Succession

[Martin Weidmann]

They will probably start arresting people for that soon.  Like in "Europe."

Another outright Fox news lie. Nobody was arrested in Europe for having a religion.

A religious fanatic was arrested in Birmingham for violating a Public Space Protection Order (intended to keep an area safe) four times.

https://www.birminghammail.co.uk/news/midlands-news/isabel-vaughan-spruce-45-charged-25794626

This has just been discussed in the off topic section and Richard's lie was exposed. I guess he thought to give the same lie another try here!

[Richard Smith]

Another outright Fox news lie. Nobody was arrested in Europe for having a religion.

A religious fanatic was arrested in Birmingham for violating a Public Space Protection Order (intended to keep an area safe) four times.

https://www.birminghammail.co.uk/news/midlands-news/isabel-vaughan-spruce-45-charged-25794626

This has just been discussed in the off topic section and Richard's lie was exposed. I guess he thought to give the same lie another try here!

Anyone can watch the video and judge for themselves.  A woman standing quietly by herself on a public street is approached by the police.  They asked her "Are you praying?"  Again "Are you praying?"  When she said that she was praying in her head, they arrested her.   In fact, as a condition of her bail, she is precluded from praying in public.  She has apparently committed this "crime" on prior occasions.  That doesn't make her arrest right as Martin stupidly claims.   Instead it makes her a hero for standing up to authoritarian oppression of speech and religious liberties. 

[Martin Weidmann]

Anyone can watch the video and judge for themselves.  A woman standing quietly by herself on a public street is approached by the police.  They asked her "Are you praying?"  Again "Are you praying?"  When she said that she was praying in her head, they arrested her.   In fact, as a condition of her bail, she is precluded from praying in public.  She has apparently committed this "crime" on prior occasions.  That doesn't make her arrest right as Martin stupidly claims.   Instead it makes her a hero for standing up to authoritarian oppression of speech and religious liberties. 

A woman standing quietly by herself on a public street is approached by the police.


She wasn't allowed to be there, because of the Protection order

When she said that she was praying in her head, they arrested her. 

Lie. The video clearly shows that police wanted to talk to here about events on other days and the complaints that resulted in a Public Spaces Protection Order. That's what she was arrested for. She most likely created a nuisance on other occassions and was told not to return to the area. As soon as she refused to go to the police station voluntary she was arrested regardless of what she was doing.

She has apparently committed this "crime" on prior occasions.

Another lie... she violated the Public Spaces Protection Order four times. That's why they arrested her and that's what she is charged with. When somebody trespasses on your property and despite being told not to come back, he nevertheless returns four times, wouldn't you want the police to arrest him?

That doesn't make her arrest right as Martin stupidly claims.

If she was arrested for simply praying, that would not be right, but she wasn't. She was arrested for violating a lawful order to stay away four times.

Richard, rather pathetically, introduces the praying BS to misrepresent what really happened.

Instead it makes her a hero for standing up to authoritarian oppression of speech and religious liberties. 

The words of a true fanatic zealot. That woman didn't even live in Birmingham, where she was arrested. If she only wanted to pray she could have gone anywhere else, but instead she decided to violate a lawful order (yet again) and upset the people in the area. She was there for one purpose only; to intimidate women who were legally visiting an abortion clinic. She was the one breaking the law and it had nothing to do with religious liberties!

It's pretty pathetic that Richard thinks he can be judgmental about something that happened in England, where he most likely has never been. I'm sure there are members on this board from England or perhaps even Birmingham to set him straight about what really happened.

[Charles Collins]

Yes, as I understand it, it's just a tradition not a requirement. As you point out, it would be a violation of a person's Constitutional rights to require the use of a Bible. Or any religious text/document. Several Muslim-American Representatives have been sworn in using the Quran, e.g. Rashida Tlaib and Ilhan Omar. And I'm pretty sure jurors can refuse to swear on a Bible; they just have to give an affirmative oath.

Of course, I could be completely full of it. Not for the first time <g>. Merry Christmas.

Thanks, Merry Christmas to you too Steve.

[Charles Collins]

LBJ wanted to take the oath of office in Dallas (even delaying their flight back to Washington DC for it)

Keep reading and you'll find that  John Mc Cormac was hurrying back from lunch after learning of the death of JFK and Mc Cormac assumed that he had become the acting President and needed to return to the House to be sworn in.   LBJ heard that Mc Cormac was about to be sworn in and he nearly soiled his skivvies..     THAT"S why he insisted that a Federal Judge be brought to AF1 immediately  to swear him in.

Manchester suggests that the opposite of your idea is what happened. He indicates that McCormack didn’t want the responsibility (mainly due to his age and health condition). Here’s another snip from “The Death of a President” by William Manchester:

The truth was 180 degrees the other way. He not only wasn’t brooding; he couldn’t even bring himself to think of it. The prospect, to McCormack, was literally unbearable. The Speaker was fully aware of his age and his limitations. Each morning and each evening in the Hotel Washington he repeated a simple prayer for Johnson’s health: “May the Lord protect and direct him.” That was the best he could do. He was incapable of facing the fact that should prayer fail Congressional legislation would make him the thirty-seventh President. On the afternoon of November 22, as Aircraft 26000 approached mid-flight, a detail of Secret Service men presented themselves at the door of the Washington Hotel’s Suite 620. They never crossed the threshold. The Speaker coldly informed the Special Agent in Charge that “The Capitol provides me with all the protection I need. This is an intolerable intrusion in my private life and Mrs. McCormack’s, and I won’t have it.”8


8.  And he didn’t. When Johnson reached Washington McCormack insisted that the Secret Service must discontinue all interest in him at once. Because of the Speaker’s political power his extraordinary demand was honored that Friday. Thus the man next in line was without security protection for fourteen months. It was one of the best-kept secrets in the government. Those who knew of it did not even mention it to one another until Hubert Humphrey had been sworn in.

[Charles Collins]

Merry Christmas. Santa is over England now.

NORAD is tracking and are standing down.

May Santa deliver loads of common sense to certain JFK researchers.

Merry Christmas, Jerry.

[Richard Smith]

A woman standing quietly by herself on a public street is approached by the police.


She wasn't allowed to be there, because of the Protection order

When she said that she was praying in her head, they arrested her. 

Lie. The video clearly shows that police wanted to talk to here about events on other days and the complaints that resulted in a Public Spaces Protection Order. That's what she was arrested for. She most likely created a nuisance on other occassions and was told not to return to the area. As soon as she refused to go to the police station voluntary she was arrested regardless of what she was doing.

She has apparently committed this "crime" on prior occasions.

Another lie... she violated the Public Spaces Protection Order four times. That's why they arrested her and that's what she is charged with. When somebody trespasses on your property and despite being told not to come back, he nevertheless returns four times, wouldn't you want the police to arrest him?

That doesn't make her arrest right as Martin stupidly claims.

If she was arrested for simply praying, that would not be right, but she wasn't. She was arrested for violating a lawful order to stay away four times.

Richard, rather pathetically, introduces the praying BS to misrepresent what really happened.

Instead it makes her a hero for standing up to authoritarian oppression of speech and religious liberties. 

The words of a true fanatic zealot. That woman didn't even live in Birmingham, where she was arrested. If she only wanted to pray she could have gone anywhere else, but instead she decided to violate a lawful order (yet again) and upset the people in the area. She was there for one purpose only; to intimidate women who were legally visiting an abortion clinic. She was the one breaking the law and it had nothing to do with religious liberties!

It's pretty pathetic that Richard thinks he can be judgmental about something that happened in England, where he most likely has never been. I'm sure there are members on this board from England or perhaps even Birmingham to set him straight about what really happened.

Anyone can watch the video and judge for themselves.  She is standing peacefully on a public street.  Not bothering anyone.  The policeman asked her "Are you praying?"  Martin, however, doesn't believe praying or religion has anything to do with her arrest but he can't explain why they asked her this particularly question.  And why a condition of her bail is to not "pray" in public.  She is a "religious fanatic", however, according to Martin even though that contradicts his conclusion that her praying and religion has nothing to do with any of this.  He is apparently offended by her praying and believes she is a "fanatic" for doing so.  Her crime was to pray in violation of the authoritarians who hate religion and free speech, and she was arrested under a law intended to keep someone's dog from pooping in the park.  A law leftists won't apply to homeless people who take drugs and defecate on the same public streets.   Of course, the only "fanatic" here is an angry anti-religious type who opposes basic human rights.  How many LHO defending contrarians who have knowledge of current affairs in Texas and hate religion can there be on this forum?  What a coincidence that we have two such people who share these exact traits.  And where have Otto and Roger gone?  All they are living in "Europe"?  It must be getting crowded there.

[Richard Smith]

It's pretty pathetic that Richard thinks he can be judgmental about something that happened in England, where he most likely has never been. I'm sure there are members on this board from England or perhaps even Birmingham to set him straight about what really happened.

This one is particularly noteworthy for its hypocrisy.   Martin claims to live in "Europe" but has bombarded this forum with critical comments about the US and US politics.  But I'm being "judgmental" for commenting on one event that happened in England.  That is verboten to him.  Members of this "board" should set me straight.  Martin speaks for these people as well because he allegedly lives on the same continent?  Bizarre.