- Mar 8, 2013
- 6,993
I'm going to get there just before 7.
Then we will finally meet in person Doc
I'm going to get there just before 7.
I sent pics and video to VCDL President Phil Van Cleave.
Not surprisingly, didn't hear back.
In all honesty, this is our fight, not anyone else's.
No big deal.
But we are getting big time exposure
I'm sorry that I have been so slow to catch up today with all of my favorite people here--people who don't walk away when I am in handcuffs, people who sit by that triple-locked door until I am let go, people who want to know if I'm all right, if I am in pain, if I need something, if I need a hug, or a beer, or both. I love you guys.
And I love you too, Mrs.Rab1515 and all you other great gals who are piling in on this quest to do something greater than ourselves.
We have a Monday coming up that is calling all of us, pulling at us, hovering over us and tugging at us to gather on some Bricks where no one should be on a chain like a dog because the heart wants freedom, liberty, and pursuit of happiness.
We have a Monday coming up like no other Monday. Are you in? I know you must be in, because last Monday my head was bowed and I only saw my shoes. Next Monday, my head will be up.... and I need to see you.
Are you in? My heart says you are, but do you know it yet?
Peaceful protest. The bedrock of democracy. Apparently not in MD.
Infringement in one right...not so good. Indeed unacceptable.
Infringement on multiple rights...abject tyranny.
Think about the mentality of those who would infringe on basic human rights.
Now think about infringement wherein "they" decide to: infringe based on some "new" set of rules/circumstances AND "they" decide to infringe against 2A folks exercising their 1A rights in support of their 2A rights.
Now ask yourself, did they do this to BLM? Arguably, BLM behaved outside several laws during their demonstrations. Wonder why "they" think it's ok to infringe on our 1A rights in a different way than "they" infringe on other groups 1A rights?
As to "their" response after the fact, they double down on stupid and illegal by trumping even more charges.
Is there a limit to "their" willingness to trample civil rights? Are a group of mostly middle aged white taxpaying citizens less protected legally? Constitutionally?? Is this not prima facie evidence of governmental tyranny? Hell, this borders on reverse racism if you ask me.
Looks like there's at least three sets of rules...rules for the politically/financially connected, rules for the liberal social unrest protesters and rules for tax paying, law abiding citizens.
Why do we have rules? Why do we have laws? Why don't we apply laws consistently? Who gets to decide who is afforded protection for this basic human/democratic right and who is not?
The first amendment is as clear as the rest of them. Indeed it has been tested in our legal system perhaps more than any other. Why does the People's Republic of Maryland think they have the egregious prerogative to stifle people's voices? That's not governance, that's tyranny...plain and simple.
While I've generally been a Hogan supporter, I have to wonder perhaps if he might have been ok with what happened. With the upcoming re-election bid, he needs a smooth legislative session. I could see how he might not want people with signs out front of the state house either. I hope Im wrong though. It's shameful that he won't speak up on the matter regardless.
Then we will finally meet in person Doc
While I've generally been a Hogan supporter, I have to wonder perhaps if he might have been ok with what happened. With the upcoming re-election bid, he needs a smooth legislative session. I could see how he might not want people with signs out front of the state house either. I hope Im wrong though. It's shameful that he won't speak up on the matter regardless.
I don't blame Hogan. Hopefully what he is doing is getting all the facts. I like to think that's the case, but time will tell.
Yes. When BLM came to town the police blocked traffic for then and provided escort. I believe there is a picture of the head of the Capitol police marching down the middle of Main Street with them. I am willing to bet that they did not have a permit to block traffics but they did.
This suggests that they arressted the Patriot Picket to restrict their speech based on the content of that speech. I really believe the ACLU should be called to task here.
One thing about the Patriot Picket is that they know what the laws are and what their rights are. On many occasions I have seen police attempt to intimidate Rack&roll only to let up once more knowledgeable police supervisors realized that as long they were on public property and not blocking the sidewalk no laws were being broken.
The Patriot Picket knows to not to block the sidewalk. They are very aware of this. This suggests that the reason for the arrest they cane up with today is bull$hit.
Just as an FYI - nearly all of the people showing up as guests viewing this page at 0715 this morning were coming in from Maryland and NoVA.
This thread is getting a LOT of visibility right now.
When and where do I show up Monday?
Whats the difference between this and demonstrating on the sidewalk in front of the White House where it has been deemed illegal? They can just use the "safety" arguement wherever needed to curtail free speech.
Whats the difference between this and demonstrating on the sidewalk in front of the White House where it has been deemed illegal? They can just use the "safety" arguement wherever needed to curtail free speech.
Per Stoveman, the Chief said that the State's Attorney will not receive any resistance from the police department if the State's Attorney decides to drop the charges. That speaks volumes.
Big difference if enforcement is selective based on content of the message being presented. Nobody of any political persuasion is allowed to protest within the security zone around the White House.