Waching daily Oct 28 2017

When most people think of religious symbols, we think of the Star of David, a cross, or

something like that, but according to some Republicans one of the most prominent spiritual

religious symbols here in the United States is that Make America Great Again red hat that

many of them have been sporting since the campaign of Donald Trump.

In fact, a lawsuit filed by a Philadelphia accountant, claims that his Make America Great

Again hat is in fact a religious symbol.

The suit arose over the fact that the man was wearing his MAGA hat in a bar in New York

City, and no, this is not a Ron White joke.

He was wearing the hat inside a bar in New York City where he was promptly kicked out

for wearing the hat.

I don't know necessarily the specifics, perhaps the owners of the bar did not like Donald

Trump, perhaps they viewed the hat more as a symbol of hate and oppression and so they

kicked the man out because he would not remove the hat, and now we have a lawsuit.

The lawyer for this accountant is claiming that his client's religious freedom was violated

because he was removed for wearing the MAGA hat.

Here is specifically, part of the argument that they're trying to make here.

It was pointed to previous instances where court has acknowledged the rights of parents

who refused to vaccinate their children because of their faith, that's one of the arguments

the lawyers made.

Wearing a MAGA hat and getting kicked out of a bar is apparently on par with parents

who do not vaccinate their children.

That doesn't make it a good fucking idea!

It's still pretty stupid at that point, and to compare a MAGA hat to unvaccinated kids,

I would say that's actually kind of spot on.

You're both dangerous to society here.

They also argued that the MAGA hat is an expression of closely held spiritual beliefs.

So, I guess, as far as spiritual beliefs go, if you believe in a higher power who may or

may not exist, we have no physical evidence that they exist, I can kind of see the similarities

there, between the people who support Donald Trump.

He may or may not have a brain, he may or may not have any intelligence to speak of,

and he may or may not do these things that they think he is capable of doing, much like

any unnamed deity that people worship.

See where I'm going with this?

This is one of the more ridiculous legal arguments that we have seen in quite a long time, because

there is nothing spiritual, there is nothing religious about a Make America Great Again

hat.

All it does is signal to the entire world around you, that you make very poor choices

when you go into a voting booth, and that you're probably too stupid to tie your own

shoes.

That, is what I think when I see somebody wearing a MAGA hat.

Am I going to discriminate against them?

No.

Am I going to try to help them cross the street because they'll probably end up getting hit

by traffic 'cause they're not very bright?

Absolutely.

We need to take care of people who obviously aren't bright enough to get along through

life on their own.

But to claim that it's some kind of religious belief or that it's akin to not vaccinating

your children, these arguments don't hold any water.

There's nothing spiritual about a hat that is actually shared ... become a symbol of

the Alt-Right, that was highly present at those Alt-Right white supremacist rallies.

That's not religious, that's not spiritual, and again, aren't Republicans the party that

are telling us that business owners have the right to discriminate?

They've literally been arguing that in court this year, so that Republican business owners

don't have to serve or make cakes for gay people.

So why would a bartender or bar owner in New York City not have the right to throw out

a guy wearing a MAGA hat?

'Cause if you ask me, based on all of the available evidence, the last thing you want

to do is have somebody in a MAGA hat getting all liquored up and possibly becoming violent,

because as we've seen, they do have a history of violence.

The MAGA hat is not a spiritual symbol.

If you want spirituality, go to church.

Go to a synagogue, go to a mosque.

Not a bar in New York City.

Not exactly the kind of house of worship that most people would think of, so I think this

religious argument they're trying to make about this MAGA hat, is going to fall flat

on its face.

For more infomation >> Trump Supporter Says In Lawsuit His MAGA Hat Is "Religious Symbol" - Duration: 5:16.

-------------------------------------------

DIT IS ZO ZAAAAAAACHT | unboxing - Duration: 3:48.

For more infomation >> DIT IS ZO ZAAAAAAACHT | unboxing - Duration: 3:48.

-------------------------------------------

A Charming Craftsman Home Significant Recent Updates | Small House is Beautiful - Duration: 2:28.

A Charming Craftsman Home Significant Recent Updates | Small House is Beautiful

For more infomation >> A Charming Craftsman Home Significant Recent Updates | Small House is Beautiful - Duration: 2:28.

-------------------------------------------

What is absolute immunity? [POLICYbrief] - Duration: 3:10.

The President enjoys absolute immunity from civil damages liability for his official acts

as President.

The Founders never gave particular voice in the Constitution to a provision that explicitly

immunized the President, but the Supreme Court has determined that the Constitution was intended

to do so.

Nixon against Fitzgerald was a landmark case, really establishing the absolute immunity

of the President.

The case was brought by a former Air Force analyst, who was fired from his job, he said,

in retaliation for, uh, certain controversial congressional testimony he gave, that was

critical of a certain Air Force program.

The Supreme Court held that the civil damages action he brought could not be brought against

the President because the President was absolutely immune from civil damages liability for his

official acts.

The basic rationale of the case was that the separation of powers and the President's unique

authorities and responsibilities as the Chief Executive and the Commander in Chief in our

Constitutional system protected him from civil damages liability for his official acts.

The President had to be able to exercise his authority under Article II of the Constitution,

without worry of possibly creating civil damages liability to those who might be adversely

affected by his official acts.

Now, that doesn't mean that the President is above the law.

Certainly with respect to official acts the President takes, his actions can be challenged,

and they can be reviewed in court, and if they're found to have exceeded his authorities

under the Constitution or under the statutory authority that he purports to be acting under,

the President can be enjoined or his administration can be enjoined to stop, essentially, doing

the acts that are in excess of Constitutional or statutory authority.

If the President is acting in his unofficial capacity, the President can be sued for civil

damages.

We know that from a case called Clinton against Jones.

That case was brought by a woman who claimed that when the President had been Governor

of Arkansas, that he had engaged in some inappropriate sexual advances and harassment.

The Supreme Court held that the President does not have immunity from civil damages

liability for acts undertaken in his unofficial, that is in his personal capacity.

The other remedy available for acts that are deemed to exceed the President's authorities

or even, ultimately, to constitute criminal activity, is impeachment.

So, the President is never above the law.