Friday, October 5, 2012

Erwin Tells Lies About The Solidarity Singers

This afternoon, Capitol Police Commandant David Erwin was on the air with pseudo-journalist John Mercure on WTMJ-620 AM in Milwaukee.

What I heard nearly floored me.

Erwin was talking to Mercure about his crackdown on the First Amendment and on the Solidarity Singers in the Capitol Building.

The radio station has a report on the interview, but sadly did not include the podcast. I believe they intentionally left it off so that people couldn't hear what the commandant had to say, since it was so obviously out of line.

It was painfully easy to see that the whole thing was a staged attempt to get certain Republican talking points through since they weren't about to give attention to President Barack Obama's event at Madison.

During the brief interview, Commandant Erwin told three big whoppers that would have, if heard in Madison, brought out the largest contingent of Solidarity Singers ever on the next day.

The first whopper was that he has the Solidarity Singers under control. He backed this statement up by claiming that there were only about 60 Singers showing up each day at the Capitol.

Now, I might be wrong about this, but if I remember correctly, the Singers were averaging about a third to half that number until he started to trample on Free Speech with his jackboots. Doubling or tripling the number of people that you're trying to squash is not exactly being in control.

The next doozy was he was trying to make the Capitol accessible to everyone in the state. First of all, the only people that have been trying to make the Capitol inaccessible are the Republicans that are passing these unconstitutional administrative codes. There's never been one incident of a Solidarity Singer trying to forbid any other person from entering the Capitol.

But the real kicker, the one that got me to actually yell at my poor old car radio, was when Mercure asked him, in his best concern troll manner, why the Solidarity Singers just won't go ahead and get a permit.

Erwin said that he did not know why they wouldn't get a permit and "really wished" that he did.

Ryan Wherley
Really? He missed all the signs pointing out the First Amendment's Right to Free Speech? Did he miss all the stuff about Right to Assemble?

Permits? Permits? We don't need your stinkin' permits! We have the Constitution, dammit! That's all the permit we need!

I also noted that not once did they bring up how Erwin is being called out by a growing number of legislators, threatened to arrest an ACLU observer or almost allowed a woman to die.

The part that makes me sick is knowing that their are some people that actually buy into this crap propaganda that they are shoving down our throats.

But the worst are the brownshirts who not only see anything wrong with this but actually support it and want more of it.

40 comments:

  1. They need a permit. It's that simple.

    There is no unlimited right that allows anyone or any group to scream (sing?) in a way that disrupts the general use of the building.

    As hard as it may be for you to understand, some people want to visit the building without hearing the voices of idiots and their stupid songs.

    Frankly, these horrid, screeching buffoons have been using the building for political purposes. Let’s be honest.

    Okay. Go ahead. Do it from time-to-time. But follow the rules. Everyone else does.

    Final challenge to you genius: What do you think would happen to you if you brought a sign into the U.S. Supreme Court building? Answer: Denied access and if brought in surreptitiously; ejected and sign confiscated.

    It’s very well established. The Supreme Court’s grounds rules originally prohibited any sort of sign on any part of the property. They subsequently constricted the rule to allow signs of a specific size within a certain number of feet away from the building but abolished the full prohibition.

    Neither side of a political debate can seize the building for their own purpose. Yet, this is what you claim is right and proper in a society. Of course, you are probably of the belief that the occupy movement is positive and should be mainstream.

    Enough said.

    Time, place and manner allow many things but not disruption or general usurpation which is what the "can’t sing, singers" do.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thank you for your elitist and utterly ignorant comment. I would dare say not everyone does it. In fact, I can guarantee that this policy, which is still illegal no matter how much you try to deny it, is very selectively enforced.

      And if it was an issue, the matter should and would be addressed immediately. Instead, the cops say it's OK and ticket later. They lost the case right there. And so do you.

      Delete
    2. First we were told that Wisconsinites are somehow not worthy of bargaining collectively since the federal government didn't do permit. Now we hear from anon that Wisconsinites do not deserve to practice our constitutional rights because the federal government doesn't allow for signs.

      Do you ever tire of hiding beneath the federal government's umbrella to justify trampling over the rights of your fellow Wisconsinites?

      Delete
    3. Politics??? In the Capitol??? Say it aint so!!!!!!

      Delete
  2. Someone didn't read the Wisconsin Constitution.

    Someone is also a music critic.

    One would almost think it was Mr. IMBR.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. If I can change the oil in my truck without ducking my head, I Must Be a Redneck.

      Delete
    2. I won't ever comment as anom. I'll defend my points of view. I would think their time could be better spent to further their cause, but if they want to sing, let them sing outside.

      Delete
    3. Any other constitutional rights you would like to take away from them since you dont agree with them?

      Delete
    4. All we need is a judge in Waukesha to say its illegal, right?

      Delete
    5. That would be the Walker way.

      Delete
  3. Lying Chief Erwin is a disgrace but that is precisely why he was picked by Governor Jail Bait to lead the Capitol Police and is being groomed to replace Fitz the Senile as head of the State Patrol, provided he continues to crack down on civil liberties like a good little Republican party boot licker.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Whether or not you agree with the permitting process (if you have to ask to petition your government, you don't have free speech btw), the way in which Erwin has gone about this is so wrong. Showing up at people's workplaces, and homes with very expensive tickets. Calling them "terrorists" on the eve of 9/11. Two people were even ticketed in response to filing complaints because they were assaulted during the arrest of the disabled vet by the Cap Police. These are not Walker's Palace Guards, they are there to protect and serve us, and to uphold the constitution. Big FAIL. And if they want the dissenters to go away, they should govern in a less EXTREME way.

    ReplyDelete
  5. If Erwin really wants to know why these citizens won't get a permit and is incapable of reading any of the signs that give reasons, he's welcome to come talk to any of us. Many people have been trying to talk with him since he was first hired back in July, and he refuses to set up meetings -- in fact, the point person at the office people are directed to call to ask questions or set up meetings has yet to respond to anyone in any way.

    And imagine that: political speech in a political forum! People should be aware that unlike many of the other state capitol buildings and federal buildings, the Wisconsin Capitol building was designed to be a public forum (there are marble slabs on ground floor of the rotunda that mark places to stand for good acoustics so that you can be heard better), and it has always been used as a public forum.

    People in Madison are aware of the WTMJ interview, and we're thrilled that Erwin keeps making these public statements. The more he goes out there and lies about what we're doing and how he's having his officers approach the situation, the more ammunition he provides for charges of selective enforcement, infringement of rights, and other bad acts as the court cases go forward.

    --sue

    ReplyDelete
  6. Wow, Some of you can sure twist the facts. To say that one does need permits because you have the constitution makes that person seem uneducated on the matter. The constitution also says you have the right to bear (carry) arms (guns). But in most if not all states you still must aquire a permit to do so. That's not just signing your name to paper, but also involves a 4 hour class (depending on the state) with exams you must pass to get that permit. This brings down your entire argument like a house of cards. This is not a LIE just because you disagree.All states and local governments (county's) are allowed by law to add such stipulations and they often require a local vote by the people to be passed. Sometimes you folks sound like you know what you're talking about, but most comments just seem to be lashing out.

    ReplyDelete
  7. From the National Register of Historic Places:
    "More than any other space in the building, the Rotunda expresses the intended symbolism of the structure. With the Rotunda’s verticality culminating at the Edwin Blashfield painting, 'The Resources of Wisconsin,' the space was intended to be morally uplifting and inspirational in a manner that references the dome’s ecclesiastical origins. Traditionally a symbol of religious expression, late nineteenth century American architects transformed the dome and its interior into one of civic celebration. The soaring rotunda of the Wisconsin State Capitol is designed to induce its citizenry to be, as individuals, among the 'resources of Wisconsin.' Whereas some statehouses are maintained apart from the urban fabric, the Wisconsin Capitol Rotunda functions, both literally and symbolically, as a city center and is fully utilized as a public space to which all have claim."

    If I want to come into the rotunda (which is a public space that was built specifically to encourage civic engagement) and sing songs over my lunch hour, I do not need a permit to do so. Chief Erwin is wrong.

    ReplyDelete
  8. If you didn't know, most towns or cities also require permits for parades, and sadly some even require a permit to set up free food give-aways for the homeless.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Oh, I see now. Any law or city ordinance that YOU don't like is wrong. In this democratic society, when the majority of people feel as you do then it will be voted in as law. Obviously at this time you're in the MINORITY. (if it's not yet politcally incorrect to say that word.) Perhaps your time would be better spent going door to door collecting signatures on a petition, but then you may also find out what the majority thinks.

    ReplyDelete
  10. I'm 250 miles nort ! How are the palm trees doing down there. Did they get the 7 million dollars in damages fixed yet.. Have a good weekend all. The colors "Trees" Are turning fast...

    ReplyDelete
  11. Still no colors but green on the palm trees. I'm sure the hike in our homeowners insurance rates will be wisely spent. Don't envy us down here, what we save on heating cost during winter months is spent on a/c during the summer and rising out of control home insurance rates. Appearently the insurance companies have a constitutional right to rape us!

    ReplyDelete
  12. Correction on 10:33 am comment... To say that one DOESN'T need permits, yada yada

    ReplyDelete
  13. Hike in your homeowners insurance???

    What part of " NO LAW" is unclear to you?? Or did you think the Founders would have been fine with suppressing speech that they disagreed with? maybe we should poll everyone and set rights according to the majority???

    "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech"

    ReplyDelete
  14. Now here's a sad truth that so many can't grasp... Those who won't vote for Obama because he's black are racists yes, and those who vote for him BECAUSE he is black are also racists. There's no room for interpretation here, this is fact. Could BOTH groups be haters?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. And, those who vote white are racist too?

      Your point makes no sense. If I were black and had been put down by slavery for 100s of years, shut out economically, outcast in my own forcefully adopted country ... hell yeah I'd vote for Obama in overwhelming numbers.

      Delete
  15. Obviously you have the constitution at your finger tips Jeff to refer to, and I can see you're trying to make a point I must have missed about "no law" just can't put my finger on it. I will however consider your position without resorting to name callinglike "elitist and utterly ignorant comment" I see you are a contributor, but disrespecting others who are simply sharing an opinion or thought will only cause them to blog elsewhere. I realize overbearing may just be your style or maybe this is more about slaming those who don't share your views or shoving your ideas down someone's throat.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Yes laws and rights are set by the majority all the time, majority of congress, majority of the senate, and the majority vote of the supreme court. Did I miss something??? I.e. There are words and phrases we the people don't have the RIGHT to say anymore, just to scratch the surface.

    ReplyDelete
  17. "abridging the freedom of speech" I believe this is saying no one can say you can't speak your peace, none can say you can't share your view, none can say you don't have a RIGHT to your own opinion. However YOU DON'T have the right to force people to listen to you. All people in this country have the right to walk away if they don't want to hear your view. You can't give your speech on a crowded flight to Paris where all are captive and can't get away if they wanted to. You also don't have a right to block public access into or out of any building.Safety codes and fire codes address this for the safety of all. Again, am I missing something here or is it you?

    ReplyDelete
  18. Now if you want to hear a really ignorant comment... Someone according to this mornings news jumped to the presidents defense claiming the 5,000 foot elevation may be the reason Obama wasn't as sharp as expected during wednesday's debate. God help us all if this nation has a crissis that requires the president to be aloft in Air Force ONE (the jet plane from which a president can run the nation to include launching nuclear missles as defence, or any other military mission. Guess we could govern the plane to stay below 2,000 feet, or simply order the pilot to stay below that altitude. Is 2,000 feet acceptable? If you think education is expensive, try ignorance.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It was Al Gores claim that the elevation could have been a factor! I can't believe global warming wasn't thrown in there somewhere!

      Delete
    2. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BoAmHfdNDQg

      Delete
    3. "God help us all if this nation has a crissis that requires the president to be aloft in Air Force ONE (the jet plane from which a president can run the nation to include launching nuclear missles as defence, or any other military mission. Guess we could govern the plane to stay below 2,000 feet, or simply order the pilot to stay below that altitude. Is 2,000 feet acceptable? If you think education is expensive, try ignorance."

      Why not invent a device that pressurizes the airplane to near sea level air pressure? Be sure to cover remove any screen doors and passenger operable windows first.

      Delete
  19. Yes, planes are pressurized these days aren't they. You got me on that one Anon. You just made me feel sooo stupid. Do you know how hurtfull that was? Stop bulling me. Ha, lol

    ReplyDelete
  20. Correction - bullying, so much for trying to check my own spelling, Not working

    ReplyDelete
  21. 'Almost allowed a woman to die?' No, almost KILLED a woman! She wouldn't have collapsed if 3 or 4 beefy police thugs hadn't thundered down on her, mugged her, huddled around her, and hand-cuffed her. We of the Sing-Along were well aware of her severe cardiac condition. Perhaps the dogs sensed she was the weakest of us and instinctively cut her out.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Also wouldn't have collapsed if she stayed home that day, or if the crowd had dispersed when first asked to by your "police thugs", or if she had years ago followed her dr. advise and got her medical issues under control, or if you people of the sing-along "knowing her condition" didn't put her in harm's way, how responsible was that? If you let your chilren play in traffic don't you bear most if not all the responsibility for that when they get run over? Maybe next sing-along you could all burrow some crutchs and wheel chairs. Then you could claim the "police thugs" beat up a bunch of handicapped people.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Now that sounds like a shakedown expert. "Too bad if something happened to you or your loved ones, capiche?" Then again, this whole things smells like the syndicate anyway, might as well have the enforcers, right?

      Delete
  23. Everything on the planet occurs by "cause and effect". IF you can't see that then there's probably no way you could ever take responsibility for your own actions, you'll ALWAYS be blaming others. As the % of those who won't take that responsibility increases we will then need more enforcers, YES!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Not everything is under one's control either. If you can't see that, you'll continue to make excuses for the boorish behaviors of Erwin and others like him.

      Delete
  24. So glad what I have to say is NOT under YOUR control, and I'll fight to the death to keep it that way.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. What, because maturity and civility is too much to ask?

      Delete
  25. By the way I'm not defending or making excuses for ANYONE. We all have to follow guidlines when speechifying.(even under the guise of singing) We can't coral people (even if they want to be there), can't force people to listen to our plea or opinion. All people in this country have the right to participate and the right to not participate if they so choose. Most all cities have restrictions on where, when, size of group,(so as to not interfere with normal daily business cause then the group may be trampling rights to free interprise)Hence a permit is often needed, sometimes police are added to protect your rights to make your speech.Yes even neo-nazis get that. Need I go on? I bet you know all of this but maybe didn't consider it. There lies the problem. Did the group of singers consider others or did they in their zeal decide its more important to shove their message down the throats of all present. Bet if each took turns singing solo on those spots that amplify a persons voice... what then could they say, no leg for them to stand on right! And taking turns could make it last all day. You might even pay a celebrity or find one sympathetic to your cause to do it free. Then there is the occupacy issue again. No matter how important the message you can't (for safety reasons) block public buildings or otherwise just do as you damn well please. It must not interfere with others. You can invite all or a select few to hear your plea but CANNOT force people to listen. When we are children we may think mom's are meanies for making us wear helmits when riding our bikes,but as adults we now realize it was for our safety. Lets stop thinking like children and look at the big picture.(thats the picture that includes all of us and ALL of our rights. These safety laws and ordinances have existed for decades, even centuries in older cities like Boston. So how can any group blame it on any one person.

    ReplyDelete