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?
The National Popular Vote Interstate Compact (NPVIC) is an agreement among a group of U.S. states and the District of Columbia to award all their electoral votes to whichever presidential candidate wins the overall popular vote in the 50 states and the District of Columbia. The compact is designed to ensure that the candidate who wins the most popular votes is elected president, and it would come into effect only when it would guarantee that outcome. As of February 2019, it has been adopted by eleven states and the District of Columbia. Together, they have 172 electoral votes, which is 32.0% of the Electoral College and 63.7% of the 270 votes needed to give the compact legal force.
By awarding the votes based on who ever gets more nationally this compact would virtually eliminate the electoral college. And allow 6 states to elect the President.
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
Like so many others, I watched the president address the nation on the border wall problem. Then I also watched the Democratic response. then I watched all the news channels and their attempt at fact checking. I have also been following like most, a all the drama that has been going. I come away with the following observations ;
after the president’s speech I have seen from most of the mainstream media an attempt to fact check and put down what he has said ,but all their efforts show that his data was accurate . the best that they could do was to try and qualify the data to show his error if any .
One of their biggest attempts was to say that the drug seizures were all at border checkpoints . well , DUHHHH. Tat is where most of the enforcement is concentrated . there is no way of telling how many cross the border in unprotected areas and the counts are only from those areas that are protected .
Then in their after the address speech Chuck and Nancy could only come up with their same old tired talking points . orange man bad, orange man lie, wall immoral, wall ineffective , just the same old same old. they attempted to convince the American public that Mr. Trump had provided him with no details . when in actuality had provided them with a complete plan , drawn up incooperation with the people involved , law enforcement, DHS ,. .. .
So what did we see last night? we saw from the president a request to protect the border and open up the government .we saw the president saythat the wall is only part of the solution. this solution includes more of everything. more technology ,more border patrol personnel, more facilities. Everything the Democrats want. we also saw , from the Democratic leadership the constant resist and we will not do anything you want even though it helps the nation , routine.
Do not be surprised if all you see today for the news stations is an attempt tear down anything Mr. trump had said . you’ll also see lots of stories of how it is affecting the workers , avoiding any mention of the issues attempting to be dealt with . with Chuckies call for the president to open up the government and we will take care of border security later , we see that if that course is taken , border security will never get taken care. it will just be shoved off to the side and never acted on .
here we go again. ya’ll think that Mexico will directly pay for it???? ya’ll r dum (lol) do you understand finances? here is how it goes, you want to buy a house, naturally you dont have the cash for it, so you go to a bank to finance it, then you pay the bank back(plus intererst) and the house becomes yours. Or you want that great stereo thats on sale , but dont have the money, you use your visa card that you pay back. that is kinda how this goes. we will finance the “wall”, Mexico will pay with tarifs, and fees, and by the numbers that are stopped that dont make it in that cost us a lot. that is how they will pay for the wall. not to mention the jobs that will come back here due to tarrifs
Yes, here is another of those, saw a post and wanted to see something and found out another, posts from me.
Was looking thru the US Constitution again, and found something kinda funny. I will post the relevant articles below, but for now here is a weird thing.
Did you know that the Constitution says that representatives will be apportioned based on the number of whole persons(have to check on the meaning of that later) and that if any man is found to be able to not vote due to crimes and such, the apportionment will be decreased by that number of men not able to vote.
Note it says any man not woman, even the 19th only says that women can vote not that they are counted for representation. I have checked everything that I could and found nothing that gives any change in status for counting representation. So you can have 25k men incarcerated and that would change the number of representatives, but having 1 million women in jail would change nothing.
Here is the 14th amendment (replacing text from earlier in the Constitution)
2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice-President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.
and now the 19th
The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.
I have been reading a lot of stuff here, and one thing that I can not seem to get my mind around is why are we and the media so outraged over Mr Kashoggi’s killing? The MSM is trying to make it like he was a US citizen, from what I have seen, he at best had a visa for the US.
Next we have the fact that Turkey is the one that gave us the info. How much do we trust Turkey? They gave up audio recordings from inside the embassy? What country gives up the fact that they are bugging a foreign embassy? The Video shows him going in the embassy. ok that’s normal stuff, all countries monitor the outside of embassies. I mean how many cameras are out there anyway?.
Then they say they had proof that Kashoggi was murdered, dismembered, and disposed of?
Now we are to be all aghast and take measures that would bring us to war? Over a Non-citizen that the only proof is from Turkey? And to top it off there has been no real independent proof that I know of(ok cia had a report but can we trust them?).
So why do we need to be this outraged? That we would dump our relationship with a country and call for an overthrow of a foreign govt?
What is the end game here? What is the gain for Turkey by promoting this? I think it is time we take a minute, Think, stop reacting emotionally, and try to see the end game and maybe some truth?
Can anyone provide any proof, or truth as to why we need to be so outraged over this supposed action by the Saudi’s? This whole thing just doe not sound right.
posters are getting the message all wrong. the message isn’t that if your are assaulted you have no recourse. its more a message that if you are assaulted report it immediatly, if not to the cops , to your parents. It may still be a he said / she said. but it will be much more credible. The message is not to wait 30 years to report what you can’t remember right, but to report it immediatly when you remember every detail.
If it is reported it they will be able to collect evidence that is essential in this kind of case. DNA is very important if raped or assaulted. This is the positive message that needs to get out there. No one is subject to violating your body in this manner or any other.
Please ladies, Do not make an assault on your person to be an embarrassment or shame. You were attacked and did not deserve it. On the other hand, Please do not bear false witness to destroy a man, as it only does wrong to all the other women out there that have actually been harmed.