MY US ARMY (DOD) Department of Defense Personnel (Hymn)

I have been around the World twice; I’ve talked to everyone once. I’ve seen the whales fuck. I’ve
been to two World fairs. I´ve been to Roatan, Tegucigalpa, Panama, Haiti, Republica Dominicana,
Cayman Islands, Canada, Hawaii, I push more peter sweeter and more completer than any other
peter pusher around. I’m a hard body, heavy chested very shooting parachuting demolition
double cap cramping frog man, There is nothing I can’t do. No sky too high, no sea too rough, no
Mount to tough, put out a lot of lessons in my life. Never shoot a high caliber man with a small
caliber.,Drove lots of trucks and chops, Anything we’re doing is overdoing. moderation is for
cowards, I’m a lover I’m a fighter I’m a DOD personnel of the US Army. I am ready to fly or to
sneak behind the back door of any Ship. So if you’re feeling Froggy then you better jump, because
this frog man It’s been there done that and is coming back for more!
Recent demonstrations of white supremacists in Charlottesville, Va., have raised questions about whether hateful speech and racist comments are protected by the
First Amendment.

The “public expression of ideas may not be prohibited merely because the ideas are themselves
offensive to some of their hearers.”

Hate speech is not protected by the First Amendment. Hate speech is not protected by the First Amendment.

The U.S Supreme Court has made it clear that governments may not restrict speech expressing ideas that offend, most recently in a unanimous 8-0 ruling on June 19,
2017, in Matal v. Tam, known as the “Slants” case.

“Hate speech is not protected by the First Amendment.” But in Matal v. Tam, which protected the trademark of names even though they might offend, the Supreme
Court said, “Speech that demeans on the basis of race, ethnicity, gender, religion, age, disability or any other similar ground is hateful; but the proudest boast of our
free speech jurisprudence is that we protect the freedom to express ‘the thought that we hate.’”

In general, courts have found there is no First Amendment protection to speak fighting words — those words without social value, directed to a specific individual,
which would provoke a reasonable member of the group about whom the words are spoken. But experts say merely offensive or bigoted speech does not rise to that
level. Determining when individual conduct crosses the “offends” line is a legal question that requires examination on a case-by-case basis.

The Ninth Circuit, one of 13 federal circuits, stretches from Alaska down the West Coast to California and other states in the Southwest. Some have called for breaking
up this judicial circuit because of the perception the court leans left in its rulings. Others have argued that the Ninth Circuit covers too large an area, and that judicial
efficiency warrants a breakup. However, only Congress has the authority to break up a judicial circuit.

A U.S. president has broad but not unlimited powers to pardon. For example, a president cannot pardon someone for a state crime. And constitutional experts are
divided on whether a president can pardon him- or herself.

The U.S. Supreme Court affirmed the presidential power to pardon in ex parte Garland, an 1866 case involving a former Confederate senator who had been
pardoned by President Andrew Johnson. In that case, the high court made clear that the pardon power “extends to every offense known to the law, and may be
exercised at any time after its commission, either before legal proceedings are taken or during their pendency, or after conviction and judgment.”

On August 1, 2017, the Justice Department announced plans to investigate and possibly sue universities over affirmative action admissions policies determined to
discriminate against white applicants, according to a New York Times report. Is it constitutional for universities to consider affirmative action in college admissions?