This chills my speech and I wonder if that crime is actually constitutional as currently implemented. Article II of the Constitution makes it constitutional for The President and Congress to enter into treaties which may have otherwise unconstitutional aspects - such as international sanctions - but would be constitutional by Article II if the supermajority passed the sanctions treaty. I wonder if the First Amendment overrides that because it was introduced later.
The beast is the country and the people in power are the ones who control that beast.
If the beast is powerful, the people in power can use the beast to harm other countries.
Is it unfair? Maybe. But what's the alternative? Usually killing the people in power results in power vaccum which destabilises the country and makes the beast go nuclear where there is always more potential for harm, an example of this is Libya.
Invading country isn't seen as good thing to do and installing your favourable party in power is also not seen favourably.
Are there other options? I'd like to know as well.
I’m only talking about the criminalization of citizens passing US constitutional muster
Most film docos are just made up, nothing about them is real.
With Mads it's such a mess you always have to think for yourself.
Getting two Pygmy assistants to follow him around in the Ambassador was pure art and educational.
