourself.

          • Razedbywolvs

            Tell me how having your car towed away for parking in a handicap zone is advisory, not regulatory.

          • If you aren’t smart enough to know that you have to have a handicapped parking permit and/or plates to park in a handicapped spot, you should consider yourself advised.

          • Razedbywolvs

            What makes it a handicapped parking spot? HAHAHAHA

          • Law and signage.

          • Razedbywolvs

            Thats just paint on the ground. There is no difference between that and anywhere ells you want to park your car.

          • Tell that to the judge that you’ll wind up in front of if you don’t comply with the summons that the police officer will write, which is just ink on a piece of paper.

          • Razedbywolvs

            What! I have it on good advice from a legal sectary that’s the markings are advisory, not regulatory.
            I’ll win for sure.

          • Della Street probably knows more about the law than you do, even though she never went to law school.

          • Razedbywolvs

            Does she know more about the law than you?

          • Probably not because she was an imaginary character on Perry Mason, and legal secretaries were never paralegals in those days.

          • Razedbywolvs

            Well then were good.

        • Osamao

          Not in the cross walk not your fault.

        • Amandaakilgore

          Google is paying 97$ per hour! Work for few hours and have longer with friends & family! !uz235c:
          On tuesday I got a great new Land Rover Range Rover from having earned $8752 this last four weeks.. Its the most-financialy rewarding I’ve had.. It sounds unbelievable but you wont
          !uz235c:
          ➽➽
          ➽➽;➽➽ http://GoogleFinancialJobsCash525DirectNatureGetPay$97Hour ★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★::::::!uz235c:….,….

    • Iron Object

      Yep. Your right to……whatever, ends when you start violating the rights of others. Trespass, inpeding traffic, assault, etc. are not free speech.

      • G’ma G

        As painful as this may be to our sense of liberty when we feel it is time to make a stand and speak out, you are right.

        • Use of warning devices on emergency vehicles to fraudulently obtain passage is a crime.

      • Trespass, inpeding (sic) traffic, and assault have never been speech of any kind. Perhaps you meant to cite the premise that yelling fire in a crowded theater is not free speech, but it is pretty plain that it is, as long as there is a fire in the theater, making such an affirmative defence.

    • g.johnon

      alice, I gave you an up-bump because I mostly agree with your post. we do need to understand the difference between protesting an rioting. the first is not only our right, but our duty. the latter is simply crime.
      there is a lot at play here. when a government acts badly, we have a legal right under the constitution to seek redress. the slippery slope comes when we allow our, supposedly representative, government to dictate to us the terms of seeking redress.
      when a criminal commits a crime, we do not give him/her the power to write laws to protect him/herself from prosecution. so why do we allow the government to make laws to protect themselves when they act illegally, inhumanely or otherwise unconstitutionally?
      we have allowed America to go along way down that road already. so far, in fact, that your wish of a truly civil society may well be nothing more than illusion until the powers that currently be are properly curtailed and treated as the as the high criminals that they so truly are.
      we either have a government of constitution fearing representation to facilitate our day to day lives, or we have masters who only exist to facilitate the machinations of those who only exist by “fleecing the flock”.

      • MarkovDeBeeste

        Most people appreciate the difference between a protest and a riot. But too many types of protests, especially when most of the protestors are of a certain minority status, turn into riots almost as predictably as night follows day. But the law can’t say “protesting allowed for white, middle-class only.”

        • g.johnon

          damn well right the law can’t say that. are you suggesting that it should?

          • sunshine ✓ᵀʳᵘᵐᵖ ˢᵘᵖᵖᵒʳᵗᵉʳ

            You fail to appreciate the vast differences in the races. Whites appear to be the only group capable of peaceful protest. Yes some are violent, but in every non white country on earth, protests are violent. What is essentially a police state is needed to keep order and peace in a multicultural society. You can have freedom or you can have diversity. You cannot have both. History proves this over and over. Look at the footage of the old inaugurations. No hint of this type of paramilitary and draconian security/police state. Because it was a white nation. The browner it gets, the more security you see. Be honest with yourselves and acknowledge the problem. Diversity destroys freedom. This is an immutable fact of the universe and until it is confronted and discussed openly, the police state will continue to grow.

            Calling me an eeevil mean nasty ole racist doesn’t change the facts. Just so you know.

          • g.johnon

            ooooooh, the irony is so delicious! at the same time you were writing: “whites appear to be only group capable of peaceful protest” the most massive peaceful protest the world has ever seen was being carried out all across this world. not saying I agree with their “concerns” but it was massive, it was peaceful and it was multi-racial. and it just blew the absolute shit out of your cute little theory. and once again, because it is so delicious: this was happening while you wrote that.
            thing is, all whites are not alike. just take you and me as a patent example of that. if you want to make it about groups, you should really throw in with those little socialist snowflake assholes that you so love to hate because of the ones who are non-white among them. they are the ones who are the most vehemently anti-individual. so much like you, if you would just give them a chance. I mean look at them, they even manufacture facts out of thin air to fit their bullshit narratives just like you do.
            calling you an eeevil mean nasty ole racist may not change the mind sludge that you believe to be facts. but that’s ok, cuz calling you such truthful things is very cathartic for me. 🙂

          • One would need to be pretty much totally blind to be unable to see the differences between the races.

        • Of course, that wouldn’t be profiling, would it?

      • Linda Lee

        The protestors refuse to follow the rules of engagement and behavior. They cause many millions of dollars in damages, and harm people in the process. ENOUGH IS ENOUGH. Time for tough love.

        • g.johnon

          if you mean like mayor daley’s tough love at the ’68 republican convention in Chicago. no thank you. not my idea of America.

    • WeNeedPeaceNow

      I know, just like those blacks that pulled out the white man, beat him almost to death and then stole his car… oh sorry, they were Hillary supporters on welfare and the white man was a Trump voter…. oh yeah, real life not your fantasy of Trump voters becoming 3rd world monkeys jumping on cars and beating people up. Thanks for your jewish media revision though, it was entertaining.

    • iDeclare

      Its about time these type of laws were inacted. Protesting is one thing. But destroying property and harming people or threatening people for disagreeing with you is going too far!!!!

    • Steve Rusk

      You can never be sure when “agents provocateur” have been deployed, they are commonly used by both our government and the ruling oligarchy to generate confusion. When laws such as this are deployed against the public, law enforcement never maintains this kind of focus. Under tyranny when lies will no longer maintain control violence escalates. This is simply preparation.

    • Linda Lee

      Thank you, Alice, you nailed it!!!!!!

  • Lewie Paine

    Trump signals an accelerated expansion of the police state.

    • BW83

      Versus the acceleration under the previous two presidents?

      No doubt, I get that feeling too, but as far as I’m concerned if you’re hanging out in the middle of a highway and you get hit the driver shouldn’t be at fault. Yeah, if people are going out of their way to run over protestors/rioters that’s one thing, but forcing them to stop and expose themselves to danger for fear of legal reprisal is another.

    • huntress

      Ha,ha,ha,. Try to pull your head away from msm and get some actual facts. Nothing could be worse than the dictator that thank God is GONE!

      • Lewie Paine

        Obama is history. Time to stop whining about him and clinton. The neo-cons are back in power. And with the neo-cons in control of the house, senate, and presidency, they’re going to have no one but themselves to blame.

        • huntress

          You are correct. The difference is, we republicans WILL hold trump accountable unlike the left who supports criminals, no matter how corrupt they are.

          • Lewie Paine

            The Republicans will be in control of the house, senate, and presidency and the republicans will:
            1) hold trump accountable
            2) tell him what to do

            That’s redundant.

          • extreme truther

            People who are skeptical are right to be so. Hope for the best but prepare for the worst. I think it is possible that Trump has been cast in the roll of a Herbert Hoover where he will take the blame for things that have been set in motion long before he got there. Herbert Hoover is demonized to this day for causing the Great Depression when it was a decade of reckless and irresponsible policies that were the real cause. Hoover had only been President for months when things began to fall apart. The Dems where able to use this shifting of the blame slight of hand to discredit conservatism for almost 2 decades and usher in the beginning of the modern government dependence paradigm. Globally speaking I think the fuse is already lit for economic cataclysm.

          • Lewie Paine

            Hoover was the last protectionist president and his policies contributed to the Great Depression. Running a business and running an economy are two entirely different things. I’m wondering where trump is getting his protectionist ideas from. It does look like he’s being set-up to fail.

          • Kindly define protectionism, since it is apparent that you mean something totally different than most of us.

          • Lewie Paine

            Protectionism refers to government actions and policies that restrict or restrain international trade. One should recognize that all government action means coercion, so that calling upon the US government to intervene means urging it to use force and violence to restrain peaceful trade.

            A free market is absolutely critical to a free society.

            “Protectionism is simply a plea that consumers pay higher prices so as to confer permanent special privilege upon groups of less-efficient producers, at the expense of more competent firms and of consumers. But it is a peculiarly destructive kind of bailout, because it permanently shackles trade under the cloak of patriotism.”
            – Rothbard

          • I’ll have to assume that you missed the fact that the states of the union are considered to be independent countries in a confederation. The “civil war” was about the way that the southern states were being treated by the northern states, being forced to pay tariffs, in violation of the Constitution. Trade need not be international to be subject to protectionist policies. Anytime any government does anything to impede any trade, that is a protectionist policy and abridges free trade, destroying any free market that might have existed. Since free trade has been extinct in North America since, at least, the early 19th century, so has any semblance of an free market.

          • g.johnon

            your definition of protectionism fits nafta, gatt and imf, and that new tp thingy like a glove.
            trump professes to be negotiating us out of these nasty little money traps for the rich. give him the opportunity before your jeans get all sticky.
            peaceful trade….isn’t that something from a grimm faery tale?

          • Lewie Paine

            Peaceful trade is what you and I do. Regulated trade is what government does.

          • g.johnon

            excellent scenario. too bad the real world doesn’t exactly work like that.
            you and I may, at times, trade peacefully. but human nature does not make that a lock.
            who regulates “government trade”? (careful, may be a trick question)

          • Lewie Paine

            Who claims the legal authority to regulate damn near every aspect of an individual’s life?

            Who claims the legal authority to re-distribute your wealth?

            Who busts the neighbor’s kid for selling lemonade without a permit?

          • g.johnon

            corporate and the masters of corporate.
            and all the corporate minions below.

          • Lewie Paine

            …and USA, Inc. is a corporate state. The parent company.

          • g.johnon

            actually no. usa, inc, serves the corporate, not the other way around.
            but sorry, was there a point to that?

          • Lewie Paine

            Left-wing progressives tend to think corporations, and not government is the problem.
            Right-wing progs tend to embrace state corporatism more. (It was the right-wing SCOTUS who granted corporations ‘personhood.’)

            https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/b8b87339b4a5ccd1c2a7fa1d16518191718a996a342d9d968a4983b8395429a6.jpg

          • g.johnon

            yeah ok, so why do ya think the good old guys and gals at scotus did that shit? any reason? or just a slow day down at the supremes?
            personhood, but not exactly taxed like a person. so….

          • “Left-wing progressives tend to think corporations, and not government is the problem.”

            Yep. They can’t seem to get it through their heads that government is the problem because corporations are not private companies that compete fairly in the free marketplace.

            Rather they are artificial legal entities created by Big Government/Big Business collusion.

            Corporations are Frankenstein monsters created by government that enable the union of state and corporate power, as in Dick Cheney and Halliburton, or Hillary Clinton and Monsanto.

            Corporations are socialist entities that benefit from welfare for the rich. They are the antithesis of private enterprise and free markets.

          • Redundancy is absent.

          • Linda Lee

            have some more drugs

          • Lewie Paine
        • You are displaying an apparent inability to separate RINOs from neo-cons.

    • g.johnon

      well that sounds inflammatory, so I am sure that you are aware of that and are prepared to lay out your case. if not then, please stfu about how the sky is falling. k?

      • Lewie Paine

        The Republicans were responsible for introducing the Patriot Act and The National Defense Authorization Act. Neo-cons were at the helm during the largest false flag attack in American history. Trump was chosen for his divisive nature and the flames of civil unrest have been repeatedly fanned over the past few years.

        Republicans have always been the ‘law-and-order’ party. The US is one false flag away from martial and trump will be THE MAN to usher it in. Most likely the neo-cons will use America’s Islamophobia for their authoritarian crackdown.

        https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/cf903ec8efa5e35fba75bde0c64b68854189c5f14db36fb4ff7c57663fe6de3a.jpg

        • MarkovDeBeeste

          The patriot act couldn’t have been passed without Democrat votes. There is plenty of blame to go around.

          • Lewie Paine

            No doubt. I argue often that there is no substantial difference between the neo-cons and neo-libs.

            My point is, I’m astonished that anyone would think the Republicans are going to ‘see the light’ and change direction after a 150 year history of corporate welfare and crony capitalism.

          • Osamao

            Keep trying to convince yourself.

          • Neither could have the Enabling Act have been without communist support.

        • g.johnon

          ok, bush was president for all the bad shit legislation that you speak of. but both my state;s demo senators were more than happy to vote for all the shit.
          can you try again without the two party horse shit?
          as for the martial art bringing false flag. it is coming, I agree, but everyone was saying the same thing about Obama going to be the one to usher it in.
          neocons, progressives. all the same thing.

          • Lewie Paine

            neocons, progressives. all the same thing.’

            Are we arguing past each other? What’s your point? The Republicans won the presidency. Nothing will change. They have always been the party of corporate welfare and crony capitalism. Trump is window-dressing for PR purposes. Surely you don’t think they’re going to change their MO just because they won this election cycle.

          • g.johnon

            I think what we are “arguing” about here is that trump, like dr. paul, used the republican party as a platform to make his presidential run viable.
            he is ostensibly rich enough to be a neocon, but has yet to prove himself to be one.
            so, before associating him with “republicans” and/or neocons, at least give him the chance to prove it first.

          • Lewie Paine

            Fair enough. We’ll wait and see how those banksters and mad dogs he’s surrounded himself with turn out.

          • g.johnon

            I totally agree.

        • sunshine ✓ᵀʳᵘᵐᵖ ˢᵘᵖᵖᵒʳᵗᵉʳ

          Lol that totally unwarranted and undeserved “islamophobia”! Those poor peaceful Muslims, they’re so oppressed by us evil westerners! Must be why they’re dying to get into our countries huh?

          Here’s a fact for you. Diversity is DIRECTLY RESPONSIBLE for the police state. This wasn’t necessary in homogeneous societies of high trust. Only in vibrant diversity. The facts are the facts and no amount of obfuscation or lies or name calling will change them. Until you are willing to acknowledge the issue openly, the police state will continue. Your useful idiot talking points only serve their purpose. You are truly a slave and you have no idea. How sad.

          • Lewie Paine

            The poor are clamoring to get on the US state welfare teat. End that and a lot of problems would go away. Trump’s wall is ultimately about who gets access to the teat, is it not? It has nothing to do with private property. My perimeter is secure. I’m not worried about anyone coming onto my property and forcing their way into my house. I know of no one that is.

            The ultimate purpose for the 911 false flag attacks was to demonize Islam and bring about perpetual wars. It worked like a charm. America was told who to fear and hate and many were all to willing to oblige.

            “America is under attack, so we need a police state to protect us and more money for wars abroad.” But the truth is, Government by definition, by nature, by history and by practical existence is police power. Government would not and could not exist without police power. When governments lose their police power, they collapse.

            When politicians and bureaucrats talk about democracy and public policy, they speak with a forked tongue. They want you to believe that these terms refer to personal liberty. They do not, and the politician knows that they do not. They know that they refer to the police power and enforcement of state authority over the individual. They are code words for government force.

            I just wonder, if you truly believe I am a slave, who do you think is truly my master?

          • I guess you’d rather have them in food riots so they can be exterminated for cause?

          • Lewie Paine

            As I said, withdraw incentive and the influx will be quelled. A promise of something-for-nothing is powerful bait. But most critically-minded people know TANSTAAFL.

            The welfare state is just another example of failed Progressive policy.

          • It isn’t quite as simple as withdrawing the incentive when there is a more powerful disincentive impelling the influx, as has been the case for our southern border for many decades. First, the lure of easy money and plentiful jobs was attracting the influx. Now, the drug cartel wars, which our own “intelligence” agencies have been stoking. are providing a strong incentive to get out of an increasingly dangerous situation, while our collapsing economy is providing little to stay. Since the Congress has been duplicitous in voting to build a fence that it then defunded, stopping the influx of illegals would be very simple and quick if we were to recall the unconstitutionally deployed American troops that are driving the “terrorist” blowback and place them on our border. Since the Border Patrol has no responsibility to respect our rights when we are re-entering, it is clearly a matter of national security, and any requisite application of force could be justified by the War Powers Act.
            I doubt that the vast majority of Americans who are not fans of Robert Heinlein would understand TANSTAAFL.

          • Why is there talk of the influx across the southern border and building a wall? Please GO LOOK FOR YOURSELF and then tell me what THIS iron monster is. It has been there for more than 8 years!

            The USA taxpayer has ALREADY PAID billions of $$ for a border fence/wall. Why? Because politicians are lying again!

            https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/49f0fcd1205157d8ef05b02b7bcba7a4df62689315d3ef06e0a642fb6df1a05e.jpg

            https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/d189fbac719dea3dfcd0be40c6b66dbee59942ffb1d904f0f6d35a5ababc7418.jpg

            https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/e7c6d75ff8a38c075f603bf05c48820684cd10a387df967c9bf97f51cfb42556.jpg

            https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/29042bc8a49b0dc9292c8db3dd314ca991dc4dcbb12f3e4305a2f93e17ab33a8.jpg

          • Do you have a problem understanding why a border between Mexico and the US is going to be different than one between the Netherlands and Belgium?

          • I have a problem with lying politicians–and their dupes–spending MY money to build a border barricade that already exists!

          • It is a shame that you are more accepting of having your money taken from you by force, theft, than you are of how the thieves spend it. I don’t give them my money, I only return their currency under duress. Are you unable to see the hypocrisy of building a barricade everywhere there isn’t a checkpoint?

          • You really have missed the point. Let me try to explain it with simple words to go with the pictures:

            Trump’s “wall” ALREADY EXISTS!

          • I’m not the one who can’t tell the difference between a fence (which is what exists, as far as it was funded) and a wall (which has yet to be funded). Neither is required if the Constitution was enforced and the military was deployed to defend the border instead of attacking and occupying countries that have never threatened nor attacked us, in reality. Since you are imagining things that don’t exist, I’m not telling you anything you aren’t completely aware of, based on the altered perception that you are demonstrating.

          • G’ma G

            Abdication of personal responsibility is directly responsible for the police state.

          • Justification for but not causation.

          • It’s flu season and for the past two days you’ve had a headache and
            sore throat. You learn that 90% of people who actually have the flu also
            have those symptoms, which makes you worry. Does that mean the chances
            of your having the flu is 90%? In other words, if there’s a 90% chance
            of having a headache and sore throat given that you have the flu, does
            that mean there’s a 90% chance having the flu given that you have a
            headache and sore throat?

            We can use symbols to express this question as follows: Pr(Flu | Symptoms) = Pr(Symptoms | Flu) = 90%?

            The answer is no. Why?

            If you think about it you’ll realize that there are other things
            besides the flu that can give you a combination of a headache and sore
            throat, such as a cold or an allergy, so that having those symptoms is
            certainly not the same thing as having the flu. Similarly, while fire
            produces smoke, the old saying that “where there’s smoke there’s fire”
            is wrong because it’s quite possible to produce smoke without fire.

            Fortunately, there’s a nice way to account for this.

            How Bayes’ Theorem Works

            Suppose you learn that, in addition to Pr(Symptoms | Flu) = 90%, that
            the probability of a randomly chosen person having a headache and sore
            throat this season, regardless of the cause, is 10% – i.e. Pr(Symptoms) =
            10% – and that only one person in 100 will get the flu this season –
            i.e. Pr(Flu) = 1%. How does this information help?10% of Terrorists are Muslim. Does this mean that there’s a 10% chance that a Muslim person is a terrorist? Definitely not.

            Again, what we want to know are the chances of having the flu, given
            these symptoms Pr(Flu | Symptom). To find that we’ll need to know first
            the probability of having those symptoms if we have the flu (90%) times
            the probability of having the flu (1%). In other words, there’s a 90%
            chance of having those symptoms if in fact we do have the flu, and the
            chances of having the flu is only 1%. That means Pr(Symptoms | Flu) x
            Pr(Flu) = 0.90 x 0.01 = 0.009 or 0.9% or a bit less than one chance in
            100.

            Finally, we need to divide that result by the probability of having a
            headache and sore throat regardless of the cause Pr(Symptoms), which is
            10% or 0.10, because we need to know if your headache and sore throat
            are flu Symptoms out of all headache-and-sore symptoms that have
            occurred.

            So, putting it all together, the answer to the question, “What is the
            probability that your Symptoms are caused by the Flu?” is as follows:

            Pr(Flu | Symptoms) = [Pr(Symptoms | Flu) x Pr(Flu)] ÷ Pr(Symptoms) = 0.90 x 0.01 ÷ 0.10 = 0.09 or 9%.

            So if you have a headache and sore throat there’s only a 9% chance,
            not 90%, that you have the flu, which I’m sure will come as a relief!

            This particular approach to calculating “conditional probabilities” is called Bayes’ Theorem,
            after Thomas Bayes, the 18th century Presbyterian minister who came up
            with it. The example above is one that I got out this wonderful little book.

            Muslims and Terrorism

            Now, according to some sources (here and here),
            10% of Terrorists are Muslim. Does this mean that there’s a 10% chance
            that a Muslim person you meet at random is a terrorist? Again, the
            answer is emphatically no.

            To see why, let’s apply Bayes’ theorem to the question, “What is the
            probability that a Muslim person is a Terrorist?” Or, stated more
            formally, “What is the probability that a person is a Terrorist, given
            that she is a Muslim?” or Pr(Terrorist | Muslim)?

            Let’s calculate this the same way we did for the flu using some
            sources that I Googled and that appeared to be reliable. I haven’t done
            a thorough search, however, so I won’t claim my result here to be
            anything but a ballpark figure.

            So I want to find Pr(Terrorist | Muslim), which according to Bayes’ Theorem is equal to…

            1) Pr(Muslim | Terrorist): The probability that a person is a Muslim
            given that she’s a Terrorist is about 10% according to the sources I
            cited above, which report that around 90% of Terrorists are Non-Muslims.

            Multiplied by…

            2) Pr(Terrorist): The probability that someone in the United States
            is a Terrorist of any kind, which I calculated first by taking the total
            number of known terrorist incidents in the U.S. back through 2000 which
            I tallied as 121 from this source and as 49 from this source.
            At the risk of over-stating the incidence of terrorism, I took the
            higher figure and rounded it to 120. Next, I multiplied this times 10
            under the assumption that on average 10 persons lent material support
            for each terrorist act (which may be high), and then multiplied that
            result by 5 under the assumption that only one-in-five planned attacks
            are actually carried out (which may be low). (I just made up these
            multipliers because the data are hard to find and these numbers seem to
            be at the higher and lower ends of what is likely the case and I’m
            trying to make the connection as strong as I can; but I’m certainly
            willing to entertain evidence showing different numbers.) This equals
            6,000 Terrorists in America between 2000 and 2016, which assumes that no
            person participated in more than one terrorist attempt (not likely) and
            that all these persons were active terrorists in the U.S. during those
            17 years (not likely), all of which means 6,000 is probably an
            over-estimate of the number of Terrorists.

            The probability that a Muslim person, whom you encounter at random in the U.S., is a terrorist is about 1/50th of one-percent.

            If we then divide 6,000 by 300 million people in the U.S. during this
            period (again, I’ll over-state the probability by not counting tourists
            and visitors) that gives us a Pr(Terrorist) = 0.00002 or 0.002% or 2
            chances out of a hundred-thousand.

            Now, divide this by…

            3) The probability that someone in the U.S. is a Muslim, which is about 1%.

            Putting it all together gives the following:

            Pr(Terrorist | Muslim) = [Pr(Muslim | Terrorist) x Pr(Terrorist)] ÷ Pr(Muslim) = 10% x 0.002% ÷ 1% = 0.0002 or 0.02%.

            One interpretation of this result is that the probability that a
            Muslim person, whom you encounter at random in the U.S., is a terrorist
            is about 1/50th of one-percent. In other words, around one in 5,000
            Muslim persons you meet at random is a terrorist. And keep in mind that
            the values I chose to make this calculation deliberately over-state,
            probably by a lot, that probability, so that the probability that a
            Muslim person is a Terrorist is likely much lower than 0.02%.

            Moreover, the probability that a Muslim person is a Terrorist
            (0.002%) is 500 times lower than the probability that a Terrorist is a
            Muslim (10%).

            (William Easterly of New York University applies Bayes’ theorem to the same question,
            using estimates that don’t over-state as much as mine do, and
            calculates the difference not at 500 times but 13,000 times lower!)

            Other Considerations

            As low as the probability of a Muslim person being a Terrorist is,
            the same data do indicate that a Non-Muslim person is much less likely
            to be a Terrorist. By substituting values where appropriate –
            Pr(Non-Muslim | Terrorist) = 90% and Pr(Non-Muslim) = 99% – Bayes’
            theorem gives us the following:

            Pr(Terrorist | Non-Muslim) = [Pr(Non-Muslim | Terrorist) x
            Pr(Terrorist) ÷ Pr(Non-Muslim) = 90% x 0.002% ÷ 99% = 0.00002 or 0.002%.

            So one interpretation of this is that a randomly chosen Non-Muslim
            person is around one-tenth as likely to be a Terrorist than a Muslim
            person (i.e. 0.2%/0.002%). Naturally, the probabilities will be higher
            or lower if you’re at a terrorist convention or at an anti-terrorist
            peace rally; or if you have additional data that further differentiates
            among various groups – such as Wahhabi Sunni Muslims versus Salafist
            Muslim or Tamil Buddhists versus Tibetan Buddhists – the results again
            will be more accurate.

            But whether you’re trying to educate yourself about the flu or
            terrorism, common sense suggests using relevant information as best you
            can. Bayes’ theorem is a good way to do that.

            (I wish to thank Roger Koppl for helping me with an earlier version
            of this essay. Any remaining errors, however, are mine, alone.)

            Sandy Ikeda is a professor of economics at Purchase College, SUNY, and the author of The Dynamics of the Mixed Economy: Toward a Theory of Interventionism. He is a member of the FEE Faculty Network.

        • Osamao

          If the Democrats would stop acting like a bunch of animals they wouldn’t have an excuse for martial law would they?

          • Lewie Paine

            Left vs. right, like black vs. white, is a convenient tactic TPTB use to keep the citizens at each others throats. When the shit hits the fan, the true division will be revealed as the ruling class vs. the subject class. If you want a glimpse as to how this will play-out look to the recent DAPL protests. Do you think that was democrats acting like animals?

          • Osamao

            DAPL were Organized Communist Democrat Revolutionists and useful idiots. I know of 8 that were just useful idiots. Probably more.
            It was just a “thing”. Or………Most of them were AstroTurf with no real conviction as Mrs. Pelosi would say. I bet you didn’t think Trump was going to win either did you?

          • Lewie Paine

            The concepts were, peaceful protest forcibly squashed by militarized police; government confiscation of private property by eminent domain powers for corporate benefit, basic human rights vs. the corporate state.

          • Osamao

            And no again.

          • Lewie Paine

            Hopefully you will not be targeted by the Police State. That means you should engage in no protest or even own any property in one of their proposed right-of-ways.

          • Osamao

            No fear of it now that Obamao’s gone.

          • Lewie Paine

            Now I see. Right-wing Progs are going to save us from those nasty left-wing Progs. But we won’t talk about the fact that Progressivism is a failed ideology. Maybe this time it will be different.

          • Lewie Paine

            I predicted early-on that trump would win. Recent history shows the left/right pendulum of Progressivism swings back and forth. After 8 years Progressive America was due what it considers ‘change.’

            https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/1ad920c6a06bf97129f71d583e5baab6d4abe61f5dbadaeab655907fdc244431.jpg

    • Only if the actions are taken by federal troops in violation of posse comitatus. I rather doubt that Trump is any more omniscient than any previous president was.

  • jimmy joe

    So, these will be the CONSTITUTION FREE states, eh?? Let me guess, the CONSTITUTION only applies to the govt dinks, fed and state, not us AMERICANS, right??

    • BW83

      Constitution free? You ever stop to think people are sick and tired of these bullshit “protests” over every little thing? You want to protest something that’s fine. You’d be smart not to piss and inconvience the very people you’re protesting for in the process though. Each of these “protests” against government abuses has NEVER disadvantaged the government. Instead they destroy businesses, smash up their hometown, and block roads causing average joe extra frustration.

      The constitution protects the right to protest, not the right to riot. Turns out sometimes being a self-absorbed asshole backfires, as it should.

    • Red Tick Alert

      Read the text again above. They are banning protests on highways etc. etc. NOT protests in themselves.

      This is non-news.

    • huntress

      Its the troll again! Ignore

    • g.johnon

      well jimmy, that would be entirely up to us americans because it is OUR FUCKING CONSTITUTION!

    • sunshine ✓ᵀʳᵘᵐᵖ ˢᵘᵖᵖᵒʳᵗᵉʳ

      Those people do not have the right to attack others, or hold up traffic. What if your loved one was in an ambulance on the way to the hospital, critically injured, and those fools stopped traffic? Does their dubious right to throw tantrums supersede your loved one’s life? What if you have a critical transport on a big rig and it needs to be delivered on time? What about your right to get the product there on time? I could come up with many scenarios like this.

      There is a difference between PROTESTING, and RIOTING. You have a right to the former, you do not have a right to the latter. Simple stuff.

  • George

    No “protesting” does not mean you have the right to riot, block traffic, assault people and generally throw a tantrum. If you cant act like a human being you get thrown in a cage with the other animals.

    • Clarence.Worley

      ^^100

      • g.johnon

        Clarence, you are not that special. you get one up bump like every one else.

    • huntress

      Well said! You want to act like an animal, you will be treated as such, period!!

    • If it wasn’t for mob-like behavior America might not exist. Do you not remember the heavily propagandized Boston Massacre prior to the American Revolution? Just a thought.

  • cmb

    politicians attempting to stay relevant

  • Clarence.Worley

    Good. It should be a Federal Law. 5yrs mandatory jail if you intentionally block a road or freeway. End of story.

  • Would this include politicians like when Gov Christie’s office did it? LOL..
    I like the North Dakota bill. If your stupid enough to protest in the freeway, why should I be punished for running you over.

  • Juan ton

    Out of my way Hippies and Thugs 🚛

  • ArchStanton

    Hey Bevis, he said Indiana..

  • Mike

    If you are on the sidewalk this should not be an issue. But if you are in the street then yes, you are endangering public safety and welfare and should be arrested. There are right and wrong ways to protest, and blocking traffic is a wrong way to do it.

  • huntress

    Excuse me, but there is a huge difference between peaceful protesting and disrupting, stealing, assaulting, damaging businesses, shutting down roads. You do NOT have a right to disrupt everyone else! You want to protest, do it on your time, and leave the rest of us hard working people alone!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    • AmericaAwakens

      So true, huntress.

  • Sir TuberKopf

    It comes to mind the man who recently died in a traffic bound ambulance that was unable to reach a hospital because of coordinated demonstrations specifically intended to cause severe traffic jams.

    Political dissent by no stretch of the law or anyone’s imagination, justified the wanton murder of this man by an intentional act. Further the interference of this mans attempt to seek life saving medical care was coordinated and calculated, as well as the potential results obvious. This is not the first time this scenario has happened during violent demonstrations. Ricco charges should have been filed against the organizers for conspiracy and racketeering.

    Understand that to block and physically impede a person or persons free right to travel is a form of kidnapping. To demonstrate and carry your signs and voice a message in a public place to passer bys is clearly your right. To blockade and prevent the free travel of passer bys is clearly a crime.

  • Rayven Wrathchild

    This article is total BS. These protestors are essentially TERRORISTS especially those in the streets and highways. They drag people from cars and beat them. They obstruct EMS vehicle which lead to deaths and loss of property. They cause multi-vehicle pile ups which cause even more problems.

    They obstruct traffic to HURT other people – not to get their point across. They have no arguments that are worthwhile so they must cause PAIN. They are a daft army of malignant self-righteous narcissists.

    As far as running them over w/o penalty – go for it and make them pay for the damages to your vehicle too. If someone is putting your life in danger then defend yourself with anything you have and a 2000+ lb vehicle can be used as an APPROPRIATE weapon!

    Screw these jerks. They are not protesters but organized domestic terrorists. With the level of violence that is escalating they have left the people no choice. Either defend yourself or be consumed by the beast.

    • casimcea

      They are trying to de-legitimise self defense. That is what gun control is all about.

  • Renee Ciccioni

    Yes because a billionaire president will save us from billionaire backed politicians. Lol lol lmao.

    • huntress

      Ahhh another msm parrot.

    • casimcea

      Trump is the best thing that happened to you beggars.

    • sunshine ✓ᵀʳᵘᵐᵖ ˢᵘᵖᵖᵒʳᵗᵉʳ

      Looks like somebody hasn’t been paying attention! Smoking too much meth eh? You are going to have to get a job! Hahahaha!

  • huntress

    Pull your head out of the dark, dingwing.

  • Kochvilledi

    Protests allowed? Of course. But people should respect the law while protesting. Law enforcement should be supported to enforce the law on a consistent basis and end lawless protests like blocking highways and destroying property.

  • casimcea

    The “protestors” do not want to protest. They want to obstruct freedom of movement.
    Locking them up is what law provides.
    There is nothing wrong with using ONE SIDE of the sidewalk if protesting is what they have in mind.

  • casimcea

    You are quite right Darkwing (more likely red commie wing). Your freedom to cause mayhem is out of the window.

  • Emily Summer

    The Constitution guarantees the right to protest….peacefully, A riot is not a protest, destroying property and harassing citizens is not a protest. If they want to protest with a march thru a street, get a permit. Protest in a park or open place that does not interfere with citizens’ business. Violence is, or should be, illegal and those protesting in that way should be arrested.

  • Mark Spencer

    Most of what the left is currently engaging in cannot legitimately be called
    protest. In protest one stands up and declares “I think you’re wrong,
    and here’s why” — followed by factual information and/or one or more cogent
    arguments. Perhaps even a few expletives.

    The vast majority of the current so-called protests consists of nothing more than disruptive temper tantrums.

  • sunshine ✓ᵀʳᵘᵐᵖ ˢᵘᵖᵖᵒʳᵗᵉʳ

    You said it well, thank you.

  • Tatiana Covington

    “Willfully and knowingly”? For all I personally know, everyone else is just a zombie, no more conscious (whatever that is) than a plastic bag.

    Prove me wrong… the horror will hit when “you” see that “you” can’t!

  • SP_88

    As much as I hate government regulations, especially regulations that stop us from questioning the government, i.e. dissent, there is a big difference between a protest and a riot.
    And it should certainly be understandable that we don’t want a bunch of rioters blocking the streets and highways. Who the hell wants to end up being charged with manslaughter just because some stupid asshole ran out into the highway and got run over?
    I remember when they were rioting because some black criminal got shot by the police, and they were blocking the highway and harassing people and pulling white people out of their cars and beating them. And some lady was trying to rush her child to the hospital because of some emergency, and a bunch of thugs pulled her and her elderly mother out of the car and assaulted them. I don’t remember the exact details, but shit like this should be punished severely. It’s getting ridiculous. These are not protests. These are riots that border on terrorism.
    There is no reason to block the road to protest against anything. The people driving down the road didn’t do anything to deserve being protested against. Nobody protests against traffic. People have emergencies and need to be able to get down the road to a hospital or whatever else. And when people protest in the road and on the highway, they could cause a life threatening situation by delaying someone trying to get to a hospital or somewhere else.
    And in front of Trump’s hotel is private property. Protesters have no right to invade private property to protest anything.
    I don’t think we need a new bill to make it illegal to riot and destroy property. I don’t think we need a new bill to make it illegal to block traffic and risk causing an accident or other hazardous situation. And I don’t think we need a new bill to make it illegal to riot or protest on private property without the consent of the owner.
    Like many things that end up with new bills, we could do just fine if we enforced the laws we already have.
    Many of these things are already illegal. If anything, they could raise the penalty for doing it during a riot.
    We don’t need a bunch of politicians making it illegal to protest against the government. We have a right to protest, providing that we do it peacefully and without infringing on anyone else’s rights. And the government doesn’t count, because they don’t have any rights. They are an entity that only exists because we allow it.
    We must not be fooled into letting the government crack down on dissent, because they will use this against us.
    Right now we are seeing these UN-American communists rioting in the streets and destroying property, and the appearance that the government is going to do something to stop them is appealing to us. But be careful, because these are exactly the sneaky tactics that they use to fool us into giving up our rights.
    The next time we want to protest against something, we will find ourselves in jail because we broke some stupid law that was passed to stop people we didn’t like.
    We should be demanding that they use laws already on the books to stop these un-American criminals from rioting and destroying property. We don’t need any new laws. They are breaking plenty of laws already.

  • Do laws like these play into the hands of people like Soros?

    • g.johnon

      not sure how you mean that wyrd. but I am certain that all those laws broken and all damage done, including the cost of cleanup nationwide, should be the responsibility of mr. soros and his ilk.

  • Joe

    What your missing is the fact that these laws were brought in before trump became president. These laws were passed to protect Hillary. Not Trump.
    Looks like this one backfired.

  • stephen joseph

    Protesting is sacred and needs protection….but this Soro’s funded and socialist infiltrated nonsense we have been assaulted with these past weeks is not protesting but evidence of a lost generation and a mind controlled sub-class mostly populated by actors(prostitutes) and paid insurgence and I would like to see them stopped by any means necessary.

  • Chamele0n

    “All of the proposed laws share a common trait in that they were all adopted in response to a major protest event in that state.”

    This is not true for Indiana. I have no problem with protesters. I do have a problem with them blocking tax funded public roads, breaking windows, tying up emergency services, physically attacking those you disagree with, and lighting cars on fire.

  • Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable. John F. Kennedy

  • Osamao

    Good! You can’t let the anarchists run amuck anymore. Osamao is no longer President (Thank God).

  • James

    Were I live the J Walking law is this. It is ok to J walk. Cars beep once & slightly speed up. The J walker is respondsible for the accident. Hit one in a cross walk you pay. When they protest here they walk down the side walk. Cross in the crosswalk. There is a police officer on traffic We even have a protest day here down town once a year. So all sides can be heard. For & against in there time slot. Interesting to watch. Last year I set threw were they want a American base here. Then soon after why they do not want a American base here. By the protesters. Seems many are in favor of the money it would bring in. More by by far do not want drunks prostitutes, young girls looking for a American husband & such than want there money here. So looks like no base here. Interesting to set threw a well planed protest. free music & short skits. Street venders making money from it.

  • OldPoorRichard

    The North Dakota bill is lunacy, and I hope it is a joke bill with no hope of passing. The Minnesota initiative, on the other hand, is exactly what we need. When people are trespassing in the course of protesting, the full costs of their own arrest and removal should be billed to those hauled away.

  • varlog

    They should change the name to the “Play in Traffic and You Die” bill. I don’t believe dissent is being criminalized because they want to keep people off the highways.

  • Frank

    There is not a ban on protesting, but there is to be a limit on the lawlessness and violence committed under the auspices of “peaceful protest” that violate the rights of other (law-abiding) citizens.

  • tgmoney

    What good is a protest Even peaceful if you cant Tie up traffic or make things difficult in order to be heard. We all hate these leftist Paid adjatators from George Soros causing kayos in our streets, What really needs to happen tho is not shut down our freedom of speech and democracy if any of it is left. Its time for the real people of this country to get out there and be heard and protest. Pitchforks and Torches baby !!! Of course with that said I do not advocate the damage to property and bodily harm that these George Soros terrorist network do. That is un acceptable.

  • Verbal Bomb Chucker

    I have no problem with these bills targeting people who block traffic. It’s not stopping anyone’s right to protest. I can protest on the side of the road and not block traffic. In fact I do it every year on the 1st Sunday of October. It’s called The Life Chain. Thousands of people all over the US protest against Abortion. We don’t block roads, we are on the side of the road. Quietly and prayerfully demonstrating for 1 hour. When were are done, you can’t even tell we were there. Sometimes we clean up the area and leave it cleaner than we found it.

    Now these idiots who block traffic, destroy property and make a general mess are thugs that need to be rounded up and arrested, Simple.
    The rioting on the day of the Inauguration and the Twinkie March that happened on the day after the Inauguration are prime examples of a bunch of thugs that should be in jail.

  • Larry

    Hallelujah !!!!!!!!!!!

  • Larry

    This will do for now, but killing ALL liberals is what is really in order !!!

    • g.johnon

      yeah, that idea would never trigger outright martial law.

  • SteveB✅ Proud Deplorable

    Peaceful protest is guaranteed in the Constitution. The moment you start fires or breaking windows or assaulting people it is a riot, and should dealt with accordingly.

  • Tome

    There is a difference between a Protest and a Riot. Protest have became riots. You start burning property, tearing up property, stealing from this Property. it becomes a Riot. Riots are Thugs and Protest are citizens who disagree! When they are burning buisinesses. Breaking windows. Stealing stuff from these buisinesses. Beating inacent people. That is thugs. When they are holding signs and saying what is bothering them is Protest. The womens March that left all their signs in front of trump hotel goes into the Thug category. There was no reason for that mess. We have to clean that up. Most these people are welfare and other sourses of pay . They are not paying for their mess! As far as the breaking windows tearing up things burning or thrashing cars are just plain thugs. Like when they started breaking windows on the cars they stopped on freeway in Portland becomes thugs. Was asked what I would do in that mess. To me I would be threatened and hit back!

    • g.johnon

      all true. but we also need to keep in mind that when a few rioters break out during a peaceful protest, that does not mean that a riot has broken out.
      cops should go get the rioters and get them away from the protest asap, but they should not be clubbing and macing peaceful protesters at the same time.
      generally, if you watch protests of the past; the confusion of who is rioting and who is protesting is almost without fail the result of overzealou

  • Mark Brickey

    The Constitution, 1st Amendment clearly grants us citizens the right & privilege of PEACEFUL assembly. If it turns brutishness, thuggery & mobs, then it is no longer “peaceful”, but law-breaking & destroying.
    I, too, believe that this should extend to blocking traffic on highways or even side-streets unless permission has been granted for a certain space at a certain time with the same idea being for the Indy mini-marathon as for the women’s march here this last weekend.
    There are right times to “break the laws” such as with Selma/Montgomery March, but the protesters were non-violent, not destroying & rioting & the laws were local, unjust & unreasonable. These modern days’ thuggery don’t meet those standards, with private & public properties being destroyed, lives being hurt & even killed, all for some buffoonishness that 99.9% of these “protesters” can’t even articulate!

  • mwp2634

    I’m sorry, Snowflake. Step in front of my car blocking my egress or normal travel on the public road and you may have made your last poor life choice, law or no law…

    • Stikit

      Agree!!…My life before theirs! No F’N way, I will let them drag me out of my car for eminent harm or pursuing death! Their dead meat, also, as soon as they are in front of me! I have a right to protect myself and family from threat and danger! With gun or car…makes no difference to me. My Safety First!!! We can talk about it later…

  • Stikit

    Like ISIS…we can’t fight the problem unless we call it what it is, and who is the the King Pin! They are paid Anarchists! Paid by George Soro’s many affiliations. They came as an army…dressed in black, and boot stepping with masks! First, no masks allow, at any protest. No marches, without a designated and approved route. If one incites a riot…you will be considered a rioter and anarchist, less you quash it, before the militia squashes you…for felony rioting!

  • GOOD! Block traffic and I hope you die! You don’t care about the ambulance racing someone to the hospital to save someones life so that just devalues your life to below commie scum.

  • firehawk69

    When a protest goes violent, destructive, obstructionist it should be responded in the same. I believe the fire hose should have been used on those in D.C. on the 20th of Jan. It would have stopped that violent, vandalistic protest dead in its tracks.When you are in a war, you use the weapons needed to win it. Ooooo….Raahhhh….! Semper Fi…!

  • Steve Rusk

    When our ruling elites take the money out of your sector of the economy you must also be striped of the rights and freedoms necessary to reacquire said money. This is done by people who never ever tell you what they are really up to.

    Conservatives are only the obvious hypocrites, Liberals are the subtle, devious ones. Be wary though, they have been known to switch roles.

  • BonnieC3

    As a child of the 60’s, I know what peaceful protesting is. Blocking a public road or highway is in NO way peaceful. At that point these people have become terrorists. Lives have been lost due to these acts. Ambulances and emergency vehicles delayed. I agree completely with these new measures!

  • Big Daddy

    Violent or obstructionist protesters need to be met with superior force in the interest of public safrty.

  • Linda Lee

    A man died because a protest march would not allow his ambulance to get through. They should all have been charged with murder. Sound harsh? Well it was harsh that he died because of these bastards

  • Lily Canna

    Copy the democrats, make a protest zone and fence them in!
    Then tell them they are under paid and that they should form a union and
    demand that Soros pay them more.