Jessica Tarlov’s and the Democrats Typical Leftist “No Kings” Propaganda
Tomorrow, the so-called “No Kings” movement will take to the streets all across America to oppose the fruitful and benevolent reign of President Donald Trump, whom they want you to believe is ruling like a tyrant rather than a vigorous and constitutionally empowered chief executive. … [Meanwhile] Venezuelan democracy activist and freshly minted Nobel Peace Prize recipient Maria Corina Machado dedicated her award to Trump “for his decisive support of our cause,” the cause of “freedom and democracy,” …. This peace-making and pursuit of democracy is strange behavior for a king, a tyrant, an authoritarian, is it not?
Douglas Andrews, the Patriot Post, 10/17/25
For years, Democrats … pushed the absurd claim that democracy was about to die if [Trump were] elected president. [Voters didn’t buy] it. In 2024, Trump won [the popular vote] and control of both houses of Congress. Rather than [rethink their failed rhetoric, Democrats have] … announced a new “constitutional crisis” surrounding Elon Musk’s effort to downsize the federal government [via] DOGE … The same media that carried the breathless accounts of the imminent death of democracy with the last election are now running “constitutional crisis” articles with many of the same “experts.” Despite Trump repeating that he “will abide by the courts” … NPR insisted that Trump’s circle [says it’s] “willing to ignore court orders.” During his first term, Trump lost cases, as did his predecessor, Obama, and successor, Biden, but [Trump] complied with those rulings [emphasis added]. … [W]hat’s most striking is not Trump’s actions, but how Democrats are seeking to prevent the very reforms [most] voters supported [in the election].
GWU Law Professor and Constitutional Law expert Jonathan Turley (J.D. Northwestern University), 2/13/25
The latest [hysteria] follows a familiar pattern that has played out like a political perpetual motion machine since the first Trump impeachment. … A legal academy composed of largely liberal academics announces a “constitutional crisis” caused by conservatives and then a largely liberal media runs the story with little … scepticism. On most echo-chambered media sites, the public rarely hears an opposing view. The purging of conservative and libertarian faculty from most universities has been a long-standing problem. … A study by Georgetown University’s Kevin Tobia and MIT’s Eric Martinez found that only 9 percent of law school professors in the top 50 law schools identify as conservative. … A survey conducted by the Harvard Crimson shows that more than three-quarters of Harvard Arts and Sciences and Engineering and Applied Sciences faculty respondents identified as “liberal” or “very liberal” [but] only 2.5 percent identified as “conservative” and only 0.4 percent as “very conservative.” … Another analysis found that 33 out of 65 departments lacked even a single conservative faculty member. [So,] it is embarrassingly easy to get 1,000 law professors to sign letters claiming endless constitutional crises caused by Trump or conservatives. … [By contrast,] President Biden was repeatedly found to have violated the constitution without most of these signatories expressing a peep of concern over the mounting “crisis.” [all emphasis added].
Jonathan Turley, 3/8/25
On 9/30/11, … president [Obama] had personally overseen … [the] extrajudicial killing [of] an American citizen. [Many have argued it] was an assassination or even an execution.
The Modern War Institute, 9/27/21
Biden’s Student Loan Boast: The Supreme Court ‘Didn’t Stop Me’. The President ignores the law again as he forgives more student debt. The total is now $138 billion and counting.
Wall Street Journal, 2/23/24
Since their Trump-Russia collusion hoax, their Trump is-a-dictator hoax, their Trump- wants-a-bloodbath-if-he’s-not-elected hoax, their Joe-Biden-is-sharp-as-a-tack hoax, their Kamala Harris-is-a-terrific-candidate hoax, their Trump-is-Hitler hoax, their Trump-is-a-fascist hoax and all their rigged debates did not fool the peasants (or patriots) into voting for their own would-be Kings, tyrants and authoritarians in 2024, the Democrats have come up with a recycled version of the old hoaxes, the Trump-wants-to-be-a-King-hoax. Yesterday on The Five, in response to scepticism by conservatives on the panel about that new hoax and theatrics, Jessica Tarlov (London School of Economics or LSE), tried, on 10/18/25, to explain to the unbelievers why the “No Kings” protests are justified, saying:
A Propublica investigation [stated] that more than 170 Americans have been detained by ICE with 20 held for more than a day without being able to contact lawyers or loved ones. … [The “No Kings”] protestors are upset about [Trump] signing an executive order to [eliminate] “Birthright Citizenship” which is literally in the Constitution. [He is] … unilaterally implementing tariffs which Congress gets to decide, … All that is what “No Kings” is about.
Tarlov here employs a typical repeated strategy (trick) of the Left, and of Tarlov herself, the “shotgun” approach, rattling off a list of poorly formulated grievances to befuddle the opposition with a welter of claims, each of which, in fact, requires a serious discussion by serious people, not, apparently, a skill taught anymore at the leftist LSE (founded by Fabian socialists in 1895). Let us consider Tarlov’s main claims one by one.
Note, first, that there is one key word missing from Tarlov’s claim about the Propublica investigation into American citizens detained by ICE. Tarlov does not claim or provide any evidence that these people were detained unjustifiably. Consider, therefore, Propublica’s own featured example (not my cherrypicked example) of one such case,
[A]n unmarked immigration enforcement vehicle attempting to exit a parking lot rolled forward as Pena Salcedo walked in front of it. Videos circulating on social media show Pena Salcedo’s instant reaction: his closed fist coming down on the hood of the vehicle. Pena Salcedo said later that he wanted to get the driver’s attention …
I am going to go slow here in the hope that Tarlov and the Fabian socialists can follow. If an American citizen does not want to get detained by ICE, do not walk in front of a moving ICE vehicle and slam one’s closed fist on the hood of the vehicle. Duh!!!
Consider next comrade Tarlov’s next claim, that the “No Kings” protestors are upset that Trump signed an executive order to do away with “Birthright Citizenship” which is “literally in the Constitution.” I am again going to go slow in the hope Tarlov can follow.
The right to “Birthright Citizenship” in the Constitution is not “literally” in the Constitution. What is in the 14th Amendment is one of these things called a “formulation” that contains a very troublesome qualification,
“All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof [emphasis added], are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.“
Further, on the outside chance that one is permitted to look at the historical reasons why this alleged “right” of “birthright citizenship” was passed in order to determine what it means, Ann Coulter (J.D. University of Michigan) on 8/9/10 explains it this way,
Democrats act as if the right to run across the border when you’re 81 months pregnant, give birth … and then immediately start collecting welfare was exactly what our forebears had in mind, a sacred constitutional right, as old as the 14th Amendment itself. … [But] 14th Amendment was added after the Civil War in order to … stop sleazy Southern states from denying citizenship to newly freed slaves … [Further,] this alleged right derives only from a footnote slyly slipped into a Supreme Court opinion by Justice Brennan in 1982 … when no one was looking … Inasmuch as America was not the massive welfare state operating as a magnet for malingerers, frauds and cheats it is today, it’s amazing [that] the drafters even considered the amendment’s effect on children of aliens. [all emphasis added]
Whereas comrade Tarlov would have the peasants believe that the right to “Birthright Citizenship” is so straightforward that even a Fabian socialist could understand it, one must actually, doing this thing called “thinking”, determine what that phrase “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof” means. And that is a paradigmatic matter for a review by SCOTUS. Does it, for example, mean that if a foreign army, say from Russia, invades the United States, and starts having children, who then grown up to fight against the United States, then those enemy soldiers are now citizens of the country they are now attacking? Duh!
Finally, consider Tarlov’s claim that Trump is unilaterally implementing tariffs which Congress gets to decide. In fact, the Council on Foreign Relations (Feb, 2025) reports that:
Though Congress retains an important oversight function … it has delegated some of its tariff-setting authority to the executive branch … [The fact that] many economic issues are framed as essential for national security has strengthened arguments for the president’s trade powers and weakened Congress’ authority. Thus, while Congress remains central to checking presidential overreach, the president enjoys broad discretion to take trade action.
In each of the cases examined here, Tarlov repeatedly misrepresents the issues, in some cases stating outright falsehoods. In addition, although the Democrats and their media poodles are now feigning deep concern for “due process” rights of illegals, they were not so concerned when their beloved King Obama blew an American citizen to bits in a targeted killing overseas. And they were not so concerned about the Constitution when their now-disgraced King Autopen, between his extensive naps at the taxpayer’s expense, bragged about ignoring the Supreme Court’s ruling on his vote buying scheme involving student loans.
Perhaps the Democrats and their media shills would be more successful if they thought less about spouting lists of propaganda and more about solving the problems of the American people!
Note: Tarlov did make some additional misleading claims on The Five that day. If she wishes for me to demolish them as well, she need only ask and it will be done expeditiously.
