'No Kings' protest organizers urge CNY to join in
'We are concerned this administration's belief that they can impose their will upon the American people and that they can punish those who disagree with them,' Jessica Hess said.
Steve Simon, one of the organizers, said the time to act is now after seeing a disdain for the law in Washington, D.C.
'I've seen, in the last four months, a really fast degradation of the belief that we have to follow those laws…that certain people have to follow those laws,' Simon said. 'So, that's what's gotten me off the couch, and out of the office, and into the streets.'
Jen Edgerton said she decided to start protesting after President Donald Trump's inauguration day.
'Just ignoring the Constitution, and in particular for me, it was due process,' Edgerton said. 'That was my tipping point.'
Organizers are urging everyone in Central New York to attend the protest, happening from 12:30 p.m. to 2:00 p.m., at the Solar Street parking lots in front of Destiny USA.
'You don't need to have a group of friends to come with you because everybody down there will be in solidarity with you,' she said.
Simon recognized tomorrow's protest coincides with Flag Day and wants everyone to be proud of their country, as well.
'It is a very patriotic bunch of people,' he said. 'It is not radicalism. It is not, you know, insurrectionism. It is the opposite of that. It is defending what we all grew up with as a democracy.'
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
7 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Editorial: Hands off — Trump's off-base attack on NYC's sanctuary immigration policy
Intentionally misstating New York City's sanctuary immigration policy as thwarting the prosecution of violent criminals, the Trump administration continued its war on local government by filing suit in federal court last week, one of a number of similar lawsuits across the country that conflate civil noncooperation with active criminal interference and attempt to conscript local officials into President Donald Trump's destructive crackdown. This should prove to Mayor Mayor Adams and other state and city leaders that no amount of appeasement is going to forestall the targeting from Trump. Adams met multiple times with immigration coordinator Tom Homan, insisting that the two men had 'the same goal,' making concessions like signing off on the opening up of an ICE office on Rikers Island years after a city sanctuary law had kicked them out. It's clear that Trump and Homan were not and probably could not be placated to the extent that they would leave Adams and New York City alone. The reality is that this is a totalizing project; Stephen Miller and the rest of the White House want to rid the country almost entirely of immigrants, with or without legal status, and regardless of where they are or what effect that will have on our economy and society. They've been routinely violating the law to do so. It's worth noting once more that Trump's is a political movement that often proclaimed itself a defender of state rights and local control, but apparently that only extended to allowing local officials to detain immigrants, pull books from school shelves, limit access to abortion, curb labor and environmental protections and drive LGBTQ people from public life. When it comes to a refusal to participate in federal operations that have so far involved masked and unidentified agents shoving people into unmarked vehicles — just the sort of thing that we would call authoritarianism and tyranny anywhere else — then states and localities get no say beyond being extensions of a central government. We're not particularly worried that any competent judge would accept these nonsensical claims. A day after the New York case was filed, a federal judge in Chicago dismissed the Trump lawsuit against that city's sanctuary immigration policy. We just want to remind readers that sanctuary is not immunity from prosecution, especially prosecution for violent crimes. What it is however is that when someone is treated at a city health clinic for TB or enrolls a child in school or reports a crime to the police as a victim or a witness, the person's civil immigration status is irrelevant. We want everyone in the city to get treated when sick, we want all children to be in school, we want all crime victims and witnesses to come forward to the cops. The idea of anti-commandeering — the notion that the federal government can't force state and local governments to carry out its own agenda and enforcement functions — has been foundational from the genesis of our country's federalized system. The right of jurisdictions to enact sanctuary provisions that block the use of local resources for this federal function has been litigated over and over again, and always found to be on solid legal footing. We are, however, more worried about the U.S. Supreme Court, which has in the past several months taken it upon itself to sign off on Trump's expansive power grabs. It has allowed among other things Trump to fire federal employees and independent agency members in direct contravention of statute, allowed the limiting of a nationwide order blocking Trump's attempt to overturn the 14th Amendment's birthright citizenship provisions and allowed parents to impose religious beliefs on whole school curricula. If these questions get up to that high court level, we hope that the justices will exercise some of their independent power, as they did on other absolutely egregious instances like Trump's efforts to remove people without due process under the Alien Enemies Act proclamation. Anything else will destroy the trust of people in their own local officials and governments and strike at the very foundation of this country's system of government. _____
Yahoo
7 minutes ago
- Yahoo
What's in the US-EU trade deal depends on who is doing the talking
President Trump and European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen shook hands Sunday over a trade agreement touted as being largely concluded, but days later, there are still plenty of disagreements about exactly what is in the pact. Perhaps nowhere is the divide more stark than in the summaries published by each side — one from the White House and another from the European Commission. They depart in at least five areas, both in terms of the deal and the firmness of the commitments. In just one example, the White House summary touts "historic structural reforms and strategic commitments," while the Europeans call the handshake deal "not legally binding," with more negotiations to come. Trump quipped Sunday that a deal would be "the end of it" and that it would be a number of years "before we have to even discuss it again." That is unlikely to be the case, which even Trump's aides acknowledge. The difference is likely to come to a head quickly as negotiations continue between the US and Europe over legally binding text and as trade watchers wait for a formal joint statement on the deal that the teams still hope to unveil this week. A range of areas of disagreement Clarity on at least one headline area is clear: an agreement for 15% tariffs on nearly all EU goods, including autos, semiconductors, and pharmaceuticals, that will be exempt from separate Trump plans there. But the divides are evident once you go deeper. Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick acknowledged that a lot remains to be worked out when he told CNBC on Tuesday that "there's plenty of horse trading still to do," even as he argued that the "fundamentals" are set. Read more: What Trump's tariffs mean for the economy and your wallet Trump has also already set a pattern of fuzzy initial details on his deals, including a recent pact with Japan, but a comparison of the two documents summarizing the Europe deal underlines differences on many of the key aspects. On the issue of new investments by Europe — $750 billion in US energy and additional corporate investments of $600 billion — the summary from the US side described them as firm commitments. The European language is much less solid, saying it "intends to procure" additional energy and that European companies "have expressed interest" in additional investments. More differences are seen on whether the deal will mean European markets are "totally open," as Trump has said. The European summary of provisions around fish says they will allow "limited quantities" and only "certain non-sensitive" agricultural products. Another highly touted part of the agreement from the US side is a provision for Europe to purchase military equipment. As Trump said on Sunday, "They're going to be purchasing hundreds of billions of dollars worth of military equipment." That part isn't even mentioned in the European summary. Ben Werschkul is a Washington correspondent for Yahoo Finance. Click here for political news related to business and money policies that will shape tomorrow's stock prices
Yahoo
7 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Protesters praised for peaceful demonstration against asylum-seeker housing plan
Former home secretary Suella Braverman has praised protesters for peacefully demonstrating against plans to house asylum seekers in flats above a town centre shop. More than 1,000 people are estimated to have attended the protest in Waterlooville, Hampshire, on Wednesday evening against the proposal to house 35 people at the property in London Road. Posting on X, Ms Braverman, who is the Conservative MP for Fareham and Waterlooville, said: 'Very proud of the people of Waterlooville tonight. To the thousands of local people who peacefully protested, you speak for millions. 'Zero offences, arrests and no disorder. You're not far-right. You just love our country and are willing to stand up for it. Thank you. 'To the Home Office and Havant Borough Council, we say: no. Thank you to the police for keeping everyone safe.' The demonstration came after the MP organised a petition to Havant Borough Council against the plans. The local authority said it had not been initially consulted on the proposals after communication difficulties with Clearsprings, a procurement company employed by the Home Office for the project. Leader of Havant Borough Council, Labour councillor Phil Munday stated: 'Having received the petition from Suella Braverman, I am yet again concerned with her repeated use of inaccurate language in her supporting letter which only seeks to exacerbate fear in the hearts and minds of our concerned residents. 'Repeated reference to illegal immigrants and unwanted men flames fears when we know as a matter of fact all users of the proposed accommodation are supported asylum seekers. 'Furthermore, the proposed use – as I discussed in depth with the Home Office personally – is that the accommodation would be used by a mix of families and individuals. 'This is a marked difference to the quite frankly offensive remarks that the proposed use of the site is to solely house dangerous single men of detriment to the borough.' In a letter to Yvette Cooper, the Labour Secretary of State, Ms Braverman described the proposal as 'insulting to local people'. She wrote: 'This plan will dump further pressure on policing, healthcare and public infrastructure, all while ignoring the legitimate concerns of residents who have been left voiceless. 'Our town has undergone a transformation and become a welcoming place to work, invest, shop, dine and play. 'Decisions such as yours will once again make our town centres no-go zones for the patriotic, common-sense majority.' The MP also stated on her website: 'This site, in the centre of our town, is utterly inappropriate for migrant accommodation. It must be stopped.' The consultation ends on Friday August 1, after which the Home Office will decide whether to approve the plans. A Home Office spokeswoman previously said it was in 'active dialogue' with the local authority and added: 'We are working to fairly disperse asylum seekers across the country, consulting closely with local authorities and listening to local concerns.'
