No products in the cart.


Indivisible: With Liberty and Justice for Some

By Janet Levy

June 1, 2017

The radical Left is so incensed and horrified by the advent of a Trump presidency that it has been driven to adopt what it considers to be the tactics of a grassroots movement it abhors and accuses of being racist, homophobic, anti-government, anti-woman, nativist, and Islamophobic along with the array of other epithets reserved for conservatives and flag-waving Americans. Led by five former Democratic congressional staffers, the recently birthed progressive organization Indivisible admits to modeling its strategy to “resist” the Trump administration after the tactics employed by its perceived nemesis: the Tea Party.

Operating from the conviction that presidential power is not unlimited and that pressure on Congress can reverse Trump’s potential damage, the Indivisible Team has launched a movement mainly for progressives, although disgruntled conservatives or anyone who opposes Trump may apply. The idea behind Indivisible is to resist the Trump agenda by diverting members of Congress, especially conservatives, from accomplishing their goals and preventing them from undoing many of the progressive policies put in place by the Obama administration.

Ironically, the current protestations vis a vis “presidential power gone wild” is incongruous with the absence of complaints from the Left when it came to the Obama administration and its many secretive actions, executive orders, and congressional bypassing, despite unrelenting claims of transparency. The uncontested shift in Washington over the past eight years away from a constitutional republic and congressional legislative responsibility toward more of a bureaucratic, administrative government run without Congress’ intervention belies the sincerity of these assertions.

Characterizing the ideas of the Tea Party as “wrong, cruel and tinged with racism,” the Indivisible Team pledges to protect their values of “inclusion, tolerance and fairness” with an equivalent level of resistance and fervor.

Following the January publication of a guide posted to Google Docs that went viral, the founders reported that within three weeks they had amassed 105,000 interested parties and 2,400 registered groups, one in every congressional district. Today, the Indivisible website boasts close to 6,000 Indivisible groups, at least two in each congressional district.

Indivisible: A Practical Guide for Resisting the Trump Agenda refers to Trump as “the biggest popular vote loser in history to ever call himself President Elect.” In their inaugural document, Indivisible’s architects reveal their defensive, ostensibly Tea Party-templated strategy to thwart the policies of the incoming administration. Positing that Trump will “attempt to use his congressional authority to reshape America in his racist, authoritarian and corrupt image” even though he “has no mandate” from the voters, the Team presents a methodology to “stand indivisibly to defeat Trump and the members of Congress who would do his bidding.”

In defense of their position, Indivisible’s founders rationalize that if a “small minority in the Tea Party could stop President Obama, then we the majority can stop a petty tyrant named Trump” and prevent him from “victimizing us and our neighbors.” They characterize Trump’s agenda as one that “explicitly targets immigrants, Muslims, people of color, LGBTQ people, the poor and working class, and women.”

Indivisible’s founders include Angel Padilla, a former immigration policy consultant for La Raza and advisor to Rep. Luis Gutierrez (D-Illinois), and Ezra Levin, who served as an AmeriCorps employee in homeless services and worked for Rep. Lloyd Doggert (D-TX). With their aggregate of significant congressional staffing experience, Padilla and Gutierrez are well aware that legislators are defined by electoral interests and primarily concerned about being re-elected. In the Indivisible Guide, they convey their conviction that the vulnerability of a member of Congress reaches its zenith when the certainty of their re-election is disrupted.

In the preface of the Indivisible Guide, the plan’s creators offer a “Note to Immigrants and Non-Citizens” in which they emphasize that all people living in the United States, even illegal immigrants and non-citizens, have a right for their voices to be heard by their congressional representatives. They emphasize that the guide is a resource for “all individuals who would like to more effectively participate in the democratic process.”

As for the guide’s stratagem, it recommends that subscribers emulate the “act locally” strategy of the Tea Party and target three individuals: their two state senators and their local congressional representative. Readers are advised to let their opinions and expectations be known in various venues using a prescribed series of tactics. The Indivisible Guide, which also provides tips on marketing, recruiting, mass email and telemarketing campaigns and managing small groups, informs readers that members of Congress have limited time and staff to handle government business and can easily be distracted from the work at hand by a barrage of disruptive phone calls, unexpected group visits to district offices and appearances at local public events such as parades, ceremonial activities, and groundbreaking proceedings. They cite the importance for activists to wear similar clothing and carry coordinated signs to stand out as a major presence and project the appearance of unity.

While attending public events, Indivisible participants are encouraged to speak with any media representatives at the scene, threaten local event sponsors with bad publicity, be prepared to interrupt speakers, aggressively inject their opinions and engage in collective “booing” and applause where effective. It is critical, the guide instructs, to convince the press and government representative that the Indivisible activists are representative of the targeted district.


The overriding objective of Indivisible’s plan is to make elected officials feel that they are being monitored and that their re-election is on the line; to manufacture an environment that appears hostile and give the impression that Trump’s policies are unpopular with most of their constituents.

The mission of the Tea Party was to mobilize fellow citizens in an effort consistent with the traditional American values of “fiscal responsibility, constitutionally limited government and free markets,” while honoring the established political process of our representative government and the tenets of the U.S. Constitution.

Indivisible misrepresents the Tea Party’s aims and actions and has created a counterproductive “hate Trump” movement to subvert these ideals and dishonor the country. As their document, the Indivisible Guide, attests, the express purpose of the organization is little more than an unprincipled attempt to disrupt the democratic process, stifle the voices of the millions of Americans with whom they disagree and return to the big government policies of the Obama administration.

Read more at American Thinker

Photo above: Los Angeles Times

Note from Nancy:
The photo above shows Rep. Tom McClintock being escorted by a Roseville, CA police officer after his town hall in February, 2017. The photo below shows his police escort to his car as he left.

“Indivisible” says they are using Tea Party tactics. I find that genuinely insulting! The only part that resembles the Tea Party is concentrating locally. I’ve belonged to 7 different Tea Parties in three locations. I attended well over 100 meetings and events, including town halls by Rep. McClintock. NEVER was a Tea Party speaker treated like this! NEVER did a speaker need a police escort for his personal safety due to Tea Party members. NEVER were Tea Party members, at any event, aggressive, threatening, rude, in-your-face, noisy, screaming, interrupting, etc. NEVER!

As far as “Indivisible” concentrating locally? Beware. You probably have an “Indivisible” group in your town!


Indivisible: With Liberty and Justice for Some
More on Tom McClintock’s town hall here





  1. There are millions of us out here willing to give protection to the republicans if they would just ask. All one needs is a conceal carry card.
    Semper Fi

    1. I have a “concealed carry card” also. It’s called “the 2nd amendment”, issued by the US constitution, not by some left thinking state legislation. SEMPER FI to that !

      1. Spot On JP! I do not need nor do I consent to permission from the state. I also must say that I am not a hard core Conservative, nor am I by any means a Democrat. I am a liberty loving Constitutional protecting American. I am a Born Again Christian and I will not be ashamed to say nor to it express it. I am not ranting, just giving my heart felt resume.

Comments are closed.