MTG also said...
- the venue(s) shutting down her 'rally' was impinging on her 1st Amendment rights
- nancy pelosi was spying on congress via the gazpacho police
- wearing PPE was the same as being forced to wear a yellow star
...so one can rely on her nescience.

Another out-of-context video. Tired of the 'Karen' campaign. Without context, it's knee-jerk judgment. Already have people that making bad judgements about others without enough data.

That said...appears there was a man at the edge of the walkway - why didn't she address him? Sounded like he said...

"I'll talk to Cory. He's on the town board."

Doubt that political signage would be a violation (or enforceable) as it treads too close to the 1st amendment.

Have seen ramp walkways and handicapped ramps on homes. Those would look great with a "install your own President resistant walkway today!" sign beside them.

NOTE: don't let 🦜 bob fool you. he sent me a link to him and his band...https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EZPDiwwSVqg

Is this unconstitutional? Isn't protest/boycott protected under the 1st amendment?

So good. I think this video is a pretty great argument for giving the crazy alt-right types plenty of leash to exercise 1st amendment rights -- give them a little and they'll find a way to hang themselves with it.

With that said, comments / (mild) rebuttals to your post @newtboy:
(my thoughts in italics inline with the quoted post:)

How the fuck do these people not know what a colossal asshole Andrew Jackson was? I'm not even from the US and I know he was a genocidal dick.

And I'm also curious as to exactly what these people want to say that political correctness is stopping them from saying.

Also not clear on how political correctness is stopping them from saying anything, what with that pesky 1st amendment and so on, but anyway.

either way, *quality

I don't think Republicans care about the hypocrisy. There are two things at play here. They want to setup a Christian state similar to the one the Pilgrims and Puritans tried to escape, save being far more conservative and far more based on Old Testament values than the Love of Christ, and they see the 1st Amendment applying only to their particular form of Christianity, which they see as true Christianity (no true Christian could read the Bible and vote Democrat/Demoncrat type statements). The second thing at play here, among the media and politicians is to play off the ignorance of the Fox News and right wing radio/media viewers/listeners, and encourage more separation between the faiths, to make it easier for Islam to radicalize more people in order to create a holy war... this itself is driven by a couple things, war profiteering and apocalyptic tenancies, surely if the world is closer to the state the Bible mentions, the sooner we can join God in Heaven.

There are no exceptions provided for in the text of the 1st amendment.

Any exceptions [violations] that exist are product of willful neglect enshrined in precedent. The populism of said violations is what preserves them against challenge. The constitution (and law in general) is just words on paper. The buck stops at what people are willing to actually enforce.

-scheherazade

OMFG... really bob... really... It's people like you that made me ashamed of being a Christian when I was a Christian. Completely believing anything they are told or read from someone with supposed authority without actual critical thought of the original source themselves.

I've hear that Jefferson never meant to exclude religion from politics and believed and repeated it myself for years. Then you know what I did? I actually read the letter that Jefferson wrote. I could have my son, who's going into 6th grade read it and he'd tell you the same thing I'm about to tell you. It's about keeping religion from unduly influencing politics. Especially when you read it in context with the letter that the church sent him that he was responding to, and it becomes more apparent if you read his drafts which were much more to the point.

Yes the phrase "wall of separation" does come from the letter and not the Constitution, but the 1st Amendment includes an establishment clause that prevents the government from favoring one religion over the others. Remember the pilgrims came here to escape a Christian nation that favored one form of Christianity over all others. Admittedly they were more about the fact they couldn't persecute others the way they thought they God wanted them to, but it was the government's church that prevented them from doing so. You can't even be King or Queen of England unless you belong to the Church of England, and if you were Catholic at some point in your past, you are disqualified, even to this day. Yeah, the Church of England no longer has as much influence over the laws as it did when the pilgrims and other early settlers escaped England to come here,

And if the only reason Christians are good is because of fear of punishment or hope for reward, then they are horrible people. Millions of people are good because they are good people without their faith dictating to them to be so. Most people of other faiths are good without the racist brutal Abramic God of the Bible. Most atheists are good without any god. Most pagans are good with their various gods. This insane all morality comes from God alone didn't make sense even when I was at my most evangelical, Fox News watching/defending mode. There were too many people in the world who's good without God and even in those days the concept that somebody would be good only because the Bible tells them so, or they are afraid of God's wrath if they don't is backwards. And as I read the Bible more and more, it became apparent that the far rights obsession with people's sin over love was misplaced (though the far right's sickening defense of Dugger shows a great deal of hypocrisy since if Dugger was on the Left, they'd be all about his sin rather than showing any sort of love, it's when others sin differently than they do they get upset, like at the gays). It was reading the Bible that moved me to the left as the clear Christian way, since the right defends and loves the people Jesus condemned and shames the people that Jesus defended and told us to love and help. It eventually got to the point I couldn't hold onto faith when over half the Christians of this Nation just blindly follow what they are told in church and on Fox News over the truth that Jesus and the Bible was teaching and thinking they were doing the Christian thing at the same time. I then began to do a critical analysts further and eventually became an atheist, because they are all equally bad/good. There is nothing new or original in the Abramic faiths that wasn't there before or since either in the same region or elsewhere... all those other elsewhere's where Jehovah somehow couldn't make himself known, as if he was just a figment of one small regional tribe or worse a racist jerk not worthy of following.

Anyhow, the best way to maintain Christianity is to keep it out of politics. Because what happens if you set things up to let religion influence politics and the Muslims gain power? Then you'll be crying how religion shouldn't influence politics. Or perhaps not that extreme, perhaps some form of Christianity that other Christian's don't agree with gains power and influence? Perhaps the Morman's or the Catholics or the Jehovah Witness? At what point does religious influence stop? When laws are passed that any church that doesn't practice or allow the speaking in tongues is outlawed? The 1st Amendment is designed to keep religion out of politics in order to protect religion.

Let's break that last sentience out again. The 1st Amendment's establishment clause is designed to keep religion out of politics in order to protect religion. The whole point is to keep one form of one faith from dominating all other forms of the same or other faiths. It protects those other forms Christianity and other faiths.

Finally there is no war on Christianity. I admitted that long before my fall from faith. I was there with it all, with how it was targeted, but the reality is there is no war on Christianity here... all that's happening is specific forms of Christianity are loosing their influence on other Christians and society as a whole, and they are very vocal about how it's persecution, because like the pilgrims, they are no longer allowed to persecute others the way they want to. Maybe if the people screaming about how Christianity is being persecuted while they try to deny equal rights to others because they sin differently than us, would actually show the love of Christ and behave the way He actually would have in modern society rather than trying to show how Christian they are, then perhaps Christianity wouldn't be losing the numbers they are. I know I, and many other atheists, likely wouldn't have had at crisis of faith if it wasn't for the far right. I never would have explored the logical and theological problems with Christianity and the Abramic faiths... I'd probably eventually found a more Quaker, left leaning (most the Quaker "Friends" related churches in this area are the far evangelical right Fox News types) type church that seems to be more in line with the Bible and teachings of Jesus, but the far right pushed me into a far more critical mode than I would likely ever have gone to on my own. So keep it up those on the far right, you are the ones destroying and making a war on Christianity. You push more and more people away, and more and more people stop seeing any difference between the far right and radical Islam.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

The government can have a deaf ear to any and all petitions.
There are no criminal penalties for choosing to not represent your constituents.

The nuisance created by peaceful public assembly is the power that coerces the government into obeying.

The government has 'reinterpreted' the constitution to belittle the 1st amendment's protection for peaceful assembly, so they can shoo away assemblers with permit requirements and arrests.

Meaning that the government can in perpetuity deny all right to peaceably assemble, by simply issuing no permits, and arresting all that try to peaceably assemble.
In effect, removing the 1st amendment protection in its entirety.

-scheherazade

1st. The state is us, the citizens.
2nd. The government is the state government, an employee of the state, established by the state and for the state. The state government owns no property and has no authority, it only manages our public assets, and acts in our authority.

Those things you mention were changed by protest.
People exercising their 1st amendment right to assemble and petition the government, assembled, and were a royal PITA to a lot of other people.
In time, that forced the hand of those who had been elected to placate those that protested, to get rid of the nuisance.

Since then, the right to assemble has been 'interpreted' as a secondary right, and the right to petition the government is the primary.
This empowered the government to require permits for protests, and subsequently just remove protesters.
Now you can only write a letter asking for change. The right to petition has basically been neutered, by removing the one effective method of coercion that the state [common man] had over the government.

Elections are not democracy.
How you come up with your representative is irrelevant.
Elected, appointed, born, whatever. It's absolutely irrelevant.

Democracy = People's rule.
Representative democracy = People's rule by a representative 3rd party.

The representative is not a leader.
He is an agent obligated to represent (i.e. listen to and obey) his constituents.

So long as a representative is actively representing, then he is executing his office, then the state has democracy.

If the representative goes off and does what he wants, and ignores what the state wants, then the state has no democracy.

We in the U.S. have no "leaders".
We the people are the leaders.
The people we elect are employed by us to represent us, in a government of our creation.

Whether or not the people in government care to do their jobs or not, is a separate issue.

Right now, someone will get elected. Even if they only voted for themselves.
There is no requirement to have a positive rating from the people, in order to get elected.
Regardless who gets elected, they all get paid by the same lobbyists, and pander to the same financial interests.
The only way you get change for the common man, is when it incidentally aligns with what's good for the entrenched interests.

eg. If Obamacare works out in the end. Great. If not, oh well, another 'meh' program that in the end just provides state unemployment labor. Whatever.
Either way, it didn't happen for a love of the common man and his health. It happened because insurance companies were lobbying for it.





I would like to add that "the other" is generally a really poor propaganda based impression.
Every country on earth, it's not as great their media says it is, and it's not as bad as other's media says it is.

Here a cop will shoot a little old lady half a dozen times for picking a fight with a random other person (this just happened locally).
In a crap ton of ex-soviet countries that people love to grimace about 'how bad it is', you can argue with the cops till they let you go. And you don't have to assume they will beat you to a pulp for it.

People's impression of "police state" is what they imagine from movies. A 1984 caricature. But that's not what a police state look like in reality.
It's a place that's generally normal, unimposing, and only time to time when you step on the wrong person's toes, you end up 'going away for a while'.

Here in the U.S., 1 in 18 men is in jail or on parole.
Good luck finding another country that even comes close.
The policing is out of control. Way too much 'getting tough' on irrelevant things that shouldn't even be a bother, let alone be considered crimes.

-scheherazade

1st amendment says the government shall make no law abridging people's right to peaceably assemble. That's a supreme law, that no lower laws can supersede.

There is no 'lawful' order to make that particular woman leave that particular spot.

Police commands are not obligatory simply because they are given by police.
They could command you to strip naked, bend over and present yourself for an a$$ F'ing.

-scheherazade

1st amendment just for him.

Aaaaaaand another thing...

"An assault weapons ban basically equates to "you may not own this item" the restrictions on 1st Amendment rights say "you man not use a word in this very limited list of situations".

People love to use the analogy that weapons bans are the same as reasonable limitations on your 1st amendment rights. They use arguments like "You can't yell "fire" in a crowded theater", "You can't Slander", etc. but there is a big difference.

An assault weapons ban basically equates to "you may not own this item" the restrictions on 1st Amendment rights say "you man not use a word in this very limited list of situations".

If they were truly equal then the "reasonable" restriction on your 1st amendment right would be "You may not EVER use the word FIRE. Not in a crowded theater, not at home, not at work, not ever. Remove it from your vocabulary and we will not teach it to people who learn the language in the future."

No one would find that reasonable and everyone would fight to protect their right to use the word "fire" in safe, appropriate conversation.

Now lets take that and reverse it. Let's apply what everyone says are reasonable restrictions on our 1st ammendment rights and apply them to our 2nd ammendment. If you did that then you would havesomething along the lines of the following: "You may own the gun but you may not use it in these very limited list of situations".

Oh wait a minute! That's what we currently have. "You may own your gun but you may not use it to rob a store, murder someone, threaten someone, etc."

I am not trying to convince everyone that my side is right. I am just pointing out that you need to be careful when you start restricting ANY constitutionally guaranteed right. Take the restrictions that you think are fair and apply them equally to any other right that you have and see if they still sound "Reasonable".

Why? Because you say so? I don't think you even know what that means.

Gun nuts choose to believe this is all about taking their guns away so they can't fight back when the government comes knocking on their doors for... some reason. Or that it's some furtive attempt by the government to track them and get them in some national database for mysterious and spurious reasons. This belief is often revealed via terse bullet points and catchy, oft-metered phrases that don't require a whole hell of a lot of memorization or deep understanding. Just short, simplistic regurgitations of bullshit from the rightie cesspool they are drowning in.

Authoritarians? Really? An authoritarian would want ALL your guns. Are you saying any government control is authoritarian, or does the term "government control" give you the "1984" willies? Are the old ladies behind the counter at my local DMV authoritarians, or just slaves to them? How about the building inspector? Passport office? Fish and Game Department? The person who decided there needed to be a red light at an intersection where I'd never had to stop on my way to work before? IRS? Why do I need a license/permit for everything? I mean, with the exceptions of my driver's license, passport, tax returns, fishing license, trail park pass, voter registration, car registration, smog certificate, and their records on the amount of water and electricity I use, I just wish they'd respect my privacy, right?

But, this isn't a privacy issue with you guys, is it? This is about the Alex Jones/Bachman/Palin/Beck/Limbaugh (the Thousand-Yarders) fantasy world where the government is out to get you and throw your children into liberal indoctrination camps. This is about "taking your rights" from you. This is about being prepared for the coming post-zombie apocalypse you hope is right around the corner so you can justify the thousands of dollars you spent prepping. A whole industry has sprung up around prepping, and they are happy to stoke your paranoia and reinforce your belief that you really do need all this gear, not to mention the boxcar shelter buried in the back yard with a year's supply of MREs. Money in the bank.

The 2nd Amendment? It's not a holy relic. The Amendments are subject to interpretation and limitation by Congress. If Congress passes an assault weapons ban, it's not denying you your 2nd Amendment right to bear arms. It's simply defining it, just as the 1st Amendment has been further defined by the legislative and judicial branches of government since it was ratified. The 1st Amendment doesn't give you the right to slander someone, yell fire in a crowded theater, or reveal state secrets, etc., just as the 2nd Amendment doesn't necessarily give you the right to arm yourself with anything you please, wherever you please.

Good troll, btw.