Illegitimate Protest Without a truthful rational foundation, "protest" based entirely on unsupportable emotion-based accusations lacks any legitimacy.
Watching news coverage of inauguration eve protestors in Washington, DC, I was struck by the refusal of those waving placards and chanting slogans to engage in intelligent conversation with reporters. You'd think protesters would jump at a chance to make the basis for their protest known to a national radio or TV audience. The very few who ventured to speak with reporters were incoherent and clearly revealed the lack of any factual basis for their "protest". This raises questions about the legitmacy of these "protests".
Definition: Protest - to make objection to or speak strongly against; an organized public demonstration expressing strong objection to a policy or course of action adopted by those in authority.
By implication, for a "protest" to have any legitimacy it must be reasonablly rooted in demonstrable fact. For example, in a competition in which participants are bound by an agreed upon set of rules, a participant can protest any competitor's violation of the rules. For any protest to be legitimate, it must be well-reasoned and defensible within the context of the competition rules.
For a pubic protest to have legitimacy, it must possess the following two characteristics:
It must be conducted with civility. No protester has a legitimate right to interrupt any other citizen's enjoyment of their own rights. Regardless of whether there is any legitimacy to the rationale for protesting, such protest must still conform to civility by not interferring with the rights of others.
It must be supportable by reasonable argument based on facts; it must be underwritten by truth. No protest has legitimacy if those protesting cannot offer a factual-based, truthful rationale for their behavior. Competitors in a competition cannot legitimately protest on the basis of unsupportable allegations. One cannot protest "racism" if a single factual example of "racism" cannot be cited.
Those in Washington, DC, who are "protesting" the inauguration of Donald J. Trump as 45th President of the United States cannot cite a single legitimate basis for their protest. Not one.
Most "protesters" could not or would not speak with reporters. On the rare occasion when a protester engaged with reporters, they could not engage in civil, rational discourse and they could not articulate a legitimate basis for their protest. However, they were accomplished at "motor-mouthing" or "filibustering" that made any real discussion difficult. Such behavior is a tried and true characteristic of Leftists whenever they engage someone who poses serious questions about their positions. Leftists are never interested in civil debate on any subject because they cannot sustain their arguments on a truthful and rational basis. That is why they maintain "the debate is settled" when, in fact, it is not.
"Donald Trump is a racist."
President Woodrow Wilson resegregated the military services that had been desgregated after the Civil War. Wilson refused to shake hands with any Black man. Wilson had a long history of racism. Wilson was a Progressive Democrat. Wilson was demonstrably a racist.
Margaret Sanger, founder of Planned Parenthood, created Planned Parenthood as a means of keeping birth rates among Black Americans at as low a rate as possible. Sanger was an arch-segregationist who turned to killing unborn babies as a more publicly acceptable form of racism. Planned Parenthood is predominantly located in areas near urban Black population centers. Sanger was a Progressive Democrat. Sanger was demonstrably a racist.
During his long history of building and running hundreds of businesses there is no evidence whatsoever that race was ever a consideration for doing business, hiring employees, or using contractors. Trump has always used merit as the basis for hiring decisions. There is no basis in truth to claim Donald Trump is a racist. Any such claim lacks a truthful foundation and is illegitimate.
Donald Trump is not a racist.
"The people voted for Hillary Clinton."
We live in the Constitutional Republic of the United States of America. Were protesters properly educated in civics, they would know that. They would also know that the supreme law of our land is our Constitution. Our Constitution specifies how our States will select the President by use of the electoral system. The electoral system designed is independent of the national popular vote, and for good reason.
On the basis of electoral votes won on November 8, Donald Trump defeated Hillary Clinton, 306 to 232 (57% to 43%). On the basis of actual electoral votes cast in the Electoral College, Trump defeated Clinton 303 to 227 (56% to 42%).
There is no legitimacy to claims that Trump did not win the election. Under the rules of our Constitutional Republic, Donald Trump defeated Hillary Clinton with a 14% margin of electoral college votes (the only votes that count).
Those claiming Trump is not the legitimate President need a lesson in civics.
In accordance with our Constitution, the people elected Donald J. Trump.
"Russia influenced our Election."
There is no factual basis for claiming any action that may or may not have been taken by Russia to influence our election had any impact whatsoever. There is no conclusive evidence that Russia was responsible for any action that might have influenced the election.
Claims that Russia was behind the breach of security at DNC headquarters or the Clinton Campaign ignore the fact that such breaches were not the reason Hillary Clinton lost.
If anything influenced the election, it was the nature of information released by either an insider's leak or an outsider's hack. It was not the fact of a breach or even who may have breached security, rather, it was the leaked information that clearly demonstrated a degree of corruption, illicit collusion, and an utter lack of ethical behavior by key Democrats that was damaging to the Clinton campaign. Had Clinton and her campaign behaved honorably and not engaged in unethical behavior and collusion, there would not have been any reason why such information might influence voters.
The claim that Russia impacted the election lacks legitimate foundation and is used merely to deflect attention from the content of material that indicts the behavior of senior Democrats, including Hillary Clinton.
Russia did not influence our election. The corrupt behavior of Democrats influenced voters.
Without a truthful rational foundation, "protest" based entirely on unsupportable emotion-based accusations lacks any legitimacy, therefore, protests opposing Donald J. Trump's inauguration are completely illegitimate.
Are we really witnessing nothing more than a well-funded campaign by globalist George Soros to unleash his bitter anger over having failed to influence the 2016 election by assuring a victory for Hillary Clinton?
If so, expect Soros-funded globalist interference to continue well into Trump's first year as President.
Bob Webster, a descendant of Daniel Webster's father, Revolutionary War patriot Ebenezer Webster, has always had a strong interest in early American history, our Constitution, U.S. politics, and law. Politically he is a constitutional republican with objectivist and libertarian roots. He has faith in the ultimate triumph of truth and reason over deception and emotion. He is a strong believer in our Constitution as written and views the abandonment of constitutional restraint by the regressive Progressive movement as a great danger to our Republic. His favorite novel is Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand and believes it should be required reading for all high school students so they can appreciate the cost of tolerating the growth of unconstitutional crushingly powerful central government. He strongly believes, as our Constitution enshrines, that the interests of the individual should be held superior to the interests of the state.
A lifelong interest in meteorology and climatology spurred his strong interest in science. Bob earned his degree in Mathematics at Virginia Tech, graduating in 1964.