President Barack Obama...Patriot Act extension signed at witching hour!

With a deadline ticking away, President Barack Obama gave the nod to lawmakers last night, when he signed a 4-year extension for the Patriot Act just before the stroke of midnight.

In essence, the Government's power to search records - and conduct wiretaps at whim in pursuit of terrorists - has been renewed with vigor.

"It's an important tool for us to continue dealing with an ongoing terrorist threat," Obama stressed, on the heels of affixing his John Henry with a flourish to the documents.

Presumably, the President dotted his i's and crossed his t's  when he signed the binding legal documents.

Because Mr. Obama was in France when the deadline for signing the document into law was looming on the horizon, the President facilitated - what is referred as an autopen machine - to carry out the administrative task.

The instrument is rarely used and requires proper authorization by the sitting President.

Americans are still reeling over revelations that Barack Obama entered an incorrect date next to his signature in the Official Registry at Westminster Abbey a few days ago. For some inexplicable reason, the President was under the impression the year was 2008!

How time flies when you're having fun.

Or, was Mr. Obama having a Senior moment?

The Senate - dispute a few hot debates on the issues - voted 72 - 23 for the legislation to renew three terrorism-fighting measures.

The House later passed the controversial authorities 250 - 153 on a vote that stretched into the night.

Without the three authorities, the Obama administration argued successfully, that the FBI might not be able to obtain information on terrorist plotting inside the U.S.

Even still, the vote was held up for several days because one hold-out Senator - Rand Paul (Kentucky) - was concerned that the tools Law Enforcement sought would result in an abuse of privacy rights.

In essence, Paul demanded changes to the bill to restrict the government's ability to monitor individual actions without proper checks and the balancing of applicable rights laws.

The  renewal action extends the Government's authority over the next four years, and allows for roving wiretaps for non-American suspects who may be "lone wolfs" working independently without any known ties to organized terrorist groups.

The wiretaps and Government authorized access to business records are small parts of the USA Patriot Act enacted after the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks.

But, unlike most of the act - which is permanent law - those provisions require periodic review because of concerns that they could be used to violate privacy rights.

The same set of principles apply to the "lone wolf" provision which was part of a 2004 intelligence law (some have accused was "rushed into" prematurely in the hysterical aftermath of the terrorist attack of 9/11 in New York.

Paul expressed his concerns that the some aspects of the Patriot Act trampled on individual liberties.

Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Illinois) fessed up that he voted for the act in 2001 "while ground zero was still burning."

"But, I soon realized it gave too much power to government without enough judicial and congressional oversight."

Mark Udall of Colorado was afraid that law-abiding citizens would be subject to unjust Government scrutiny.

"If we cannot limit investigations to terrorism or other nefarious activities, where do they end?"

"The Patriot Act has been used improperly again and again by law enforcement to invade Americans' privacy and violate their constitutional rights," added Laura W. Murphy, the director of the ACLU Washington legislative office, at one point during the heated debates on the controversial - but solemn - issues raised.

The provisions of the Patriot Act have kept us safe for nearly a decade and Americans today should be relieved and reassured to know that these programs will continue, added Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky.

Intelligence officials at major U.S. Government agencies have denied improper use of surveillance tools, by the way.

FBI Director Robert Mueller warned in a letter to Congressional Leaders recently that there would be serious security consequences if the Patriot Act was not renewed.

"When the clock strikes midnight tomorrow, we would be giving terrorists the opportunity to plot attacks against our country, undetected," Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said on the Senate floor Wednesday.

When President Obama signed the appropriate documents last night he sealed their fate in the final analysis.
.
Paul agreed to let the bill go forward after he was given a vote on two amendments to rein in government surveillance powers.

Both were defeated, however.

Amen!

http://www.thetattler.biz


ht

U.S. Supreme Court...Unconscionable ruling favors anti-gay protesters! 1st Amendment rights!



One headline said it all:

“Unconscionable but Constitutional”

Of course, I am referring to the high court’s ruling in favor of a hateful posse of protesters who were sued for picketing a soldier’s funeral because he was an “out” practicing homosexual.

While the actions of the rag-tag gang of Church-goers (!) from Westboro Baptist Church in Topeka (Kansas) was considered deplorable (un-Christian-like, if you ask me) the Supreme Court was forced to recognize that the protesters (headed up by Fred Phelps) had a Constitutional right to voice their opinion that the “U.S.” was “overly tolerant of sin” and that God allegedly “Kills soldiers as punishment” for their “gay” lifestyle.

To many, though, the Church group’s anti-gay protests at funerals – where shameful parishioners waved signs that read – “God hates fags” and “Thank God for dead soldiers” – were “sick” and in bad taste.

Although their message may have been lacking in any resemblance to the loving God portrayed in the scriptures – or his message of compassion and understanding and forgiveness – Chief Justice John Roberts noted that Phelps and his bible thumpers observed the laws of the land because they maintained a thousand-foot buffer zone and protested without “physical” violence .

What about the mental and emotional anguish they wrought on innocent mourners?

With an 8-1 ruling to back his decision, the bench-warmer wrote in his opinion that “even hurtful speech on public issues” merits 1st Amendment protection.

In sum, the hypocritical religious zealots won this round – rightly so – for the aforementioned reasons.

However, in the eyes of God, their reprehensible conduct was not only unconscionable – but, sinful - as well.

The scriptures are quite specific in that regard in at least two passage as follows:

"Let he who is without sin cast the first stone."

John 8:7

“Judge not that ye be judged”

Mathew 7:1

Amen!

http://www.thetattler.biz




Chief Justice John Roberts votes for 1st Amendment rights!
(no matter how hateful in nature)

"Don't ask, Don't tell" unconstitutional rules Federal Judge!

The ongoing policy to ban soldiers from professing the love that once dare not speak its name - in the Military, at least - was struck down on Thursday by a Federal Judge in Southern California.

In so many words, Her Honor - Judge Virginia Phillips - declared that the Government's - "Don't ask, Don't tell" - policy was unconstitutional because it violated the 1st Amendment rights of gays and lesbians.

Although Phillips granted an injunction to halt the long-standing policy, that will not be the end of it, according to a spokesperson at the White House.

Naturally, the U.S. Department of Justice will lodge an appeal in a higher court, and a whole new round of legal wranglings will commence with God speed.

Judge Phillips asserted that the controversial policy (enacted when Bill Clinton was in Office at the White House) did not help military readiness - but rather - had a direct and deleterious effect on the armed services.

The injunction push - the biggest of its kind in recent years - was brought by the Log Cabin Republicans which is purported to be the largest political organization for gays in the GOP.

The membership currently stands at approximately 19, 000.

The Executive Director - R. Clarke Cooper - was understandably elated at the outcome of the litigation at its current phase.

"As an American, a Veteran, and an Army reserve officer, I am proud that the court ruled that the arcane - "Don't ask, Don't tell" - statute violates the constitution," he beamed on the heels of the ruling.

He also took the occasion to note that the ruling was not just a big win for Log Cabin Republicans, but for all American Service members.

Government legal eagles responded quickly by asserting that Judge Phillips lacked the authority to issue a Nationwide injunction, however.

The policy - arcane or no - should be decided by Congress they sniffed.

The - "Don't ask, Don't tell" - policy prohibits the military from quizzing soliders about their sexual orientation and requires a discharge of those who acknowledge being gay (or who have been discovered to have engaged in homosexual activity on-or-off base).

The U.S. House voted in May to repeal the policy and the Senate  - if you believe what those who have their ears close to the wall say - is expected to follow suit in the next few months.

In that event, all pending litigation on the issue would be rendered "moot".

Rainbow Prez

(he's the one who didn't inhale)

http://www.thetattler.biz/

Craig's List...x-rated ads need monitoring!

Unlike most who got caught up in the "stink" - and vigorously jumped on the band wagon to protest a ruling by the court that permitted a plaintiff to sue Craig's List - I sighed a breath of relief.

The litigant took the action because bogus ads were posted on the site with his name which ended up causing the gentleman undue stress, anxiety, and to be harassed and embarrassed at his home.

"I hate to say I told you so, but I told you so," I found myself muttering with glee one day when the news splashed at lightning speed around the Internet a nano-second or two ahead of the mainstream press.

For good reason!

Over a year ago, when racy ads bordering on porno began to flourish boldly and blatantly on the site - hinting at shocking trends on the rise left unchecked - a lawsuit was filed to curb what some perceived as outright smut on Craig's List.

On the heels of the allegations that the owner's were remiss in their legal and moral responsibility to monitor the offending ads (which promoted illegal goods and services) the owners had the audacity to argue that they were just providing a free public space for consumers to advertise their events, rent their apartments, and ply their - um - wares.

The idea of imposing rules and regulations was simply barbaric - or a rights violation - in their demented minds perhaps?

Personally, I laughed at the notion.

For starters, the innovative site - which roared to phenomenal success world-wide from the proverbial get-go - didn't just appear out of thin air one fine day.

Surely, you'll concur, that the individuals who masterminded and constructed Craig's List, should be held accountable for their creation (especially when things go awry or bump in the night).

Notwithstanding - the idea of providing a forum where Internet users have no available recourse to rectify a wrong should it rear its ugly head (especially in this instant case where criminal activity may harm innocent members of the community-at-large) is totally un-American in concept and flies in the face of common sense.

Needless to say, in view of the foregoing arguments, I assumed that the court would issue a ruling to curb the activity and demand responsible action in respect to the monitoring of the Craig's List site.

Wrong!

I was literally stunned when the ruling came down last year.

In the final analysis, the Justices found merit in their arguments - and summarily - let Craig's list owners off-the-hook.

At the time, I penned a post in protest, essentially lamenting that the Justices got it all wrong.

The arguments fell on deaf ears, 'til now.

This past week, the court essentially ruled (if you read between the lines) that an injured party may sue for damages sustained due to willful neglect and the failure of a party to act responsibly in a civilized society.

Amen!

http://www.thetattler.biz/

Nevada Highway Patrol...Officer Del Padre (Badge # 691) harrasses tourists! Violates applicable Laws & motorist rights!

Not!
 

Public harassment is more like it, Officer!

Today, with evidence in hand, I have determined that the Nevada Highway Patrol - and Officer Del Padre (Badge # 691) in particular - harass out-of-state motorists, Violate their rights, and willfully and wrongfully ignore State & Federal Laws.

For example, a resident from another state was pulled over by Officer Del Padre, in spite of the fact there was a dealer plate on the reverse of the car and a registration affixed to the front windshield as required by law.

Until the issue of "new plates" and "registration" are resolved with the originating State's DMV, this is acceptable legal practice across the country.

When the motorist was chased down, and pulled over - resulting in considerable stress and anxiety to the hapless driver in the interim - the Officer strode up to the car and demanded the registration.

Obviously, the Officer was blind as a bat!

He failed to notice the registration (or chose not to?) in the front window - hence - the illegal pull-over in Violation of the motorists rights and applicable State & Federal Laws.

In addition, officer Del Padre engaged in some suspicious bizarre behaviour.

When the motorist pointed out that the registration was in the front window - instead of reading the information from that location - he barked at the driver to remove the paperwork (which was taped by the car dealership to the inside of the windshield at date of purchase pending registraton) or else he would tear it off himself.

Why was he so testy?

The motorist proceeded to remove the registration at the Officer's direction (which was highly improper under the circumstances).


I surmise that the officer in question realized he made a boo-boo and was maneuvering to rid the vehicle of the legal pending registration notice in the window so he could be held blameless.


The truth of the matter is, the Nevada Highway Patrol Officer disobeyed the law, harassed the motorist - and in the process - violated his rights.


In spite of the fact the tourist provided documentation from the DMV - one piece of correspondence from the headquarters of the DMV in Sacramento clarifying the issues - the Officer proceeded to call a tow truck to haul the vehicle to an impound.


Leaving a handicapped motorist on medications on the side of the highway without their vehicle to return home in is not only - shocking disgusting conduct unbefitting a Law Enforcement Officer - but a heinous violation of citizen and motorists rights that cries out for justice.


On behalf of the victim, I hereby urge the Nevada State Patrol to release the vehicle - in view of the paperwork presented the officer in question earlier in the day - issue an apology - and proceed with disciplinary action against Nevada Patrol Officer Del Padre (Badge # 691).


I intend to file a former complaint on the individual's behalf with the Governor, the State Attorney General, and the Department of Justice.


I trust my readers (and others stumbling on this post) will agree with my conclusion that such an Officer is not fit (mentally, morally, or emotionally) to serve his city, state, or country.


News at 11!

____________________________________________
NEWS UPDATE

Misconduct of Nevada Highway Patrol Officer casts doubt on granting free rein to State Law Enforcement Officers!

Post: 07/05/10

http://ijulian.blogspot.com/2010/07/arizona-immigration-lawnevada-highway.html

http://www.julianayrs.com

Gay Marriage...closing arguments for Prop 8 legal challenge set! June court drama...

Judge Vaughn Walker - the U.S. District Court bench-warmer presiding over the Prop 8 legal challenge in the Federal Court arena - announced that closing arguments for the controversial landmark case are slated to be heard in June (2010).

Once the lawyers for both sides have argued the issues orally at the Federal Courthouse in San Francisco, the Judge will take the matter under submission, and thereafter render a decision according to his legal findings.

Undoubtedly, the party that does not prevail in the Federal District Court, will remain undaunted - and pursue the issues further - by way of a timely appeal in the 9th Circuit Court of Appeal.

Eventually, the fight for "gay marriage" rights may end up in the lap of the Justices in the highest Court in the land in Washington D.C.
(U.S. Supreme Court).

Stay tuned!

http://www.thetattler.biz/

West Hollywood...Police State & Sheriff misconduct! Rights violations...

Now that the weather is perking up with days filled with glorious sun and clear skies, you may be inclined to roll up your sleeves and clean up your car at the curb in the street.

If you live in West Hollywood, you may want to think twice about that, unless you do not mind a shake-down by the local Sheriff's department.

One resident flung the doors of their late model vehicle open wide, and started an energetic purge, when a squad car cruised by.

Huh?

In a jiffy, the officer made a quick "u" tune, and proceeded to drive up the "wrong side" of the street (causing other drivers to shake their head in disbelief) and slowly ease his vehicle alongside the individual's car until his eyeline was just slightly forward of the back hatch which was wide open and revealed the contents packed inside.

"What are you up to, Sir," he asked in so many words.

Duh!

To most reasonably intelligent folks, it probably would have been obvious that some spring cleaning was going down.

Shaken, but not stirred (as James Bond might quip) the driver politely informed the Sheriff  that he was tidying up his vehicle since it was great weather to be outdoors and active.

At this point, the Sheriff (obviously with a stick up his butt)  asked the WeHo resident if he had any ID on him.

Huh?

A uneasy feeling rippled through his body as he tried to fathom what was going down.

Was a Law Enforcement Officer legally entitled to ask for identification from a citizen without provocation or reasonable grounds to make such a demand?

The resident hesitated, and wondered to himself if he should perhaps deny the request, on legal grounds.

Because he'd heard horror stories - as he put it -  about what happens to individuals when they stand up to a cop's alleged authority (getting mouthy or treating them with disrespect in their mind set) he was inclined to hand over his license with some reservations.

The Sheriff proceeded to input his name and address into the computer.

Nada.

After noticing that the mailing address on the license was a P.O. Box he quizzed the driver about his home address.

Again, the WeHo resident was a little taken aback, bywhat he thought was an inappropriate question.

Was he entitled to obtain  that information - or request it - in this particular instance?

Needless to say, afraid that cop might react in a negative way (or try to find some fault to retaliate), he complied reluctantly.

When it came to the interrogator's attention that the owner of the vehicle lived a few blocks away, the bully demanded to know why the spring cleaner was "over here".

Gosh, the driver explained to moi, I didn't know there were so many silly restrictive  laws in West Hollywood.

Who would have thought that cleaning out your car on a sunny day was illegal, or travelling from one section of a neighborhod to another, required permission from the local Sheriff's department!

At this point, the smirking Sheriff  handed back the license, before slapping him in the face with some stupid comment like:

 "Have a nice day."

What an a**hole!

No wonder, when you consider the criteria for landing a job at the WeHo Sheriff's Department!

The candidate need only pass a GED (a "D" will squeak him or her through), stand at least five foot nothing, and love to gobble down doughnuts with sprinkles on top.

And, have a psycho yearning to wear a badge to bolster his manhood!

After all, I expect these wobbly-kneed jerk-offs were once nerds who got sand kicked in their faces, and laughed at day-in and day-out at school.

And, just try to fight a ticket in court, when these slippery characters show up to tell their side of things.

It is pretty much a given they will lie through their teeth.

What is a synonym for law enforcement officer?

Professional liar!

It's pretty obvious from other stories I've heard that WeHo Sheriff's have a flagrant disregard for citizen rights.

Because of it, the upscale community is fast-becoming a police state, of sorts.

They were scraping the barrel when they rustled up these pigs, one astute neighbour asserted.

Amen!

http://www.thetattler.biz

Sarah Palin...$100 thousand tea party speech bid for Presidency! Nervous Ice Queen strikes chord...

Scarlett Lady appears at Tea Party Convention for big bucks!

The horse everyone was betting on trotted out of the gate and sped down the well-beaten track at a good pace for about twenty minutes or so, inspired a few heartfelt emotions that sent the frenzied ticket-holders to their feet roaring approval, then sadly stumbled and lost her way momentarily just before catching stride at the finish line.

Too late?

The event was much-ballyhooed.

Sarah Palin - fresh off a couple of scandals - stridently made her way out onto the stage amidst wild applause to deliver a key note speech with a $100,000.00 price tag at the Tea Party's first National Convention.

And, when you consider the cost to supporters, it was evident - that contrary to Palin's assertions - the high-profile event was not populist but elitist instead.

Attendees paid through the nose ($549 a pop) to sit up-front and egg the tarted-up broad on (do you suppose the clothes were rented once again?).

That, they sure as heck did.

On more than one occasion, a cross-section of American voters jumped to their feet, and vigorously flaunted their approval.

And, at the end of her speech, thunderous applause was followed by a chant that swept all up in the heady moment.

"Run Sarah. Run Sarah. Run Sarah. Run!"

Palin's second bite at the apple?

You betcha!

Frankly, I think she should let sleeping Polar Bears ly.

The perky little bundle of energy started off the night's farce with a round of thanks and got tea party tottlers all  warm and tingly inside when she used a myriad of hokey moments laced with soppy sentimentality to lure everyone into the fold.

"God Bless America. It's Great to be an American," she shouted out to the effervescent supporters.

"Do you love Freedom," she quizzed the excited throngs in the packed house.

"I salute all the men in uniform."

When servicemen in the crowd responded with a boisterous roar, she beamed.

"Thank you."

Tongue in cheek, the former Alaskan Governor welcomed C-Span.

"You weren't invited to the Health reform summits, but glad to have 'ya here," she sang out like a cheerful little songbird.

The spitfire facilitated all the gimmicks within her greedy grasp to nab the attention of folks from the heartland who tend to wear the old red white and blue on their sleeves.

In a nutshell, the Republican icon described tea party advocates as real people (not politicos, oh no!) with common sense conservative principles

Out-of-the blue she cried out enthusiastically: 

"Happy Birthday, Ronald Reagan."

Do you suppose she knows he's dead?

Of course, she would have been remiss in her duties if she neglected to thank the TP's host city.

Nashville has sweeter tea, she teased, after noting Alaska sipped on their own brand of Ice Tea.

Judging  from the response of the locals, something mind and mood altering must have been surreptiously slipped into the mix.

Drunk with adoration?

When Palin gave kudos to Scott Brown, she melted into a gooey-eyed teen with a schoolgirl crush.

"He was just a guy with a truck (and a  penchant for posing nude) who realized one day that things were not right."

She theorized it was the grass roots route that landed him in the Senator's seat in Massachusetts.

And, shortcomings on the part of the Democrats, that cinched the deal.

Washington needs to stop lecturing and start listening, she undersccored to the hyped-up crowd below the floodlights, with an obvious sly reference to Barack Obama and his methodology.

In fact, she boldly accused Obama, Pelosi, and Reid of being involved in an agenda that was out-of-touch.

"There are big problems around this country," she cried out with passion.

At this juncture, a quiver in her voice revealed that she was - in fact - nervous.

Perhaps that is why she raced through the speech - in a running-off-at-the-mouth kind-of-style - without stressing any of the salient points with a hand gesture, for instance, which may have rustled up a smidgen of eloquent drama often achieved by the greats such as former President John F. Kennedy and Martin Luther King.

Suddenly, without warning, a lack of reading and comprehension skills interrupted her flow (and crediblity) as she headed down to the finish line.

It turned out to be a dead give-a-way.

For example, on two or three unfortunate occasions, she tripped up when words failed to flow trippingly off the tongue.

In fact, as she attempted to regain balance and composure, it was obvious to moi that Palin was not the sole author of the speech!

Clearly, she contributed a couple of folksy quips, but the bulk of the attention-getter was obviously put together by a clever speech writer out to tie up all the loose strings required to deliver up a neat and tidy package.

The invisible hand behind-the-secnes whipped up a couple of notions that resonated.

For instance, McCain's former running mate noted that politicians with the best ideas, would surely win out.

In that regard, she noted that a candidate should put their faith in their ideas and realize that  in the final analysis, the Tea Party was not a top-down operation but a ground-up call to action.

Palin also focused on "the people" a lot.

"This is about the people," she assured the attentive audience in one segment of the speech.

"People have to change the way of doing business in Washington," she predicted for the future.

In a slap at Obama, she elaborated that a charismatic guy with a teleprompter wasn't going to cut it.

In contrast, she hailed Tea Party members who got involved - went to town hall meetings - penned op eds, etc.

Right on cue, she criticized the political double-talk.

Palin thought it disingenuous that the war was referred to by the Democrats as an overseas contigency operation (which sucked big time to her).

"National security has to call it the way it is."

At this juncture, she leapt into full-frontal attack on the events of Christmas-day past.

Security did not work!

Palin got quite a reaction when she expressed her annoyance over one particular aspect in the aftermath.

"Before the terrorist was interrogated, he seized on our 1st Amendment Rights, and pled the fifth," she raged in so many words.

In what amounted to a low blow, Palin hurled a biting criticism in the President's direction, that must have stung.

"We need a commander-in-chief - not a professor of Law - standing at the lecturn."

APPLAUSE!

The keynote speaker sequed into the issue of foreign affairs momentarily, too.

"We need a policy so that we can recognize friends from enemies."

Although many politicians are afraid to broach touchy subjects (which may lose votes) Palin had no qualms stating for the record that Iran should be sanctioned.

The shop-a-holic (keen on blowing other people's wads) quoted Barry Goldwater at one point.

"We're not conquered just by bombs, but also neglect."

American must stand with peoples and democracies which reflect our values and interests - was one comment - that touched a chord also.

"Foreign policy is not about resolving personalities."

APPLAUSE!

How about winning popularity contests?

That is right up the former Ice Queen's hunting trail.

Tea Party Nation!

WordPress...discriminates! Engages in unlawful censorship & Violates blogger rights!

In the beginning there was the word!

(WordPress under false impression they created it)

Over at WordPress bloggers are grumbing that management is "playing God" - the end result being - that the privilege to post an article may be unjustly denied without proper legal notice simply because an individual in the employ of the blog site doesn't agree with what the author has penned at their site.

Also, because of WordPress's lack knowledge  in respect to binding State & Federal laws, bloggers have suffered the loss of the rights guaranteed them under the1st Amendment and the Bill of Rights..

Specifically - the highly unethical & illegal conduct of staff at Wordpress - not only amounts to a denial of the right to free speech - but also the right to due process (a fair hearing).

I suppose this is what happens when a gaggle of computer geeks start up a company without a clue!

Well, they may be in for a rude life-shattering shock.

One blogger I am in touch with is inclined to file a lawsuit for damages!

How do you like them apples, dudes?

News at 11!

http://www.julianayrs.com

Dallas...police are pigs who harass tourists!

Downtown Dallas is sprinkled with fine museums, chic upscale restaurants to take brunch in, and a bevy of trendy boutiques so you can shop-til-you-drop.

But, just try to plunk down on a knoll of grass for a moment (if you can find one; downtown Dallas is all concrete, after all) and the city's finest will ride out-of-the-blue on a rickety old bike and rudely bark out:

"Get along little doggie."

For example, today I spied a tourist stretch out on a mound of grass to take a respite from it all under a glorious mid-day sun, when he was urged to move on by a couple of law enforcement officers.

When the upscale gentleman in town on business noted he want to take a breather in the parkk for a second or two, one overzealous copper was inclined to snidely remark:

"They don't like that here."

They?

You'd think with the economy failing the way it has been, Dallas and its residents, would be welcoming visitors (and the influx of ready cash) with open arms.

In addition to being thick around the waist and butt, these two losers appeared to be thick in the head as well.

I wanted to point out that one of the last sacred rights an individual has in this great nation is the one that provides that citizens be able to walk the streets freely (and sit in a park openly) without the threat of harassment or a violation of their rights.

But, I expect "they" would have hauled me away and silenced my voice much like they did to another advocate of basic rights and freedoms way back in Dallas in 1963

Dallas, get rid of your "pigs".

After all, they're a detriment to your image!

http://www.julianayrs.com