Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Secret Service investigating Texas man -- for lynching his chair!

page: 1
10
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join

posted on Sep, 21 2012 @ 06:20 AM
link   

Secret Service investigating Texas man -- for lynching his chair!


www.weareaustin.com

Austin Man Hangs Empty Chair From Tree Symbolizing President Obama

A Northwest Austin homeowner, who hung a chair from a tree meant to symbolize President Obama, has taken it down.
The political blog burntorangereport.com first talked about the display in the Spicewood Estates area Wednesday night.
The fold-up chair, with an American flag attached to it, was hung from a tree in front of Bud Johnson’s home and some neighbors complained that it was racist.
(visit the link for the full news article)




posted on Sep, 21 2012 @ 06:20 AM
link   
Come on people. This was a symbolic gesture showing his frustration with the obama regime. Free speech, pure and simple. Why does every single statement against the regime have to be racist? Why can't it be a simple political statement of disagreement with dear leader and his regime? The policies and practices of the regime, dear leader and moochelle provide more than enough reason to protest. The regime cannot stand on it's record, so it must couch everything in terms of racism. The regime has no other cards to play.

www.weareaustin.com
(visit the link for the full news article)



posted on Sep, 21 2012 @ 06:39 AM
link   
reply to post by DarthMuerte
 


Had he burned the chair at a stake, staked it out covered in honey to attract flies and ants while burning in the sun, shot it full of holes with a variety of firearms, drawn and quartered the chair, beheaded the chair, blew the chair up, tar and feathered and ridden out of town on a rail, or any sundry number of other kinds of deaths or indignities in effigy scenarios, it would certainly be fine as far as freedom of speech goes.

Hanging, however, especially in the South, and especially in regard to anyone of color, by someone of White ethnicity, even just in effigy, tends to take on a whole new meaning with racial implications.

Further, as I understand it, language NOT PROTECTED by the first amendment is any language, action, or symbolism that threatens or implies bodily harm to the POTUS.



edit on 21-9-2012 by Druscilla because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 21 2012 @ 06:43 AM
link   
reply to post by Druscilla
 
It's a chair. If bammy identifies with the chair that much, does that mean Eastwood was totally right about him?



posted on Sep, 21 2012 @ 06:52 AM
link   
"The fold-up chair, with an American flag attached to it, was hung from a tree in front of Bud Johnson’s home and some neighbors complained that it was racist. "



If Obama was white, the shear volume of his lawless behavior and questionable documentation would have resulted in hearings at the very least. The fact he is mulatto has allowed this administration to engage in gun/drug running, continuous looting of the treasury and uncounted other crimes.

The fact he is mulatto is also being used to calm/deflect the population while they collapse this economy and society.


+3 more 
posted on Sep, 21 2012 @ 06:52 AM
link   
reply to post by DarthMuerte
 


It's not about what the POTUS thinks.

It's the obligation and mandate of the Secret Service to investigate all implied threats to the POTUS regardless of how ridiculous.

This applies to all presidents.
Consider all the people you never heard about getting investigated by the Secret Service during the W. Bush years who was by no means a 'popular' president by even the longest stretch:


Consider all the investigations you never heard about regarding threats against W. Bush, since, said people no longer exist and never existed to exist in the first place.

Everyone crying about Obama should take a good long look back at the Bush years.
Most of what Obama is dealing with is the gigantic Olympus Mons sized steaming dung heap pile of a train wrecked government left behind by Bush.




edit on 21-9-2012 by Druscilla because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 21 2012 @ 07:17 AM
link   
well in these times of "no more free speech", i would of hung it in a tree beside a hwy, not in my front yard.

free speech isint free anymore.



posted on Sep, 21 2012 @ 07:32 AM
link   
I agree, the regime is trampling free speech and every other God given right we have.



posted on Sep, 21 2012 @ 07:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by jcarpenter
"The fold-up chair, with an American flag attached to it, was hung from a tree in front of Bud Johnson’s home and some neighbors complained that it was racist. "



If Obama was white, the shear volume of his lawless behavior and questionable documentation would have resulted in hearings at the very least. The fact he is mulatto has allowed this administration to engage in gun/drug running, continuous looting of the treasury and uncounted other crimes.

The fact he is mulatto is also being used to calm/deflect the population while they collapse this economy and society.


First of all, we ALL know that he is not considered to be a ''mulatto''. Let's be real here...he's seen as black, so come off the mulatto crap, as if we're in 1842 or something. Secondly, the ''Bushies'' have been running guns, drugs, and looting the treasury, and other uncounted crimes FOREVER! And for the record, I don't support O or any of those crooks in Washington. None of 'em.



posted on Sep, 21 2012 @ 07:40 AM
link   
edit on 21-9-2012 by poloblack because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 21 2012 @ 07:51 AM
link   
What a stupid, bitter, lying, racist idiot! It's CLEARLY racist. That's always their first statement... "I'm not racist, but..." (Racists don't usually know they're racist.) I'm not saying this old fart is a serious threat to the POTUS. I don't think he is, but in essence, he's saying he thinks the president should be lynched. Is that covered by free speech? I don't think so. If he said it in a speech, I'm not sure it would be covered. At the very least, a visit from the Secret Service is warranted, if for no other reason, to let him know the seriousness of his actions.

Under current law, I believe this would be considered hate speech. But we're allowed to hate. And unfortunately, too many people thrive on it these days. Hatred is seething in this country. It's really sad to see.



posted on Sep, 21 2012 @ 07:57 AM
link   
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
 
No matter how much you hate the man or his views, it is free speech.



posted on Sep, 21 2012 @ 08:00 AM
link   
reply to post by DarthMuerte
 



Originally posted by DarthMuerte
No matter how much you hate the man or his views, it is free speech.


If he SAID, "The president should be lynched", would it be covered? Can you show some precedent? I just don't know.



posted on Sep, 21 2012 @ 08:12 AM
link   
Freedom of Speech includes non-speech also. What someone wears and how they behave is considered "freedom of expression" and is a protected right. The Supreme Court has even said that burning the American Flag is protected speech because it expresses an opinion. There are often conflicts over things that are said or printed in books, magazines, and newspapers, but just because someone doesn't like what was said doesn't mean that the person didn't have the right to say it. It’s easy to come up with similar situations where people’s “free speech” rights are protected even if they aren’t using words to communicate their messages. Students have a right to wear black armbands to school. Christians have a right to wear a cross. People have a right to fly an American flag outside their homes. People have a right to fly communist, Confederate, and Nazis flags. People have a right to draw satirical cartoons which criticize the president. All of these are forms of speech because the concept of speech is not and cannot be limited solely to oral communication or even to words and sentences.



posted on Sep, 21 2012 @ 08:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by DarthMuerte
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
 
No matter how much you hate the man or his views, it is free speech.



You should familiarize yourself with what "Freedom of Speech" means, Legally Speaking as defined by The First Amendment


Benjamin Gitlow was convicted of criminal anarchy after he was found advocating the "necessity and propriety of overthrowing and overturning organized government by force, violence and unlawful means" in the Left Wing Manifesto, as well as publishing and circulating a radical newspaper called The Revolutionary Age advocating similar ideas. In arguing before the Supreme Court, Gitlow contended that "the statute as construed and applied by the trial court penalize[d] the mere utterance, as such, of 'doctrine' having no quality of incitement, without regard to the circumstances of its utterance or to the likelihood of the unlawful sequences."



In 1940, Congress enacted the Smith Act, making it illegal to advocate "the propriety of overthrowing or destroying any government in the United States by force and violence


I was going to add more, but, you have the link. Educate yourself. There's a ton of things exempt from coverage by the First Amendment.
Further, those not covered under the First Amendment can be termed criminal acts with penalties including imprisonment.

Learn about your First Amendment Rights before you start making assumptions about things you think you understand, but don't.




edit on 21-9-2012 by Druscilla because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 21 2012 @ 08:23 AM
link   
Gets tiresome when you see people abusing the first amendment and use it as an outlet for continues public displays of racism.

To be honest, he has the right to think and say what he wants, but there is a point, like hanging a chair in representation of Obama, that to me seems to go to far
edit on 21-9-2012 by MDDoxs because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 21 2012 @ 08:24 AM
link   
reply to post by DarthMuerte
 


I know all that. But thanks.

I don't think this incident in itself is a real threat, but an investigation to find out the extent of this old codger's intent is warranted. ONLY if he is found guilty of threatening the president for this one incident, will his freedom of speech be infringed upon.

Just because there is an investigation doesn't mean his free speech is threatened. An investigation by the secret service is NOT an infringement of his free speech. It's a consequence. If they successfully find him guilty for this (and there's not a bunch of evidence that he has the intent to kill the POTUS), THEN it will be an infringement.

There is a difference between writing a cartoon CRITICIZING the president and suggesting his death.

Threatening the President



While the murder rate among private Americans is 1 out of 13,530 people, 1 out of 10 US Presidents has been assassinated (Lincoln, Garfield, McKinley, Kennedy) and a fifth (Reagan) was shot. Eleven others were uninjured in failed assassination attempts.


They have to take EVERY perceived threat seriously and investigate further.



posted on Sep, 21 2012 @ 08:35 AM
link   
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
 


Thanks for that link.
In that link is a link to 18 USC Sec. 871

That's United States Code Title 18 › Part I › Chapter 41 › § 871
Threats against President and successors to the Presidency

(a) Whoever knowingly and willfully deposits for conveyance in the mail or for a delivery from any post office or by any letter carrier any letter, paper, writing, print, missive, or document containing any threat to take the life of, to kidnap, or to inflict bodily harm upon the President of the United States, the President-elect, the Vice President or other officer next in the order of succession to the office of President of the United States, or the Vice President-elect, or knowingly and willfully otherwise makes any such threat against the President, President-elect, Vice President or other officer next in the order of succession to the office of President, or Vice President-elect, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.

(b) The terms “President-elect” and “Vice President-elect” as used in this section shall mean such persons as are the apparent successful candidates for the offices of President and Vice President, respectively, as ascertained from the results of the general elections held to determine the electors of President and Vice President in accordance with title 3, United States Code, sections 1 and 2. The phrase “other officer next in the order of succession to the office of President” as used in this section shall mean the person next in the order of succession to act as President in accordance with title 3, United States Code, sections 19 and 20.



In other words, threaten the POTUS, VPOTUS, etc, or even be perceived as threatening, and, you're asking for all sorts of whatever it is you get coming.



posted on Sep, 21 2012 @ 08:35 AM
link   
reply to post by DarthMuerte
 


Perception is people’s reality.

No one screamed Racist or anything else when an effigy of Sarah Palin was hanged in a front yard during Halloween of 2008.

It was just a Halloween decoration that was done in bad taste according to the police at the time. Just as this one is done in bad taste.

I don’t like the current admin, but the guy could have showed his disgust in a better manner.

Like flying that flag upside down, until this Admin is replaced. There are actually a lot of people that do that.



posted on Sep, 21 2012 @ 08:52 AM
link   
reply to post by TDawgRex
 



Originally posted by TDawgRex
No one screamed Racist or anything else when an effigy of Sarah Palin was hanged in a front yard during Halloween of 2008.


Sarah Palin is white. There is no history of white people being lynched to protect the black women... Many people were lynched, most black and the rest for standing up for black people (or in outlaw crimes between gangs) and mostly in the South, after the Civil War. When black people were lynched, it was because they were black, not because of a personal disagreement or because someone stole a horse.

A black person hanging from a tree has a RACIST motivation. Especially in this case, where the man's first defense was, "I'm not racist"!

Not disagreeing with you, just responding.





new topics

top topics



 
10
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join