Hope you all had a great Thanksgiving. I did! Bit of family around and a great turkey dinner. Always my favorite holiday.
Given that Pudding Brain emerged to take credit for it, I can only assume the so-called “ceasefire” in Gaza was something that his people orchestrated in order to try to spin a win for the Geezer in Chief. Israel probably knuckled under to it for fear of overly angering Biden people and thus putting at risk any aid they need. Other than that, Hamas violated the ceasefire within minutes of it taking place and from what I can tell didn’t even release as many hostages as agreed.
To be fair, there could be lots of complications on that part – the various factions that make up Hamas (all Muslim political groupings are made up of various factions based on ideology/theology/clan/tribe/etc) won’t want to give up their prisoners in general because if Group A gives up the, say, ten they’ve got then when a later settlement is made they get nothing. No bargaining chips, you see? And that is both vis a vis the Israelis as well as competing factions. It might also be they don’t know how many they have – the Israelis have a pretty good idea on the number of people unaccounted for but how many of them survived from 10/7 until today is a complete mystery. Almost certainly some people brought back captives have been murdered after various brutalities were visited upon them (Muslim military forces do not obey the Geneva Convention. Ever. They consider doing such as a sign of weakness). In the chaos of battle it might be that those turned over were all Hamas, as an entity, could get hold of at the moment.
Main thing is that its a mess and if Pudding Brain’s people were thinking we’d be grateful when not a single American captive was released then they’re dumber than we think. And this was a huge mistake which will just make a quick and successful termination of the war more difficult. As I said on 10/7: assume the hostages are dead. If you get any back, bonus; but don’t do anything based upon the idea of getting them back. They were taken precisely to give Hamas a bargaining chip. Tell Hamas that they have no chips while you continue to hammer then and eventually they’ll start giving them up just to not get killed.
So, you’re wondering, “just what sort of people are these Palestinians?”. Well, they just hung from a lamppost (as it were) two Palestinians who were accused of collaboration. Trial? Proof? ROFL. Savages, at most, have some mockery of a trial…these poor bastards probably just offended the local equivalent of a Mafia Don and got zapped. They’re barbarians. They are not people who we as civilized people need to respect. They are to be ordered to obey and punished if they don’t. It takes centuries to turn savages into civilized people – and for all the European colonialism of the past, it didn’t last nearly long enough to get these people to behave decently.
Does that sound harsh? Well, too bad. It is the way the world works. We’ve tolerated barbarianism for 60 years and all we’ve got it more barbarism. It is time for civilized people to put an end to this.
Blogs For Victory 
I’d say the world has tolerated barbarianism since the beginning of time. In fact, I think barbarianism is the norm, and civilizations are the exception. From Atila, to the Mongols, to the Centurions, to Piracy, to Pol Pot, to Hitler, to …. etc. Civil people fondness for life is their weakness, and understandable, but the only way to fight barbarians, is to become more barbaric.
The stabbing of Derek Chauvin was a hit. That story is starting to unravel, and they can not allow that. If Derek dies, the whole thing goes away. That’s how corrupt your government is.
I wonder what the Chauvin jury thinks now—are they thinking “Good, the SOB deserves it and I’m glad I voted to convict” or is it “Now that some other stuff has come out and I’ve had time to think about it I wonder if I made the right decision and now I might be responsible for him being killed”. Sadly, I think his jury was composed of barbarians so steeped in racial hatred that they are immune to objective truth.
So much of the black community is like the battered wife—she is beaten bloody, might even have called the cops herself, but then attacks the police who try to arrest the guy who nearly killed her. It’s harder and harder to keep trying to protect people who hate you for protecting them if it means restraining the people who are hurting them.
It is absolutely essential that we stop allowing omnibus bills. And we need to demand that our representatives in Congress, in both houses, have to sign affidavits that they have read the legislation they are voting on.
A perfect example is the Kill Switch law that was buried in another bill.
Take a closer look at the Infrastructure bill they jammed through, specifically Section 24220. This mandates installation of equipment to listen to in-car noises and conversation, monitor eyes, and “kill switches” to automatically turn off your car. It states that all new cars in the United States will be required to install these kill switches by 2026. This section was passed allegedly to stop drunk drivers, but the law is very broad. The concern is that it may lead to government abuse of privacy, especially as the government wants more and more control over your car.
House Republicans failed to defund a federal “kill switch” mandate Tuesday night requiring all vehicles produced in 2026 and onward to feature technology that can automatically disable the vehicle “if impairment is detected.” This lays the groundwork for corporate and government access to monitor and interfere with personal movement.
By a vote of 229 to 201, the lower chamber rejected an amendment proposed by Kentucky Republican Rep. Thomas Massie to defund the mandate embedded in the 2021 Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act. Massie’s measure received 210 “no” votes from Democrats and 19 from Republicans. Just two Democrats supported the amendment and 199 Republicans voted for it. Eight members did not participate in the late-night vote.
Rep. Massie stated on X, “During debate last night on my amendment to defund the 2026 kill-switch mandate for cars, some Democrats claimed the technology wouldn’t monitor or disable cars.” He even read the actual law on the house floor. Has anyone else actually read this before voting for this clause – obvious not!
The 2021 infrastructure law passed by Congress requires car manufactures to include “advanced drunk and impaired driving prevention technology” as “standard equipment” in vehicles. The provision requires such technology to “passively monitor the performance of a driver” and “prevent or limit motor vehicle operation if an impairment is detected.” In other words, manufacturers will be required to implement a “kill switch” mechanism on cars that can disable the vehicle based on performance.
The fact checkers say it’s no big deal and only about drunk driving — but this is far from true. This isn’t a breathalyzer. Thirty-one states already have ignition interlock devices where if you have been convicted of a DUI, you have to blow through that in order to start your car.
This bill also has the ability, it says, to require car manufacturers to somehow passively monitor the air in the car to see if you have been drinking. The problem with that is, what if you are the designated driver and you are trying to get somebody home who has had too much to drink? There is so many ways this could go wrong. It’s basically a backseat driver and nanny.
Massie noted that even Democratic Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York, one of the most liberal members in the House, voted to remove the provision.
As the article states, even a sudden swerve to avoid an obstacle or animal in the road could be interpreted as proof of “impairment”. And why should anyone be able to monitor conversations in our “private” vehicles?
If only we had a real opposition party vs the Uni party we are currently stuck with, they might have sounded the alarm and prevented this. But I guess they’ve been busy “saving democracy” in Ukraine.
Which Republicans voted against the amendment? (FYI that means voting to keep the Kill Switch in place, AKA putting Big Brother in charge of where and when we can drive while listening in to our conversations in our cars)
Rep. Gus Bilirakis (R-FL)
Rep. Mike Carey (R-OH)
Rep. Brian Fitzpatrick (R-PA)
Rep. Chuck Fleischmann (R-TN)
Rep. Andrew Garbarino (R-NY)
Rep. Mike Garcia (R-CA)
Rep. Garret Graves (R-LA)
Rep. John Joyce (R-PA)
Rep. Thomas Kean Jr. (R-NJ)
Rep. Kevin Kiley (R-CA)
Rep. Young Kim (R-CA)
Rep. David Kustoff (R-TN)
Rep. Mike Lawler (R-NY)
Rep. Nancy Mace (R-SC)
Rep. Michael McCaul (R-TX)
Rep. Zach Nunn (R-IA)
Rep. Maria Elvira Salazar (R-FL)
Rep. Chris Smith (R-NJ)
Rep. Glenn Thompson (R-PA)
I wonder if any of them will be challenged to defend this during the election cycle. And WTH is wrong with Nancy Mace? At least Ken Buck voted for it.
This is just another conspiracy theory that came true. So far, I think conservatives are 42-0 in conspiracy theories. When EV’s first came out, my thought along with others, was that this was just another government control program, to which of course we were laughed at … well??? I wonder how far I will be able to drive after voting for Trump lol.
Remember when Trump capped insulin prices for seniors at $35, only to have that achievement overturned by Biden, who then did the same thing and took credit for it??? I do.
Remember when Jared Kushner and Trump were negotiating peace in the ME and making progress on what is called the Abraham Accords normalizing relationships with Arab countries and Israel? Well the complete piece of shit who stains the White House, is trying to take credit for that too …
President Joe Biden said Friday that his own diplomacy may have pushed the terrorist organization Hamas to launch its brutal Oct. 7 attack on Israel which resulted in the raping, kidnapping and murdering of Israeli civilians.
I guess there is a certain balance here—they accuse us of doing what they do and then take credit for what we do.
LOL … they’re good at what they do, it’s just that what they do is so self serving.
I ran into some opposition a year or so ago when I said I thought the pendulum had started to swing back to sanity. I didn’t say it HAD, just that there was enough movement in that direction to make me hopeful. Now it looks as if I might be right.
Any suggestion that we should return to when there was an immigration requirement and when transgender was a private decision not celebrated on a beer can, and we understood that Mother Nature had cycles all by herself and warming periods marked the rise in civilization and cold periods population declines and nations contracted, that is no longer middle ground; it is ‘far-right‘.
ArmstrongEconomics’ Martin Armstrong concludes, “never in all my years have I ever witnessed the mainstream media so FAR LEFT that they are destroying the very foundation of civilization, and they do not care. The position MUST be their view, and anything to the contrary is evil. This is NOT a free society, nor is this how civilizations are maintained. When you divide the nation in such a manner and impose your will by sheer dictatorship, the end is near.”
Whatever “end” it will be, it is near. America is on a completely unsustainable path. The Democrat agenda is built on lies, and the party is factionalized to a point, they are starting to turn on each other. Tucker said the other day that the next 12 months will be something like you’ve never seen before and I think he’s right.
Whatever “end” it will be, it is near. America is on a completely unsustainable path.
Irony of ironies – the people responsible are all about “sustainability.
Democrats have created an entire generation of weaponized students and they can not control them any longer … current conditions in America are unsustainable.
‘I was shaken to my core:’ Jewish teacher is forced to HIDE in her classroom at Queens high school as ‘radicalized’ students rampage through hallways while demanding she is fired for attending pro-Israel rally
Ballot fraud is real, they did steal the 2020 election, and this is why Trump leads by double digits. Americans are seeing what happened and want to exonerate Trump and put him back in the Oval Office.
Also, another complaint for Fulton County was filed that specifically called out 3125 duplicate ballot counts and 17,852 votes counted that do not have a corresponding ballot image. This complaint resulted in the creation of investigation SEB2023-25. This investigation is complete and the results of this investigation will be presented to the SEB on December 19, 2023. This complaint has been categorized by the Board as “violations found.”
And by the way, there is an open inquiry before the Georgia SEB (SEBBI2023-001), regarding Election Code Violations committed by the SOS.
Yesterday, we reported that the SOS’s office lied about the accuracy of the recounts in Georgia.
Today we will show that with their backs to the wall the SOS’s office, the AG’s office, and the Georgia SEB worked and continue to work to this day to exonerate the SOS of any responsibility for these numerous errors and violations.
[Remember that the 2020 results were certified for Biden three days after the election after he overcame President Trump’s 200,000 vote lead on election night to steal the election by less than 12,000 votes in Georgia. – See The Steal – Volume II: The Impossible Occurs for more information.
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2023/11/breaking-exclusive-part-iii-errors-lie-cover-up/
I have looked, many times and in many places, for law concerning the legal responsibility of “certifying” vote counts proven to be substantially inaccurate, and can’t find anything, Everything I find is about electors. It seems to me that the most important laws of all would be about counting the votes and only “certifying” vote counts that are shown to be substantially accurate, yet the federal laws I have found don’t even address that.
What I did find was that the blame for accepting fraudulent votes might originate in states, where partisan Secretaries of State and/or legislatures know the vote counts are fraudulent due to illegal changes in voting laws, etc. but still “certify” they on behalf of the state, but that when it came down to accepting the certification it was Congress that accepted the certification.
Two objections were made at the 2021 United States Electoral College vote count. On January 6, 2021, an objection was made to Arizona’s electoral votes by Representative Paul Gosar and Senator Ted Cruz, and on January 7, an objection was made to Pennsylvania’s electoral votes by Representative Scott Perry and Senator Joshua Hawley. But even here the question of the actual vote count is not addressed and without the actual text of the objections there is no way to know if the objections were based on belief the choice of electors was based on fraudulent vote tallies. There might be a law stating that the appointment of electors must reflect the vote tally of a state, in which case an objection to the electors would be the same thing as challenging the accuracy of the vote count, but it seems clumsy.
I just keep coming back to my core argument, which is that, at least in other contexts, the word “certify” has a specific and legal meaning. It means to attest to the truth or accuracy of something. When I sell a vehicle I have to attest to the actual number of miles driven, and note if the speedometer (record of mileage) has been replaced. There are legal penalties for false certification. EXCEPT WHEN IT COMES TO CERTIFYING THE ACCURACY OF THE VOTE COUNT IN AN ELECTION. There seems to be no penalty at all for claiming that a vote count is “certified” in the face of proof that the number is false.
What to me is the most important step in an election, other than that of assuring the legitimacy of each vote, is simply glossed over as far as I can tell, a minor technicality on the way to appointing electors, and after that everything refers to the electors, not the vote count. Once a governor has produced his or her seven copies of the state’s Certificate of Ascertainment and the state’s electors are named, the vote count itself is no longer discussed. The governor said this was the vote count, and that’s settled so just move on, folks.
In the absence of a law explaining the process (which probably does exist, I just couldn’t find it) I did find a site where I could look at the actual certificates of ascertainment provided by each state, and in the one for Colorado it listed the electors who would be appointed for each slate of candidates. What I found most interesting is what the certificate itself said:
I, Jared Polis, qovernor of the State of Colorado, certify that the attached is a true and exact statement of the names of the Colorado President Electors and the votes received by each at the November 3, 2020, General Election.
(This clarified something I never understood—evidently when I vote, I do not vote for a president but merely for a slate of electors which will be determined by which presidential candidate gets the most votes. So a challenge to the vote tally is really a challenge to which electors can cast their votes on January 6. This kind of explains why the subsequent laws are all about the electors.)
ANYWAY, back to my comments on “certification”. Here, Governor Polis has personally certified the accuracy of the Colorado vote count. He officially “certifies” that the Colorado vote count is “a true and exact statement of the names of the Colorado President Electors and the votes received by each“. In Arizona, the governor’s certification tried to tap dance around this a little, being a little less definitive, merely stating that the the official canvass shows
the followjng results and then shifting responsibility onto the boards of supervisors of the counties, but even so at the end he has to sign off on it, however reluctantly.
I, Douglas A Ducey, Governor of the State of Arizona, do hereby certify that:
The Official Canvass of the General Election held on Tuesday, November 3, 2020, shows
the followjng results for the office of Presidential Electors for President and Vice President
of the United States, as certified by the boards of supervisors of the several counties of
the state of Arizona. The Official Canvass indicates that the following group of eleven
individuals….” and then, after showing the names of the electors and the alleged vote count, says I further certify that the following Presidential Electors received the number of votes
indicated:
The web site https://www.archives.gov/electoral-college/2020 is interesting, for us geeks. On it you can see the actual Certificate of Ascertainment for each state, which is its “certification”, as well as the Certificate of Vote signed by the electors.
And all of this leads me back to my original questions: How can anyone “certify” a number known to be inaccurate, and why isn’t there a penalty for doing so?
I’ve used a lot of words because I have written down my path of growing understanding, partly because I suspect that most of us think of our votes as being for the president, who will eventually be voted on by the electors, and not officially stated as being for the electors themselves. That might be a distinction without a difference, but it was not something I had considered and I found it interesting. And it explains the language I had found so confusing in the challenges.
It seems to me that the most important laws of all would be about counting the votes and only “certifying” vote counts that are shown to be substantially accurate, yet the federal laws I have found don’t even address that.
Democrats are not stupid. Universal mail in voting was the perfect cover for ballot fraud and they pulled it off.
But even so, when the mail in scheme proved a plethora of illegitimate votes, and when it was proved that laws allowing certain voting procedures were themselves illegitimate, meaning that the final counts in these places simply could not be known, the executive of every single state signed a statement testifying to the accuracy of the numbers provided.
In most legal proceedings there is acceptance of the legal theory of dismissing “the fruit of the poisonous tree”. That is, if evidence is procured illegally then it cannot be considered. The illegality is the “poisonous tree” and its fruit, or evidence, is not allowed. Yet when it comes to the most important aspect of life in this country, its governance, we ignore this legal concept and accept the fruit, or votes, from the poisonous tree, or the illegal laws allowing them to be cast.
And then we have governors and secretaries of state signing what amounts to affidavits attesting to the accuracy of vote counts they know to be wrong, with no penalty whatsoever for false certification. And the results affect us all, in spite of the Pontius Pilate approach of the courts in claiming that citizens have “no standing” in disputing election results. Who has more standing than the people whose lives and liberties are at stake?
Go back to the conversations about vote problems after the election. They boiled down to this:
“OK, so we know that X number of fraudulent votes were cast. But we can’t do anything about it because we don’t know who got them, so we can’t cancel them out.”
WE DON’T KNOW WHO GOT THEM. The very excuse for allegedly having to just accept them is the proof that the overall vote count is, simply, wrong.
Because our votes are anonymous, once officially cast they can’t be identified as to the identity of the voter. That’s why all the efforts have to be applied before they are counted and folded into the total, where they become part of the fungible nature of the process. Once a fraudulent ballot has been accepted and counted it is like water in a stream that joined a river—it can’t be separated from the whole. That is why we have to be so vigilant in the first steps of voting, and have redundant ways of confirming that the ballot in hand has been submitted by a living, registered, legitimate and qualified citizen voter.
Democrats have done everything in their power, some of it illegal, to thwart this process of confirmation of legitimacy of voters, and this is the secret of their successes.
Make my day!
Isn’t it interesting that masked men in black carrying signs and flags and insignia of openly anti-American political movements, who participate in violent riots including trying to burn down or otherwise destroy government buildings (sometimes with government employees trapped inside) are never identified as “threats to democracy” or even “terrorists”? But demanding that our government pay attention to serious and credible concerns about the legitimacy of our election process can lead to Constitutional violation of the right to a speedy trial and Draconian punishments like solitary confinement and lengthy federal prison sentences?
Isn’t it interesting that masked men in black carrying signs and flags and insignia of openly anti-American political movements, who participate in violent riots including trying to burn down or otherwise destroy government buildings (sometimes with government employees trapped inside) are never identified as “threats to democracy” or even “terrorists”?
Equally as interesting is that THEY call US fascists. YCMTSU!
Orwell is smiling
I trust the science; it’s the scienTISTS I don’t trust.
Once someone has explained that you must believe something because an arbitrary number of “scientists” all concur you know you’re not talking about real science. Science is what it is, not a theory that just got more votes.
And science is never “settled”.
Science is not consensus, and science is more than often, wrong.
Democrats have corrupted virtually every aspect of modern society: the family, the church, education, the media, the military, medicine, big tech, large corporations, Wall Street, the major banks, entertainment, and science, just to name a few off the top of my head. But of all those, science is, to me, the most egregious. Civilization cannot advance if the process of scientific discovery is perverted to pursue a goal that has never been achieved in history, and because of its inherent flaws, never will be.
That’s a complete list … and you’re right. The politicization of science will have harmful effects, and it already has. Our school aged children are not performing at grade level all because of the distortion of science.
Here’s a good assessment of the current Democrat Party
For Democrats chagrined at the prospect of Harris as a future nominee, there is really no way out. Absent a crushing defeat for a Biden-Harris 2024 ticket, Kamala Harris will have to be reckoned with. There is no compromise job for her. Anything other than presidential nominee would be a humiliating demotion. To be vice president and cast aside for a replacement would be intolerable — particularly for the first woman and first minority, and particularly in favor of a white male.
Once Biden’s time passes, Harris will be at the plate. No amount of insider lobbying and power-play chicanery is going to dislodge her. If Newsom and whatever D.C. forces want to push Harris aside, they are going to have to fight it out for the next four years. And that’s going to be ugly.
https://themessenger.com/opinion/kamala-harris-gavin-newsom-democratic-civil-war-california-ambition-president
Kamala does present a conundrum to Democrats, and I have to say it couldn’t happen to a nicer bunch of people. OTOH, Democrats have been shitting on blacks for generations, so dumping Kamala even though she’s part black doesn’t seem like much of a stretch to me (and I would bet not to the power brokers in the Democrat Party)
I’m thinking they might have to just get rid of her and take their lumps with the black community that is so wholly race-driven. It’s not as if these people are suddenly going to rush over to the Right. The Dems know they have the black vote in the tank, so I doubt they are very worried. Oh, there would be great wailing and gnashing of teeth from the blacks and the feminists but as I said, where they gonna go? They might stay home for a cycle, till tempers cool off and the Dems can find another placeholder to appease them, but dumping Kammy is not likely to set off a massive exodus to the Right.
And it’s not as if there are many choices on their side. The male black Dems are just nucking futz and so are the other black females. Kamala was the logical choice for a party focused on (1) woman and (2) black (not sure which order mattered most) because she is superficially less awful than the other choices in that tiny demographic. They had a possible option but got her on the Supreme Court.
It’s probably going to come down to how hard Kamala’s hardball is—will she take a huge bribe to step aside, or call their bluff and demand to be kept on the ticket? They are running out of time to decide. I don’t know what the rules are for replacing a nominee halfway through the election cycle. But Biden alone is enough of a drag on the ticket, and Biden with Harris in the background has to be even worse.
Although—never underestimate the stupidity of Democrats. Evidently when asked for an opinion on who should replace Biden the polls said the Dems either wanted Harris or Clinton. Clinton! The thing is, I don’t trust the polls. For months they have been telling us of the unfavorable numbers for Harris and now they tell us she is the top pick to replace Biden. I know I’ve got my fingers crossed.
Imagine, if you will, a Harris/Clinton ticket. The Dems would have to put Harris on the top, which would enrage Hillary but she’d take VP over nothing, and there are always Clinton solutions to people who are in the way.
So just FYI, I will not be watching the DeSantis/Newsome debate. I have no idea of why it’s even taking place. Hannity is hard to watch, but put Newsome in the mix, and it becomes unbearable. DeSantis should have said thanks, but no thanks.
I guess this is called “harvesting”, but it’s also called “cheating”
130,000-280,000 Completed Ballots Were Shipped Across State Lines from NY to PA in 2020 Election – Never Explained
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2023/11/never-forget-130000-280000-completed-ballots-were-shipped/
Jeff Childers has an interesting short segment at Coffee & Covid about the CDC.
Was it the CDC torturing puppies by locking their heads in plexiglas boxes so they could be witnessed as they were eaten alive by sand fleas? How many beagles are bred and tortured and killed for CDC “research”? How many cats? We know the number of rodents must be astronomical.
Yet the CDC could not be bothered to test the sick and dying “humanized” lab mice found in that illegal Chinese lab in California, much less test the vials labeled with pathogens like anthrax and even Ebola.
My hope is that the perpetually stupid, and over emotional younger generations get the fuck off Tik Tok. It’s hard to believe how easily manipulated the younger generations are …
Through its united front work strategy, which Xi Jinping has called a ‘magic weapon,’ the Chinese Communist Party uses every tool at its disposal, whether legal or illicit, to influence the American people and interfere in democratic societies,’ Chairman Mike Gallagher, R-Wis., said in a statement.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12797557/Chinas-growing-espionage-propaganda-threat-U-S-Congress-warns-America-little-grasp-deep-Communist-Partys-influence-infiltrated-communities-nation.html
VERY interesting. History lesson for the day
https://vimeo.com/888852117
It appears your video has been censured.
No surprise. It was a Saudi official explaining who Palestinians are, and why the Arab world wants nothing to do with them. He also explained how Israeli’s and Arabs are cousins through Ismael and Isaac, the sons of Mohammed, and that Israel is the rightful owner of that land. Very interesting.
A recurring theme here has been my observation that there is a contingent of posters which only attacks and sneers, but never explains an actual political philosophy. This is met with outrage and the person involved then goes on to explain a vague sentiment or a wish list for what he would like to see accomplished but never with a political foundation.
I was looking through one of the drives on my computer last night looking for a lost file and ran across an old blog thread, with several back-and-forth posts, that I found interesting enough at the time (September 2012) to copy into a Word file and save. This was 11 years ago, and could have been written yesterday—if “James” was still on the blog. He might be, under a new name, but these days isn’t bothering to write anything so specific.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
So I stop by and read that Amazona and Spook want a liberal to define their political ideology so that they can better understand the progressive movement…..Since i have a few moments, ill explain my personal beliefs and why I am a Democrat through and through.
1. I believe in the bill of rights of the constitution. I don’t however believe that the 10th amendment was meant to limit the federal government the way conservatives want to limit it. I believe that a large and somewhat effective federal government is a good thing, and not a bad thing.
I want the federal government to impose rules that allow all people a fair shot. Rules like progressive taxation, educational standards for each state, national ID which would naturally replace state issued ID’s, and even national license plates.
Generally speaking, I don’t subscribe to the idea that each state has sovereignty and that it can do whatever it wants inside its borders as long as it follows the federal constitution. That’s not sovereignty at all. If you look at the state constitutions across our nation you would find that some states limit certain rights such as gay marriage and abortion, while others don’t.
I believe and most democrats do as well that certain rights and constitutional issues you cannot leave up to the states to decide. Abortion, Gay marriage, equal protection under the law, education, healthcare, welfare, etc.
Those issues are to important to leave up to states. Those issues need to be uniformly enforced across state lines.
Some may say that the 10th amendment limits the fed’s power, and that’s a fair argument…but i’d reply that the 10th amendment is more reserved for things that aren’t related to our rights. I believe that states should determine their own criminal code, their own driving regulations and laws, and their own enforcement, and punishment of non violent crimes and criminals. On those issues, let’s call them non-core issues, I’d say the states have every right to determine their own fates.
On other issues, of which I have mentioned some above, I believe the federal government must and should enforce a national standard.
There is nothing wrong with national FDA standards on food and drugs, or EPA standards on industry, or even education standards for states to live up to.
This election is a choice moment. I believe this nation is better served with a stronger federal government that can level the playing field. Mind you, I didn’t say promote the outcome, just level the playing field so that everyone that wants to put in the effort, can at least expect to have the same rules apply to them as the next guy.
A lot of conservatives, cluster and spook among them think that Democrats don’t want equal opportunity, but equal results…I reject that categorically.
I believe that we are all in this together, I don’t believe in radical individualism like some conservatives do. I don’t want the government to get out of the way and let me do it on my own, I want my tax dollars to be used to HELP me when I need it, or help others if they need it.
Like Clinton said in his speech to the DNC…We are all in this together, I like that much more than, you’re on your own…
James, normally you’re posts are routinely deleted. We’re leaving this one up as you’ve actually made some points instead of just snarky attacks//Moderator
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
As we can see, here we are, 11 years later, with little changed on the blog. And BTW, I was not the moderator on this thread—-I would never say “you’re” as a possessive when it is a contraction of two words—“you are”.
I reposted this because forty has informed us that he believes we must be governed by our Constitution, yet he appears to support policies that would require expansion of the duties and restrictions on the Constitution to allow much more federal power and control. And this is exactly what we see here.
I am always reminded of the Outback Steakhouse commercial with Jermaine from the Flight of the Conchords, as he explains that though he is a vegetarian he also eats meat—he’s “semi veg”
As these people want to posture as believing in the Constitution—EXCEPT for this or that or the other.
semi-constitutional
I remember James.
This was my response:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
Moderator, I appreciate your leaving James’ post up, as he at least has the courage to say what the other Pseudo Lefties refuse to admit.
First, let me clear something up. We do not ask the Leftists here to define your political philosophy so we “…can better understand the progressive movement..” On the contrary, we DO understand the Progressive Movement, and we ask the question to illustrate the fact that we do and the posters here do NOT.
Or, if they do, they are afraid to explain it because they realize the truth is unpalatable to most Americans.
You say: ” I believe in the bill of rights of the constitution.”
First of all, the Bill of Rights is a series of amendments to the Constitution, and therefore part of the Constitution. It is not possible to pick and choose which parts of the Constitution you think should be the law of the land.
The 10th Amendment is very specific, and to understand it you have to understand the Constitution to which it refers. The original Constitution delegated certain duties, or responsibilities, to the federal government. These are often referred to as the “enumerated” duties of the federal government—-that is, what the federal government MUST do.
The only reason the Constitution was passed—-ratified—-by a new nation quite determined to never allow a strong central government to exist, having just fought a bloody war against powerful central authority, was because the Founders gave their solemn promise that once the Constitution was ratified, they would quickly reinforce it with amendments firming it up. While they wanted it understood that anything allowed to the federal government would be stated in the body of the original document, they also understood that human nature would soon start to try to play games with it, and claim that if something was not specifically addressed in the Constitution then it was up to the whim of the moment
So they followed up on this promise, and outlined eight guarantees of rights in a very specific manner. They then tied it all up with the statement that if something was not delegated to the federal government in the Constitution, or prohibited by the Constitution, it could only be achieved by the States, or by the People.
It is very clear.
So some of your comments declare that you do not accept this as defining law.
You say: “I don’t however believe that the 10th amendment was meant to limit the federal government the way conservatives want to limit it”
You say: “Generally speaking, I don’t subscribe to the idea that each state has sovereignty and that it can do whatever it wants inside its borders as long as it follows the federal constitution.”
You say: “I believe and most democrats do as well that certain rights and constitutional issues you cannot leave up to the states to decide.”
But you can’t say you believe in the Bill of Rights and then in the same statement go on to explain that you really DON’T. It is inconsistent.
It would help you a lot to do some studying about the origins of the Constitution, the writings of the Founding Fathers, the ideas that spurred them to write what they did the way they did. It might be confusing to just glance at the Constitution now, in the 21st Century, without any historical context or contemporaneous writings of the creators, but once you see the pattern of determination to impose severe restrictions on the size, scope and power of the central government and the determination to keep as much power and authority as possible localized, to states and to the people, it all makes complete sense.
When you say .. I don’t subscribe to the idea that each state has sovereignty and that it can do whatever it wants inside its borders as long as it follows the federal constitution you are saying you don’t believe the Constitution is or should be the law of the land. It is that simple. You cannot say you believe in it and then say you don’t believe in what it says. And that is what it says, as clear as day——the individual states CAN be sovereign, CAN make their own laws, as long as they follow the federal Constitution. What’s more, it says that if the states want to do something that is not an enumerated duty of the federal government, they have to look at that something and see if it is prohibited by the Constitution. If it is not enumerated, and not prohibited, the only way to legally do it is through the state. Or the people.
It is very hard to admit that you really don’t, at your core, believe in our Constitution. But it is foolish to say you do and then simultaneously say you also believe in a form of government that is in direct opposition to it. It is tempting to try to play both sides, just as some Christians who are teetotalers will assert that when Jesus turned water into wine, it wasn’t REALLY “wine” but unfermented grape juice. It’s human nature to try to have conflicting beliefs merge, but it just can’t be done.
I could understand the view that James expressed if the Founders hadn’t had the foresight to provide an amendment process for their magnificent governing document. But they did, and it’s been amended 27 times. The problem is that the number of things that the Federal Government does illegally is orders of magnitude greater than that.
The Constitution of the Unites States is inherently the most libertarian document ever written to govern a nation. It establishes an identity for the nation so it can engage in diplomacy and national defense and then it merely establishes a framework of protections for its citizens to give them a umbrella under which they can live their lives and pursue their dreams. It restricts itself to those few duties, and leaves the minutiae of day to day life up to the states, which are sovereign in their legal abilities to govern themselves.
This means that Americans can vote in their states on the laws they believe are necessary, and if they are outvoted they have the freedom to go to states where their beliefs are more in line with those of most of the people there. This is the underlying liberty our system provides.
What the Left wants to do is remove that liberty, and impose its rules on the entire nation, so there are no options, no other place to go without leaving the country itself. When you analyze Leftism at its core it is the restriction of individual liberty.
And as I just posted: AT NO POINT IN HISTORY HAVE THE PEOPLE FORCING OTHER PEOPLE INTO COMPLIANCE BEEN THE GOOD GUYS
I bring this up because the post addresses issues that still divide us—primarily what is a “right”. The Left develops an advocacy for a certain behavior, and then arbitrarily defines this as a “right”. And this is the word that drives so many of them.
The success of the Left in convincing so many people that they have certain “rights” that an invented Evil Other is trying to take away from them fuels a lot of the fury that drives the Left.
That really is it in a nutshell.
A friend sent me a list of funny stuff and one made me laugh out loud and be glad I wasn’t drinking coffee:
“Joe Biden is more confused than Michelle Obama’s gynecologist”
Another:
AT NO POINT IN HISTORY HAVE THE PEOPLE FORCING OTHER PEOPLE INTO COMPLIANCE BEEN THE GOOD GUYS
Here’s a little diagnostic test – what command, edict, or order do these people ever issue that increases your wealth, safety, or freedom? None, ever. Every single thing they insist you are somehow required to do, say, or accept makes you poorer, weaker, and less free. But that’s no surprise. The whole purpose of this grotesque exercise in manipulation is to do that.
They want you disarmed, disenfranchised, and deceased. That’s the goal. And all you need to do to stop them is to stop giving them what they want. Gobble down a red pill and vaccinate yourself against the social pathology of woke Marxism.
Well, it’s that time of year again. That is, phishing season. I am getting literally 150-200 spam emails a day. And somehow I just don’t think I have won millions of dollars or a new Yeti cooler or any of the other things promised to me if I will only click on a simple claim form. BTW, I think most if not all the political polling emails are the same thing so I don’t open any of them, even the ones with familiar names like Ted Cruz on them.
Anyway, just a tip here. I once for some reason got my own name in my own contact list. I wish I could say it was due to thought and analysis, but I can’t. The thing is, it turned out to be a good thing, because now I can tell when someone has hacked my email account or at least my contact list because I am on that list so I get the same emails purportedly “from” me and it lets me keep track of what is happening and change passwords.
I can’t comprehend getting 150-200 a day. I get maybe 3 or 4 a day, and my spam filter catches about 90% of them.
These are what get kicked into my Junk Email folder.
There’s always time to laugh.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FQMbXvn2RNI
I saw that a couple of days ago. Pretty funny.
Yeah, but now I can’t get it out of my head