Latest news with #IndivisibleProject
Yahoo
a day ago
- Politics
- Yahoo
'No Kings' day protests planned as Trump, Musk fight publicly: See when, where
Protesters in California and across the country are gearing up for "No Kings" demonstrations against President Donald Trump on Saturday, June 14. The "No Kings Nationwide Day of Defiance" is scheduled as counterprogramming to a military parade marking the Army's 250th anniversary that's happening the same day in Washington, D.C., according to the Indivisible Project, an organization backing the protests. June 14 is also Trump's birthday. "Donald Trump wants tanks in the streets and a made-for-TV display of dominance for his birthday," Indivisible stated in a news release. "A spectacle meant to look like strength. But real power isn't staged in Washington – it rises up everywhere else." The upcoming protests follow similar "Hands Off!" and "May Day" demonstrations against Trump and influential billionaire Elon Musk. They're also set after Trump and Musk began publicly fighting. Here's what to know about the actions happening on June 14 in California, across the country, and in the nation's capital. "No Kings" day marches and other demonstrations are scheduled across California on June 14, according to a map of events shared by Here are some of the events posted on the map. This list is not exhaustive, and some cities have multiple events scheduled. Palm Springs: 6 p.m. 134 N. Museum Way Ventura: Ventura County Government Center Hall of Justice. 800 S Victoria Ave Victorville: 10 a.m. Bear Valley & Amargosa Rd, Visalia: 10:30 a.m. 915 S Mooney Blvd Salinas: Noon 1275 S Main St Stockton: 10 a.m. 5151 Pacific Ave Redding: 9 a.m, Redding City Hall, 777 Cypress Ave Los Angeles: Multiple locations and times San Diego: Multiple locations and times San Jose: Noon St James Park, 180 N First St San Francisco: Multiple locations and times Fresno: Multiple locations and times Sacramento: 10 a.m. California State Capitol, West Steps. 10th St. and L St. The parade is scheduled to take place on Trump's 79th birthday, but event organizers and administration officials insist the event is solely a celebration of the Army. Vince Haley, director of the White House Domestic Policy Council, said in a statement that Trump is planning "a historic celebration of the Army's 250th birthday." "As one of the first events of the year-long celebration of our 250th anniversary, this commemorative parade will be a fitting tribute to the service, sacrifice, and selflessness of the brave men and women who have worn the uniform and devoted their lives to defending the greatest experiment in liberty known to man," Haley said. The Second Continental Congress established the Continental Army on June 14, 1775, "as a united colonial response against the British enemy," according to the National Museum of the United States Army. The parade has been estimated to cost from $30 million to $45 million, USA TODAY reported. Contributing: USA TODAY This article originally appeared on Palm Springs Desert Sun: 'No Kings' day protests planned in California on June 14: See map
Yahoo
29-05-2025
- General
- Yahoo
Oregon officials kill proposed ordinance seeking more regulation of public demonstrations
May 29—OREGON — A proposed ordinance that would have required organizers of public demonstrations to apply for permits was tabled "indefinitely" by city leaders Tuesday night after one Oregon resident said its passage would have been "an act of tyranny." Ordinance 2025-011 was introduced in April by City Manager Darin DeHaan, who told city commissioners that the new ordinance was needed to give the city necessary information and time to prepare for public demonstrations. Its introduction followed three "Hands Off" rallies held April 5, April 19 and May 1 on two city sidewalks surrounding the historic Ogle County Courthouse in the city's center. Those events, organized by Indivisible of Ogle County, the local chapter of the Indivisible Project network — a grassroots organization founded in 2016 — included signs opposing President Donald Trump's policies and executive orders during his first 100 days in office. The rallies drew 400, 250 and 150 attendees, respectively, and were held at the intersection of Routes 64 and 2. The Oregon rally was one of several May 1 rallies that drew hundreds of thousands across the world and in the U.S. Before the first rally, Jan Buttron of Chana met with officials from the Ogle County Sheriff's Office, the Oregon Police Department, the Oregon Fire Protection District and the city of Oregon to make sure safety guidelines were followed. DeHaan told the council in April that he believed a permit process was needed because Oregon was a small community with limited resources, and a demonstration permit would allow the city to prepare by having the necessary law enforcement and ambulance services available. He said the Indivisible organizers and demonstrators were "great to work with" and that he fully supported the First Amendment and citizens' rights to assemble, but he was concerned that future demonstrations could create safety issues if more people attended. Buttron was one of five people who spoke out against the ordinance at the May 13 council meeting. She questioned the timing of its introduction, adding that the rallies were needed because the country was in a "constitutional crisis" due to Trump's policy decisions and executive orders. She said Trump has deported American citizens and other individuals without due process — some to prisons in other countries — and committed other unconstitutional acts. On Tuesday night, Buttron said the rallies represented peaceful and nonviolent views against Trump's actions. "If these things weren't happening, we would not be out there," Buttron said. "We have followed all of the rules. We will continue to do that." Veronica Mathews offered each commissioner copies of case law that she said showed how such an ordinance would be "sweeping control over public expression" and a violation of First Amendment rights. "I know this discussion is about process, not passage. But the questions you ask tonight will shape the future of this ordinance. And more than that, they will shape how the public understands your intent," Mathews said. "That's why I hope you'll sit with this ordinance not just as decision-makers, but as neighbors. As people who know how this town works. How it has always worked. Because what this ordinance represents isn't safety policy. It's a shift in relationship between the public and the government. And the more people read it, the more that shift becomes clear. "What concerns me most is this: When authority is broad and the rules are vague, enforcement becomes unpredictable. Even with the best of intentions, policies like this can be misused, or be perceived as being used unfairly. And once public trust starts to erode, it's incredibly difficult to rebuild. None of this is an attack. I know how seriously many of you are taking this. I also know you're hearing from residents who are genuinely alarmed." John Dickson said the proposed ordinance was on the "wrong" path. "It sets the government above the people by requiring permission to assemble, arbitrarily defining assembly size, allowing a single entity to grant approval, stipulating ineffective appeal process, and requiring details of minutia — and it is an act of tyranny," Dickson said. "The sidestepped point is when two or more people meet, it is considered an assembly. Assembly is a right of liberty, a quotation familiar to all of us," Dickson said, quoting from the Constitution. "Rights are not to be traded away nor restricted in their exercise. Asking for a permit to assemble is as despicable as asking for permission to speak, write, print or pray. The only qualification of assembly is it shall be peaceable. It is up to the people to assemble and do so peaceably. "The people have the right to assemble in a peaceable manner, to consult for the common good, to make known their opinions to their representatives and to apply for redress of grievances. These are the limits of governing you have sworn to uphold." He said the city could provide a process for requesting additional city services — if organizers of public demonstrations thought they were needed. "If the city's intention is to provide services, then the city needs to come up with a request for services process," Dickson said. "You can deny or approve services. ... You cannot dictate to an assembly that is peaceable. And that belongs to the people. Government was created to preserve liberty, and tonight I request that this ordinance be properly killed by whatever process is expedient." After the public comment period, Mayor Ken Williams said the ordinance was intended to help the city address logistical issues for crowds that gather. Williams said traffic control, crosswalks for pedestrians, public restroom access and other details were issues city officials thought the ordinance could help address. "Basically, we're trying to assist," Williams said. "And so, what we were saying, if you look at the ordinance, is we 'really want to help, but trust us, we won't go too far.'" But Williams said he was not in favor of adding more ordinances. "I don't think we need another ordinance," Williams said. "I was going to go ahead and make a motion to table it. ... And that would basically kill it. I also want to open it up for discussion." Commissioner Tim Krug immediately made a motion to postpone the ordinance indefinitely, with Melanie Cozzi making the second. Commissioner Terry Schuster said he liked Dickson's suggestion that the city develop a "request for services" process. "Because that was the intent," Schuster said. "There was no other intent behind this." In May, Schuster, Krug and Cozzi questioned the definition of "spontaneous" gatherings such as candlelight vigils and were concerned they could fall under the new guidelines. Commissioner Josiah Flanagan agreed that the motion should be postponed. The motion to table the ordinance passed unanimously 5-0. "Yes, it's over," Williams said. "I'm just glad they made the right decision," Buttron said after the vote. "I'm glad I don't have to spend any more sleepless nights doing research," Mathews said. The next rally, titled "No Kings," is scheduled from 3 to 5 p.m. Saturday, June 14.
Yahoo
22-05-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
More protests planned at I-91 overpasses in three states
VERMONT (ABC22/FOX44) – Motorists heading down Interstate 91 for Memorial Day weekend will want to be on the lookout for more than just the right exit. Three weeks ago, hundreds of protesters gathered in Connecticut, Massachusetts, and Vermont to demonstrate against the policies of the Trump administration, as an extension of 'overpass protests' that began to gain traction earlier this year. From 3:00 to 6:00 p.m. this Friday, May 23, local groups under the banner of the Indivisible Project plan on taking to the streets once again. Showery finish to the work week; Another wet Saturday The local affiliated groups organizing the protests include Defend Democracy Indivisible, Brattleboro Indivisible, and Rise Up Western Mass Indivisible. I-91 overpasses as far north as U.S. Route 302 (Exit 17) in Newbury have protests planned, as well as at least six overpasses further south in Brattleboro and Putney in Windham County. Organizers have told protesters to avoid parking in the lots of local businesses, and to stay out of the right-of-way of traffic. Another group affiliated with Indivisible is organizing a roadside protest in South Burlington off Shelburne Road. Indivisible was formed in 2016 in response to the election of Donald Trump. It calls itself 'a movement… taking regular, iterative, and increasingly complex actions to resist the GOPs agenda, elect local champions, and fight for progressive policies.' Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Yahoo
12-05-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Liberals rail at establishment: ‘Too many corporate, establishment politicians'
Progressive Democrats are on a tear. The party liberals — particularly younger voices, in Congress and outside of it — are increasingly disillusioned with how the Democrats' old guard is managing the high-stakes battle against President Trump, who is using his second term to dismantle the conventions of law and government. On issues as varied as immigration, impeachment and picking committee leaders in the Capitol, these voices are airing frustrations that the party is failing to meet the moment in the face of a White House threat they deem to be existential. Many are battling to divorce the party from the veteran leaders of the past — to include former President Biden, who has reemerged recently with a series of public events — and instead carve an avenue for younger up-and-comers to take the reins and remold the party's image with designs to win back the working class. 'Voters are fed up with this entire class of incumbents,' said Usamah Andrabi, spokesperson for Justice Democrats, a liberal group advocating for a new crop of younger progressives. 'There are too many corporate, establishment politicians who they feel like are do-nothing Democrats in the face of this existential threat,' he added. 'And it's time to usher in a new generation.' The fight over Trump's deportation policy is a major source of strife. Trump has long used immigration as a wedge issue to animate conservatives and other voters who find appeal in his tough-enforcement approach, and some moderate Democrats have warned colleagues to steer clear of the topic for fear of a voter backlash. Liberals are furious with that advice, saying the real backlash will occur if Democrats don't fight tooth and nail against mass deportations, many of them taking place without any semblance of judicial screening. 'That is crazy, that any Democrat would say this is a losing position for us,' Ezra Levin, co-founder of the Indivisible Project, another grassroots progressive group, said in a recent interview with The Bulwark. 'They're thinking about it in these, like, 1990s political terms, and we just live in a completely different environment now.' In recent days, the clash has turned to more structural matters, as liberals are questioning whether the party's rules make it all but impossible for the young stars of the future to move up. Those questions were thrust into the spotlight after Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) last week declined a run at the top Democratic seat on the House Oversight and Accountability Committee, a prominent perch for Democrats fighting to shine a public light on Trump's many controversies. The reason? The party's seniority system, she said, stacked the odds against her. 'It's actually clear to me that the underlying dynamics in the caucus have not shifted with respect to seniority as much as I think would be necessary, and so I believe I'll be staying put at Energy and Commerce,' she told reporters. Some Democrats questioned that argument, noting that Ocasio-Cortez would have had to leave the powerful Energy and Commerce panel to seek the Oversight seat without any assurances she would win it. 'It wasn't like a done deal or anything,' said one Democratic lawmaker, who spoke anonymously to discuss a sensitive topic. '[Seniority] is a strong factor, but it was more of a rolling the dice kind of situation.' Still, Ocasio-Cortez is not only a liberal superstar with a huge national following, she's also a favorite of the left to run for the White House in 2028. And after she announced her Oversight decision, progressives wasted no time taking shots at a seniority system they say is denying younger talent any chance at upward mobility. 'She's right that there are still barriers to keeping young people running for these sorts of positions. I mean, that's part of my calculation in not running, as well,' said Rep. Maxwell Frost (Fla.), a second-term Democrat who had also weighed a run at the Oversight seat. As a member of the Congressional Black Caucus, Frost said he understands the value of a seniority system that's helped minority lawmakers rise to power on numerous committees over the course of decades. 'But also times are changing, and I think there's more avenues for young Black people and Latinos to be able to get there,' Frost said. 'So I see both sides. But … it's a very uphill battle' for younger members. Rep. Jasmine Crockett (D-Texas), another second-term liberal who is also interested in the Oversight seat, has been even more blunt, decrying 'systems' she says prevent lawmakers from representing the voters who empowered them, particularly as it pertains to the fight against Trump. 'There is an inside, outside game. I mean, I think if the outside could vote, then I would be the clear winner,' Crockett said recently on SiriusXM's 'Urban View' program. 'At the end of the day, it's the people that put us in the seats. And the people need to believe that Democrats are listening, and that they are going to give them the fighter that they are looking for to go after this man and this administration.' Branching out further, some liberal Democrats used the Oversight debate as a platform to call for another change to the party's power structure: the establishment of term limits for committee heads. While Republicans have long used a two term-limit system, Democrats have eschewed that idea in another bow to seniority. That, more and more liberals say, is a mistake that needs changing. 'I think the Republicans have it right,' said Rep. Becca Balint (D-Vt.). 'Maybe it's not two terms. Maybe it's three; maybe it's four — we can come to a sweet spot here. But we need to be cultivating, not just younger talent, but different talent,' she added. 'If we're not constantly replenishing who those voices are that can capture storytelling — this is all about storytelling, that's what politics is, right? 'And so I just feel like, structurally, I don't think that we're meeting this moment.' Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
The Hill
12-05-2025
- Politics
- The Hill
Liberals rail at establishment: ‘Too many corporate, establishment politicians'
Liberals rail at establishment: 'Too many corporate, establishment politicians' Progressive Democrats are on a tear. The party liberals — particularly younger voices, in Congress and outside of it — are increasingly disillusioned with how the Democrats' old guard is managing the high-stakes battle against President Trump, who is using his second term to dismantle the conventions of law and government. On issues as varied as immigration, impeachment and picking committee leaders in the Capitol, these voices are airing frustrations that the party is failing to meet the moment in the face of a White House threat they deem to be existential. Many are battling to divorce the party from the veteran leaders of the past — to include former President Biden, who has reemerged recently with a series of public events — and instead carve an avenue for younger up-and-comers to take the reins and remold the party's image with designs to win back the working class. 'Voters are fed up with this entire class of incumbents,' said Usamah Andrabi, spokesperson for Justice Democrats, a liberal group advocating for a new crop of younger progressives. 'There are too many corporate, establishment politicians who they feel like are do-nothing Democrats in the face of this existential threat,' he added. 'And it's time to usher in a new generation.' The fight over Trump's deportation policy is a major source of strife. Trump has long used immigration as a wedge issue to animate conservatives and other voters who find appeal in his tough-enforcement approach, and some moderate Democrats have warned colleagues to steer clear of the topic for fear of a voter backlash. Liberals are furious with that advice, saying the real backlash will occur if Democrats don't fight tooth and nail against mass deportations, many of them taking place without any semblance of judicial screening. 'That is crazy, that any Democrat would say this is a losing position for us,' Ezra Levin, co-founder of the Indivisible Project, another grassroots progressive group, said in a recent interview with The Bulwark. 'They're thinking about it in these, like, 1990s political terms, and we just live in a completely different environment now.' In recent days, the clash has turned to more structural matters, as liberals are questioning whether the party's rules make it all but impossible for the young stars of the future to move up. Those questions were thrust into the spotlight after Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) last week declined a run at the top Democratic seat on the House Oversight and Accountability Committee, a prominent perch for Democrats fighting to shine a public light on Trump's many controversies. The reason? The party's seniority system, she said, stacked the odds against her. 'It's actually clear to me that the underlying dynamics in the caucus have not shifted with respect to seniority as much as I think would be necessary, and so I believe I'll be staying put at Energy and Commerce,' she told reporters. Some Democrats questioned that argument, noting that Ocasio-Cortez would have had to leave the powerful Energy and Commerce panel to seek the Oversight seat without any assurances she would win it. 'It wasn't like a done deal or anything,' said one Democratic lawmaker, who spoke anonymously to discuss a sensitive topic. '[Seniority] is a strong factor, but it was more of a rolling the dice kind of situation.' Still, Ocasio-Cortez is not only a liberal superstar with a huge national following, she's also a favorite of the left to run for the White House in 2028. And after she announced her Oversight decision, progressives wasted no time taking shots at a seniority system they say is denying younger talent any chance at upward mobility. 'She's right that there are still barriers to keeping young people running for these sorts of positions. I mean, that's part of my calculation in not running, as well,' said Rep. Maxwell Frost (Fla.), a second-term Democrat who had also weighed a run at the Oversight seat. As a member of the Congressional Black Caucus, Frost said he understands the value of a seniority system that's helped minority lawmakers rise to power on numerous committees over the course of decades. 'But also times are changing, and I think there's more avenues for young Black people and Latinos to be able to get there,' Frost said. 'So I see both sides. But … it's a very uphill battle' for younger members. Rep. Jasmine Crockett (D-Texas), another second-term liberal who is also interested in the Oversight seat, has been even more blunt, decrying 'systems' she says prevent lawmakers from representing the voters who empowered them, particularly as it pertains to the fight against Trump. 'There is an inside, outside game. I mean, I think if the outside could vote, then I would be the clear winner,' Crockett said recently on SiriusXM's 'Urban View' program. 'At the end of the day, it's the people that put us in the seats. And the people need to believe that Democrats are listening, and that they are going to give them the fighter that they are looking for to go after this man and this administration.' Branching out further, some liberal Democrats used the Oversight debate as a platform to call for another change to the party's power structure: the establishment of term limits for committee heads. While Republicans have long used a two term-limit system, Democrats have eschewed that idea in another bow to seniority. That, more and more liberals say, is a mistake that needs changing. 'I think the Republicans have it right,' said Rep. Becca Balint (D-Vt.). 'Maybe it's not two terms. Maybe it's three; maybe it's four — we can come to a sweet spot here. But we need to be cultivating, not just younger talent, but different talent,' she added. 'If we're not constantly replenishing who those voices are that can capture storytelling — this is all about storytelling, that's what politics is, right? 'And so I just feel like, structurally, I don't think that we're meeting this moment.'
