Read Our Lips - No Amnesty Ever

posted by Kurt Schlichter at Townhall 

There is cringe, and then there is the DIGNITY Act. It’s one of those stupid bills whose authors turn its title into a stupid acronym, but this latest amnesty proposal doesn’t make an acronym out of “DIGNITY”; fittingly, it makes it out of the Spanish word “DIGNIDAD” (Dignity) and stands for “Dignity for Immigrants while Guarding our Nation to Ignite and Deliver the American Dream.” We should ignite it all right, and deliver it to be used as a suppository, not just because of that idiocy, but because there’s so much more to hate. Basically, it’s a free ride for illegal aliens in exchange for enforcement that will never happen as soon as Democrats or a soft Republican takeover, another of those “I’ll gladly pay you Tuesday for a hamburger today” proposals that the GOP Wimp Caucus is always offering. They don’t call the Republicans “el partido estupido” for nothing.

And what great timing – we finally shut down the border, and we’re finally shoveling the teeming masses of Third World intruders out of our country, so when better to totally surrender? Let’s seize defeat from the jaws of victory! Besides sponsoring Representative Maria Elvira Salazar (R(sic)-Florida) and her dozen or so fellow invertebrate collaborators, the only guy who likes it is Senator James “Jimmy the Sap” Lankford because he’s no longer Amnesty Sissy No. 1 – hopefully, next election cycle, the Oklahoma voters will make him a Squish Emeritus.

What does this bill do? It lets people who came to this country illegally stay. They broke the law, and they get rewarded. Oh, they are supposed to put out a little cash (America is for sale now, I guess), and we get to pretend that we’re going to vet them somehow, yet somehow summon up the stones to toss out the ones who don’t pass said vetting, but it’s still amnesty. They broke the law. They get rewarded. And you know what happens to something that gets rewarded – you get more of it.

What do we get out of this deal? Well, we get a promise that the laws that have not been enforced until Trump will totally, certainly, absolutely be enforced in the future this time. Of course, laws are not worth the paper they’re printed on if they’re not enforced. My beloved Ronald Reagan got suckered into one of these deals in 1986. “Why, let most of the Third World into America, and we will totally stop illegal immigration,” he was promised. And we let most of the Third World into America, and they didn’t stop illegal immigration. As Trump has shown, existing law is perfectly sufficient to close down the border and get rid of uninvited intruders. But the law doesn’t matter if it’s not going to be enforced. So, we get a promise that they’re totally going to break because they have broken it every single time. Do you think they’re going to turn into deportation fanatics overnight? They can’t even support deportations now without screaming that every single scumbag that ICE arrests is Madre Teresa. 

Sure, trust them. Trust the people who don’t even recognize the legitimacy of America’s borders or our right to control who’s in our country. Trust them even though the last time we did one of these comprehensive deals, we got screwed. We opened the doors, and the traffic only flows one way – in. But hey, this time they’re going to do what they promised. Absolutely. Totally. Count on it, suckers.

They call this abomination “the DIGNITY Act,” as if being a criminal entitles you to dignity. But what about our dignity? What about the dignity that comes from being a citizen whose country’s laws, which were passed through our democratic processes, are actually enforced? Is it really a democracy if we pass a law, but then a small group of people can decide, “Nah, we’re just not going to do that?” 

No, it’s not. It’s an insult. It’s disrespectful. Where’s our dignity? When do Americans get treated with some respect? They spit on our laws. They spit on the choices we’ve made as a people, yet somehow we owe them dignity? Ignoring the citizens in favor of foreign invaders is the kind of thing that leads to the chaos describes in my new novel, American Apocalypse: The Second Civil War. It is absolutely corrosive to a nation – as well as an insult.

Here’s an idea. Go back to whatever hellhole country you came from, and you can have all the dignity you want. But you don’t earn dignity by being a criminal, and you are a criminal if you break our laws. Let’s stop the pretense that these people didn’t commit a crime. It’s a crime to come into our country illegally. It’s also a crime to steal identities and fake Social Security numbers to illegally work here, though no one wants to talk about that. No, if you had to spend two years unscrewing your destroyed credit because some dude from Honduras stole your SSN, that’s an indignity. What is more of an indignity than to be told that you can’t have a say in how your own country is run, and that you owe the intruders a free ride once they sneak in?

We owe them dignity? We don’t owe them anything. They broke in here. They’re uninvited, and they don’t get squatter’s rights. Just because you’ve ignored our law for 30 years doesn’t mean you get a free pass. The proper response when you read about some abuela who’s been here illegally since 1986 getting hooked up by ICE and shipped back to her hellhole of origin is to pop a cork and celebrate. That is dignity – honoring the citizens of the United States by honoring the laws our elected representatives passed.

Now, I understand why Rep. Salazar did this. There are lots of immigrants in Miami, though the immigrants I know are legal and want the illegals out of here more than I do (to the extent that is humanly possible). Also, her husband is a big farmer guy who no doubt wants a stable serf class to exploit, as do many nominal Republicans who make money off it. What about the other Republican reps joining in on this fiasco? What the hell is wrong with them? Are they just stupid? Are they just weak? Did they fall for the nonsense that Jesus says we’ve got a dish out cash for every peasant who decides to move to America uninvited – and don’t start up with “Actually, Mary and Joseph were refugees” because they were actually traveling to participate in a census of people who were legally in their jurisdiction.

Allow me to explain, for the millionth time, the unwavering position of the people who elected Donald Trump regarding illegal immigration. It’s a very simple position. Not a lot of nuance. Not a lot of leeway, because we tried leeway and we got screwed over. Our position is to deport every single one of them. Moms, dads, grandpas, people with dogs, honor students, particle physicists, veterans (who inevitably have some criminal conviction in their background), and all the rest—every single one. No exceptions, no slack, get the hell out.

Yeah, the dreamers have a dream, but I’m an American citizen, so my dream counts more than theirs. And you know what I dream of? I dream that I get to decide how this country is run, not a bunch of foreigners getting to decide by default. I want my dignity. 

Leave it to the tofu Republicans to generate this kind of stupid proposal just as we are winning the fight. It’s frustrating and annoying, but amnesty is not going to happen. Sure, there are a lot of business interests that love to have peasants toiling for them at subhuman wages, and the tab for their care picked up by us taxpayers. But Donald Trump is not an idiot and doesn’t want to commit political suicide by completely betraying the people who elected him on a platform of no more illegal immigrants, no more amnesty, and no more being suckered. The Epstein thing was disruptive, but if he signs onto anything remotely like amnesty, whether you talk about dreamers or DACA, or strawberry pickers or hotel maids, or anything else, it would be a political Dresden. Trump would not just lose a few of the key influencers. He would lose the MAGA base.

And he knows it. If you think George HW Bush got slammed for saying “Read my lips, no new taxes” and then imposing new taxes, just watch what happens if Trump were to do the same thing with illegal aliens. MAGA is built on the idea that Americans have a right to rule their own country and control who gets to come in. Trump did not invent that; he was just the first candidate not afraid to carry the banner. Once again, our position is straightforward and non-negotiable. No amnesty, ever, and any Republican pushing it needs to suffer the indignity of a primary defeat.

And we Know, On the Fringe, and more- July 21

 

Democrats Go All-In On Stupid

posted by Derek Hunter at Townhall 

When David Duke ran for office as a Republican, the party denounced him. There wasn’t anything legally they could do beyond that, and they did it quickly. Now, Duke is a radical leftist, where his politics always belonged, endorsing the anti-Semitic Green Party candidate Jill Stein for president in 2024. 

Democrats, on the other hand, have morphed even further into the type of party Duke would feel at home in, with their anti-Semitic, racist candidate for Mayor of New York City, Zohran Mamdani. They’re all in with him.

Bernie Sanders, the creator of the hilarious label “Democratic Socialist,” shoved all his chips into the center of the table for Zohran, as have AOC, Jasmine Crockett, and every other semi-literate Democrat with a larger shoe size than IQ (looking at you, Eric Swalwell).

Bernie’s Brownshirts, his former campaign that reformed into something he named “Our Revolution,” is dragging the bowels of progressive politics for every penny they can get their hypocritical hands on.

Under the subject line “Back Mamdani NOW,” Our Revolution didn’t even bother using his first name one time. 

Featuring the picture of Zohran and Bernie laughing hysterically in DC recently, the caption declares, “The face when you’re on the right side of history.” Of course, you can find pictures of every despotic progressive murderer laughing their asses off because they know they’re the ones doing the killing, not the ones under threat of being killed – communist leaders were always fat while their subjects starved.

“A Mamdani win will inspire grassroots progressive victories across the country – proving yet again that our strength lies in people power, not billionaire fundraisers,” the multimillionaire’s fundraising arm asserted. “Will you donate right now to fuel Our Revolution’s work to push the Democratic establishment to back Mamdani for Mayor?” 

They then conclude, “Can we count on you to chip in today and to FORCE the Democratic establishment to listen to progressive voices demanding change? When we organize, we win. Our Revolution.”

If you don’t count the caption in the picture itself, they sent less than 330 words to their army of flying monkeys and like raked in a fortune. The hive mind does not need much to be jolted into action.

Of course, Democrats aren’t deep thinkers, or even shallow ones. They don’t like to be challenged to think, they don’t have to tools. And email from the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee opened, “Hey Derek -- It's Pat, the Research Director here at the DSCC. I'll cut to the chase: We NEED you to represent Maryland in our Democratic Strategy Interview for 7/19/25. I'll tell you more in a moment, but before I do, will you share your answers real quick?”

Who the hell is Pat? Does Pat have a last name? Does Pat even really exist? Was it chosen because it’s a gender neutral name? We may never know, as the email is ultimately signed, “Thank you for being a part of this team, Pat DSCC Research Director.”

I might be able to find out if Pat is real or whatever, with a bit of Googling, but I don’t really care. What I find odd is how they just assume either their donors will know who Pat is or simply react like one of Pavlov’s dogs and donate to anything simply because they are asked to. 

“Pat” was very concerned that I might share the special link they sent me to get my opinion about the party’s messaging, since I’m a “top” supporter “with a proven track record of making a difference in our country.” For the record, I wish them horrible things.

Then my best friend “Pat” wrote, “Today's survey closes at 11:59 PM, and I don't have your response on file yet! So please, Derek, click this personal link to enter your Democratic Strategy Interview by taking the survey now.” That was Saturday, and the link is still live. It’s a series of stupid questions and there is nothing you can answer that will not lead to them demanding your money. Since they don’t want me to share the link – writing, “**NOTE: Please do not share this link with anyone, as it may corrupt our data** –  here is it. Have fun with it.

Democrats have gone all-in on stupid, and they have to…it’s where their votes are.

It’s Bigly Hitting the Fan Week

American  Thinker 

The three biggest stories this week expose judicial hijinks, the willingness of the Wall Street Journal to publish defamatory anti-Trump nonsense in violation of all journalism ethics, and Tulsi Gabbard’s public declassification of material showing how President Obama worked from the moment of Trump’s 2016 election victory on to tar and hamstring him with made-up Russian influence lies.

Judicial Malfeasance 

As usual, the most significant coverage of lefty judiciary hijinks is by Margot Cleveland. She uncovered a in which the notorious D.C. judge James Boasberg confirmed to Chief Justice John Roberts the anti-Trump bias of that lower court, making clear the judges assumed that Trump would violate their orders. (Indeed, it’s my belief this is the hope of judges who enter preposterously over-the-top orders -- the hope that, wearying of having to repeatedly seek higher court reprieves, he will ignore those orders and give the Democrats fuel for yet another impeachment circus.)

In a memorandum obtained exclusively by The Federalist, a member of the Judicial Conference summarized the March [of this year] meeting, including a “working breakfast” at which Justice Roberts spoke. According to the memorandum, “District of the District of Columbia Chief Judge James Boasberg next raised his colleagues’ concerns that the Administration would disregard rulings of federal courts leading to a constitutional crisis.”

“Chief Justice Roberts expressed hope that would not happen and in turn no constitutional crisis would materialize,” according to the memorandum. The summary of the working breakfast added that Chief Justice Roberts noted that “his interactions with the President have been civil and respectful, such as the President thanking him at the state of the union address for administering the oath.”

Donald Trump, however, is not merely the president: He is a Defendant in scores of lawsuits, including multiple cases in the D.C. District Court. As such, this conversation did not concern generic concerns of the judiciary, but specific discussions about a litigant currently before the same judges who expressed concern to the Chief Judge of the D.C. District Court that the Trump Administration would disregard the court’s orders.

Judge Boasberg’s comments reveal he and his colleagues hold an anti-Trump bias, for the Trump Administration had complied with every court order to date (and since for that matter). The D.C. District Court judges’ “concern” also went counter to the normal presumption courts hold -- one that presumes public officials properly discharged their official duties. Apparently, that presumption does not apply to the current president, at least if you are litigating in D.C.

And what is both troubling and ironic is that only a few days later, Judge Boasberg, in a case in which he completely lacked jurisdiction, as the Supreme Court would later confirm, entered a lawless order commanding the Trump Administration to halt removals to El Salvador. So, one of the judges concerned about Trump following the law, ignored the law. Nonetheless, Judge Boasberg would later find “the Trump Administration committed criminal contempt of court” by failing to turn the planes around or fly the gang members back to the U.S., even though the court’s written (and unlawful) injunction ordered neither.

The judicial overreaching continues, as this week Judge Michael Farbiarz, a Biden appointee in New Jersey, ordered the Trump Administration to direct an immigration judge to proceed in a certain way to vacate its decision in the Khalil case, even though Congress had established exclusive jurisdiction for appeals to the Board of Immigration Appeals and then the circuit court.   

She has documented how district court judges are repeatedly issuing orders contrary to clear law and Supreme Court rulings. At some point, Justice Roberts and the court will have to blow the whistle on this. That they have not yet is costing their reputation dearly.

The Wall Street Journal

As some “influencers” demanded more on the Epstein story, suggesting Attorney General Pam Bondi was somehow covering something up, the Wall Street Journal published an article authored by Khadeeja Safdar that indicated that in 2003, Trump sent a bawdy typed letter with a sketch of a naked woman to Epstein wishing him a happy 50th birthday. 

Trump immediately denied authoring the letter, which the Journal described but did not print. It appears they never had it, but were publishing something told to them by someone who said he saw it. 

Trump slammed the story in a lengthy social media post on Thursday night, saying he spoke to both the paper's owner, Rupert Murdoch, and its top editor, Emma Tucker, and told them the letter was "fake." Trump promised to sue the paper over the story, saying: "These are not my words, not the way I talk. Also, I don't draw pictures."

U.S. Vice-President JD Vance said the newspaper "should be ashamed" for publishing it.

"Where is this letter? Would you be shocked to learn they never showed it to us before publishing it? Does anyone honestly believe this sounds like Donald Trump?" he wrote on social media platform X.

Trump’s sued publisher and owner Rupert Murdoch for $10 billion in the Southern District of Florida, contending that the claims were “false, defamatory, unsubstantiated, and disparaging.” It’s likely this case will be settled before trial. If not, discovery should prove very embarrassing to the paper and, in the end, may well result in a trimming back of the rulings in NYT v. Sullivan and its progeny, which has allowed nonstop slander of anyone whom a court can conceivably agree was a “public figure.”  

In any event, the Journal has risked substantial damages and its already sinking reputation for journalistic ethics for nothing, as Byron York notes:

Say the WSJ story is entirely accurate. What does it add to our understanding of Trump and Epstein? The birthday letter was January 2003. Trump and Epstein broke off contact in 2004. Epstein was first arrested in July 2006 from an investigation that began in March 2005. WP factchecker, surveying all public knowledge about the case, wrote that "No credible allegation has emerged to connect Trump to any of Epstein's crimes. If the full [Epstein] file is ever released, we are confident that no connection would be found." So what does this birthday card tell you?

The Obama-directed RussiaGate Lie

DNI head Tulsi Gabbard declassified documents in her possession which, in her words, “detail a treasonous conspiracy by officials at the highest levels of the Obama White House to subvert the will of the American people and try to usurp the President from fulfilling his mandate.” Her entire presentation of the history of this seditious conspiracy, which began on December 8, 2016, is neatly organized on this thread.                 

It’s true Devin Nunes and his then-investigator Kash Patel uncovered this plot seven years ago, but without the ability then to declassify the documentation as Gabbard has done. She has transmitted all this material to the Department of Justice, and James Comey, James Clapper, and John Brennan should, if they have not yet done so, seek counsel in yet another boon for D.C.’s criminal defense attorneys. (It’s likely that the same white-shoe law firms that rushed to defend the thugs in Gitmo -- but not the J6 defendants -- will volunteer some services, and some independent funding will pour in to help, but they can’t be happy to be so publicly exposed and facing serious legal jeopardy.) And those further down who engaged in or covered up what they knew are unlikely to be so lucky.

As for the “lightbringer,” check out the 2016 Trump swearing-in ceremony and watch Obama, who had already set in motion something no former president has ever done, sabotaging his successor. Knowing what he had set in motion just weeks before, even his adherents can never look at him in the same way again.

Jeff Childers explains what is so monumental about what Gabbard has done.

It defied every norm of intelligence conduct. The DNI normally never speaks publicly about ongoing investigations, it has never accused former administrations of treason (or any crime), and certainly does not weaponize the credibility of the office to ignite a public reckoning. This marks the first time in modern history that the intelligence community’s internal coup (if proven) has been openly exposed by its own leadership, transforming the IC from a shield into a spotlight, and potentially rewriting the entire post-9/11 national security order. [snip] Here’s a list of all the records Tulsi just shattered, in a single Twitter thread and 124 pages of declassified documents. And this list is only what I could think of as of this morning:

1. First sitting Director of National Intelligence to publicly accuse former intelligence leaders of a treasonous conspiracy (or any crime).

2. First time a DNI declassified internal IC assessments, memos, and emails during an active DOJ referral.

3. First full publication of an aborted Presidential Daily Brief (PDB) draft that contradicted an official narrative.

4. First evidence-based accusation that the 2017 Intelligence Community Assessment (ICA) was politicized by presidential directive.

5. First direct public attribution of intelligence manipulation to a sitting president -- Barack Obama -- by name, not just implication.

6. First official public confirmation that the Steele Dossier was used in the 2017 ICA, despite internal dissent and known credibility issues.

7. First use of a Twitter thread as an official vehicle for declassifying national intelligence -- turning social media into a disclosure mechanism.

8. First coordinated public release of IC whistleblower complaints, dissenting analyst emails, and interagency meeting notes in a single drop.

9. First breach of the classified means credible doctrine -- by showing how classification was weaponized to create false public certainty. This one has many legs.

10. First dismantling of the we can’t comment on ongoing investigations playbook by someone inside the intel chain of command.

11. First time the post-Trump impeachment “insurrection” narrative has been turned against the intelligence agencies that constructed it.

12. First voluntary public declassification of internal IC meeting notes confirming political coordination of IC messaging -- without subpoenas and before the usual years of Congressional hearings and wrangling.

This Administration has fully absorbed the reality of the modern news business -- that it will not cover accurately anything which diminishes the opposition and instead advances it. (In fact, Gabbard makes clear that the media, especially the Washington Post, played a crucial role in the seditious plot.) It has mastered the art of going above their heads, directly to voters, and Tulsi showed they learned the lesson. As for what follows, I’m certain this was all coordinated with the Department of Justice which (a) has sought from the court that sealed the Epstein records a copy of the grand jury proceedings in the Epstein matter and (b) will begin grand jury proceedings and indictments of the many people who acted as Obama puppets in this seditious, most scandalous operation.

🎭 𝐖𝟑𝐏 𝓓𝓐𝓘𝓛𝓨 𝓗𝓾𝓶𝓸𝓻, 𝓜𝓾𝓼𝓲𝓬, 𝓐𝓻𝓽, 𝓞𝓟𝓔𝓝 𝓣𝓗𝓡𝓔𝓐𝓓

 

Welcome to 

The 𝐖𝟑𝐏 𝓓𝓐𝓘𝓛𝓨 𝓗𝓾𝓶𝓸𝓻, 𝓜𝓾𝓼𝓲𝓬, 𝓐𝓻𝓽, 𝓞𝓟𝓔𝓝 𝓣𝓗𝓡𝓔𝓐𝓓 

Here’s a place to share cartoons, jokes, music, art, nature, 

man-made wonders, and whatever else you can think of. 

No politics or divisive posts on this thread. 

This feature will appear every day at 1pm mountain time. 

'Radical Chic': Is the Left's Embrace of Marxism the Ultimate Virtue Signal?

RedState 

Inarguably, the most well-known quote about the critical importance of learning from history is "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it," which is often attributed to Spanish American philosopher and essayist George Santayana

However, as Winston Churchill put it in 1948 — in between his two terms as Prime Minister of Great Britain — "Those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it" is more applicable, today, given that those who embrace radical leftism today weren't alive during the days of Karl Marx, Vladimir Lenin, Joseph Stalin, and Mao Zedong. 

The problem is, many if not most of today's radical leftists who take to the streets, deface or destroy statues, burn flags, and defile university campus in support of Hamas, Antifa, illegal aliens, et al. — and against Israel, ICE (Immigration and Customs Enforcement), capitalism, and democracy (lower-case "d") — do so, not because of learning actual history, but because of having been indoctrinated by radical professors in the no-longer-hallowed halls of academia, on social media, on radical message boards and in other such forums.

In other words, many of today's radicals are driven more by a naive misconception of totalitarianism and a sense of camaraderie with other naive radicals than by the real lessonsof history.

As political commentator and author Jonathan recently put it:

[T]he rise of American armchair revolutionaries, particularly among young, affluent college graduates. It is part of the “radical chic” fostered from higher education to Hollywood for citizens who have no memory of the failures of socialism and communism in the 20th Century.

"Radical chic." How can you not love that derisive description?

What Turley calls "a new wave of armchair revolutionaries" is emerging, calling for everything from the dismantling of the U.S. government and law enforcement departments to the takeover of factories and private property. 

The current darling of the faux-Marxist left, of course, is New York City Democrat Zohran Mamdani, who, I suppose, nearly every even semi-interested person on the planet is by now somewhat aware of due to his embrace (make that, embodiment) of his interpretation of Marxism or full-blown communism.  

Turley nailed it — delightfully, so:

Mamdani represents this crop of so-called “Latte Leninists” and “trust-fund Trotskyites.” As the privileged son of a radical Columbia professor and a Hollywood producer, Mamdani attended the elite Bowdoin College, where annual tuition exceeds $70,000. He is part of the “radical chic” in American academia, where extreme leftist views have become commonplace.

Mamdani exemplifies the trend of quoting Marxist catchphrases as though they were self-evident truths. This is Marxism-lite, offering sweeping promises—from rent control to cheaper halal food. At a Young Democratic Socialists of America conference, Mamdani even plainly declared that one of their goals is to “seize the means of production” in the United States.

The phrase "seize the means of production," one of Karl Marx's most remembered theories, was in opposition to what he called historical materialism. 

Marx argued that societal change must be driven by class struggle — specifically, the conflict between the bourgeoisie (business owners and upper class) and the proletariat (working class), who he argued were forced to sell their labor to survive.

The problem was — and remains — that Marx "forgot to mention" in his little utopian vision that the all-knowing party (dictatorial government) rules over everyone and everything, to the detriment of the very people Marxism claims (lies about) to benefit. 

As a result, it's both ironic and ignorant that Zohran Mamdani — and other “Latte Leninists” and “trust-fund Trotskyites" — can so effectively use their followers (useful idiots) to shill for their lies. 

So, how did we get here? 

As an November 2022 article published by The Heritage Foundation reads:

In 1989, as the Soviet empire was crumbling, The New York Times noted an interesting new development: While millions who had lived under the brutal rule of communism for decades were finally throwing off their yoke, Marxist professors were taking over American academia.

[...]

The strategy to achieve the new cultural Marxism was no longer predicated on Marx’s original prescription, the violent overthrow of the system by the working class, or in Marx and Engel’s own words, “formation of the proletariat into a class, overthrow of the bourgeois supremacy, [and] conquest of political power by the proletariat.” 

Rather, the strategy now draws on [the] concept: Ideologues must infiltrate institutions and all of society and “raise the consciousness of” the “oppressed” with a new cultural worldview, or narrative.

So there it is. 

The American left's disdain for wealth — except for wealth redistribution, of course — is fueled by the aforementioned “Latte Leninists” and “trust-fund Trotskyites," with intentionally low-information rioters ("mostly peaceful protesters") in the streets giving zero thought to the horrors of the past in the name of the very causes they now champion.

The Bottom Line

Speaking of "useful idiots," during the Cold War, Soviet Communists reportedly referred to American liberals as “useful idiots.” 

While the USSR is no more, American "liberals" have, by and large, given way to radical leftists, and the song remains the same. Only this time, the useful idiocy is more ominous for America's way of life than that of present-day Russia or any other country on the planet.

The 'Kayak Protest' of Chief Justice John Roberts Might Be the Silliest Protest of the Summer

RedState 

We've seen a variety of protests this summer. 

The anti-ICE crew in Portland probably wins the most annoying award for how they have ticked off the neighbors who live near the ICE facility. They've even sparked a lawsuit and faced vigilantes throwing things at them. They've been camped out near the facility for about the last month and a half.

But perhaps the silliest, most elite protest was the "kayak protest" against Chief Justice John Roberts near his summer home in Maine on Saturday. 

It was a kayak protest - they had about 20 kayaks. They peddled near his house and held up tiny signs that you could barely see. I'm not posting video from the protesters because it essentially identifies where Roberts' home is.

We've already seen that protests against Supreme Court justices can lead to other problems.

This protest against Roberts in Maine was peaceful. 

Here was the statement they released.

“United States Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts presides over the most rightwing Supreme Court in almost 100 years,” the group’s press release states. “Roberts has delivered the majority vote for President Trump’s every dictate, even granting him immunity from prosecution for any crimes he commits while he is the President. The Roberts Court is historically unpopular with the public and violated the United States Constitution; Roberts has been the deciding member of the six Justices supporting a far-right political agenda. Now is the time to demand resistance to tyranny from people in positions of power, as we move closer to a dictatorship.”

Now, this is hilarious for a variety of reasons. Saying that Roberts has delivered on Trump's "every dictate" means they don't understand the decisions of Roberts. Calling him a "far right extremist" is pretty funny. It is wrong to call Trump that. They have a truly warped perception of what "far right" means. It's also amusing to cast Trump as a tyrant or dictator when he has probably cut the power of government more than anyone I can remember. Not to mention that his chief priority seems to be to free Americans from people who are real oppressors. 

They also don't understand the immunity decision if they think that it gave President Trump a pass for "any crimes he commits while he is president." 

Kayaking to demonstrate how you're being oppressed is not exactly a great look. Can you have a protest that is any more elitist than that? 

And so, did Roberts come out on the porch, wave, and say, "You got me now, guys, I'm changing my mind to agree with you"?

Well, no. I think it's fair to say that this ridiculous effort will have absolutely no effect on the Supreme Court. 

People had fun mocking the protest. 

Assistant Attorney General Harmeet Dhillion tweeted, "[L]ol - talk about privilege — kayak-based resort protest. What next, serve him an improperly seasoned lobster roll to underscore your incoherent point?

Christopher Scalia, the son of the late Chief Justice Antonin Scalia, snarked, "Protesting is fine, but this is going overboard."