‘Kill the President’: Pennsylvania Democrat Arrested Over Trump Threat
“He’s the antichrist. I want you to walk into the Oval Office with a gun in your hand. I want you to put it to his temple, and I want you to pull the trigger.”
Raymond Eugene Chandler III, of Wilkinsburg, Pennsylvania, was arrested Friday for allegedly leaving a series of menacing voicemails for a member of Congress, in which he threatened to slit the throats of both the lawmaker and his daughter if he did not kill President Donald Trump.
According to Pittsburgh’s Action News 4, Chandler is facing charges of “Influencing, Impeding or Retaliating Against a Federal Official by Threatening a Family Member and by Threatening a Federal Official,” and “Influencing, Impeding or Retaliating against a Federal Official by Threat.”
The court documents were unsealed Friday in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania. Although the documents do not identify the lawmaker, the suspect refers to him as “Senator” in the second voicemail transcribed below. Pennsylvania’s current senators are John Fetterman and Dave McCormick; while McCormick is not a billionaire, his wealth is estimated at nearly $200 million.
On April 18, Chandler allegedly left the following message:
Sir, I have, uh, I’m calling this morning ’cause I want you to imagine a scenario. I want you to imagine a scenario where all the 1,200 billionaires in this country, all their properties are surrounded simultaneously by a thousand people. So imagine your house, your daughter’s house, everyone you know and love who is also rich. Imagine every single one of those homes being surrounded by a thousand people.
Then imagine them all getting a text and then, then suddenly taking out their pocket knives, walking slowly towards your house with 10, you got your 10 guards or whatever against a thousand people, and then they come and they pull you out of your house and they slit your throat and they slit your daughter’s throat and they slit everyone’s throat.
That you know, sir, that is the future. It’s not a future I want, it’s not a future I’m advocating for, but wealth concentration has gotten so bad in this country. The greed has gotten so bad. People are suffering so much, sir, that that is what is in our future. You will not escape their wrath. We must redistribute the wealth away from people like you.
One week later, Chandler allegedly left a second voicemail calling on the lawmaker to walk into the Oval Office and shoot the president. The message said:
You’re probably getting quite used to my voice. Sir, I’m calling this evening because what I want you to do is I want you to take a firearm. I want you to put it in your hand. I want you to walk into the Oval Office. I want you to put that firearm to the President’s head, and I want you to pull the trigger and I want you to kill him. I am petitioning you, Senator for redress of grievances. My redress of grievances is that this president is awful . . . He’s a liar among all liars. He’s a great deceiver. He’s the antichrist. I want you to walk into the Oval Office with a gun in your hand. I want you to put it to his temple, and I want you to pull the trigger. That is what I want you to do as my agent. That’s what I want you to do as my elected official. That’s what I am petitioning you to do with my free speech. I want you to kill the President. I want you to assassinate the President. That’s what I want you to do. Now, Senator, are you gonna come after me? Are you going to try me because of my voice and what I said?
The documents indicate that multiple additional voicemails were left, with the final message recorded on April 29, two days before Chandler’s arrest.
Chandler remains in federal custody as the case proceeds, with prosecutors expected to detail the full scope of the alleged threats in upcoming hearings. His arrest comes on the heels of the third assassination attempt against Trump. The Federal Bureau of Investigation is leading the investigation in coordination with the U.S. Secret Service.
The FBI issued a statement on Friday, which read:
This morning, FBI Pittsburgh and the U.S. Secret Service arrested Raymond Chandler for threatening to kill federal officials, including President Trump and a member of Congress. The FBI will not tolerate threats of violence and will work tirelessly to protect public officials and all members of our communities. This arrest is a great example of our work with our law enforcement partners at the USSS, the U.S Capitol Police and the United States Attorney’s Office for the Western District of Pennsylvania.
Chandler has reportedly launched a 2028 campaign for the U.S. Senate. According to the social media post below, he portrays himself to voters as a “nice, wholesome guy who wears suspenders.”
In the attached video, Chandler questions why billionaires are not content with $100 million, reflects on his modest beginnings, and urges viewers: “Follow me—let’s reclaim what is ours.”
PA man running for U.S. Senate in 2028, who branded himself online as a nice, wholesome guy who wears suspenders, arrested for calling for the assassination of President Trump.
Raymond Chandler is accused of sending the following voicemail to a member of Congress:
“Sir, I… pic.twitter.com/pwZwmv6eUY
— Collin Rugg (@CollinRugg) May 3, 2026
Elizabeth writes commentary for Legal Insurrection and The Washington Examiner. She is an academy fellow at The Heritage Foundation. Please follow Elizabeth on LinkedIn.
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
It would be nice if democrats started behaving sanely. You know, protect our country – we only need 5-20 of them and then John Thune has to take action. Finding ALL dems in Congress being held to “unity” votes makes no sense – then again, do any dem actions today make sense?
Article fails to mention which school system employs this jerk as a “teacher.”
Yeah, nothing said so far about who he works for, but some things are pretty obvious.
Still haven’t heard what he did for a living, but I HAVE learned he was running a vanity campaign for Senate to unseat Fetterman.
Based upon an earlier comment of mine, in which I defended Trump’s right to petition Georgia officials to “find more votes,” I have to categorize the second of the messages (above) as not a threat of action by the messenger, but rather a request from him towards a senator, made within the right to petition a government official. It would be inappropriate to charge anyone for asking a government official to commit a criminal act.
My remark (made at https://revolver.news/2024/07/times-desperate-attempt-to-create-new-jan-6-committee-jack-smith-dead-jan-6-trump-indictment/):
A citizen can’t be required to know the law when petitioning government. Such a requirement would chill the exercise of the right (by creating a fear of criminal liability for merely asking for something from the government – remember, “petitioning” is a constitutionally-protected act and the exercise of a right can’t be converted into a crime). It’s up to those petitioned to reply, “I can’t do that, it’s illegal,” or, “I can’t do that, it’s not within my authority.”
Even knowing/acknowledging the law, the petitioner has an unfettered right (that should not be chilled by prosecution) to make the request, nor would it be constitutional to convert the exercise of the right into a crime.
The caller’s first message is a threat. Although it neither advocates nor threatens action, its intent is to intimidate a government official by placing him in fear for his own and his family’s safety. He should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law for making it. Freedom of speech does not include putting innocent people in fear of their lives. The accumulation of wealth is not a crime in this country. Indeed, the authors of the Constitution predicted the freedom guaranteed in the Constitution would create an inequality of wealth. That inequality is arguably evidence that the Constitution has been working (at least in this respect) as intended.
Did you read the second message? In part:
Sir, I’m calling this evening because what I want you to do is I want you to take a firearm. I want you to put it in your hand. I want you to walk into the Oval Office. I want you to put that firearm to the President’s head, and I want you to pull the trigger and I want you to kill him.
Not a threat of action?
No, it’s not a threat at all. He’s asking the congressman to do as he says. He doesn’t threaten any consequences if he doesn’t. He explicitly says that he’s petitioning him for redress of his grievances against Trump. He’s allowed to do that.
Lunatic
Yes, you are.
You, Sir, are a Vampire….you hqve no reflection.
Oh, really? You’re the one who’s allergic to the truth.
Would that you were to get a similar ‘non threat’ and tell us what you felt.
How anyone “feels” is irrelevant. Whether something is a threat is a matter of objective fact, not feelings. The first amendment is more important than your feelings, or than your life.
No Milhouse, threats are definitely subjective unless acted upon. One person’s threat is another’s free speech, This gets played out all the time.
ztakddot, the constitution doesn’t allow a subjective definition of any crime, because that doesn’t put a person on notice as to whether he is breaking the law. Such a law would be void for vagueness.
Only “true threats” are unprotected, and the definition of a true threat is the Brandenberg criteria, which are objective. They don’t depend on anyone’s feelings, and certainly not on the target’s feelings, let alone on speculation on how the jurors would have felt if they were the targets.
Well Milhouse I went and read about the Brandenberg criteria. I still maintain deciding whether speech is a threat is subjective. Then again I’m tainted by my science/engineering background in this regard.
“No, it’s not a threat at all.”
Chandler was arrested and is facing two federal felony charges, one of which is threatening the president.
Under federal law it is a crime to knowingly and willfully make a threat against the president, even if the threat is delivered through a third party.
By framing the threat as a request for someone else to act as his agent is not shielded speech.
Yes, I know he was arrested; that’s what this post is about. But the arrest is unconstitutional and outrageous. He did not commit any crime.
The crime of threatening the president is only constitutional if it satisfies the very strict Brandenberg criteria, which this case does not. Congress has no authority to ban threats that don’t fit those criteria.
A request for someone to commit a crime is not a true threat, and therefore is protected speech.
Chandler is specifically charged with threatening to assault and murder the daughter of a Congressman with the intent to intimidate the official. The Supreme Court has clarified in cases like Virginia v. Black and Counterman v. Colorado that the government can prohibit threats intended to intimidate.
But the more serious aspect is describing a scenario where a child’s throat is slit. That is considered a “very serious expression of intent” rather than protected speech.
Chandler is in deep doo doo.
The graphic nature of his comments makes it very difficult to argue for free speech. Under the Counterman v. Colorado standard, the prosecution doesn’t even have to prove he actually intended to carry out the act. They only need to show it was reckless speech.
Further, investigators tracked his rhetoric for over a year. A single heat-of-the-moment comment is one thing; but a year-long escalation culminating in threats against a child shows premeditation.
Chandler is in deep doo doo.
Paula, Brandenberg is still the law. None of the later cases did more than clarify it on the margins. It remains the case that a true threat must convey a serious prospect that the speaker has both the means and the intent of committing a crime.
Of course the prosecution doesn’t have to prove he actually intended to carry out the act. That was never required. But it does have to prove that he deliberately conveyed the message that he intended to carry it out, and that he had the means to do so. Since Chandler never even suggested that he would do anything, this distinction is irrelevant.
Your claim that describing a scenario where a child’s throat is slit is considered a “very serious expression of intent” is utter bullshit. It is not an expression of intent at all. It is a prediction of what will happen if there is a revolution. People here on LI predict revolutions all the time, and no one thinks they’re threatening anything. It is absolutely commonplace to warn that revolutions can get ugly, as they did in France and in Haiti, and that is all that Chandler did. Arresting him for it is a serious crime against all of our liberties, far worse than anything he can be accused of.
Milhouse has already replied to your question. I obviously agree with him.
My comment at Revolver was in defense of Trump’s ask of GA officials to “find more votes.” I’m pretty sure it would have met your approval. However unfortunately, I call them as I see them. And I see this situation as the same – someone petitioning government. It doesn’t matter if what Trump asked for was illegal or not – he had a right to ask. So, too, does the individual in this situation. The only difference is that you believe what he’s asking for was illegal. I concede that. But Trump was prosecuted for asking for something a state’s attorney believed was illegal. I defended Trump upon the principle that whether or not the ask was illegal is not relevant. It remains irrelevant in the instant situation.
I’ll restate my conclusion: It’s up to those petitioned to reply, “I can’t do that, it’s illegal,” or, “I can’t do that, it’s not within my authority.” The petitioner, however, has a right to ask and the exercise of a constitutionally-guaranteed right cannot be converted into a crime. Period. We can’t allow government to determine what can be and what cannot be asked of government officials. Consider the danger in what you’re proposing and maybe you’ll come to understand why this shouldn’t be permitted.
“The trouble with fighting for human freedom is that one spends most of one’s time defending scoundrels. For it is against scoundrels that oppressive laws are first aimed, and oppression must be stopped at the beginning if it is to be stopped at all.”
Robert L. Heinlein
“Government can’t determine what can be asked”
The government can and does criminalize speech that constitutes a true threat or incitement to violence.
In Chandler’s case federal prosecutors have determined that his specific “asking”—requesting a lawmaker to assassinate the President—constitutes a criminal threat and solicitation, which is why he is currently facing felony charges.
Those federal prosecutors belong in prison themselves. A request CANNOT be a true threat, because it isn’t a threat at all. And it is not solicitation because there is no reasonable expectation that it would be carried out, and also, as Dave pointed out, because it is an exercise of the right to petition.
You can’t be serious, or else your mind is muddled. Yes, you CAN expect someone to know that assassinating a President is a crime. Period, end of story.
It doesn’t matter whether he knew or not. Asking someone to commit a crime, with no reason to suppose that he will comply with your request, is protected speech.
The belief that a crime is unlikely to occur does not shield a speaker from being prosecuted for solicitation or making threats.
The crime of solicitation is completed the moment someone “solicits, commands, induces, or otherwise endeavors to persuade” another person to commit a felony of violence.
That is wrong and without basis. Solicitation inherently must include a reasonable expectation that it will be carried out. Otherwise it’s not solicitation.
I did not say that he didn’t know. I said it doesn’t matter if he did. Please try not to read anything into what I say. I try to be very careful to say exactly what I mean. No more and no less.
I wrote:
Even knowing/acknowledging the law…
Did you miss that? My point is it’s not relevant. Trump’s prosecution by Georgia was based on the legal theory that 1.) Trump knew what he was asking for was illegal; and 2.) Trump had no right to make such a petition. Because the right to petition government isn’t a qualified right (because if it were, it would discourage people from making petitions for fear of prosecution), point #1 isn’t relevant.
This holds true for Mr. Chandler.
Dave, you are of course correct that the right to petition includes the right to request illegal conduct, that’s irrelevant to the Georgia case, because what Trump demanded of Raffensperger, to find 11,000 invalid votes, was perfectly legal. All Trump wanted of Raffensperger was that he do his duty, as Trump understood it. Raffensperger had a different understanding of the facts, and based on that also of his duty.
Trump was acting on the false assumption that there were hundreds of thousands of obviously invalid votes cast in Georgia, so finding a mere 11,000 of them would be easy, and he couldn’t understand why Raffensperger would refuse to even look. Raffensperger knew that this was not the case; that while there were undoubtedly some unknown number of invalid votes, finding them — if they even could be found at all — would be difficult and slow, and thus there was no way this could be used to change the result.
But from Trump’s point of view his demand was completely reasonable and not in any way illegal. Had he been asking for something illegal, and had he known it was illegal, then your very valid point would come into operation, and he still wouldn’t have been committing a crime, unless he offered Raffensperger an inducement, either a bribe or a threat.
Of course I understand all that. My point is it’s not relevant to Trump’s or Chandler’s defense. Petitioning government officials is a constitutionally-guaranteed right, and as such cannot be converted into a crime. My point is that even if Trump had asked a government official to commit a crime (as has Chandler), it would not matter. There can’t be a crime found in the exercise of a right. The only crime that might result of such a request would be that of a government official who might comply with a petitioner’s request for an illegal act.
Also see Wikipedia’s article on the 2004 gubernatorial vote (a vote for gubers?) in Washington State. The number of ballots not counted (or miscounted) isn’t relevant either.
The salient part of the article is here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2004_Washington_gubernatorial_election#Discovered_ballots
Too many people forget that recounting votes and/or conducting forensic examinations of an election aren’t just for revealing fraud or cheating, they can also be used to confirm an election’s fairness and thus to encourage voter confidence in the system. Whenever government officials refuse to do that which might reveal “fairness”, they create mistrust. Raffensperger should have sighed and then recounted the ballots. (And, if required by law, the Republican party should have borne the cost of the recount.)
Trump wasn’t asking for a recount. Recounting the same ballots will yield the same results. He was asking for a look at the validity of those votes, in order to find at least 11,000 that were obviously invalid and should therefore be excluded from the count. He was under the impression this would be very easy to do, because there were hundreds of thousands of such votes, so finding a mere 11,000 should be a doddle.
This guy solicited a murder, in 2 steps. Instead of offering money, he offered the safety of his family going forward.
That is entirely unclear. His first request for redistribution of wealth. The second was for Trump’s murder. It’s a reach to connect the two in a way that Chandler did not.
No, he did not offer anything. His first call was not a threat, it was a prediction of a popular revolution if nothing is done, and that such a revolution would be ugly, like the French or Haitian ones.
Yours is the kind of twisted thinking that makes it difficult, if not impossible, to get the criminals, traitors, assassins, etc. in our midst behind bars.
It’s called the law and the constitution. Your twisted and evil thinking is what gets us tyrants like Hitler and Stalin.
One reasonably expects that threatening the life of the President should be unlawful. The fact that one expects this does not constitute twisted or evil thinking that will produces monsters. Au contraire, the twisted evil monsters are those who threaten violence and death on their leaders and those who condone such behavior.
True threats, whether against the president or anyone else, are unlawful. Nothing Chandler said came even close to that; not only were his words not a true threat, they weren’t even a false threat. They weren’t a threat at all. What you are describing is the crime under UK law of the late 18th century, which defined “imagining the king’s death” as “high treason”. The constitution specifically bans any such law, precisely to head off would-be tyrants like you.
Both of you are making a ridiculous posturing of the argument. The language is explicit in terms of the violence. Yelling the word “fire” is not a violation of free speech, unless it is used in the context of a crowded area where danger could ensue.
The language does not threaten violence at all.
And invoking Holmes’s infamous “falsely calling fire in a theater” analogy from his thoroughly discredited and repudiated opinion in Schenck is a good way to automatically lose whatever argument you invoke it in.
The very fact that Holmed coined that analogy for the specific purpose of justifying throwing someone in prison for protesting against the draft is enough to discredit it as an argument altogether.
Stupid haircut, stupid suspenders, stupid glasses.
Stupid threats and stupid phone calls.
HAS to be a Democrat.
We need a televised interrogation. We need the mass media responsible for this idiot’s psychotic grooming named by networks and personalities. We need the personalities to become co-defendants in the assassination plot trial. We need the financiers of the mass media garbage to have their assets seized and RICO charges filed against them for treason and conspiracy to murder.
All broadcast networks found guilty must lose their broadcast licenses.
That’s ridiculous. Every single thing the news industry has said has been protected by the first amendment. As was everything he said to the congressman.
I am awaiting his being characterized as a “Ultra MAGA white supremacist”.
Throw this guy in a woodchipper and be done with him. I;m already tired of him. His 15 seconds of fame are up as far as I;m concerned,
Is there any way to impose a life sentence on this deranged maniac, preferably with no chance of parole?
Public whipping would be more instructive
Drawing and quartering a more memorable example.
Or let us ask, what would the communist regime, which Raymond adores (by nature of obviously being a failure in life, and as a human) do to an unstable dissident threatening the regime?
The liberals closed the insane asylums in the 70s, and this is the result.
There is no threat in either of the reported conversations.
In the first conversation he didn’t threaten anything, he merely predicted that if things proceed as they are now there will be a revolution. Many people here in this forum routinely make similar predictions, if less graphically. It can’t be a crime to predict a revolution, whether from the right (as people here do) or from the left (as he did).
In the second conversation he didn’t threaten Trump at all. He neither expressed nor hinted at any intention of killing Trump himself, or of doing anything himself. He merely asked the congressman to commit a crime, without offering him any inducement, positive or negative. That’s not a crime, it’s protected speech. A “true threat” must convey to the listener that the speaker has both the intent and the means to commit a crime; here he conveyed neither of these things.
18 U.S. Code § 373 – Solicitation to commit a crime of violence
Soliciting requires some reason to expect that the person being asked to commit the crime will do so. This might be in the form of an inducement offered for performance, or a threat for nonperformance. But simply asking a stranger to do some bizarre thing for no reason at all is not solicitation. And in the case of a congressman one has the explicit constitutional right to petition him to do something; a petition is not a solicitation.
The crime of solicitation is based on the intent of the speaker, not the likelihood that the person being asked will actually comply or that an inducement was offered.
Petitioning a stranger to commit a murder is legally recognized as criminal solicitation and the first amendment does not protect the use of violent threats or the promotion of felonies
There is no threat here. A threat must first and foremost BE a threat, and to be unprotected it must be a TRUE threat, i.e. one where the speaker can expect a reasonable listener to think that he has both the means and the intent to carry it out.
Solicitation, by definition, must include a reasonable basis for supposing that the person solicited will carry it out. Simply asking a random stranger to do something that he is unlikely to do, for no reason, is not solicitation. And when that person is a congressman it’s petitioning, which the constitution explicitly protects.
Oh, for heaven’s sake, just READ it, Milhouse. It’s right there in black and white.
It doesn’t require a damn thing of the person being asked to commit the crime. It requires only that the requester intend for that person to commit a felony.
You can’t intend someone to commit a crime just by asking them to do it. You must have a reasonable expectation that they will do it, which means you must have some basis for that. It can’t be a crime to approach some random person and ask “Excuse me, sir, would you be so good as to rob a bank for me”! That is not solicitation, because a normal person would expect that the person will either refuse or ignore you altogether.
And as Dave pointed out, in the case of a congressman we have an explicit protection of the right to petition.
Clarence Brandenberg, a KKK leader, publicly threatened that “if our President, our Congress, our Supreme Court, continues to suppress the white, Caucasian race, it’s possible that there might have to be some revengeance taken”. That’s certainly less graphic than this moron’s message to the congressman about the coming revolution, but the principle is the same. How can you distinguish the two?
wheres the threat of violence ????
he could mean just vote him and his party out
“Revengeance” does not mean voting someone out. And no one, including the supreme court, had any doubt what Brandenberg meant. “Revengeance” can only mean violence. But he had the unalienable right to say it.
not in the subjective sense ..I would agree ( he meant physical violence)
But in the objective sense where laws should be made
my statement stands
Do you even know what you’re talking about? I’m sure no one else does.
This news is more urgent than almost anything else.
Brave AI Leo is pushing leftist propaganda, while whitewashing Tucker Carlson (just in case you had any remaining doubt about that man) it is pushing the entire threat to Democracy/Far Right/Xenophobic etc narrative, if it is hypothetically possible to get it to agree it was wrong it really doesn’t matter because most people will not have an hours long debate with the ai.
AI is more influential than ever today, and it is radically pushing the Democrats and woke right.
Since Milhous has decided to split hairs in a paradoxical manner I have to ask…
How many assassination attempts were made against Biden and Obama?
Did anyone in Government arrange shells on a beach to read 8646?
Completely irrelevant.
I am not splitting hairs, I am stating black-letter law. You cannot possibly distinguish what this guy said from what Brandenberg said, and from what every person who predicts a revolution says.
And I don’t think you know what the word “paradoxical” means.
Paradox in my world is contradiction and Zeno’s Paradox is my illustration.
Enjoy your research, Zeno explains it all.
1 against Biden
4 against Obama
This is according to MS Copilot which also show 3 attempts against Trump,
None of those attempts were anywhere near as serious as the ones against Trump. They mostly added up to very vague threats, not actual attempts. But that’s not the point. It’s irrelevant how many there were; this wasn’t an attempt, or even a threat. It was “mere advocacy”, which is protected speech.
I was just answering the question. I didn’t delve into them not was I making any point about this guy’s speech.
hopefully in prisoned asap
but then he’ll be able to mail in 3 votes at a time
come on maga
Sending LEO for a wellness check followed by involuntary commitment seems fine. Deviants being ID, evaluated, treated and either medicated or confined is not a new or unusual concept. Continued threats of violence, encouraging others to commit political violence isn’t normal behavior in a civil society. One role of the State is to keep the peace. Removing the Cray Cray and the criminals by warehousing them away from the rest of us does just that.
So now you’re one with the USSR. The Soviets locked their political opponents up in mental homes. That’s outright kidnapping and it’s a crime, for which those who commit it belong in prison or worse.
There’s no indication that he is any threat to his own safety or to anyone else’s.
Hope you end up with this wacko as your neighbor.
Ha! Nice one but you forgot your sarcasm font/tag.
People who make running threats of violence and/or urge others to commit violence are either Criminals or Cray Cray but what they are not is ‘normal’. What part of a welfare check and EVALUATION of their mental health is ‘kidnapping’? Maybe you didn’t read beyond the first sentence and jumped the gun?
The ‘indication’ is some goofball making threats and encouraging violence over a sustained, prolonged period of time. Homeboy has something wrong with him and needs some help. Sending LEO for a welfare check is step one. Maybe he just needs to be recalibrated to expectations of behavior within civil society and the LEO visit will accomplish that and problem solved. Alternatively he may flip out on the LEO, further demonstrating mental instability and lack of emotional/impulse control. If so they can use minimal force to subdue and transport home to be evaluated by a Psychologist. Again problem solved.
Homeboy is absolutely a danger to himself b/c making threats to individuals is inherently dangerous. He might just select the wrong target. One who chooses to take his threats to their family seriously and if the ‘authorities’ refuse to intervene with an evaluation or detention decides the correct tactical solution is active defense.
TL/DR My Grandfather’s best life advice; ‘don’t let your alligator mouth overload your hummingbird ass’. I’d submit this guy didn’t get enough ass whipping earlier in his life as consequences for his behavior so he feels entitled to do whatever he wishes.
Yeah, this is not soviet lockups. This is someone who went out of his way to declare himself a Baker act candidate. I swear some of this board is caught on archaic semantics that make zero sense when exposed to the light of day.
I’d suggest that enabling the loony leftists to:
1. Routinely use violent rhetoric calling for injury and death of political opponents
2. Encourage ‘micro looting’, theft and fraud as totes justified v ‘capitalist oppressors’
3. Frequent acts of mob violence (antifa)
4. Death threats v specific officials and prominent political opponents, resulting in assassination plots/attempts Trump Kavanaugh sometimes successfully Charlie Kirk
5. Climate of hatred/justifying murder of executives for basically existing in a capitalist system.
All these things warrant further investigation not a shoulder shrug and a ‘watcha gonna do’ impotent stance. Ignoring warning signs is how we get ‘known wolf’ shook shootings. Sure we gotta be aware of the difference between investigating and denouncing. Asking questions and exploring just what is in that person’s mind to ROUTINELY make such deviant statements isn’t ‘Soviet’. It’s common sense to look for the fire when we smell smoke and ID the abby normal Cray Cray v normies v just odd but harmless requires asking questions and making an evaluation.
I agree this guy is a few card suites missing from a full deck. The word in his statement. The actual statements themselves. Pictures of him. His stated opinions. All leads me to believe this guy has serious mental issues. He should be evaluated for his own safety.
The guy is definitely not normal. And a genuine welfare check might have been in order. But it’s Soviet-level criminal to use that as an excuse for locking him up or even for harassing him.
Free speech ends were Title 18 USC 871 begins.
Bullshit. The US code is subject to the constitution, not the other way around. The constitution says CONGRESS CANNOT MAKE ANY LAW that abridges the freedom of speech. So to the extent that any part of the US code does that, it’s invalid.
Okay, Milhouse, now you’ve gone off the pier. By what you just stated, verbatim, Congress would have no power to prevent the transmission of state secrets if it has no power, as you contend, to abridge the freedom of speech. Even the SCOTUS doesn’t buy that argument. Certain elements of sedition and espionage would not be criminal acts by your reckoning.
This Raymond Chandler III has got some very weird ideas in his head. He claims that he is a Christian and a Buddhist – that is a new one on me. Weirder is his method to influence his senator. Who in their right minds would think his words are persuasive for any policy that he wants advanced? Lastly this guy holds to a fallacy that I think is one of the foundations of Marxism: that of a zero sum economy. Raymond Chandler states, “… but wealth concentration has gotten so bad in this country. The greed has gotten so bad. People are suffering so much, sir, that that is what is in our future. You will not escape their wrath. We must redistribute the wealth away from people like you.” This success of capitalism is in growing the economy not in some socialist redistribution. Considered a different way, the additional dollar that Elon Musk earns in some minute fraction of time does not injure or cause me grief. I am an ordinary guy and content with my lot in life. I appreciate the contributions of the likes of Elon Musk, Michael Jordon, and J. K. Rowlings and see that they have skillsets that I don’t have. Unfortunately, there are plenty of people out there that hold to Raymond Chandler III’s crazy economic ideas.
Buddhists are pacifists unless they are of the Viet Cong or Khmer Rouge variety.
(If you don’t know the history, the Maoists in East Asia used Buddhism as a shill for propaganda to push their revolutions and also to justify stealing people’s crops and children for the army)
Buddhists can be as violent as anyone else. Look at Sri Lanka and Burma.
“He claims that he is a Christian and a Buddhist – that is a new one on me.”
Buddhists seek The Middle Way.
Jesus said, “I am The Way,” but nobody told this guy.
Japanese often celebrate Christian, Buddhists, and Shinto holidays. I sort of envy them.
Daily Wire refines the claim to being a “Quaker and a Buddhist.”
A Quaker who solicits a murder from his congressman.
Yeah, I’m thinking he must be attending the Meetings over Zoom.
It’s actually been quite common for at least two centuries, among fuzzy-headed new-age type people, to mix Christianity and Buddhism.
And zero-sum economics, jealously of the wealthy, and predicting an ugly French/Haitian style revolution in which the rich are “eaten” (literally or figuratively) is pretty much standard Marxism.
” raymond chandler iii “–wonder if he could be related to the author of the same name
given the impersonal / detached nature of the internet have often wondered what would be the intent / outcome / interpretation of hearing the words of an email spoken to me in person, in real time–believe much of it would leave the sender flat on their ass–believe that is the essence of the internet realm–being able to state / demand / declare things to / of others that one would NEVER state in person for many reasons but mainly due to putting themselves in danger of getting their ass stomped
This silly counter argument being posited harkens back to days when people would argue completely devoid of context.
You have the right to freely swing your arms with open or closed hands in an open space (implicitly, not explicitly, before Milhouse goes nuts). You do not have the right to do that with a trajectory towards someone else’s body or even their property.
The point is that implicit or explicit rights change based on the context of the circumstances.
This is result of all the poison spewing from the mouth of Bernie Sanders and other Marxists.
They’re really communists at heart.
Leave a Comment