The Department of Justice Poses Grave Danger to the First Amendment

The Department of Justice is threatening the First Amendment rights of six protesters arrested during a protest, on Inauguration Day last year.

DOJ is making the most insane argument that protesters and journalists should go to jail

The Department of Justice Poses Grave Danger to the First Amendment

The Department of Justice is threatening the First Amendment rights of six protesters arrested during a protest, on Inauguration Day last year. The six protesters were protesting against incoming Pres. Donald Trump, which is perfectly understandable for any reasonable person. This attempt by the DOJ to convict six protesters, some of them journalists, poses a grave danger to future protests and the First Amendment six rights of free speech if they succeed in their ridiculous quest to put away since people for expressing their displeasure against Donald Trump.

Leading the US government’s case representing the Department of Justice is Assistant US Attorney Rizwan Qureshi offered no arguments that the defendants had committed any type of violence or destroyed property. Instead, he likened them to “getaway drivers” at a robbery, which is nothing less than a huge stretch of one’s imagination. In this so-called “arguments”, Qureshi makes reference to a “sea of black” because many of the protesters were wearing black. However, he doesn’t specify whether any of these defendants themselves were wearing black. He presented absolutely no evidence that they have committed any other crime than being part of a crowd where many people were wearing black. Qureshi is suggesting that these defendants acted as some type of “shield” for other protesters who may have committed a crime. Thus, the “getaway car” analogy.

Even though he offers no arguments saying that these six defendants, he still try to have them sent to jail for committing a crime. A person should only be sent to prison if they actually committed a crime. In this case, the DOJ offers no evidence proving that these defendants were guilty of any wrongdoing or crime. This begs the very obvious question, “why does the Department of Justice, a branch of the US government, want to put these people away?

The answer should be very obvious. The US government, in this case, the Department of Justice, wants to scare people into submission, no matter what reckless policy or injustice a person may be protesting against. With this ridiculous case, it is very obvious that the DOJ is making this a test case to see what they can get away with, especially silencing dissent in the United States.

This entire case by the Department of Justice also proves to be a great irony, albeit a bitter irony. Why doesn’t the DOJ get so bent out of shape when members of the Tea Party, and other advocates of the Second Amendment, show up at a public event like a town hall meeting openly wearing firearms? After all, it is illegal to openly carry a weapon in a public place.

Where is the Department of Justice, who are supposed to be the guardians and protectors of the U.S. Constitution with these lawbreakers, openly carrying firearms in their attempt to squelch the First Amendment rights of those people who may disagree with them? If this isn’t selective law enforcement, I have never seen it.

This entire case is nothing but bullshit and I strongly suspect that Department of Justice knows it.

 

Senator Jeff Sessions Unfit to Be US Attorney General

Senator Jeff Sessions Unfit to Be US Attorney General One of the most controversial nominations made by President-elect Donald Trump is his nomination of Jeff Sessions to be US Attorney General.  Senator Sessions has nothing in his record that shows him as having what it takes to be head of the …
United States Department of Justice

The United States Department of Justice (DOJ), also known as the Justice Department, is a federal executive department of the U.S. government, responsible

 

Was Al Franken Sacrificed?

After Sen. Al Franken resigned yesterday, it begs the question, “Was he sacrificed”?

Al Franken’s Kangaroo Court Trial Doesn’t Feel Right — Because It’s Not

Was Al Franken Sacrificed?

After Sen. Al Franken resigned yesterday, it begs the question, “Was he sacrificed”? I think he was! I think his fellow Democrats exerted so much pressure on Al Franken he was put in the unenviable position of having no other options. His only other option was to go forward with an investigation by the Senate Ethics Committee. I think he should have exercised that option, instead of just bowing out. However, he was faced with competition from both Democrats and Republicans.

Even though I will freely concede that he behaved in a sexist way and is guilty of sexual harassment, and should have to face some type of consequence, I will argue that forcing his resignation was excessive. Also, given that it was the Democrats who pressured him the most, Al Franken was stabbed in the back by his own party; something which the Democratic Party may one day regret. Sen. Al Franken was probably the most liberal legislator the Democrats had in the U.S. Senate. Maybe, that was the real motive for him being sacrificed in the way he was.

The resignation of Al Franken plays right into the hands of what I believe to be the direction of the Democratic Party. I truly believe that the Democratic Party doesn’t want too many liberals among its ranks. They want just enough to be able to keep on marketing themselves as the representatives of the middle class; something which has not been the case for many years. The treatment of Al Franken by his own party seems to be indicative of the current belief system of the Democratic Party; liberals are okay as long as they don’t rock the boat too much.

A good indicator of the current mentality of the Democratic Party is the shoddy way that the DNC is treating Sen. Bernie Sanders and his supporters. They and other Democrats who make the mistake of being “too liberal” are this either pushed to the periphery or eliminated entirely like Al Franken.

When I first heard that Sen. Al Franken was being accused of sexual harassment, I was very surprised because he doesn’t seem like the type of guy to do that. Also, when I heard that his accuser had been a member of Breitbart, I had a tendency to dismiss her as being not credible and probably a “plant” by the right-wing because they have hated Al Franken for years. However, when six more women came forth, one of them a liberal radio journalist, I couldn’t help but think, “what the hell, Al”? I must admit that I felt betrayed because Al Franken was somebody I could easily see myself supporting for president of the United States if he ever decided to run. Well, I guess I can forget about that!

The forcing of Al Franken to resign by his fellow Democrats may come back to bite them in the ass next November when the midterm congressional elections occur. Gov. Mark Dayton has already gummed up the works by saying that he will only appoint someone to fill Franken’s seat on the proviso that they do not seek to run for the seat permanently. In other words, Mark Dayton is willing to put the Minnesota Democratic Senate seat at risk by not appointing a strong political figure, but instead only a figurehead. What an idiot!

By doing this he may well leave it wide open for Republicans to be elected to the seat left vacant by the resignation of Al Franken. A strong Republican contender is already in place in the person of Norm Coleman, the person Al Franken defeated in 2008. At some point down the road, the Democratic Party may kick themselves in the ass; something which I hope doesn’t happen but if it does they will deserve it.

Another big thing that bothers me about this entire sexual harassment issue that is currently plaguing Congress is that it totally obscures the issue of Roy Moore. To put any sexual harassment that may have been committed by Al Franken and others on the same level as Roy Moore being a pedophile does a grave injustice to all of those who have not only been sexually harassed but victims of pedophiles. It’s like mixing apples and oranges. They just aren’t the same thing.

 

Donald Trump Thinks Andrew Jackson, “Had a Big Heart”

In a recent interview, Donald Trump claims that the American Civil War might not have happened if Andrew Jackson had been alive.

Donald Trump Thinks Andrew Jackson, “Had a Big Heart”

In a recent interview, Donald Trump claims that the American Civil War might not have happened if Andrew Jackson had been alive. He is also important during the interview as saying that “Andrew Jackson had a big heart.” I wonder if any members of the five tribes who were forced to march to Oklahoma on the “Trail of Tears” would have agreed?

The “Trail of Tears” refers to the collective suffering of five tribes of Native Americans that were forcibly removed from their land in the southern United States. These tribes were the Cherokee, Creek, Choctaw, Chickasaw and Seminole. They were removed by an act of Congress, called the “American Indian Removal Act of 1830”, which President Andrew Jackson wholeheartedly supported. Of course, what type of compassion can one expect from a president who was also a slave owner?

Even though these Indians owned the land that they were removed from, these people were treated like animals during their removal from the South. Nearly 150,000 Native Americans were forcibly removed from their land, and nearly 15,000 of them died on the way to “Indian Territory”, also now known as Oklahoma.

Andrew Jackson ordered that these people be removed in January 1838. Of course, having such a “big heart” says Donald Trump, he orders them to be moved in the middle of winter instead of waiting for warmer weather when more of them would have probably survived the move. What a “big heart” Andrew Jackson had!

Andrew Jackson had as much compassion for the Indians as Donald Trump has for refugees from places like Syria and the Sudan. No wonder that someone like Donald Trump would choose Andrew Jackson as their hero.

 

Andrew Jackson should be kicked off the $20 bill: He ordered a …

Mar 3, 2014 So when he taught us about the Indian Removal Act and the Trail of Tears, Andrew Jackson’s campaigns to force at least 46,000 Cherokees, …
Hunting down runaway slaves: The cruel ads of Andrew Jackson and

Apr 11, 2017 This story has been updated to reflect President Trump’s speculation that Andrew Jackson could have prevented the Civil War. “Stop the …

 

Does Donald Trump Really Give a Damn about Syrian children?

Source: Donald Trump urges compassion for the Syrian children he’s banned from the U.S.

Does Donald Trump Really Give a Damn about Syrian Children?

I ask this question because I really wonder how he can pretend to care so deeply about Syrian children when his past actions say otherwise.  If he really gave a damn about Syrian children, why was he so adamant about not allowing them to escape the hellish conditions they were forced to live in, while still in Syria?

This last week, after the chemical weapons attack on a Syrian village, which killed a number of innocent Syrian children, Donald Trump says he was deeply affected by pictures of babies who had been killed by a gas attack, launched by Syrian president Bashar al-Assad.  I would like to ask the president, why were you so affected by pictures of dead Syrian children from this attack, when you didn’t seem to be affected by pictures of dead Syrian children who had been drowned while trying to escape Syria.

After all, Donald Trump singled out Syria, along with eight other countries, for the exclusion of refugees who were fleeing that country in droves.  How could he be so cold-hearted then, and suddenly now develop some compassion for children that the United States was, not allowing safe haven?

Even though I freely admit to not only being a cynic, but a hater of Donald Trump, I can’t help but ask whether this newfound “compassion” is real, or is it just Donald Trump being a politically expedient hypocrite.  Is this “compassion” for Syrian children genuine, or is it just another political device to make himself look more dignified and presidential?

I think the latter option of Donald Trump being politically expedient and not compassionate is probably the more likely explanation of his sudden change of heart.

 

Syrian Crisis, Child Refugee Crisis | UNICEF USA

Donate today to UNICEF USA to help the 8.4 million Syrian children affected by the brutal and violent conflict in Syria. Learn how UNICEF USA is helping child …
Crocodile Trumper Tears and Dead Syrian Children | john pavlovitz

2 days ago Photo originally from TheWire as printed by the Atlantic. Why are you crying, Trump supporter? I mean, I know why I’m crying, but I’m just a bit …

 

 

Donald Trump Shows Hypocrisy About Chemical Weapons Attack in Syria

Donald Trump has shown himself once again to be a hypocrite.

Donald Trump Shows Hypocrisy about Chemical Weapons Attack in Syria

Donald Trump has shown himself once again to be a hypocrite.  This time it’s the humanitarian crisis in Syria, particularly the chemical weapons attack launched a couple of days ago against innocent men, women, and children by Syrian President Bashar al-Assad.  Trump is condemning this horrible incident, which one might expect of the President of the United States.  He is probably that some type of action will be taken against the Syrian president and his regime.

In 2013, when the same type of chemical weapons attack was launched by President Assad, Donald Trump harshly criticized President Obama because Obama also proposed taking some type of action against Assad.  At that time, Trump said that the United States already had “too many foreign entanglements,” and that the United States would be making a mistake to get involved in another forward situation.  At that time, Trump didn’t seem to care that much about a horrible atrocity being committed in a foreign country.  Now suddenly he cares?  When a hypocrite!

This flip-flop on foreign policy is nothing new for Donald Trump.  He has done it before, on several occasions.  Exactly what is Donald Trump’s position on Syria?  It now seems that he is very opposed to the Syrian president and his regime, where, in 2013, he didn’t really seem to give a damn.  He was hell-bent on just criticizing President Obama because Obama wanted to take action.  Trump offered no other solution other than to say that we should not get involved.

Donald Trump and members of his administration say that he was deeply affected by seeing pictures of dead children.  He also indicates that he was affected by the sadness and grief of his daughter, Ivanka, and she convinced them that it was the time that he do something.  While this may be true, it causes me to ask, “where were you in 2013?  Did you see any pictures at that time?”

As I remember, there were plenty of pictures available of this atrocity committed by President Assad.  They were there for everyone to see because they were shown on TV and published in magazines and newspapers.  Why wasn’t Donald Trump affected then?  Could it possibly be because if he had shown some compassion towards those innocent people in Syria, he somehow thought it would make him look weak?  Or was it because he could not force himself to agree with President Obama about anything, no matter how terrible it was?

Wasn’t the chemical weapons attack over a year ago just as terrible?  Innocent men, women, and children were slaughtered in an equally cruel and inhumane fashion a year ago.  Yet, we heard nothing but criticism coming out of Donald Trump’s mouth then.  Where was all of his indignation, anger, and compassion about an ugly situation at that time?

 

US Launches Missiles at Syrian Base Over Chemical Weapons Attack

4 days ago The United States fired 59 Tomahawk cruise missiles at Syria overnight in response to what it believes was a chemical weapons attack that …
Does Donald Trump Really Give a Damn about Syrian children?

Source: Donald Trump urges compassion for the Syrian children he’s banned from the U.S. Does Donald Trump Really Give a Damn about Syrian Children? I ask this question because I really wonder how he can pretend to care so deeply about Syrian children when his past actions say otherwise.  If he really …

 

How the American Health Care Act (AHCA) Is Bad for People with Disabilities

Alana Theriault from DREDF on Vimeo.

How the American Health Care Act (AHCA) Is Bad for People with Disabilities

Alana Theriault, a friend of mine, explains how the American Health Care Act (AHCA) is bad for people with disabilities and how it endangers our right to live independently in the community.

AHCA poses a huge threat to those of us who are disabled living independently within the community, as is our right. It will either alter or cut valuable funding that we disabled people depend on for our survival. Among the items that will be affected is valuable funding that comes from the federal government to support home care services that we depend on to be able to live independently.

These funds are not only important for our independence, but for our basic survival. Forcing us into institutions will be the only alternative for many people with disabilities. It is a well-known fact that these type of skilled nursing facilities are far more expensive than providing disabled people with the necessary funding to live in the community.

Community-based services are always less expensive for the taxpayers than institutional care. That fact has been proven many times. The AHCA will gut those community-based services to the point of nonexistence. AHCA will force many disabled people, now living independently with the help of community-based services, no other choice than to give up their independent lives and be imprisoned in nursing homes.

The AHCA is the biggest threat to the independent living movement to ever come along. Hopefully, it will not pass through Congress. If it does, we disabled people are doomed.

 

 

 

The Ridiculous Idea That Mexico Will Pay for the Wall

The idea that Mexico will pay for the wall on the Mexican border is one of the most ridiculous ideas that I have heard in quite a while.

The Ridiculous Idea That Mexico Will Pay for the Wall

The idea that Mexico will pay for the wall on the Mexican border is one of the ridiculous ideas that I have heard in quite a while. Donald Trump thinks he can force the Mexican people to pay for a wall along the Mexican border. That just goes to show how delusional the new POTUS is. He claims that this will solve the current immigration problem; something which I question is a real issue.

The reason I ask whether or not immigration is a problem is because of the way this country was created, and the way that we have always been taught that America was the “great melting pot.” The United States is made up of immigrants. Most people in this country had their origins in foreign countries. If it weren’t for immigration, we would not exist as a nation. I don’t look at it any differently for Mexican immigrants. They contribute their fair share of work and accomplishments, just like everyone else who is a member of our society.

Donald Trump seems to think that Mexican immigrants are taking away jobs from American workers. From my viewpoint, this is ridiculous and falsehood. Mexican immigrants are just like immigrants from everywhere else. They just want to come here to have a better life, just like my great-grandfather did when he came here from Denmark.

Mexican immigrants, at least from my viewpoint, seems to be doing the jobs that most American workers think they are “too good” to do. These people are the ones who do the farm labor, janitorial work, housekeeping, and childcare for people who work during the day. These types of menial jobs are not very sought after by most American workers.

Trump is just stirring up more trouble and inflaming whatever racist followers that he panders to. After all, he got elected to office because of the appeal to many people’s sense of racism and fear of Mexican immigrants. During his campaign, Trump angrily called Mexican immigrants killers and rapists. This tirade showed his racist feelings against Mexicans and pandered to the lowest common denominator that many people have racism.

The Mexican border won’t be any more secure with a wall built between the United States and Mexico. Also, the idea that Mexico will pay for a wall along the border with the United States is preposterous. What does Donald Trump think he can do to force them to pay? Is he delusional enough to think that he can just send an invoice to the Mexican government and that would just pay up?

 

More Mexicans Leaving Than Coming to the U.S. | Pew Research …

Nov 19, 2015 Between 2009 and 2014, about 140000 more Mexican immigrants have returned to Mexico from the U.S. than have migrated here, citing family …
Donald Trump’s false comments connecting Mexican immigrants …

Jul 8, 2015 Trump can defend his statement all he wants, but the facts are just not there.