2 Trump supporters in Liberal California paint over a BLM mural that was, maybe permitted? In broad fucking daylight with black paint? Middle of the road? While wearing suggestive right wing clothing?
Make fucking sure they didn't collect a check from a democrat activist.
The "mural" was explicitly permitted by the city. The removal of it was not.
Now, instead of an innocent painting on the street, they have a viral video of two numbnuts making all of us look bad. Don't applaud these people, correct their juvenile behavior, or risk further alienating the people of our country that are not beyond our reach.
Tom Fitton of Judicial Watch has sued Washington DC to allow them to paint "No One Is Above The Law."
FROM SITE:
"Our lawsuit argues that DC [sic] officials denied timely access to Judicial Watch to paint its own expressive message and violated federal civil rights law in allowing District streets to be used for the painting of expressive messages, which constitutes protected First Amendment activity, but denying [Judicial Watch] the timely opportunity to paint its expressive message on a District street for reasons that are not narrowly drawn to achieve a compelling government interest."
Not that it makes any difference to the situation, but they applied for the permit through the city's Recreation Department, with help from the City Manager Eric Figueroa.
A fair point to make, but not preemptively. You'd have to do as Fitton is doing and apply for a permit then sue them.
But, either way, that doesn't justify their actions in removing it. If that's the hill they want to die on, that's their prerogative, but Fitton's way is better, because it doesn't get you thrown in jail with no legal recourse to address the thing you were actually complaining about. Additionally, I think the optics of this are far more negative than politicized permitting of street murals.
HELL YEAH!!
Good. The balls on that pede to do that
Some fag I know was like "This is such a hateful woman." or whatever.
Yeah well, painting big shit on streets is illegal and bad for drivers. Go make a banner for your marxist shit.
That took some serious stones. The radical left won't be satisfied until she's crucified. Godspeed to both of them!
These pedes are heroes. Standing up for what they believe in
I Love that Woman. It’s women like this that built America
This would have made a great "bring your own paint roller" party.
Paint over it with BLUE LIVES MATTER
Then they can't stop you without creating another controversy, and the police won't help with prosecuting you.
Naaahhh... this shit fucking stinks.
2 Trump supporters in Liberal California paint over a BLM mural that was, maybe permitted? In broad fucking daylight with black paint? Middle of the road? While wearing suggestive right wing clothing?
Make fucking sure they didn't collect a check from a democrat activist.
I love my mother. But if someone spray painted her name on the wall, I would fucking wash it off.
The "mural" was explicitly permitted by the city. The removal of it was not.
Now, instead of an innocent painting on the street, they have a viral video of two numbnuts making all of us look bad. Don't applaud these people, correct their juvenile behavior, or risk further alienating the people of our country that are not beyond our reach.
Tom Fitton of Judicial Watch has sued Washington DC to allow them to paint "No One Is Above The Law."
FROM SITE:
"Our lawsuit argues that DC [sic] officials denied timely access to Judicial Watch to paint its own expressive message and violated federal civil rights law in allowing District streets to be used for the painting of expressive messages, which constitutes protected First Amendment activity, but denying [Judicial Watch] the timely opportunity to paint its expressive message on a District street for reasons that are not narrowly drawn to achieve a compelling government interest."
Not that it makes any difference to the situation, but they applied for the permit through the city's Recreation Department, with help from the City Manager Eric Figueroa.
I'm not convinced.
A fair point to make, but not preemptively. You'd have to do as Fitton is doing and apply for a permit then sue them.
But, either way, that doesn't justify their actions in removing it. If that's the hill they want to die on, that's their prerogative, but Fitton's way is better, because it doesn't get you thrown in jail with no legal recourse to address the thing you were actually complaining about. Additionally, I think the optics of this are far more negative than politicized permitting of street murals.