The 56 Most Memorable Signs From "Not My Presidents Day" Protests Around The Country
Because protest signs are apparently back, here are the most memorable ones:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.
30.
31.
32.
Dominic Gwinn / Middle East Images/AFP via Getty Images
33.
Dominic Gwinn / Middle East Images/AFP via Getty Images
34.
Dominic Gwinn / Middle East Images/AFP via Getty Images
35.
Dominic Gwinn / Middle East Images/AFP via Getty Images
36.
Scott Olson / Getty Images
37.
Tom Williams / CQ-Roll Call, Inc via Getty Images
38.
Tom Williams / CQ-Roll Call, Inc via Getty Images
39.
Tom Williams / CQ-Roll Call, Inc via Getty Images
40.
Anna Moneymaker / Getty Images
41.
Alex Wroblewski / AFP via Getty Images
42.
Alex Wroblewski / AFP via Getty Images
43.
Chip Somodevilla / Getty Images
44.
Joe Raedle / Getty Images
45.
Joe Raedle / Getty Images
46.
Joe Raedle / Getty Images
47.
Brandon Bell / Getty Images
48.
Joe Raedle / Getty Images
49.
Joe Raedle / Getty Images
50.
Joe Raedle / Getty Images
51.
Brandon Bell / Getty Images
52.
David Mcnew / Getty Images
53.
David Mcnew / Getty Images
54.
David Mcnew / Getty Images
55.
Nurphoto / NurPhoto via Getty Images
56. And lastly:
Mario Tama / Getty Images
Note: In light of President Donald Trump's executive order that threatens to deport foreign pro-Palestinian student protesters — including students with visas — we have blurred all faces in the images below to protect their freedom of speech.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Atlantic
26 minutes ago
- Atlantic
The Limits of Recognition
On a prominent ridge in the center of Toronto stands a big stone castle. Built in the early 20th century, Casa Loma is now a popular venue for weddings and parties. The castle is flanked by some of the city's priciest domestic real estate. It is not, in short, the kind of site that usually goes unpoliced. On May 27, Casa Loma was booked for a fundraiser by the Abraham Global Peace Initiative, a pro-Israel advocacy group. The gathering was to be addressed by Gilad Erdan, a former Israeli ambassador to the United Nations and United States. A crowd of hundreds formed opposite the castle. They temporarily overwhelmed police lines, closing the street to the castle entrance. Protesters accosted and insulted individual attendees. One attendee, a former Canadian senator now in his 90s, told me about being pushed and jostled as police looked on. Eventually, two arrests were made, one for assaulting a police officer and the other for assaulting an attendee. Last year, the city of Toronto averaged more than one anti-Jewish incident a day, accounting for 40 percent of all reported hate crimes in Canada's largest city. Jewish neighborhoods, Jewish hospitals, and Jewish places of worship have been the scenes of demonstrations by masked persons bearing flags and chanting hostile slogans. Gunmen fired shots at a Toronto Jewish girls' school on three nights last year. A synagogue in Montreal was attacked with firebombs in late 2024. On Saturday, an assailant beat a Jewish man in a Montreal park in front of his children. David Frum: There is no right to bully and harass Canadian governments—federal, provincial, municipal—of course want to stop the violence. But their inescapable (if often unsayable) dilemma is that many of those same governments depend on voters who are sympathetic to the motives of the violent. Canadian authorities of all kinds have become frightened of important elements in their own populations. Just this week, the Toronto International Film Festival withdrew its invitation to a Canadian film about the invasion of southern Israel on October 7, 2023. The festival's statement cited legal concerns, including the fear that by incorporating footage that Hamas fighters filmed of their atrocities without ' legal clearance,' the film violated Hamas's copyright. (In polite Canada, it seems that even genocidal terrorists retain their intellectual-property claims.) Another and more plausible motive cited by the festival: fear of 'potential threat of significant disruption.' A small group of anti-Israel protesters invaded the festival's gala opening in 2024. The legal violations have been larger and more flagrant this year. All of this forms the backdrop necessary to understand why the Canadian government has joined the British and French governments in their intention to recognize a Palestinian state. The plan began as a French diplomatic initiative. In July, France and Saudi Arabia co-chaired a United Nations conference on the two-state solution. Days before the conference began, French President Emmanuel Macron declared that his nation would recognize a Palestinian state in September. The French initiative was almost immediately seconded by the British government. Canada quickly followed. This week, Australia added its weight to the group. Anti-Jewish violence has been even more pervasive and aggressive in Australia than in Canada, including the torching of a Sydney day-care center in January. (Germany declined to join the French initiative but imposed a limited arms embargo on Israel.) All four governments assert that their plan offers no concessions to Hamas. All four insist that a hypothetical Palestinian state must be disarmed, must exclude Hamas from any role in governance, must renounce terrorism and incitement, and must accept Israel's right to exist. Those conditions often got omitted in media retellings, but they are included in all the communiqués with heavy emphasis. As Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney told reporters on July 30: 'Canada reiterates that Hamas must immediately release all hostages taken in the horrific terrorist attack of October 7, that Hamas must disarm, and that Hamas must play no role in the future governance of Palestine.' All those must s make these plans impossible to achieve, from the outset. How do the French, British, Canadian, and Australian governments imagine them being enforced, and by whom? Even now, after all this devastation, Hamas remains the most potent force in Palestinian politics. A May survey by a Palestinian research group, conducted in cooperation with the Netherland Representative Office in Ramallah, reported that an overwhelming majority of Palestinians reject the idea that Hamas's disarmament is a path to ending the war in Gaza, and a plurality said they would vote for a Hamas-led government. Observers might question the findings from Gaza, where Hamas can still intimidate respondents, but those in the West Bank also rejected the conditions of France, Britain, Canada, and Australia. What does recognition mean anyway? Of UN member states, 147 already recognize a state of Palestine, including the economic superpowers China and India; regional giants such as Brazil, Indonesia, and Nigeria; and the European Union member states of Poland, Romania, Slovenia, and Sweden. About half of those recognitions date back to 1988, when Yasser Arafat proclaimed Palestinian independence from his exile in Algiers after the Israeli military drove Arafat's organization out of the territory it had occupied in Lebanon. Such diplomatic niceties do not alter realities. States are defined by control of territory and population. In that technical sense, Hamas in Gaza has proved itself to be more like a state than has the Palestinian Authority in the West Bank. Even the mighty United States learned that lesson the hard way over the 22 years from 1949 to 1971, when Washington pretended that the Nationalist regime headquartered in Taipei constituted the legitimate government of mainland China. Macron, Carney, British Prime Minister Keir Starmer, and Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese are savvy, centrist politicians. All regard themselves as strong friends of Israel. Starmer in particular has fought hard to purge his Labour Party of the anti-Semitic elements to whom the door was opened by his predecessor, Jeremy Corbyn. If they're investing their prestige in a seemingly futile gesture, they must have good reason. They do. All four men lead political coalitions that are fast turning against Israel. Pressure is building on the leaders to vent their supporters' anger, and embracing the French initiative creates a useful appearance of action. The Canadian example is particularly stark. Prime Minister Carney has pivoted in many ways from the progressive record of his predecessor, Justin Trudeau. He canceled an increase in the capital-gains tax that Trudeau had scheduled. He dropped from the cabinet a housing minister who had championed a major government-led building program. (The program remains, but under leadership less beholden to activists.) Carney has committed to a major expansion of the Canadian energy sector after almost a decade of dissension between energy producers and Ottawa. The new Carney government is also increasing military spending. Many on the Canadian left feel betrayed and frustrated. Recognizing a Palestinian state is a concession that may appease progressives irked by Carney's other moves toward the political center. But appeasement will not work. In the Middle East, the initiative by France, Canada, Australia, and the United Kingdom has already pushed the region away from stability, not toward it. Cease-fire talks with Hamas 'fell apart' on the day that Macron declared his intent to recognize a Palestinian state, according to Secretary of State Marco Rubio. Hamas then released harrowing photographs of starved Israeli hostages, one shown digging his own grave. Embarrassed pro-recognition leaders had to deliver a new round of condemnations of Hamas at the very moment they were trying to pressure Israel to abandon its fight against Hamas. Nor does the promise of Palestinian recognition seem to be buying the four leaders the domestic quiet they had hoped for. On Sunday, British police arrested more than 500 people for demonstrating in support of a pro-Palestine group proscribed because of its acts of violence against British military installations. Those arrests amounted to the largest one-day total in the U.K. in a decade. Hours before Prime Minister Albanese's statement promising recognition, some 90,000 pro-Palestinian demonstrators blocked traffic on Sydney Harbour Bridge. Their organizers issued four demands—recognition was not one of them. 'What we marched for on Sunday, and what we've been protesting for two years, is not recognition of a non-existent Palestinian state that Israel is in the process of wiping out,' a group leader told CNN. 'What we are demanding is that the Australian government sanction Israel and stop the two-way arms trade with Israel.' On August 6, 60 anti-Israel protesters mobbed the private residence of former Canadian Foreign Minister Mélanie Joly, banging pots and projecting messages onto her Montreal dwelling—an action especially provocative because Canadian cabinet ministers are not normally protected by personal security detachments. The present foreign minister, Anita Anand, had to close her constituency office in Oakville, a suburb of Toronto, because of threats to the staff who worked there. From the December 2024 issue: My hope for Palestine The issue for protesters is Israel, not Palestine. During the Syrian civil war, more than 3,000 Palestinian refugees in the country were killed by Syrian government forces, hundreds of them by torture. Nobody blocked the Sydney Harbour Bridge over that. It's Israel's standing as a Western-style state that energizes the movement against it and that is unlikely to change no matter what shifts in protocol Western governments adopt. After all, on October 6, 2023, Gaza was functionally a Palestinian state living alongside Israel. If the pro-Palestinian groups in the West had valued that status, they should have reacted to October 7 with horror, if nothing else for the existential threat that the attacks posed to any Palestinian state-building project. Instead, many in the pro-Palestinian diaspora—and even at the highest levels of Palestinian official life—applauded the terror attacks with jubilant anti-Jewish enthusiasm. The chants of 'from the river to the sea' heard at these events reveal something important about the pro-Palestinian movement in the democratic West. The slogan expresses an all-or-nothing fantasy: either the thrilling overthrow of settler colonialism in all the land of Palestine, or else the glorious martyrdom of the noble resistance. It's not at all clear that ordinary Palestinians actually living in the region feel the same way. The exact numbers fluctuate widely depending on how the question is framed, but at least a significant minority—and possibly a plurality—of Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza would accept coexistence with Israel if that acceptance brought some kind of state of their own. But their supporters living in the West can disregard such trade-offs. They can exult in the purity of passion and still enjoy a comfortable life in a capitalist democracy. These are the people that Albanese, Carney, Macron, and Starmer are trying so desperately to satisfy. They are unlikely to succeed. The Hamas terror attacks of October 7 provoked a war of fearsome scale. Almost two years later, the region is almost unrecognizable. Tens of thousands have been killed, and much of Gaza laid to ruin. Almost every known leader of Hamas is dead. Hezbollah has been broken as a military force. The Assad regime in Syria has been toppled and replaced. The United States directly struck Iran, and the Iranian nuclear program seems to have been pushed years backward, if not destroyed altogether. In this world upended, the creative minds of Western diplomacy have concluded that the best way forward is to revert to the Oslo peace process of 30 years ago. The Oslo process ended when the Palestinian leadership walked away from President Bill Clinton's best and final offer without making a counteroffer—and gambled everything on the merciless terrorist violence of the Second Intifada. Now here we are again, after another failed Palestinian terror campaign, and there is only one idea energizing Western foreign ministries: That thing that failed before? Let's try it one more time. But this time, the hope is not to bring peace to the Middle East. They hope instead to bring peace to their own streets. The undertaking is a testament either to human perseverance, or to the eternal bureaucratic faith in peace through fog.
Forbes
41 minutes ago
- Forbes
Three Most Egregious Fabrications In EPA's Climate Rollback Proposal
WASHINGTON, DC - MARCH 16: The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) logo is displayed on a door at its headquarters on March 16, 2017 in Washington, DC. U.S. President Donald Trump's proposed budget for 2018 seeks to cut the EPA's budget by 31 percent from $8.1 billion to $5.7 billion. (Photo by) Getty Images The EPA's formal proposal to revoke the Endangerment Finding turned out to be worse than I imagined. After reading the text, I was struck not only by its intent but by the sheer scale of fabrication and distortion—of law, of science, and of economic analysis—crafted to serve one purpose: shielding the fossil fuel industry at the expense of public health, environmental protection, and America's economic future. This isn't a debate over policy preferences—it's a wholesale rewriting of reality. It's hard to imagine anything more Orwellian than watching EPA—the agency I worked at for 32 years—walk away from its duty to protect public health and the environment by distorting law and science and using outright falsehoods to rewrite history to protect polluters instead of the American people. Fabricated Law The EPA Administrator has questioned EPA's authority to regulate greenhouse gas emissions under the Clean Air Act. He claims that the Clean Air Act applies only to 'local' pollution—not to global threats like climate change—repeating a long-standing fossil fuel industry argument. The Supreme Court rejected this in Massachusetts v. EPA (2007), holding that greenhouse gases are 'without a doubt' air pollutants under the Act and that EPA must regulate them if they endanger public health—regardless of whether impacts are local, regional, or global. Given that the transportation sector is the largest source of greenhouse gas emissions in the United States, accounting for nearly 30%, EPA acted to mitigate the risks to public health and the environment by regulating these emissions. Every subsequent court challenge—from the D.C. Circuit in 2012 to 2023—has upheld that authority. Fabricated Science The EPA's assertion that the Agency 'never studied CO₂' and relied on flawed science collapses under the weight of the agency's own extensive records. Having led the team that developed the EPA's clean car program relying on the Endangerment Finding, I was at the agency when the 2009 finding was finalized and immediately applied to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from cars. That determination was grounded in decades of peer-reviewed research—from NASA, NOAA, EPA scientists, and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change—and underwent one of the most rigorous scientific reviews in the agency's history. To further undermine that record, the EPA now claims it never sought public comment on the finding. That is another fabrication. The 2009 proposal included a 60-day public comment period, during which the agency received over 380,000 comments—written submissions and hearing testimony—that were reviewed and incorporated before the rule was finalized. Yet the EPA's current proposal discards that record in favor of a report from five climate change deniers, hand-picked by Energy Secretary Chris Wright, a former fossil fuel executive. This report bypassed the agency's scientific staff, ignored standard interagency review, and has never been subjected to recognized, scientific peer review. The hypocrisy is staggering, dismissing a deeply vetted, peer-reviewed record while elevating an unreviewed, clearly fossil fuel industry-aligned document. The proposal's suggestion that transportation contributes 'near zero' to U.S. greenhouse gas emissions is equally absurd. Transportation is the largest source of greenhouse gas emissions in the nation—a fact documented for years in EPA's own data. To claim otherwise is like saying cigarettes contribute 'near zero' to lung cancer rates. Fabricated Economics The EPA's proposal leads with the claim that revoking clean car standards will lower gasoline prices and deliver net economic benefits. Yet its own analysis shows the opposite: gasoline prices will rise if clean car programs are revoked. The Department of Energy's modeling confirms this, and as former Energy Information Agency (EIA) Administrator Joseph DeCarolis wrote, if the government "disincentivizes electric vehicle purchases, more consumers will purchase gasoline vehicles resulting in higher gasoline consumption and high gasoline prices for everyone." Equally troubling, the proposal erases the $62 billion in annual fuel savings and it ignores the substantial public health gains these standards provide by reducing traditional air pollutants, which would prevent up to 2,500 premature deaths each year. By excluding these benefits, the EPA is effectively assigning no value to American lives saved, an indefensible position for EPA. This is not economic analysis—it's a deliberate distortion of the facts designed to hide higher consumer costs, job losses, and preventable deaths, all while protecting fossil fuel profits. The Stakes Couldn't Be Clearer This EPA proposal is crossing a line that even the most industry-friendly administrations never crossed. If we allow fabricated facts to replace scientific reality, nothing will stop future administrations from doing the same to food safety standards, workplace protections, or aircraft safety rules. As Ryan Gellert, CEO of Patagonia recently wrote 'It is truly Orwellian to see the EPA—an agency signed into existence by Richard Nixon to protect the public from environmental degradation—divesting itself of the responsibility to address the ravages of the climate crisis during a summer of extreme weather and following the hottest year in recorded history.' My granddaughter was born five days after we evacuated from the 2018 Woolsey Fire outside Los Angeles. As she grows up in a world that's struggling to combat climate change, I refuse to accept that her future should be sacrificed for fossil fuel profits. The stakes are too high, the science too clear, the moral imperative too strong. The EPA's stated mission has not changed in 55 years—to protect public health and the environment. What has changed is the willingness of its leadership to sacrifice that mission for political convenience and corporate gain. Climate change will not disappear because politicians deny it, and Mother Nature will not bend to the interests of the fossil fuel industry. The question is whether we will.
New York Post
2 hours ago
- New York Post
Hunter Biden shrugs off Melania Trump's $1B threat over ‘defamatory' Epstein remarks: ‘F— that'
Hunter Biden crassly brushed aside First Lady Melania Trump's threat to sue him for $1 billion if he doesn't retract the 'false' and 'defamatory' comments linking her to late pedophile Jeffrey Epstein. 3 Former first son Hunter Biden scoffed at Melania Trump's $1 billion defamation suit threat. YouTube / Channel 5 with Andrew Callaghan 3 Melania is striking back at remarks Hunter made about her and late sex predator Jeffrey Epstein. Getty Images 'F–k that. That's not going to happen,' Biden said with an arrogant smile during an interview on YouTube show 'Channel 5 with Andrew Callaghan' on Thursday. The first lady's team revealed Wednesday that it put the scandal-scarred former first son on notice for suggesting that Epstein introduced her to her husband, President Trump. Her team has also issued similar threats to other key figures. Last month, for example, the Daily Beast retracted an article that peddled similar claims after getting threatened by the first lady's team. 'Failure to comply will leave Mrs. Trump with no choice but to pursue any and all legal rights and remedies available to her to recover the overwhelming financial and reputational harm that you have caused her to suffer,' the first lady's attorney Alejandro Brito wrote in an Aug. 6 demand letter, Fox News reported. 3 Biden suggested in the interview that Epstein introduced Melania to Donald Trump. Getty Images Despite his bravado, Biden could find himself in a lot of financial trouble if he was sued. The former first son has claimed in court documents that he is straddled with 'significant debt in the millions of dollars range' amid struggling art sales and expensive legal bills.
