FYI: Iowa fought against the Confederacy during the Civil War.
I am not sure, he is a student of history…
More like one of those Trump supporters I’d say.
I wonder if he had the foresight to cast his early ballot for Drumpf? I’m pretty sure he’s going to be sort of tied up next Tuesday.
And here’s the video that the article references…
“My ‘blinds’ were stolen and I would like them back”?
WTF? Is “blinds” a white supremacist euphemism for the Confederate Battle Flag?
The guy in the video sounded drunk to me. But we never get to see his face because he was the one videotaping the encounter.
This is what is known as a false-flag operation…
In more ways than one…
I’m not a great fan of the police, but that is perfect police work. They brought in a woman officer that he was more likely to defer to, and she was using classic de-escalation tactics. At first he was using tactics like Free Men (“what crime have I committed?”), but then he appealed to the Constitution and his rights to free speech. He claim he was assaulted by African-Americans when he displayed the Confederate Flag during the National Anthem. Sorry pal, the Supreme Court of the United States clearly established a limitation to First Amendment rights in Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire. You have no First Amendment right to incite violence with Fighting Words. Displaying the Confederate Flag during the National Anthem, in front of African Americans, is a deliberate provocation and he knew it.
For a person with an IQ over 90 he sounded drunk. I suspect he was totally sober, with an IQ about half. Or to put it in simpler words, “A-Salted Peanut” brain (twist from the movie Coming Home).
What’s amazing is that the guy admitted he was not there to watch the game, only to protest. So he is admitting he was breaking school rules and trespassing, so his removal was totally warranted and legal.
Technically the First Amendment itself established limits by using the word “peaceably”. Trespass, block traffic, create disruption, etc., these forms of “expression” are not a “right”. Many think “peaceably” just means non-violent…but if that’s what they mean they would have wrote “non-violent”. But simple “disruption” with no violence is still not “peaceable”.
Right, technically SCOTUS just interprets the First Amendment, there are other recognized limits like the “Clear and Present Danger” test, typically described as “shouting fire in a crowded theater” (Schenck v. US). We might be able to apply that here too.
Times sure are a-changin’ …
I’m getting to where I just can’t wait to get a jury summons —