Most Read
Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

Statue of Liberty Climber Goes on Anti-American Profanity-Laden Rant

Statue of Liberty Climber Goes on Anti-American Profanity-Laden Rant

“You KKK! You fascist USA.”

https://youtu.be/hF4yek6CeaY

Therese Okoumou, the woman who was arrested last month for trying to scale the Statue of Liberty as a protest of U.S. immigration policy, went on a bizarre rant outside a New York court this weekend.

Priscilla DeGregory reports at the New York Post:

Statue of Liberty climber spews anti-American chant outside court

The immigrant rights activist who ruined July 4 for tourists visiting the Statue of Liberty when she scaled the green lady and forced the icon’s evacuation, was in Manhattan federal on Friday pushing for a no-jail guarantee from a judge — and then promptly spewed an anti-American message outside court…

Her lawyer, Ron Kuby, asked a judge to determine ahead of trial if he will sentence Okoumou to jail time before she will take a plea deal — something federal judges must do in certain misdemeanor cases, Kuby argued…

Outside court, Kuby said Okoumou’s “non-violent civil disobedience…should not be penalized with a jail sentence. That should be rewarded.”

Okoumou wore a green dress with the words, “I really care, why won’t u?” written on it – an apparent reference to the “I really don’t care, do u?” jacket worn by Melania Trump.

Outside court dozens of supporters cheered on the Republic of Congo born woman – who is a naturalized citizen — and she chanted to the crowd, “America you mother f–kers! You drug addicts! You KKK! You fascist USA.”

Here’s the video. Very strong language warning:

The liberal media, which doesn’t want to talk about Okoumou’s horrid rant, chose instead to focus on how she ‘trolled Melania Trump’ through her clothing choice. There are literally dozens of articles which made this the focus of the story. Here’s one from the Huffington Post:

Melania Trump Gets Trolled By Statue Of Liberty Protester For ‘I Don’t Care’ Jacket

A Statue of Liberty protester who demonstrated against the Trump administration’s harsh immigration policies mocked Melania Trump’s controversial “I don’t care” jacket at her New York court appearance Friday.

In June, the first lady wore a jacket that read “I really don’t care, do u?” as she headed to an immigrant children’s detention center in Texas.

Patricia Okoumou, who climbed the foundation of Lady Liberty on July 4 to protest the forced separation of immigrant parents from their children, wore a dress for her appearance in Manhattan Federal Court that read, front and back, “I really care, why won’t u? Be Best.”

“Be Best” refers to Melania Trump’s program to promote children’s well-being and battle cyberbullying, which she launched in May. The first lady’s top policy aide who helped initiate the program, Reagan Hedlund, quit last week to work on foreign policy issues, though it’s not clear where, Politico reported.

See? This story isn’t about what Okoumou said. It’s about Melania Trump getting owned.

What media bias?

Featured image via YouTube.

DONATE

Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.

Comments

Looks like Ron Kuby is her attorney and if Kuby’s there then that tells you all you need to know about her and her politics.

Ron pretty much only represents the scum of the earth and anti americans.

Sure they’re entitled to legal counsel too but Ron’s like a signal on the values of those he represents.

    Colonel Travis in reply to jakee308. | August 5, 2018 at 1:38 pm

    Funny. I wasn’t sure at first and then saw the pony tail and thought – hoo boy, haven’t seen this clown in a while.

    Matt_SE in reply to jakee308. | August 5, 2018 at 1:54 pm

    There’s as much money to be made in tearing down a country as there is in building one up.

    HamiltonNJ in reply to jakee308. | August 5, 2018 at 4:07 pm

    When I saw this video I thought
    1) Holy cow, Ron Kuby is still alive?
    2) Why doesn’t his presence at this spectacle surprise me at all?

Just the sort of immigrant we need a lot more of. If you don’t believe it, ask a Democrat.

Revoke her citizenship and deport her. We don’t need people like this.

    tom_swift in reply to Elric. | August 5, 2018 at 12:36 pm

    While there is a process for denaturalization of naturalized citizens, simply being an annoying twit probably isn’t enough to make it happen.

      Milhouse in reply to tom_swift. | August 6, 2018 at 2:20 am

      There is no such thing as denaturalization of naturalized citizens. Once someone is a citizen, whether by birth or naturalization, the only way to lose it is completely voluntary renunciation.

      The process you’re thinking of is where someone who is not a citizen falsely claims to be one, whether by birth or naturalization, and the government finds evidence that they are not. The most recent example is Rasmea Odeh, who went through a form of purported naturalization, but the government eventually discovered evidence that she’d been ineligible, and had only been allowed to attend the ceremony by lying on her application.

        mailman in reply to Milhouse. | August 6, 2018 at 7:40 am

        I hear that Rasmea Odeh was disappointed you didnt work on her legal team Genius HAHHAHAHAHHAHAH

          Milhouse in reply to mailman. | August 6, 2018 at 10:43 am

          Did you bother reading what I wrote, you dishonest piece of crap? Rasmea Odeh was never a citizen. She was only pretending to be one. When the government discovered this it charged her with fraud, and when she finally admitted that she was not a citizen it deported her.

          It’s no different from someone who pretends to be a doctor or a lawyer and then it’s discovered that they never qualified and were never licensed; they don’t lose their license, because they never had one to lose.

          Someone who is a citizen cannot lose it except by renouncing it, and the renunciation must be completely voluntary and sincere. If the person has evidence that they didn’t mean it then it doesn’t count. There have been many cases where US citizens, in order to qualify for some benefit in a foreign country, pretended to renounce their citizenship, but informed the US consulate in advance that they didn’t really want to lose it, and in such cases they stay citizens.

    JohnSmith100 in reply to Elric. | August 5, 2018 at 1:56 pm

    I wish it was as simple as revoking her citizenship. We need to make naturalization contingent upon their and their children’s good behavior.

      Milhouse in reply to JohnSmith100. | August 6, 2018 at 2:21 am

      Impossible. Naturalization by its nature cannot be contingent on anything. If it’s valid it’s permanent; and if it’s not valid then it’s of no effect at all, even temporary.

    Milhouse in reply to Elric. | August 6, 2018 at 2:06 am

    US citizenship, once lawfully obtained, cannot be involuntarily revoked for any reason. Even if she were to commit outright treason, she could be executed for it, but she could not lose her citizenship.

      Arminius in reply to Milhouse. | August 7, 2018 at 7:25 am

      Here’s a little of your own medicine; everything you have said is a lie, Milhouse. A number of us have corrected you before, and since you have been corrected and still insist on dealing in falsehoods this can not be a good faith error on your part.

      https://www.uscis.gov/policymanual/HTML/PolicyManual-Volume12-PartL-Chapter2.html

      “Chapter 2 – Grounds for Revocation of Naturalization”

      This is precisely the language the USG uses. You keep insisting that “US citizenship, once lawfully obtained, cannot be involuntarily revoked for any reason.” The US Customs and Immigration Service says you are wrong. A person can legally obtain citizenship and an immigration court can revoke it.

      “…B. 2. Membership or Affiliation with Certain Organizations

      A person is subject to revocation of naturalization if the person becomes a member of, or affiliated with, the Communist party, other totalitarian party, or terrorist organization within five years of his or her naturalization. [6] In general, a person who is involved with such organizations cannot establish the naturalization requirements of having an attachment to the Constitution and of being well-disposed to the good order and happiness of the United States. [7]

      The fact that a person becomes involved with such an organization within five years after the date of naturalization is prima facie evidence that he or she concealed or willfully misrepresented material evidence that would have prevented the person’s naturalization.

      C. Other than Honorable Discharge before Five Years of Honorable Service after Naturalization

      A person is subject to revocation of naturalization if:

      •The person became a U.S. citizen through naturalization on the basis of honorable service in the U.S. armed forces; [8]

      •The person subsequently separates from the U.S. armed forces under other than honorable conditions; and

      •The other than honorable discharge occurs before the person has served honorably for a period or periods aggregating at least five years. [9]…”

      A member of the armed forces who becomes a citizen on the basis of honorable service has lawfully obtained US citizenship. They met all the legal requirements to become US citizens when they were naturalized. No one, not even Customs and Immigration, would argue otherwise. There was no legal defect at the time the individual was naturalized. But if within the next five years they screw up and are convicted in courts martial of a crime and separate under other than honorable conditions they can be stripped of their citizenship. And there is a process for stripping someone of their citizenship and a legal term for that process; revocation, which is always involuntary.

      As far as this individual goes, she could easily have her citizenship revoked if she is in fact a naturalized citizen and I haven’t read anything to indicate she is. It’s prima facie evidence that if someone becomes a member of or affiliated with the Communist party, other totalitarian party, or a terrorist organization within five years of naturalization then that individual can not meet the naturalization requirement that he or she has “an attachment to the Constitution and of being well-disposed to the good order and happiness of the United States.”

      In this case the individual could try to argue that she did not conceal a material fact or willfully misrepresent anything that would have prevented her naturalization at the time but soured on the US later. That’s irrelevant as the court must accept her memberships or affiliation as prima facie evidence that she did.

      So if she’s a member of or affiliated with ANTIFA (I don’t think you have to fill out a membership application or that they give out member ID cards), which is both totalitarian and a designated domestic terrorist group, she’s screwed.

      That’s also not the only evidence that an immigration court can consider when deciding on revoking someone’s naturalized citizenship. There are other ways the government can prove the individual does not have “an attachment to the Constitution and of being well-disposed to the good order and happiness of the United States.” Such as in this case her public statements. Also her statements on social media, and later should the feds be able to get a search warrant any evidence they can gather from her electronic devices, or documents, or other personal effects.

      But then she could be a refugee or have a green card. She could be here on a non-immigrant student visa or some other non-immigrant visa. There’s a whole host of reasons why she might be in this country without being a naturalized citizen. In which case it’s a lot easier to deport her.

      It’s simply a falsehood, though, that a naturalized citizen can’t have their citizenship revoked. The US CIS policy manual has a chapter on revocation. It doesn’t matter if they obtained their citizenship legally or illegally. Even Rasmeah Odeh had to have her citizenship revoked. That’s really what her trial was about. The government had to prove she lied on the forms, concealed, or willfully misrepresented a material fact. Until the government could prove that, she was de jure and de facto a US citizen.

        Milhouse in reply to Arminius. | August 7, 2018 at 11:00 am

        A number of us have corrected you before,

        No, a number of you have made the same misstatements before, and I have corrected you each time.

        This is precisely the language the USG uses.

        And therefore? Because the government uses a term, that means it’s correct?! The government can call a tail a leg, but dogs will still have at most four legs. That US citizenship cannot be revoked is in the constitution, as the Supreme Court has stated many times; therefore nothing US Customs and Immigration Service says can change that.

        If what the manual describes were really revocation of citizenship, why would there be a time limit? Where in the constitution can a period of five years be found? Nowhere. The fact that the USCIS uses this limit concerning a constitutional right should clue you in that there’s something else going on, which is confirmed if you actually read what you copied and pasted without bothering to digest.

        And in fact if you look at the actual law, rather than the USCIS manual, i.e. § 340 of the INA, you will find that although the heading imprecisely says “Revocation of Naturalization”, the body of the section describes it otherwise: “revoking and setting aside the order admitting such person to citizenship and canceling the certificate of naturalization on the ground that such order and certificate [..] were illegally procured or were procured by concealment of a material fact or by willful misrepresentation, and such [..] shall be effective as of the original date of the order and certificate, respectively.” It is not the naturalization that is set aside but the order allowing it, and the certificate awarded, because they were defective.

        The fact that a person becomes involved with such an organization within five years after the date of naturalization is <i.prima facie evidence that he or she concealed or willfully misrepresented material evidence that would have prevented the person’s naturalization.

        Here is the crux of the matter. The so-called “revocation” requires a judicial finding that the person was not eligible for naturalization, and was therefore never a citizen in the first place.

        Becoming involved with an anti-American organization does not itself invalidate the naturalization, it merely creates a rebuttable presumption that when the person claimed to be attached to the Constitution and well-disposed to the good order and happiness of the United States, they were lying. If the person can show that this was not the case, i.e. that at the time of the naturalization they did have the required attachment, and their change of mind came later (or that they sincerely believe their actions to be consistent with such attachment) then the naturalization was valid and therefore cannot be revoked.

        A member of the armed forces who becomes a citizen on the basis of honorable service has lawfully obtained US citizenship. They met all the legal requirements to become US citizens when they were naturalized. No one, not even Customs and Immigration, would argue otherwise.

        On the contrary, they did not meet all the requirements, or they wouldn’t need this expedited provision. The whole point of §§ 328 and 329 of the INA is that they waive some of those requirements.

        There was no legal defect at the time the individual was naturalized. But if within the next five years they screw up and are convicted in courts martial of a crime and separate under other than honorable conditions they can be stripped of their citizenship.

        On the contrary, if there were no defect then it would be impossible to strip them of it later. Therefore that is not what’s happening. §§ 328(f) and 329(c) were only introduced in 2003, so they probably haven’t yet been tested in court, but if they survive judicial scrutiny it will only be by construing them as making the original grant of expedited naturalization contingent on the expectation of five years’ honorable service, or an honorable discharge. If that expectation turns out to have been incorrect then the expedited naturalization was granted improperly, i.e. it had a legal defect.

        As far as this individual goes, she could easily have her citizenship revoked if she is in fact a naturalized citizen and I haven’t read anything to indicate she is.

        The press reports cited earlier in this thread say she is.

        In this case the individual could try to argue that she did not conceal a material fact or willfully misrepresent anything that would have prevented her naturalization at the time but soured on the US later. That’s irrelevant as the court must accept her memberships or affiliation as prima facie evidence that she did.

        Arminius, do you have any idea what “prima facie” means? Evidently not. If you did you’d know that what you just wrote makes no sense. Yes, she could indeed make such an argument, and if she can provide evidence for it then it would prevail. § 340(c) specifically says that such membership “shall be considered prima facie evidence that such person was not attached […] at the time of naturalization, and, in the absence of countervailing evidence, it shall be sufficient in the proper proceeding to authorize the revocation and setting aside of the order”. In the absence of countervailing evidence. In the presence of countervailing evidence it must be taken into account. In all cases, however, the determining factor is not what the person did subsequent to their purported naturalization, but their eligibility at the time.

        There are other ways the government can prove the individual does not have “an attachment to the Constitution and of being well-disposed to the good order and happiness of the United States.” Such as in this case her public statements. Also her statements on social media, and later should the feds be able to get a search warrant any evidence they can gather from her electronic devices, or documents, or other personal effects.

        Not “does not”. The government would have to prove she did not have it at the time of her purported naturalization.

        It’s simply a falsehood, though, that a naturalized citizen can’t have their citizenship revoked.

        It is not a falsehood, it is precisely what the Supreme Court has held that the constitution requires. All the legal maneuvering in § 340 and §§ 328(f) and 329(c) are there precisely in order to comply with that holding. Before the Supreme Court held that Congress passed laws purporting to cancel even born citizens’ citizenship if they did certain things. They thought they could do that, because they thought citizenship was a privilege that Congress could grant or revoke at its pleasure. The Supreme Court said no, the 14th amendment makes it a right, which can only be lost through a completely voluntary and sincere renunciation.

      Arminius in reply to Milhouse. | August 7, 2018 at 7:43 am

      I have to correct something. A person would not have to be convicted by courts martial (I use the plural because a case that could be used to deport an individual would be automatically appealed). An “Other than Honorable” discharge is only awarded administratively. So there could only be some sort of non-judicial punishment, then go before an administrative review board and if they decided to separate the individual they could give an Other than Honorable discharge.

      Courts martial award Bad Conduct discharges and Dishonorable discharges (officers get a Dismissal notice, which is the same thing as Dishonorable).

      Any one of these can get lead to revocation of naturalized citizenship and then deportation.

        Milhouse in reply to Arminius. | August 7, 2018 at 11:03 am

        See above. If §§ 328(f) and 329(c) survive judicial scrutiny it will only be by construing them as making the original grant of expedited naturalization contingent on the expectation of five years’ honorable service, or an honorable discharge.

When does she start her new gig as a NYT editor?

ScottTheEngineer | August 5, 2018 at 11:33 am

She needs to go to jail. Not for interrupting tourists but for interrupting a naturalization ceremony for several hundred people that waited to celebrate their new life for a very solemn occasion.
I doubt there’s legally a difference but it’s the equivalent of getting drunk in a bar and throwing up on the street and getting drunk and throwing up on the dance floor of a wedding. Your public intoxication made a bigger impact at the wedding.

I feel bad for the people that had that life changing event ruined for them.

Why do people come here when they hate this country and then want to turn it into the hellhole that they came from?

    Lots of folks ask that about the refugees fleeing California and New York.

      DaveGinOly in reply to MSO. | August 5, 2018 at 5:12 pm

      It goes with the territory. They look at all of socialism’s failures (including the states and countries they come from) and refuse to acknowledge that the problems they are fleeing, if not caused by socialism, were not solved by socialism (and possibly made worse), and think another iteration of it will work next time around.

“Statue of Liberty climber spews profanity laden, anti-American rant outside court.”

Unexpectedly.

Outside court, Kuby said Okoumou’s “non-violent civil disobedience…should not be penalized with a jail sentence. That should be rewarded.”

This is a strange claim. Kuby attended some sort of law school, I presume, and surely knows that “civil disobedience” is something which lands one in jail, not keeps one out. Actually, that’s the whole point of civil disobedience. Without the jail time, it’s not civil disobedience, it’s just a tantrum.

You can take the woman out of the Congo, but you can’t take the Congo out of the woman.

The progs think this is how they’ll win the immigration debate?

They’re even dumber than I thought.

“America you mother f–kers! You drug addicts! You KKK! You fascist USA.”

OK. She does not like the America as defined by the Democrats.

She can either work to defeat the Dems or go live in a better country like Venezuela. Instead, she acts and sounds like a hate filled leftist. Oh. wait…

It is always interesting to see how the media reports on demonstrators. In this case, this woman is alwyas referred to as an immigrant from the Democratic Republic of the Congo, who has lived in the US for 10 years. Interestingly enough, it never identifies her as a US citizen. This suggests that she is here on some temporary status. Also, reports profiles never mention how she managed to enter the US. Was it on some type of work visa, as the spouse of a US citizen or possibly as the winner of one of our immigration lotteries?

What the feds should do is to bill this woman, and her organization, Rise and Resist, for the cost of the “rescue”. It is amazing how quickly these impromptu demonstrations come to a halt when people and organizations have to pay for their disruptive actions.

    tom_swift in reply to Mac45. | August 5, 2018 at 12:49 pm

    Interestingly enough, it never identifies her as a US citizen.

    The NY Post has identified her as a naturalized citizen.

    It is amazing how quickly these impromptu demonstrations come to a halt when people and organizations have to pay for their disruptive actions.

    GoFundMe has probably removed that corrective mechanism.

DINORightMarie | August 5, 2018 at 12:39 pm

My question – what did the judge say? If he didn’t give her jail time before, I think he should definitely now, without question. Also – IMHO, if he did, then he should REVOKE it and reference that disgraceful, disgusting, borderline treasonous rant.

Her speech is protected, but it is laced with hatred, distain, and pent up anger waiting to burst forth again. She WILL be a repeat offender.

I weep for our nation, when people like this are able to take the oath of allegiance to our US Constitution as naturalized citizens. She came to divide, to hate, to destroy. Nothing good for this nation will come of her antics, just more sown seeds of discord.

The woman is mentally ill in my estimation.

    I was thinking about that. Kuby must be setting up his client for an insanity defense if the trial judge decides to give her jail time.

    On the other hand, crazy like a fox as she parleys her stunt and courthouse steps performance into a lucrative gig peddling books of teaching at some anti-American leftist university. I imagine it pays more than welfare.

Well, if they let blatantly anti-American fruitcakes like this in, that tells us that INS is part of The Swamp. And that implies that The Wall isn’t going to be enough; ne’er-do-wells are not only sneaking into the country through the windows, they’re walking in the front door.

Hardly a surprise, but annoying nonetheless.

    IndependentDem in reply to tom_swift. | August 5, 2018 at 3:25 pm

    No, you can’t blame the people working the border, or those of us adjudicating immigrant visa cases in the embassies around the world. Our hands are tied by existing laws regarding immigrant visas. If one meets the requirement within the law then they’re in, and we are unable to stop them, and they know it. I have had applicants here in Africa smirk in my face when I had caught them in a lie (UNDER OATH), and they knew I couldn’t prevent the issuance of the visa because it did not rise to a provable ineligibility. Their petitioners in the US almost all have free attorneys provided by NGOs and churches, and they have been coached.

    The law, the system, must be changed.

This woman represents the quintessence of contemporary Leftists – – all shrill, histrionic, infantile, incoherent and embittered id.

Humphrey's Executor | August 5, 2018 at 1:48 pm

If she expresses sincere remorse and contrition then the judge should favor leniency. In other words, fat chance.

We really need to let more like this in.

Allow a Clinton type in the WH and it’s what we’ll get, by the millions.

The Democratic Party is now institutionally racist against whites. Same hate they always peddled, different customer.

Wonder what would happen if she said this in and about the Congo. As far as I can determine there is still transportation available between New York and the Congo. She could go test the limits of free speech over there in the heart of Africa.

Comanche Voter | August 5, 2018 at 3:15 pm

Anybody know this lady’s first language is? I’d warrant she didn’t hear any English in the cradle. Whatever the language is, somebody needs to translate the phrase, “Sod off swampy” and say it to her.

In the meantime a few months in a women’s prison wouldn’t hurt her.

michelle obama, before the emergency tutoring.

Progressives think this is “patriotic.” But patriots love their countries. If there are problems that need addressing, patriots work to make their countries better places. (“MAGA,” anyone?) A person who wants to tear a country down (even if to rebuild it in another form) does not love the country, and is not a patriot. That person wants to remake the country into something different and new, and has no love for the country as it now exists. Progressives seem to think there is nothing good about, and nothing worth salvaging from, this country. They are not patriots.

If the plea deal includes jail time (and it absolutely should, but given NY liberal judges, may not) and the idiot then pleads not guilty, I wonder how exactly this person could be seen as not guilty? If she gets no jail time then she should be sued by all those who were not able to visit the Statue because of her groping of the Statue. She should be hit up with the #metoo tags, as she made unwanted assaults against Lady Liberty.

Deport her sorry ass!

Why is the court involved in a plea deal? Is this purely on the costs of taking her to court, because I would say that there is very little doubt as to the identity of the person who trespassed and caused disruption to so many on that day. A substantial fine should also be part of any penalty, so that she can contemplate her actions for months or years in the future.

Font Resize
Contrast Mode
Send this to a friend