Share This Article with a Friend!

Assault on America, Day 476: Politicians who protest the protesters merit removal from office

Liberate Colorado
Shouldn’t we be angry that they aren’t angrier?

It's human nature, the tendency of every (or at least most) person to receive a command from an authority figure and seek to carry it out. As children we learned to listen to mom and dad and teachers and caretakers and do what we were told, not always to the letter but enough to stave off a painful punishment, or even worse, a threat to deprive us of some aspect of liberty or property (if you don’t do x by y o’clock, no phone or meeting your friends for a week!).

Therefore, when the government’s shelter-in-place orders arrived over a month ago, most citizens shook their heads and with jaws agape uttered that they’d never experienced anything like it and wondered how such an unprecedented (and unconstitutional?) mandate could be carried out without massive hardship and consternation. Yet the vast majority -- everyone I’ve seen -- complied with the guidelines as though there was an underlying patriotic duty to aid in the effort to save ourselves and our neighbors, especially those in the biggest threat categories.

To do otherwise would not only put certain folks at high risk for sickness and even death, it would engender a type of social ostracization that was far worse than merely keeping our distance and not going out as much as we’d desire to.

But as the weeks went by and conditions largely remained the same, people got antsy. The initial strangely stimulating spirit of accepting a challenge (to isolate ourselves) slowly morphed into resentment over the prolonged nature of nothingness. The CCP (Chinese Communist Party) virus was everywhere and nowhere at the same time, but seemed mostly isolated to hospitals or care facilities. News would arrive of some famous person testing positive, usually accompanied by assurances of “I’m fine and I’m self-quarantining.” Rumors traveled across communities. Statewide cases and deaths rose at a steady pace and touched many of the places we call home.

Yet traveling down the street and seeing car-less parking lots and darkened store windows became more and more foreign to us. Eccentricity turned to angst. People went about their day treating each other as a possible source of infection rather than a neighbor or friend. Masks became commonplace as did protective gloves, and in some cases, virus-proof clothing. Odd practices such as one-way supermarket aisles and strips of tape in checkout lines became the new normal. The retail outlets that remained open for business protected employees behind glass barriers as though any smidgen of contact would act as the lynchpin for a local epidemic.

Store employees issued orders -- “Stand over to the side and keep your distance!” -- like they were newly deputized law enforcement officers.

We’d overhear an occasional grumble from some random non-conformist, but even the naysayers generally went along with the script. It was uniquely unifying in times of incredible uncertainty. Parallels to wars and other national crises were strained, but accurate.

Then opportunistic governors and local officials in various locales took advantage of the weirdness to place draconian restrictions on regular freedoms, justifying their common sense-defying moves as necessary to slow or stop the spread of the virus. At the same time, we’ve repeatedly been told the gestation period of COVID-19 is about two weeks, yet it’s been over a month and we’re still instructed to hold the line for seemingly arbitrary lengths of additional time. Here in Virginia our governor has issued stay-at-home orders until June 10 (unless he decrees otherwise). But why? What’s the justification for instructing everyone to voluntarily stifle themselves for another month and a half?

It’s not that anyone truly objects to eliminating the customary handshakes or copiously washing their hands after being out in public for ten seconds. But where does it end, and what magic moment of clarity will emerge to signal that it’s “over” and we can come out of our homes to live free again?

The protests we’ve seen in recent weeks are just the opening stages of what’s to come if elected leaders ignore the demands of the population to once again allow them the legally sanctioned ability to provide for themselves and their families, which obviously includes earning a paycheck. Mass peaceful protest is the greatest change agent in the history of humankind, which is why totalitarian leaders fear it so much. With today’s rapid dissemination of information via the internet and social media it doesn’t take a whole lot for one ambitious soul to organize and lead a collection of similarly inclined individuals to show up and make some noise. It’s like a boulder rolling downhill or a spontaneous rock concert.

Then the media crews arrive on scene, masked cameramen record the event and news starved outlets flash the images to a wide audience of folks who don’t have much better to do with their idle time than endure another hour of cable journalists talking about the coronavirus. Contrary to the spin of the authorities, the protesters aren’t endangering themselves and others. They’re the heroes in this strange tale of extraordinary separatism.

Public officials ignore the feelings of the multitudes at their own electoral peril. Already some are comparing the protests to those of the Tea Party in 2010 (which, of course, led to a Republican takeover of the House in that year’s elections). The inexplicable nature and randomness of the state governments’ shelter-in-place policies can’t continue indefinitely. Something’s gotta give. Sooner or later people are going to wonder why their “leaders” aren’t a little more ticked off at the unfairness of it all.

Ultimately, protesters always win if their cause is just and there’s enough of them to force the unengaged part of the citizenry to start using their own brains and accumulated wisdom to question the perpetual “do as I say, not as I do” mentality of the petty tyrants. One gets the feeling those days aren’t far off.

At least one person thinks Liz Warren should un-suspend her campaign and get back in the fray. Why… because she’s female!

Politics has most definitely been relegated to the proverbial backburner of late, but the intense nature of the coronavirus conundrum has also shown a spotlight on this year’s election in ways that weren’t foreseeable a couple months ago. Democrat nominee-in-waiting Joe Biden is mostly absent from view -- likely by plan -- but it hasn’t prevented some star-crossed dreamers from re-thinking the presidential race in his public nonexistence.

Anti-Trump -- and anti-Biden -- author Sharlee Glenn (Founder of Mormon Women for Ethical Government) wrote last week at The Hill, “A century after women won the right to vote, it is time for a woman to be our president. There are more women than men in the United States. It is time for us in the majority to have our say. Research clearly indicates that when women are at the governing table, a democracy becomes stronger, more prosperous, and more peaceful. Women more so than men tend to work across party lines, be highly responsive to concerns of constituents, prioritize family, children, health, education, and other key development measures, and secure peaceful agreements to end conflicts.

“Warren is a woman eminently qualified to lead in every way. We cannot let her go. In more than 5,000 years of history, save for a few rare incidences, women have had a voice in politics with the right to vote for only the past 100 years. We need Warren today. She should resume her candidacy and challenge Biden, or she can run as an independent. We need a legitimate choice. If we are good enough and wise enough and brave enough, then we will elect her as the next president of the United States.”

Wise enough to elect “Pocahontas” president? Sheesh.

What a fascinating premise! Women, because of their estrogen-filled bodies, naturally make better choices than testosterone-impulsive men! So much for equality -- women aren’t just equal anymore, they’re better! Heck, the Barack Hussein Obama so much as said so a few years back, “I’m absolutely confident that, for two years, if every nation on earth was run by women, you would see a significant improvement across the board on just about everything — living standards and outcomes.” One wonders if the former leader of the land of the free developed the belief after being president or before. If the latter was the case, why didn’t he just bow out and let Crooked Hillary win the 2008 Democrat nomination?

Besides, isn’t Nancy “Antoinette” Pelosi a woman too? Wouldn’t her callous “let them eat cake” ice cream stunt last week refute the notion that all women prioritize family, etc.?

Glenn’s premise is pretty flimsy on its face, but when she suggests “Pocahontas” should dig herself out of political mothballs, the argument becomes ludicrous. Even if you accepted the notion that biological females are better leaders than their opposites, apparently the Democrat grassroots didn’t share the opinion. Granted it’s been a while since any primaries of consequence were conducted, but I believe no female Democrat candidate managed better than a third-place finish in any state this year. Warren finished third in her own state, Massachusetts, and Amy Klobuchar managed to come in behind Bernie Sanders and Pete Buttigieg in New Hampshire.

Therefore, what validation would there be for Liz to mount an Independent campaign? President Donald Trump and every Republican would welcome Warren’s third-party candidacy with open arms since it would most assuredly drain lots more votes from Grampa Joe Biden than Trump. If the sensitive suburban soccer mom stereotype still exists -- the ones who don’t care for Trump because of his “rhetoric” -- wouldn’t they gravitate towards “Pocahontas” rather than creepy Joe?

For those responsible voters who actually assess a candidate’s issue platform rather than dwell on which public restroom they frequent (okay, not talking about transgenders here!), it doesn’t make a difference what gender the person is. Women don’t always make better parents or teachers or business executives or auto mechanics, etc., do they? Why would they be superior as leaders?

We can only hope there are more folks out there like Sharlee Glenn -- then Trump will win reelection in a landslide.

“Pocahontas” Warren doesn’t think much of the right to protest, either

There are lots of signs Elizabeth Warren wouldn’t be a very good president. Throughout the campaign she came across as irritable and kooky as well as a liar and a fraud. She also isn’t wild about citizens expressing themselves when it counteracts the will of the petty tyrants. Andrew Blake reported at The Washington Times, “In a series of tweets Friday, Mr. Trump said in capital letters ‘LIBERATE MICHIGAN,’ ‘LIBERATE MINNESOTA’ and ‘LIBERATE VIRGINIA.’

“Reacting on MSNBC the next morning, Ms. Warren reasoned that Mr. Trump was ‘encouraging people to come out and try to turn this health crisis into a political rally’ for himself.

“’It is the kind of leadership that puts lives at risks, and it is the kind of leadership that undermines the very strength of this country,’ said Ms. Warren, who recently ended her campaign to run as the Democratic presidential candidate against Mr. Trump in November.”

So… Liz thinks legitimate protest and expressing one’s views on public policy puts lives at risk? Is no one allowed to have an opinion that differs from the liberal powers-that-be?

Cutting to the chase, Warren and her fellow Democrats who were so honked off about the various protests are furious that they’re largely being waged by Trump supporters, the infamous “deplorables” of Hillary Clinton fame. You can bet, if there were largescale “counter-protests” by card carrying members of the Democrat party, the boo-birds would be okay with it.

Every American politician should take pride in the citizenry actively engaging in societal governance, and this includes protesting when they feel their leaders aren’t acting in their best interests. In good and difficult times alike, government must be responsive to the voices of the people. Protests are a healthy thing, not a threat to well-being.

Share this