Comments Subscribe to Personal Liberty News Feed Subscribe to Personal Liberty
 

So You Think You Can Dance?

June 3, 2011 by  

So You Think You Can Dance?

Dancing in the Jefferson Memorial last weekend got a group of people arrested, so now they’re planning an even bigger dancing event for Saturday as a point of civil disobedience.

The group claimed to be protesting a recent court ruling that says expressive dancing is considered the same as picketing, marching and public speaking, all of which are banned in certain areas of national memorials, according to a report on myfoxdc.com. They are hoping Saturday’s event will draw a big crowd and are using social media to push the event. More than 2,700 people are said to be attending, according to group’s Facebook page.

The video below shows the arrests last weekend.

Hat Tip: humblelibertarian.com

Bob Livingston

is an ultra-conservative American who has been writing a newsletter since 1969. Bob has devoted much of his life to research and the quest for truth on a variety of subjects. Bob specializes in health issues such as nutritional supplements and alternatives to drugs, as well as issues of privacy (both personal and financial), asset protection and the preservation of freedom.

Facebook Conversations

Join the Discussion:
View Comments to “So You Think You Can Dance?”

Comment Policy: We encourage an open discussion with a wide range of viewpoints, even extreme ones, but we will not tolerate racism, profanity or slanderous comments toward the author(s) or comment participants. Make your case passionately, but civilly. Please don't stoop to name calling. We use filters for spam protection. If your comment does not appear, it is likely because it violates the above policy or contains links or language typical of spam. We reserve the right to remove comments at our discretion.

Is there news related to personal liberty happening in your area? Contact us at newstips@personalliberty.com

  • Jana

    Hmm, they want to show police that they are not intimidated so they hop and jump around. Reminds me of how we used to play Cowboys and Indians as children and we would try to imitate the dances that we saw the Indians do on TV, of course we did not do them very well. They aren’t ‘dancing’ very well either.

    • Vic

      Frankly, I don’t understand why “picketing, marching and public speaking, all of which are banned in certain areas of national memorials” in the first place. There’s no exception for memorials in The First Amendment.

      So as long as it’s not a desecration, why it should be banned? Looks to me that the court that bans it must be forcefully retired for dereliction of duty and abandonment of principles, no?

      • Vic

        Especially when burning and desecrating US Flag is considered to be “free speech” by the very same court!

        • Wayne937

          I’ll bet Obummer is sorry he could not have been in the dance. This is strictly civil disobedience and should be frowned upon by society. There is a time and place for everything.

          • DaveH

            Yes, we should all goose-step quietly.
            Subjects should be seen and not heard. Maybe not seen either.

  • John

    Those monuments belong to the people of the United States, they do not belong to the government, except as the individuals in government are also citizens. (we hope) If dancing is damaging, then that ain’t dancing. If the police want to join the dancers, good,but if they want to stop a gathering of people for whatever reason, they should be stripped of thier arrest powers, and introduced to the inside of a jail cell along with judges who snear at the Constitution, and our freedoms.

    • stbernardnot

      Looks like police brutality to me. Remember May 5.

    • DaveH

      Dancing is disrespectful to Jefferson (who was the most Freedom-Loving Founder ever), but body-slamming people isn’t? Bully thugs, pure and simple.

      • Jazzabelle

        The police thugs should have blindfolded Jefferson’s statue before starting to make arrests.

        • Jana

          Jazzabelle,
          I agree with you. It wasn’t too long ago that a group of people were praying at (not to) the monument and they were also made to leave. They were distrubing the peace. Too funny.
          But I did watch the pictures and I thought hmm, if that is considered dancing now WOW. The dancing part is too funny.

          • Vicki

            Not dancing “expressive dancing” whatever that is :)

            Oh and remember not to sing the national anthem at monuments.

            http://www.foxnews.com/us/2010/08/09/students-lincoln-memorial-told-stop-singing-national-anthem/

            Remember if you give government the power to take away their rights than the government has the power to take away YOURS.

          • Thamera

            Vicki, I’m not saying that it is right and I’m not saying that I agree with it and the article you provided is an excellent example of political correctness on steroids – so get the laws changed. Right to your senators and representatives, start a movement to change the law but don’t go there knowing full well what the park rules are and not expect the police not to do their job. Couldn’t very well expect them to hush up the high school for singing and then give Code Pink a pass now, could they?

          • Thamera

            ooops, *write*

          • Vicki

            Thamera says:
            “so get the laws changed. write to your senators and representatives, start a movement to change the law but don’t go there knowing full well what the park rules are and not expect the police not to do their job.”

            But they DID expect the police to do their job. Including not violating the Constitution which is the supreme law of this land.

            Thamera: “Couldn’t very well expect them to hush up the high school for singing and then give Code Pink a pass now, could they?”

            I do expect equal treatment under the (Constitutional) law. I expect the police to watch and ignore an unlawful rule.

            Civil disobedience is one of the tools for a movement to use to get a law changed or get a law invalidated. To get a law examined by the Supreme Court you have to have standing. Civil disobedience is a necessary part of that process.
            http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_does_one_have_standing_before_the_US_Supreme_Court

          • DaveH

            It has dawned on me that Code Pink did their thing during the Obama Administration. So at least they are not the kind of zealots like we have on this board so often who will change their agenda to whatever the party leaders want at the moment.
            Wrong as they might be on much of their agenda, at least they are being consistent.

      • lorna

        Monuments are akin to graves. If these people love the independence that Thomas Jefferson so eloquently wrote of, then why are they dancing on his grave?

    • vagabond

      john you’r full of it. those people were looking for trouble. plain and simple. if you want to dance go to a dance hall or do it at home. I love to dance but I have no intention of going to a public monument to do it. and those who do are just plain STUPID and trying to cause trouble,

      • karolyn

        No sense of fun! It comes with old age and having been conforming to society’s mores for too long.

        • Cliffystones

          mores? You mean ones like respecting other people who visit the memorial? It’s ok, just have fun, after all it’s all about you, no one else matters. Sure on the surface one person dancing wouldn’t be much of a bother. But when a horde of protesters shows up with the intent to annoy other people who have just as much right to be there as them, that’s where I draw the line.

          Oh the woman dancing was Medea Benjamin, the spokesperson for “Code Pink”. These folks bend over backwards to find ways of pissing off people with whom they disagree.

          • Thamera

            Well said CS and isn’t that most interesting…Code Pink, now there’s a group I can get behind! hahahahaha (please note the sarcasm!)

          • Carlucci

            The dancing was done to protest the increasing loss of liberties in this nation. This protest is mild (and clean) in comparison to the oafs from the so called teachers union in Wisconsin, who trashed the state capital.

            I can’t believe anyone on this board (except for the resident lib****s)
            would be offended by people dancing. I find nothing disrespectful about it.

          • Thamera

            You miss the point Carlucci…I for one am not offended by dancing, I am offended by the intent to intentionally provoke civil discord and unrest. They knew exactly what they were doing and CS is right. The woman dancing is Medea Benjamin co-founder of Code Pink which is about as liberal progressive as you can get. They pride themselves on creating discord and dissent and getting themselves arrested. They are about one step away from promoting terrorism in the name of “peace” and “justice” and even include in their mission statement their promotion of redirecting everyone’s resources into health care and other programs advocating socialism and are in lock step with organizations like the following: Global Exchange, Greenpeace, WILPF, WAND, Public Citizen, NOW, Women for Women International and Neighbors for Peace and Justice. Now, how do you feel about that dancing?

          • Jazzabelle

            “Oh the woman dancing was Medea Benjamin, the spokesperson for “Code Pink”. These folks bend over backwards to find ways of pissing off people with whom they disagree.”

            Yes – and they have the legal right to do so.

            Isn’t it interesting that left-wing groups often resort to violence to make their points, and that’s why we hate them. But this group didn’t, at least not this time, and the totalitarians on this board STILL want them arrested. For “bothering” them. Is it any wonder that some people feel the need to do more and more sensational things just to get people’s attention?

          • Carlucci

            Thamera, I don’t think I’m missing the point at all. I saw nothing that even hinted at violence. So you are saying these people had no right to verbally protest an arrest where they could not even get a valid answer about silently dancing at a public monument? I don’t care who was there and what group they were allegedly representing. All I could see from the video was silent dancing. The police were the ones who were totally out of line, making a mountain out of molehill.

          • Thamera

            Oh, I am sure that they will Jazzabelle. And they were not arrested for dancing, they were arrested for not disbanding and leaving when politely and calmly being asked to leave. There is a difference there. I would even go so far as to say that had the police not intervened that this group would have gone to any lengths to get themselves arrested, including violence. Maybe you should do a little research about the groups that are orchestrating these so called “peaceful freedom-loving” protests.

          • Thamera

            Well Carlucci, what can I say, did you watch the video linked to this article? What I saw was a group of belligerent people trying to stir up trouble and very little dancing and arguing with the park police. I’m surprised that you would not be concerned about their agenda. It has very little to do with freedom and even less to do with the constitution.

          • karolyn

            “Horde?” There certainly weren’t that many of them. lol They didn’t even get started. Was it disrespectful for the guy and girl to start swaing back and forth? I don’t think so.

          • karolyn

            Thamera – Have you investigated the RT Channel? It is a news channel. Here’s the story about the man who drowned because budget cuts kept firefighters from rescuing him.
            http://rt.com/usa/blogs/thom-hartmann-blog/drowned-yesterday-firefighters-first/

          • karolyn

            Maybe they piss off people they don’t agree with, but they do have a point and are willing to stand up for what they believe – contrary to what we talking heads do in the comfort of our own homes.

          • DaveH

            Here’s a story, Karolyn, about people who wish a shortage of firefighters was all they needed to be concerned about:
            http://zimpundit.blogspot.com/2007/03/life-in-zimbabwe.html

          • Vicki

            Since the people have the RIGHT of civil disobedience and since this was the most civil I have seen code pink to be I can find no wrong in their actions.

            The police on the other hand fell right into the trap and gave the press lots of reason to pay attention.

            Remember if you give government the power to take away their rights than the government has the power to take away YOURS.

          • Jazzabelle

            Thamera wrote: “[H]ad the police not intervened[,] this group would have gone to any lengths to get themselves arrested, including violence. Maybe you should do a little research about the groups that are orchestrating these so called “peaceful freedom-loving” protests.”

            You can’t arrest someone for what you think they would have done if you’d left them alone–unless you have probable cause (i.e., EVIDENCE) that they were planning an actual crime.

            I don’t care who they were or what their agenda is. Liberty applies to everyone equally, regardless of their ideology.

      • JC

        You’re right vagabond…thos stupid people should sit down, shut up and do as they’re damned told!
        The nerve of them…it’s like they think they live in a free country or something!

        • Thamera

          Did ya watch the video JC and others? All 11 minutes of it? While I disagree that they should of been arrested, they were in open defiance of authority. The park police tried to talk to them and diffuse the situation before it became contentious but it was more than clear that they were there to provocate and escalate a situation. Tell me, should people be allowed to say dance in a national museum? What about a library? What if they wanted to walk right into the WH and start dancing in the oval office? Maybe they could dance on the table. Would that also be okay? After all, those are all public forums…

          • JC

            Thamera, These people weren’t hurting any one. And we need a LOT more open defiance of authority. Now, before it becomes and open civil war.
            What do you think is driving people to defy and scoff at authority?
            I say it’s too damned much authority in the so called
            “Land of ther Free.
            Wouldn’t it be funny if people refused to stop dancing while waiting to be groped by the TSA?

          • Jazzabelle

            JC wrote: “Wouldn’t it be funny if people refused to stop dancing while waiting to be groped by the TSA?”

            ROFL! I love it!

            I would totally do this if I ever had to fly!

            Of course, I’m currently planning a 2,000-mile train trip (2.5 days on the train, with a 6-year-old) for my sister’s wedding. Because I will NOT submit my little girl to the professional pedophiles at the TSA.

          • JC

            Good for you Jazzabelle…safe trip! :)

          • Bruce D.

            I think that anything you do at the airport or on airplanes out of the ordinary might get you serious jail time under our current police state. It might be better to protest at the Jefferson Memorial where there will most likely only be a fine. America is not free anymore for sure. If you want to make an improvement to your own house on your own property you have to ask prmission. They may or may not give it to you. If they do give you permission and the change is big enough they will raise your property tax to reflect the added value to your home. If you do not ask permission you will be fined and end up losing your house if you do not pay the fine. The higher the taxes the bigger the government and the bigger the government the more rules and people to control you. The left invites control into their life and ours through high taxes and big government. Now government borrows money which ends up being an inflation tax. Felt mostly by the poor and middle class at the grocery store right now. Thanks to people like Eddie and Jovianus government will end up controlling everying if they don’t already which I think they do.

          • Thamera

            Hey BruceD…whatever happened to Jovianus and his aliases btw? They have been noticeably absent lately…

          • Bootsaddle

            You are absolutely right Thamera. These people had not intention except to create chaos and civil disobedience. They were demonstrators pure and simple. The demonstration was not funny or entertaining. They were interfering with people there to observe a national monument. They need to go find a real school that will teach them to read and write – not agitate and try to stir up trouble. They are truly boring and annoying. My advice to them: “Go home, grow up and try to get an education. Maybe someday they may even be able to balance their checkbooks and pay their own bills.”

          • Bruce D.

            Thamera, I am not sure what happened to Jovianus. He did not stick around too long after Bob called him out. I am sure he is promoting higher taxes for the rich and more government control somewhere. It might seem nice to have everyone conform and not cause waves at the Jefferson Memorial but the idea of conformity is permeating society through rules and regulations followed by fines. Right now there is really no part of your life that is not regulated. Not even your own property which was considered off limits to government by the founders. Most likely yo

          • Thamera

            btw BruceD: I agree with you but I also believe that there is a right place and right time for things not just another Code Pink demonstration with the intent to stir up trouble.

          • DaveH

            I don’t know if Jefferson was a dance fan or not. But, I’d bet for sure that even if he weren’t, he would look the other way. Because Freedom isn’t just people doing things you like. Freedom is people doing things that they enjoy. Things that aren’t harming anybody else or their property, whether are not any particular individual finds those things disgusting.
            And that is why we are in the mess we’re in. Everybody has their own pet peaves. If we all use the force of Government to stop everything we find obnoxious or disgusting, there would soon be nothing left that any of us could do. And it’s getting that way fast. The leaders love that most of us are so intolerant. They just skip merrily along enjoying their increasing Power and Perks, while the rest of us fight over whose agenda is more important to have Government enforce.

          • Vicki

            Thamera writes:
            “they were in open defiance of authority.”

            They were in open defiance of UNLAWFUL authority. Tell me Thamera, when Obama gets a law passed to confiscate all our guns are you going to submit to “authority”?

            Remember any power you give the government to control the actions of people you don’t like will be used against you when they get control of the government.

            Doesn’t it just suck that you have to give rights to people you don’t like.

          • Thamera

            Vicki, most laws are constitutionally unlawful and our government is the worst offender so change things. There are ways to do that without creating civil discord.

          • DaveH

            Did you know, Thamera, that you couldn’t dance at the Jefferson Memorial before you read about the protesters? I didn’t. That’s the power of Civil Disobedience.

          • Thamera

            Point well taken DaveH, I didn’t know that you couldn’t sing the national anthem or pray in public there either…my point being that considering the group (Code Pink) they are not interested in freedom of speech unless it advances their agenda which is what helped to create the mess we are in, in the first place and to place the blame on the police is errant, in my opinion.

          • DaveH

            How do you think, Thamera, that we will ever win our Freedom if we shun people who share certain of our sought-after Freedoms, but not all of them?
            Yes, from what I see, Code Pink has a large amount of hypocrisy in their agenda. As you can see on this page they quote Ben Franklin, yet a large portion of their agenda goes contrary to the quote:
            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Code_Pink
            Such is life. If I didn’t speak to hypocrites, I wouldn’t be speaking to very many people. Rather than ignore all of their agenda because some of their agenda repulses us, we should embrace their right-minded goals, and try to wake them up to their wrong-headed goals.

          • Jazzabelle

            Right-o, DaveH.

            When we give up liberties because we’re afraid of someone’s agenda, the terrorists win. :)

          • Thamera

            Correction: I never said that I was afraid of their agenda or in favor of “silencing” them. I also said multiple times that i am NOT in favor of their arrest and had it been me, I would of ignored them; however, to place the blame on the park police for enforcing the rules of the park, which they are commissioned to do, IS wrong, in my opinino and merely pointed out the hypocrisy of the social progressive group that orchestrated the entire demonstration when some of the first comments about this story were that it was just for “fun” which it was anything but.

          • Vicki

            Thamera says:
            “…I also believe that there is a right place and right time for things not just another Code Pink demonstration with the intent to stir up trouble.”

            Good thing for you that Paul Revere did not hesitate to stir up trouble.
            I’m sure the British Soldiers considered his ride to be stirring up a LOT of trouble.

          • DaveH

            Remember the “good old days”, Thamera, when the police had to tell you what you were charged with before they could arrest you?

          • JC

            Thamera says:

            June 3, 2011 at 7:11 pm

            Vicki, most laws are constitutionally unlawful and our government is the worst offender so change things. There are ways to do that without creating civil discord.
            ___________________________________________________________________

            Respectfully disagree. Without Civil Discord / Civil Disobedience, nothing is going to change…except to get worse.

          • Jazzabelle

            Thamera wrote: “Correction: I never said that I was afraid of their agenda or in favor of “silencing” them.”

            I apologize; I recognize that you never used the word “afraid.” It does, however, seem like you are afraid of the consequences of letting Code Pink members have freedom of expression. Why the continual references to their “real agenda?” Their agenda doesn’t have any bearing on whether they have rights or not. They may be hypocrites (at least to some people’s way of thinking) but even communists have the right to their opinions. “I should have the freedom of speech but you shouldn’t” is a legally protected opinion; Code Pink is allowed to believe that if they want. Of course, they can’t legislate that opinion in this country, but they are still allowed to think that and to express it in public.

      • Joseph C Moore, USN Ret

        Vagabond, I agree. The memorials are a place of retrospection not demonstration of impropriety.

        • Amigo

          This would not be going on if a law wasn’t past in the first place…Same as the Boston Tea Party. These are true Patriots Protecting our Freedom and risking jail time.

          • Thamera

            oh gawd, now liberal progressives are true patriots. With all the comments on this board in favor of these protestors who are he** bent on redistribution of wealth and every other social program out there, (a/k/a social justice) anyone want to bet that Obama won’t win in 2012? I thought there was some hope out there but it seems I am mistaken.

          • karolyn

            Thamera – You might want to read some of the material on progressive webstes. They are not very happy with Obama and do not consider him a progressive.

          • Vicki

            Thamera writes:
            “oh gawd, now liberal progressives are true patriots. ”

            Just as is true on this board, sometimes liberals and conservatives find common ground. :)

          • Karolyn

            Vicki – It is so nice to see that being recognized.

          • Vicki

            Karolyn. Your welcome. We do agree sometimes. When we do not I will try really hard to convince you of the truth of my opinion. But you probably have noticed that :)

      • Robert Smith

        From vagabone: “…those people were looking for trouble. plain and simple. if you want to dance go to a dance hall or do it at home. I love to dance but I have no intention of going to a public monument to do it. and those who do are just plain STUPID and trying to cause trouble,…”

        Mind if I change it just a teeny weeny bit? Here is how it goes!

        Those people were looking for trouble. Plain and simple. If you want to prey go to a church or do it at home. I love to prey but I have no intention of going to a public monument to do it. and those who do are just plain STUPID and trying to cause trouble,

        That’s what I think of those who “prey” at health clinics.

        Rob

      • 1955thekeeper

        Vagabond, That’s it in a nut shell. The were causing trouble with their dancing. I wonder what the British Aristocracy said of Thomas Jefferson when he and the rest of the trouble makers in the colonies simply danced right out of the British Commonwealth during the Revolutionary War of 1776? Who made up some cockamamie rule against dancing at a memorial? What were these people expressively demonstrating against other than the loss of their personal liberty to freely express themselves under the protection of the Bill of Rights as well as the fact that their actions were NOT expressly forbidden by any portion of the Constitution for the united states of America. I would much rather see a group of interpretive, er excuse me, expressive dancers at a national memorial rather than hear loud blaring music pouring out of a vehicle and/or portable radio. They probably received complaints about the likes of Hare Krishna clanking their finger cymbals and beating their tablas as they spun around singing. To not look like haters of a specific religious group, they likely banned any type of dancing at all. I do not see that dancing in the rotunda surrounding the statue Of Thomas Jefferson damages the decorum of the moment or disturbs those other people in the same area. Lets face it for what it is, police do not like to be told no when they demand that you either do something OR stop doing something. Even if their demands and expectations are based not on lawful codified statutes but on the last shift briefing just before shift change. “All right youse officers wid the bike patrol, youd better stop all dat unlawful dancin what is taking place at the Jefferson.” “Get tough or get out!” “Make an example of someone.” “Get it stopped NOW! – Dismissed!”

        • JC

          Well said! :)

    • Thamera

      Well then John, there should be dancing in national museums and in public library’s and in the the oval office at the white house unannounced, right? Maybe the tomb of the unknown soldier, or the veteran’s memorial or inside the Smithsonian, right? If I’m not mistaken, these are all “owned” by the people. Maybe next time they will be a little more creative and have a full out barbeque or something on the memorial, or I know, how about the tomb of the unknown soldier? They could spread out a table cloth and fire up the grill right there at the tomb…haha

      • JC

        “And David danced before the LORD with all his might;
        and David was girded with a linen ephod.”
        2 Samuel 6:14 (KJV)

        ——————————————————————————–

        “Let them praise his name in the dance: let them
        sing praises unto him with the timbrel and harp.”
        Psalm 149:3 (KJV)

        ——————————————————————————–

        “Praise him with the timbrel and dance: praise him with stringed instruments and organs”
        Psalm 150:4 (KJV)

        ——————————————————————————–

        “A time to weep, and a time to laugh; a time to mourn, and a time to dance.”
        Ecclesiastes 3:4 (KJV)

        Dancing is a celebration of life. A celebration of freedom.

        • Thamera

          I agree with you JC…what I don’t agree with is the ‘intent’ behind the “dancing”.

          • Thamera

            sidenote: According to biblical accounts, I don’t think God was too happy with the dancing done around the golden calf for example, now do ya think??? It’s all about context…in words and actions.

          • Vicki

            Thamera writes:
            “what I don’t agree with is the ‘intent’ behind the “dancing” ”

            Let God judge the intent. We have enough trouble judging facts. :0
            Since the dancers were not causing damage to the property nor to others I find no crime. Had I been there I would not have even felt disrespected. The first disturbance from the “civil disobedience” came when the police started throwing people around.

            The code pink guy yelling AFTER he was arrested might have been disturbing but it is still his right. (See Amendment 1, US Constitution)

            It is my right to ignore him or go elsewhere if I don’t want to hear him.

          • Kate8

            Hey guys and gals – Here is another video of “Adam vs the MAN”.

            These guys are great. They are young conservatives/libertarians who GET IT. I love this.

            Watch the whole thing. It ROCKS. I’m not kidding.

            Included: More stuff about the dancing, and also “How to opt out of Obamacare”, TSA groping, and a FANTASTIC “Hitler” clip that will make you both laugh and cry.

            It goes fast. You’ll love it.

            http://dprogram.net/2011/06/04/adam-vs-the-man-opting-out-of-obamacare-no-henhouse-hookups-tsa-groping-legal-united-we-dance-part-2/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+wordpress%2FBcwy+%28Deprogram%29&utm_content=Yahoo%21+Mail

          • Thamera

            great link Kate8. It was good to see and get a better understanding of what they believe in.

          • Karolyn

            Kate – Great video! I like what he said about people in Europe being tired of the left/right antagonism (in so many words). There are so many things that both “sides” are in agreement about. I hope this dancing protest keeps going and getting bigger! If I lived near one, I would participate! :-)

          • Karolyn

            I wrote before I even got to see the Hitler part. It is brilliant!

          • Vicki

            Karolyn says:
            “I wrote before I even got to see the Hitler part. It is brilliant!”

            Agreed. I saw that just now. It certainly deserved to win that contest.

          • Carlucci

            I just watched it. It is fantastic. How wonderful that people in this age group “get it”, and it sounds like it is happening all over the world. Now if we can just get a majority of the slumbering population here to wake up and smell the coffee.

          • DaveH

            And that is why the Leaders will be working hard to shut down this internet.

          • DaveH
          • Kate8

            DaveH – Thank you for that post. So much of what we hear these days is based on political intent to discredit and besmirch.

            That summation is exactly what I’d think if I ignored the media, which I try to do. Things are usually exactly opposite of what they say.

      • Shane

        I would just like to say from an outsiders point of view who doesn’t live in the US, your government authorities have lost the plot, and by the looks of things the US is becoming a police state. Your descendents will surely look back on this time and wonder how they could have been so foolish to let these people rob you of your freedom and all while keeping society quietly subdued with games and tricks. I recently saw another case of the police way overreacting to a deaf guy taking photos at a train station. It makes me sad to see once a great country go down this path of self destrction

  • karolyn

    Jefferson is rolling in his grave.

  • http://aol.com sean murrey ILLInio

    it is a place for silence and respect these kids today do not respect nothing.

    • jbird

      Hugging your significant other and rocking back and forth is disrespectful?

      • Robert Smith

        If people are dancing sex may break out. Gotta stop it because of “maybe.” (not)

        Rob

        • DaveH

          It’s a well known fact that dancing is the gateway movement to sex.

          • Carlucci

            Question: Why don’t Baptists have sex standing up?

            Answer: Because they don’t want people to think they’re dancing.

          • Vicki

            Nice one :)

      • vagabond

        jbird. again that was a monument. NOT a dance pavillion. DO YOU UNDERSTAND THE DIFFERENCE??

        • Thamera

          No he doesn’t vagabond, but he (Robert S.) also thinks that an unborn child is a parasite.

          • Robert Smith

            Quit lying Thamera.

            Isn’t lying one of the top ten no nos?

            Rob

          • Thamera

            My apologies Robert Smith, if you are not the same Robert who consistently compares fetuses to acorns and parasites. However, Being mistaken and lying, are two different things. Perhaps people with common names like yourself could come up with a more creative screen name to differentiate yourself from other Roberts? Just saying…

          • DaveH

            From Robert Smith Says (May 23, 2011 at 9:05pm:
            “BTW, if someone came to your house for a party, yes they were invited, and they decided to stay for 9 months and they demand that you feed them, etc. Yes, really supply 100% of their needs for 9 months, wouldn’t you get some help to have them taken out?”

            Sounds like a Liberal to me. But don’t they hang around longer than 9 months, Robert?

        • JC

          Do YOU understand that people may celebrate freedom in the United States any way they want to as long as they aren’t hurting anybody?
          Or did you cheer for the Nazis?

          • Thamera

            Yes, JC I absolutely do, but I have to wonder about the intentions of the so called “dancers”. They were there to disrupt and provoke a situation. Maybe it would be a good idea to find out a little more about them as well. However, if that despicable group known as the Westboro Baptist Church can picket the funerals of deceased soldiers, I suppose that attention seeking “dancers” can dance in public memorials, but then you have to ask, what about say urinating in public? Should you be able to turn public parks into public urinals? What about tagging? Isn’t that freedom of expression as well? And like I asked before, would it be different if they were dancing in say the national museum? What about a library? (btw I wasn’t alive during the Nazi regime :D)

          • DaveH

            Sometimes the best way to deal with trouble makers who are just seeking attention is to ignore them.
            Let’s see, what do I want to see more in public places — dancing or police brutality? Hmmm, let me think about that.

          • JC

            Thamera, the Nazi comment wasn’t directed at you. Somehow you’re comment slipped in between. And fair enough about finding out more about the dancers. But if they weren’t “Dancing for Communism” I don’t have a problem with them.

          • Jazzabelle

            JC wrote: “But if they weren’t “Dancing for Communism” I don’t have a problem with them.”

            I don’t have a problem with them, even if they WERE dancing for Communism.

            After all, I might someday want to dance for liberty!

          • Thamera

            Oh, okay JC. That happens. Normally I agree with you and DaveH, but this I’m not liking so much, mainly because I don’t know what they were protesting, but I do know that they were openly defiant and resisted arrest. Should they have been arrested? NO. Personally, I would of ignored them, but there were a lot of people there touring these sites and these “dancers” knew exactly what they were doing. They provoked the police and I’m not okay with that. Maybe it’s because I have a lot of family in law enforcement and I know the interminable “crap” that they constantly have to deal with, without a bunch of people intentionally creating discord.

          • JC

            Ok Thamera, just for fun…
            Had it been a group of people in Tuxedo’s and Ballroom Gowns, waltzing to some very elegant classical music, would it have been just as offensive?

          • Thamera

            Yes JC, I would like to have seen an organized event such as the one you describe. Somehow, I have a hard time imagining people in ballroom gowns and tuxedos becoming belligerent and defiant if the park police had asked them to leave. I could be wrong, but if they openly defied the police and became arguementive and provocative, then they would also be arrested only it would be a lot more colorful. In fact, that’s not a bad idea. Maybe on Saturday these same protestors should be a little better organized and at least make a real show out of it :D

          • Thamera

            btw: I am not offended with their “dancing”. What I find offensive is their pre-planned intention to intentionally provoke the police and cause a problem.

          • JC

            Thamera while I thoroughly enjoy seeing people, in various forms challenging the authority of the Police State, I still respect the views of those who see the location of the protest dance as an affront to the solemnity of our heritage.
            I just wish our own Government held our heritage in such high esteem.

          • Thamera

            to that I agree wholeheartedly JC

          • DaveH

            We should never do anything that police don’t like (provoke them). We must obey them, whether they are smart enough to know what law we are breaking or not. Because they are our superiors.

          • Vicki

            Thamera writes:
            “I have a lot of family in law enforcement and I know the interminable “crap” that they constantly have to deal with, without a bunch of people intentionally creating discord.”

            My respects to your family. It is a hard job. It would be MUCH easier if the government would stop trying to treat everyone as children. Prohibition made law enforcement have to experience a lot of crap too. We seem to have totally forgotten that with the war on (some) drugs.

            For a TRULY free people the possession of ANYTHING created, grown, obtained without fraud or theft, can not be illegal.

            Think how much less “crap” the police would have to endure if we returned to the old ways. The ways of a free people. before the wars and rumors of wars on everything except another country.

          • Thamera

            I agree with you completely Vicki…so do the members of my family in law enforcement but consider the predicament they are in as long as these laws are in existence…perhaps my point would have been better understood had I said at the first that what I object to is the manipulation of civil disobedience by a group that has very little interest in freedom of speech or freedom for that matter in the way that the founding fathers intended. Their protest was no more than a tool to advance their own progressive, socialist agenda, not in the interest of free speech, as I see it.

          • Vicki

            Thamera says:
            “I agree with you completely Vicki…so do the members of my family in law enforcement but consider the predicament they are in as long as these laws are in existence”

            There is no predicament. Their first allegiance is to the supreme law of the land. Enforcing a obviously unconstitutional rule or law is NOT something they have to do. All they had to do in this case is wait for code pink to stop being civil and then arrest. It’s that easy. It’s that black and white.

            Thamera: “perhaps my point would have been better understood had I said at the first that what I object to is the manipulation of civil disobedience by a group that has very little interest in freedom of speech or freedom for that matter in the way that the founding fathers intended.”

            I support your right to that opinion and to express it. I ALSO support their right to their opinion and their right to express it. Even though I may totally disagree with their desire to suppress my freedom. They still have the right to have that opinion and desire.

            They do NOT have the right to pass a law enforcing their opinion on you or me. For the moment they are fighting our cause. Even if it is for their reasons.

            Thamera: “Their protest was no more than a tool to advance their own progressive, socialist agenda, not in the interest of free speech, as I see it.”

            Freedom of speech etc is specifically designed to allow ANYONE to express their agenda. We use it to express ours. They use it to express theirs.

            In fighting for their freedom of speech they fight for our freedom of speech. They are not trying to get the law to say that only code pink can dance. They might not want us to have it but they fight for our freedom at the moment so for the moment the enemy of my enemy….

          • Kate8

            Thamera – Watch the video.

            http://dprogram.net/2011/06/04/adam-vs-the-man-opting-out-of-obamacare-no-henhouse-hookups-tsa-groping-legal-united-we-dance-part-2/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+wordpress%2FBcwy+%28Deprogram%29&utm_content=Yahoo%21+Mail

            These are the dancers, and they are telling exactly WHY they are doing this. They are great, patriotic young people.

            We are to the point where EVERYTHING we do is regulated and controlled.

            When we get that we do have have to obey arbitraty laws, we will be free.

            This dancing thing has become an international rallying call. It has spread to Europe. WE ARE ALL FED UP WITH THE CONTROLLING ELITE.

          • Thamera

            I did Kate8 further up and thank you. I was wrong to make an assumption about their intentions based only on the fact that Medea Benjamin from Code Pink was in their midst (which is a group that I do not support) and I am also more sympathetic toward law enforcement because many of my family members are in law enforcement. With that being said, I think it is a great movement and know that if my son were here he would be right there with them.

        • jbird

          No vagabond, because as you have pointed out, I’m a freedom-loving IDIOT! who didn’t realize that because a large gazebo contains a statue of a long-dead, freedom-loving man that quietude and solemnity were required rules of admittance. And when those stupid, irritating, noisy little kid tourists start running around inside we need to be sure the park police immediately beat their little behinds and slap them into stocks.

        • Vicki

          Do you guys know the meaning of freedom of expression? Apparently not.

          Any power you give government to take away rights of those you do not like can and WILL be used against you when they get control of government.

    • DaveH

      Sieg Heil!

    • Jazzabelle

      Of course “these kids today” respect some things, sean … like Jefferson’s ideal of freedom! Do you think Jefferson would have wanted a memorial where people weren’t allowed to express themselves freely? Where they would face arrest for being disrespectful? for picketing, demonstrating, or dancing? Really??

  • http://www.michael-mcdermott.ws Michael McDermott

    Hi Everyone:

    This is sad. Now I can see where some people might say that it is a place to honor Thomas Jefferson so respect should be shown meaning (sadness, prayer, meditation) only. However, slowly our rights are being taken away This is not the only video I have seen that shows police forcing this abuse on people who are speaking, dressing, dancing, talking against government in public. WE HAVE GOT TO PUT AN END TO THIS NOW! Here is the link in case those of you did not get to see the original “Adam vs. The Man”

    http://youtu.be/8jUU3yCy3uI

  • Bud

    Koolaid drinkers are out in force early today!

  • http://guncontrol Eileen Barayasarra

    Government is not the point! A MEMORIAL is a place for QUIET RESPECT! If you want to dance, GO TO A PARK! Would you want people dancing on your mother’s or father’s grave? If you want to behave like a disrespectful child or a monkey, GO TO A ZOO! Churches or Memorials ought to be protected from this type of thing, Police have enough to do without having to fool with FOOLS!

    • karolyn

      It is a park! There is nothing disrespectful about JOY! I think dancing in a graveyard is wonderful. It’s celebrating life. Why be sad over dead people? They are gone and free of this earth. I’m sure Jefferson would think the situation is despicable. We are so indoctrinated by society to believe and behave in certain ways that any variation of those ways is thought to be wrong. Lighten up! Live a little!

      • Thamera

        seriously karolyn one has to really wonder what is wrong with you. Dancing for joy and celebration were they? I would call it provoking a contentious situation. It is obvious that they were there to stir up trouble, get some press time and provoke the park police – not to dance for the sheer “joy” of it.

        • Jazzabelle

          They were there as an act of civil disobedience. Which is one of the most RESPECTFUL things a citizen can do.

          Eileen, nobody is buried under or inside the Jefferson Memorial. It is not a grave (except, briefly, it became the grave of some people’s freedoms when they dared to dance there).

          There is also nothing wrong with dancing in a church, I used to do it all the time. Obviously there are certain styles of dancing that would be disrespectful in a church that taught against those things. But that is a moral issue that doesn’t apply in this circumstance. Nobody’s morality governs anybody else’s exercise of nonviolent public expression. And, for the record, I think churches are excellent places for groups of people to get together and engage in civil disobedience. The church is supposed to be the salt and light of the world, but instead we are lock-step with a degenerate ruling class at almost every turn.

          • Thamera

            So would it be okay with you Jazzabelle if these same “freedom loving” demonstrators (although we don’t know anything about them really, or what their intentions were except to be disruptive) wanted to “dance” on Christ’s tomb? What if they came into your church and wanted to dance on the altar or in the middle of a service? Would that be alright too? And did you actually watch the video?

          • Jazzabelle

            Thamera -

            Yes, I watched the video before making any postings on this site. I watched the entire video and didn’t have a problem with any of the dancing.

            If someone wanted to dance on Christ’s tomb, that would be fine with me. I’m certain that it would be fine with Christ, too.

            I fellowship with a New Testament house church, which meets according to the pattern set out in the New Testament and used by the early church. That means (in part) that we meet from house to house. Sometimes we meet at my house, sometimes at the houses of other families.

            If some guests came to visit our fellowship on a day when the gathering was held in my home, and if they got up and started dancing at some random moment, I think I would be delighted!

            Of course, if the gathering were held at someone else’s house and the dancing happened there, the response would be up to the host. Since we are talking about private property, not public property owned by the people, the hosts could decide whether to allow the dancing or ask the dancers to stop or leave. That would be up to them, just like it would be up to me at my house. The same principle applies to a building that is owned by an institutional church. It is private property, so the owners can make rules about the conduct that takes place there.

            But that is irrelevant to the topic of this board, since it concerns public property. The rules are different. People don’t give up their rights just because they stepped off of their own property.

          • Thamera

            I see that I need to be more clear: The problem escalated when the park police asked the “dancers” (I use that term lightly)to leave because they were clearly trying to provoke civil discord. So Jazzabelle, if a someone is dancing at a hosts house during a religious service and the host asks them to leave and they become belligerent and augmentative? Then what? sidenote: I suppose you also noticed then that the police did not even approach the only couple doing any “real” dancing until the rest of their group became belligerent and argumentative?

          • Jazzabelle

            Thamera said: “I see that I need to be more clear: The problem escalated when the park police asked the “dancers” (I use that term lightly)to leave because they were clearly trying to provoke civil discord. So Jazzabelle, if a someone is dancing at a hosts house during a religious service and the host asks them to leave and they become belligerent and augmentative? Then what?”

            Then, since it’s private property, the property owner has the right to call the police and have the offenders removed for trespassing. Like I said, the rules are different on private property.

          • Thamera

            Well so much for answering the question Jazz. I’m not surprised because to answer honestly you would have to concede that trying to remove belligerent and argumentative people from your home would pose a problem in the same manner that it posed a problem for the park police who have a duty to ensure the safety of all the citizens in the park.

          • Jazzabelle

            Thamera wrote: “Well so much for answering the question Jazz. I’m not surprised because to answer honestly you would have to concede that trying to remove belligerent and argumentative people from your home would pose a problem in the same manner that it posed a problem for the park police who have a duty to ensure the safety of all the citizens in the park.”

            No; it only “poses a problem” for the park police IF the park police were trying to remove “belligerent and argumentative people” from the memorial. Which they weren’t. They were trying to remove peacefully dancing people from the memorial. Notice that nobody got belligerent and argumentative until the police started busting out the handcuffs. This situation only became a problem due to the actions of the police; they created the problem and then “solved” it–don’t you love the way government works?

            By the way, the police were NOT trying to “ensure the safety of all the citizens in the park” as you claim. Nobody was unsafe until the police showed up. Nobody was getting hurt until the police starting throwing their weight around.

            And NO, “trying to remove belligerent and argumentative people from [my] home” would NOT “pose a problem in the same manner that it posed a problem for the park police.” Having unwanted guests in my home (regardless of their behavior and regardless of the reason I didn’t want them there) is a clear-cut legal issue. I am the property owner; if I don’t want someone there, they have to leave. It’s a simple and clear-cut legal principle, and the police will back it up if necessary. If you have an argument with this concept, what you are really arguing against is private property rights. As I’ve repeatedly explained to you, this situation is completely different from someone dancing in a public place. First of all, who owns the public place? It isn’t a private property issue, it’s a public property issue. The laws and principles are different.

            If you don’t mind my saying so, private and public places are both necessary. Your private property is where you go when you want to make your own rules and have the right to insist that your visitors abide by them. Public places are where you go when you want to use or enjoy things that you don’t personally own, and when you enter a public place you need to recognize that your personal comfort, values, and preferences aren’t in charge anymore; you’re not the center of the universe the way you are on your own land; you need to recognize that everyone has rights and you can’t control how other people exercise their rights, as long as they aren’t injuring you. This is also a simple and clear-cut legal issue. It’s best summed up in the ancient cliche, “Your freedom to move your elbow ends where my body begins” (or something to that effect). Truly, if you can’t handle people who don’t share your preferences and values and who don’t put your personal comfort above their own civil rights, you need to stay on your own land, where you can make the rules to your liking.

          • Thamera

            who is to say that there weren’t complaints by the visitors at the park? Again, dancing was not the problem, being belligerent and attempting to create a disturbance was. Nothing would have happened if the group had left when asked. But then again, that was not their intention and as has been mentioned, the police played right into their hands. Mission accomplished.

          • Jazzabelle

            Thamera wrote: “who is to say that there weren’t complaints by the visitors at the park?”

            So what if there were? The problem doesn’t come when somebody complains. The problem comes when somebody breaks the law.

            “Again, dancing was not the problem, being belligerent and attempting to create a disturbance was.”

            Now, that doesn’t make any sense. There was no disturbance and no belligerence until the police showed up and started threatening to arrest everyone. That makes it impossible for any visitor at the park to have complained about “being belligerent and attempting to create a disturbance” BEFORE the police showed up.

            “Nothing would have happened if the group had left when asked.”

            How do you know?

            “But then again, that was not their intention and as has been mentioned, the police played right into their hands. Mission accomplished.”

            Are you saying the police shouldn’t have engaged with them?

        • Carlucci

          Thamera, you must have missed the first video, which I saw the other day. The idea behind the dance protest is simply a peaceful demonstration by these dancers to protest lost liberties in America.

          If they were dancing, so what? There was no loud music – in fact there was no music at all, except what someone may have been listening to on their own private ipad, which nobody else could hear. Granted, some people shown aren’t great dancers, but that is not the point.

          Personally, I am encouraged by this footage because most of the protestors are young people and they see what is happening here in America with loss of freedoms and a police state. Hopefully that is a segment of society that will be voting for Dr. Ron Paul.

          BTW – I’m sure the American people pay for the upkeep on the monuments in D.C. in taxes, one way or another. If that is the case, this taxpayer welcomes peaceful dance protests there or anywhere else in this nation.

          • Thamera

            You might want to check who organized that “peaceful” dance protest then Carlucci and what perceived ‘rights’ they actually espouse.

          • Thamera

            Oh, I can safely say that, that “peaceful” group of young people will in fact NOT be voting for Ron Paul…

          • DaveH

            I will take that bet.

          • DaveH

            Speaking of Ron Paul, Thamera, have you noticed how the Republicans are doing their best to not mention his candidacy? The way I see it, Republican leaders don’t want Ron in there any more than the Democrat leaders do. He would majorly mess up their neatly feathered nests.

    • DaveH

      They were not dancing on Thomas Jefferson’s grave. He was buried in Monticello Graveyard:
      http://www.findagrave.com/cgi-bin/fg.cgi?page=cr&GRid=544&CRid=641519&

      • Thamera

        hahaha don’t forget DaveH that as karolyn told us just yesterday though “she is above average intelligence” lol

        As far as the dancers (I didn’t see much dancing)I think the police really made it harder for themselves by trying to arrest these people. However, it was clearly for show, press and attention and I would say their plan for attention worked. It is interesting to me however, that the same people in full support of a group of people that were in open defiance of authority are many of the same people that think that the lt. colonel Lakin should rot in prison for questioning Obama…hmmmmm.

        • karolyn

          They really didin’t even get a chance to do anything before the cops busted them. Maybe they were trying to make a point, and there’s nothing wrong with that. I thought you were for freedom.

          • Thamera

            there is a difference between freedom and anarchy karolyn. Just like there is a difference between dancing for “joy” or dancing to create civil disorder and they weren’t even good at that. Next time they should try a barbeque or something. Spread out a table cloth and fire up a grill right on the memorial. Maybe the statue of Jefferson could serve as a drink holder or something. Better yet, maybe the memorials could be turned into jungle gyms and kids should be allowed to climb up the memorials and then repel down them…now that would be a good protest don’t you think?

          • Carlucci

            What is wrong with anarchy? Sometimes it can be a good thing.

          • Thamera

            uh huh…okay Carlucci, examples of when it has been a good thing? Me thinks you are confusing democracy with a republic. A democracy, we are not.

          • Carlucci

            Thamera, I know the difference between a republic and democracy. My point was anarchy could be used as a reason to overthrow a government and/or rulers as has been done in the past.

            From Websters:

            Anarchy: (1). a state of society without government or law.
            (2). confusion or disorder.

            Anarchism: (1). A doctrine advocating the abolition of government as the indispensable condition for full liberty. (2). The methods of anarchists.

            From Wikipedia: Anarchy (from Greek: ἀναρχίᾱ anarchíā, “without ruler”) may refer to any of several political states, and has been variously defined by sources. Most often, the term “anarchy” describes the simple absence of publicly recognized government or enforced political authority.[1][2] When used in this sense, anarchy may[3] or may not[4] imply political disorder or lawlessness within a society. In another sense, anarchy may not refer to a complete lack of authority or political organization, but instead refer to a social state characterized by absolute direct democracy[5] or libertarianism.[4]

            I guess I would have to call myself an anarchist.

          • DaveH

            Thamera,
            History is littered with the chaos of economic collapses as a result of too much Government. If you think about it, there really is no such thing as anarchy. There is always one group or another that assumes leadership. Can you name me one society that has ever had anarchy? And if you can somehow do that (there were a small handful), show me how it resulted in chaos?
            Why would they teach kids (and adults) that anarchy is chaos? Simple, for the same reason they severely propagandized the children that Abe Lincoln was a wonderful man — so those children would accept Big Central Government without questioning.

          • DaveH

            I’ll bet this guy could have used some of that less Government chaos, Thamera:
            http://motherjones.com/mojo/2011/03/supreme-court-rules-against-exonerated-death-row-prisoner-who-sued-prosecutors

          • Thamera

            yes, he could DaveH and this case is just as upsetting as the Jerome Ersland case. My point is Code Pink knew the rules of the park and knew that by the simple act of dancing they could create the result that they did which is ironic since it is PC liberal progressives that elected the big government PC crowd in the first place that enacted the rules and laws in our national parks and memorials today which the park police are commissioned to enforce. Do I agree with it? No, but place the blame where it belongs, not on the park police doing their job.

          • Thamera

            Oh, and you are right about anarchy DaveH to a certain point since there are several subdivisions of anarchy some resulting in chaos and some not. I personally do no wish to see civil war erupting from anarchy and will do everything that I can to change the governing authority who put these ridiculous and unconstitutional laws into place in the first place, but again don’t blame the police for enforcing the rules of the park that the electorate put into place in the first place.

          • DaveH

            Civil War without Government. Sure, whatever you say, Thamera.
            You weren’t one of those public school teachers who propagandized the kids were you?
            Anarchy is just one of those things that Big Government lovers throw out to discourage the thoughtful arguments of those who know that much less Government results in better economies and more Freedom. Much like Liberals use the term “Extremist”.

          • Thamera

            DaveH: You either misunderstand me, or I fail to understand what you are saying in this post. If you have read anything I have ever posted then you would know I detest big government as well as the propaganda constantly taught in our public schools…so where is the confusion>? My point being too many people jumped on the bandwagon surrounding this story and didn’t even bother to check out the underlying facts like who organized the protest and what their agenda might be…which in my opinion has very little to do with freedom of speech since groups like Code Pink are the first to champion all the things that lead to big government/socialism/social justice etc., in the first place and would be among the first to shut people up who dare oppose their views.

          • DaveH

            I don’t doubt that, Thamera. But for us to cast aside some of our ideals just because a repugnant group of people share them is a big mistake. The one thing that attracted me most to the Libertarian Party was the fact that they stick to their Principles much more rigidly than any other Political Party. For instance, we are the only party that doesn’t think it is okay for Government people to steal the money of others. We are the only party that doesn’t think it is okay for people in Government to kill (other than in self-defense). We are the only party that doesn’t give Government a pass on the morality that the rest of us are held to. The fact that we can’t gather a large amount of voters speaks volumes about how far down the road to immorality our citizens have gone.

          • Thamera

            Can’t disagree with you there DaveH.

          • Jazzabelle

            Thamera wrote: “there is a difference between freedom and anarchy”

            Nothing personal. But it would take a lot more than a dozen bad dancers to reduce our civilization to anarchy.

            Thamera wrote: “don’t blame the police for enforcing the rules of the park that the electorate put into place in the first place.”

            Fact check: the electorate wasn’t involved in this one, Thamera. The no-dancing rule was handed down by a court.

          • JC

            Carlucci says:

            June 3, 2011 at 2:50 pm

            Thamera, I know the difference between a republic and democracy. My point was anarchy could be used as a reason to overthrow a government and/or rulers as has been done in the past.

            From Websters:

            Anarchy: (1). a state of society without government or law.
            (2). confusion or disorder.

            Anarchism: (1). A doctrine advocating the abolition of government as the indispensable condition for full liberty. (2). The methods of anarchists.
            __________________________________________________________________

            Or! Anarchy is merely the opposite of Heirarchy.
            A limited Constitutonal Republic might just meet that definition.
            Our administration is meant to be one of Statesmen, not Politicians.
            And its duties are clearly defined in the Constitution.

        • CherokeeDan

          They’re also the same people who are horrified at the sight of a manger scene on public property at Christmas time.

          • DaveH

            And that is wrong, Dan, but two wrongs still don’t make a right.

          • DaveH

            I have been advising my Christian friends (I’m Atheist) for years that they must get active and get back their 1st Amendment religious rights which the Liberals have stolen through Unconstitutional Supreme Court rulings.
            Here is the First Amendment. It’s simple. Anybody who can read English can see that it says nothing about religious displays on Public Property:
            “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”.

            Get it? “Congress shall make no law….prohibiting the free exercise [religion] thereof”
            If the Constitution doesn’t apply to the public spaces, then just where the heck does it apply?
            The Supreme Court rulings proclaiming “separation of church and state” are made from whole cloth. Surprise, Surprise, the modern day Supreme Courts (since Lincoln) have been issuing political rulings. Yet, we the people don’t get to vote for those Justices. Talk about being disenfranchised.

          • DaveH

            For those who don’t know, Lincoln would have made Obama blush. He even went so far as to order the arrest for “treason” of Supreme Court Justice Roger Taney, who had ruled that Lincoln had no authority to suspend the writ of habeas corpus. Imagine the chilling effect that had on Supreme Court decisions.
            Read the book “Lincoln Unmasked” to learn just how far Lincoln took us away from Constitutional law, and it’s gone downhill ever since.

          • JC

            DaveH says:

            June 4, 2011 at 8:52 am

            And that is wrong, Dan, but two wrongs still don’t make a right.
            _________________________________________________________________
            Nope! Two Wrongs, make baby Liberals ;)

      • libertytrain

        So do you mean to say we have these beautiful memorial monuments and no one, not even Lincoln is buried under them? :) I can’t believe people thought these were graves – don’t these things ever get talked about in school anymore?

        • karolyn

          I did not think it was a grave. I was also responding to another poster who said it was bad to dance in graveyards.

          • libertytrain

            sorry, I actually was thinking of the other poster, I saw nothing to complain about in your statement. :)

    • Robert Smith

      Eileen… It is the PARK Police doing the bad. They weren’t always that way.

      In the late 90s the organizers of BBMMDC did a ritual next to the Jefferson Memorial with Isaac Bonawitz leading the litergy. That made its way into the memorial with drums and dancing for a couple of hours. At 11:00 the Park Police respectfuly pointed out the time and suggested there had been enough fun. The big issue was that the bathrooms would be closed. The participants saw the point and went back to the convention hotel feeling uplifted and good about the whole thing.

      Rob

    • vagabond

      very well said and so true Eileen, too bad there are so many IDIOTS who dont understand,

    • JC

      Eileen, I would bet that Thomas Jefferson would have enjoyed very much seeing free people dancing as opposed to the statist crap that seems to be the norm now.

    • Carlucci

      Eileen, I have a funny feeling that you would turn into one of those people who would ultimately be against people dancing in a PARK! or a ZOO! People like you scare me.

    • Vicki

      Eileen Barayasarra writes:
      “Would you want people dancing on your mother’s or father’s grave?”

      Neither my parents (both in their graves) nor I care. In fact we would celebrate their right to express themselves in a civil manor. Which they did. Both my parents fought in wars to protect that very right. Now as it happens my fathers grave is on private property so the general public would not be permitted in there.

      My mothers grave is the open sea. I suspect lots of people dance on her grave most any day or weekend there is a cruse. :)

    • Kate8

      Sometimes people do things that we might consider tasteless. This is not reason to arrest them.

      Heck, I see tasteless things all the time. What do we do? We shake our heads and go on. Being tasteless is not a crime. Have you looked at TV lately?

      Having said that, I rather support what these young people are doing.

      • Kate8

        I say, thank God we have some young people with the guts to stand up to the PTB. Us older folks could use their help.

  • John

    Bunch of dancing left-wing idiots. Wonder how many actually work for a living? If any do, they’d have better things to do with their time.

    • Robert Smith

      Hi John,

      You posted about the left wing: “Wonder how many actually work for a living?”

      I’ve always wondered the same thing about anti―abortion protesters and the folks from the Williamsborugh Baptist Church.

      Rob

    • Jazzabelle

      John wrote: “Bunch of dancing left-wing idiots. Wonder how many actually work for a living? If any do, they’d have better things to do with their time.”

      Do you have better things to do with your time, John, and that’s why you’re spending your morning posting on an Internet message board?

      Or do you have better things to do with your time, and that’s why you can’t be bothered to do anything to help save your country before it’s too late (besides whining on an Internet message board)?

      Or do you have better things to do with your time, and that’s why you don’t exercise your civil liberties and don’t care if other people’s civil liberties are violently taken from them?

      After all, you have bills to pay. You can’t be bothered to exercise your liberties, much less protect them.

      I would also question your labeling of the dancers as “liberals.” I’m as conservative as they come, but that’s exactly the sort of thing I would have done to protest the loss of God-given liberty. Remember, freedom isn’t the property of one political party. Your comment shows that the divide-and-conquer tactic is working on you; as long as it’s just the liberals who lose their freedoms, it’s okay with you. Remember, too, that laws and court precedents apply to everyone, regardless of ideology. If you don’t stand up for freedom in general, then it will disappear in general. In other words, if you don’t stand up for liberals because you aren’t a liberal, then when they come for you there won’t be anyone left to stand up for you.

      • karolyn

        Thanks for the astute comment!

      • Carlucci

        You got it, Jazzabelle. Excellent points.

      • Bruce

        I agree with you what we have to stop doing is calling each other names and start to work with each other.

        • Karolyn

          Bruce – I believe we have a lot more in common than we allow ourselves to hear. The labels we are given preclude many from really reading what we have to say before jumping to conclusions. The more I search, the more commonalities I find. That is not to say there are no differences; but, after all, we are all Americans and should be able to peacefully coexist without slander and hate.

      • Vicki

        I think that maybe I am a conservative based on opinions here. Had I been there that day I would have had trouble resisting the urge to join the code pink guys in common cause.

        I might even have tried to get everyone to sing the national anthem.

        Any power you give government to take away rights of those you do not like can and WILL be used against you when they get control of government.

    • Kate8

      John – That’s what I figured, too, when I first heard the story.

      But they aren’t Left wing kids. They are more Libertarian, and are protesting the Right/Left illusion in the name of control.

      These young people are true patriots. They would make our founders proud.

      Our hope has to be in our young folks, and these kids are an inspiration.

  • http://www.reformdc.com nax777

    The burdens of much liberty. I miss those days.
    It is irrational to think that any single payer social program will work. It is irrational for nations to tax its way out of poverty. It is irrational to help overpopulated poorer nations by becoming one. It is irrational to believe that a power convinced that you have nowhere else to go will do your biding.

    A true Conservative and a true Liberal agree on one thing though for different reasons. Any single payer social program is a nutty idea! Now each believes that it’s not so nutty as long as their side is managing it. Pubs and Dems call rational people cruel, heartless nut cases. Rational and irrational also no longer hold true meaning.

    Replace the powers with citizens that can be immediately removed by citizens and never serve for a life time. We must take control ourselves. Please join with us at Goooh.com you might be able to click on my name. This will take you to my link page that links to Goooh.com, NumbersUSA.com and SBA-list.org.

    P.S. Have you heard of “you cut” @ http://majorityleader.gov/YouCut/

    • DaveH

      “Reduce the number of Federal Employees by 10 Percent through attrition”?
      “Eliminate the Economic Development Administration at the Department of Commerce”?
      “Terminate the Department of Energy’s Weatherization Assistance Program”?
      You call those cuts? Libertarians would eliminate the jobs of 50 percent of Federal Employees, and not by “attrition”. Libertarians would “Eliminate” most of the Department of Commerce. Liberatarians would “Terminate” the entire Department of Energy. Libertarians would get us back to the Limited Federal Government as dictated by that ignored Main Law of the Land — The Constitution of the United States.

      For Principles and Freedom:
      http://libertarianparty.org/platform

  • DaveH
    • karolyn

      I have already contacted my congressmen about the Free Speech about Science Act.

      • DaveH

        I have cured many ills with supplements. And, to my knowledge, nobody has ever died from supplements. I could never understand why people let Government silence supplement sellers. If they claimed that a certain supplement cured cancer, that would be fraudulent and should be punished. But to say that Amazonian natives believe that a certain supplement cures cancer (if indeed verifiable) is an entirely different matter, and Big Government should butt out. Maybe if they spent more time educating the Public School children, those children would grow into adults that can read a sentence and understand the difference.

        • Carlucci

          DaveH – There have been all natural cures for cancer for years. You never hear about them because the govt. squelches this info, or goes after the people who are actually helping others with alternative remedies that are not cutting (surgery), poisoning (chemo) or burning
          (radiation) patients to death. I’ve shared a story about a dear friend and former co-worker who beat pancreatic cancer a few years ago with a supplement called Graviola. He also juices fresh fruit and vegetables, and enjoys a mostly raw diet of fruits and veggies. In addition, he takes enzymes and drinks Essiac tea. Surviving pancreatic cancer is a miracle, as that type of cancer is a fast killer, like ovarian cancer.

          • DaveH

            I have long believed that the secret to health is in our diets, and the fact that no doctors have ever addressed that to me, caused me to doubt their sincerity a long time ago. Also, I watched the medical establishment cause my father-in-law (a very good man) to suffer great pain and humiliation during his last 6 months. They will never touch me with their chemo therapy or any other of their clumsy, invasive methods.

          • Carlucci

            Absolutely- ! I saw an interview years ago with a 100 year old lady and she was asked what her secret was to her longevity. She said “I stay as far away from doctors as possible!”

            My husband also suffered at the hands of the medical establishment. With all of their “technology”, most of their methods and ideology are totally archaic. Granted, my husband’s lifestyle had a great deal to do with his early demise, and I believe he realized that at the end.
            Diet, a proper vitamin and supplement regimen, and mental attitude are huge contributing factors to health. I just read a book called the Magnesium Miracle that says everyone is deficient in this critical mineral (selenium is a biggie, too). Magnesium supplementation can help all kinds of present day ailments, from high blood pressure, high cholesterol, depression, insomnia, etc. I’ve been using topical magnesium gel for about a week now, and am feeling much more relaxed, plus sleeping better.

          • JC

            Carlucci,
            cancer Research is the single largest industry on the planet.
            Don’t hold your breath waiting for them to discover anything,
            they’re making too much money the way things are.
            Always follow the money…

    • Vicki

      That is funny DaveH. Thanks for sharing.

      From the article:
      “the fact that the FDA has decreed that any food or dietary supplement that provides any sort of health benefit is automatically a “drug.”

      Health benefit. Hmmmm. Lets remove all food from the bureaucrats in the FDA and see how long before their health starts deteriorating. Then give them their favorite food.

      • DaveH

        You and I know the real truth — that the medical establishment and big pharma are alarmed at all the dollars that natural supplements are diverting from them. It’s all about Crony Capitalism.

        • JC

          Not to mention that Big Pharma would love the opportunity to supplement our food supply, even more than they already do.
          What with dyes, hormones, steroids, antibiotics, and God knows what else they put in there, for our own good.

          ya Know! I’m starting to think our Government doesn’t like us.

  • john

    The leader of this group has a web show on RT. That R stands for Russia. I don’t want to be schooled on personal liberty bt an arm of the Russian government.

    • JC

      Really? That’s surprising…
      Would you have a link?

      • karolyn

        JC – Here’s the link. I see “Russia” indicated anywhere.
        http://www.youtube.com/user/RTAmerica

        • karolyn

          Oops! Maybe it does have something to do with Russia:
          http://rt.com/on-air/rt-america-air/

        • JC

          Thanks for doing some leg wortk on that Karolyn, I’ve been a little busy. The only reference to Russia that I saw was that these folks also broadcast there. the site seems to be available in several languages inculding Arabic.
          What I don’t see, is any reference to them being anything but straight up “American”.

  • wllharrington

    These people have no respect for others. They complain,loudly, about their rights but do not recognize that with rights come responsibilities. Among these resposibilities is to respect the rights of others, who, it so happens, have the same rights, one which is the right to not be harrassed by malcontents. These people are infringing on the rights of these others.

    • karolyn

      They did nothing to infringe on anyone’s rights. There were only a handful of them and all they were doing was bopping around. Let’s see what happens tomorrow if a huge crowd shows up. I say “You go guys!” If I was 30 years younger and lived closer, I’d be there! What is wrong with a little fun in this somber world? Everybody takes themselves too damn seriously.

    • Robert Smith

      just like abortion protesters.

      Just like Westbrough Baptist Church…

      Self proclaimed christians one and all.

      Rob

    • Jazzabelle

      wllharrington wrote: “Among these resposibilities is to respect the rights of others, who, it so happens, have the same rights, one which is the right to not be harrassed by malcontents.”

      The “right not to be harrassed [sic] by malcontents?” Is that in the Constitution?

      Oh, wait, I found it. Here it is: “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.”

      Hmmmmmm.

      • Vicki

        You are correct. That assembly looked quite peaceful until the police started throwing people around. Even the dancing that I saw on the video was not anywhere near as disruptive as some dancing I have seen over time.

    • SiliconDoc

      wil it sure appears to me that the park pigs caused the worst disturbance of all, then shut the place down – because their stupid letter of the law piggery means so much to them, and it’s so important to not disrupt….
      SO THEY ASSAULTED SOME CITIZENS THEN SHUT THE PLACE DOWN.

      If the piggies make a situation much worse than it was before they took their actions – THEN THEY BLEW IT.

      THESE PIGGIES BLEW IT.

  • dqfreemind

    I guess it is un American to be an American in a National Monument (owned by us).
    I guess if you kicked a couple of these storm troopers in the head, this crap would stop!. Better yet, start shooting. Wake up America & seig heil!

  • skippy

    wait…wasn’t he the guy that had all the slaves?…and all the ‘kids’??

    • JC

      No that was Stalin.

    • Jazzabelle

      Yes, Jefferson had slaves.

      He also had children.

      However, he did not have children with his slaves, as some people have alleged. Genetic testing was done that proved the descendants of his slaves were not related to him.

      Of course, certain news outlets, like the New York Times, misreported the story and never issued a retraction. You might be stuck with an incorrect understanding if you haven’t researched the matter for yourself.

    • Thamera

      skippy was being “flippant” in his response Jazz…not ignorant. It is obvious that Skippy has no respect for Thomas Jefferson.

    • DaveH

      Now only the Liberals are allowed to enslave people.

  • Thor

    There are two basic ways to get what one considers an unjust rule or law into court: one is to hire a lawyer and do a direct challenge; the other is to have oneself arrested by specific violation of that law. The video depicts the latter–perhaps the cheapest and fastest way to challenge authority and law, through civil disobedience. The price for that is arrest but the payoff is that you introduce the challenge through the summary courts system. That’s all fine and good but there is no need whatsoever to be disrespectful to the police when you do it. There is no need to resist arrest. Obviously, if you engage in such behavior knowing that arrest is inevitable, then you are willing to go to jail to get your point across. Resisting arrest and screaming hateful slurs at the police simply marks you as a juvenile anarchist with no respect for the law. It risks injury to police and citizen protestors and it is uncalled for–except to stir up the kind of anarchists who have responded here. The police do not make the laws. They simply enforce them. Many times they may agree with the protestors themselves but are duty-bound to enforce the law as it is written. What could have passed for legitimate protest here simply devolved into an asinine display of disrespect for law and law enforcement. Real Americans who believe in the Constitution have no need to provoke the police, resist arrest and spit euphemisms. If that’s the kind of Democracy you like, there are plenty of countries where folks are paying a much higher price for their version of freedom. Just because it is safe to resist arrest here does not mean you should.

    • JC

      Too many laws will always lead to a complete lack of respect for the “law” How about a system of “justice”? We’ve never tried that before…

    • Thamera

      Thank you Thor. Well said. The “dancers” were defiant and belligerent and did nothing to diffuse the situation; that alone will get you arrested in ANY venue whether you are out in the middle of the street because someone just rear ended you and you are mad about it, or you are at a public memorial. Do I agree with it? NO, but with freedom also comes responsibility and consequences. Well said Thor, you are free to choose but you are not free to choose the consequences. Just ask lt. col. Lakin or now, Jerome Erslund…

      • Eddie47d

        Thamera; You emphasis consequences of ones actions then bring in Lakin (disobeyed an order) and Erslund ( committed a vigilante murder). They definetely suffered the consequences. As far as the dancers in the video I do think it was the wrong place but a very harmless act of fun. Flash Mob dancing is the new rave and happens all over the country and this was nothing more than an extension of that. Did the Park police over react? Darn toot-in’! The dancers did not hurt anyone or do damage to anything.

        • Thamera

          Your right Eddie, they didn’t harm anyone or do any damage but they were openly defiant and belligerent when asked to leave. Not the smartest move unless you are intentionally seeking to provoke the police which is going to get coverage by the press, which is exactly what they were there for, not to freely express themselves through the art of dance.

          • Vicki

            Thamera, you’re right of course. Those silly protesters probably thought they were in the land of the free that Jefferson helped create. A place where people could speak and dance and be merry in the public commons.

            A place where they could peaceably assemble without the Kings Royal Guard harassing them.

            Silly them.

          • Carlucci

            Right on, Vicky. You rock.

          • Thamera

            Vicki, they knew exactly what they were doing. They were well aware no doubt about the park rules (which I do not agree with) banning all content of expression apparently, and knew full well that the simple act of dancing, albeit a seemingly form of free expression would invoke interaction with the park police who are bound to uphold the rules of the park whether you agree with them or not! It would be nice if we could pick and choose which rules we wish to follow but we don’t have that luxury. I don’t particularly like wearing my seatbelt for example, but I wear it and I make my opinion known by writing to my representatives and senators and voting for people that I think can affect change, not through civil disobedience.

          • Vicki

            Thamera says:
            “I make my opinion known by writing to my representatives and senators and voting for people that I think can affect change, not through civil disobedience.”

            You keep commenting that you do not wish to exercise your duty to resist tyranny thru civil disobedience. I can presume you can be trusted to hand in all your guns when the time comes? (Presumes that you have some)

            I wear my seatbelt because it protects me in the event of an accident. NOT because the king (J.Brown this year) demands that I must wear it to protect his property.

            I carry a permission slip (drivers license) from the king (J.Brown this year) to move my private property (car) upon the kings highways because I do not want to be hassled by the kings royal guard should they decide I did not move my private property in the manner approved by the king.

            And you silly people still think you are a free people.

          • Carlucci

            Vicki – Excellent and true observations. Sadly, most people don’t see how things really are – for example, that they are driving a private car, not a “motor vehicle”. If the number one rule of real estate is “location, location, location”, guess what the number one rule of law is? “Definition, definition, definition”. The “motor vehicle code” here in Texas clearly states that the only “vehicles” subject to the speed limit/rules of the road are commercial vehicles that are hauling people or items for a fare or a fee. A friend of mine won her case in traffic court over this very statute. She made the cop read that part of the MVC aloud to the jury and you should have seen the cop’s face right before it was read aloud – complete surprise! Apparently the Keystone Kop had no idea what the MVC really said, and that it did not apply to the normal everyday private citizen driving their private car, going about their business.

          • Jazzabelle

            Vicki & Carlucci:

            There’s a good way to deal with the possibility of ignorant cops. With some correspondence with the DMV, you can establish that their statutes can’t be applied to you, and they will put a “flag” on your name, so that if a cop stops you and runs your name, he will get instantly schooled about what he’s allowed to cite you for and what he can’t.

            I’d suggest this resource for learning how to do the above: http://teamlaw.org/

          • Thamera

            Jazz while I do not agree with the premise supported by yourself and Vicki of “anything goes” in public…thank you for the link.

          • Jazzabelle

            Thamera: You’re welcome. :)

    • Jazzabelle

      Thor wrote: “The police do not make the laws. They simply enforce them. Many times they may agree with the protestors themselves but are duty-bound to enforce the law as it is written.”

      Actually, they’re NOT duty-bound to enforce the law as it is written. They’re DUTY-BOUND to REFUSE to enforce a law as it is written if the law violates the Constitution.

      • Thor

        Thank you for contributing to the point I was trying to make: first, the police are in fact duty bound to uphold the law as written. Neither they nor anyone you saw in the video Constitutional scholars; and, in fact, it is debatable whether any of the laws concerned here were violations of the Constitution–which brings us full circle, to the courts…not the dancers or the police.

        • Jazzabelle

          Thor wrote: “[T]he police are in fact duty bound to uphold the law as written. Neither they nor anyone you saw in the video [are] Constitutional scholars; and, in fact, it is debatable whether any of the laws concerned here were violations of the Constitution–which brings us full circle, to the courts…not the dancers or the police.”

          You don’t seem to understand what the Constitution is. It is a political document that created a government. In it, the states and the people DELEGATED authority of a certain kind and amount to that government. Notice the word DELEGATED. You can’t delegate authority that you don’t have. So the federal government is limited from having or exercising any authority that individual citizens, like you or I, can’t exercise. I don’t have the authority to tackle my neighbor to the ground, tie him up, and drag him away because he was dancing in public. Therefore, I can’t delegate that authority to the government, and the government can’t exercise it. That’s what brings the Constitution into it, Thor. Our Founding Fathers thought this concept was so obvious they didn’t even bother to state it plainly in the Constitution. It had to be added later as part of the Bill of Rights (9th and 10th Amendments).

          You’re right, though, that this dancing incident brings the issue to the courts–but probably not the way you intended it. It’s not up to the courts (including the Supreme Court) to decide whether laws are Constitutional or not. That would be a conflict of interest, to have one part of the federal government deciding where the whole federal government’s powers begin and end. No, the way this will (or COULD) be taken to the courts is to hold the judges who rule against the Constitution accountable to the law. Unconstitutional rulings are an abuse of judicial authority, and it is possible for one person who has become a victim of this to have a judge removed from the bench for it. A grand jury made up of individual people–citizens–are the ones who give the verdict. This is government of the people, by the people, and for the people. Even Supreme Court justices are directly answerable to the people in this way. Most people just don’t know how to do it.

          If you would like to learn more about this topic, I highly recommend poking around on this website for a little while: http://teamlaw.org/

          • Vicki

            Minor nit. Neither state nor federal government has any rights. Government has only the powers we the people delegate.

            Amendment 9 and 10 make this clear. Rights appear in 9 and belong to the people. Powers appear in 10 and are either prohibited by the Constitution (such as coining money) or are delegated to the States by THE PEOPLE.

            Thus only people have rights. People also have powers. Both 9 and 10 support this assertion.

            We, the people are the source of all powers and we delegated SOME powers to the federal government and SOME to the States. Some powers we might like to delegate to the government are forbidden. We are not allowed to delegate the power to confiscate firearms to either the state or federal government, for instance.

            The constitution makes this clear by the very wording of the Amendments.
            Only the first amendment as a limitation where it says CONGRESS shall make no law….

            All the rest of the amendments clearly are limitations on ALL government. State and Federal.

          • Thamera

            Exactly Vicki and you can thank all the PC nuts out there for voting in people that create laws and rules and regs like the ones in our federal parks and national memorials. It should be to their credit, that the police didn’t treat Code Pink any differently than any other group expressing themselves at the memorial. That is evident by the article YOU posted. Now that those ridiculous PC laws and rules and regs are in place it is obviously time to change them but not through civil disobedience which only ties the hands of the police who are commissioned to do their job and uphold the rules and regs which PC nuts and big government advocates comissioned in the first place.

          • Vicki

            Thamera says:
            “…it is obviously time to change them but not through civil disobedience which only ties the hands of the police who are commissioned to do their job and uphold the rules and regs which PC nuts and big government advocates comissioned in the first place.”

            First it is our right and duty to resist unconstitutional rules and laws.
            2nd. The police are NOT restricted by this. They have the power and duty to decide to arrest or not. They are the FIRST line of defense between we, the people, and the tyrant. They choose to arrest or not in cases like this. They can look at the law and see its blatent violation of rights and wait patiently for the code pink people to cross that very wide line (that you have previously claimed to be thin) and to stop being peaceful.

            Code Pink people tend to push till they get a reaction so ignore them while they are peaceful and when they turn violent (if they do) then arrest them.

            Simple and no fuss. With all those citizen reporters around the police can be sure of video showing the violence and who started it.

            The video above shows that the police started the violence.
            The police have a duty. They failed that duty that day. :(

          • Thor

            Thanks, Jazzabelle for taking such an interest in my education. I will do as you suggest and continue my reading. You say, “It’s not up to the courts (including the Supreme Court) to decide whether laws are Constitutional or not.” I have been reading Constitutional Law for 40 years and you seem to be in a very small minority of scholars who think this is so. While, the Constitution does not explicitly grant the Supreme Court the power of judicial review; nevertheless, the power of this Court to overturn laws and executive actions it deems unlawful or unconstitutional is a well-established precedent. Under John Marshall, the Court established the principle of judicial review, including specifying itself as the supreme expositor of the Constitution (Marbury v. Madison) and one of two entities capability of overruling Congress—the other, of course, is the Presidential veto. All power, of course, originates with the people. Hobbes and Locke seem to have established that beyond question in the historic perspective; but, then, here in this Federal Republic, their power is delegated to Congress, the Supreme Court and judiciary and to the President. Once that power is assumed, then it is incumbent upon the entity assuming it to act in the people’s interest. If you would not delegate the power to interpret the Constitution to the Supreme Court, then to whom would you delegate it…and please do not say ‘the people’! Realistically, most citizens do not even read the news much less the Constitution. Two hundred years of jurisprudence indicates that’s what they hire judges for.

          • Jazzabelle

            Thor: Thank you for your long and thoughtful reply. :)

            Thor wrote: “While, the Constitution does not explicitly grant the Supreme Court the power of judicial review; nevertheless, the power of this Court to overturn laws and executive actions it deems unlawful or unconstitutional is a well-established precedent.”

            To be clear, I agree that the Supreme Court has the authority to overturn laws and executive actions (just as some lower courts do). I just don’t think they have the final word on every matter. They are capable of ruling unlawfully; in which case, the citizen has remedy as I described in my last post. Thus, “the people” really are the final arbiters of what is Constitutional!

            Thor wrote: “Once that power is assumed, then it is incumbent upon the entity assuming it to act in the people’s interest.”

            This is where our system has broken down. The “entities” (appropriate word choice!) that assume that power have a conflict of interest today because they aren’t technically employed by the government (see the District of Columbia Organic Act of 1871, which created a corporation to execute the business needs of the American government, and see also the Bretton Woods Agreement, in which that corporation was quitclaimed to the IMF).

            Thor wrote: “Realistically, most citizens do not even read the news much less the Constitution.”

            Yes, that’s a travesty. Most Americans of the colonial period were lawyers (even if they weren’t attorneys!) – and they had the knowledge to build a participatory system of government that required an understanding of foundational law on the part of the average citizen. To save (what’s left of) their legacy, patriots today might have to learn the law just like their forefathers did. It sounds like you are doing just that – kudos! I am doing my best as well, although I am sure you know more than I do if you have been at it for 40 years. I hope you didn’t take my comment “it sounds like you don’t know what the Constitution is” as too cheeky! :)

            Cheers,
            Jazzabelle

    • jibbs

      Agreed, freemdom also involve’s showing rspect. Maybe the fools on here that agree with these so called “dancers” should try dancing in a court room and see what happen’s!…after all, YOU have the freedom to do what you want(any takers?) Those “dancers” were there trying to make a statement and provoke anything they could, they were told to stop and leave, and made a choice not to(bad choice?)
      Well, then they get what they deserved and decided that they didn’t like it(their choice, not mine). Looks like they made a bad choice, maybe they should have thought about what would happen. Respect is earned, not givin, and the founding fathers have earned it.

      • Thamera

        That they have jibbs..well said, the founders deserve respect. Like I said in an earlier post would it be okay then to start “dancing” in a public library or a museum? What about firing up a grill and having a bbq right there in the memorial? I don’t see any of this as a “productive” demonstration of anything.

        • Carlucci

          The founding fathers do deserve respect. In the meantime, the district of criminals crap all over the founding fathers’ ideas daily and have been doing so for many years. To me that is much, much worse than a group of taxpayers silently dancing at a memorial.

          • Vicki

            In the opinion of some (including me :) ) the founders have earned my respect. However to honor them I must protest that the police directly interfered with the freedom of those people to express their joy at our freedom by dancing before the statue of one of the founders.

            The police violated their constitutional right to peacefully assemble.
            The police violated their constitutional right to speak their opinion. Even if that opinion is not shared by me.

            If I am to deserve any respect from the founders (should they have been alive) I must protest those actions by the police.

        • Thamera

          Well jibbs, I think that it is safe to say that by the tenor of most of the posts on this board, not only should you be able to dance around in a courtroom, you should probably be able to dance right up on the on the tables and benches as well, even better if you are doing so completely naked…suddenly no law is a good law and everything is in direct violation of our freedom to express ourselves…wow.

      • DaveH

        The real “fools” are the ones who think things will change by going with the flow. There are travesties occurring all around the country that most of us are oblivious to, because most people don’t want to make waves. It’s easier (at least immediately) to just accept authority, and Hope things will get better. They won’t. There is nothing free about Freedom.
        It sickens me that we have gone from a nation of rugged pioneers to a nation of simpering wimps in just a little over 200 years.

  • http://Na. Robert Bradfield

    Hi, it is that South African again,

    This reminds me of the South African Police Service in its handling of a legitimate protest about non-existent municipal service in a little town of Ficksburg in the Orange Free State. The result one protester died because of Police brutality. He was beaten and eventually shot. Is America becoming more of Africa than they realise?

    I am just asking. I think I might be safer in South Africa than America, the so-called land of the free. American citizens I feel for you.

    • Ret

      Hello Robert,

      Unfortunately, I think you hit the nail on the head. The abuses are compounding daily in all aspects of our lives: What happened to the woman in Detroit who took her child off Risperdal, the Indiana law allowing police to enter a private home because they hear something that could be illegal activity (flushing the toilet?), gate rape or irradiation to get on an airplane, etc. To those who say it’s for my own good, speak for yourselves, don’t speak for me.

      • Jazzabelle

        Ret and Robert, you’re both right. The examples Ret gives are, unfortunately, examples of what average people can expect under today’s police state. As the police state gains ground, more and more people can expect to become victims.

        There is, however, a way to protect yourself and exempt yourself from investigation for victimless “crimes.” This also gives you a great deal of power over the “system” and its “agents” that you don’t have otherwise. You can learn how to do it here: http://teamlaw.org/

        • Thamera

          Jazz et al., while I believe that we have far too many laws and intrusion in our daily lives…these “dancers” were given a choice. They were asked to leave and they openly defied that request. If they had left when asked, they would not have been arrested…but then, they wouldn’t have gotten the attention from the press that way either. The point is, they were given a choice. And, I sincerely doubt that you would welcome irreverent behavior in a place that you see as deserving reverence and respect…say Christ’s tomb? Many people believe that these memorials are deserving of reverence and respect as well.

          • Jazzabelle

            Thamera said: “I sincerely doubt that you would welcome irreverent behavior in a place that you see as deserving reverence and respect…say Christ’s tomb? Many people believe that these memorials are deserving of reverence and respect as well.”

            Then you are free to reverence and respect them when you visit them.

            On the topic of Christ’s tomb, please see my reply to you further up the page.

            You wrote: “[T]hese “dancers” were given a choice. They were asked to leave and they openly defied that request.”

            That does not make arrest appropriate, Thamera. The police couldn’t even tell the dancers what law they had broken or what charge they would be charged with. That’s illegal. Beyond that, it’s a crime to enforce an unconstitutional “law.” Just because someone gave them a “choice” doesn’t mean they have to accept the framing that’s been put on the issue.

          • Thamera

            Please see my reply to your post above since you see no problem with people protesting at Christ’s tomb, my question then, is if “dancers” refused to leave a home where a religious service was taking place and became belligerent and defiant, then what? You would let them continue and disrupt the entire service even though the host asked them to leave or discontinue their behavior???

          • Thamera

            And Jazz I am painfully aware of the multitude of unconstitutional laws and regulations in place…but this was just pointless and served no purpose other than to cause trouble…they knew full well what they were doing. The police have a duty to serve and protect every citizen…that includes the people that were peacefully visiting the memorials that day from a group that was intentionally inciting public disorder. A police officer is trained to diffuse a situation BEFORE it escalates into a situation that could pose a threat to the populace. These people were loud, obnoxious and argumentative after they were politely and calmly asked to leave. I don’t see that as restraining freedom anymore than say a group of people interrupting a movie by getting up on the stage and starting to dance or being loud and obnoxious, and yelling in a theatre…but then, I suppose that wouldn’t bother you in the slightest either.

          • DaveH

            Private Property vs. Public Property.

          • Jazzabelle

            Thamera wrote: “A police officer is trained to diffuse a situation BEFORE it escalates into a situation that could pose a threat to the populace.”

            I guess they didn’t go with their training this time, then. Since THE POLICE were the ones who escalated the situation into violence and threatened the populace (and carried out those threats).

            “These people were loud, obnoxious and argumentative after they were politely and calmly asked to leave. I don’t see that as restraining freedom anymore than say a group of people interrupting a movie by getting up on the stage and starting to dance or being loud and obnoxious, and yelling in a theatre…but then, I suppose that wouldn’t bother you in the slightest either.”

            If someone did that in a theater in response to unprovoked police brutality that was taking place right there in the theater, I would be THANKFUL for the obnoxious yelling!! Because it would let me know what was going on around me, and warn me that I could be next for all I know!!

          • Thamera

            No Jazz, the hypothetical was what if people in a theatre, during a movie, decided to get up on the stage and start dancing in front of the screen and became loud, obnoxious and belligerent when asked to leave..there are thousands of scenarios and hypotheticals to demonstrate that not “anything goes” when you are out in public. If everyone was “virtuous” we wouldn’t have to worry about it, but since we are not, there needs to be laws…again, we are not a democracy.

          • http://Na. Robert Bradfield

            Thamera,

            Its that South African again.

            Though it is true that the group was given a choice of leaving, as I understand it they were expressing a legitimate concern about a freedom that were taken away from them by your supreme court, not the government, which i understand is the only group that can make laws. The court system has to interpret the laws, not make them.

            In out case with the example I quoted, all the police men were charged with either murder or assault with the intent to cause grievous bodily harm. In their case our courts will interpret the law and pass the appropriate sentence, therefore my comment that I would rather stay in South Africa than being persecuted by a system that I believe is flawed.

            Just a follow-up on my comment and some of yours. for the others, thank you for your kind support.

          • Thamera

            Thank you Robert…points well taken and very true…it is I that has confused the issue with civil disobedience and uncivilized behavior in public which I do find offensive like public nudity, urination, and lewd behavior just for example…as well as confusing Code Pink for being the same as Adam and company…I am glad they are out there and questioning these moronic laws. I know if my son were here he would be right there with them.

          • Jazzabelle

            Thamera wrote: “No Jazz, the hypothetical was what if people in a theatre, during a movie, decided to get up on the stage and start dancing in front of the screen and became loud, obnoxious and belligerent when asked to leave..there are thousands of scenarios and hypotheticals to demonstrate that not “anything goes” when you are out in public. If everyone was “virtuous” we wouldn’t have to worry about it, but since we are not, there needs to be laws…again, we are not a democracy.”

            *sigh* This is the private vs. public property issue again. I have NEVER said that “anything goes” in public. Not to mention that a theater isn’t a public place. It’s somebody’s private property, and that somebody has the right to make their rules and expel those who don’t follow them. THAT’S the relevant law in your hypothetical and every other hypothetical that involves private property.

            Again, none of this is relevant in the slightest to the people who danced in the Jefferson Memorial.

          • Vicki

            Jazzabelle says:
            “*sigh* This is the private vs. public property issue again.”
            ” Not to mention that a theater isn’t a public place. It’s somebody’s private property,”

            Quite true. And as you have said the owner can make rules about behaviour in that place. I often have to remind people on various blogs (like this one) when their posts get deleted and they scream censorship.

            I point out that the blog owner is NOT the government and has every right to censor whatever they wish. If the person doesn’t like it he/she is free to go start his own blog.

          • Vicki

            Thamera says:
            “Please see my reply to your post above since you see no problem with people protesting at Christ’s tomb, my question then, is if “dancers” refused to leave a home where a religious service was taking place”

            I think you already know my answer to this but for others who may be reading I will comment

            If the place the dancers are refusing to leave is a public place then they are fully within their right to refuse.

            If the place the dancers are refusing to leave is a private place AND they are being asked to leave by the owner then they are fully within their right to LEAVE.

            Public/private. Simple. Black and White. No shade of gray.

        • Ret

          Thanks, will follow up. I vacillate between hope and despair. Lately, more despair. Few people seem to think for themselves, research, or care. Others are in such a desperate position that the only thing they can think of is paying rent and eating for another day or month. Never thought I’d see us come to this.

          • Jazzabelle

            Good luck, Ret.

            TeamLaw is the only thing giving me hope for my country right now. If not for the perspective I get there, I would seriously be trying to leave the country.

      • Vicki

        Ret. People that say “it’s for our own good” who are not our parents are treating us like children. Which is our complaint about government and why the derogatory term “nanny state” was coined.

    • Thor

      Bob, Ret, Jazzie…your concern for the dancer’s rights is very heart-warming but what about the rights of those who wanted to attend our national monuments in peace, reticence and dignity? How about their right not to have their visit disturbed by folk intent on defying the law? It could be that other folks who also have rights are getting tired of such behavior. Maybe there are those among them willing to express their right to freedom of expression with violence of their own but not against the police but the dancers. Maybe the National Park Rule for disallowing protest was put in place to protect the dancers themselves. Citizens of the US have plenty of reason to distrust government…but, this is not one of them. While folk like you are all wrapped up in petty dancing rights, big spenders are robbing us blind and telling us it is for our own good. But…be happy! Follow the bouncing ball if you must!

      • Thamera

        Again Thor, well said. Couldn’t agree more.

      • Jazzabelle

        Thor said: “[W]hat about the rights of those who wanted to attend our national monuments in peace, reticence and dignity? How about their right not to have their visit disturbed by folk intent on defying the law?”

        First, the folks were not actually defying the law. They were ignoring a judge’s unlawful opinion, which they have the right to do. Remember, any law that is in conflict with the Constitution is null, void, and unenforceable, according to the Constitution–NOT starting from when some court rules it to be unconstitutional, but from the very beginning of its existence.

        Second, there is no such “right” to “not be disturbed” when you’re in public. If you can’t handle other people peaceably engaging in the exercise of their God-given liberties, then stay home.

        Thor wrote: “It could be that other folks who also have rights are getting tired of such behavior. Maybe there are those among them willing to express their right to freedom of expression with violence of their own but not against the police but the dancers.”

        First of all, Thor, there is no “right to freedom of expression with violence.” When you engage in violence, you are not exercising a civil right. When you create a victim, you have committed a crime–and then you CAN legitimately be arrested.

        Secondly, when you go out in public and act in a disrespectful or offensive manner, you have to be prepared for the chance that some criminal who happens to be there will take the excuse to bash your face in. That would be a crime, and the criminal would be prosecuted for it. But you should still think about the fact that it might happen before you go out in public and do offensive things. I’m not condoning disrespectful or offensive behavior, here; I’m just saying that it’s legally protected behavior and violence isn’t. And I’m saying that if someone wants to take the risks involved in acting offensively in public, then it’s their right to take those chances. Restricting people’s choices with laws “for their own safety” is totalitarian and totally unacceptable in a free society.

        Thor wrote: “While folk like you are all wrapped up in petty dancing rights, big spenders are robbing us blind and telling us it is for our own good. But…be happy! Follow the bouncing ball if you must!”

        It sounds to me like you are the one following the bouncing ball. In the same paragraph you go from saying “these are good laws, made for YOUR SAFETY” to saying “Oh no! The government is telling us this is FOR OUR OWN GOOD!!” You don’t seem to realize that “petty dancing rights” are in the same category as the right to keep the products of your own labor, which are in the same category as the right to honor your God according to your own conscience, which are in the same category as the right to make an idiot of yourself in public (as long as you don’t hurt anybody). An attack against anyone’s rights by the government is an attack on the foundation and source of all rights that we enjoy. If Congress’ spending and the value of the dollar are your primary areas of concern, great – go get some real money (as defined by the Constitution) and you will have prepared (somewhat) to take care of your family if the worst happens. What you can do is more important than what Congress is or isn’t doing.

        • Trever

          I must applaud your comments. You respond with intelligence, common sense, respect, and most of all – facts. It is really refreshing! Cheers!

          • Jazzabelle

            Thanks, Trever!! Cheers!

        • Thor

          Let me explain it to you this way, Jazzi: you do not have the authority to pick and choose who has rights. I have rights, too–just like you. If I were at Jefferson Memorial, solemnly contemplating history, and you and your significant other disturbed that moment, I would feel the urge to express my rights by getting violent with you. You disturb me. I disturb you. You seem to have no concept whatever of ‘first causes.’ It is precisely the dancing that violates the rights of others and no one, not you, not those dancers–no one has the right to do that to someone else. Thus, the written statute prohibiting the first cause action. You have the right to listen to any kind of music you want. You do not have the right to disturb my peace by blasting it through the windows of my car. That’s what you ‘living Constitution’ people do not understand. Your rights stop at my nose. They do so because I insist that they do and I am willing to do what is necessary to make sure of it.

          • Thamera

            Again, well said Thor (kind of sound like Jovi) but no matter, I agree with you on this one.

          • JC

            Getting violent because someone “disturbed” you is irrational and uncivilized. You have no right to control or otherwise dictate anyone’s behaviour who isn’t committing an actual crime against your person or your property.

            Not in America anyway.

          • Jazzabelle

            Thor wrote: “Let me explain it to you this way, Jazzi: you do not have the authority to pick and choose who has rights.”

            That’s right. Nobody has the right to pick and choose. We all have the same rights. As you said, “Your rights stop at my nose.” Since the dancers weren’t anywhere near anybody’s nose, they weren’t violating anyone’s rights. No arrest was lawful. That’s true whether they were being obnoxious or not.

            Thor wrote: “If I were at Jefferson Memorial, solemnly contemplating history, and you and your significant other disturbed that moment, I would feel the urge to express my rights by getting violent with you.”

            LOL, that’s a really funny mental image. You could try that, and I’d give you one chance in ten of staying out of the hospital. (You obviously don’t know my husband. Or me.) You talk about “first causes,” but you show absolutely no understanding of them as they relate to the law. Public incivility is free expression and thus legally protected; violence isn’t. It’s illegal to “express my rights by getting violent with you.” IF you engage in violence, your victim(s) (in this case my husband and I) have the RIGHT of self-defense. So when you got let out of the hospital, you’d be taken directly to jail, without passing Go. Did you really study Constitutional Law for 40 years? I don’t believe it.

      • Ret

        Guess I don’t look at my concerns as heartwarming, but appreciate your statements. What concerns me is the constant governmental encroachment, and the the apathy of the general public. Guess I keep hoping something will spur the masses to wake up. Perhaps something as ridiculous as dancing in a monument, forcing arrest, and publicizing it. What about someone with a couple of screaming, out of control kids disturbing others’ visit? Will they be next? Or groups of mentally challenged people who may have self-control issues? Granted, they are not volitional acts, but nonetheless disturbing. I just see a net closing around us. I’d willingly forgo a tranquil visit to somewhere if I knew that someone was trying to spotlight issues. Writing letters does not work, I’ve written hundreds if not thousands over the years, I’ve voted, I’ve volunteered, and still see the march against my liberties gain more and more strength.

        • karolyn

          Ret – I am grateful that there are people who will put themselves out there for their beliefs. Some people have called the RT people “punks.” Well, they’re the ones binging light to issues that many do not even think about. Most people see these stories and sit in the chair tsk-tsk-ing about how awful things are getting and then turn off the computer or change the channel. Those who are at their keyboards writing and trying to bring awareness, as well as even acting out are the ones to be admired. There is hope, and it lies within each one of us. “The only thing we have to fear is fear itself.” SO TRUE!

      • Vicki

        Thor writes:
        “Maybe there are those among them willing to express their right to freedom of expression with violence of their own but not against the police but the dancers.”

        The only violence I saw was the police against some citizens exercising an explicitly protected right. They were not even being obnoxious or noisy about it. No band playing. No boom box. Just a few people moving in a manor that someone else might call “dancing”

        Had I been there I would have not been disturbed by that. I would have been disturbed by the actions of the police and the obvious excessive force.

        The constitution already provides me with a clear and explicitly protected right to leave the area if I chose to be offended by the expression of “dancing” in the presence of the statue of someone who fought for both the freedom of expression, freedom of speech, freedom of the press and the freedom of association. I could have chosen to freely associate with someone else.

        I do find it amusing that code pink and conservative find common ground. Wasn’t it a similar place where students were told to stop singing?
        http://www.foxnews.com/us/2010/08/09/students-lincoln-memorial-told-stop-singing-national-anthem/

        Remember if you give government the power to take away their rights than the government has the power to take away YOURS.

      • DaveH

        I want to attend our National Monuments and National Parks without being assaulted with the visions of Bully Police. Do I have a choice? No.
        I was at Grand Canyon once and observed a female park police forcing a guy into her car with her baton pressed up against his neck hard. I watched the whole event and saw no resistance from the guy at all. There was no reason for her excessive force. She saw me watching and shouted “MOVE ALONG”.
        I can sure see from the comments of many here how a monster like Hitler can rise to power.

      • JC

        Thor says:
        June 3, 2011 at 10:54 am
        … How about their right not to have their visit disturbed by folk intent on defying the law?…
        _______________________________________________________________
        What law were they defying?

  • William Smith

    Another prime example of the fascist police state we have become. Cops nowadays are just looking for any excuse to physically bash the citizenry.

    Most people feel about as safe and secure around today’s gendarmerie in this country as a Jew felt around a brown-shirted storm trooper in 1936 Germany.

    Death to the fascist state! Restore the Constitution now!

    • Thamera

      You have to be so careful here WS. This isn’t a black and white issue. Since when is it okay to resist arrest? These “dancers”/protestors were given a CHOICE and they chose the consequences which is exactly what they wanted. They knew exactly what to do to get arrested in order to get the press coverage they wanted. That we have a facist government I agree with, but you are picking the wrong battle here. BTW: The constitution relied on people being VIRTUOUS which means in part, being able to be respectful and respectable and considerate of others. I didn’t see that happening here.

      • Vicki

        From watching the video I find that I was not in the least disturbed by any of the dancing and if I had been there to visit the statue the few people dancing (all 2 of them) would not have disturbed me at all.

        Then the police started arresting people. Then throwing everyone including the press out. That was disturbing.

        Code pink could not get any press coverage if the police didn’t act in such a manor as to encourage confrontation.

        Watch the video and how the officer reacts to bumping into the 2 from code pink.

        • Thamera

          Exactly Vicki…and I did watch the video – twice. They knew what their actions would provoke, police arrest. That was the point. The point was never to just express themselves through dance. They knew it was a trigger point for the park police. That is why they deliberately chose the Jefferson Memorial to “dance”.

          • Vicki

            They knew it was an unlawful order. They did their Constitutional duty and exercised their right (yours and mine to) to peaceably disobey that law and the order to stop. When ordered unlawfully to surrender they even complied. It was unlawful for 2 reasons

            1. The rule was unlawful
            2. the police did not say “you are under arrest for XXX”

            How dare we, the people, individually demand that the kings royal guard explain their actions. Oh and how dare the free press record the unlawful actions of the royal guard.

            I do understand Thamera. King George had his loyalists too.

      • JC

        Thamera says:
        June 3, 2011 at 11:16 am
        You have to be so careful here WS. This isn’t a black and white issue. Since when is it okay to resist arrest?
        ___________________________________________________________________
        A: 1. When it’s an unlawful arrest. 2. When the Police themselves don’t even know why they are arresting you. 3. When you decide to peacably exercise your rights and freedoms as an American and are assaulted by people in uniform.

        • Jazzabelle

          Thank you, JC! You hit the nail on the head.

  • LiarsMustBeDefeated

    The “dancers” demonstrated their lack of respect for Jefferson, the Park Service, the tourists and visitors. If they so much as drop a candy wrapper on the floor, arrest them. For every camera brought in by the demonstrators, have one rolling for the TRUE AMERICANS. Let the police actions be reserved and FULLY DOCUMENTED. And give out fines appropriately. Is this not a premeditated and scheduled insult? Kinda like Wisconsin, no?

    • Bootsaddle

      Funny you should mention Wisconsin – these guys had the same thuggish appearance and loud abrasive verbal presentation. I think I might have recognized a face in that crowd.

      • Thamera

        You would Bootsaddle since it sounds like this group was orchestrated by Code Pink.

  • Al

    The so called dancers were nothing more than the run of the mill
    anti establishment, anti authority, law breakers,
    (no doubt, trying to be ‘hip’ like in the sixties BULL S—)
    they were fully aware that what they were doing would get the exact results we saw on their planted cameras. National Monuments are not
    fire hydrants… I congratulate the Park Police Officers for
    their personal professionalism and restraint against those who
    would like to have gotten pictures of broken skulls for their balogna
    trouble making ’cause’ America is not some backward mid east country. I would suggest that in the future use tazers or just have
    an out of sight S.W.A.T. shoot them with tranquilizer darts from
    concealed areas, include all carriers of cameras.

    • Ret

      Wow, Al, you work for TSA? Let’s lobotomize every infant at birth, end of problem.

      • Thamera

        I agree with Al. Before all of you throw your support in behind this group of so called “peaceful, freedom loving” protestors it would serve you well to know what they REALLY stand for.

        http://www.codepinkalert.org/article.php?list=type&type=3

        • karolyn

          That’s a stretch Thamera. RT has nothing to do with Code Pink. And what’s wrong with Code Pink’s agenda anway? End militarism? Bring peace to the world? Social justice? Please don’t bring your own prejudices to define these aspirations. They are what they are. I would bet that no one here has ever protested for anything except in the comfort of his own living room. Yes, that includes me. I have always applauded those who really stand up for what they believe by physically demonstrating support for their causes and being willing to pay the consequences.

          • Thamera

            speaking off the cuff again I see karolyn and of course you would see nothing wrong with Code Pink because even with your superior intellect you really don’t know anything about the constitution or the groups that support Code Pink or what social justice even means. The woman dancing in the video is Medea Benjamin karolyn, co-founder of Code Pink. gah, do some research of your own but then again, why do I even bother responding to you. You have one shade of glasses and they are rose.

          • karolyn

            So why DO you keep responding to me? Seems to me it’s only to put me down whenever you get the chance. Even if I agreed with you on something, you would find some way to twist it so you could denigrate me.

          • Thamera

            The same reason everyone does karolyn, because you just make it so easy. After all it was you that stated that you are “above average in intellect” and becaue you can “dish” it out but you can’t take it. Like I said before, you are the worst kind of hyprocrite. You set yourself up for any criticism you get. Your own words are your worst enemy.

          • Thamera

            And if you respond to this, I am sure that it will include incredulity and astonishment and feigned hurt at what I wrote because like I said you have one color of glasses and they are rose.

          • Thamera

            Actually karolyn, I hope you do read this because I would like to apologize. My real issue is with abortion (on a very personal level) and not with you. I hope that life is treating you well in SC and that you “kick butt” in your self-defense class :D

          • Karolyn

            Thank you Thamera. :-)

        • Vicki

          Thamera. The trouble with freedom of speech is that you have to give it to people you don’t like.

          Remember if you give government the power to deny their freedom then when they are in control they can and will deny YOU your freedom.

          • Thamera

            Vicki it is a very thin line. There has to be some kind of expectation for public civility and responsibility. I may be wrong, but taken to the extreme then everything from urinating in public to tagging and graffiti as well as public display of nudity would be covered under freedom of speech if that is how they wish to express themselves, right? After all, none of those actions hurt anybody and should not be restricted in the least, right?

            In addition, it is my understanding that this group has been warned before, yet here they came again and with one purpose in mind. To provoke public discord. What if they had all undressed and stood there naked, or as I mentioned before had a bbq right in the middle of the memorial, would that also be okay with you?

          • Vicki

            Thamera says:
            “but taken to the extreme then everything from urinating in public to tagging and graffiti as well as public display of nudity would be covered under freedom of speech if that is how they wish to express themselves”

            Since the people did none of these things you are using a liberal debate trick called “straw man argument” http://commfaculty.fullerton.edu/rgass/fallacy3211.htm See number 17.

            Thamera says: “After all, none of those actions hurt anybody and should not be restricted in the least, right?”

            To quote famous lawyers. JD. Just depends. Tagging and graffiti clearly does harm to property. Urination might depending on what is urinated on.

            “In addition, it is my understanding that this group has been warned before, yet here they came again and with one purpose in mind. To provoke public discord.”

            Only God and the shadow knows what is in the hearts of man. Typically the tyrant will warn the people before and again as he stomps the jack boot upon the collective neck of the people.

            Thamera says: “What if they had all undressed and stood there naked”

            What harm would that cause? Or do you believe your creator will condemn you for seeing people in the flesh of their creator?

            Thamera says: “or as I mentioned before had a bbq right in the middle of the memorial, would that also be okay with you?”

            Are you sure you are not a liberal in disguise? You argue like one.

          • Thamera

            Just pointing out the slippery slope Vicki…it works from both sides. There are no absolutes.

          • Vicki

            What slope? Tagging and Graffiti cause damage. Urination might. Nudity doesn’t.

          • Thamera

            uh huh huh Vicki…that would be your opinion. Ever talk to a tagger or a grafitti artist? They view what they do as art and there are several groups, the ACLU included, all to happy to support them in their freedom of expression. And according to Jazz no one should expect anything when they are in public and we should all be prepared and willing to accept the fact that someone might decided to urinate while we are standing next to them…as for nudity, I personally don’t want to look at overweight and saggy, overly tanned, wrinkled people in the nude…I’ve had several occassions to do so in California and it isn’t a pretty sight, I can tell you that much, nor do I wish for my children to have to encounter nudists as I defer to modesty, nor do I care to watch immigrants urinate on the side of the highways like they do in San Diego, but hey…according to you and Jazz my rights are pretty much meaningless and therein lies the problem with absolute freedom….

          • Vicki

            Thamera says:
            June 3, 2011 at 9:14 pm

            uh huh huh Vicki…that would be your opinion. Ever talk to a tagger or a grafitti artist? They view what they do as art and there are several groups, the ACLU included, all to happy to support them in their freedom of expression.

            I’m familiar with the liberal mental disorder that fails to see private property as belonging to people other than the tagger. This does not create a slope. Tagging and graffiti cause damage. Actual physical damage. The graffiti is protected expression. Placing it on property that is not yours damages that property and is a crime. See how easy that is. No grey. Nice and black and white. Ok one grey step. YOU get the permission of the property owner. Then the action is not a crime.

            Still remarkably easy to understand. Except for liberals :)

            Thamera: “I personally don’t want to look at overweight and saggy, overly tanned, wrinkled people in the nude…”

            Then don’t. Gee that was a hard one. Hmm. I don’t want to look at people wearing suits and ties. Bummer for me. (I actually don’t care but it is a good slippery slope for Thamera to consider.)

            Thamera: “according to you and Jazz my rights are pretty much meaningless and therein lies the problem with absolute freedom….”

            You keep wandering into extremes. Mostly liberals do that. Are you sure your not a liberal?

            You do have a right to NOT be offended. You have the power to NOT be offended. The rest of the people in the world do not have the power to offend you UNLESS you give it to them. Why would you want to give others that kind of power over you?????

            Exercise your power to NOT be offended. Its that easy. Your right to NOT be offended is totally in your power.

            Now that’s an absolute freedom.

          • Thamera

            I exercise that power every day Vicki…tell me when was the last time that you and your child were accosted by an individual expressing themselves completely nude in public? It’s easy to be an “arm chair quarter back”. I suppose smoking in public places like buses and airplanes should be eh okay too then Vicki because I don’t need to fly or take a bus, right-just walk…good grief. Black and white doesn’t always cut it…there are always shades of gray.

          • Vicki

            Thamera says:
            “I exercise that power every day Vicki…”

            Good. I wish all those PC loving liberals would and stop whining about prayer etc.

            Thamera says: “tell me when was the last time that you and your child were accosted by an individual expressing themselves completely nude in public?”

            Would you feel better if the individual was dressed as a TSA agent? Or are you mis-using the word accosted?

            Thamera says: “It’s easy to be an “arm chair quarter back”. I suppose smoking in public places like buses and airplanes should be eh okay too then Vicki because I don’t need to fly or take a bus, right-just walk…good grief. Black and white doesn’t always cut it…there are always shades of gray.”

            Only liberals see only shades of grey. It is part of the plan to demonize those of us who actually know right from wrong.

            Let us examine your case. You have a right to fly if you want. You do NOT have the right to force other people to fly your way (unless it is your airplane :) ). Don’t like what others are doing on the flight then charter your own. Having the government force all passengers to give up smoking on airlines is the same as forcing all passengers TO smoke on airlines.

            There is a simple, free market solution. Let the airlines decide. 3 flights for non smokers. 1 flight for smokers. Airplanes with 2 sections. Smoking and non-smoking. So many choices. But that would mean smaller government. Can’t have that now can we?

            Same rule for buses. Oh and I notice you said just walk. That would help with getting the exercise that people need. Perhaps you should. Though I am curious why you did not suggest driving.

          • Jazzabelle

            Thamera wrote: “And according to Jazz no one should expect anything when they are in public and we should all be prepared and willing to accept the fact that someone might decide to urinate while we are standing next to them…”

            I don’t recall saying that…

            Thamera wrote: “according to you and Jazz my rights are pretty much meaningless and therein lies the problem with absolute freedom….”

            No, your rights aren’t meaningless. You just don’t have as many as you think. You don’t, for example, have the right to force other people to shut up because you don’t like what they’re saying. You do, on the other hand, have the right to walk away. (If you’re on your own property, you even have the right to force the offensive person to leave–but they still have the right to keep talking after they’ve left.) And you don’t have the right to force anyone to worship your God–but you do have the right to be left alone and allowed to worship your God as you please. You don’t have the right to steal other people’s means of self-defense; but you do have the right to refuse to spend your own money on a weapon. Do you see how it works? This isn’t absolute freedom. It’s called liberty, or libertarian freedom. It’s a perfectly consistent system, and it works if you let it.

          • Vicki

            Thamera says:
            “I exercise that power every day Vicki…” (referencing offense and not being offended)

            Thamera says:
            “You miss the point Carlucci…I for one am not offended by dancing, I am offended by the intent to intentionally provoke civil discord and unrest.”

            Hmmm.. Why would you want to give codePink of all groups that kind of power over you?

          • Thamera

            While I understand your point Vicki and Jazz, I do not agree with the premise “that anything goes”. In a perfect setting, your idealogies would work; however, we are not perfect, individually or collectively, and so those ideologies do not work, like flying on a plane where smoking is allowed. When I was young my siblings and I flew on average twice a year and by the time we arrived at our destination, our eyes stung and our lungs burned because of all the smoke in the plane. I was very glad when they made smoking on planes unlawful, same with all public transportation. It’s not like the cigarette smoke can read the no-smoking section sign, then backs up and flows the other way.

            In addition, yes, Vicki my young daughter and I were accosted by a nudist on the banks of the Sacramento river while we were playing on a rope swing and yes I was angered that this man was brazen enough to approach myself and my young daughter and start beating off, but hey, guess that should be alright too, right Vicki, after all who was he hurting?

            My stance is that if it is your private property then government has no right to intrude (unless you are doing harm to others like beating a child), but the minute you step out your door and into the public, the general citizenry have every right to expect civility and consideration from others.

          • JC

            Thamera, next time you go down to the river, bring a sling shot. ;)
            Curious…how do you feel about the outdoor smoking ban in NYC?

          • Jazzabelle

            Thamera wrote: “While I understand your point Vicki and Jazz, I do not agree with the premise “that anything goes”.”

            Neither of us said or meant that “anything goes.” There are rules in public just like there are rules anywhere else. Don’t hurt people is the primary one. You can disagree with the rules and wish they were different, but don’t look at a person who is arguing for the rule of law and call them an anarchist.

            Thamera wrote: “In a perfect setting, your idealogies would work; however, we are not perfect, individually or collectively, and so those ideologies do not work,”

            I agree with you that liberty would probably work in a perfect setting. But that is conjecture, since we’ve never had a perfect setting. What we do know from observed fact is that liberty works insofar as it is tried. When it is tried a little, it works a little. When it’s tried more, it works better. When an entire society’s Law gets based on liberty, as American law was with the adoption of our federal Constitution, liberty works so brilliantly that its citizens are still the most wealthy and free people on the planet even 150 years after the society began to degenerate and turn away from the principles that made it great.

            When you say “those ideologies” (meaning libertarian freedom) “do not work” because people aren’t perfect, you seem to be equating perfection with a completely polite, respectful, and civil society, in which no-one is ever rude to anyone else and no-one ever gets their feelings hurt. You’re right, that’s not gonna happen in this lifetime. But why get in a snit because government can’t deliver that? It isn’t a shortcoming of liberty that liberty can’t perfect human nature. No form of government can do that. Those that try become tyrannical. Besides, how do you quantify civility? Where’s the line where disrespect becomes a crime? If the line isn’t related to property damage or injury, then “disrespect” isn’t quantifiable and thus any law against it would be “unconstitutionally vague” and therefore unenforceable in our system.

            It might help clarify things if you think about what you mean by the word “work” in your statement, “those ideologies do not work.” They don’t work to do WHAT?

            Liberty doesn’t work to make everyone polite to each other? As I pointed out, that’s not the purpose of government, and it’s impossible to accomplish anyway. Aren’t you the same person who earlier quoted one of the founding fathers as saying something like, “Our Constitution and laws were made for the government of a moral and religious people; they are wholly unsuited to the government of any other.” You seem to recognize that liberty doesn’t create morality but rather depends on it. So why do you support laws that prohibit people from being impolite?

            Liberty doesn’t work to get you what you want in life? That’s not what it’s for. Every time someone else’s rights are violated to give you what you want, injustice has occurred and liberty has suffered. Ditto every time YOUR rights are violated to give someone else what they want. I guarantee you’ll notice it when it happens that way around. Don’t say, “But I would never be disrespectful to anyone in public.” Some people are incredibly sensitive and take offense to the silliest things. You can’t get through life without being accused of disrespect at least a few times.

            Liberty doesn’t work to force other people to respect the rights you think you have? That’s not what it’s for, either. Liberty doesn’t force people to do things. It’s just a condition where everyone is able to (peacefully) pursue their own ends, without trampling on each others’ rights. A condition of liberty isn’t compatible with everyone claiming that they have “positive rights” (look that up, because it’s what you’re claiming) against other people and then insisting that government come enforce their positive rights. In other words, you don’t get to claim that you have “rights” when those “rights” violate someone else’s rights.

            Here’s what liberty DOES accomplish. It creates the environment that is a necessary precondition for YOU to pursue happiness, however you define that. Neither government nor laws can MAKE you happy–that’s not what they are there for. But they DO protect your ability to pursue your own happiness by deterring other people from violating your person, your private property, your freedom of conscience, and your civil rights. They ALSO protect other people’s (negative) rights from people who try to violate them, including people who try to violate them by using the force of the government to give their injustice the color of law.

            One last note on the topic of human imperfection, this one from James Madison: “It may be a reflection on human nature, that such devices should be necessary to control the abuses of government. But what is government itself, but the greatest of all reflections on human nature? If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary.” In other words, government must be limited for fear of its officers abusing their authority. And government must be (and is) limited to exercising YOUR authority; if you don’t have the authority to tackle someone, tie him up, and drag him away for being nonviolently disrespectful, then the government doesn’t have that authority either. Government, according to Madison, is human nature writ large. Since we don’t want our neighbor telling us how to think, feel, speak, and behave (against our negative liberties), government should not be able to either.

            Thamera wrote: “like flying on a plane where smoking is allowed. When I was young my siblings and I flew on average twice a year and by the time we arrived at our destination, our eyes stung and our lungs burned because of all the smoke in the plane. I was very glad when they made smoking on planes unlawful, same with all public transportation. It’s not like the cigarette smoke can read the no-smoking section sign, then backs up and flows the other way.”

            You don’t think that liberty “works” in this situation?

            I guarantee you that your parents had a choice of whether to fly or not. Don’t tell me that there was “no real choice” because one or more of the options were inconvenient. Liberty doesn’t mean you have the right to demand that everything you want to do be made convenient for you. Likewise, your parents had the option of staying home. It sounds like your real complaint is against your parents for how they chose to get you from Point A to Point B. Either that, or you’re just whining that life isn’t perfect.

            But while we’re on the topic, may I point out that we have a (mostly) free enterprise system in this country? Another solution would have been for your parents to start their own airline and make their own rules for it. Does that sound outrageous? It’s not intended to offend. It’s intended to point out that liberty allows for this sort of solution to develop. Liberty is intended to be fully participatory. Don’t sit there waiting for someone ELSE to exercise their liberty to develop a product that YOU want.

            Thamera wrote: “In addition, yes, Vicki my young daughter and I were accosted by a nudist on the banks of the Sacramento river while we were playing on a rope swing and yes I was angered that this man was brazen enough to approach myself and my young daughter and start beating off, but hey, guess that should be alright too, right Vicki, after all who was he hurting?”

            I apologize in advance if this reply is inappropriate since the question wasn’t directed at me. But I would say there are situations in which public nudity would constitute an “injury” under the Law. This would, of course, depend on the details of the situation. And it would be totally independent of anyone’s imputed “right” to “civility and consideration” (which isn’t a right).

          • Vicki

            Thank you Jazzabelle. Very well said and nice clarifications of some points. I especally like your comment about flying. That is exactly what I often tell people when they complain something isn’t to their liking.

            Most commonly they come back with some road block keeping them from starting their own business. I point out that the road block is caused by government. Cause it almost always is.

            Jazzabelle writes:
            “I apologize in advance if this reply is inappropriate since the question wasn’t directed at me. But I would say there are situations in which public nudity would constitute an “injury” under the Law. This would, of course, depend on the details of the situation.”

            Though I am aware there are “laws” that are in error I would like to know how any possible public nudity could constitute and injury. Nudity is a state of being and not an action. As such it seems impossible for the state to cause injury.

            Even getting a sunburn is caused by the action of UV light on the skin of the nudist and not by the state of being nude.

          • Jazzabelle

            Vicki wrote: “Though I am aware there are “laws” that are in error I would like to know how any possible public nudity could constitute and injury. Nudity is a state of being and not an action. As such it seems impossible for the state to cause injury.”

            As I said, it would depend on the details of the situation. Thamera had described a situation in which a naked man had approached her and her small child and began masturbating. The relevant details would include things like, How close was he? How visible was he? Was he blocking an escape route? Did he follow them if/when they tried to walk away? In some scenarios, I can see an argument that he caused emotional trauma to the child. I believe that could legitimately be presented as an “injury” under the Law, although I haven’t researched that topic in particular to see how it might be done.

          • Thamera

            Never thought of a slingshot JC, in the past the oar from a boat has worked when a nudist swam after our little blow up raft and was determined to get in haha. As for the ban(s) in New York; I think they are ridiculous and seem to be gaining speed…no trans fats, no salt etc., and I don’t smoke, don’t eat trans fats…well, I do like an oreo cookie every now and then…and I don’t cook with salt.

            As for Jazz, your essay would of earned an A in my class and both you and Vicki well everyone here for that matter, would of been a welcome addition to our colloquia’s. Unfortunately our little charter school called the Leadership Academy closed due to misappropriation of funds when I was really just getting started…In addition, our core “text” books were The 5000 Year Leap and a Thomas Jefferson Education along with writings from Cicero, Swift, Thoreau, Plato and Emerson just to name a few. I am sure that you have read them yourself. We also required reading of The Proper Role of Government. Here’s a caution, don’t assume to know everything about a person because of a few posts on a board. I have fallen into that trap myself and have almost always been proven wrong. Now ladies, have a good day :)

          • DaveH

            I was fishing in a mountain stream once with my brother, and noticed a guy coming my way, but just kept on fishing. As he got close I looked around and saw that he was stark naked. I was embarrassed, but I just talked to him like I would to anybody else. My brother (the pervert), meanwhile, figured where there was a naked guy there might be naked women nearby, and he headed downstream to see.
            I have always accepted but never embraced society’s aversion to the naked body. I wouldn’t do it myself, but I think it odd that people can get arrested for it. Sure, many people are gross naked, but then, there are many people who are gross with their clothes on. Should we punish them also? Seems to me to be a victim-less crime.

          • Karolyn

            The acceptance of the naked body in Europe results in there being less sex crimes.

          • Vicki

            Thamera says:
            “As for Jazz, your essay would of earned an A in my class and both you and Vicki well everyone here for that matter, would of been a welcome addition to our colloquia’s.”

            Thank you Thamera. I/we are honored.

            Thamera says: ” Unfortunately our little charter school called the Leadership Academy closed due to misappropriation of funds when I was really just getting started”

            I am sorry to hear that. By the list of the text books it would be a fine school. Have you considered doing something like it online?

            Thamera says: “Here’s a caution, don’t assume to know everything about a person because of a few posts on a board. I have fallen into that trap myself and have almost always been proven wrong.

            Well understood. It is why I often said to you “??? you sound like ____”. It is a way to remind myself that all I know of you is what I have seen here.

            Thamera says: “Now ladies, have a good day”

            Thank you Thamera. Same to you and yours.

            Semper Fidelis
            -Vicki-

          • Jazzabelle

            Thamera -

            I’m sorry your academy closed, it sounds like a fun place. Don’t worry, I wasn’t convinced you were a left-wing nut. ;-) I tend to take people’s claims about themselves at face value, and if I really thought you were off in left field somewhere, I wouldn’t have bothered talking to you so much. :) You have a good day too.

      • Al

        It,s not so much what they were doing, it is where they chose
        to play out their drama,they achieved their goal.They did not care
        about the freedom of those who were not a part of their show, were
        just there to enjoy the day as patriotic citizens.Should we have
        allowed Hitler to achieve his goal and say it,s okay he was just
        expressing himself. These are the people who would follow Hitler,
        as is some others using this forum.

        • JC

          That’s a really poor analogy, not at all well thought out.
          We could say “Hitler was just expressing himself”?
          You mean by forcing people onto trains for extermination, stealing their property and invading sovereign nations?

          How does that compare to a bunch of kids dancing around a statue?

    • Al Sieber

      Hey Al, why don’t we just shoot them?

      • Al Sieber

        Al, you’ll fit in well with the “New World Order”, like Hitler’s Brown Shirts, or the SS,Hitler Youth’ or Obama’s “Youth Brigade”, a “Army bigger” than our own Army

      • Carlucci

        Well, all I can say is Thamera better not go to any beaches overseas, especially beaches in Europe, or the Seychelles, Mauritius, etc., because there are tons of people there in every size, shape, age, etc.
        European women even sit at the bars on the beach topless. I found that to be a bit disconcerting, but decided I would turn around and face the ocean, or find a seat where I could not see them. Of course there was no way in hell my husband was going to move if the boobs were on the body of a sweet young thang….

        • Thamera

          I’ve already been there Carlucci. :D

          • Carlucci

            Thamera, I have to agree on the public nudity deal, though. If someone had approached me and my kid(s) as you described, I probably would have proceeded to kick the sh-t out of him. What a wanker.

            I had to laugh, as I haven’t heard that term “beating off” in eons.

            It took a while to get used to seeing people of all ages, shapes, and sizes walking around almost naked on those beaches I mentioned. Europeans are just so different than Americans when it comes to stuff like that. One thing I do admire is they don’t seem so obsessed with themselves and plastic surgery as people are here in the USA. I never saw one woman on those beaches with a breast augmentation. I thought it was great that they were so confident about themselves, no matter the size of their chests.

          • http://deleted Claire

            Carlucci– A tad off subject but since you mentioned breast augmentation–this makes me shudder. Why go under “the knife” if it is not necessary? Why subject the body to additional health risks? I have 3 friends that had this procedure. Two of them had to have a second reconstruction job. One of them became sicker than a dog. And one of them certainly looks “off balance.” They are huge. Like a toothpick with two cantelopes attached at the top. Vanity can get a woman into a lot of trouble. If a woman has small breasts, so be it. Leave Mother Nature alone. Besides, it is not the size of them that counts—-it is the way a person “uses” them—if you get my drift.

          • Carlucci

            I agree with you, Claire. Same thing happened to a friend of mine who went under the knife for big boobs. She is very tall and thin and was always ashamed of her “less than ample chest”, as she put it. She became very ill after the surgery because of infections. Three years ago she came down with breast cancer. Lucky for her the tumor was sitting on top of the implant, which made it visible. She decided to have both implants removed when she had surgery, and was trying to decide whether or not to have reconstruction. Bless her heart, after the implants were removed, she looked like she had two empty pockets sewn onto her chest where the skin had stretched so much from the implants. Had she just left well enough alone in the beginning, maybe she would have spared herself a lot of pain and trauma.

            Oddly enough, you would be surprised at how many men could care less about the boob size thing. My husband wasn’t “in” to that – he liked butts and hips. Before I was married, I met a darling man from Alabama at a popular night club one night when I was with a friend of mine who is absolutely gorgeous – face, body, everything. I always hated going anywhere with her because I felt like Pitiful Pearl around her. This Alabama guy asked me out and we dated for about a year. Months later on a dinner date, I asked him why he had asked me out instead of my friend. He said he could barely remember what she looked like, but said he did remember thinking that I was the better looking one and had the cuter personality. Wow – that was amazing and very flattering news. So at that moment at the tender age of 23, I realized that my parents were right – beauty really is indeed in the eye of the beholder.

          • Thamera

            Yes, Carlucci, most definitely. I was pretty upset and it wasn’t the first time something like that has happened, only other times it was just myself or another adult with me. There are quite a few nudists out and around the Sacramento River. There are also a lot of derelicts, drunkards and criminals out there too. I find it a shame that a few people like the one I mentioned, (well actually there are dozens of them) should be allowed to ruin a public setting like the river and bike trails for everyone else.

            As for Europe. I loved it. I can’t wait to go back and visit my friends there. At the time, being just a young girl of 18, I was the one that felt out of place because I was not only wearing a one piece swimming suit, but a tank top on top of that! haha But I loved every minute I was there and was grateful for the opportunity to spend my summer there and have encouraged my former students and my children to travel as much as they possibly can. :)

          • http://deleted Claire

            Carlucci—It is hotter than hades here. Had a storm this morning, it has cleared a bit, getting ready for another onslaught. Just came inside, had to pot a few plants. There is a bike trail right behind my backyard–anyway I was doing a bit of weeding since I planted a lot of flowers and bushes by the trail. Anyway, this guy comes up on his bike–spandex shorts, the whole nine yards! Geez, he was goodlooking! He got off his bike and I thought I would pass out! He looked at the flowers and bushes, and asked me the name of some of them. I found myself blabbing like an idiot. He was greatlooking even with his helmet on! But then again, I wasn’t looking at the helmet. Ahh, I appreciate goodlooking guys. Now that I am back in the house and thinking about him, I am wondering if he was gay. I kinda think he was, darn it. Oh well, I am harmless, but even at my age I like to look at goodlooking guys!

          • Karolyn

            Hey, Claire, we may be old, but we’re not blind! I would probably be a babbling idiot myself in a similar situation. Unfortunately, I don’t come across too many good looking guys of any age these days!

          • http://deleted Claire

            Karolyn: All I know is that if I were about 40 years younger and single I would have found out if he was gay or not!!!

          • libertytrain

            Claire, I always liked the saying: “I’m married, not dead.” – I guess now I should say, am old not dead. :)

          • http://deleted Claire

            libertytrain–I am no doubt older than you. I am old but like you said “not dead.” I think I will start hanging around the bike trail!! LOL No, I won’t. I had my fling at youth just wish it didn’t go by so fast!

          • libertytrain

            I know kiddo, went by in a very quick blink of an eye. I’m a little younger than you, but following close behind.

    • JC

      Al says:

      June 3, 2011 at 1:03 pm

      The so called dancers were nothing more than the run of the mill
      anti establishment, anti authority, law breakers,
      (no doubt, trying to be ‘hip’ like in the sixties BULL S—)
      they were fully aware that what they were doing would get the exact results we saw on their planted cameras. National Monuments are not
      fire hydrants… I congratulate the Park Police Officers for
      their personal professionalism and restraint against those who
      would like to have gotten pictures of broken skulls for their balogna
      trouble making ’cause’ America is not some backward mid east country. I would suggest that in the future use tazers or just have
      an out of sight S.W.A.T. shoot them with tranquilizer darts from
      concealed areas, include all carriers of cameras.
      _________________________________________________________________

      Just another self righteous anti American, anti Freedom, Intolerant Nazi running off at the mouth. If this is what the nobility of being an American has degenerated to, God help us.
      Maybe your precious authorities will get the chance to beat one of your kids or grandkids…I’m sure you’ll be proud.

  • http://www.juno Korean Vet Ray

    Since having been TWICE before arrested disturbing the peace at this location, if they should show up again, the park police should realy liven up their dance steps at the end of a few dozen tazers. And if they get too out of hand, remember the Kent State riot and houw that was settled.

    • karolyn

      Oh, and Kent State was something to be proud of?

      • DaveH

        I remember how it was settled. A bunch of draft-dodging National Guardsmen fired into a crowd killing and maiming a number of people whose only crime was passing by the protests on their way to classes.

        We have the highest incarceration rate (by far) of any other country in the world (possible exception being China whose figures are suspect). Are our people that bad? Or is the “Freedom”, that we’ve been propagandized to believe in our entire lives, just so much smoke being blown up our fannies?

    • Al Sieber

      Korean Vet R, how about Waco? that’s what this will lead up to, maybe they should of been in a “Free Speech Zone”.

      • Al Sieber

        A free speech zone, and that’s what Jefferson advocated free speech.

    • JC

      Korean Vet Ray says:

      June 3, 2011 at 2:27 pm

      Since having been TWICE before arrested disturbing the peace at this location, if they should show up again, the park police should realy liven up their dance steps at the end of a few dozen tazers. And if they get too out of hand, remember the Kent State riot and houw that was settled.
      ____________________________________________________________

      I take it you’ve completely forgotten “why” you fought in Korea?

      • DaveH

        He fought for Crony Capitalism masquerading as Freedom.

        • JC

          Yep, probably. Even though the official story line was to fight “communism, over there”, before we have to fight it over here…
          and yet here it is…
          Funny how that worked out isn’t it?

  • Vicki

    I would so not want to be any of those police officers. So many violations of rights under the color of authority. Including one of the most difficult to explain. Throwing out a member of the actual press.

    Of course the scary beauty of technology. EVERYONE in that area except the blueshirts were and are members of the free press that the Constitution specifically protects.

    So lets see. Violation of multiple sections of the first amendment including but not limited to freedom of expression (dancing), freedom of speech, (the attempt to shut up the code pink (ironic) guy), freedom of the press (throwing out members of the press as well as citizen reporters) police brutality and just for fun rushing the victims away from the press.

    Tyranny HATES being exposed by an actual free press. Thank the Creator for cell phones with cameras. Thank Apple for all those iPhones. Oh and thank Al for the internet so we can share this. :)

  • Violet Angel

    I’m surprised there has been no mention of who the “dancers” were. Medea Benjamin, one of the founders of Code Pink, was one of the organizers of the protest. To learn more about her and Code Pink, go to http://www.codepink4peace.org/section.php?id=14 They resisted and provoked just enough to make the police, who were doing their job, look bad.

    • Thamera

      I agree Violet Angel. I have brought up this point since the beginning of this thread but to no avail. Code Pink et al., know exactly what they are doing and I am sure that we will be seeing a lot more from them. Maybe the police will take notes and ignore them, but I doubt it. It is a thin line, but most people on this board seem very anxious to view the men in blue as the enemy. Something Code Pink and company would be absolutely thrilled about.

      • Vicki

        When the men in blue act unlawfully under the color of authority then they most certainly ARE the enemy.

        The police are the first in an important chain of power designed to protect us from tyrannical government. They are supposed to be citizens on patrol. They are supposed to be able to know criminal behavior. When the country was young and the laws were few and sensible their job was simple.

        Now, with so many laws, many which are clearly unconstitutional to the average observer, their job is much harder.

        To the police (including the ones in the video) I salute you. I also beg you to recheck what laws you are told to enforce and re-read the Constitution and ask if the law is Constitutional. Then ask if it is just. Both answers should and must be yes before you arrest.

        • Thamera

          Vicki many of our politicians, let alone the general populace don’t even have a basic understanding of the constitution. How do you think the rules of the park, which the park police are commissioned to enforce, were employed in the first place? By an uneducated electorate that bought into PC rhetoric hook, line and sinker. Everything is offensive to someone so freedom of expression is not allowed at all in our national parks and memorials thanks to the liberal PC progressives that are now in open defiance of them. Now isn’t that irony at its finest.

          • Vicki

            Thamera writes:
            “Everything is offensive to someone so freedom of expression is not allowed at all in our national parks and memorials thanks to the liberal PC progressives that are now in open defiance of them. Now isn’t that irony at its finest.”

            Yes it is. I commented elsewhere with amusement that the first to be detained/arrested (not clear which :) ) was the guy wearing a code pink tee.

            Hoist by their own petard I think the saying goes. However they are protesting for our right as well so we find common cause. Maybe between their civil disobedience and your voting (many think that voting is no longer useful) and your and my writing here and elsewhere we can get some or all of the violations of the Constitution rendered null and void.

          • Thamera

            yes, you did. I would like to think that this event would be effective in bringing people together in their understanding of the constitution; however, I think that if the dancers had been tea party members instead of Code Pink et al., they (Code Pink) et al., would of been the first to cry foul. Just trying to point out the irony and the hypocrisy of it all. It drives me absolutely crazy.

          • http://deleted Claire

            There are many many groups that have formed and they all have a “cause” to promote. Why should Code Pink be any different? As far as dancing, I love to dance. If I had been there, I probably would have danced too. I do have a touch of the rebel in me, especially if and when I feel I am being pushed and shoved around. I protested the Viet Nam war at the state capitol in Springfield, took several afternoons off from work and I never regretted it. I call it “standing up for what I believe in.”

          • DaveH

            Kudos, Claire.

  • Carlucci

    I’ve been thinking about it, and wonder if maybe this dance protest was some kind of “testing the water” display – like a provocation or false flag staged event for an ulterior motive. Who knows? These days, nothing would surprise me.

    Anyway, I hope everybody on this board has a fabulous and safe weekend.
    I’m going to do my best to stay cool – it is as hot as a blast furnace here in Big T.

    • Vicki

      Even testing the water since it was a peaceful assembly it is protected.

      Any power you give government to take away rights of those you do not like can and WILL be used against you when they get control of government.

  • wisdom

    What was the name of the case?

  • Raggs

    Off limits.. No trespassing.. Violaters beware of the DOG!.. Occupants will shoot first…

    We really need a sign to discuss the stupidness of what some call leaders of this country…

    Who the hell owns DC in the first place?… Who the hell died to protect it?..

    And to think a communist society to the likes of code pink craps on everyone that servred this country.

  • Vicki

    Thamera: What cha think we should do here
    http://conservativebyte.com/2011/06/federal-judge-prohibits-prayer-at-texas-graduation-ceremony/

    Write letters? Vote? I think maybe only Civil Disobedience will be able to act in time to save the religious students from “irreparable harm”. They only get 1 graduation ceremony and it is happening soon.

    • Thamera

      I am well aware of both of these stories Vicki and they are both appalling and extreme. Again, my point being that the protestors in this story presented are not interested in either of these events nor freedom of speech unless it serves THEIR agenda. As I mentioned before now it is the hypocrisy of it all that drives me crazy. I think the students should all wear tee shirts that say Amen on it though, to answer your question.

      • Vicki

        It is their CONSTITUTIONALLY PROTECTED RIGHT to speak to their agenda. Just as it is ours.

        What they are not allowed to do is suppress our right when they are voted in.

        • Vicki

          P.S. I’d help you buy the tee shirts for the students :)

          • Al Sieber

            Vicki, you really did your research and I applaud you.a year ago or so you educated me on juror’s rights.

          • Vicki

            Thank you Al. Glad I could help. Though I have to give credit to my parents. They did the research. They taught me. I have done some as well to verify/refute what they taught me. I have not been able to refute any of their teaching. :)

          • Al Sieber

            Well, Vicki, your very fortunate to have parents who believe in our rights.

  • Vicki

    Thamera: or what about this. The lady is causing quite a disturbance.
    Note again the Royal Guard does not want the press around to see.
    http://conservativebyte.com/2011/06/woman-screams-out-during-tsa-screening-alleges-molestation-demands-agents-arrest/#comment-64239

    Writing? Voting? How’s that working?

    • Thamera

      As for this story, I am reserving judgement…I used to work for an attorney and one thing I learned is that there is always more to a story than what is initially presented. However, with that said, I do not support The Patriot Act and never did…for reasons just like this one.

      • http://deleted Claire

        Thamera– Your second sentence speaks volumes. The MSM/reporters/journalists will tell us the sensational parts, rarely do we receive the entire story from “start to finish.” The bits and pieces that are given depends upon WHO is doing the reporting.

        • Thamera

          Thanks Claire, would that I should of followed my own advice when it came to this story. ha

  • Trever

    THIS IS TOTALLY OUTRAGEOUS!!!!!
    THE POLICE WERE IN THE WRONG!!!!!
    THE ADULTS BEING ARRESTED DID NOTHING WRONG!!!!!
    IT’S A MONUMENT THAT BELONGS TO ALL OF US!!!!!
    THIS IS AN ACT OF BEING A POLICE STATE!!!!!
    IS THIS REALLY AMERICA – HOME OF THE FREE????? I DON”T THINK SO!!!!!
    THIS IS A DISGRACE!!!!!

  • SiliconDoc

    I got pissed off watching that. This is why open and concealed carry are good Citizen practices. Suddenly then, the government thinks once or twice about their insane rules.

  • Karen

    These folks are probably the same people that elected Obama and his communist agenda. Are you happy now? Our courts are filed with liberal leaning judges that make the choice daily to in fringe on our liberties, this is just the beginning folks. Won’t you be happy with the one child limit policy?

    • Thamera

      They are Karen, one and the same, but you would think I was the devil for pointing that out.

    • Karolyn

      This kind of repression did not start with Obama! Far from it!

      • JC

        You’re right about that. But its increasing very very quickly under the Kenyan. Maybe that’s what he meant by “change”.

      • vicki

        Karolyn. No it did not start under Obama. However Obama and the Democrats had 2 FULL years + to correct all of these things. They could NOT be stopped by those “evil” Republicans. Super Majority House. Filibuster proof senate. Democrat President.

        They did nothing but increase the size and power of government including the Patriot Act and Obamacare. They let all of the Bush wars continue and added their own. They have given ample proof that they are not for freedom and justice for all.

        Democrats are NOT your friends.

        • Harold

          Democrats are the enemy of the people! look what they have done to energy prices ($4.20/gal) When I was in school it was a quarter/gal. That’s just gas, food is up 34%

          • Trever

            Democrats are NOT the enemy of the people. The same with Republicans. We’re all in this together. Try not to let your own perception of a certain political party cloud the issue.

          • Karolyn

            Thank you Trever!

          • Vicki

            Trever says
            “Try not to let your own perception of a certain political party cloud the issue”

            It is not perception of Democrats. It is direct observation of the simple facts. They had COMPLETE CONTROL and did nothing to stop or even slow down all the “evil” things that they accused the Republicans of doing.

            Are you actually telling us that most Democrats did NOT vote for Obama? Did NOT vote for Pelosi? Did NOT vote for Reid? Did not vote for all those Democrats that were in power?

            The facts are sitting there for all the world to see. The Democrat party IS NOT YOUR FRIEND. Maybe a few democrats (just as there are a few republicans (Ron Paul) ) are really constitutional moderates or even libertarians. But most of them are clearly NOT.

            They have made their intentions crystal clear. More Government. Bigger Government. More Spending, More Taxes. More More More….

            DEMOCRATS ARE NOT FRIENDS OF LIBERTY.

            If you are a friend of liberty and are currently registered as a democrat get out and join the ONLY party that still has a principled stand.

            Vote and BE Libertarian. Its the only way to be sure. http://www.lp.org

          • Kate8

            Vicki – This morning JeffH posted this on the other thread. All of you should check it out. It’s an hour, but you won’t want to miss a single word.

            This is who Obama REALLY is, the results of investigations, who’s covering it all up and why, and what his real plans are for the US.
            Some stuff you may know, but there were things I hadn’t heard. He’s nothing like we thought. It’ much worse.

            Watch to the end. He names O’s accomplices.

            http://www.sunlituplands.org/2011/06/attorneys-explosive-claim-obama-changed.html

            Prepare to be stunned.

        • http://deleted Claire

          It will take years to get out of the mess America in is. This “mess” has been going on for years and it sure as hell won’t be cleaned or cleared up overnight.

  • Mac

    I didn’t see anything disruptive by the dancers. What was disruptive was the police getting abusive and violent when their authority to define “demonstration” was questioned. This looks like government control freaks gone wild.

  • Chris

    This is just the beggining of Hussein Obama’s reign. Do u really think there will be an election in 2016 if this hack wins? Get ready foks u r on Obama’s list and do not try to defend yourself.

  • jiminla

    I’ve got no problem with the prohibition. It seems reasonable to me. I myself am moderately conservative. Libertarians are not a far cry from the hippie protestors of the sixties. They want any and everything to be O.K. wherever they want to do it. I don’t. There is a time and place for everything and vice verso a time and a place where certain things should not be. Dancing in a national memorial is one of those places. There are plenty of places where one can dance. Like all things, “personal liberty” can be over-played.

    • JC

      Ok, no dancing…anything else?
      And sinse the Founding Fathers were by definition “Libertarians” I suppose we should disregard the Constitution and Bill of Rights they gave us as being a little too extreme, right?
      And you call yourself a conservative? You’re just another control freak who probably voted for the kenyan.

      • Thamera

        Actually JC I agree with Jiminla and am a little concerned at the sudden expression of “anything goes” especially from people who cite from the bible and espouse to be Christians…The bible is full of restrictions on personal behavior…right? Or, am I mistaken?

        • vicki

          Thamera. Are you sure you are not a muslim? That is all they demand of their people. They just happen to make the law of their religion the law of their land.

          Our forefathers chose not to do that and to allow religious freedom that does not conflict with the supreme law of the land.

          • Thamera

            Okay vicki, it is time stop over-reacting. I just find it interesting that the same people that cite the bible have suddenly adopted an “anything goes” attitude when the bible is anything but that. Just another example of shades of gray Vicki…everything is not black and white like you would like to make it. I have already made it very clear that I did not support the arrest of these dancers. I have also made it very clear that I do not support the PC rules of the park. I have also made it clear that I believe that because we are not virtuous individually or collectively that some laws are justified to help support a civilized society that everyone can enjoy. I have also made it clear that I wanted to know more about the story, the protestors, and their intentions and since watching the link provided by Kate8 am in complete support with their movement and think that it is exciting what they are attempting to do.

          • Vicki

            Thamera. Most things are black and white. This shades of grey nonsense is created by socialists to break down the morals of the most free people known to be on the earth. Let me give you a moral compass that you can share with anyone of any belief system. Even works for atheists.

            First Principle. Your Creator gifted you with life and free will.
            How you use those 2 gifts and how you honor these gifts in others,
            defines your moral character.

            Note that reasoning from this principle directly results in the golden rule (the real one not the socialist attack joke about those who have gold)

          • Jazzabelle

            Thamera wrote: “I just find it interesting that the same people that cite the bible have suddenly adopted an “anything goes” attitude when the bible is anything but that. Just another example of shades of gray Vicki…everything is not black and white like you would like to make it.”

            I don’t find this to have anything to do with black-and-white versus shades of gray. Biblical morality is religion. Law is secular. Each sphere has it own processes and values. They overlap to a certain degree, but that doesn’t mean you can indiscriminately borrow rules from one sphere and apply them to the other sphere. Also, there’s a difference between believing that something is morally wrong, and believing that the force of law should be used against other people who do it. I don’t get kicks out of being rude to people, so I won’t. It’s still a protected right that other people can exercise if they don’t have a moral problem with it.

            I have already made it very clear that I did not support the arrest of these dancers. I have also made it very clear that I do not support the PC rules of the park. I have also made it clear that I believe that because we are not virtuous individually or collectively that some laws are justified to help support a civilized society that everyone can enjoy. I have also made it clear that I wanted to know more about the story, the protestors, and their intentions and since watching the link provided by Kate8 am in complete support with their movement and think that it is exciting what they are attempting to do.”

          • Jazzabelle

            Oops, that last paragraph was Thamera’s. I meant to delete it before posting.

          • Thamera

            Then why Vicki is it necessary for justice to be tempered with mercy, if there are no shades of gray? BTW you have me pegged so wrong, you couldn’t be more mistaken about who I am or what I believe in :)

          • Vicki

            Thamera says:
            “Then why Vicki is it necessary for justice to be tempered with mercy”

            It is not necessary. The phrase is also in reference to PUNISMENT not for an action. If an action is not illegal there is no reason for punishment. If there is no punishment there is no need for mercy. Nice red herring btw.

            “BTW you have me pegged so wrong, you couldn’t be more mistaken about who I am or what I believe in :)

            All we know of you is your words. We can not even asses your actions. If you have misled us into thinking you are much more like a liberal this is not our fault. We have even questioned you on specifics to try and determine if we are mis-hearing you.

            As my parents, grandparents and great grandparents have said.

            “Say what you mean and mean what you say.”

            I did notice that you have come to realize some of the problem. Specifically your original assertions that the incident was caused by code pink as if that mattered to the point of free expression.

          • Vicki

            Jazzabelle says:
            “I don’t get kicks out of being rude to people, so I won’t. It’s still a protected right that other people can exercise if they don’t have a moral problem with it.”

            Quite true. And if you do not like the person being rude to you there is a constitutionally protected right you can use to stop them. Walk away.

            Freedom of Association necessarily includes the freedom to NOT associate.
            Freedom of speech does NOT guarantee an audience
            Freedom of the press does NOT guarantee customers for your paper.

            No shades of gray. Nice and Black/White.

        • JC

          Well then Thamera, we part company here.
          Anyone (not you) stupid enough to compare Libertarians to hippies has no concept of what a Libertarian is. Has no concept of what property rights, responsibilty and liberty are as a working combination of life.
          Hippies…hardly!

        • JC

          Thamera says:
          June 4, 2011 at 3:34 pm
          Actually JC I agree with Jiminla and am a little concerned at the sudden expression of “anything goes” especially from people who cite from the bible and espouse to be Christians…The bible is full of restrictions on personal behavior…right? Or, am I mistaken?
          ______________________________________________________________
          Hi Thamera, I used the Biblical reference merely to demonstrate that dancing has been an expression of joy and reverence for a long time now. I do not profess to be a Christian in the organized religious sense. I do believe in a higher power that I call God, but not necessarily in religion.
          And I wouldn’t put dancing, hopping or hugging in the category of “anything goes”. Is it silly to do so in public? I think so. But who am I to determine what is and isn’t right as long as no one is being injured?

          • Thamera

            I see. Have a good weekend JC :)

          • JC

            You Too. :)

        • DaveH

          Anything goes? Dancing is now “anything goes” to you Thamera?
          Why is it that those of us who want to control our own bodies and property are made to look like the interlopers, while those who want to control our bodies and property think they are the good guys?
          Sounds like the upside-down world of Liberals to me, only on the Right.

  • Houdini

    Could have been better handled by all parties involved. Protesting at a public momument as long as it does not create a disturbance, offend patrons or break any laws currently in place should not banned. The police could have escorted the individuals away from the momument and released them. I never heard one officer answer the question, “What law are we breaking”? First, is there an ordinance that outlaws such public displays? Second, why did the officer’s not quote said law when arresting the individuals dancing, (or what ever the hell they were doing)?

    • Thamera

      Yes, Houdini, there is a public ordinance or rule at the park that makes any display of expression unlawful. While I do not agree with that rule, it is in place. This group was well aware of this rule and knew full well that the simple act of dancing would result in involvement with the police. That was their goal.

      • vicki

        Thamera writes:
        “…makes any display of expression unlawful.”

        Interesting way to state the law. By that definition everyone there needed to be arrested. Everyone there was displaying some form of expression including just standing there like sheep.

        Be careful what you wish for.

        If you give government power to control those you do not like, government will use that power to control you.

        • Harold

          Right again

        • Thamera

          vicki I was answering a question and stating a fact. Do you want to point out where I said I agree with it or wished for it???

          • Vicki

            Thamera. You claim you do not agree with a clearly unconstitutional rule
            “While I do not agree with that rule,”

            Yet you do everything in your statements to support the rule “it is in place.”

            You do know I trust that an unconstitutional law is null and void from its inception. That means the rule has no power. Never has, Never will.

  • Al

    This Forum is nothing more than:
    “Common Sence against the lack of it”
    “Adam vs. The Man” says it all, they did what they set out
    to do, they were looking for trouble and accomplished their mission.
    they have no complaint in their favor. There is no defense
    for bad behavior.

    • JC

      Define “bad behaviour”.
      (its anything “Al” doesn’t like I’ll bet)

      • vicki

        I don’t think they understand that the government can and will use the very same laws on them. And in the case of the monuments. Has.

        Its not about expression. Its about control.

        The Blue Royal Guard can not be questioned nor challenged.

    • DaveH

      So common sense is throwing people to the ground who are not harming anybody? You would have made a good German, Al.

    • Vicki

      Al writes:
      “they were looking for trouble and accomplished their mission.”

      They were looking for FREEDOM. Yours and theirs. Based on the events on Saturday Jun 4th they did in fact accomplish their goal. The mission is however ongoing.

  • Jim

    A lot of “disrespect” has crept in to today’s society as seen in the far too (some times) casual dress that shows up at our national monuments. Go to France or Italy and try to enter one of the great cathedrals in shorts or inappropriate dress and see how far you get!
    Most of these memorials honor a single person or group of people that have contributed to the freedoms that we enjoy either through a service, contribution and in many instances with their life or lifetime disfigurements.
    I understand that many of these monuments are in climates that become very hot and uncomfortable in certain months of the year and therefore tend to look the other way when people dress in clothes that they feel will afford the most comfort in those times. But, how long of a leash is the right length? Most of you, I would hope all of you, out there would protest if some were to show up in bikini bathing suits or other scant or sloppy dress that shows disrespect. And believe me there will be one or more that will attend there in that attire . . . if they have not already done so.
    The same goes for dancing. Dancing in these times comes in many forms, some beautiful and many vulgar and disgusting. To say that dancing should be allowed in the area of these memorials says that ANY DANCING has to be allowed. While there are many out there that do not now and in the future there will be many more which do not and will not know to what limit decency extends, – simply because each succeeding generation seems to forget the prices that have been paid as represented in those monuments and has a larger diminished concept of what is moral and decent. I believe that all dancing in the vicinity of these memorials should be banned for what may be decent and respectable in one’s view may not be in another’s! Allowing judges that go by the creedo “beauty is in the eye of the beholder” would be like letting Hitler say how many dead Jews is enough!

    • Karolyn

      As has been said in a previous post: “Sig Heil!”

    • Vicki

      Jim writes:
      “I believe that all dancing in the vicinity of these memorials should be banned for what may be decent and respectable in one’s view may not be in another’s! ”

      Walking is disrespectful in my view. Every one must run around the memorials to properly honor the dead and to keep fit at the same time.

      Hop to it Jim. No more couch potatoes. And no dancing.

      To quote Karolyn and others: Sig Heil.

      • JC

        Funny! :)

  • Karolyn

    Here’s the link for info on today’s dancing. Apparently, the police kept a low profile, although the info is sketchy. There were a lot of people; and you can even see some older people.

    • Karolyn
    • JC

      I checked out the link Karolyn,
      Its quite a show alright. Were Kokesh and company being silly and acting in poor taste? Probably, but they were testing the limits of free expression in what is becoming a Police State, and as far as I know were breaking no actual laws.
      But that didn’t stop the cops from reacting like goons even though they had no idea if any laws were actually being broken.
      The cops seem to have been startled and confused so they reacted violently…when in doubt, hurt someone.
      Goes to show, your rights are whatever anyone in any number of uniforms says they are on any given day in any given place…

      And I think that was the point of the exercise.

      • Wayne937

        You folks are always blaming the police. Don’t blame the police for doing their job, blame the silly idiots who passsed those rules, regulations, or laws what ever they are called. Without the police we would have anarchy, and it would not be safe for you to venture outside you home, just remember this. Be thankful you have some one to watch out for your safety.

        • Vicki

          Wayne937 writes:
          “Without the police we would have anarchy”

          Not exactly. Without LAWS we would have anarchy.
          The question becomes what law do we want. I STRONGLY recommend
          a Constitutionally limited Republic such as the USA was in the
          early days.

          http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N4r0VUybeXY

        • JC

          I’d like to believe that was entirely true Wayne.
          For sure the Police are mandated to enforce the law…even bad law.
          But I have also observed over time that the the nature of the Police themselves has become considerably more militant.
          They’ve moved from Peace Officers to Law Enforcers.
          I’ll take my chances on protecting myself with the Kimber .45 I keep in very good working order. Its a lot handier than the average Policeman anyway, they can’t be everywhere at once.

          • Vicki

            Though my knowledge is a bit fuzzy there are 2 times I remember reading about where the police were much more enforcers.

            1. Prohibition
            2. War on (some) drugs.

            There may be more.

        • DaveH

          Such a rosy view of police. I’ve been harassed and abused more by police during my lifetime than by criminals. And there aren’t many people as rigidly moral as I am.
          And protect us? Who’re you kidding? They get there in time to take notes over your dead body, and maybe catch the killer, or maybe jail some innocent person.

          • Vicki

            And according to supreme court cases they are not obligated to protect us. Only to protect society. Which of course is why it is a criminal act (By government) to deprive us of our individual right to posses and use tools of defense.

            And since any tool can be used for defense that pretty much means any tool.

    • Vicki

      Thanks Karolyn. Thamera, it would appear that the police got a clue. Thus demonstrating the power of CIVIL disobedience.

  • Renee

    Are there signs, anywhere that tell you what you can and cannot do at a memorial sight? If it isn’t posted then how do people know what the law is. You go to the park and they have signs that say, “Stay off the grass” or if someone just painted a bench it says, “Wet Paint”, or if you want to park and there is a sign that says, “No Parking”, then I can understand that you can get in trouble if you do those things because there is a warning to all.. SO, if we aren’t supposed to wiggle to a tune we might just happened to be listening to with our headphones (or is listening to headphones illegal too), hug our beloved, or what ever other law there is…IT SHOULD BE POSTED!!! (NO DANCING OF ANY KIND, NO AFFECTION OF ANY KIND, NO MUSIC OF ANY KIND, NO SINGING OF THE NATIONAL ANTHEM AT ANY TIME)I am a great believer of respect but in this instance the guard didn’t give a reasonable answer for WHY! How hard would it have been. YES, they probably did go there to cause trouble but the better thing for those guards to do at that point would have been to shut down the memorial before things got out of hand, rather than how they did at the end. That would have been a peaceful way to have CONTROL!

    • Vicki

      Posting signs declaring that you will be punished for violating an unconstitutional law does not create a condition where you can get into trouble.

      Closing off a public place because someone does not like what people are expressing there violates the same Constitution.

  • Vicki

    Here is the show from adam vs the man where they discuss the incident
    http://dprogram.net/2011/06/01/adam-vs-the-man-footloose/

    Specifically the last 4-5 min of the 30 min show. Many of our points are examined/commented on in the show.

  • Vicki

    This is even better. In the first 4 min Adam shows a park police officer specifically denying a member of an established media (I.E. The PRESS) from conducting a video interview on public property.

    http://dprogram.net/2011/06/02/adam-vs-the-man-footloose-part-2/

    Fortunately as we know the Police did get a clue by the time of the big dance party (Minus BBQ :) ) yesterday (Sat Jun-4)

  • Karolyn

    I am so happy to have participated in this discussion. Special thanks to Jazzabelle, Vicki and Thamera. I learned a great deal; and it helped me to clarify a lot of confusion in my mind. Using the terms “left, right, conservative, republican, democrat,” etc. tends to get in the way of really hearing what people have to say. Being introduced to RT was also a gateway, and I will certainly be reading their news reports and watching Kokesh’s show. We may not agree on everything, but there is a lot we do agree on.

    Thank you.

    • Vicki

      Karolyn. Welcome. Oh and Here is a good video that may help with the left,right, Democrat, Republican et all deliberate confusion.

      It is especially good in showing that America is NOT and never should be a democracy.

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N4r0VUybeXY

    • Jazzabelle

      Karolyn -

      Me too, I enjoyed this a great deal. Usually Internet discussions … degenerate … more than this one. I had a great time meeting you all and debating with you all. :) Have a great day.

  • Charles Hoper

    This whole event is BS. This sounds more personal from the officer of the US Park Service than actual law. Backed by our Gvt, this reeks of oppression. Why were the people so polite? Jump in and be heard. Make these A’holes understand that they can’t suppress our freedoms. Send the force of the attack back up the chain. Make the suppressors understand that what they do will not be tolerated. As this continues, our rights are eroded and eventually taken away because we don’t speak out against the smallest of oppressions.

    • Wayne937

      Charles, take out your flustration with who ever passed this law, or regulation. Don’t blame the police for doing their job. I am sure they don’t want to be there anymooe than you folks want them there.

      • Vicki

        A police officers FIRST duty is to the supreme law of the land. They even take an oath to support and defend it.

      • DaveH

        What law? They couldn’t even cite the law they were enforcing.

  • DaveH
    • Wayne937

      DaveH, blame those whose are canking out those bad laws. After society permits their law makers to pass some of these silly laws, law enforcement personnel will have to enforce them or lose their job for not doing their job.

      • Vicki

        Wayne937. A police officers FIRST duty is to the supreme law of the land. That includes every FBI agent. They even take an oath to that effect. Violating that oath under color of “just following orders” is no excuse.

        • Wayne937

          Vickie, you are completely wrong in your opinion. Police officers take an oath to uphold the law, or they can be charged with dereliction of duty. See this website: http://definitions.uslegal.com/d/dereliction-of-duty/ Police officers have no say in what laws are passed. A city can pass an ordinance, the states can pass a state laws and the Federal Government can pass federal laws. If a bad law is passed it is up to the citizens to rise up and redress those responsible for passing that particular law, and have that law repealed, or amended. I was in law enforcment for 27 years. I have also had to live with some of those stupid laws that were passed. You legally do not have a right to violate a law you disagree with after they are in force. Citizens do have a right to redress their city, state, or Congress to amend, or to change the laws they do not like. This is the way a civilized socity is supposed to act anyway. We cannot go out and act like vigilanties and enforce only those laws we think should be enforced. If you do not agree with my opinion, seek out a good attorney that you trust and get his/her opinion.

          • DaveH

            It figures. Check out the oathkeepers. They obey the main law of the land:
            http://oathkeepers.org/oath/

          • Vicki

            Wayne937. I can presume that you are not now nor have you ever been a police officer. The FIRST duty is to the law. The Constitution IS the law. To fail to uphold the law of the land is dereliction of duty as well as violation of their oath as well as unlawful acts under the color of authority.

            And I bet a lawyer could come up with at least 10 more.

          • Vicki

            Sorry Wayne937 I forgot to post this tidbit from your link

            “It may refer to a failure by an organization member to abide by the standing rules of its constitution”

            And there you have it in black and white provided by the link Wayne937 gave us.

  • Vicki

    Jazzabelle says:
    “As I said, it would depend on the details of the situation. Thamera had described a situation in which a naked man had approached her and her small child and began masturbating. The relevant details would include things like, How close was he? How visible was he? Was he blocking an escape route? Did he follow them if/when they tried to walk away?”

    He would be violating their constitutional right (Freedom of association) if he were clothed or nude.

    Jazzabelle: “In some scenarios, I can see an argument that he caused emotional trauma to the child.”

    From this are all PC laws made. I was mortified that joe sang a religious hymn in my presence. He should be locked up.

    Not really but you see the point. Also children are a lot more resilient than adults give them credit for.

    • Wayne937

      Vicki, your talking in circles. I have explained why police officers have to do what they do. If you are unable to understand that, I am sorry. I am not going to waste my time anymore in trying to tell you why this is so. Yes! I am a retired law enforcement officer of 27 years. I do know a little bit about how the law operates. I am not a person to tell another professional how to do their job as you are trying to tell me what the law is. I have been there, I know the law, I have enforced the law over those years, so please give me some consideration.

  • Wayne937

    Please send this to all your Congress Members. I just did:

    Politicians are the only people in the world who create problems and then campaign against them.

    Have you ever wondered, if both the Democrats and the Republicans are against deficits, WHY do we have deficits?

    Have you ever wondered, if all the politicians are against inflation and high taxes, WHY do we have inflation and high taxes?

    You and I don’t propose a federal budget. The President does.

    You and I don’t have the Constitutional authority to vote on appropriations. The House of Representatives does.

    You and I don’t write the tax code, Congress does.

    You and I don’t set fiscal policy, Congress does.

    You and I don’t control monetary policy, the Federal Reserve Bank does.

    One hundred senators, 435 congressmen, one President, and nine Supreme Court justices equates to 545 human beings out of the 300 million are directly, legally, morally, and individually responsible for the domestic problems that plague this country.

    I excluded the members of the Federal Reserve Board because that problem was created by the Congress. In 1913, Congress delegated its Constitutional duty to provide a sound currency to a federally chartered, but private, central bank.

    I excluded all the special interests and lobbyists for a sound reason. They have no legal authority. They have no ability to coerce a senator, a congressman, or a President to do one cotton-picking thing. I don’t care if they offer a politician $1 million dollars in cash. The politician has the power to accept or reject it. No matter what the lobbyist promises, it is the legislator’s responsibility to determine how he votes.

    Those 545 human beings spend much of their energy convincing you that what they did is not their fault. They cooperate in this common con regardless of party.

    What separates a politician from a normal human being is an excessive amount of gall. No normal human being would have the gall of a Speaker, who stood up and criticized the President for creating deficits. The President can only propose a budget. He cannot force the Congress to accept it.

    The Constitution, which is the supreme law of the land, gives sole responsibility to the House of Representatives for originating and approving appropriations and taxes. Who is the speaker of the House? John Boehner. He is the leader of the majority party. He and fellow House members, not the President, can approve any budget they want. If the President vetoes it, they can pass it over his veto if they agree to.

    It seems inconceivable to me that a nation of 300 million cannot replace 545 people who stand convicted — by present facts — of incompetence and irresponsibility. I can’t think of a single domestic problem that is not traceable directly to those 545 people. When you fully grasp the plain truth that 545 people exercise the power of the federal government, then it must follow that what exists is what they want to exist.

    If the tax code is unfair, it’s because they want it unfair.

    If the budget is in the red, it’s because they want it in the red.

    If the Army & Marines are in Iraq and Afghanistan it’s because they want them in Iraq and Afghanistan ….

    If they do not receive social security but are on an elite retirement plan not available to the people, it’s because they want it that way.

    There are no insoluble government problems.

    Do not let these 545 people shift the blame to bureaucrats, whom they hire and whose jobs they can abolish; to lobbyists, whose gifts and advice they can reject; to regulators, to whom they give the power to regulate and from whom they can take this power. Above all, do not let them con you into the belief that there exists disembodied mystical forces like “the economy,” “inflation,” or “politics” that prevent them from doing what they take an oath to do.

    Those 545 people, and they alone, are responsible.

    They and they alone, have the power.

    They and they alone, should be held accountable by the people who are their bosses.

    Provided the voters have the gumption to manage their own employees…

    We should vote all of them out of office and clean up their mess!

  • Vicki

    Apparently there are quite a few things besides dance that is prohibited by the King.

    http://visiontoamerica.org/1239/three-arrested-accused-of-illegally-feeding-homeless/

Bottom
close[X]

Sign Up For Personal Liberty Digest™!

PL Badge

Welcome to PersonalLiberty.com,
America's #1 Source for Libertarian News!

To join our group of freedom-loving individuals and to get alerts as well as late-breaking conservative news from Personal Liberty Digest™...

Privacy PolicyYou can opt out at any time. We protect your information like a mother hen. We will not sell or rent your email address to anyone for any reason.