Regarding Lydia De La Rocha's letter claiming to be "offended" by a homeowner who maintains a changing political sign in front of his house across from the Browns Valley Road/West 1st Street fire station...hasn't De La Rocha ever heard of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution? Contrary to what she may believe, the sign's owner has every right to express his political opinions in public. And I don't care if she is in the least "offended." Grow a thicker hide, De La Rocha.
Currently, the sign disputes the Democrat Party line regarding the events of Jan. 6, 2021 at the U.S. Capitol Building. While the video footage presented by Tucker Carlson earlier this month is all but conclusive regarding whether there was an "insurrection" or not on that day, Carlson's videos — along with other circumstantial evidence such as a video of the Q/Anon Shaman telling people to go home after a Trump tweet urging the same thing (and many other things) — puts a lot of shade over the Democrats/Uniparty claims.
People are also reading…
Another thing; if there was video evidence that the "mob" vandalized and sacked the inside of the building (besides some broken windows), I am sure those pushing the standard Jan. 6 narrative would have used such video in abundance. But apparently no such videos.
Indeed, after Carlson's revelations, only unapologetic Democrat partisans and others suffering from "Trump Derangement Syndrome" would fail to understand the evidence of their own eyes.
Michael Setty
Napa
Editor's Note: De La Rocha acknowledged the owner of the sign had free speech (aka First Amendment) rights, but strongly disagreed with its messaging. Tucker Carlson has been roundly criticized on the right and left for intentionally leaving out key parts of the insurrection in his reporting. In fact, Carlson lied about what he knew and has intentionally spread falsehoods.
