Posted on 01/29/2023 8:11:38 AM PST by BenLurkin
No such thing as illegal immigration, no such thing as domestic terrorism.
Oh noes. They’re concerned
This part of the law can mean anything a cop, AG or court says it means. It can be misused against those who are conservative and/or hold a Christian world view.
Yes! Make them follow their own rules. They hate that.
That is so laughable on its face.
The FBI, CIA, DOJ, IRS, Congress, and many other orgs in the government have been doing just that for years. Trump was the epitome of "politically disfavored group" and they worked for years to destroy him and his efforts to rein in what the Deep State was doing. They concocted phony impeachments and framed him with the phony "dossier." The FBI PAID for that phony dossier and lied on FISA warrants.
Why isn't the professor worried about that?
bttt
That’s not the case here which is what the article is about, not your theoretical Christian persecution. From what I’ve seen, they were squatting on city owned property that was a police training ground. They refused to vacate, they threatened and used violence.
The allegations against the protestors include....
Murder, conspiracy to commit murder, and many others. The list is true but very incomplete.
We put too much weight on the motivation behind a crime. Hate crimes is the best example. How many crimes are committed out of love? Almost all crimes are hate crimes.
To specify only a few as “hate” gives permission/ rationalization to commit the “non-hate” crimes.
It all goes back to collectivist vs individualist thinking.
A man should be judged by the content of character, not by color of skin is very much an inidividualist approach. Yet in watching Sunday AM talk shows, 99% of everyone takes a collectivist approach...collectivist to government agents such as the police... collectivist to “victims”, collectivist to what to do about it.
Until we on FR and on the right side of the aisle start a trend to more individualism, the problems will continue.
Individalism vs Collectivism is an issue of balance.
We need some collectivism. We need some individualism. Where is the balance between too much and too little of each?
I suggest part of the answer is in voluntary collectivism. Religion, Lions, Kiwanis, Kids football, parent choice in education are voluntary collectivism. Reduce forced collectivism and increase voluntary collectivism.
If the prosecutions end at the half dozen or so that were arrested, this is a failure. If they go beyond the footsoldiers and find and prosecute the real organizers and funders, then this might be a success.
Those clowns busted gor the vandalism at Florida pro-life sites come to mind. They’re looking at twelve years for spray-painted threats. .
The 2024 campaign has started. There is much burning and looting planned.
Atlanta arrested several “ protestors and is denying bail etc. Some of the “ protestors come from wealthy connected families. The parents are concerned their little sweet ups might get real jail time, oh dear.
ReEEee Ree ReEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!!!
My comment was not relative to "this case" but rather a criticism of part of the law's text , which in my opinion could be politicized to obstruct free speech. E.g., ..."intimidate the civil population or any of its political subdivisions." Who gets to define "intimidate"? I could see those who hate and/or disagree with conservatives or those opposed to a Christian worldview crying to a Soros AG about being "intimidated" by what they view as hate speech and attempt to label them terrorists using the previously cited text.
You get it. They’re looking for powder kegs, something along America’s fault lines for something to blow up and they can start slinging sh__ early.
Exactly. And the MSM will be all in with the narrative.
I haven’t read the actual statute (because I am a Freeper), and the quotations and semicolons in the description of the 2017 law are confusing, but it seems likely to me that the key to all of these actions is at the end:
“by use of destructive devices, assassination, or kidnapping.”
A logical person would take this to qualify all the other actions in that “intimidate” would only violate the law if it were “by use of destructive devices, assassination, or kidnapping.”
Whether the law as written and its application would actually be logical is another question.
Love,
O2
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.