My family has a long history of artists with some saying that there is a history of study under Cezanne in Paris.I began drawing at the tender age of 2 so I could show my parents how I felt when my sister died.
As a child I drew to express my feelings and keep in memory things I did in life. I still have many of my early drawings. all my work until recently has been a natural talent that was self taught. Like most artists, My talents were not appreciated by my teachers who said I had no talent, or my work was primitive. Like a lot of artists, my art was an expression of what I could not put in words. Today they call it “art therapy” .
The art I create mirror the life I see before me and includes beach scenes, places where I grew up, and other subjects that are deeply engrained in my thoughts. I try to represent all that I draw with dignity and respect, Thus the slogan that I use “Art with Heart”.
As any artist, my styles are ever changing, and I continue to paint the world that I see around me, or the images I get from stories I am told by those around me.
It is hoped that people may understand the world that I see from the art I am able to create.
I write you today to petition a complaint about a breaking of the constitutional laws.
I write to you to resolve my complaint that the numerous states have entered into an unconstitutional compact to over throw the constitution in relation to the electoral college.
That the several states have not received congressional approval for this compact in deference to article 1 section 10
“No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.”
While the constitution does not state how a states electors will be instructed to vote, it does state that a state can not enter an agreement with any other state with out the approval of congress.
I am including a link to the bill that was passed by NJ as an example. this is a pdf file. lines 8 – 11 make this an unconstitutional bill.
I am asking you as a federal official to look into this , since this is state(s) that have violated the constitution and as it is across many states it comes under the federal guidelines. I ask that you take a serious look, and to do what may be allowed by law to do.
(personal details for response withheld from public posting)
come on folks, I can’t be the only one that sees the basic falacy of this impeachment inquiry. That the whole of it is based on a lie. what are the original charges? that of Trump did what obama and clinton did to Trump, right? that he used a foreign nation to dig up dirt on a political opponent, right? well that is right where it all falls apart. right at the start.
you see there is one simple fact that everyone overlooks. That of, Biden was not Trumps political opponent. You say what? he was. Nope.one simple fact. BIden was and is, only one of many in the democratic party seeking the democratic nomination to run for President. He is not a challenger for the position of president. he is only a challenger for the chance to be the challenger. Once the challenger is picked then and only then would that person be Trumps political opponent.
So there you have it, the inquiry and it’s charges are based on a false premise and therefore should be thrown out.
I am not the greatest writer so bear with me.
when you thank a vet and they shrink and shyly say your welcome, do not think it is you or that they have heard it too many times. It is not that. for some of us it is a feeling that we don’t deserve the praise you are giving us. some of us were peace time and did little more than our job, some in the states , some overseas. we feel that we did nothing spectacular. yes we signed the check, took the oath (which some of us still feel bound to), but feel we did so little for the country. It is not that our jobs weren’t needed or anything. But we feel we did nothing extraordinary. nothing special.
Then there were the men and women that did do that which deserves the thanks and did so much more than what you can imagine, that they want to forget the burden on their hearts. this is one of those tuff days as we remember our brothers and sisters many of whom never made it back.
So when you see us quietly say your welcome, it is not you, it is us. we have many reasons that we shyly say those 2 words and don’t want to take those gifts like free meals that you offer(that we do thank you for).
As I sit here thinking(again), I have come to the conclusion that a lot of manufacturers are in trouble. This ruling is a dangerous precedent. It says that a company that makes something is liable for the misuse by the user. In this case you have a company that make opiods, they are distributed by a pharmacy upon receipt of a prescription from a doctor. The manufacturer has labeled it properly, put on the proper warnings, taught the doctors its use, and made sure the product is pure and not faulty.
To say the maker of the product is now responsible for the improper use of its product by the user, distributor or other intermediatary is troubling. This now leaves other companies open to the same problem.
example, You run your car into a wall. there is nothing wrong with the car, the car maker has done everything right. But now, it leaves it open for you to sue the car maker for supplying you the car. This is the level that this ruling opens up. Do we want that level of idiocy? That simply because we used something wrong, Now the company that did everything right, Is suddenly to blame?
So to say this is a good ruling by the Oklahoma courts is a lie. This ruling will lead to much more trouble in the future, Unless overturned on appeal.
I was sitting here thinking, and yes that is never a good thing, and came to a small realization. Yes I know others have spoken about it, but maybe it is time to remind others. This small idea was simple, that of every time someone(mostly from the left) wants to force something that we find abhorrent down our throats, they make it so that it is now somehow immoral to talk against it. One of the latest cases are making it so the alphabet groups are somehow the norm and moral, and now we are seeing the same thing happening with a group that almost 20 years ago we all said we would defeat. We are seeing it everytime a politician makes a statement against a group such as hammas or cair or anyone of the other radical muslim groups. All of a sudden, they are now a phiriah and must be forced out of their jobs, all because they spoke out in a public forum against one of these “protected” groups.
I don’t know when this became a tactic that has such wide spread use. But, WE must stop it. It does not make the whole better, all it does is drag us down. We still , for the time being, have the right to say what we want, about what we want(mostly) as long as we are not calling for the harm of others. What ever happened to people being able to disagree but still understand why the other guy had that opinion. The tactics being used, do nothing but silence a group, and bring about a change that the majority does not want. Are we still under the constitution of the US, or have we come under the shell of some global group intent on destroying us?
I may not agree with that which you say at the top of your lungs, BUT, I will defend your right to say that which is wholey against my beliefs.
I am charging the judiciary with over stepping their article 3 rights into article 1 items. I have seen where the judiciary has, where congress can not, created laws that are against the constitution. How is this happening? Simple, They get a case, judge it, then that judgment is used in all future cases as fact and standard. Yes this is called precedence gone amok. Instead they should look at precedent as it is, someone else’s decision, a guide, not law.
If for example, You have a case that says you can not have a cross in a senate chamber, they decide that is true based on the 1st. they have just created a law that says freedom FROM religion. when in fact that law says that congress can not ESTABLISH a national religion, nor can they deny religion to those that want it. Thus creating a LAW that says from now on you can not do that, no matter the legal argument later on, it just gets denied based on that precedent. they wont even look at it. thus bypassing congress and invoking article 2 powers, (congress makes the laws, the judicial enforces them) and bypassing congress.
This is totally unconstitutional.
Precedents should be used as to the manner they were prescribed. That is, as a guide, not fact. To do otherwise would be to make the judiciary greater than congress or the President.
There are days that I sit here and let my mind wander. This is one of those. Some days those thoughts turn dark and deadly some days not. Whether this is one of those days or not I have no clue. But the thought did come to mind and upon this page will I write it.
The thought came to my mind at this point, as to whether were not we can trust Muslims. we have been told that they are a religion of peace and all. but then there is this. If you are a follower of the prophet you are told that you can lie to the non believer. that you are supposed to convert everyone. that the non believer is worth less than a pig.
so there is that. how are we to trust anything said by a muslim when they are told to lie to us. can we trust that they say they are peaceful? can we trust that they can follow the constitution? I don’t know. and if they say they are not a radical, how are we to know they aren’t?
I am not saying that I hate all muslims. I dislike those that have done wrong. but how do I trust even in the slightest with their good book saying to lie to the non believers?
I had what may be a radical thought, this thought came around when I was thinking about the Second Amendment and the Federalist papers. Going back to constitutional originality and what our framers were actually thinking when they made the laws, I came up with a thought for a law that I know will never happen.
“We the people, in conjunction with United States Congress, and the President of the United States, enact the following law into the Federal Register.
In the following of the Constitution and the reasoning behind the Second Amendment, do ordain that in order to be prepared for a state or national emergency and the possibility of the unorganized militia being so conscripted into service of either the state or the federal government order that no person that could be so conscripted shall be denied the purchase of any weaponry that could be used in defense of the state or the nation.
That this law will make any state law invalid and override any future state law. This law does not require any individual to purchase such weapons.”
How about that for a law that will never get past anybody? ROFL