Most of the rest of the Wikipedia page lists how the Federal Government has supported and strengthened interstate travel rights. Here are some other quotes from further down the page:

"The U.S. Supreme Court in Crandall v. Nevada, 73 U.S. 35 (1868) declared that freedom of movement is a fundamental right and therefore a state cannot inhibit people from leaving the state by taxing them. In United States v. Wheeler. 254 U.S. 281 (1920), the Supreme Court reiterated its position that the Constitution did not grant the federal government the power to protect freedom of movement. However, Wheeler... was the first to locate the right to travel in the privileges and immunities clause, providing the right with a specific guarantee of constitutional protection.[8] By reasoning that the clause derived from Article IV of the Articles of Confederation, the decision suggested a narrower set of rights than those enumerated in Corfield, but also more clearly defined those rights as absolutely fundamental.[9] The Supreme Court began rejecting Wheeler's reasoning within a few years. Finally, in United States v. Guest, 383 U.S. 745 (1966), the Supreme Court overruled Chief Justice White's conclusion that the federal government could protect the right to travel only against state infringement.[2][3][10]"

and

"The U.S. Supreme Court also dealt with the right to travel in the case of Saenz v. Roe, 526 U.S. 489 (1999). In that case, Justice John Paul Stevens, writing for the majority, held that the United States Constitution protected three separate aspects of the right to travel among the states:

(1) the right to enter one state and leave another (an inherent right with historical support from the Articles of Confederation)..."

and

"A strong right to freedom of movement may yet have even farther-reaching implications. The Supreme Court has acknowledged that freedom of movement is closely related to freedom of association and to freedom of expression. Strong constitutional protection for the right to travel may have significant implications for state attempts to limit abortion rights, ban or refuse to recognize same-sex marriage, and enact anti-crime or consumer protection laws. It may even undermine current court-fashioned concepts of federalism.[15][16][17][18][19]"

----

All emphasis is mine, and God knows this SCOTUS wants to bring the country back to a pre-Civil War society. But that doesn't mean that there isn't a boatload of historical Constitutional and SCOTUS support FOR free and unfettered freedom of movement.

*Edited for dumb typos.

people about racism, to little effect (systemically speaking). It's a HUGE emotional burden for oppressed people to be told that they are the ones who have to "overcome" racism, teach white people about racism (in a non-confrontational way), and fight for justice and equality. Black individuals are assumed to represent all Black people in mostly white environments. It take a huge psychological toll. White people can listen to/read the Black/brown/Asian/Indigenous people who want to speak of their experiences and share information with white people, but not all Black folk need to fight racism out front because the emotional burden is so strong just for them to survive in this culture. However, most white people need to step up and understand WE created the problem, and WE need to step up with solutions.

Solution #1: Educate other white people as to why we shouldn't demand Black people fix us.

If you watched it, you'd see it has both liberal and conservative talking points (though the liberal ones are 20+ years old), and doesn't mention either party. The problem is white people across the political spectrum who refuse/are unable to to understand that racism is a problem for Black folks but it's a white people's problem.

TFG's refusal to participate in the peaceful transfer of power. But never forget: Trump endorsed him in 2018, and he won, in part, by campaigning with white supremacists. Very grateful for his service now, but he helped grow the beast*.






* Not a reference to TFG's vehicle.

I don't know the particulars of this incident aside from this post, but let me just note that this happened at a public library. The PBs could not legally be kept from entering the building. Thus, a cop entering with them and escorting them through the library was appropriate to keep escalation at bay.

I am an ACAB kind of gal, but honestly, if they'd been barred from the building before entering and creating a disturbance, they could sue the town. So I'm not happy that PBs were disrupting story time, and I'd prefer it if police never had to enter a public library. But in this case, it seems like someone at the library (not necessarily a library worker) doesn't understand what PUBLIC means.

'aks' and 'liberry.' It used to bug me, but one day I read something that was like, "Do you understand what's being said? Because that's what language is supposed to convey: understanding." After that, I don't care how anyone pronounces anything, as long as I can understand what they're saying. I still mess up but I'm working on it!

Put another way, I'm trying to shift focus onto whoever is speaking to me, to understand what they are saying rather than making it all about my discomfort with the way others express themselves.

Edited to add: the dialect is more pronounced in the Black population here, but the local white kids often speak it, too.

The majority of the Capitol’s 658 single-pane windows were quietly upgraded during a 2017-19 renovation of the historic building. The original wooden frames and glass were covered with a second metal frame containing bomb-resistant glass.

But planners skipped about a dozen ground-floor windows, including some located in doors, because they were deemed to be low risk in the event of implosion, largely due to their discreet or shielded location, or because the building couldn’t structurally handle the load of the heavier frames.

Emphasis mine to note that these renovations happened on Trump's watch.

The point here isn't that he he may or may not be a gun nut, it's that he recognizes that being a gun nut or anti-gun doesn't matter in God's eyes, so it shouldn't be a matter in evangelicalism. He recognizes Jesus never said dick about guns. He understands the difference between living a Christian life and living an American life is also very complicated, as they have to be held in tension with each other when they diverge. Faith is something for congregants to grapple with, not weaponize or politicize.

Not to mention, many, many Democrats and liberal Christians own guns. I'm not one of them but I 100% support this pastor for drawing boundaries and speaking truth.

After many quotes about local police inaction, they write

Danny Ruiz, whose great-niece died in the attack, said he arrived at the school after hearing gunfire and felt grateful for the police response.
“The Border Patrol agent who took him out, to me, that guy is a hero,” said Mr. Ruiz, 51.

Border Patrol arrived an hour after the first 911 call and finished what the local cops didn’t even start.

web site to archive pages, via the Wayback Machine. Good to have both sources; if it’s not at one, it might be at the other.

https://web.archive.org/