And yet the whole “movement” is founded on a loose basis of sovereign citizen (and related “constitutionalism” claptrap.
So now I’m going to add some new information regarding a particularly troubling individual, and his group of “followers”.
In his speech just before the attack, Trump urged his followers to “fight like hell.” However, Vance said charging the president or ex-president based solely on his comments at the rally would be challenging.
Again, my intent here is to shed some light on the level of…crazy…that is driving a lot of the “right wing” behavior everyone is so concerned about. I do not particularly see this covered in much depth in the mainstream media.
SPLC is basically a shell of it’s original self, but not totally useless.
1 Like
So… THIS is the real danger, guys. Or at least one aspect of it, to our Democratic Republic.
from the report linked in the last post:
" The results of this study contravene many of the myths surrounding the People’s Rights network. Instead of a more traditional “anti-government” narrative, People’s Rights leaders have expressed a desire for governmental power to be used to protect the “righteous” against “wicked” liberals, antifa, Black Lives Matter activists, and others. Several People’s Rights leaders are running for elected office—to become the government. Absent that sort of intervention, leaders have proposed a type of armed enclave-style “neighborhood” nationalism, where “righteous” neighbors stand against the “wicked.” People’s Rights leaders have often defined the “wicked” using far-right conspiracism, racism, antisemitism, anti-indigenous, and anti-transgender sentiment."
From the report:
Sound kinda familiar?
" One person, who identified themselves as a member of the III% of Idaho, called the Meridian Police Department to demand, “It’s time to choose a side. We can’t stand what you people do. We will make you abide by the Constitution.”[14] The combined actions reaped national attention, another spark to ignite insurrection. Sara Walton Brady became a member of the People’s Rights Idaho group, which helped bring anti-vaxxers into the network."
I thought it was biker gangs that used the 3% moniker.
I remember I was in bar outside Montreal and two guys with hells angels vests walked in. One of them had it tattooed on his neck.
Just sound like they are trying to rip off the plot hook to the Handmaids Tale.
I’m not sure of the genesis of it. In this case, it’s not about biker gangs, but I’m familiar with what you are writing about.
So, here is a good example of how truly lawless these people are, and a huge “hint” about their viewpoint.
This guy led sheriff’s deputies on a vehicle chase. He was "trying to get to his “home county”.
And he called the Sheriff’s Office of his “home county” to protect him from Sheriff’s Deputies from another county…
SERIOUSLY
These people, in case you did not know, basically see the County as some sort of “kingdom” in which they have “citizenship”.
And the Sheriff is essentially the “King of the County”. Especially regarding law enforcement.
Anyway, linky:
The guy literally pulled a shotgun and and shot it towards the deputies.
And wanted his “home” county sheriff to come and protect him.
1 Like
And if ya want to get really deeper:
W. Cleon Skousen
I’ve looked into Skousen before.
" Skousen’s 1981 book, The 5,000 Year Leap , deploys selective quotes to claim that the U.S Constitution is rooted in the Bible and that America is a Christian nation – core elements of Christian nationalism. In this book, Skousen also wrote that “No Constitutional authority exists for the federal government to participate in charity or welfare” – a skewed reading of the U.S. Constitution, particularly given its Commerce Clause (Article 1, Section 8), that would gut the capacity of the federal government to address racial and economic inequality and favor those who own significant property over those who do not.[38]"
Well it is a tricky can of worms
If someone opens their premises to the public for commercial reasons they should abide by regulations regarding health and safety. Refusing to serve folk because they don’t wear a face covering in a pandemic is a no brainer
Not providing goods or services based on ideology is more thorny
If the law says you can’t discriminate and you are shown to be withholding goods or services based on discriminatory beliefs don’t come crying to me with claims of your civil liberties being infringed you racist/ homophobic/transphobic/etc prick
The thing is, though, basically, civil liberties trump any law or regulation that are perceived to violate civil liberties.
Essentially, there is no law.
Let’s set fire to a police car!
What if your defence of your own civil liberties attacks the civil liberties of someone else?
Once you have premises that are open to the public you are implicitly putting certain of your own civil liberties in a subordinate position
But private property rights…
The equal protection clause of our Constitution comes into play.
It gets a bit complicated.
So, we have rules here about public health safety.
A commonly seen sign on public places is:
No shirt, no shoes, no service. (the joke is pants are optional, right?).
In food establishment: No pets allowed.
For example.
Employees must wash hands after using the toilet.
One step further: Food safety practices that are enforced by the state/local authorities.
I mean, come on, man, it’s my cafe…
A shop or bar is not totally private though
The part of the building that is open to the public is not the same as a home
In Ireland (and UK) a Pub, or Public House is legally obliged to serve customers unless the customer is intoxixated or causing a breach of the peace
Lots of businesses here have signs that say reserve right to refuse service.
As long as it’s not because of race, etc.
Businesses can trespass you for no reason here, if they want to.
That’s worrying then. I think of them as small and isolated pockets of crazy. I have heard stories but have not yet met someone that divorced from reality, who wasn’t being treated for mental illness.
So you had some direct interaction with them?
What was that like?
What are the legalities of refusing service?
Surely it is codified?
It’s why I added this to the Far Right-Side Gallery.
I do not think a lot of people understand what is going on…and how widespread it is, and it’s origins and goals.
I’d have to do the exact research for you.
AFAIK, refusing service due to race, gender, stuff like that is not allowable under equal protection clause, and Federal law.
1 Like
Also, laws vary from state to state. There is Federal law, and state law has to comply, but, each state can have a different take on it.
IMHO if you open a shop, leave your pecadillos in the staff room
Go mail order if you don’t like talking to people