“Rights Free” neutral zones?

Children ejected from Smithsonian for hats

The hats, worn to identify members of a catholic school group and keep them together, had “Pro Life” embroidered on the hems. Docents told them they were not allowed and that the museum was a neutral zone where their rights did not apply.

I wonder if the courts will be selling tickets for those arguments.

35 thoughts on ““Rights Free” neutral zones?

  1. Smacks of political theater to me. Just who were these women in black dresses? Any evidence they were employees of the Smithsonian? Were they following an actual policy of discrimination?

    At worst, misguided individuals. But go ahead. Try to make a mountain out of a mole hill. That is SOP for the MAGA party.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. A statement by the Museum appears to concede they were indeed employees

      “A spokesperson for the museum released a statement about what transpired and said the incident did not adhere to their policy or protocols.

      “Asking visitors to remove hats and clothing is not in keeping with our policy or protocols. We provided immediate training to prevent a re-occurrence of this kind of incident, and have determined steps to ensure this does not happen again,” said Alison Wood, the museum’s deputy director of communications. “


      1. “A statement by the Museum appears to concede they were indeed employees”

        I noticed the second-hand REPORT of a statement. “Appears” is the right word. I did not see the statement or the name of the official who supposedly confirmed that the two offenders were employees. In fact, all that was reported was a statement that employees would be trained. Good idea, but it does not confirm who the offenders were or whether THEY were employees.

        And they just happened to run into someone who heard their rights had been violated? How did he hear about it since it is also reported they simply left without incident. Who was he and on what authority did he inform them their rights were suspended in a “neutral zone.”

        Like I noted – it smacks of political theater. It is not actually the policy of the Smithsonian to deny Constitutional rights. But at least the kids got to play the victim role so popular in MAGA circles.

        Assuming everything in the story is true, then the journalism is shoddy (not too surprising) because it leaves open these obvious questions.

        Liked by 1 person

  2. “Wow, you guys are really desperate for something to be offended by. You must stay up nights scouring the Internet for something to twist into an insult.” D. Tabor, DDS retired

    Goose and Gander here.

    This story does indeed read like a setup or the journalism is bad, or both.

    Liked by 2 people

    1. School children were ejected from the National Air and Space Museum because their hats had “Pro-Life” on the hem. They weren’t carrying banners or signs.

      They were in DC for the day for the annual Pro-Life march and went to the museum as part of the trip. They had no reason to believe they would be accosted or thrown out so where do you see a set up?

      Last time I was there, it was full of people with Hillary T-Shirts, and no one drove them out. There is no rule against partisan attire for the clients.

      The children were thrown out because they weren’t wearing the ‘right’ message.

      If this doesn’t offend you, there is something very wrong.

      And these are the people from which your supposedly neutral DC juries are drawn.


      1. Yeah, I’m sure if they had worn t-shirts with “Abortion Rules” they would have been quickly escorted in, given free ice cream and a personalized tour. That’s DC for ya…


      2. First, let’s see what really happened. Too many “coincidences” so far.

        Second, I was correct, you are digging up isolated incidents. Libs of TikTok has captured your interests. This is at worst an isolated incident by misguided people blown up to fit the right wing victim hood status. Offensive? Sure. Just like a lot of things that people do to each other. Is it proof that a major uprising against children supporting anti-abortion movements? Is it proof of discriminatory policies across the board?

        Of course not. Just great echo chamber outrage.

        PS: DC juries again? I think you have either worn out that canard on your own or the echo chamber pushed it and you liked it. IMO

        Liked by 2 people

      3. “Thrown out” by whom?” is kind of an open question from this “reporting.”
        This is the sort of stunt YOUR favorite “journalists” such as Project Veritas pull all the time. A little too convenient and a little too quick to arrive on Fox News.

        I am “speculating” that this was a setup because “many people are saying” that it was a setup. At any rate, “we are only asking” who set this phony confrontation up?

        As for your ugly juries remark, I think you misread the story. The alleged miscreants were not black. They were women in black dresses.

        Liked by 2 people

        1. I have never attributed the jury problem in DC to race, you are projecting again.

          I said the problem was the economic dependence on the Federal government.

          The story is out in many outlets. Google “Smithsonian blue hats” Look it up. I’m cooking


          1. “I have never attributed the jury problem in DC to race”

            And yet DC is a majority black city which you claim cannot put together an objective jury. You may not be a racist, but your constant denunciation of DC would fool a lot of people. Your non-racist explanation for constantly trashing DC juries makes no sense. How does economic dependence – direct or indirect – on the Federal government affect one’s ability to weigh, say, evidence against a Russian or seditious conspiracists? Answer. It doesn’t. The repeated accusations are nonsense.

            I followed your Google suggestion which reinforced my own earlier Googling. It shows how right wing media and propaganda magnifies and spreads such stories. There is no original reporting on any of these sites that I can see. Just some embellishments (“mocked and cursed”) pulled out of the ether. If you come across any actual reporting on this incident, you can let us know.

            Liked by 2 people

          2. “And yet two cases of Democrat operatives lying to the FBI IN WRITING produced not guilty verdicts.”

            The jury saw the evidence and heard the testimony. You didn’t.

            According to your theory, a charge of lying to the government should have worked AGAINST the defendants in the minds of your theoretical government-loving jurors. And yet they were acquitted.

            Your post makes me wonder – Can you NEVER stick to the facts to make your points? Igor Danchenko, the Russian who was acquitted, was hardly a “Democratic operative.” He was brought into the case because he was working for Christopher Steele who had originally been contracted by Republicans doing opposition research on Donald Trump. He was also a well-paid and highly regarded FBI confidential informant.

            Liked by 2 people

          3. “The jury saw the evidence and heard the testimony. You didn’t.”

            That’s the point. They saw the evidence which was a prima facie case, and yet acquitted them out of partisan bias, in spite of absolute proof of guilt.

            There is clearly no level of proof that will suffice if it harms the deep state or helps Trump.


          4. Trump was the deep state himself. Weaponizing the DOJ, plotting the overturn of the election with bad actors embedded in Congress and his own administration, and extorting election officials.

            Liked by 2 people

          5. “…sought his destruction from the moment he came down the escalator.”

            You know better. Everything that may have happened to Trump was brought on by him to get publicity and stay in the media spotlight. Everything. He released his own transcript of his efforts to extort dirt from Zelensky. He was willingly recorded trying to extort and definitely threatening Georgia officials and their lawyer. “Stand back and standby”…is that a deep state effort to oust him?

            Liked by 2 people

          6. “ They saw the evidence which was a prima facie case, and yet acquitted them out of partisan bias, in spite of absolute proof of guilt.”

            You know this how? You talked to the jurors? And what was the absolute proof?

            Here is some help:

            “Durham had charged Danchenko with lying to the FBI when he said he never “talked” to public relations executive Charles Dolan about the compendium Trump’s political opponents paid Steele to compile about Trump’s ties to Russia. Many of the stories in the so-called Steele Dossier appear to be apocryphal and FBI personnel who testified at the trial said they were unable to corroborate any of it.”

            “While there was proof at the trial that Danchenko emailed with Dolan about the dossier, there was no evidence the two men ever spoke. Durham’s team alleged the jury could find the emails amounted to talking, but Trenga- — an appointee of President George W. Bush — said it appeared Danchenko’s denial was literally true so the count had to be thrown out.”


            Note, in this case, the jury had nothing to do with the evidence being tossed out. So now you can blame the Republican judge instead.

            Now ask yourself if this is the strongest case that Durham could muster after 4 years and 6 million bucks. If the answer obviously was yes, then there was not much beef to begin with.

            Now back to the corrupt shenanigans of Durham/Barr, et.al.

            Liked by 2 people

          7. “You read the statements made yourself.”

            Do they exist? Or is it FBI notes of the interviews that you are referring to? If they do exist, why did you not link to them since you have studied them so assiduously? And if they exist, what other evidence was presented in court?

            In short, you are fooling no one. You again are playing the role of parrot. You are good at doing so.

            If you were on the jury and heard two FBI agents testify under cross examination that Danchenko was considered to be a reliable and honest asset and to whom the FBI had paid hundreds of thousands of dollars would that have no effect on your verdict?

            Liked by 2 people

          8. “That’s the point. They saw the evidence which was a prima facie case, and yet acquitted them out of partisan bias, in spite of absolute proof of guilt.”

            You never hesitate to pontificate on things you know nothing about. Is there a name for such a condition? If there isn’t, there ought to be.

            The fact is that BOTH cases taken to trial were beyond thin. There was no prima facie case. There was no “absolute proof of guilt.” You just made that up or are cluelessly parroting one of the disgustingly dishonest sites that you people channel all the time. The judge threw out one of the counts against the Russian before the jury even heard the evidence – that is how thin it all was.

            Liked by 1 person

          9. “Here’s Sussman’s . . .”

            It is not surprising that you have shucked and jived before finally sharing what you were claiming was “absolute proof” of lying. It is not a sworn statement. It is not even in an interview. It is an email about a proposed meeting.

            Here is the offending text that you say is “absolute proof” of a punishable crime that only a jury with a partisan agenda could ignore.

            “Do you have availability [sic] for a short meeting tomorrow? I’m coming on my own – not on behalf of a client or company – want to help the Bureau. Thanks.”

            That’s the supposed lie – “not on behalf of a client or company.”

            How can you possibly prove beyond a reasonable doubt what was his intent in asking for the meeting? He stated a purpose. It was believable. How does the prosecutor counter that? They could present testimony from a client or company to prove that he had been sent on a mission. But what did the jury hear? The supposed client testifying under oath that he had NOT dispatched Sussman.

            There you are with egg on your face, hurling slanders over a fact set that NO JURY ANYWHERE could convict on. And if one did, the judge would set aside the verdict.

            Liked by 1 person

          10. “Lying to the FBI is a crime whether under oath or not.”

            Uh, have you forgotten?
            You are defending your claim that the DC jury failed to convict in spite of “absolute proof” of guilt. There was no “absolute proof.” And even if the email was “absolute proof” the jury never saw it. It was excluded on technical grounds. Durham only had testimony about the “lie” from Baker.

            Lying to the FBI is a crime. Sure. But the FACT of there being a lie was NOT proven in court. There was testimony presented to the jury was that Sussman was speaking truthfully – that he had not been dispatched by the DNC.

            Conviction also required that the “lie” had to be “material” – something that would effect the course of the investigation. The jury heard testimony that the investigation did not hinge in any way on whether Sussman was there on his own or representing someone else.

            Liked by 1 person

          11. “ I said the problem was the economic dependence on the Federal government.”

            So any town that has a federal contract that is large enough to affect the majority cannot try a federal case?

            Or Houston cannot try energy suits. NYC cannot try bank cases?

            You are grasping at straws in a gale.

            Liked by 2 people

          12. What proof, whose pudding?

            For years we heard Durham was going to expose weaponizing the DOJ. What do we learn? That the Durham/Barr/Trump tag team was doing just that all along.

            So the pudding was not only sour, but toxic as found in the back of the last administration’s fridge

            One guilty plea, two acquittals, neither of which were government employees that you say DC would “protect”.

            Liked by 2 people

          13. So who protected them? The Republican judge who threw out the evidence?

            “Those people”, “deep state”, “partisan bias” (and you just made that up out of thin air) jury against a Russian national…Don, I fear you are not making much sense with these vague references and accusations.

            We know Trump weaponized the DOJ and we know he almost succeeded in getting his man to send a letter to Georgia saying the FBI found fraud, which they didn’t at all. You mean that deep state? That was one of the most egregious and dangerous attempts to overthrow a duly elected government we have had. Putting the full weight of his DOJ behind his corrupt efforts with a bogus letter is serious stuff.

            Liked by 2 people

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s