More to ignore, Book 17....

Ten Thousan Marbles

Well-Known Member
Feb 6, 2014
98,525
18,210
1
Social media show Denver shooter is a 'white supremacist and misogynist obsessed with masculinity'
Aysha Qamar

After keeping his identity secret for over 24 hours, the shooter in a deadly mass shooting in Denver, Colorado, on Monday was not only identified but said to have been previously criminally investigated both this and last year for undisclosed suspicions. But that’s not all: In addition to being on law enforcement’s radar, 47-year-old Lyndon James McLeod had also been described on social media as both a white supremacist and Nazi sympathizer.

Multiple posts back up these claims in which McLeod also signaled clear hatred toward women. The killings are speculated to be connected to his extremist views.
........
According to the official Twitter account for Colorado Springs Anti-Fascists, a group that is “exposing fascists and disrupting their organizing in so-called Colorado,” McLeod “was a white nationalist.” The group provided screenshots of tweets from McLeod’s account to back up its claim.


“The Denver mass shooter was a white supremacist and a misogynist obsessed with masculinity, oppressing women, defending the white race, and shooting communists,” Colorado Springs Anti-Fascists said in a tweet. The organization also noted that McLeod often partook in right-wing extremist spaces under the pen name Roman McClay.






According to The Daily Beast, McLeod’s social media accounts also noted that he believed in targeted violence against the “weak.”

“This is basically the plot to my stupid book,” he tweeted in April 2020. “Our entire society is made up of shitty little ****s who insult badasses & get away with it because law enforcement & social norms protect the WEAK from the STRONG. I’m over it.”

He added: “The weak better buckle up... shit is about to get real.”

Multiple alt-right conspiracy theorists like Mike Cernovich also follow McLeod on social media, further supporting claims of his extremist views. Not to mention McLeod also wrote a book called Sanction under his pseudonym, as Nick Martin, a journalist with The Informant, noted on Twitter.

“The first book in the series includes an image on its cover of a skull marked with a wolfsangel, a symbol used by the original Nazis and some neo-Nazis,” Martin said in his tweet Tuesday. “The back cover of the book describes the author as “96% Norse-Scot 4% Neanderthal.”

Martin added that reviews of the book on Amazon noted that it included “fantasies of killing people involved in the BLM movement” and “fetishizes violence as the great equalizer.”

Outside of social media posts supporting claims of McLeod’s history of violent rhetoric, ABC News cited police sources in its report who said McLeod “harbored extremist views and had a history of psychiatric episodes.”

McLeod killed at least five people and injured two others Monday night. Law enforcement officials have noted that he knew all of his victims through either personal or professional relationships and called the shootings targeted during a press conference on Tuesday, the Associated Press reported. While his motive has not been made public as of this report, according to The Denver Post, he may have been dressed as a police officer when he carried out the killings.

As investigations continue, police officials are urging anyone who may have witnessed the shooting rampage in Denver and Lakewood to contact them with any information.

The mass shooting marks the 13th in Colorado this year, according to the Gun Violence Archive, a nonprofit that tracks gun violence nationally using a combination of police statistics and media reports. According to the archive, nearly 700 mass shootings occurred in the U.S. in 2021.
 

Ten Thousan Marbles

Well-Known Member
Feb 6, 2014
98,525
18,210
1
DOD ordered the military to address extremism—investigation reflects more ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’
Rebekah Sager

As the world watched a terrorist mob attack the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, the fallout showed a more sinister reality. Of the thousands of supporters of former President Donald Trump who stormed the building, many were veterans, and at least one was an active duty service member.

The attack prompted newly appointed Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin to sign a memo in February 2021 directing commanding officers in the military to institute a one-day stand-down to address the racist extremism in the country’s armed forces.

On Monday, President Joe Biden signed the new $770 billion National Defense Authorization Act into law. But there’s nothing in the bill that addresses hate crimes or racial disparities in military law.

Furthermore, a new investigation by the Associated Press (AP) shows that the new guidelines fall far short of what’s needed for real change.
...............
First off, disparities in military justice are completely ignored. According to a report from the Government Accountability Office, Black and Latino service members were disproportionately investigated and court-martialed. Black Marines were convicted and punished at a rate five times higher than other races in the Marine Corps.

AP’s investigation also shows that there is no designated funding to address systemic racism and no specific hate crime category. In other words, an assault is considered an assault regardless of the motivation of the crime.

At the center of the issue is that the military doesn’t ban service members from belonging to extremist groups like the Proud Boys, Ku Klux Klan, Oath Keepers, and other right-wing or white nationalist groups. The military only prohibits them from having “active participation” in the groups—described as “publicly demonstrating or rallying, fundraising, recruiting and training members.”

In other words, the decision about who’s an active member in a hate group is completely up to the discretion of the commander.

“There needs to be a change in action and behaviors – elements that can’t be so easily influenced by a change in military law,″ Maj. Tyrone Collier, a judge advocate in the Marine Corps Reserve, told AP.

“Even if some legislation is passed from the highest echelons of government that says you will do this and that, will it actually get done?” Collier asked.

Racism and extremism in the military have a long and storied history starting with the official desegregation of the armed forces in 1948, but in reality it remained in many units until 1954.

Following the murder of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. in 1968, Black soldiers filed complaints of white soldiers flying Confederate flags and even marching around in Klan outfits.

On the Camp Pendleton Marine Corps base in Oceanside, California, just outside San Diego, white Marines openly displayed Klan affiliation in the 1970s. In 1986, according to reporting by AP, the Southern Poverty Law Center’s (SPLC) Klanwatch Project issued one of the first of many warnings to the Department of Defense (DOD) about white supremacists in the military and implored then-Defense Secretary Caspar Weinberger to ban active duty service members from affiliation with the Klan.

“It is simply intolerable that members of the U.S. armed forces, sworn to uphold and defend the constitution of the United States, be allowed to hold membership in an organization which seeks to overthrow the federal government through violent means,” the SPLC wrote.

Fast forward to 1995 when three white Army paratroopers at Fort Bragg in North Carolina were arrested for the murder of a Black couple, Michael James and Jackie Burden, who they shot and killed in downtown Fayetteville. An investigation found that 19 Fort Bragg soldiers were also aligned with neo-Nazi activities and were then discharged.

Let’s not forget Army veteran Timothy McVeigh, an anti-government extremist who earned a Bronze Star in Operation Desert Storm, who was responsible for the deaths of 168 people, 19 of whom were children, after he blew up a federal building in downtown Oklahoma City.

The Pentagon promised to handle extremism within its ranks, but then claimed it was unable to find any.

A 2005 report from the DOD entitled Screening for Potential Terrorists in the Enlisted Military Accessions Process found that despite the large number of “messageboard postings warning new recruits from revealing their extremist group associations,” the military has a “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy pertaining to extremism.

AP reports that in 2009, several civil rights organizations alerted then-Secretary of Defense Robert Gates to encourage the Obama administration to take action, but nothing was done.

One of the few mentions regarding extremism in Biden’s new bill is regarding using social media—retweeting or liking extremist content equals advocating the ideas behind the content—but no specific extremist groups are ever named.

Retired Air Force Col. Don Christensen, who served as the chief prosecutor for the U.S. Air Force between 2010 and 2014, told AP that the new policies are “loosely defined,” “lack guidance,” and it remains vague how they will be enforced
.
“I understand this stuff is hard, but the like button means so many different things to different people. My main takeaway is this isn’t going to be enforceable. There’s a lot of subjectivity.” Christensen said. “I also think they (the Defense Department) are naive to think it’s a small number of service members who engage in extremist activity.”

The most damning evidence that both the DOD and the military are glacial to move on extremism comes from Mark Pitcavage, a senior research fellow at the Anti-Defamation League.

In his testimony to Congress on Feb. 11, 2020, Pitcavage cited 72 suspected white supremacists in the various branches in a three-year span, including 38 in the Army, two in the Army National Guard, four in the Navy, 19 in the Marine Corps, two in the Air Force, and one in the Coast Guard, as well as six with an indeterminate service branch.

“There’s no safe number of extremists in the military,” Pitcavage said.

The new bill does carve out a line item to “identify members of extremist organizations in potential recruits” and it will screen recruits with “extremist ties,” but the military does not “have the capability to conduct social media screenings,” DOD officials admitted in a statement.

Retired Navy Lt. Cmdr. Reuben Keith Green, 64, told AP he was deeply disappointed to see that after so many years, the military is still challenged with handling racism and extremism. It’s time it addresses the “everyday racism that is based on extremist views.”


He added: “The military has let this white supremacist, racist issue fester for so long. They’ve been trying to hide the actual truth and now it’s blowing up in their faces.”
 

Ten Thousan Marbles

Well-Known Member
Feb 6, 2014
98,525
18,210
1
Insurrection probe and Biden White House agree to delay part of Trump records request
Brandi Buchman

The U.S. House Select Committee on the Jan. 6 Attack on the United States Capitol agreed on Tuesday to delay or withdraw a portion of its requests for former President Donald Trump’s White House records, specifically deferring their demand for documents that do not appear to have any bearing on the White House’s preparations for or response to efforts to overturn the 2020 election.

The announcement was made public by White House Counsel Dana Remus. President Joe Biden maintains his initial position that the public’s interest outweighs Trump’s interest in shielding the documents. The only change now is the concern that records unrelated to the Jan. 6 investigation, if divulged publicly, could jeopardize national security.

Incidentally, the maneuver is also legally beneficial for the committee’s probe: If they narrow the request for documents, it becomes harder for the former president and his attorneys to fortify claims of overreach on the executive branch in court.
...........
In a letter detailing the deferral agreement, Deputy Counsel for the White House Jonathan Su explained that the committee is interesting in pursuing its investigation while also “preserving important Executive Branch prerogatives,” but the panel also highlighted that it could, if necessary down the line, assert privilege over the deferred documents.

Among some 511 pages remitted to the select committee were records deemed unrelated to the insurrection probe, or they were documents regarding deliberations by the National Security Council.

This latest agreement between the White House and the committee does not mean that the committee has stopped its probe.

“The Select Committee welcomes President Biden’s decision to clear the way for the production of another set of records. The committee has agreed to defer action on certain records as part of the accommodations process, as was the case with an earlier tranche of records,” a committee spokesman said in a statement Tuesday. “The Select Committee has not withdrawn its request for these records and will continue to engage with the executive branch to ensure the committee gets access to all the information relevant to our probe."

So far President Biden has agreed to release over 700 pages of Trump’s records to the committee, including things like visitor and call logs, memos, and emails. There are also speech drafts and several pages of handwritten notes from former White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows. Investigators argue that these records are critical to understanding what unfolded inside the White House during the attack on the Capitol and will provide clarity on the administration’s overarching attempt to overturn the U.S. election.
Trump has already lost two legal attempts to shroud those records. What happens next will be integral to the committee’s investigation.

A lower court in Washington already ordered the records released, but the D.C. Court of Appeals agreed to keep the documents under wraps until Dec. 30 so Trump could lodge his appeal to the Supreme Court.

Last week, as expected, Trump asked the U.S. Supreme Court to bar the disclosure from the National Archives and Records Administration. In an appeal spanning nearly 200 pages, the former president derided the committee as unconstitutional and a threat to the separation of powers.

In response, the Jan. 6 committee urged the Supreme Court to respond to Trump’s appeal quickly, saying that both sides could have all their briefs filed by Dec. 30. Investigators suggested both parties be given two weeks, or until Jan. 14, to have their cases heard. This would give the committee time to strategize its response to whatever Trump files.

The pressure to get this legal fight with Trump behind the committee is on as the 2022 midterms loom. The committee is eager to craft legislation that would prevent a rogue president from usurping power and without a majority in the House or Senate, those prospects dwindle drastically.

“Delay would inflict a serious injury on the Select Committee and the public by interfering with this mandate. The Select Committee needs the requested documents now to help shape the direction of the investigation and allow the Select Committee to timely recommend remedial legislation,” the committee said in its eight-page response.

If Trump loses this fight, Committee Chair Bennie Thompson, a Mississippi Democrat, recently reconfirmed to reporters that the panel is after Trump’s Jan. 5 and Jan. 6 White House call records.


Trump reportedly made several phone calls from the White House that day to his advisers—some official, some not—and lawyers including John Eastman, Steve Bannon, Boris Epshteyn, and Rudy Giuliani. Many of those calls, investigators allege, could involve discussions about a vast pressure campaign on then-Vice President Mike Pence. Trump wanted Pence to stop the certification process, something that was baldly unconstitutional.
 

Ten Thousan Marbles

Well-Known Member
Feb 6, 2014
98,525
18,210
1
122721.DeltatoOmicron.jpg
 

Ten Thousan Marbles

Well-Known Member
Feb 6, 2014
98,525
18,210
1
Everything you need to know about the Pennsylvania school-funding case
April Siese

It’s been over four weeks since the landmark case William Penn School District, et al v. Pennsylvania Department of Education, et al began proceedings before Judge Renee Cohn Jubilerer at the Commonwealth Court in Harrisburg. The case has been seven years in the making and began when a lawsuit was filed way back in 2014 on behalf of six school districts, seven families whose children attend Pennsylvania schools, and two organizations, including the NAACP Pennsylvania State Conference. Petitioners believe that lawmakers have failed to comply with the state constitution’s requirement that the General Assembly “provide for the maintenance and support of a thorough and efficient system of public education to serve the needs of the Commonwealth” in a nondiscriminatory manner. With proceedings resuming on Jan. 3, now is a good time to recap what has brought the plaintiffs to this point.
........
At issue in the lawsuit is how the General Assembly distributes funding to the 500 school districts around the state. Spotlight Pennsylvania notes that Pennsylvania ranks near the bottom when it comes to the percentage of funding school districts receive from the state government. Instead, school districts are more reliant on taxpayers, meaning districts in richer areas consistently raise more money for schools than in poorer districts. An analysis of those disparities found that school districts like Panther Valley, which ranks toward the bottom of the list of most equitable districts in the state at 456, has significantly less to spend on students than schools at the top of the list, like Gettysburg Area.

Panther Valley, which is one of the plaintiffs in the lawsuit, can devote $11,626 per student and households in the area tend to have an average income of $40,825, according to a WalletHub analysis. Gettysburg Area, which ranks all the way at the top, devotes $15,336 per student and households tend to have an average income of $64,476. The disparity is striking when taking into account success metrics like graduation rate. Gettysburg Area ranks in the top 30% in the state while Panther Valley is in the bottom 50%, according to the metrics service Public School Review.

After the suit was filed in Nov. 2014, the Commonwealth Court heard oral arguments in March 2015. The court ultimately dismissed the lawsuit a month later, claiming it was up to the General Assembly to implement school funding practices and shouldn’t be at the discretion of the court. In May 2015, the ruling was appealed to the State Supreme Court. Between the introduction of the lawsuit and a final decision rendered by the Supreme Court, Pennsylvania overhauled its school funding system. A Basic Education Funding Commission was established in 2014, their plan was unveiled in 2015, and a new funding formula was implemented in 2016. In 2017, the Supreme Court ruled that the Commonwealth Court must hear William Penn School District, et al vs. Pennsylvania Department of Education, et al.

Writing in his majority opinion in Sept. 2017, Justice David N. Wecht noted that “judicial review stands as a bulwark against unconstitutional or otherwise illegal actions by the two political branches. It is fair neither to the people of the Commonwealth nor the General Assembly itself to expect that body to police its own fulfillment of its constitutional mandate.” Just three months later, Gov. Tom Wolf wrote a briefing requesting that the case be expedited. Oral arguments began in March 2018 and saw attorney Brad Elias single out the inadequacies of a new school funding system being adopted but not implemented. According to Elias, who argued on behalf of the plaintiffs, the new formula has been used for just 2% of Pennsylvania schools.

Respondents like Joseph B. Scarnati III, who was then the President Pro-Tempore of the Pennsylvania Senate, filed preliminary objections that were subsequently overruled in May 2018 by the Commonwealth Court. The court overruled Scarnati’s demand that the case be rendered moot over what he deemed to be insufficient facts showing disparities between school systems, claiming that the plaintiffs had provided more than enough information already. Scarnati also argued that the adoption of the 2016 overhaul rendered the lawsuit moot, which the Commonwealth Court also did not agree with. In fact, over the course of the case dragging on from when the lawsuit was filed in 2014 to when the trial commenced Nov. 12 of this year, researchers have found that the funding gap has consistently widened over the past few years.

In 2014, Pennsylvania ranked in the bottom two when it comes to disparities between funding the richest and poorest districts, according to The Education Trust. Research from Children First PA reveals the state continues to rank as one of the lowest in the country when it comes to funding disparities in school districts. According to another paper published this year by Children First PA, “the state gives $925 million less to high poverty growing districts than it would if funding was distributed based on current enrollment levels and student and district need factors.” Much of this has to do with Pennsylvania’s 1990 “hold harmless” policy, which prevents districts from receiving less funding than the year prior—regardless of fewer students being enrolled or other factors being taken into account. The paper also points to inadequacies in the 2016 funding formula, which has only been used for new funding, thereby not impacting a substantial portion of school districts, which still adhere to the “hold harmless” funding method.

Even Wolf admitted that Pennsylvania falls short of adequately funding its school districts. In a brief filed by his lawyers Wolf acknowledged that “the work to increase funding for public schools is not over.” “Gov. Wolf strongly believes in the need for increased funding for Pennsylvania public schools and continues to fight for additional appropriations for public education,” the brief noted. Earlier this year, Wolf proposed a boost of $1.55 billion to school funding, but what was adopted amounted to an increase of $272,284,000 in education funding for the 2022 budget—a rise of 4% compared with the prior year. Funding practices are clearly still an issue and, after a bit of back-and-forth on scheduling, the William Penn School District, et al vs. Pennsylvania Department of Education, et al trial began just a few weeks ago. As the Philadelphia Inquirer details, much of the first week was spent on a combination of expert testimony and educators impacted by the funding disparities.

Panther Valley fifth-grade history teacher Tara Yuricheck testified that her school lacked enough textbooks for students and that the ones they have date back to 1997. She lamented that she felt like she couldn’t reach students in her largest class of 34 students. Panther Valley Superintendent David McAndrew also decried the large class sizes that made it difficult to adequately teach the district’s students. He said it was impossible to provide students with computers during lockdown until COVID-19 relief funds were made available. McAndrew added that taxpayers were being stretched to the brink and, despite relief money, were still paying exorbitantly high taxes to fund a district that continues being forced to make cuts, putting its students’ education in jeopardy. “It shouldn’t be what zip code you live in, if you’re going to be successful or not. That’s where we are right now, and it’s not fair,” McAndrew said.

The second week of testimony saw Matthew Stem, the former deputy secretary for elementary and secondary education for the Pennsylvania Department of Education, take the stand for multiple days. Stem made a direct connection between achievement gaps and race, noting that 37% of Black students receive proficient scores on state English tests while 71% of white students score proficient. This goes against the talking point many Republican lawmakers have used in tying the case solely to finances. During week one of the trial, lawyer Patrick Northen, who represents House Speaker Bryan Cutler, claimed that “this is a case about wealth and not a case about race or ethnicity.” Weeks three and four of the trial saw additional plaintiffs push back against Cutler’s assessment.

Johnstown Superintendent Amy Arcurio, whose school district is also a plaintiff, noted that 70% of the kindergarten students enrolled in her district lack basic skills, in part because the district cannot afford pre-K for all students. She said 80% of the students need intensive intervention by first grade—another thing the district simply can’t afford. Arcurio, who spoke for three days during week three of the trial, serves a district that has a minority enrollment of 53% and is considered one of the most economically segregated in the country. Dr. Steven Barnett, who founded and co-directs Rutgers’ National Institute for Early Education Research, testified during week four of the trial that preschool programs can benefit students long after they’ve entered Kindergarten, especially those living in poverty.


Those gains are lessened if students receive fewer resources as they progress through school, however. Chalkbeat found that more than half of Pennsylvanians are unable to access public preschools. Republicans, in their infinite wisdom, argued that Dr. Barnett’s point makes it clear that Pennsylvania shouldn’t even bother with preschools to begin with if students are destined to fail due to lack of resources. At one point, an attorney for Senate President Pro Tempore Jake Corman asked why students would even need required courses like math and science in the first place. “What use would someone on the McDonald’s career track have for Algebra 1,” lawyer John Krill argued during week four proceedings. He then went even further in his musings: “The question in my mind is, thorough and efficient to what end? To serve the needs of the Commonwealth. Lest we forget, the Commonwealth has many needs,” Krill said. “There’s a need for retail workers, for people who know how to flip a pizza crust.”

It’s a bleak way to make a case and will likely only continue as the trial reaches its eventual conclusion, which is expected in another four to six weeks. A schedule of upcoming court dates can be found on the Unified Judicial System of Pennsylvania website. Proceedings on Jan. 3 will be livestreamed on YouTube.
 

Ten Thousan Marbles

Well-Known Member
Feb 6, 2014
98,525
18,210
1




Former president Donald Trump has repeatedly called the Washington Post "fake news."

However, Trump is now relying on a WaPo article in his bid to get the Supreme Court to keep his Jan. 6 White House records secret. According to Courthouse News, Trump is asking the justices to review the article, which he claims proves that the House select committee investigation the Captiol insurrection is engaged in a "political witch hunt."

"The article — published hours after the former president asked the high court to review his case — contains an interview from the committee’s chairman, Democratic Congressman Bennie Thompson of Mississippi, where he says the committee wants information that could determine if they will make a criminal referral to the Justice Department," Courthouse News reports.


"According to the Post’s reporting, Thompson is particularly interested in different versions of a video Trump recorded asking his supporters to stand down. The committee thinks this information might lead to answers on why it took the former president so long to call off his supporters. In the new filing, Trump claims these statements prove the committee is acting outside its authority.".......

 
Last edited:

Ten Thousan Marbles

Well-Known Member
Feb 6, 2014
98,525
18,210
1

‘An American Tradition’: Lessons from a year covering conspiracy theories​


The old textbook depository at 411 Elm St. isn’t especially eye-catching, but for nearly 60 years its awful past has loomed over downtown Dallas and, perhaps, all of American public life. “On November 22, 1963,” notes a modest historical marker fixed to its red-brick facade, “the building gained national notoriety when Lee Harvey Oswald allegedly shot and killed president John F. Kennedy from a sixth floor window as the presidential motorcade passed the site.”

Every few minutes, visitors pause to read the engraving — by the Texas Historical Commission, a government agency — and then point to an emphatic etch around “allegedly” that someone has scratched into the plate, in case the point was too subtle.........

........
I have spent this year thinking and writing about the draw to conspiracy theories, the perverse comfort they provide and the damage they can cause. Today in the United States, we are living in an era of segregated belief, of divergent realities, at a time when social media has brought us nearer to one another than ever before. It is not just that there is disagreement. Certified and recertified elections are in dispute. Viruses and their lifesaving vaccines are in dispute. So often, facts themselves are in dispute. My focus has been on telling intimate stories about people navigating these conflicts within their families and communities.

Now I see a grander lesson about truth in Dealey Plaza, one I have been circling for years. That The Truth is not something merely to be found and disclosed, but rather that, in the broader sense, it is something that is negotiated, something that is mediated over time through credibility and trust. That, in the absence of those things, evidence can be so very easily overtaken by fantasy, and stay that way........
........
QAnon followers believe that former president Donald Trump spent his time as president battling a cabal of Satan-worshiping “deep state” Democrats who traffic children for sex, a paranoia that has often led to valuable resources being diverted away from real missing children cases. Since the 2020 election, they have also come to believe that Trump’s loss was the result of massive fraud, a disproved conspiracy theory that has in turn created a real threat to our democracy and elections. Going further than the 7 in 10 Republican voters who believe the same election conspiracy, Q followers also assure with prophetic zeal that Trump will be reinstated imminently. Mass arrests of the country’s corrupt elite and a “Great Awakening” will follow, they say.

That’s actually why I came here.......
 

Ten Thousan Marbles

Well-Known Member
Feb 6, 2014
98,525
18,210
1

......It would be one thing if this demotic and venomous form of politics arose from parts of the rural heartland of the country and faced pushback from people in positions of authority in the Republican Party and conservative media personalities. But instead, these figures encourage it, in the hopes of riding the anger to higher ratings and electoral victories.

And what about those who should know better? The fact is that many conservative-minded pundits and analysts hesitate to condemn the rise of a form of gutter politics in which boors and bullies set the tone and are rewarded for injecting their poison into the body politic. The more high-minded ones, meanwhile, skirt the question of whether it's bad to tell the president of the United States and those who voted for him to f--k off. Instead, they attempt to steer the conversation in the direction of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Of course, they'll insist, Americans should be allowed to denounce and even insult the president!

Too bad no one is suggesting otherwise. The question isn't whether people should be jailed for raising such a flag but whether it's appropriate, or civically advisable, to do so — and also whether those who live in the vicinity of someone who displays one should express disapproval or turn a blind eye to it out of a desire to avoid a confrontation......
 

Latest posts