Quote:[i]Editor’s note: The man talking to the choir director was one of the guides who was told by the Capitol police to walk over and stop the choir immediately.
[/i]

In a shocking turn of events, the Rushingbrook Children’s Choir was interrupted and stopped while singing the National Anthem in Statuary Hall at the United States Capitol.

The children, part of the esteemed Rushingbrook Children’s Choir, had traveled to Washington, D.C. last Friday, May 26th, for a scheduled Capitol tour and had received prior approval to sing a short set of patriotic songs inside the historic Statuary Hall.

However, as their angelic voices filled the grand hall while they sang [i]The Star-Spangled Banner [/i]with pride, one of the guides intervened, as he was told by the Capitol police that the children stop singing immediately. The abrupt interruption stunned the young performers, the choir director, and the assembled audience.

The Capitol Police did not allow the young children to finish the song and sought to explain to the choir director that singing the national anthem at the nation’s Capitol is considered a form of demonstration and/or might offend someone.

Quote:In a swift response to an unfortunate incident, House Speaker Kevin McCarthy has extended an invitation to Rushingbrook Children’s Choir that was stopped midway through their performance while singing the National Anthem at the U.S. Capitol. Expressing his disappointment, McCarthy condemned the interruption and declared it “unacceptable.”


The Gateway Pundit was first to report on Friday that the Rushingbrook Children’s Choir was stopped while singing the National Anthem in Statuary Hall at the United States Capitol last Friday, May 26th.

The Capitol Police did not allow the young children to finish the song and sought to explain to the choir director that singing the national anthem at the nation’s Capitol is considered a form of demonstration and/or might offend someone.

(06-03-2023, 01:14 AM)quintessentone Wrote: Everyone can decide for themselves if that song would offend someone. At the link just click on the highlighted text for an historical explanation of the wording.

https://www.cnn.com/interactive/2018/07/us/national-anthem-annotated/

(06-03-2023, 07:13 AM)Ninurta Wrote:

(06-03-2023, 01:14 AM)quintessentone Wrote: Everyone can decide for themselves if that song would offend someone. At the link just click on the highlighted text for an historical explanation of the wording.

https://www.cnn.com/interactive/2018/07/us/national-anthem-annotated/

I read through it, including the parts removed from the national anthem, and could find nothing offensive in it. But then again, I'm rarely ever offended by historical facts, especially when viewed in light of current realities.

There is something seriously askew in a world where a nation's national anthem is banned from being performed in that nation's capitol.

Who's really running this place?

.

(06-03-2023, 08:19 AM)NightskyeB4Dawn Wrote:

(06-03-2023, 07:13 AM)Ninurta Wrote:

(06-03-2023, 01:14 AM)quintessentone Wrote: Everyone can decide for themselves if that song would offend someone. At the link just click on the highlighted text for an historical explanation of the wording.

https://www.cnn.com/interactive/2018/07/us/national-anthem-annotated/

I read through it, including the parts removed from the national anthem, and could find nothing offensive in it. But then again, I'm rarely ever offended by historical facts, especially when viewed in light of current realities.

There is something seriously askew in a world where a nation's national anthem is banned from being performed in that nation's capitol.

Who's really running this place?

.

All is well because nobody is buying Bud Light.

Damn shame that folk can boycott a beer company that the majority of the people don't drink anyway, and can be substituted without a blip or a thought, but when it comes to standing up for what really matters.......

Not even crickets.

(06-03-2023, 01:55 PM)NightskyeB4Dawn Wrote: That is because they can change the rules in a blink of an eye.

The only rule that seems to be in place, is that if I don't agree with you then you can be cancelled.

(06-03-2023, 01:59 PM)quintessentone Wrote: Well, the police seemed to interpret the song as a demonstration. Then the question becomes do capital police use their own discretion as to what they deem a demonstration, or are they really following a rule book or interpreting the rule book correctly?

(06-03-2023, 02:07 PM)NightskyeB4Dawn Wrote:

(06-03-2023, 01:59 PM)quintessentone Wrote: Well, the police seemed to interpret the song as a demonstration. Then the question becomes do capital police use their own discretion as to what they deem a demonstration, or are they really following a rule book or interpreting the rule book correctly?

I think that is the main question in every courtroom where there is a case of unlawful authority being determined.

There seems to be a serious uptick in those cases, by the way.

(06-03-2023, 01:21 PM)quintessentone Wrote: I'm not sure what went on with that fiasco at the capital rotunda. The choir's leader states he obtained documents allowing the children to sing five songs, but the police there say the rules state that no singing is allowed. Maybe just a big misunderstanding but everyone including myself are totally confused as to what the rules really are and in government, in my experience, nobody knows what anyone else is doing.

Or, they make it *look like* nobody knows what anyone else is doing on purpose as part of the strategy   They ALWAYS have more than one glove that doesn't fit 

(06-03-2023, 01:59 PM)quintessentone Wrote:

(06-03-2023, 01:55 PM)NightskyeB4Dawn Wrote: That is because they can change the rules in a blink of an eye.

The only rule that seems to be in place, is that if I don't agree with you then you can be cancelled.

Well, the police seemed to interpret the song as a demonstration. Then the question becomes do capital police use their own discretion as to what they deem a demonstration, or are they really following a rule book or interpreting the rule book correctly?

Here are the guest guidelines and it states that it is a courtesy to be quiet as people are working there.

https://www.visitthecapitol.gov/visit/know-before-you-go/capitol-etiquette

Or, somebody higher up got *paid* to "interpret" a specific way, and even had legal advice to make it easier to "interpret". 

(06-03-2023, 02:17 PM)quintessentone Wrote: Well, there is confusion on both sides with this situation.  All I can see with guest guidelines is please be quiet as people are working in that building. So it stands to reason that singing would not be allowed no matter the song because it would disrupt the people who are working there.

But reports say they had a permit. Why would a permit be issued ?