Farrakhan the Traitor

[RodISHI]

Calling for death to our nation is not covered by the first.

Bullshit.

Prove me wrong and quote where the Constitution says that.

Or perhaps you have SCOTUS interpretations that would apply. Roll 'em.

What types of speech are not protected by the First Amendment?
Although different scholars view unprotected speech in different ways, there are basically nine categories:

• Obscenity.
• Fighting
  
• Defamation (including libel and slander)
• Child pornography.
• Perjury.
• Blackmail.
• Incitement to imminent lawless action.
• True threats.

Nope, nothing there.

Once AGAIN you can't "hang", "shoot", "drone strike" or "imprison" somebody for their speech, even if it were in English and in context, thus spake the First Amendment and there's nothing you can do about that short of a Constitutional Convention. Because that Constitution specifically states that no such law may be passed. Period.

I did not say anything about "hang", "shoot", "drone strike" or "imprison" somebody for their speech.

You may not have but several others did, starting with the OP right at the beginning. Read the thread.

There are several laws which can be applied to prosecute him for his acts against us. There is a history of convictions upheld by the Supreme Court. Apparently you are too lazy to look or do not want to know. Title 50 of the United States Code also outlines the role of War and National Defense in the United States Code. The Supreme Court invented the famous "clear and present danger" test to determine when a state could constitutionally limit an individual's free speech rights under the First Amendment.

The Smith Act made it unlawful to advocate or organize the destruction or overthrow of any government in the United States by force.

Dennis v. United States, 341 U.S. 494 1951. Convicted under provisions of the Smith Act for conspiring and organizing for the overthrow and destruction of the United States government by force and violence.

Schenck v. United States, 249 U.S. 47 1919. Upheld conviction with the Espionage Act for "inciting violent overthrow".

Frohwerk v. United States, 249 U.S. 204 1919. A newspaper man conviction with the Espionage Act "willful obstruction".

There is enough information out there online for the subject that you do not have to remain ignorant on the matter. Home - Supreme Court of the United States

You already cited you laundry list of SCOTUS scenaria and none of them apply here.

Your Smith Act met up with its deserved SCOTUS stop sign numerous times as unConstitutional. I'm referring to that Constitution, not abuses of it like the Smith Act and Sedition Acts and freaking blasphemy laws. The Constitution trumps 'em.

They all apply dumbass. You can say whatever you want but there can be consequences for what you say. You don't get to call for war ("death to America") against the USA with some Middle Eastern hate mongering regime. I hope they fry his ass if that is what he has done.

10 U.S. Code § 894 - Art. 94. Mutiny or sedition | US Law | LII / Legal ...

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/894
with intent to usurp or override lawful military authority, refuses, in concert with any other person, to obey orders or otherwise do his duty or creates any violence ...
[USC03] 18 USC Ch. 115: TREASON, SEDITION, AND SUBVERSIVE ...

uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?path=/prelim@title18/part1/chapter115&edition...
CHAPTER 115 —TREASON, SEDITION, AND SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES. Sec. ... Section consolidates sections 1 and 2 of title 18 , U.S.C., 1940 ed. ..... Sections 34, 35, and 37 of title 50 , U.S.C., 1940 ed., War and National Defense, are also ...
U.S.C. Title 50 - WAR AND NATIONAL DEFENSE

https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/USCODE-2011-title50/html/USCODE-2011-title50.htm
50 U.S.C.. United States Code, 2011 Edition Title 50 - WAR AND NATIONAL DEFENSE ..... 219, related to seditious or disloyal acts or words in time of war.
18 U.S.C. 115 - TREASON, SEDITION, AND SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES

https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/.../USCODE...title18/USCODE-2010-title18-partI-chap115
Jan 7, 2011 - United States Code, 2006 Edition, Supplement 4, Title 18 - CRIMES AND CRIMINAL .... CHAPTER 50 - GAMBLING (sections 1081 - 1084).

 

[Faun]

He should be arrested and dealt with as a traitor. He should hang.

Louis Farrakhan, Nation of Islam leader, leads 'Death to America' chant in Iran

You mean THIS Farrakhan...?

View attachment 227072

Oh? What’s Obama’s relationship with Farrakhan? Expand...

Close enough for photo ops right? Didn’t obamaturd say he would stand with the Muslims? Yes, I think he did.

I have a photo of myself and my wife with Bill Clinton taken at a speech he gave. Yet that offers no proof that Obama is any closer to Farrakhan than I am with Clinton, which is not at all.

Define "any closer". There was a reason that Obama was photographed hanging with that anti Semitic shit bag Louis Farrakhan. I'm surprised Jeremiah Wright, also an admirer and fan of Farrakhan, wasn't there.

These are the sort of weak transparent denials we used to get all the time when Barry Obama was in office.

Any closer, as in Obama was in the same room as Farrakhan just as I was in the same room as Clinton.

So let’s see your evidence that Obama was ”hanging” with Farrakhan.....

 

[Pogo]

Calling for death to our nation is not covered by the first.

Bullshit.

Prove me wrong and quote where the Constitution says that.

Or perhaps you have SCOTUS interpretations that would apply. Roll 'em.

What types of speech are not protected by the First Amendment?
Although different scholars view unprotected speech in different ways, there are basically nine categories:

• Obscenity.
• Fighting
  
• Defamation (including libel and slander)
• Child pornography.
• Perjury.
• Blackmail.
• Incitement to imminent lawless action.
• True threats.

Nope, nothing there.

Once AGAIN you can't "hang", "shoot", "drone strike" or "imprison" somebody for their speech, even if it were in English and in context, thus spake the First Amendment and there's nothing you can do about that short of a Constitutional Convention. Because that Constitution specifically states that no such law may be passed. Period.

I did not say anything about "hang", "shoot", "drone strike" or "imprison" somebody for their speech.

You may not have but several others did, starting with the OP right at the beginning. Read the thread.

There are several laws which can be applied to prosecute him for his acts against us. There is a history of convictions upheld by the Supreme Court. Apparently you are too lazy to look or do not want to know. Title 50 of the United States Code also outlines the role of War and National Defense in the United States Code. The Supreme Court invented the famous "clear and present danger" test to determine when a state could constitutionally limit an individual's free speech rights under the First Amendment.

The Smith Act made it unlawful to advocate or organize the destruction or overthrow of any government in the United States by force.

Dennis v. United States, 341 U.S. 494 1951. Convicted under provisions of the Smith Act for conspiring and organizing for the overthrow and destruction of the United States government by force and violence.

Schenck v. United States, 249 U.S. 47 1919. Upheld conviction with the Espionage Act for "inciting violent overthrow".

Frohwerk v. United States, 249 U.S. 204 1919. A newspaper man conviction with the Espionage Act "willful obstruction".

There is enough information out there online for the subject that you do not have to remain ignorant on the matter. Home - Supreme Court of the United States

You already cited you laundry list of SCOTUS scenaria and none of them apply here.

Your Smith Act met up with its deserved SCOTUS stop sign numerous times as unConstitutional. I'm referring to that Constitution, not abuses of it like the Smith Act and Sedition Acts and freaking blasphemy laws. The Constitution trumps 'em.

They all apply dumbass. You can say whatever you want but there can be consequences for what you say. You don't get to call for war ("death to America") against the USA with some Middle Eastern hate mongering regime. I hope they fry his ass if that is what he has done.

First of all neither you nor I even know what he said out there. There's a video of him speaking in Farsi --- which I don't speak and I assume you don't either --- purportedly interpreted via fucking Twitter, and including *NONE* of the context. If that's what passes for a reliable source on your planet for "frying" people you're gonna have quite a stench in the air. You're also a moron.

Second, as you just admitted you CAN'T "fry" people for what they say. If you "can say whatever you want" then there are not consequences; if there are consequences you can't "say what you want". The two are mutually exclusive; you can't have it both ways.

Needless to say you can't proverbially yell fire in a crowded theater that isn't on fire, but once AGAIN none of your cherrypicks apply here, even if you're standards ARE so nebulous that you accept fucking Tweeter as your interpreter.

10 U.S. Code § 894 - Art. 94. Mutiny or sedition | US Law | LII / Legal ...

10 U.S. Code § 894 - Art. 94. Mutiny or sedition
with intent to usurp or override lawful military authority, refuses, in concert with any other person, to obey orders or otherwise do his duty or creates any violence ...
[USC03] 18 USC Ch. 115: TREASON, SEDITION, AND SUBVERSIVE ...


uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?path=/prelim@title18/part1/chapter115&edition...
CHAPTER 115 —TREASON, SEDITION, AND SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES. Sec. ... Section consolidates sections 1 and 2 of title 18 , U.S.C., 1940 ed. ..... Sections 34, 35, and 37 of title 50 , U.S.C., 1940 ed., War and National Defense, are also ...
U.S.C. Title 50 - WAR AND NATIONAL DEFENSE

U.S.C. Title 50 - WAR AND NATIONAL DEFENSE
50 U.S.C.. United States Code, 2011 Edition Title 50 - WAR AND NATIONAL DEFENSE ..... 219, related to seditious or disloyal acts or words in time of war.
18 U.S.C. 115 - TREASON, SEDITION, AND SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES

https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/.../USCODE...title18/USCODE-2010-title18-partI-chap115
Jan 7, 2011 - United States Code, 2006 Edition, Supplement 4, Title 18 - CRIMES AND CRIMINAL .... CHAPTER 50 - GAMBLING (sections 1081 - 1084).

--- Does not apply. We are not at war. Nothing in even the Tweeterterp says anything about "usurping or overriding any kind of military authority" or anything about anybody's "orders" anywhere.

I don't know what about this continues to fly over pointed hoods, I really don't. You CANNOT legislate policed opinion in this country, PERIOD. That's the cornerstone of our whole gig here. That's Right Number One. Literally. This ain't North Korea.

"Prosecution calls as its first witness ---- Twitter". Come on, man.

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

You mean THIS Farrakhan...?

View attachment 227072

Oh? What’s Obama’s relationship with Farrakhan? Expand...

Close enough for photo ops right? Didn’t obamaturd say he would stand with the Muslims? Yes, I think he did.

I have a photo of myself and my wife with Bill Clinton taken at a speech he gave. Yet that offers no proof that Obama is any closer to Farrakhan than I am with Clinton, which is not at all.

Define "any closer". There was a reason that Obama was photographed hanging with that anti Semitic shit bag Louis Farrakhan. I'm surprised Jeremiah Wright, also an admirer and fan of Farrakhan, wasn't there.

These are the sort of weak transparent denials we used to get all the time when Barry Obama was in office.

Any closer, as in Obama was in the same room as Farrakhan just as I was in the same room as Clinton.

So let’s see your evidence that Obama was ”hanging” with Farrakhan.....

Obama's Farrakhan Problem
Whether you accept the evidence or not is another matter, but it's there...unless you wants photos of Farrakhan and Obama on a camping trip or carving pumpkins together. Deal with it.

 

[Pogo]

Oh? What’s Obama’s relationship with Farrakhan? Expand...

Close enough for photo ops right? Didn’t obamaturd say he would stand with the Muslims? Yes, I think he did.

I have a photo of myself and my wife with Bill Clinton taken at a speech he gave. Yet that offers no proof that Obama is any closer to Farrakhan than I am with Clinton, which is not at all.

Define "any closer". There was a reason that Obama was photographed hanging with that anti Semitic shit bag Louis Farrakhan. I'm surprised Jeremiah Wright, also an admirer and fan of Farrakhan, wasn't there.

These are the sort of weak transparent denials we used to get all the time when Barry Obama was in office.

Any closer, as in Obama was in the same room as Farrakhan just as I was in the same room as Clinton.

So let’s see your evidence that Obama was ”hanging” with Farrakhan.....

Obama's Farrakhan Problem
Whether you accept the evidence or not is another matter, but it's there...unless you wants photos of Farrakhan and Obama on a camping trip or carving pumpkins together. Deal with it.

Deal with this, Dimbulb. Today's lesson in climbing out of the Moron Hole.

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

Close enough for photo ops right? Didn’t obamaturd say he would stand with the Muslims? Yes, I think he did.

I have a photo of myself and my wife with Bill Clinton taken at a speech he gave. Yet that offers no proof that Obama is any closer to Farrakhan than I am with Clinton, which is not at all.

Define "any closer". There was a reason that Obama was photographed hanging with that anti Semitic shit bag Louis Farrakhan. I'm surprised Jeremiah Wright, also an admirer and fan of Farrakhan, wasn't there.

These are the sort of weak transparent denials we used to get all the time when Barry Obama was in office.

Any closer, as in Obama was in the same room as Farrakhan just as I was in the same room as Clinton.

So let’s see your evidence that Obama was ”hanging” with Farrakhan.....

Obama's Farrakhan Problem
Whether you accept the evidence or not is another matter, but it's there...unless you wants photos of Farrakhan and Obama on a camping trip or carving pumpkins together. Deal with it.

Deal with this, Dimbulb. Today's lesson in climbing out of the Moron Hole.

Your name calling brands you as a loser before you even start. Read my link. There is no "guilt by association".
That's a straw man the left props up every time one of Obama's radical pals is brought up.
Back in the moron hole you go.

 

[Faun]

Oh? What’s Obama’s relationship with Farrakhan? Expand...

Close enough for photo ops right? Didn’t obamaturd say he would stand with the Muslims? Yes, I think he did.

I have a photo of myself and my wife with Bill Clinton taken at a speech he gave. Yet that offers no proof that Obama is any closer to Farrakhan than I am with Clinton, which is not at all.

Define "any closer". There was a reason that Obama was photographed hanging with that anti Semitic shit bag Louis Farrakhan. I'm surprised Jeremiah Wright, also an admirer and fan of Farrakhan, wasn't there.

These are the sort of weak transparent denials we used to get all the time when Barry Obama was in office.

Any closer, as in Obama was in the same room as Farrakhan just as I was in the same room as Clinton.

So let’s see your evidence that Obama was ”hanging” with Farrakhan.....

Obama's Farrakhan Problem
Whether you accept the evidence or not is another matter, but it's there...unless you wants photos of Farrakhan and Obama on a camping trip or carving pumpkins together. Deal with it.

LOL

There’s nothing to accept in that... it doesn’t establish any connection between Obama and Farrakhan.

So nothing to deal with.

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

Close enough for photo ops right? Didn’t obamaturd say he would stand with the Muslims? Yes, I think he did.

I have a photo of myself and my wife with Bill Clinton taken at a speech he gave. Yet that offers no proof that Obama is any closer to Farrakhan than I am with Clinton, which is not at all.

Define "any closer". There was a reason that Obama was photographed hanging with that anti Semitic shit bag Louis Farrakhan. I'm surprised Jeremiah Wright, also an admirer and fan of Farrakhan, wasn't there.

These are the sort of weak transparent denials we used to get all the time when Barry Obama was in office.

Any closer, as in Obama was in the same room as Farrakhan just as I was in the same room as Clinton.

So let’s see your evidence that Obama was ”hanging” with Farrakhan.....

Obama's Farrakhan Problem
Whether you accept the evidence or not is another matter, but it's there...unless you wants photos of Farrakhan and Obama on a camping trip or carving pumpkins together. Deal with it.

LOL

There’s nothing to accept in that... it doesn’t establish any connection between Obama and Farrakhan.

So nothing to deal with.

Short of a hand written agreement between Obama and Farrakhan to be bestest buddies (witnessed by Keith Ellison) I doubt anything would cause you to admit a connection.
Your admission is not required nor expected.

 

[Rustic]

Close enough for photo ops right? Didn’t obamaturd say he would stand with the Muslims? Yes, I think he did.

I have a photo of myself and my wife with Bill Clinton taken at a speech he gave. Yet that offers no proof that Obama is any closer to Farrakhan than I am with Clinton, which is not at all.

Define "any closer". There was a reason that Obama was photographed hanging with that anti Semitic shit bag Louis Farrakhan. I'm surprised Jeremiah Wright, also an admirer and fan of Farrakhan, wasn't there.

These are the sort of weak transparent denials we used to get all the time when Barry Obama was in office.

Any closer, as in Obama was in the same room as Farrakhan just as I was in the same room as Clinton.

So let’s see your evidence that Obama was ”hanging” with Farrakhan.....

Obama's Farrakhan Problem
Whether you accept the evidence or not is another matter, but it's there...unless you wants photos of Farrakhan and Obama on a camping trip or carving pumpkins together. Deal with it.

LOL

There’s nothing to accept in that... it doesn’t establish any connection between Obama and Farrakhan.

So nothing to deal with.

Louis Farrakhan is your typical Muslim

 

[Joann Stubbs]

He should be arrested and dealt with as a traitor. He should hang.

Louis Farrakhan, Nation of Islam leader, leads 'Death to America' chant in Iran

The Bro is a nut job not much diff than Jim Jones.

 

[Joann Stubbs]

He should be arrested and dealt with as a traitor. He should hang.

Louis Farrakhan, Nation of Islam leader, leads 'Death to America' chant in Iran

He has been throwing that crap out to the followers since 1960s and has not added anything new since. Just about as bad and worn out as the old race card.

Like some Mexicans don’t rape.

Oh, that would be Republicans.

Jim Crowe laws? Oops, that would be Republicans too.

Willie Horton. No, that would be Republicans too.

Guns just over the border in Mexico.

 

[WEATHER53]

Him, Acosta and Braless Ford need to share the same jail cell

 

[Faun]

I have a photo of myself and my wife with Bill Clinton taken at a speech he gave. Yet that offers no proof that Obama is any closer to Farrakhan than I am with Clinton, which is not at all.

Define "any closer". There was a reason that Obama was photographed hanging with that anti Semitic shit bag Louis Farrakhan. I'm surprised Jeremiah Wright, also an admirer and fan of Farrakhan, wasn't there.

These are the sort of weak transparent denials we used to get all the time when Barry Obama was in office.

Any closer, as in Obama was in the same room as Farrakhan just as I was in the same room as Clinton.

So let’s see your evidence that Obama was ”hanging” with Farrakhan.....

Obama's Farrakhan Problem
Whether you accept the evidence or not is another matter, but it's there...unless you wants photos of Farrakhan and Obama on a camping trip or carving pumpkins together. Deal with it.

LOL

There’s nothing to accept in that... it doesn’t establish any connection between Obama and Farrakhan.

So nothing to deal with.

Short of a hand written agreement between Obama and Farrakhan to be bestest buddies (witnessed by Keith Ellison) I doubt anything would cause you to admit a connection.
Your admission is not required nor expected.

What is required is some evidence of a connection. You have none. That has nothing to do with admission from me.

 

[Pogo]

I have a photo of myself and my wife with Bill Clinton taken at a speech he gave. Yet that offers no proof that Obama is any closer to Farrakhan than I am with Clinton, which is not at all.

Define "any closer". There was a reason that Obama was photographed hanging with that anti Semitic shit bag Louis Farrakhan. I'm surprised Jeremiah Wright, also an admirer and fan of Farrakhan, wasn't there.

These are the sort of weak transparent denials we used to get all the time when Barry Obama was in office.

Any closer, as in Obama was in the same room as Farrakhan just as I was in the same room as Clinton.

So let’s see your evidence that Obama was ”hanging” with Farrakhan.....

Obama's Farrakhan Problem
Whether you accept the evidence or not is another matter, but it's there...unless you wants photos of Farrakhan and Obama on a camping trip or carving pumpkins together. Deal with it.

Deal with this, Dimbulb. Today's lesson in climbing out of the Moron Hole.

Your name calling brands you as a loser before you even start. Read my link. There is no "guilt by association".
That's a straw man the left props up every time one of Obama's radical pals is brought up.
Back in the moron hole you go.

I already DID read your link Moron. Even there the writer brings it up in his second sentence, KNOWING that's exactly what he's doing.

DUH!

And you just did the same thing. What is it with your planet --- do people there just start trading DNA simply by virtue of standing next to each other?? FFS I was in the same room with The Dick Cheney once, that doesn't make me a fucking war criminal.

Maybe YOU need to read MY link and drop this playing stupid game.

 

[RodISHI]

Calling for death to our nation is not covered by the first.

Bullshit.

Prove me wrong and quote where the Constitution says that.

Or perhaps you have SCOTUS interpretations that would apply. Roll 'em.

What types of speech are not protected by the First Amendment?
Although different scholars view unprotected speech in different ways, there are basically nine categories:

• Obscenity.
• Fighting
  
• Defamation (including libel and slander)
• Child pornography.
• Perjury.
• Blackmail.
• Incitement to imminent lawless action.
• True threats.

Nope, nothing there.

Once AGAIN you can't "hang", "shoot", "drone strike" or "imprison" somebody for their speech, even if it were in English and in context, thus spake the First Amendment and there's nothing you can do about that short of a Constitutional Convention. Because that Constitution specifically states that no such law may be passed. Period.

I did not say anything about "hang", "shoot", "drone strike" or "imprison" somebody for their speech.

You may not have but several others did, starting with the OP right at the beginning. Read the thread.

There are several laws which can be applied to prosecute him for his acts against us. There is a history of convictions upheld by the Supreme Court. Apparently you are too lazy to look or do not want to know. Title 50 of the United States Code also outlines the role of War and National Defense in the United States Code. The Supreme Court invented the famous "clear and present danger" test to determine when a state could constitutionally limit an individual's free speech rights under the First Amendment.

The Smith Act made it unlawful to advocate or organize the destruction or overthrow of any government in the United States by force.

Dennis v. United States, 341 U.S. 494 1951. Convicted under provisions of the Smith Act for conspiring and organizing for the overthrow and destruction of the United States government by force and violence.

Schenck v. United States, 249 U.S. 47 1919. Upheld conviction with the Espionage Act for "inciting violent overthrow".

Frohwerk v. United States, 249 U.S. 204 1919. A newspaper man conviction with the Espionage Act "willful obstruction".

There is enough information out there online for the subject that you do not have to remain ignorant on the matter. Home - Supreme Court of the United States

You already cited you laundry list of SCOTUS scenaria and none of them apply here.

Your Smith Act met up with its deserved SCOTUS stop sign numerous times as unConstitutional. I'm referring to that Constitution, not abuses of it like the Smith Act and Sedition Acts and freaking blasphemy laws. The Constitution trumps 'em.

They all apply dumbass. You can say whatever you want but there can be consequences for what you say. You don't get to call for war ("death to America") against the USA with some Middle Eastern hate mongering regime. I hope they fry his ass if that is what he has done.

First of all neither you nor I even know what he said out there. There's a video of him speaking in Farsi --- which I don't speak and I assume you don't either --- purportedly interpreted via fucking Twitter, and including *NONE* of the context. If that's what passes for a reliable source on your planet for "frying" people you're gonna have quite a stench in the air. You're also a moron.

Second, as you just admitted you CAN'T "fry" people for what they say. If you "can say whatever you want" then there are not consequences; if there are consequences you can't "say what you want". The two are mutually exclusive; you can't have it both ways.

Needless to say you can't proverbially yell fire in a crowded theater that isn't on fire, but once AGAIN none of your cherrypicks apply here, even if you're standards ARE so nebulous that you accept fucking Tweeter as your interpreter.

10 U.S. Code § 894 - Art. 94. Mutiny or sedition | US Law | LII / Legal ...

10 U.S. Code § 894 - Art. 94. Mutiny or sedition
with intent to usurp or override lawful military authority, refuses, in concert with any other person, to obey orders or otherwise do his duty or creates any violence ...
[USC03] 18 USC Ch. 115: TREASON, SEDITION, AND SUBVERSIVE ...


uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?path=/prelim@title18/part1/chapter115&edition...
CHAPTER 115 —TREASON, SEDITION, AND SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES. Sec. ... Section consolidates sections 1 and 2 of title 18 , U.S.C., 1940 ed. ..... Sections 34, 35, and 37 of title 50 , U.S.C., 1940 ed., War and National Defense, are also ...
U.S.C. Title 50 - WAR AND NATIONAL DEFENSE

U.S.C. Title 50 - WAR AND NATIONAL DEFENSE
50 U.S.C.. United States Code, 2011 Edition Title 50 - WAR AND NATIONAL DEFENSE ..... 219, related to seditious or disloyal acts or words in time of war.
18 U.S.C. 115 - TREASON, SEDITION, AND SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES

https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/.../USCODE...title18/USCODE-2010-title18-partI-chap115
Jan 7, 2011 - United States Code, 2006 Edition, Supplement 4, Title 18 - CRIMES AND CRIMINAL .... CHAPTER 50 - GAMBLING (sections 1081 - 1084).

--- Does not apply. We are not at war. Nothing in even the Tweeterterp says anything about "usurping or overriding any kind of military authority" or anything about anybody's "orders" anywhere.

I don't know what about this continues to fly over pointed hoods, I really don't. You CANNOT legislate policed opinion in this country, PERIOD. That's the cornerstone of our whole gig here. That's Right Number One. Literally. This ain't North Korea.

"Prosecution calls as its first witness ---- Twitter". Come on, man.

You can also shoot someone but then again there are consequences for that too. You blather on with a bunch of diatribe like you really have something when you have nothing. Piss off as I don't need to waste my time.

 

[Pogo]

Bullshit.

Prove me wrong and quote where the Constitution says that.

Or perhaps you have SCOTUS interpretations that would apply. Roll 'em.


Nope, nothing there.

Once AGAIN you can't "hang", "shoot", "drone strike" or "imprison" somebody for their speech, even if it were in English and in context, thus spake the First Amendment and there's nothing you can do about that short of a Constitutional Convention. Because that Constitution specifically states that no such law may be passed. Period.

I did not say anything about "hang", "shoot", "drone strike" or "imprison" somebody for their speech.

You may not have but several others did, starting with the OP right at the beginning. Read the thread.

There are several laws which can be applied to prosecute him for his acts against us. There is a history of convictions upheld by the Supreme Court. Apparently you are too lazy to look or do not want to know. Title 50 of the United States Code also outlines the role of War and National Defense in the United States Code. The Supreme Court invented the famous "clear and present danger" test to determine when a state could constitutionally limit an individual's free speech rights under the First Amendment.

The Smith Act made it unlawful to advocate or organize the destruction or overthrow of any government in the United States by force.

Dennis v. United States, 341 U.S. 494 1951. Convicted under provisions of the Smith Act for conspiring and organizing for the overthrow and destruction of the United States government by force and violence.

Schenck v. United States, 249 U.S. 47 1919. Upheld conviction with the Espionage Act for "inciting violent overthrow".

Frohwerk v. United States, 249 U.S. 204 1919. A newspaper man conviction with the Espionage Act "willful obstruction".

There is enough information out there online for the subject that you do not have to remain ignorant on the matter. Home - Supreme Court of the United States

You already cited you laundry list of SCOTUS scenaria and none of them apply here.

Your Smith Act met up with its deserved SCOTUS stop sign numerous times as unConstitutional. I'm referring to that Constitution, not abuses of it like the Smith Act and Sedition Acts and freaking blasphemy laws. The Constitution trumps 'em.

They all apply dumbass. You can say whatever you want but there can be consequences for what you say. You don't get to call for war ("death to America") against the USA with some Middle Eastern hate mongering regime. I hope they fry his ass if that is what he has done.

First of all neither you nor I even know what he said out there. There's a video of him speaking in Farsi --- which I don't speak and I assume you don't either --- purportedly interpreted via fucking Twitter, and including *NONE* of the context. If that's what passes for a reliable source on your planet for "frying" people you're gonna have quite a stench in the air. You're also a moron.

Second, as you just admitted you CAN'T "fry" people for what they say. If you "can say whatever you want" then there are not consequences; if there are consequences you can't "say what you want". The two are mutually exclusive; you can't have it both ways.

Needless to say you can't proverbially yell fire in a crowded theater that isn't on fire, but once AGAIN none of your cherrypicks apply here, even if you're standards ARE so nebulous that you accept fucking Tweeter as your interpreter.

10 U.S. Code § 894 - Art. 94. Mutiny or sedition | US Law | LII / Legal ...

10 U.S. Code § 894 - Art. 94. Mutiny or sedition
with intent to usurp or override lawful military authority, refuses, in concert with any other person, to obey orders or otherwise do his duty or creates any violence ...
[USC03] 18 USC Ch. 115: TREASON, SEDITION, AND SUBVERSIVE ...


uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?path=/prelim@title18/part1/chapter115&edition...
CHAPTER 115 —TREASON, SEDITION, AND SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES. Sec. ... Section consolidates sections 1 and 2 of title 18 , U.S.C., 1940 ed. ..... Sections 34, 35, and 37 of title 50 , U.S.C., 1940 ed., War and National Defense, are also ...
U.S.C. Title 50 - WAR AND NATIONAL DEFENSE

U.S.C. Title 50 - WAR AND NATIONAL DEFENSE
50 U.S.C.. United States Code, 2011 Edition Title 50 - WAR AND NATIONAL DEFENSE ..... 219, related to seditious or disloyal acts or words in time of war.
18 U.S.C. 115 - TREASON, SEDITION, AND SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES

https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/.../USCODE...title18/USCODE-2010-title18-partI-chap115
Jan 7, 2011 - United States Code, 2006 Edition, Supplement 4, Title 18 - CRIMES AND CRIMINAL .... CHAPTER 50 - GAMBLING (sections 1081 - 1084).

--- Does not apply. We are not at war. Nothing in even the Tweeterterp says anything about "usurping or overriding any kind of military authority" or anything about anybody's "orders" anywhere.

I don't know what about this continues to fly over pointed hoods, I really don't. You CANNOT legislate policed opinion in this country, PERIOD. That's the cornerstone of our whole gig here. That's Right Number One. Literally. This ain't North Korea.

"Prosecution calls as its first witness ---- Twitter". Come on, man.

You can also shoot someone but then again there are consequences for that too. You blather on with a bunch of diatribe like you really have something when you have nothing. Piss off as I don't need to waste my time.

I'll accept your concession, clumsy as it is.

 

[deanrd]

He should be arrested and dealt with as a traitor. He should hang.

Louis Farrakhan, Nation of Islam leader, leads 'Death to America' chant in Iran

well now the democrats have that going for them

Don't forget those lovely people who gave the world Kosovo which is also another breeding ground for Muslim Brotherhood Islamic terrorist. They even dedicated a BJ Billy statue there for their Demoncrat leaders who helped them get a nice foothold over there.

View attachment 227098

exactly

last night at the Trump rally

those inside chanted for America

while those on the outside the protesters chanted against America

it is really that simple today

when you vote

And Trump works for Putin. So who’s the traitor?

 

[Synthaholic]

He should be arrested and dealt with as a traitor. He should hang.

Louis Farrakhan, Nation of Islam leader, leads 'Death to America' chant in Iran

Another rightwinger showing his true colors when overseas, just like Sarah Palin. What is it with conservatives? Farrakhan supported Trump.

 

[RodISHI]

I did not say anything about "hang", "shoot", "drone strike" or "imprison" somebody for their speech.

You may not have but several others did, starting with the OP right at the beginning. Read the thread.

There are several laws which can be applied to prosecute him for his acts against us. There is a history of convictions upheld by the Supreme Court. Apparently you are too lazy to look or do not want to know. Title 50 of the United States Code also outlines the role of War and National Defense in the United States Code. The Supreme Court invented the famous "clear and present danger" test to determine when a state could constitutionally limit an individual's free speech rights under the First Amendment.

The Smith Act made it unlawful to advocate or organize the destruction or overthrow of any government in the United States by force.

Dennis v. United States, 341 U.S. 494 1951. Convicted under provisions of the Smith Act for conspiring and organizing for the overthrow and destruction of the United States government by force and violence.

Schenck v. United States, 249 U.S. 47 1919. Upheld conviction with the Espionage Act for "inciting violent overthrow".

Frohwerk v. United States, 249 U.S. 204 1919. A newspaper man conviction with the Espionage Act "willful obstruction".

There is enough information out there online for the subject that you do not have to remain ignorant on the matter. Home - Supreme Court of the United States

You already cited you laundry list of SCOTUS scenaria and none of them apply here.

Your Smith Act met up with its deserved SCOTUS stop sign numerous times as unConstitutional. I'm referring to that Constitution, not abuses of it like the Smith Act and Sedition Acts and freaking blasphemy laws. The Constitution trumps 'em.

They all apply dumbass. You can say whatever you want but there can be consequences for what you say. You don't get to call for war ("death to America") against the USA with some Middle Eastern hate mongering regime. I hope they fry his ass if that is what he has done.

First of all neither you nor I even know what he said out there. There's a video of him speaking in Farsi --- which I don't speak and I assume you don't either --- purportedly interpreted via fucking Twitter, and including *NONE* of the context. If that's what passes for a reliable source on your planet for "frying" people you're gonna have quite a stench in the air. You're also a moron.

Second, as you just admitted you CAN'T "fry" people for what they say. If you "can say whatever you want" then there are not consequences; if there are consequences you can't "say what you want". The two are mutually exclusive; you can't have it both ways.

Needless to say you can't proverbially yell fire in a crowded theater that isn't on fire, but once AGAIN none of your cherrypicks apply here, even if you're standards ARE so nebulous that you accept fucking Tweeter as your interpreter.

10 U.S. Code § 894 - Art. 94. Mutiny or sedition | US Law | LII / Legal ...

10 U.S. Code § 894 - Art. 94. Mutiny or sedition
with intent to usurp or override lawful military authority, refuses, in concert with any other person, to obey orders or otherwise do his duty or creates any violence ...
[USC03] 18 USC Ch. 115: TREASON, SEDITION, AND SUBVERSIVE ...


uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?path=/prelim@title18/part1/chapter115&edition...
CHAPTER 115 —TREASON, SEDITION, AND SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES. Sec. ... Section consolidates sections 1 and 2 of title 18 , U.S.C., 1940 ed. ..... Sections 34, 35, and 37 of title 50 , U.S.C., 1940 ed., War and National Defense, are also ...
U.S.C. Title 50 - WAR AND NATIONAL DEFENSE

U.S.C. Title 50 - WAR AND NATIONAL DEFENSE
50 U.S.C.. United States Code, 2011 Edition Title 50 - WAR AND NATIONAL DEFENSE ..... 219, related to seditious or disloyal acts or words in time of war.
18 U.S.C. 115 - TREASON, SEDITION, AND SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES

https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/.../USCODE...title18/USCODE-2010-title18-partI-chap115
Jan 7, 2011 - United States Code, 2006 Edition, Supplement 4, Title 18 - CRIMES AND CRIMINAL .... CHAPTER 50 - GAMBLING (sections 1081 - 1084).

--- Does not apply. We are not at war. Nothing in even the Tweeterterp says anything about "usurping or overriding any kind of military authority" or anything about anybody's "orders" anywhere.

I don't know what about this continues to fly over pointed hoods, I really don't. You CANNOT legislate policed opinion in this country, PERIOD. That's the cornerstone of our whole gig here. That's Right Number One. Literally. This ain't North Korea.

"Prosecution calls as its first witness ---- Twitter". Come on, man.

You can also shoot someone but then again there are consequences for that too. You blather on with a bunch of diatribe like you really have something when you have nothing. Piss off as I don't need to waste my time.

I'll accept your concession, clumsy as it is.

That is not a concession. Merely the facts. You have nothing to offer.

 

[Pogo]

You may not have but several others did, starting with the OP right at the beginning. Read the thread.

You already cited you laundry list of SCOTUS scenaria and none of them apply here.

Your Smith Act met up with its deserved SCOTUS stop sign numerous times as unConstitutional. I'm referring to that Constitution, not abuses of it like the Smith Act and Sedition Acts and freaking blasphemy laws. The Constitution trumps 'em.

They all apply dumbass. You can say whatever you want but there can be consequences for what you say. You don't get to call for war ("death to America") against the USA with some Middle Eastern hate mongering regime. I hope they fry his ass if that is what he has done.

First of all neither you nor I even know what he said out there. There's a video of him speaking in Farsi --- which I don't speak and I assume you don't either --- purportedly interpreted via fucking Twitter, and including *NONE* of the context. If that's what passes for a reliable source on your planet for "frying" people you're gonna have quite a stench in the air. You're also a moron.

Second, as you just admitted you CAN'T "fry" people for what they say. If you "can say whatever you want" then there are not consequences; if there are consequences you can't "say what you want". The two are mutually exclusive; you can't have it both ways.

Needless to say you can't proverbially yell fire in a crowded theater that isn't on fire, but once AGAIN none of your cherrypicks apply here, even if you're standards ARE so nebulous that you accept fucking Tweeter as your interpreter.

10 U.S. Code § 894 - Art. 94. Mutiny or sedition | US Law | LII / Legal ...

10 U.S. Code § 894 - Art. 94. Mutiny or sedition
with intent to usurp or override lawful military authority, refuses, in concert with any other person, to obey orders or otherwise do his duty or creates any violence ...
[USC03] 18 USC Ch. 115: TREASON, SEDITION, AND SUBVERSIVE ...


uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?path=/prelim@title18/part1/chapter115&edition...
CHAPTER 115 —TREASON, SEDITION, AND SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES. Sec. ... Section consolidates sections 1 and 2 of title 18 , U.S.C., 1940 ed. ..... Sections 34, 35, and 37 of title 50 , U.S.C., 1940 ed., War and National Defense, are also ...
U.S.C. Title 50 - WAR AND NATIONAL DEFENSE

U.S.C. Title 50 - WAR AND NATIONAL DEFENSE
50 U.S.C.. United States Code, 2011 Edition Title 50 - WAR AND NATIONAL DEFENSE ..... 219, related to seditious or disloyal acts or words in time of war.
18 U.S.C. 115 - TREASON, SEDITION, AND SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES

https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/.../USCODE...title18/USCODE-2010-title18-partI-chap115
Jan 7, 2011 - United States Code, 2006 Edition, Supplement 4, Title 18 - CRIMES AND CRIMINAL .... CHAPTER 50 - GAMBLING (sections 1081 - 1084).

--- Does not apply. We are not at war. Nothing in even the Tweeterterp says anything about "usurping or overriding any kind of military authority" or anything about anybody's "orders" anywhere.

I don't know what about this continues to fly over pointed hoods, I really don't. You CANNOT legislate policed opinion in this country, PERIOD. That's the cornerstone of our whole gig here. That's Right Number One. Literally. This ain't North Korea.

"Prosecution calls as its first witness ---- Twitter". Come on, man.

You can also shoot someone but then again there are consequences for that too. You blather on with a bunch of diatribe like you really have something when you have nothing. Piss off as I don't need to waste my time.

I'll accept your concession, clumsy as it is.

That is not a concession. Merely the facts. You have nothing to offer.

Sorry, I couldn't hear you while taking my victory lap. Loud crowd.