What are the Real Goals of the Anti-Trump Protests? Part 2

The New York Analysis continues its review of the anti-Trump protest movement.

The anti-Trump protests, hyped by many in the media and supported by the financiers of progressive causes, are aimed not just at an individual, but at the Constitutional process of free elections.

The Daily Signal reported that: “Disrupt J20 organizers, [posted] this definition of what it means to take ‘direct action:’ ‘Direct Action is when you take collective action to make social change without giving power over to an authority or middle person. We don’t ask permission or put our faith in electoral politics, [emphasis added] instead, we use our bodies to stop the smooth operation of the system we oppose. Examples of direct action include the ongoing resistance at Standing Rock against the Dakota Access Pipeline, the street and highway blockades of Black Lives Matter, or the occupations of public squares during Occupy Wall Street.’ Anarchist-affiliated media sites such as Crimethinc.com…suggest the potential for violence.”

CNN reported that six police officers were injured, 217 protestors were arrested, and a limousine was set afire in Washington on Inauguration Day. Centrist Democrat Senator Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.) condemned the violence, in an interview with The Hill.

If these activities occurred spontaneously, some leeway might be given to the lack of coherence or logic in the course of their actions and statements. But the reality is this movement is well-funded and well-planned. Breitbart reports that “The Women’s March on Washington, a celebrity-endorsed event [was] backed by a who’s who of far-left organizations, including scores of groups financed by billionaire George Soros.”

The Washington Times reported “Republican strategist Michael McKenna said protesting the peaceful transition of power is ‘really an unhelpful thing’ for Democrats looking to establish the moral high ground and turn public opinion against Mr. Trump. ‘It’s pathological,’ said Mr. McKenna, who at one point advised the Trump transition. ‘Democrats need to realize that one-party rule doesn’t serve anyone’s purposes. Competition is what makes this whole thing work, and Democrats need to start being a competitive party again.’ ”

The extraordinary tenor and violence of left wing protests across the United States, both those aimed directly at President Trump and at others who vocally disagree with “progressive” viewpoints, have crossed a line. It is no longer political dissent. It is now an effort to overturn the results of a legal election and the protections of the First Amendment by means of harassment, false news reporting, and violence.

While there have been election results in the past that have resulted in dramatic changes in philosophy in the White House, (the switch from Jimmy Carter to Ronald Reagan, and from George W. Bush to Barack Obama are among the most recent; historically, the election of Andrew Jackson should be noted) only the election of Abraham Lincoln resulted in anything resembling the current climate.

Unlike prior periods of discord, these current events are not centered around a singular disputed issue or policy but rather concern the most inherent aspects of Constitutional government.

The once-sacrosanct and widely held beliefs in freedom of speech and the acceptance of election results are being challenged as never before in U.S. history.

Consider:

The tone for the current climate was set when numerous Democrat elected official boycotted the inauguration ceremony, and continued when Democrat members of the Senate Finance Committee boycotted votes on the nomination of President Trump’s candidate to lead the departments of the Treasury and Health and Human Services.
Mayors of several large cities have openly planned to defy lawful federal immigration laws.
Fox News reports that two Democrat lawmakers have sought to limit Trump’s authority as commander-in-chief.
Acting Attorney General Sally Yates, an Obama appointee, directed her legal staff to not perform their duty to defend a lawful presidential order in court.
The Washington Examiner reports that a Secret Service agent refuses to protect the President because she disagrees with his policies—ending a long-standing tradition of impartiality.
Violating a long standing tradition of judicial impartiality, IJR reports, a judge wore a radical feminist symbol—the so-called “pussy hat”—while presiding at court.

This is the positive or yang polarity energies (electro) of the cosmos meeting the online viagra store http://davidfraymusic.com/events/liszt-academy-grand-hall-budapest/ negative or yin (magnetic) to create a circuit. So, if a man buying viagra on line is getting difficulty achieving erection, it may be due to this dysfunction. Systemic Inflammation acquisition de viagra http://davidfraymusic.com/fray-a-triumph-performing-bach-boulez-schoenberg-and-brahms-in-chicago/ In COPD Sets Up Depression And Anxiety Depression and anxiety are common in COPD, which occur in 20-50% of COPD patients. While taking this generic levitra from canada medicine, follow the instructions strictly to make it able penetrating during the act.
Some of the actions of the protesters have been extraordinary in their tenor:

Yahoo news reports that “Radio stations in South Carolina and several other states say their signals were hacked and interrupted by an anti-Donald Trump rap song that contained obscene language.
McClatchy reports the BuzzFeed news servicehas published unverified smears, (as have other news outlets) in an effort to discredit and de-legitimize the legally elected Administration.
Twitter, reports Fox News, has committed $1.6 million to oppose the President’s travel ban.
As reported by Fox News, comedian Sarah Silverman has called for a military coup against President Donald Trump.

The Report concludes tomorrow.

Quick Analysis

Ukraine’s Frozen Conflict

As we approach winter in the northern hemisphere, the war in Ukraine is beginning to resemble a “frozen conflict” from many perspectives. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky recently told the media he hopes the war will end faster once President-elect Trump takes over in January. Opinions in Moscow, however, differ from that of the Ukrainian leader. Russian President Vladimir Putin argues that the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) needs to exclude Ukraine from joining in “exchange” for peace. If it does not, he says, then no end to the war is in sight. So far there is no Christmas solution. Several NATO countries, according to Vladimir Socor of the Jamestown Foundation, are tentatively considering “coalitions-of-the-willing” to provide security for Ukraine outside of the formal NATO framework. There is, however, no collective mechanism today under which such an arrangement is viable. According to the NATO Charter, while Ukraine is a NATO partner country, it may not join as a full member since it has not fulfilled the requirements for membership. That has not stopped NATO and allies from continuing “to provide Ukraine with unprecedented levels of support, helping to uphold its fundamental right to self-defence,” according to the organization. Socor says that keeping Ukraine out of NATO will not advance peace with Russia. Waiting for a peace settlement, he suggests, would only serve to encourage Moscow to continue the war indefinitely. Although the Biden Administration officially withdrew its support for Ukrainian membership in 2021, NATO maintains an “open door” policy toward membership-seeking countries. The current White House position led the way for European states to oppose Ukraine’s membership saying that a decision should be delayed until “conditions are met.” Biden pushed for changing “open door” to a “bridge” metaphor. It is not intended as an across-the-board NATO policy and has been implemented in the past on a case-by-case basis, says Socor. “The alliance’s open-door policy was not fully insulated from Russia’s non-statutory blocking power, and NATO-aspirant countries’ path toward membership was not always irreversible.” Russia has successfully blocked states like Georgia from joining, first in 2008 and again after the war in Ukraine began in 2014. Russia recognizes the value add of Ukraine to NATO is enormous and that Kyiv has a better case than some other nations. Putin’s invasion was, in part, intended to foreclose that option. By 2021, Moscow was pushing hard to maximize its war objectives, which included further annexations of Ukrainian territory. A main goal for Putin was, and is, to ensure there is no Ukraine left to join NATO. As President-elect Trump prepares to assume office in January, he is faced with the historical challenges presented by the war. Post-conflict security guarantees were the center of several proposals made during the 2023 military stalemate. The incoming Trump Administration has yet to outline how it intends to handle the Russia-Ukraine war. Analysts in Washington believe that the new Administration will expect its European allies to guarantee the majority of Ukraine’s security needs. As we approach 2025, several European nations have acknowledged that they do not view Ukraine as eligible for NATO membership as it would draw the organization into the middle of the conflict. Others want to wait until the war is over or pending a “peace” settlement before considering Ukrainian membership. Socor reports that some “influential voices” are suggesting that “Kyiv should join NATO after “freezing” the war along a stable armistice line, de facto accepting Ukraine’s partition, with NATO security guarantees applying de jure to the government-controlled territory only.” This would mean starting accession talks soon with the actual talks to commence only after a ceasefire is in place. Trump arrives in Washington at a time when Putin’s hybrid strategies of war in Ukraine have eviscerated commonly-held differences between war and peace. “Absent a political consensus in NATO over Ukrainian membership, certain European allies, including France’s President Emmanuel Macron, are holding informal consultations about post-conflict security guarantees to Kyiv by NATO members outside of NATO’s framework,” according to the Jamestown Foundation. The Biden Administration downplayed the discussions on possible forms of military assistance and defense industry cooperation by sending only an Assistant Secretary of State. For a European peace to hold the Trump Administration would need to formally extend the United States’ nuclear deterrence to Ukraine. Options under discussion in Europe include a “coalition of the resolute” to deploy forces to Ukraine as part of a possible armistice package, deterring further Russian attacks, says Secor. European officials are also debating, without any agreement, whether its military forces could perform non-combat logistical roles to free Ukrainian forces to fight. None of the possible courses of action has moved forward as all eyes are waiting on the incoming Trump Administration for clues about its intended level of support for a NATO framework and other non-NATO proposals. Daria Novak served in the U.S. State Dept.