‘No Kings’ Protester’s Explanation of Low Black Turnout Triggers Outrage
“If anybody’s gonna get arrested here, it’s gonna be a black person. It is not safe for them and they don’t need to participate. We need to walk in their name.”
Videos of reporters’ interactions with protesters at Saturday’s “No Kings” rallies have been oddly amusing. In many cases, participants struggle to articulate why they’re there. Counting on reporters to accept their trite non-answers, they turn notably hostile when challenged.
In the clip below, for example, a reporter asks a woman what brought her to the rally. She responds, “I think protest is important.”
Pressed further, she tells him she doesn’t agree with many of the decisions being made.
The reporter asks, “Is there any decision [from Trump] in particular you disagree with?”
Following an uncomfortable pause, she draws a blank. She becomes defensive and says, “I don’t even think it’s appropriate for me to be speaking to you.”
"Is there any decision [from Trump] in particular you disagree with?"
Her: *critical error-system reboot* pic.twitter.com/sd2OQOn0fZ
— Damani Felder (@TheDamaniFelder) March 28, 2026
In the next clip, a mother and daughter offer up such vacuous nonsense that it’s almost painful to watch.
This is one of the most astonishing interviews I've ever seen in my life.
A mother/daughter duo at a South Carolina "No Kings" protest could not explain AT ALL to a reporter why either of them were protesting.
Zero clue.
Not a single coherent sentence, unbelievable to watch… pic.twitter.com/Xzzb1zIdIl
— Matt Van Swol (@mattvanswol) March 29, 2026
But it was the exchange below that had everybody talking. A reporter speaking to an elderly white liberal woman at a rally notes the lack of diversity in the crowd.
The woman responds, “It is not for black people, for people of color, to get out on the street. They’re at risk when they do that. If anybody’s gonna get arrested here, it’s gonna be a black person. It is not safe for them and they don’t need to participate. We need to walk in their name.”
Clearly amazed by her response, he asks her if she thinks voter ID is racist.
She tells him, “It’s 100% a tactic to control the population and prevent people from voting so that the only votes that — so that the gerrymandering can work, so that white voters can vote in white Christian males.”
Asked if she’s been voting blue her whole life, she replied, “I voted blue in the womb.”
“If you had to vote for a Republican, J.D. Vance or Rubio, which would you pick, if you had to?”
“I would slit my throat,” she says.
“Really?”
“Yeah.”
I confronted a No Kings protestor on the lack of diversity at the protest, she told me she's here because black people can't be. pic.twitter.com/z1wNtAxe64
— Nate Friedman (@NateFriedman97) March 28, 2026
Were those not some of the most racist remarks you’ve ever heard?
This woman’s comments were a textbook example of what George W. Bush called the “soft bigotry of low expectations.” By arguing that black Americans shouldn’t protest because they might be arrested, the elderly liberal woman reveals an assumption that they are less capable of navigating risk, asserting their rights, or engaging in the same forms of dissent as others. Posed as caution, it is in fact a patronizing limitation.
It’s the same principle used by Democrats in debates over voter ID laws. How many times have we heard Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer rail against voter ID requirements because minority citizens may not be able to obtain one?
It’s a control mechanism, and it’s ultimately one of the most demeaning forms of racism. Democrats’ repeated use of this tactic may be one reason why some minority voters are drifting away from the party.
Understandably, this woman’s remarks triggered outrage on social media.
Yet more condescending comments from white people who don’t think black people can do anything. Hey people of color, how do you like these people being your voice. Time to impeach their whiteness 7 pic.twitter.com/XdQYlI2oBM
— ❌ Donna Perez ❌ (@donnapz78) March 29, 2026
This comes to them straight from the top… pic.twitter.com/eQhlzXKETg
— bigwoods🇺🇸 (@bigwoods86) March 30, 2026
In case you forgot pic.twitter.com/lLF6yZIfva
— off-D-goose🧃 (@King5897E64209) March 29, 2026
If these clips reveal anything, it’s that a movement built on slogans but lacking substance quickly collapses under even mild scrutiny. And when its defenders resort to condescension disguised as compassion, it doesn’t just undermine their message — it exposes the very prejudice they claim to oppose.
Elizabeth writes commentary for Legal Insurrection and The Washington Examiner. She is an academy fellow at The Heritage Foundation. Please follow Elizabeth on X or LinkedIn.
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
ahahahha
“we need to walk in their name”
blk people should attack these pos with a vengeance
Just another variation on leftist beliefs that blacks are too ignorant and childish to know what’s good for them.
Asked if she’s been voting blue her whole life, she replied, “I voted blue in the womb.”
if true she would have/should have been aborted
And she’ll be voting blue long after she dies.
And apparently she was voting before she was even born. How does that one work, exactly?
In a delicate procedure, a surgeon introduces a tiny ballot into the uterus…..
Amnesiocentesis.
Especially since she wasn’t (according to her, I’m fairly positive) even alive at that point?
She admitting illegal voting by democrats.
She is a democrat, of course she voted blue in the womb. She will continue voting blue from the graveyard.
If I recall, the media used blue for the Republican Party up until they realized that red (used for Democrats) represented the true red communist background of the democrats.
So if Grandma Drycrotch was voting blue in the womb, she was voting for Republicans.
Of course, she is very much what my mother was like as a Democrat. She was convinced that her social security was going to be taken away by Republicans. She died at 89, and her SS increased every year.
See? Her voting worked. They never took away her SS.
Just like all of these No Kings rallies have worked. We still don’t have a king, right?
She reminds me of my lib friends. It seems like the only thoughts coming out of their heads are quotes from the LA Times or similar rags. And then if i point out a conflicting fact, they say lets not talk politics! They can not face the error in their opinions. Politics should not interfere with friendship.
Somewhere else today someone posted a comment saying that the Democrats are the party of slavery, of confederation, of Jim Crow, of segregation, of the KKK, and the Great Society (“I’ll have those (redacted) voting democrat for the next 200 years!”).
Progressive politics requires useful idiots and the No Kings rallies were the perfect place to find them.
The Democrats are still upset that the Republicans freed their slaves.
Truth be told. There are still many slaves here in the US. They are the black voters stuck on the Democrat plantation.
The only difference is that they are better fed through social safety nets, and the democrats use shame and fear instead of whips to keep their charges in line.
They even have house masters like Al Sharptongue, the former Jesse’ Jackson, and many more
Arguably, the welfare slaves are much better fed than their pre-1865 counterparts.
Lincoln let them go in 1865 and Johnson reclaimed them in 1964.
It’s called Jim Crow 2.0. It’s what democrats do.
There are many intelligent women and there have been some good senators in the last hundred years, but amending the constitution to allow women to vote and for the popular election of senators has been an unmitigated disaster for our republic. We would be living in paradise, but for those changes.
I’ve never understood the fascination conservatives have for repealing the 17th Amendment. “The popular election of Senators is too mob-rule, so let’s have Senators appointed by state legislators who themselves are elected by mob-rule.”
What is more likely — the population of a blue state occasionally rising up and electing a Republican (e.g., Scott Brown, Susan Collins), or the state’s solid-blue legislature ever doing that? Repealing the 17th just gives two completely free spaces on the BINGO card to whichever party currently owns the state legislature. (Not that people are exercising this powerful freedom anymore like they should be.)
If you really believe you like the old model better, tell me how you feel about the still-existing model of a blue state’s senator being able to blackball the appointment of a conservative federal judge in their state. That’s exactly what you’d be returning to by repealing the 17th.
Those appointed would be far more likely to care more for the interests of their state than the carpet baggers who showboat on the national stage. A better class of sociopaths
Bullshit. What on earth could make someone more likely to care about their state’s interests, when they’re elected by a small elite? Surely that would make them care only about that small elite’s interest.
More importantly, it would make them interfere heavily in state elections, since they would be helping curate their electorates. State legislative elections would no longer be about what legislation is good for the state, it would be about whom the candidates support for senate. The state legislature would turn into nothing but an electoral college for the senate. You’d get all the vices you see in the current system, and none of the benefits.
The senate is supposed to represent the states. The senators must be beholden to the states. As it is they aren’t. I;m not even sure they are beholden to the people that elect them now. Would things be better if the state government decided on senators. Don’t know, It could hardly be worse,
You’re under a fundamental delusion here. Who are the states? The constitution tells us. Was the constitution enacted by the state legislatures? It was originally supposed to be, but the delegates at Philadelphia decided against that. The constitution was enacted not by the legislators but by the people of the states, because that’s who the states are.
A state is nothing but its people. The legislature represents those people only because they elect it; and the senators represent those same people because they elect them too. But the legislature can be gerrymandered; the senate can’t be. So the senator better represents the state’s people than the legislature does.
And it was never the case that the state’s government chose its senators. It used to be the legislature, not the government.
And once a senator was elected, he had six years before he had to give a damn what the legislature thought of him, just as he now has six years before he has to give a damn what the people think of him.
Dead wrong, Milhouse. The purpose of the Senate was to offset the public will expressed in the House. The Senate was intended to represent the States as nominally sovereign geopolitical entities at the federal level. This was clearly discussed in Madison’s Notes on the Debates in the Federal Convention. The purpose of a bicameral Congress was to have differing interests represented in each chamber. By having Senators appointed by State legislators, they were directly beholden to the political authorities of the States, rather than directly beholden to the people themselves. One of the points of doing this was to give the States representation through which they could defend their prerogatives, preventing intrusion by the federal government into those prerogatives. It’s no surprise that the federal government became a behemoth only after the direct election of Senators was enabled via constitutional amendment. The appointment of Senators was a linchpin of the republic; the amendment “fixed” a problem when nothing was broken. The Senate was supposed to have an inhibiting effect on the House, as both chambers were meant to operate as a constraint on the POTUS, and as the courts are meant to act as a restraint against the other two branches of government. It was a “check and balance” built into the Congress itself, one we were never taught about in school (I certainly wasn’t). But it was a critical check and balance, the demise of which has sent us spinning into a situation in which the federal government operates as a central (rather than a federal) authority with few restraints and the States have effectively lost their former status as nominally sovereign entities.
Yes, the States can still sue the central government, but that was rarely necessary when the Senate was able to directly prevent the passage of legislation that would allow (the then) federal intrusion into their authority and autonomy.
Also, State level appointment of Senators had nothing to do with gerrymandering. The Senate was where all States were meant to stand and interact as equals, regardless of population, size, or wealth/resources. It was to enable this purpose that each State had equal representation in the Senate. It was the chamber of Congress that most plainly gave evidence of the essential nature of the United States of America as a federation of nominally sovereign geopolitical entities.
No Milhouse. We live in a representative form of government. The House represents the people to the federal government. The State government represents the people at that level. The Senate was to represent the state to the Federal government.
Always remember–Milhouse is a Democrat, he’s giving you the Democrat stance, the lie they told people to get them to remove the voice of the state governments, the lie they told to centralize power.
The tell here is how he insists that the setup is to aid democray.
We don’t live in a democracy. We live in a constitutional republic that uses some democratic methods.
The arguments in favor are usually:
1. Removes the Senator from campaign fundraising requirements and the implied/explicit direct influence of donors, PACs and large/powerful lobbying entities
2. That means no ‘Leadership PACs’ in the Senate and no DC establishment working to elect their candidate to come to DC and save DC establishment interests.
3.. Aligns Senators to represent the interests of the State’s residents/businesses ahead of political party or DC interests b/c they ‘report’ to the Legislature. They can be easily tossed out if they don’t behave.
In theory this would lead to Senators who are better matched to the political climate and policy preferences of their State. As you say blue States would be closed off in this environment but Red States would have Senators who were at least as ‘conservative’ as the State so Cornyn, Graham and Lankford would have been tossed over for a more reliably conservative individual. Though the latter depends on the State Legislature and who the voters send to the State House; if they send wishy washy rinos then not much changes.
It would do no such thing. And if it did it would be a bad thing. This is an argument made only by Progressives who don’t believe in democracy and want government by unelected experts. Campaigning is an inherent part of democracy, because it’s how people know whom to vote for.
Donors and PACs have the inherent right to campaign to those voters, whether they’re the millions of people in a state, or the few hundred legislators. But it’s easier for them to lobby legislators than to lobby the public. A legislator can be bought by a few tens of thousands of dollars under the table; individual voters can’t be bought like that in any sort of volume.
On the contrary, they’d be constantly lobbying state legislators, and also picking candidates to support in state elections, purely on the basis of whom they’ll vote for for senator.
No, they can’t be. This is the silliest of the arguments made. Regardless of who elects a senator, once elected he has six years of complete independence. Only towards the end of that, if he decides he wants another term, does he have to care about his voters, and then it makes no difference whether those voters number in the millions or in the hundreds. And since state legislatures are gerrymandered, they’re more under party control than the state’s voters are.
Not even in theory. On the contrary, how can a senator be better matched to the political climate and policy preferences of their state, i.e. the people of the state (there can be no other definition of the state), than to be elected by those people themselves, rather than by people who only imperfectly represent their preferences?
So why did the founders specify that senators should be chosen by the state legislatures?
To make them less democratic, less responsive to the people. Also to get the state legislatures on board with the new constitution, by giving them this role, as well as the power to decide how their state’s electors would be chosen. Remember that the constitution took away a lot of power from state legislatures, so it had to throw them a few bones.
Remember the model the founders had was the UK, where the lower house was popularly elected while the upper house was mostly hereditary, and acted as a check on the democratic house.
Milhouse,
1. No campaign mean no campaign fundraising by the Senator, no war chest and no Senate leadership PAC putting their thumb on the scales in Senate elections. Could there be shenanigans of DC sticking their nose into decisions of State Legislature? Sure but it would be harder to do and use different means than today.
2. On Senator alignment with political climate you contradict yourself. First you claim an election does this perfectly then claim the Senator has a 6 year term independent of the wishes of those who selected him. Under your theory Cornyn and Lankford wouldn’t have done half the things they have in the Senate and would instead be rock solid ‘conservatives’ never straying to support d/prog policy objectives or frustrating GoP base policy objectives.
‘Bribing’ a majority of the State Legislature is more difficult than a single Senator. Other politicians in the Legislature would be more willing, IMO, to toss out a Senator who ‘grew’ in office and didn’t follow the wishes of the electorate. Individual voters would have more, not less, influence on a Senator b/c they can more easily toss out a local State Legislator who refuses to discipline a wayward Senator or selects a Senator not desired by the voters of his district.
This is an argument made only by Progressives who don’t believe in democracy and want government by unelected experts.
Well, that’s a dumb thing to say. Particularly since CommoChief has a perfectly good argument without resorting to “rule by experts” at all. AND he makes the point (as do several others) that the point is to represent the state government.
Also, we don’t have a democracy. As a matter of fact, the Constitution expressly forbids that at the state level, requiring a republican form of government. I’m disappointed that you would make that mistake, as a highly rated pedant.
I’m rather shocked that Milhouse seems to have forgotten that the founders created a republic instead of a democracy because they had paid attention to the historical fact that democracies are vulnerable to destruction as soon as the voters discover they can vote themselves money.
I will disagree on the “no campaigning or fund-raising.”
There would be campaigning, as well as a need for funds to move things along. If for no other reason than to grease some local skids to get the position. Making “donations” to all the right people in the state gov’t would go a long way to securing said position.
Oh, I’ll happily concede there will be distasteful but necessary greasing but that that’s not ‘campaign funds’ it would be log rolling, back scratching, favor trading. Very much indirect v direct with the added benefit of having to repeat the process across a majority of the State Legislature to secure sufficient support. Of course local voters would be able to decide whether their members of the State Legislature were too brazen or chose poorly and inflict direct consequences at the next election with far higher ability to ‘throw the bum out’. Heck of a difference in relative electoral power of a single ballot in Statewide race v a local race.
What I mean is there would $85 Million in a PAC specifically dedicated to Senate election campaigns …and that’s just one among many. I suspect there would less room for folks outside the State to poke their nose into the process of the State Legislature selecting a Senator. Certainly less than today.
It’s much more about retaining our characteristic of 50 sovereign states who have bonded together into a single federal state for certain purposes, than it is about “not mob rule.” The “mob rule” is supposed to take place in the House. The Senate is supposed to represent the government of said states.
I understand that, but I challenge the abstraction. Exactly whose will represents and expresses the “will of the state?” The current majority party in the legislature? Because that’s all you’re getting.
State legislatures are often not solid blue even in deep blue states.
Because the state legislators are elected by people much closer to the people.
Democrats/ leftists fought to get the Senate popularized because they rely on people driven mad by population pressure.
I have to say, I’ve gotten a much more intelligent give and take about this issue HERE than I ever have in any other forum. There’s a lot of good arguments on both sides to think about, and I will devote some time to it,
She offered to slit her own throat. Offer accepted!
Say, notice all the commenters were white women who may or may not identify or even know what a woman is. Was anyone else there, or did the wafting estrogen drive any non-simp males away.
The reporter asks, “Is there any decision [from Trump] in particular you disagree with?”
Following an uncomfortable pause, she draws a blank. She becomes defensive and says, “I don’t even think it’s appropriate for me to be speaking to you.”
Just the idea of having to think offends leftists.
Logic is kryptonite for liberals
Also, even the idea of just talking to an apostate/heathen is anathema.
“Following an uncomfortable pause, she draws a blank. She becomes defensive and says, “I don’t even think it’s appropriate for me to be speaking to you.”
“A mother/daughter duo at a South Carolina “No Kings” protest could not explain AT ALL to a reporter why either of them were protesting.”
Seriously — has ANYONE had eyes on Yuval Noah Harari for the past five years or so?
Yes, I saw a couple of videos of him. He’s awful!
White liberal women are the most racist people in America and it isn’t even close.
So blacks can’t figure out how to get an ID, can’t vote correctly unless candidates have a D listed next to their name and now can’t march because they aren’t safe, even among those numbers.
It’s no wonder they need liberal white women to help them!
In other words, Blacks need help from morons. What does that make Black people (if the morons are correct)?
These marches aren’t for the Blacks. Community and Union organizers take care of Black turnout separately at election time. This is for the AWFLs, keeping them revved up, voting, and donating.
“So blacks can’t figure out how to get an ID”
No, they mean voter ID. They have all other types of ID, many of them obtained as a rite of passage.
But voter ID????????????????????????????????
All this White/AWFL protest crap is at its core, an election turnout operation. The point is to keep the base revved up so they show up on April 21 (Virginia) and on Nov 3.
Mother and daughter did well parroting the diarrhea spewed by Schmuck Schumer. But nothing intelligent came out of them.
“We need to walk in their name.”
Take their name out your mouth.
Malcom X said the worst thing for the black community is a “white liberal”. How right he was.
Engaging in perennial performative, self-congratulatory and self-indulgent agitation, subversion and antics are leftists’/dhimmi-crats’ religious calling. Venting their intrinsic and immutable unhappiness, resentments and embittered frustrations is one of their primary raisons d’etre.
Uh… It’s the same as “don’t wash your dirty underwear in public.”
Up is down, left is right and 2+2=5.
That’s leftist/Labour/Dhimmi-crat “logic,” for you.
Q: Why was there low POC turnout at the No Kings rallies? A: The white seniors and AWFL’s refused to give their domestic help and caregivers time off.
No, that’s not what this woman was saying at all. Her claim is invalid, but it’s not racist.
She’s not claiming that black people are less capable of navigating risk, asserting their rights, or engaging in the same forms of dissent as others. She’s claiming, contrary to all evidence, that black people are at greater risk than white people of being arbitrarily arrested while peacefully and lawfully protesting.
She’s claiming first that anyone peacefully protesting against this administration is at risk of being arrested, because Literally Hitler™. She is bravely assuming that (wholly imaginary) risk by going out there with her sign, and is expecting the Gestapo to appear and sweep her up at any moment.
But she’s claiming second that these imaginary Gestapo officers are far more likely to arrest a black person than a white one, not because of anything the black person has done, but simply because he’s white. She’s claiming that if she were doing exactly what she is now doing, but her skin happened to be black, there would be a significantly higher chance that she would be arrested. She feels brave enough to protest only because she feels protected by her white skin.
This is of course a complete paranoid fantasy. It’s just as bad as those who believe in Pizzagate, or the Illuminati, those who think the Bilderbergs or the Rothschilds are going to raid their homes at any moment and take them off to a FEMA camp for extermination.
People in the USA are rarely ever arrested for peaceful and lawful protest, and when they are they win their lawsuits and become celebrities. And the risk of arrest for any given action is the same regardless of one’s skin color. Whether it’s peacefully protesting or robbing a bank, the risk of arrest is the same for everyone who does that. The police don’t care what you look like, they only care what you’re doing. But she doesn’t believe that.
It’s very odd and we see this over and over. When I was attending Tea Party protests a reporter for a major paper asked me why I was there most likely drawing notice because of my flag shirt and I was carrying a flag. I had no problem talking about taxes, spending, out of control unaccountable government bureaucracy and so on.
Millions of mentally ill people among us….
Voting, reproducing.
Sad.
It’s part of the human condition. Not everyone mentally ill is completely whacko and some people who are whacko are not mentally ill.
This should not come as a surprise, since the psychological instability of post menopausal women is acted out in many ways. Their loss of purpose has been exacerbated by the disintegration of the extended families that valued and respected their caretaking experiences. So they have to make up other reasons to be here, and illogical protests fulfill that craving for many. Black women aren’t as vulnerable because they continue to provide valued and respectable services. Older Caucasian men post retirement tend to kill themselves, whereas the women become strident Femocrats.
Leave a Comment