Unethical Quotes Of The Month: DisruptJ20 Organizers David Thurston And Legba Carrefour


“We are not in favor of a peaceful transition of power, and we need to stop it.”

 —Legba Carrefour, one of the organizers of DisruptJ20, a group working with Black Lives Matter and other protest groups to disrupt the Inauguration with demonstrations, predawn blockades and efforts to interfere with inaugural balls in the evening.

“We want to shut down the inauguration. We want to see a seething rebellion develop in this city and across the country.”

—David Thurston, another DisruptJ20 leader.

This is, increasingly, the face of the political Left in 2017 America. These two are a bit more radical, self-righteous, undemocratic and extreme than the Democratic Party and its allies in academia and journalism, but not as much as one would think, or hope.

A significant number of progressives and Democrats have completely lost their minds, as well as their common sense, during the still rolling 2016 Post Election Train Wreck. At least Thurston and Carrefour are honest and straightforward about wanting to undermine the democratic process and to justify a coup solely on the basis that their candidate did not prevail. Democrats, progressives, academics and pundits are advocating or encouraging the same thing, but are less direct about it.

Every few days, often every day, bring new examples. I don’t just mean certified left-wing crazies like Michael Moore, who says we have to find some way to stop Trump from taking the office he was duly elected to, or Rosie O’Donnell, whose status as an idiot would normally make me hesitate to cite her except that ABC News gave her a forum as a pundit on “The View” for a few years, who says that Trump should be “arrested.” When did any conservative, libertarian, or Republican not residing in a padded room advocate that a Democratic President-Elect should be forceably prevented from taking office?

I know, I know: Trump is special. Trump justifies suspending ethics. The New York Times Rule.

About a week ago, another Hollywood video led by Sally Field demanded that Congress “stop” Trump, without really knowing what they will be stopping. The video is pure fear-mongering without substance, calling Trump “racist, sexist, anti-immigrant, anti-worker, anti-Muslim, anti-Semitic, anti-environmental…” Of course, the same people were part of a loud group of indignant Democrats who maintained for eight years that for Congress to deny the wishes of a President was akin to racism and treason. The previous video, that one headed by fake President Martin Sheen, made the historically stupid argument that Electors were supposed to have the power to veto the will of the people, at least when Democrats lose. That worked well…as as it deserved to.

Yesterday, over at The Hill, an assistant professor of government in American University’s School of Public Affairs was given a forum to make the batty argument that Russia’s hacking and leaking e-mails that exposed some of the filthy under-belly of the Clinton machine and the Democrats mandate cancelling the results of the election and holding a new one. Now, it would be a slightly less batty argument (but batty still), to call for a re-vote if damaging information was uncovered after an election that the winner withheld from the public, like, say, the fact that the IRS was sabotaging conservative groups to keep them from participating in civic discourse, or that the President lied to pass Obamacare, or that the Democratic Senate leader deliberately lied to smear the losing candidate….like in 2012. This guy (his name is Chris Edelson, and I am officially ashamed to have once been on an American University faculty with him) so hates Trump that he advocates causing a Constitutional crisis because damning information about the corruption of Clinton and the Democrats enlightened the public so they could, if they chose, use it to cast an informed vote. Cant have that.

Worse still was the jaw-dropping argument by liberal columnist Richard Cohen a few days ago, in a screed titled, “How to Remove Trump From Office.” Like all of the Left’s suddenly revolution-minded, Cohen begins with a list of Trump’s failings and character deficits, asserting that he is not fit to be President.  Boy, when did the concept of “an election” become so alien to the Left? I happen to agree with Cohen about Trump completely, but see, Richard, it is the voters, not us, who get to decide who is fit to lead the country. If you argue that your opinion should prevail over theirs, you are not a supporter of the Constitution, or democracy. You are an elitist autocrat, tending to totalitarianism.

You, and people like you, scare me a lot more than Donald Trump.

So what is Cohen’s brilliant plan for reversing the will of the people?

Under the 25th Amendment to the Constitution, the vice president, together with a “majority of either the principal officers of the executive departments or of such other body as Congress may by law provide” can remove the president for being “unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office.” No doubt the mere mention of incapacitation would summon a horde of lawyers to Washington to contest it or the meaning of every term. But it is plain that the 25th Amendment does give a role to Cabinet members that is not generally considered when they are up for confirmation. This time, however, they should all be asked whether they are aware of the 25th Amendment and, if need be, whether they would be willing to implement it.

This is so ignorant, so foolish, so intellectually dishonest and so manifestly illegal that I still can’t believe that it isn’t some kind of a terrible joke.

Cohen has readers who trust him and his judgment:it is a betrayal to misuse his influence to propose nonsense like this. The 25th Amendment is entirely there to deal with actual disability, as when Ronald Reagan was shot, when Woodrow Wilson was incapacitated by a stroke, or Eisenhower had a heart attack. There is no ambiguity, in either the Amendment’s wording or the legislative record. “Unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office” cannot be tortured into meaning “not what Richard Cohen, Hollywood, Harry Reid and Rosie O’Donnell believe is a qualified President.”

But such is the current ugly derangement on the Left, and if it does not diminish public respect and trust of Democratic Party further—make that even further—I will be surprised.


Source: Yahoo!



35 thoughts on “Unethical Quotes Of The Month: DisruptJ20 Organizers David Thurston And Legba Carrefour

  1. So Democrat sympathizers want to demonstrate violently against an unpopular republican candidate during the early phase of his presidency? and are willing to push the boundaries towards insurrection?

    Didn’t Democrat sympathizers try that once before when they felt their iron grip on a backwards economic and political arrangement begin to slip?

    • I don’t think that’s an alarmist reaction, FM. Especially since so much of the Left has magically decided that the CIA is benign. Is an excellent example of how cognitive dissonance works, though.

      • The CIA, FBI, NSA, etc. are not benign — of course they are not. Like all agencies, they are made up of people with secret or overt biases and/or political agendas. I question this report about Trump just as much as I questioned Comey’s decision days before a national election to re-review emails (that it turned out he already had). People should be troubled with all of these events instead of cherry-picking ones that support their pre-existing beliefs.

        • I don’t understand the complaint about Comey at all. If he had waited until after the election and the Weiner e-mails had a smoking gun and Hillary won, everyone would be saying that Hillary’s election was tainted. Having promised Congress that they would be alerted if there were any new developments, he had no choice. Clinton’s reaction was what sunk her: she immediately acted guilty, having allies claim Comey was violating the Hatch act, which is absurd, and calling Comey partisan immediately after calling him a great American because he let her off the hook in July. All she had to do was make an announcement that she was pleased the FBI was being thorough, and certain that the further investigation would simple reaffirm the decision that she had broken no laws. I fault the FBI for closing the investigation prematurely, but claiming that he was trying to affect the election is one more unethical political tactic.

          • It was unnecessary to go to Congress at all. It would have taken less than a day and almost no money to confirm that these emails were duplicates. All of the government agencies already own the technology to do this. So, he was either incompetent or he had an agenda.

  2. More holy shit… Commanding general of D.C. National Guard to be removed from post

    The U.S. Army general who heads the D.C. National Guard and is an integral part of overseeing the inauguration said Friday he has been ordered removed from command effective Jan. 20, 12:01 p.m., just as Donald Trump is sworn in as president.


    • We’ll see what this means.

      My hunch is that it is a completely and awkwardly timed coincidence of what would ordinarily be seen as a routine change.

      So awkward that it ought to have been forestalled.

      • Oh shit oh dear! My mind is spinning with this news… given all of the sabotage we are hearing of from Obama as he leaves. Who takes over? What are their leanings?

        TexAgg, you might be right, but I smell a riot in the planning with the main deterrent (battle trained troops) being stood down, just when they could try to pin it on Trump.

        I am NOT happy to hear this

    • The lefties, of course, are blaming Trump despite the fact that the article to which they refer does not say that at all.

      However, I find this curious, since the President-elect has no authority at all to issue such an order. That order would’ve had to come from Obama, or a person in his administration, or the DC NG commander’s immediate superior. Could the Obama administration be doing it at the behest of the Trump transition team? Sure. But why would they?

      Also, I can think of no reason why Trump would want him relived in that time frame, unless one of the Trump transition team’s brain-dead employees just isn’t on the ball (certainly a real possibility).

      Curious. This will be worth keeping an eye on.

    • The guy is 65. I’m wondering if maybe he isn’t already working under some kind of waiver from Obama, and that pulling it leaves Trump with either seeing the guy leave at noon or extending him again for some period.

    • Unless I’m mistaken, National Guard troops carry no bullets in their firearms. I am not sure, but since I have not heard of a single incident (even after Hurricane Katrina) of a Guardsman opening fire on anyone, I tend to believe that the D.C. Guard would be equally powerless to quell a violent disturbance. They might use their firearms and vehicles in blunt-force ways, but they would not do any actual shooting. So, other than disrupting a relatively impotent military-looking organization at the very top level, I don’t think this termination of command in D.C., if it happens, will mean much.

      • Lucky, I don’t know where you got your information, but it sounds unlikely on the face of it. Quelling an insurrection, one of the Guard’s mandates, requires ammunition. I would ask you to remember Kent State.

    • He submitted a resignation along with all of other political appointees. It was accepted as were the resignations of other political appointies. This is no big deal.

  3. I knew you’d find another great Ethics Alarms blog out of all this crap! Great job putting it all together!

    Their thinking is what I tend to call Salem Witch Trial School of Thought which is “underlying thoughts of a person that causes them to throw out all logical reasoning and conclude the absurd.” It’s all rooted in the complete lack of critical thinking that drives the morally bankrupt hive mind of Liberal Magical Thinking.

  4. A significant number of progressives and Democrats have completely lost their minds, as well as their common sense, during the still rolling 2016 Post Election Train Wreck. At least Thurston and Carrefour are honest and straightforward about wanting to undermine the democratic process and to justify a coup solely on the basis that their candidate did not prevail. Democrats, progressives, academics and pundits are advocating or encouraging the same thing, but are less direct about it.

    I’m wondering if we can think of people like the two you’ve discussed as enemies of America? Not for their protests or their sharp rhetoric, but for their stated desire to undo our democratic republic by force. Isn’t that what they’re talking about? No, they didn’t mention arms or specifically mention violence, but isn’t the stated desire to incite a “rebellion” and run blockades a violation of 18 USC 2383 if they succeed in doing so? Because last time I checked, our system of government provides no legal mechanism to deny a duly elected president from taking his office.

    Now, I realize this is just rhetoric at this point, and “rebellion” in the above statement is certainly ambiguous. But if there is violence, and they seem to be setting themselves up for just that (somehow the word “peaceful” doesn’t show up in their statements), at what point is it a rebellion against the United States government?

    I’m not really afraid of this, or even intentionally fear-mongering. I fully support protests against Trump or anyone else, as long as they are peaceful and obey the law. But interfering with the inauguration by the means they describe are, in my view, worrisome. “Blockading” is more than protesting, and taken together with the suggestion of rebellion, it makes me wonder what we’re in for, and not in a good way.

    Next week is going to be one of the most interesting of my adult life, the proverbial Chinese curse made manifest.

    • I fully support protests against Trump or anyone else, as long as they are peaceful and obey the law.

      Fully agree there! Peaceful protest that does not infringe on other citizens’ rights are welcome. Any other type (including blocking highways, which is peaceful but tramples my right to travel) are going to have to be dealt with using increasingly harsher consequences to make it stop. Violent protest should be met with deadly force, IMHO. You are threatening my ‘life,’ ‘liberty,’ ( therefore certainly ‘happiness’) and property, and I (and society) am entitled to defend myself.

      Next week is going to be one of the most interesting of my adult life, the proverbial Chinese curse made manifest.

      Buckle up, it may be a bumpy ride

    • Oh no doubt, just the 2 quotes posted by Jack push anyone operating with those instructions solidly into insurrection territory.

      But it works out great for the inevitable peaceful protesters also, as any authority seeking to quash actual insurrectionists would be hard pressed in many instances to distinguish protestor from rebel. Great PR ploy for protesters to be repressed in the efforts to halt a nascent rebellion.

      Of course if the authorities hold off, the insurrectionists get to disrupt the lives of peaceful people trying to get on with the day.

      • Pacifists and so-called peaceful people make great dupes for violent radicals and insurrectionists. How many idealists from all over the world packed up and headed to Iraq to act as human shields, only to flee when they found out they would be used to defend bomb dumps and missile batteries instead of hospitals and orphanages? Heck, Dr. Helen Caldicott pushed the proposal that then-Pope John Paul II travel to Baghdad and become the ultimate human shield. Now a new generation of idiots in tie-dyes and flowers is going to run interference for the black-bereted thugs seeking blood in the streets. It’s one of the sickest dichotomies in history.

      • I don’t see insurrection as being wrong in and of itself…

        Hell, I invite those two to go for it. I wager they would neither last long in the chaos that would come from such a thing, but also be quite unhappy with the society that emerged.

  5. All these wackos protesting could go terribly wrong.

    I’m to the point that if so many or these self entitled wimps want to say that Trump is not their President then FINE, this is not your country! Pack up your shit, sell your home (or move out of their rented home) and leave the United States of America and decrease the surplus population making more homes available for those that want to stay, work, and support the United States of America. We have an unsecured southern border, you can just walk into Mexico and I don’t think Canada would turn new tax paying workers away.

    I will support my country regardless of who is the President; get the hell out of my country.

  6. In my lifetime, I haven’t experienced this much widespread anger, tension, and calamity on the streets of America. Those of you who remember the 60’s and early 70’s…is this level of ill-conceived protest mild compared to that era? Close to the same? Or is this worse, because the 60’s protesters had more valid complaints?

    • It’s MUCH worse, Isaac. The complaints were valid to an extent back then, but no-body seriously proposed a full-scale rebellion, either. I previously mentioned Kent State, in which some very nervous Guardsmen shot and killed several students (at least one was killed because the Guardsman did not make sure of his backstop, behind his target), primarily because the student demonstration had turned into a full-fledged riot. As a general rule, though, the protests were peaceful. Witness the march on Washington, with very little violence.

      • Thanks! I wrote a report about Kent State in high school. I’ve always thought that the tumult of the 60’s is overplayed in pop history, because everyone I know who was alive then says they never met any hippies or encountered any of the protests. The popular perception of that era is that it was one big drug orgy of free love, political upheaval, and rock and roll. There was definitely a cultural shift that started then, but my hunch is it was more covert.

        • Knew many hippies, some of whom still are. My school was shut down by protests and student strikes twice. One of my best friends in high school blew his mind out on drugs. Saw a police dawn raid on protesters with tear gas and kids getting clubbed.

          It sure wasn’t covert where I was….

          • Not sure I’d use the word, either. There were a lot of people who wanted the ‘Movement’ to turn into a full scale revolution (Students for a Democratic Society comes immediately to mind) but they WERE in the minority. Several (make that MANY) of the people at the March On Washington brought along bags of rocks to break windows with. The marshals put a stop to that, since the intent was to peacefully protest, not riot. Seems like the intent today is anything but peaceful.

    • The unrest today is being organized and financed by George Soros and others that are wanting to demolish our nation. They use whatever common cause that they can to collect followers, BLM, etc.
      They will not succeed.

  7. “I happen to agree with Cohen about Trump completely, but see, Richard, it is the voters, not us, who get to decide who is fit to lead the country.” As long as the proper geographical dispersion is maintained. That he is legally and consitutional the President is unquestionalble! But since a majority of voters voted for someone else did the voters really decide or is this just a “technical” victory

    • What’s a technical victory? The rules set out who wins and by what standards, and the candidate who wins under those standards are the winner. “Technical winner” is meaningless. In beauty contests, the winner is the contestant picked by the judges. A woman who claimed to be the most beautiful can say, “I’m the most beautiful, so I’m the real winner: that other woman is just the technical winner” is just redefining what the rules ought to be to her own advantage. California, a culturally isolated and outlier state voted so overwhelmingly for the losing candidate that it warped the vote totals: this is exactly why the Electoral College is brilliant.

      Yes, the voters in each state decided who their states supported for President. Nothing “technical” about it.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.