Screw Your Bill of Rights!

flagOur new President-elect apparently has no understanding of the Constitution or the Bill of Rights. I have previously pointed this out when he advocated depriving people of their right to keep and bear arms without due process if they were placed on the onerous “no-fly” list.

He proves it once again today with yet another demonstration of his lack of understanding and respect for fundamental rights. The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution specifically protects free speech from government prosecution and persecution. The nation’s courts over the years have also ruled that state and local governments cannot infringe on these basic, fundamental liberties.

Amendment I. 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.

That means that political speech is protected. That means the government cannot punish you for speaking out, for expressing an unpopular opinion, for criticizing your leadership, or even your country by burning her flag in effigy. That means no politician has the right to use government force to limit your criticism of America.

But hey, apparently Trump’s respect for the First Amendment lies somewhere below his respect for property rights.

It is a right. By its very nature a right does not infringe on others’ rights when exercised. The great Walter Williams wrote that rights exist simultaneously among people.

As such, a right imposes no obligation on another. For example, the right to free speech is something we all possess. My right to free speech imposes no obligation upon another except that of noninterference. Similarly, I have a right to travel freely. Again, that right imposes no obligation upon another except that of noninterference.

Burning our nation’s flag – as repulsive as it is to me as an Army veteran – is a right. It places no obligation on another when exercised and violates no one else’s rights by force.

You may be offended by the gesture, and I can’t say I blame you.

It’s offensive to me as an immigrant. It’s repugnant to me as someone who has served this nation and is willing to die for the principles it enshrines. But as I’ve so often told Special Snowflakes, you have no right not to be offended, and this fact holds true for everyone, including those of us who find flag burning a disgusting and disrespectful act, which it is.

Burning a flag is a symbol that expresses an idea, said the late Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia.

The pertinent part is at around the 8:00 mark. The man Trump will seek to replace on the Supreme Court understood the Constitution and recognized that burning the flag, as distasteful as we find it, is political speech. Protected political speech.

The great thing about this country is that our right to be the most pernicious of warts is protected by the Constitution. Our right to scream from the rooftops that we hate our government, that we abhor our troops, and that we despise our flag is enshrined in the Bill of Rights, because it is the most odious of expressions that need the most protection.

If we don’t strive to protect speech and expression with which we disagree, we will wind up being censored in the end.

Freedom is hard. Freedom means understanding that even the most repulsive expression is protected from government prosecution.

I honor the flag. I have served to protect the symbol of liberty – not the cloth – but what it represents, which includes the right to criticize our government in the most offensive way possible!

If we begin prosecuting individuals for speech we find abhorrent, just think of what the SJWs will do with that power!

“The idea that you have to be protected from any kind of uncomfortable emotion is what I absolutely do not subscribe to.”
John Cleese

69 responses

  1. Apparently the author of this piece believes she has a grasp of the Constitution that is beyond the comprehension of the chaff. The first amendment is not absolute. Prior to the 70s it was indeed a crime to burn the flag, but we are told that this is an essential and indeed vital right to be able to show the utmost disrespect and what in times of war would be treason.

    Sad that the fact for many decades saner heads prevailed and the disrespect of the flag was a crime. During the Great War of Northern Aggression a New Orleans man who tore down the flag was immediately hung. During the Palmer raids those who burned the flag were deported or sentenced to long periods in jail.

    But our betters in the Supreme Court this is a protected right. Hmm, obviously some symbols are more protected than others as we have seen the left destroyed many symbolsa they do not hold dear, just as another immigrant group tends to destroy symbols they deem unfit.

    Believe all speech is absolute? Try threatening the president’s life….ah but that’s different? How? Try calling in a false bomb threat?

    No one regards legimate forms of protest as worthy of being banned. But blocking roads, bridges, private enterises, attacking those with whom you do not agree?

    Now I wonder if the author can answer me why the thrashing of the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier isn’t a fitting kind of protest? How about knocking over tombstones at Arlington? I mean the first amendment protects these acts don’t they?

    In sanner realms no, they are detestable actions in the same way the bruning of the flag is.

    And if you believe you must burn the flag to protest you rank with John Kerry who threw someone’s else’s medals over the White House fence during an anti war protest. Such sentiments are common among the hive mind.

    A year in jail. Heck what would burning the flag get you in Havana, Tehran or Moscow. Since the flag burners love those regimes I believe the same punishments would be worthy of these denizens of the gutter.

    But being merciful and willing to forgive depriving them of citizenship seems fair since these creatures will not be found in the ranks of men who answered the call and found their final resting place at Tarawa, Inchon, Gettysburg, Con Tien, Bellau Wood, or baghdad or even Arlington.

    These individuals should get the punishment they merit. They have no respect for our government or the American people. But they will use the Constuitution as a shield for their vile tactics and actions.

    To adhere to their doctrine is to open the gates to those who will rest at nothing to destroy the civil society.

    Its time for adults to be responsible for their actions.

    Like

    1. Apparently the author of this piece believes she has a grasp of the Constitution that is beyond the comprehension of the chaff.

      No, but Scalia, whom I quoted, did.

      The first amendment is not absolute. Prior to the 70s it was indeed a crime to burn the flag, but we are told that this is an essential and indeed vital right to be able to show the utmost disrespect and what in times of war would be treason.

      Plenty of acts have been deemed constitutional and not over the centuries. Doesn’t mean it was right.

      Sad that the fact for many decades saner heads prevailed and the disrespect of the flag was a crime. During the Great War of Northern Aggression a New Orleans man who tore down the flag was immediately hung. During the Palmer raids those who burned the flag were deported or sentenced to long periods in jail.

      And to you this is a sane policy? I come from the USSR, where you indeed COULD be imprisoned for disrespecting the government and the country. You may find yourself more comfortable in that type of environment. I hear China is great this time of year.

      Believe all speech is absolute? Try threatening the president’s life….ah but that’s different? How? Try calling in a false bomb threat?

      Read that bit about your actions impacting others’ rights. If you are unable to see the difference, you can’t be helped.

      No one regards legimate forms of protest as worthy of being banned. But blocking roads, bridges, private enterises, attacking those with whom you do not agree?

      See above, jackass.

      Now I wonder if the author can answer me why the thrashing of the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier isn’t a fitting kind of protest? How about knocking over tombstones at Arlington? I mean the first amendment protects these acts don’t they?

      Once again, see above.

      And if you believe you must burn the flag to protest you rank with John Kerry who threw someone’s else’s medals over the White House fence during an anti war protest. Such sentiments are common among the hive mind.

      Show me where I said I believe I must burn the flag. Oh, that’s right, I didn’t. And as repulsive as Kerry was and is, he still had the right to do what he did.

      The rest of your diatribe is little more than your chafed labia flapping in the wind. Adults understand the concept of a right. Adults understand that expression that does not infringe on others’ rights is and should be protected, no matter how revolting we find it.

      You are obviously not an adult.

      Liked by 4 people

    2. Burning a flag harms no-one and is not treason.

      GTFOOH with that bullshit.

      Liked by 2 people

    3. Meant to hit ‘Reply’ not ‘Like’. This episode reveals that it’s not only the left that has special little snowflakes who need a politically correct ‘safe space’ to protect their emotions.

      Liked by 3 people

      1. You can hit the “⭐︎ Like” button again to undo your seeming approval.

        Like

        1. Danke! I tried that initially, but my browser wasn’t playing nice. Worked now.

          Liked by 2 people

  2. The only good thing about Teh Donald’s philosophy on civil rights, government power, and just about anything else connected with the job he’s been hired to do is that he doesn’t really seem to HAVE a philosophy. As other people have pointed out, he seems to have seen a tweet or news article about disrespecting the flag, thought “That’s terrible! I hate it!” and tweeted to that effect. Tomorrow, he’ll probably have forgotten all about it.

    I hope.

    Like

    1. Someone said he’s trolling. Entirely possible, I suppose. But in that case, why do we have a President-elect wasting time trolling idiots on Twitter?

      Liked by 1 person

      1. Maybe he enjoys it?

        Or maybe he’s the perfect president for our instagram, facebook, twitter society.

        I mean, even more perfect than President Selfie Stick.

        Like

      2. I don’t think the hairy hemorrhoid is trolling. Trolling would require intelligence, and subtlety, character traits he has not yet exhibited in 70 years.

        Like

  3. That Trump does not care about the First Amendment does not surprise me. During his campaign, he threw five, arguably six, of the Bill of Rights under the bus (including the 1st).

    The First Amendment: “open up libel laws” which are already pretty open. What you need for a libel charge to stick is: it must be defamatory. It must be untrue. The person making the defamatory statement has to either know it’s untrue or to have proceeded “in reckless disregard for the truth”. The only way to “open up” libel laws is to make one or more of those requirements go away. Somehow I don’t think the requirement made to go away is “must be defamatory”. So if neither truth nor good faith is a defense against libel, where then is the First Amendment? (And now you can add “Flag burning as protest” to this.)

    The Second Amendment. Twofer with the Fifth. I’ll cover it down there.

    The Fourth Amendment. Endorsing New York style “stop and frisk” as a nationwide thing. We’re not talking about “Terry Stops” (which are themselves questionable even though the courts have approved them) where you have to have a reasonably articulable suspicion (a lesser standard that Probable Cause) that 1) a crime has been committed and 2) the person involved might be involved. This allows checking a person for weapons as part of investigating the crime in question. But that’s not what they do in “stop and frisk” where the cop picks somebody for whatever and searches them.

    The Fifth Amendment. That twofer. The Fifth says, in part, “nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law. This “no fly list” is a rank violation of that to begin with, but the courts have allowed it. Trump wants to use the same list (5th Amendment violation) to prohibit people from possessing firearms (the 2nd). No, it’s not “just a few people” (secret list, so how could you know but even so, how few people’s rights is it okay to violate?), the “mostly foreigners” is irrelevant (again “mostly”? How few people’s rights is it okay to violate, and foreigners aren’t affected at all since it’s already illegal for non-immigrant aliens to purchase firearms in the US–that’s right there on the 4473 so the only people affected by such a ruling are US citizens and legal permanent residents).

    Arguably the Sixth Amendment. If you want to dismiss this one, I’ll let it slide since it’s a gestalt of his many statements which indicate automatic assumptions of guilt. I’d let “You’d be in jail” stand as shorthand for “You’d be under indictment and either out on bail or held pending trial” but when combined with other statements he’s made, I really think if he thinks they’re guilty that’s good enough for him.

    The Eighth Amendment. “Waterboarding didn’t go near far enough.” Look, I’m in the “Waterboarding isn’t torture” camp, but it _is_ right at the cusp. Going significantly farther than that _would_ be torture and would be “cruel and unusual punishment.”

    Liked by 4 people

  4. I’ve posted this on several FB threads about the orange buffon’s statement.
    As a vet, a son of a Korean war combat vet, and the descendant of a Revolutionary war vet who died from wounds received in battle, it pains me to see people burn the flag here in America.
    However, it gives me no small pleasure to say that it is the law of our land, specifically the 1st Amendment, that gives people the right to do so.
    My oath as an officer was to defend the constitution, and I served to defend the right of people to burn the flag, whether or not I agree with them, and whether or not I agree that burning a flag is an appropriate protest.

    The examples that Omaha lists are destruction of property. If someone burns MY flag, that’s a crime. If someone buys a flag and burns it, that is protected free speech.

    Liked by 1 person

  5. More proof he’s a Democrat – he’s just about 11 years behind HRC in her thinking. She co-sponsored a bill with 100k in fines and 1 year in jail for the same thing back in 05.

    Like

    1. Actually, I don’t think he’s a Democrat, or a Republican.
      He’s a Trump. All he cares about is Trump. The only people he tolerates are those that kiss his ass.

      Like

      1. I guess that’s why Trump just saved nearly 1000 jobs from leaving Indiana (Carrier) from moving to Mexico

        Because Trump only cares about Trump

        Like

        1. Just because a narcissist does something that benefits someone else as well as her/him-self, doesn’t mean they’re not a narcissist.

          Like

        2. also, Carrier may have decided to keep the jobs here to curry favor and incentives from Trump.
          New business strategy. Threaten to move jobs out of the US. Get concessions from state and/or federal government.

          Liked by 1 person

        3. I’d like to see the details of that deal. I can’t imagine Carrier is getting nothing in return.

          Liked by 2 people

        4. Vehement concurrence, Nicki. I did find an article or two about it, but haven’t dug in yet.

          Liked by 1 person

        5. I’ve found ones from about 4-5 hours ago so far with no details about the deal. If you see anything, please post!🙂

          Like

  6. Whatever legal fictions may be in place, the fact is that setting fire to an object is not a form of speech of any kind.

    Like

    1. It is if it signifies something and sends a message. It may not be one you like or agree with, but it’s a message. And if you set fire to an object that belongs to you, you’re violating no one else’s rights. So it’s property rights as well.

      Like

      1. It absolutely is property rights, and I support it on that basis. You are welcome to buy and burn whatever you like, local fire codes permitting. But calling it “speech” is absurd.

        Like

        1. By your definition, then, nothing but the spoken word qualifies as speech. No sign language, no music, no poetry, nothing. That’s absurd. Anything that expresses a sentiment or message IS speech.

          Liked by 2 people

        2. No, by my definition communication qualifies as speech. Aside from smoke signals, burning things is not communication. Again, I agree that burning a flag–or anything else–should not be a criminal offense. Calling it “speech” however is unnecessarily baroque.

          Like

        3. Aside from smoke signals, burning things is not communication.

          Only if you consider someone speaking in a language you do not, or choose not to, understand. When someone burns a flag as protest they are certainly communicating to me. they are sending the message that they are priviliged idiots denigrating the very freedoms that let them make their silly little protest. It may be a supid message, but it is a message and, therefore, communications.

          Your attempt to finely parse “communication”, and therefore “speech” to exclude physical acts like flag burning is the verbal equivalent of gerrymandering.

          Liked by 3 people

        4. Taking this position to it’s logical extreme, the State cannot legislate against anything, since every volitional act can communicate something.

          Like

        5. Taking this position to it’s logical extreme,

          Nope. That would be taking it to an illogical extreme. Just like in the example of your smoking your “right” to smoke does not circumvent what a property owner wants to permit on his or her property. Likewise your “right” to express yourself by swinging your arm (a form of sign language if you will) ends at the point of my nose.

          The State has no legitimate authority to legislate against anything that does not directly infringe on the rights of individuals. “To secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.” All laws in their ultimate extreme of non-compliance carry the death penalty. Only the preservation of the rights of the individual justify that level of sanction.

          Burning a flag deprives you of no rights. It may offend you but there is no right not to be offended.

          Like

        6. I agree that burning a flag should not be a crime. However, if it is defined as “speech” then the word “speech” becomes meaningless because there are no actions which are not speech.

          Like

        7. because there are no actions which are not speech.

          Intent matters. Do you really not see that something being done expressly and explicitly as political protest is qualitatively different from actions that are not so taken? Walking back and forth in front of, say, The Brady Campaign’s headquarters with a picture of a raped and murdered woman to protest their stance which would leave women defenseless against such attacks is qualitatively different from walking past because it happens to be on the way to lunch. In the one my intent is to send a message. In the other the only “message” is “I’m over here and want to be over there.”

          What makes something “speech” in terms of the Constitution and the First Amendment is the intent to send a message. People “getting” the message is irrelevant. If I shouted at you in Ancient Sumerian it would still be speech even if nobody within hearing understands it.

          Liked by 1 person

        8. When I get up and go to work every morning, pay my bills on time, and obey the law, my actions are every bit as political as marching and shouting. I don’t see the difference between someone wanting to send a message by burning a flag and me wanting to send a message by remaining calm and not burning anything.

          Like

        9. I don’t see the difference between someone wanting to send a message by burning a flag and me wanting to send a message by remaining calm and not burning anything.

          Wow. That’s just…wow.

          I think we’ll just leave it for the peanut gallery to decide which of us has better made their case here. Because…wow. The words kind of look like English but…

          Like

        10. My point is that either an action that is considered “speech” is treated just the same under the law as an action which is not considered “speech”– in which case the distinction is meaningless–or actions which would be unlawful if done for secular reasons become lawful when done for political reasons–which I feel is wrong.

          Like

        11. My point is that either an action that is considered “speech” is treated just the same under the law as an action which is not considered “speech”– in which case the distinction is meaningless–or actions which would be unlawful if done for secular reasons become lawful when done for political reasons–which I feel is wrong.

          That’s a complete non-sequitor. Really your “or” is not logically connected to its precedent.

          It’s not a matter of political reasons or not. It’s a matter of whether it violates someone else’s rights or not. You have the right to free speech. You do not have the right to break into my house to shout your speech in my ear. You have the right to assemble. You do not have the right to block my path and interfere with my rights to go about my lawful business. You have the right to religion. You do not have the right to kill me because I’m some kind of infidel. Thus your “or” does not follow.

          You’re basically demonstrating exactly why the Federalists like Hamilton objected to the inclusion of a Bill of Rights. That certain rights are called out in the Constitution (and speech–the intent to communicate to others, to express oneself, even non-verbally–is specifically called out for protection) then one will think that they, and only they, are protected and anything else is fair game.

          What makes speech, speech is intent to communicate. Sign language is still speech even though it involves physical actions. And it’s still speech even if I, personally, don’t understand it. Hell, someone might not even know what sign language is and it’s still speech.

          Do you want to claim that sign language isn’t speech? Because if not then you lose the claim that physical actions, when made with the intent of communicating ideas, aren’t speech. And it’s only the specific case of “flag burning” that you want to exclude. That’s called “special pleading” and it’s a logical fallacy for a reason.

          Like

        12. Obviously, I am failing to communicate here. Let me ask you this: In your opinion, are there any actions that would be unlawful if done for personal reasons that would not be unlawful if done as an attempt to communicate? Contrariwise, are there any actions that are lawful to do for personal reasons that would become unlawful if done as an attempt to communicate?

          That is my point. If burning a flag is legal (and I believe that it is, and it should be) then it should be legal whether I am doing it as part of a protest or whether I’m just cold and need something to start my fire.

          My point is that deciding if something that is not spoken or written communication is, in fact, by some definition “speech” is irrelevant. The law should not care why someone does something. Either a law was broken or it wasn’t.

          Like

        13. My point is that deciding if something that is not spoken or written communication is, in fact, by some definition “speech” is irrelevant. And that sound you hear is the goalposts being ripped out of the ground and hurled far down the field. For something that you have just called “irrelevant” you’ve certainly spent a lot of time trying to define flag burning as political protest as _not_ being speech.

          By attempting to limit what the First Amendment applies to to the actual spoken word, you are falling into the same fallacy that folk fall into when they claim that the 2nd only applies to those specific arms available in the late 18th century. And the 4th does not apply to any modern technological methods of search and surveillance. You have to look at what the 1st is _for_. It’s purpose, the reason that things like speech and press are bundled in with “petition the government for redress of grievance”. It’s there for the express purpose of allowing dissent.

          Ideally, in my perfect world, nothing would be illegal that did not forcibly and directly infringe on another’s rights. But that’s not the world we have.

          Congress, in 1989 passed a law specifically forbidding burning the flag as political protest. The proper method of disposing of a flag that has become soiled or damaged is burning which this law did not change. Instead it was the use “as speech” that was legally censured.

          The next year the Supreme Court ruled that, no, the government could not do that. That burning the flag as political protest was protected by the First Amendment. If the government had not tried to ban it there would have been no need for the ruling. That “not the world we have” is why we have the ruling that, yes, burning the flag as political protest counts as “free speech”.

          Note that this is exactly backward from your earlier claim of “things that would be illegal normally that become legal when done as political protest.” We had something legal normally, but was made illegal when done as political protest.

          And saying “no, you can’t do that” is why burning the flag was declared part of “free speech.”

          Like

        14. Dude – you seriously sound like an SJW. Anything and everything is political! Come on! That’s absolutely ridiculous. You living your life is not even close to actively sending a message! Good lord, you’ve literally just gone full Derp!

          Like

        15. Look, if burning a flag is protected speech then I should be able to draw flags on my cigarettes and smoke anywhere.

          Like

        16. Luckily the Supreme Court does not agree with your opinion.

          Like

        17. Go for it. Just don’t do it indoors… that whole infringe on the rights of others thing applies.

          Liked by 1 person

        18. I should be able to draw flags on my cigarettes and smoke anywhere.

          If you wanted to do that as a protest against stupid anti-smoking laws (don’t smoke, can’t stand to be around the stuff–my throat closes up, but absolutely opposed to anti-smoking laws) go for it. You don’t even need to draw the flag on it. Smoking the cigarette itself would qualify as far as I am concerned. (Civil Disobedience for the win.)

          However, if the property owner asks you to take it elsewhere, then that’s what you have to do because while you have a right to free speech you do not have the right to be on someone else’s property and they have the perfect right to deny or rescind permission for you to be there.

          Liked by 1 person

        19. WWatch the video (a bit after 8:00). Scalia expressly says speech is not limited to verbal expression. It could be (as examples) sign language, or semaphore. The key is the conveyance of a message.

          Liked by 2 people

        20. Wow, you and I must share a brain this morning! LOL!

          Like

        21. So…if you saw me burn the american flag on my front lawn (Let’s pretend i had a front lawn here for a moment), that would tell you nothing of my political position and you would not read it as a statement of any kind? You would think “gee…i don’t know how those guys views are. Maybe he is a america loving, old school conservative who thinks we live in a great nation, or maybe not”? Seeing this act would not, in any way, communicate a political stance to you?

          Liked by 1 person

        22. Context is important.

          If you are standing around with a troop of boy scouts I’d likely assume you are destroying a flag that had been defiled in some way.

          If you were parading around your yard with mannequin hanging on a pole and chanting about the ‘Great Satan’ I’d likely assume you were showing your ass for the neighbors to see because you wanted attention.

          Like

  7. I have been in discussions here before about this. I support your right to disrespect the flag, but don’t do it near me. Just like you can call my wife a vile name, as protected free speech. Just don’t let me hear you do it. I know that there are some who can’t understand how I can say this. My own personal decision, I am not asking you to agree or understand.

    Like

    1. I don’t we disagree as much as you might think. I don’t know for sure what I’d do if someone burned a flag in front of me. At the very least, I’d point out that what they were doing was protected by the country they were in.
      What I do NOT support is a government agent stopping them.

      Like

    2. I totally understand and agree with your sentiments. Such speech is protected from government infringement. It’s certainly NOT protected from consequences writ large.

      Liked by 1 person

      1. However they need to remember that assault and battery (implied by the “don’t do it near me” also has consequences.

        Liked by 1 person

        1. Honestly, I’d be willing to face the consequences that come with an assault charge, fully knowing what that means if someone did that in front of me.

          Liked by 3 people

        2. And that’s why jury nullification is a thing.

          Like

  8. …just another liberal hater

    󾓦󾓦󾓦󾓦󾓦󾓦󾓦󾓦󾓦󾓦󾓦󾓦󾓦

    There are some American’s who love our Country and the American Flag

    Funny how burn the flag leads to burning cars and burning cities and towns down followed by riots and looting

    A little “respect” goes a long way

    Like

    1. Are you fucking retarded? Me??? A LIBERAL??? Jesus Rollerskating Christ! Go lick a fucking window.

      Liked by 5 people

      1. The Unknown Professor | Reply

        they obviously haven’t (or can’t) read your blog.

        Liked by 1 person

        1. Or incapable of understanding it. LOL!

          Liked by 1 person

    2. …just another liberal hater

      Hey, thank you. I’ve been spending a week in the PRK away from my beloved “Assault Rifles” and needed the laugh. This was hilarious.

      Fucking dumbass. He’s probably too stupid to even lick a window, Nicki.

      Like

  9. I hope you got r(a)ped in the army

    (Note from Nicki: this… thing – I mean, you can hardly call it a human – posted this comment in the middle of the night. I decided to leave it up to show just how repulsive some people are. It posted a State Department email address. I don’t think this… thing works at State, because that’s not how State department emails are structured, but I did want to demonstrate how pathetic these impotent losers are.)

    IP address is in Maryland – a Comcast account – 73.135.113.14

    IP address73.135.113.14
    Hostnamec-73-135-113-14.hsd1.md.comcast.net

    Location of IP address 73.135.113.14
    Lookup information about the location associated with the IP address 73.135.113.14.

    CityHavre de Grace (30% confidence)
    Metrocode512 (Maryland, Baltimore MD)
    SubdivisionMaryland (MD) (90% confidence)
    CountryUnited States (US) (99% confidence)
    Postalcode21078 (30% confidence)
    ContinentNorth America (NA)
    Time zoneAmerica/New_York

    ASN and ISP for IP address 73.135.113.14
    General traits like organisation, autonomous system number (ASN) and ISP associated with the IP address 73.135.113.14.

    ISPComcast Cable
    OrganizationComcast Cable
    User typeresidential
    Autonomous system number (ASN)7922
    Autonomous system organizationComcast Cable Communications, LLC
    domaincomcast.net

    Anonymous proxy?No
    Satellite provider?No

    Like

    1. De’andre,
      I doubt anyone had the ability to Tassie Nicki, that’s one tough woman. On the other hand I heard you got passed around like the collection plate at church.

      Like

    2. Look at this little twatwaffle that should’ve been swallowed by its daddy. Go back in your little hole that your crawled out of and leave the adults to talk and make sensible debates. By the way I feel bad for your parents because you definitely are a disappointment and your parents would’ve saved a lot of money by just aborting your dumbass.

      Like

      1. To misquote Shakespeare; it’s the delivery nurse’s fault, she threw out the baby and kept the afterbirth.

        Like

  10. I find it ironic that the regressive left is chirping at Trump on this, since it is they that are the ones getting people fired from jobs for speech. It is they who are freaking out on college campus across the nation, squelching the speech rights of conservatives they disagree with. It is they who are banning people from social media.
    I will take a lecture about free speech from the likes of _them_ when hell freezes over.

    Like

    1. It’s not just the left. I’m certainly not a leftist. It’s anyone who respects free speech.

      Liked by 2 people

    2. I would also like to point out that publishing peoples free speech and reporting it to their employer and trying to pressure said employer into making the decision as a privat business to fire someone, while shitty behaviour, is not the same thing as asking the Goverment to come and arrest them.

      Like

      1. Yep, although, as you said, that’s reprehensible in and of itself.

        Liked by 1 person

  11. I’m starting to realize something here:

    Every time Trump spouts out one of his nonsensical tweets, or otherwise says or does something that ends up tying up the news cycle, it is usually a distraction from something that he DOESN’T want the news cycle to be talking about.

    So, I’m going to start looking for whatever it is that we SHOULD be focusing on, instead of all of this stupid shit.

    Like maybe all of his conflicts of interest…

    Like

    1. I’ve started to wonder about this as well; I’m not sure if I’m more concerned about a POTUS-elect having anti-Liberty sentiments…….or one who will expend the bandwidth the troll the media…and by extension, the American public…….

      Like

    2. Well, it’s hardly a singularly “Trump” phenomenon.

      This past year we have certainly gotten a significant number of “stupid politician tricks” (both “R” & “D”) and/or “distractive media cover” (almost exclusively “D”) virtually every time said politician runs into any kind of difficulty, regardless of party affiliation.

      Like

  12. The comments on this post seem to explain the basis of Trump’s tweets:

    http://www.pagunblog.com/2016/11/29/well-that-didnt-take-long/#comments

    Like

We Want To Hear What You Have To Say

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: