Police Disperse Peaceful Protesters With Tear Gas for Trump's Bible Photo-Op

[wing2000]

Yup. Here is a review of that by a lawyer that does legal reviews on all sort of legal topics. This is the first time I have seen him this emotional about a topic.

As he says in the video, this was timed to clear the park so that when Trump was done with his speech he could just walk across the park to the church for a photo op. And the next day, a video was released by the WH of that to music. A clear campaign piece.

And I don't think Trump has hit bottom yet. I think that is to come.

...and literally beating an Australian camera crew. Is this Beijing or Washington DC?

 

[Paulos23]

...and literally beating an Australian camera crew. Is this Beijing or Washington DC?

I fear that Trump wants his version of Tiananmen Square.

 

[wing2000]

Trump's vision of America

 

[stevil]

And I don't think Trump has hit bottom yet. I think that is to come.

It's disgusting behaviour. And highly hypocritical given his support of the predominately white protests against social distancing and lockdown.

But not unexpected given the track record of this president and his character.
Yet again his actions would give those supporters of his that belong to white supremacist groups reason to celebrate.

 

[lasthero]

If this the ‘great America’ Trump campaigned on? I don’t much like it.

 

[Bibocious]

Yup. Here is a review of that by a lawyer that does legal reviews on all sort of legal topics. This is the first time I have seen him this emotional about a topic.

As he says in the video, this was timed to clear the park so that when Trump was done with his speech he could just walk across the park to the church for a photo op. And the next day, a video was released by the WH of that to music. A clear campaign piece.

And I don't think Trump has hit bottom yet. I think that is to come.

There is not a whole lot the protestors in DC can do about abuse. The District of Columbia operates under local law created by The Act of 1871 when THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA was incorporated. Federal troops can pretty much do whatever they want if so ordered. "People" do not have the protection of the Constitution on foreign soil. DC is foreign soil, ruled by London, and both owned by the Vatican. Your three districts represented by the three stars on the DC flag.

 

[wing2000]

DC is foreign soil, ruled by London, and both owned by the Vatican.

...that may come as a surprise to the D.C. Mayor and City Council.

 

[Bibocious]

...that may come as a surprise to the D.C. Mayor and City Council.

He is a municipal manager...D.C. Law Library - § 32–1005. Authority of Mayor.

 

[wing2000]

He is a municipal manager...D.C. Law Library - § 32–1005. Authority of Mayor.

...no mention of London nor the Vatican...

 

[Bibocious]

...no mention of London nor the Vatican...

Sorry, I thought you were saying he had authority in DC. The President can order federal troops to do whatever he wants in DC, that was my point. In order for you to understand how after the Civil War our nation was broke, why they incorporated the nation, and how all that ties into the banking elites in London, and how the Treaty of 1213 gives the Pope ownership, you will have to do your own research. I do not necessarily agree with everything on this site, but you can start here: THE TWO US CONSTITUTIONS | National Liberty Alliance.

 

[Bibocious]

...no mention of London nor the Vatican...

Here is some more info concerning the 14th Amendment I came across while researching the Expatriation Act of 1868, I believe it ties in to this:

 

[Belk]

Unless of course he is enforcing the lawful orders of the elected governor, which he is required to do regardless of his personal feelings on the subject.

Oh, so there was no tyranny? Imagine that.

 

[BNR32FAN]

Trump's vision of America

View attachment 278191

What, you mean no tolerance for unacceptable behavior like rioting and looting? I think he’s trying to make a statement that law enforcement agencies will not back down and they will uphold the law. Their goal is to protect and serve.

 

[Evan Jellicoe]

In order for you to understand how after the Civil War our nation was broke, why they incorporated the nation, and how all that ties into the banking elites in London, and how the Treaty of 1213 gives the Pope ownership, you will have to do your own research. I do not necessarily agree with everything on this site, but you can start here: THE TWO US CONSTITUTIONS | National Liberty Alliance.

I did, because I had never heard this claim before. The main point--that the District of Columbia is foreign territory, and that it is controlled by London and the Vatican, is, to phrase it gently, simply incorrect. And I worked from your source.

There is much to analyze, but I am going to point to just one single thing: a truly terrible grammatical misunderstanding. That source you give quotes this sentence from the 1783 Treaty of Paris to "prove" that the treaty ignored the fact that America had won the war, by apparently stating that "Prince George" was the supreme potentate over a list of territories "and the United States of America."
No. That is an inexcusable misreading of the grammar. I have copied the relevant sentence below, with the important words bolded:
"It having pleased the Divine Providence to dispose the Hearts of the most Serene and most Potent Prince George the Third, by the Grace of God, King of Great Britain, France, and Ireland, Defender of the Faith, Duke of Brunswick and Lunebourg, Arch- Treasurer and Prince Elector of the Holy Roman Empire etc.. and of the United States of America. . ."
That is, this was a treaty between Prince (King) George III and the United States of America. And anybody who could misread a sentence so horribly cannot be counted on to give reliable information in other areas. That whole claim of "two Constitutions" is wrong to the point of being silly, and is not to be taken at all seriously.

 

[Bibocious]

I did, because I had never heard this claim before. The main point--that the District of Columbia is foreign territory, and that it is controlled by London and the Vatican, is, to phrase it gently, simply incorrect. And I worked from your source.

There is much to analyze, but I am going to point to just one single thing: a truly terrible grammatical misunderstanding. That source you give quotes this sentence from the 1783 Treaty of Paris to "prove" that the treaty ignored the fact that America had won the war, by apparently stating that "Prince George" was the supreme potentate over a list of territories "and the United States of America."
No. That is an inexcusable misreading of the grammar. I have copied the relevant sentence below, with the important words bolded:
"It having pleased the Divine Providence to dispose the Hearts of the most Serene and most Potent Prince George the Third, by the Grace of God, King of Great Britain, France, and Ireland, Defender of the Faith, Duke of Brunswick and Lunebourg, Arch- Treasurer and Prince Elector of the Holy Roman Empire etc.. and of the United States of America. . ."
That is, this was a treaty between Prince (King) George III and the United States of America. And anybody who could misread a sentence so horribly cannot be counted on to give reliable information in other areas. That whole claim of "two Constitutions" is wrong to the point of being silly, and is not to be taken at all seriously.

I think I prefaced my earlier statement with, “I do not necessarily agree with everything on this site.” You can believe what you want to believe, but the fact remains that DC is not a State, and that the Federal government is in charge there.

 

[Pommer]

The original Constitution was created with Christian dogma in mind, that is, the true Christian is not under the law, and an extension of which is We the People are not under law.

Firstly, WELCOME to CF, American Politics, good ol’ forum 909
Show us “freedom of speech”, there in the Bible.

 

[Bibocious]

Firstly, WELCOME to CF, American Politics, good ol’ forum 909
Show us “freedom of speech”, there in the Bible.

Thank you. I do not understand, do you believe God did not give you the ability to talk?

 

[BNR32FAN]

Minneapolis Police Use Force Against Black People at 7 Times the Rate of Whites

Edit: updated link to the full article

This is circumstantial evidence the media uses to inflate the situation. Without knowing the details of these cases you have no way of knowing if the use of force was justified or not. You would think we would see more cases or reports of police brutality if this wasn’t an isolated case with brother Floyd but the fact is we don’t. None, zero, zip. My heart goes out to his family and the men responsible for this should face criminal charges and punishment no doubt, but this has turned into an all out war between citizens and the police that resulted in extremely unacceptable behavior on the citizen’s part. There’s not even any evidence that supports this being a racial hate crime and even if it was again the entire police department is not responsible for the incident. They have laws and rules set in place forbidding this type of behavior which is why all of them were immediately fired and an investigation was launched to discern whether or not these men would face criminal charges which they are going to. Last I heard two of them have already been arrested and they have arrest warrants issued for the other two. They may already have them in custody by now. The authorities ARE handling the situation accordingly and yet people are still blaming the department for this unfortunate event. The police department can’t know who will break their policies and who won’t. The best they can do is handle the matter as it presents itself. Now we have complete chaos with fires, robbing, looting, rioting, all because one man killed another man and everyone wants to point the finger at the wrong people and blame the entire police force for the actions of one man. IT IS NO DIFFERENT THAN SEEING 4 BLACK MEN ROB A LIQUOR STORE AND SAYING ALL BLACKS ARE CRIMINALS!! It’s the same exact mentality. HOW MANY LIVES HAVE THESE OFFICERS SAVED RISKING THEIR LIFE IN THE LINE OF DUTY? Nobody wants to think about that. Who do you call when your life is being threatened? You do you call to come and save those you love when their life is being threatened? Most of these people who are being blamed for Floyd’s death are heroes and don’t deserve the treatment their receiving.

 

[Pommer]

There's 800,000 law enforcement officers in the United States. Think of it as 8 NFL sized football stadiums and in every seat there is a cop. Isn't it reasonable to conclude that at any one time you could have even a few hundred of bad cops doing stupid things. They'd fill up only on very small section of one stadium.

So what if we're going to talk about REALITY what can anyone reasonably hope to achieve? Are the expectations that a country can create a brand new UTOPIA where you'll NEVER, EVER, EVER see an atrocity take place again? Because we know that's not possible for the sheer numbers of cops in the nation would make that impossible (you can even have 5% go off the rails) so what do we do....destroy the nation each and every time these take place when maybe 95% of cops are good?

So what's the answer. Police YES need to work doubly hard to show that they're trying. Granted I think police unions need to back off from always wanting to get a cop off of complaints. If they've got multiple, multiple things like that on their record it doesn't seem quite right. Some have suggested that maybe they need to federalize all police....have one training program.....on the flip side of that though....a slippery slope......a very easy way to slide into having a national dictator.

All I"m saying there's things that can be done, and should be done and it'll always be a thing that police have to look at it honestly and sincerely however there will be NO some new UTOPIA of zero problems. If this actually becomes the demand with 800K officers and we won't actually allow PEACE until UTOPIA is realized than I'd think most would agree nation is doomed. It'd have be for you just aren't going to have 800,000 always be doing the right thing.

The old canard, (at this point), “but the VAST majority are good cops!”, completely misses the point that “obviously something is ‘unequal’ somewhere, because the outcomes are disproportionately skewed reflecting the fact that police stop and encounter black folk more often (yet without any more ‘reason’ than ‘matching a description’).”!

Why do cops have disproportionate numbers of run-ins with black people?
Why might that be!?

 

[stevil]

What, you mean no tolerance for unacceptable behavior like rioting and looting? I think he’s trying to make a statement that law enforcement agencies will not back down and they will uphold the law. Their goal is to protect and serve.

That's a great narrative, but back in the land of reality there was no rioting, no looting going on outside the White house where peaceful protesters were tear gassed and shot at.