Image 01 Image 03

Chaos and confrontation were goals of Trump Chicago disruption

Chaos and confrontation were goals of Trump Chicago disruption

Chant “Free Speech Sucks”

Protesters have been interrupting quite a few Trump events of late, but none were as “successful” as the one in Chicago.  That multi-pronged, organized and coordinated protest, covered by Professor Jacobson, actually shut down the event.  The progressive left is hailing this as a victory, so we are sure to see more of the same at future Trump events, and because it’s perceived as a “victory,” at the events of other Republican candidates before too long.  Professor Jacobson also discusses this slippery slope in another post.

One report from a Politico writer explains how the organizer and some of his classmates felt in the minutes before the event was cancelled and as the students prepared for their disruption.

Politico reports:

Just 50 feet in front of the podium where Trump was scheduled to appear at any moment, Nathaniel Lewis, a 25-year-old African-American graduate student at the University of Illinois at Chicago, had established a beachhead of sorts: a pocket of about three dozen college students and activists. They were ready, too.

What Lewis and dozens of his UIC classmates had planned was perhaps bigger—and better organized—than any protest Trump had faced to date. It had been a week in the making, and now everyone was in place: with roughly 2,500 on the street outside and hundreds more inside, including dozens working directly with Lewis. As they waited, the crowd growing loud around them, a few were starting to feel doubts about what they were hoping to do.

. . . .  In the moment, standing next to them, I could understand what she was worried about. I was just there to watch, but I could feel it myself. The protesters, mostly black and Latino and young, were standing shoulder to shoulder with the people that their protest would upset most. The crowd was white—all of them—sporting “Hillary for Prison” and “Bomb the Hell out of ISIS” pins, wearing camouflage ball caps, hunter orange, and N.R.A. gear, and shouting for their candidate, who was late, but coming, surely coming.

But their well-laid plans threatened to come to naught when the event was abruptly cancelled.

Politico continues:

The plan was straightforward. Once Trump began speaking, Lewis would begin sending messages to the groups around the hall—and, so prompted, they would each stand up, chanting, and disrupt the speech. It would then build to a crescendo: right there, in front of Trump’s podium. Lewis and the other protesters in front were going to link up—“arm in arm,” he instructed the students around him—and make their presence known in a silent, but conspicuous, circle. “It will speak louder,” Lewis said, “than anybody who interrupts Trump’s speeches.”

They never got that chance. Just after 6:30 p.m. on Friday, a Trump official appeared on stage and abruptly told the crowd that the event was off. Trump would not be appearing. The crowd was shocked; the protesters spontaneously erupted in cheers.

That, of course, was not the end of the story.  From there, the stadium erupted.

“Please go in peace,” the official told the crowd from the stage Friday night.

And that was the exact moment when the violence began, pitting Trump supporters against protesters, whites against blacks. An event—teetering on the edge until that moment, but still calm—devolved quickly into an angry scrum, and Lewis and his fellow students found themselves in the middle of it. They were standing near the podium where the candidate would not be appearing—with an increasingly angry crowd around them that knew exactly who had prevented Donald Trump from showing up.

“Stay together!” Lewis urged his fellow protesters.

As this was the stated goal of the protests, to shut down Trump, you’d think they would have been elated, but it seems they were merely frustrated.

Watch video from inside the venue, in which the protesters chanted “Free Speech Sucks“:

The incident at the Trump rally began during a meeting of campus leaders who were unhappy that Trump was allowed to speak on their campus.

Politico continues:

The unlikely journey to the floor at the Trump rally had begun four nights earlier in a lecture hall on campus at UIC. The first meeting drew about 100 students, many of them campus leaders frustrated that their college had decided to host the Trump rally at all. They launched a “Stop Trump” Facebook page, and, over the weekend, the page had drawn about a thousand likes.

. . . .  At that first meeting on Monday . . . finding consensus on an actual protest plan sputtered in the lecture hall. “People had too many agendas,” UIC student Brian Geiger said later. “We didn’t get much accomplished.” There were supporters of Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton and even one guy in a Ted Cruz shirt, but the students were intent on keeping the protest nonpartisan.

Students couldn’t agree how—or where—to protest. Angry over recent news of activists being physically assaulted at Trump events, some felt they shouldn’t be passive if attacked on Friday night. But others like Geiger—an African-American senior majoring in political science and an honors student at UIC—countered that non-violence was the only approach they could take. Anything else, he said, would reflect badly on them, the university and the cause. “What I’m fearful of,” he said, “is folks who are coming to this campus and want to start violence. That’s what scares me.”

Concerned about their personal safety, the students apparently landed on the plan to “march” both within the actual venue and outside it where protests are more expected: some linking arms while silently standing in a circle as described above, others actually “marching” in the crowded venue while “peacefully chanting,” and still others ready to be arrested.

They color-coded their roles in the disruption as described by Politico:

Still, everyone in the room knew they were taking risks, which the students categorized by color to make the stakes plain. “Peacemakers,” folks on the edge of the march, were green, with little risk of problems. Marchers and those going inside were yellow and could be detained. “That doesn’t mean you’ll be charged,” Rojas clarified. “But you are acknowledging that you have that risk and you’re okay with that.” Red was the final category.

“What does red do?” an African-American female student asked.

“You’re at the front of the march,” Rojas told her. Or inside the event itself, prepared to disrupt it with peaceful chanting. “You’re at risk of being arrested,” Geiger said, putting it another way.

Watch confrontations with police outside the Chicago venue:

The students were not the only protesters present, of course, as the professor noted, Move.On was involved, as were Muslim groups and Black Lives Matter.

So far, there have been four arrests associated with this protest. reports:

Prosecutors charged three Chicago men and a Michigan woman who were involved in protests outside Friday’s canceled rally for Republican Presidential front runner Donald Trump.

. . . .  Sergio Giraldo, 23, of the 1900 block of West Argyle Street, was charged with two felony counts of aggravated battery to a peace officer, a felony count of resisting and obstructing a peace officer and two misdemeanor counts of resisting a peace officer.

Sohaan Goss, 21, of the 10600 block of South Langley Avenue, was charged with a felony count of aggravated battery to a peace officer and five misdemeanor counts of resisting and obstructing a peace officer.

Timothy Bradford, 32, of the 100 block of West Adams Street, was charged with two misdemeanor counts of resisting and obstructing a peace officer.

Kathleen Griffin, 45, of the 17200 block of South Rains Island Road in Barbeau, Michigan, was charged with one misdemeanor count of resisting and obstructing a peace officer.

What is particularly interesting—and disturbing—about this incident is that it was born of the recent trend of college students demanding that people with whom they disagree be disinvited to campus functions; the most recent example that comes to mind was the incident in which Ben Shapiro was banned from speaking at California State University.

Watch protesters brag about “stopping Trump” in Chicago:

“Safe spaces,” “trigger warnings,” and the protests and petitions to have conservative speakers—and others such as Trump—removed are all of the same in terms of progressives, as Laurel put it, saying to those with whom they disagree, “Shut up!”


Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.


Lucien Cordier | March 13, 2016 at 3:15 pm

At what point does civil war become a viable option?

    alaskabob in reply to Lucien Cordier. | March 13, 2016 at 4:53 pm

    We can’t afford a “civil war” option. Before the 1940’s… maybe… but now the world is not our oyster and the world is already being destabilized with the dimming of the prolonged era of “Pax Britanica and Pax Americana”. As in the 1960’s, the youth then now hold positions of power…. their mindset is that anything is better than now and their beautiful phoenix will arise from any ashes. History is not their friend but they believe that this time around they are smarter and will beat the odds. That said.. a mere “tit for tat” is not a strong and lasting response.

      soljerblue in reply to alaskabob. | March 14, 2016 at 7:25 pm

      “…a mere “tit for tat” is not a strong and lasting response.”

      That’s OK as far as it goes but these thugs will keep pushing the envelope, very much wanting that ‘tit for tat’ response. The ’68-’71 “anti-war” movement became wholly a creature of the left which deliberately drove the tactics toward violence, and eventually got it. As a former journalist, I covered that period, and what I have seen in Chicago is a deliberate repeat of those times.

It’s 1968 all over again. The last hurrah for the aging sixties generation. They have managed to train an new breed of wussified socialist.

Of course it was back then and is now, always the victims fault. As memory serves, there antics did not help them in 1968.

    holdingmynose in reply to sequester. | March 14, 2016 at 7:34 am

    I well remember 1968 and the violence at the Democrat Convention. IMHO the disruptions at the Trump even were mild compared to 1968. Particularly the CPD’s handling of the Trump protesters vs the “police riot” in 1968.

Here’s a question nobody has addressed (though it may be in the Politico piece I haven’t had time to read entirely)…

Was this, as claimed by posters, a “closed event”?

OR was it a public event on a campus venue?

It makes am immense difference in terms of the whole “peaceably assemble” issue, along with trespass law.

    It was a public event that people could buy tickets to attend from my understanding. Here’s the link to the FB page that was organizing the protest (note the language used: meet as a “collective” and express “solidarity,” etc.):

    They discuss buying tickets to the event and don’t mention any restrictions they need to combat, but it is possible the tickets were only for students of the univ.

      Ragspierre in reply to Fuzzy Slippers. | March 13, 2016 at 3:46 pm

      In which case (if that is the case), the people mentioned in the Politico piece had every right to “peaceably assemble”, as much as anyone there.

      They ALSO had every right to protest peaceably, and those mentioned went to some lengths to assure they were doing that.

      They were not, apparently, the only people there with an anti-Trump agenda, however.

        legacyrepublican in reply to Ragspierre. | March 13, 2016 at 4:09 pm

        At which point we all start chanting at future events like this that the left seeks to disrupt “This is what astroturfing looks like!”

        janitor in reply to Ragspierre. | March 13, 2016 at 4:10 pm

        There is no “purchase” to tickets to a Trump rally. You do have to register, provide name and address. You receive an emailed numbered “ticket” to be printed out.

        It is a closed, private affair, for a specific purpose — to hear Trump speak — with the venue arranged and paid for by Trump. It is not a “public forum”.

        Obtaining a ticket under false pretenses for the purpose of disrupting the event does not constitute “protected speech”.

        MattMusson in reply to Ragspierre. | March 13, 2016 at 4:21 pm

        Come on Rags. They were never there to peaceably assemble. They were there looking to fight and intimidate.

        I have dealt with professional protesters here in Charlotte on a number of occasions. They show up with 18 wheelers full of gear and propts. They have a coordinated plan of attack and know exactly when and where they will break the law. They dare the police to arrest them and the handful that are have their charges dismissed the next day.

          Ragspierre in reply to MattMusson. | March 13, 2016 at 4:27 pm

          Not according to the Politico piece.

          The people mentioned there were are pains to protest within the law.

          They certainly were NOT the only people there, however. BlackShirt anarchists are known to be very mobile and dedicated to the violent co-option of anything they think they can use. They also tend to be white, and from well-off families, not honor students at the university where this occurred.

          Based on the Politico report (and a couple others I linked), the university students had a relatively peaceful protest in mind (though they acknowledge that some might be arrested), but it was soon taken over by outside groups like Move.On, Black Lives Matter, and even La Raza (according to some reports).

          This, too, is typical of the far left; they either try to start astroturf faux movements like Occupy or they hijack protests that are already planned (as in Ferguson). As others note above, the aging hippies of the radical fringe ’60’s left are often behind these add-on protests and often even bus radicals and union people in from all over.

          janitor in reply to MattMusson. | March 13, 2016 at 4:45 pm

          A lot of students at universities apparently show up at these “protests” because it’s the thing to do on a Friday night. Maybe exciting. Friends suggest. If you watched any of the media’s street attempted street interviews of college-age protesters, most of them appeared to have no clue at all regarding why they were there, responding along the lines of that they didn’t want to talk about it.

        counsel in reply to Ragspierre. | March 13, 2016 at 5:08 pm

        In which case (if that is the case), the people mentioned in the Politico piece had every right to “peaceably assemble”, as much as anyone there.

        Mr. Trump is now protected by the United States Secret Service. It is highly likely that the United States Secret service felt there was an element in the arena whose goals went far beyond mere “peaceful assembly”. In fact, this element may have planned to rush the stage on which Mr. Trump was speaking. Subsequent acts of violence after the cancellation bear out that the aims of the protestors went beyond mere “peaceful assembly”.

          Ragspierre in reply to counsel. | March 13, 2016 at 5:13 pm

          Not for some of them, it didn’t.

          Unless, of course, you have something besides rank speculation.

          BTW, what’s your authority for your Secret Service assertion?

          counsel in reply to counsel. | March 13, 2016 at 5:50 pm

          I really don’t want to get into a back in forth with you, so what you write below will be our last word. But in their own words, is part of the United States Secret Service mission

          The protection of an individual is comprehensive and goes well beyond surrounding the individual with well-armed agents. As part of the Secret Service’s mission of preventing an incident before it occurs, the agency relies on meticulous advance work and threat assessments developed by its Intelligence Division to identify potential risks to protectees

        Char Char Binks in reply to Ragspierre. | March 13, 2016 at 9:14 pm

        Of course they were protesting peaceably. They said so, for gosh sakes!

      Sanddog in reply to Fuzzy Slippers. | March 13, 2016 at 5:46 pm

      The University of Illinois rented the arena to Trump. Even if he opens the event to the general public, he can still set limits on behavior. He paid for it and no one has a right to use the venue he paid for to protest him.

        Ragspierre in reply to Sanddog. | March 13, 2016 at 6:05 pm

        The first part of your post is true.

        I think the third is problematic in this sense; nobody has a right to protest (i.e., they can protest without recourse by the person or group holding the venue), but they still CAN protest provided they are willing to face the legal consequences.

        This is the definition of true civil disobedience.

        AND OF COURSE, a lot of people were not there in that spirit, though some apparently were.

          Sanddog in reply to Ragspierre. | March 13, 2016 at 9:32 pm

          They’re not protesting a government policy or law. They’re protesting a private citizen who has expressed opinions they don’t like. That’s not civil disobedience, that’s thuggery.

    Estragon in reply to Ragspierre. | March 13, 2016 at 7:02 pm

    The Police say they had everything under control and never even were consulted before the Trump people cancelled the event on their own. Police said NO threat to public safety existed.

    It is naive of the fascist pukes to think they can bloody up individual protesters and not find larger groups showing up.

JOHNPAULJONES | March 13, 2016 at 3:22 pm

Well given how badly society lost the 1968 battles…I am worried about the outcome now. Only Trump seems able to fight them and even he is being shut down. At this point civil war may be the only way to stop them.

    tom swift in reply to JOHNPAULJONES. | March 13, 2016 at 3:34 pm

    and even he is being shut down

    Au contraire, they didn’t shut him down—you can’t shut down a man who isn’t even there—he sidestepped them entirely. Their demonstration landed on empty air; they struck out, and, even better, they looked like fascistic jerks while doing it. It’s Charlie Brown and the football, over and over again, and there’s no indication that they’ll ever learn.

      rinardman in reply to tom swift. | March 13, 2016 at 4:08 pm

      —you can’t shut down a man who isn’t even there—

      Why wasn’t he there?

        janitor in reply to rinardman. | March 13, 2016 at 4:39 pm

        They shut down the EVENT. There were people there from miles around. Chicago is hours from Bloomington, the venue of one of today’s rallies. These people registered for the event, took time off, some of them drove many miles, some of them had their children with them, and then they stood on line, some for hours.

    Valerie in reply to JOHNPAULJONES. | March 13, 2016 at 4:59 pm

    I’m worried about the outcome, too, but for different reasons. Donald Trump is not being hurt by these disruptions. Indeed, he just weaves them into his speeches. And, he engages in extinguishing behavior.

    Extinguishing behavior is what you do to discourage childish misbehavior. You give immediate, non-positive, mild, variable response to behavior you want to go away. This strategy minimizes the possibility of both getting perverse results and escalation.

    He’s going to come out of this little dust-up smelling like a rose, because he is a great extemporaneous speaker and entertainer.

    My problem is, his one great promise is that he is going to do whatever he damn well pleases, because he his not beholden to anybody.

Ah yes, now the spin—we din do nuffin!

Mob the place with racist agitators, La Raza types, and college dumbasses, then insist that the inevitable must be someone else’s fault.

    Char Char Binks in reply to tom swift. | March 13, 2016 at 9:22 pm

    I noticed that, too. It’s a well-spun version of events, painting them as innocent/heroic in their cowardly and criminal actions.

Chant “Free Speech Sucks”

These young twits have no idea what kind of future they’re creating for themselves.

Glen Beck’s group was also right there with the protestors.

I guess they stand for intimidation too. Somebody who listens to him please report whether he disavows them or not.

    MathMom in reply to rotten. | March 13, 2016 at 4:29 pm

    Please provide links and proof that Glenn Beck’s group was there protesting and intimidating.

    BTW, I accidentally up-voted your comment, intending to reply. I don’t seem to be able to rectify that error.

      Valerie in reply to MathMom. | March 13, 2016 at 5:19 pm

      I found a link that purports to show Beck supporters at the Trump Rally in Chicago. I have no idea what it really shows.

      The Gateway Pundit is also carrying this link, but I don’t know who identified the protesters.

      It is true that Glenn Beck has slammed Trump for his lack of ideological purity. That portion of his criticism is true. Trump has no history as a Conservative.

        MathMom in reply to Valerie. | March 13, 2016 at 6:09 pm

        I see Bernie signs, printed signs like those handed out by unions, and “No Trump, No KKK” something something. Beck’s viewers don’t chant mindlessly, and they write their own signs. I say, they aren’t Beck’s “minions”. This is what a Beck rally looks like, during, and after.

        GatewayPundit has gotten into some bad mushrooms. I’m hoping he gets better after the election, because he used to be an important voice in the Tea Party movement. He’s nuts now, with respect to Trump.

    Ragspierre in reply to rotten. | March 13, 2016 at 4:30 pm

    Where’s YOUR link? ‘Cause, see, you frequently post complete bullshit.

We get it rags. You’re perfectly fine with violence as long as it’s against people you don’t like. Fascist

    Ragspierre in reply to Vancomycin. | March 13, 2016 at 4:42 pm

    You’re an idiot, a liar, and YOU’RE the fascist.

    You don’t get shit.

    Common Sense in reply to Vancomycin. | March 13, 2016 at 4:50 pm

    Vancomycin I agree with you!
    Shameful conduct

      Ragspierre in reply to Common Sense. | March 13, 2016 at 4:54 pm

      I’m about the furthest person you’ll ever meet from a fascist, you idiot liar.

      You, however, support a stinking, lying Collectivist thug. Whose favorite economic model is ECONOMIC FASCISM.

      (Look it up, stupid)

        Rags is not only the farthest person from a fascist one will ever meet.

        But he is also the most reasonable, most even tempered, most respectful, most universally admired, most beloved, most introspective, most self aware, and most intelligent of any person anywhere on the internet.

        And if you don’t believe it then you are a lying SOS, cultist, collectivist, commie, fascist, moron, thug.

        Ragspierre in reply to Ragspierre. | March 13, 2016 at 6:24 pm

        Well, that’s another straw man load of lies by Gaghdad Bob.

        I make no pretense at being anything more that I am.

        I AM so far distant from being a fascist that my primary hope for government is to leave people the FLUCK alone.

        I believe in the Constitution so strongly that I even want it applied to people with whom I have violent disagreements. Unlike many of the posters the last few days (i.e., the idiot who soiled his thong because the Second Amendment covers people he doesn’t like.)

        I hate and will demonstrate a liar, like Bierhall Bullyboi Britt, who really is a fascist.

        And I will fight and speak out against a stinking lying Collectivist thug like Der Donald. Who thinks it’s his business to NOT leave people alone, but, like Bernie Sanders, wants to impose a COMMAND ECONOMY on the U.S.

Misguided “peaceful protests” will be usurped by the violent. Those attending meetings to hear their candidate will quickly tire of the loud … and dangerous…. suppression of peaceful assembly. The Left wants and gets civil discord knowing that the present Administration has beat down law enforcement and has supported and organized Leftist protest groups such as in Ferguson and in the Zimmerman/Martin case. For those of us having lived through 1968, this time around the risks and threats are far greater both internally and externally for the country. The country has not been “transformed” so much as made vulnerable to potentially devastating compromise of institutions. The Left can taste the promise of social upheaval. For those that want us to be like Ghandi …. 2016 might turn out to be “Ghandi II” — “no more Mister Nice Guy.” I hope not… but….

Professor Jacobson used the term “dangerous” to refer to this mob behavior.
Y’all probably have no idea how dangerous.

Let me introduce you to a term that appropriately names this mob, their behavior and their ultimate goals:

They are Ideological Supremacists.

These people believe that their ideas are superior, and they are not willing to debate, negotiate or compromise.
They think that you and I are inferior because of our ideas and/or opinions, and that we are too stupid to know better. Therefore, society, humanity and the universe will be better off if we, and our ideas and values, are suppressed.
Right now they are going as far as they can, and are getting bolder as they see that the current administration and the Justice Department are sympathetic to their cause/methods.
If allowed and given the power to, one day they will imprison and/or kill all those who oppose the rule of the mob, the power of the State.
Hugo Chavez did it in Venezuela.
Fidel Castro did it in Cuba.
It happened in China and Korea; the Russians and the Nazi did it in most of Europe.

Believe me, they are not willing to compromise. They are only willing to use whatever power they can seize and use to impose their view. They are no different than the nazi, the communist or the islamic extremist.
They are dangerous and they need to be stopped.

Politico is not a credible source for political news or political commentary.

The goal of the protest assembly was to shutdown the peaceful assembly. It was to violate the first party’s constitutional right and to prevent the presentation of information to those assembled. This is why they needed to preemptively establish an association between the supremacist group and Trump in order to justify this tactic. Unfortunately, the participation of a diverse class of Americans undermined their cause.

    Char Char Binks in reply to n.n. | March 13, 2016 at 9:30 pm

    The Politico story smells of BS. They never had any intention of being peaceable.

      Lady Penguin in reply to Char Char Binks. | March 14, 2016 at 6:24 am

      A friend of mine who was there as an observer (a blogger) discuss exactly how the radical groups presented themselves. It was intentional that the media would see some groups (the latinos wanting illegal immigration) to appear as “quiet” protesters, and not disruptive. In the meantime, other groups like #BLM #Occupy gathered blocks away and they were to be the agitators and foment violence. So, the media (complicit with these kinds of things) could focus on the “peaceably” assembled folks and give them the airtime, all the while ignoring the radicalism of the hate the police groups and #BLM.

Der Donald shows his usual contempt for the law…

…and for the same reasons we’ve seen motivate his bullshit before.

He’s down in polling, with Kasitch seven up on him in Ohio.

Will he threaten to sue…???

OK…I posted this last night to see what those of you with a legal background thought of it. I got a few down poo-poos with no explanation of why citing a current law was not relevant.

So, I’ll try again. Any of you have any insight as to the meaning and application?

H.R. 347 was passed and signed by Obama in Feb. 2012 with the intent of keeping TEA Party protesters in line.

Sec 1752.Restricted building or grounds

(1)knowingly enters or remains in any restricted building or grounds without lawful authority to do so;

(2)knowingly, and with intent to impede or disrupt the orderly conduct of Government business or official functions, engages in disorderly or disruptive conduct in, or within such proximity to, any restricted building or grounds when, or so that, such conduct, in fact, impedes or disrupts the orderly conduct of Government business or official functions;

(3)knowingly, and with the intent to impede or disrupt the orderly conduct of Government business or official functions, obstructs or impedes ingress or egress to or from any restricted building or grounds; or

(4)knowingly engages in any act of physical violence against any person or property in any restricted building or grounds;
or attempts or conspires to do so, shall be punished as provided in subsection (b)


(c)In this section—

(1)the term restricted buildings or grounds means any posted, cordoned off, or otherwise restricted area—

(A)of the White House or its grounds, or the Vice President’s official residence or its grounds;

(B)of a building or grounds where the President or other person protected by the Secret Service is or will be temporarily visiting; or

(C)of a building or grounds so restricted in conjunction with an event designated as a special event of national significance; and

(2)the term other person protected by the Secret Service means any person whom the United States Secret Service is authorized to protect under section 3056 of this title or by Presidential memorandum, when such person has not declined such protection.


Punishment – imprisonment of up to a year unless weapons are found, which bumps it up to 10 years.

    murkyv in reply to murkyv. | March 14, 2016 at 1:29 am

    To clarify, I don’t think this law has ever been used or tested because…

    A) Republican voters don’t normally use deception to enter a venue with the sole intent to stop a speaker from being heard.

    B) Democrats ARE using deception to enter a venue with the sole intent to stop a speaker from being heard.

    C) Holder/Lynch…..see Option B)

    H.R. 347 was passed and signed by Obama in Feb. 2012 with the intent of keeping TEA Party protesters in line.

    “This bill amended a previously existing law, which can be read here, that was also about establishing a crime of being in restricted areas protected by the Secret Service. This bill’s only significant change was adding the White House to the list of restricted places.”

    This law has been on the books in basically the same form since it was signed by then-President Richard Nixon in 1971. Whether or not it’s a good law, and why it hasn’t more often been applied, are legitimate issues for debate. But whichever blog has been blindly spreading this latest narrative about it really needs to lift its game. I really find it embarrassing that so many self-professed “conservative” blogs are going full tinfoil-hat these days.

Char Char Binks | March 14, 2016 at 6:37 pm

Upon further review, I’m pretty sure they were chanting, “WE BEAT TRUMP!”, not “FREE SPEECH SUCKS!”.