Thus the Republic falls to applause: No Fly list and gun control

[Armonica_Templar]

Loretta Lynch Slaps FBI: No-Fly List Can Be Used to Ban Gun Buyers

Attorney General Loretta Lynch has overruled FBI Director James Comey on a key issue involving guns and terrorist watch lists — a move that two unlikely allies, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and the National Rifle Association, oppose.

Lynch says the Obama administration supports banning the sale of firearms to people on terrorist watch lists — a declaration that flies in the face of Comey's belief that denying those sales could hinder investigations of potential terrorists.

The Washington Times reports that in a statement issued Thursday, the Justice Department said it wants Congress to pass the so-called "no-fly, no-buy" plan Democratic lawmakers are pushing.

"The amendment gives the Justice Department an important additional tool to prevent the sale of guns to suspected terrorists by licensed firearms dealers while ensuring protection of the department's operational and investigative sensitivities," Justice Department spokeswoman Dena Iverson said.

Latest News Update

Get Newsmax TV At Home »

[/url]





But WND.com reports that the ACLU and NRA don't agree.
Special:
"Restrictions like bans on gun purchases by people on 'watch lists' are ineffective, unconstitutional, or both," the NRA said this week.

And in an ACLU position paper titled, "Until the No Fly List Is Fixed, It Shouldn't Be Used to Restrict People's Freedoms," the group's National Security Project Director wrote:

"[T]he standards for inclusion on the No Fly List are unconstitutionally vague, and innocent people are blacklisted without a fair process to correct government error. Our lawsuit seeks a meaningful opportunity for our clients to challenge their placement on the No Fly List because it is so error-prone and the consequences for their lives have been devastating."

Lynch's recommendation comes just days after an Islamic State sympathizer killed 49 people and injured 53 at a nightclub in Orlando, Florida. Democrats believe the bloodbath may have avoided with a ban on gun sales to people on government watch lists.

Donald Trump, the presumptive Republican presidential nominee, said this week he will meet with the NRA to discuss how to keep guns away from people on those lists — an announcement that took some GOP lawmakers by surprise.




Related Stories:

• Sen. Murphy: NRA Will Never Support Gun Control Measures
  
• Ted Cruz Rips Democrats For 15-Hour Filibuster to Get Gun Vote
  

© 2016 Newsmax. All rights reserved.

I read this article and had to sit down for a few moments

As I reread it I was shaking my head as the words FOOLS came to my mind

This is the situation as I see it..

It sets a very dangerous precedent in the argument of liberty versus security

The republic's principles are being siezed upon in the name of security

1) a right be restricted on the basis of what equates to a Bill of Attainder

A bill of attainder (also known as an act of attainder or writ of attainder or bill of pains and penalties) is an act of a legislature declaring a person or group of persons guilty of some crime and punishing them, often without a trial. As with attainder resulting from the normal judicial process, the effect of such a bill is to nullify the targeted person'scivil rights, most notably the right to own property (and thus pass it on to heirs), the right to a title of nobility, and, in at least the original usage, the right to life itself. Bills of attainder were passed in England between about 1300 and 1800 and resulted in the executions of a number of notable historical figures.

The use of these bills by Parliament eventually fell into disfavor due to the obvious potential for abuse and the violation of several legal principles, most importantly the separation of powers, the right to due process, and the precept that a law should address a particular form of behavior rather than a specific individual or group. For these reasons, bills of attainder are expressly banned by Article I, section 9, of the United States Constitution (1787) as well as by the constitutions of all 50 US states.

United States[edit]


Bills of attainder were used through the 18th century in England, and were applied to British colonies as well. Some colonists were inspired to the American Revolution because of anger at the injustice of attainder. Although at least one American state used a bill of attainder to confiscate the property of a British loyalist (called Tories) during the war (New York, in the 1779 case of Parker Wickham),[citation needed] American dissatisfaction with British attainder laws resulted in their being prohibited in the U.S. Constitution ratified in 1789.
Constitutional bans[edit]

Excerpt from Article One, Section 9 of the United States Constitution, prohibiting the passing of bills of attainder

The [url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Constitution]United States Constitution forbids legislative bills of attainder under Article I, Section 9. The provision forbidding state law bills of attainder, Article I, Section 10, reflects the importance that the framers attached to this issue.

Within the U.S. Constitution, the clauses forbidding attainder laws serve two purposes. First, they reinforced the separation of powers, by forbidding the legislature to perform judicial or executive functions—since the outcome of any such acts of legislature would of necessity take the form of a bill of attainder. Second, they embody the concept of due process, which was partially reinforced by the Fifth Amendment to the
Constitution. The text of the Constitution, Article I, Section 9; Clause 3 is "No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed".

The constitution of every state also expressly forbids bills of attainder.[citation needed] For example, Wisconsin's constitution Article I, Section 12 reads:

No bill of attainder, ex post facto law, nor any law impairing the obligation of contracts, shall ever be passed, and no conviction shall work corruption of blood or forfeiture of estate.

Contrast this with the Texas version: Article 1 (Titled Bill of Rights) Section 16, entitled Bills of Attainder; Ex Post Facto or Retroactive Laws: Impairing Obligation of Contracts: "No bill of attainder, ex post facto law, retroactive law, or any law impairing the obligation of contracts, shall be made". It is unclear whether a contract that calls for heirs to be deprived of their estate is allowed under this law.

The question then becomes much more deadly when an equal standard is applied to the rest of the constitution

I could always go the classic route and argue that does this mean those on a government list, with no way to get a hearing to argue their way off of it, can also be banned from speaking freely..Or perhaps forced to a specific church

No I have a much deadlier question

Can the people on the no fly list be held as slaves?

It does set the precedent that this writ of attainder by passes constitutional rights.. If someone kidnapped someone on the no fly list, can they legally be sold to another human being..

Note it bypasses local rules and federal court decisions..

As long as you pay taxes on the purchase it appears that this is legal..

13th Amendment

Text

Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

Section 2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.[1]

[senona]

Nothing like the FBI being slapped back by Loretta Lynch


Comments have already been made how the FBI hands are tied due to Obama admin., hence why dropped the ball on the Orlando shooter some claim.


Those 2 need to be on the same side, not opposing sides.....sigh

[Ninurta]

Yes, those on the "No Fly" list can be legally enslaved. Slavery has never actually been abolished in the US, only the criteria for enslaving someone has been changed. Note well the words "except as punishment...", which give the privilege of enslaving anyone - all couched in pretty language that only appears to abolish slavery. There is no abolition of slavery when the word "except" comes into play - only a change in the criteria required for enslavement. Abolition would have been along the lines of "People can't own other people. Period" rather than "People can't own other people, unless..." Other cultures use much the same evasion, such as "people can't own people, unless those people owned are captured in warfare". Different criteria, same principle.

This so-called "no fly list" does amount to a Bill of Attainder, or more precisely, legal actions taken which are predicated on it are Bills of Attainder. Once these individuals and groups have been singled out for different treatment from any other citizen, solely based upon who they are or what group they belong to rather than actions they have taken, the stage is set for massive abuse. What is to keep them from adding any other person or group to the list on a mere whim, once the list is established? What is there that will prevent them from adding Republicans, or Libertarians, or Jews, or Methodists from the list if someone high enough in the food chain takes a sudden dislike to one of those groups?

As it stands right now, one cannot even KNOW if they are on the list unless they take some legislatively prohibited action (prohibited ONLY for those on the list, based solely on their presence on the list, for example flying or buying a gun). Even once one finds out they are on the list through some prohibition they encounter, there is NO way to get off of it.

Nixon kept an Enemies List. Hitler kept an Enemies List. Mao kept an Enemies list... and now the US government does the same. This is no longer the free land I was born in, nor the free land I fought for. It looks a lot more like the old Soviet Union - they very folks we were fighting against back in the day. The Republic has already fallen, without a shot even being fired.

[BIAD]

...Nixon kept an Enemies List. Hitler kept an Enemies List. Mao kept an Enemies list... and now the US government
does the same. This is no longer the free land I was born in, nor the free land I fought for. It looks a lot more like
the old Soviet Union - they very folks we were fighting against back in the day.
The Republic has already fallen, without a shot even being fired...

My Gosh! Not a truer word spoken.

I cannot comment on the gun-control situation as I'm not of the USA, but there's another principle
that Ninurta points at in the above paragraph that I totally agree with.

The overall foundations that the USA is built on is constantly being undermined by the tactic of
conditioning people to only look at different facets of 'security-orientated' debates. Piece-by-piece,
your liberties have not only been eroded, in some cases, they have gone.

Yet the media -who only need snippets and news-bites for their rating-coveting businesses, deliver
the information in such a way that the entire landscape of your freedoms is never truly shown.
Hence it's gun-control, politically-correct leniency for certain belief structures, fear-mongering for
certain belief structures, alleged Police strong-arm tactics, racial and gender arguments and many,
many more.

All bars on the fencing for herding the sheep to the pen.
Said with respect.

[727Sky]

I used to believe totally in the death penalty for certain crimes.

I used to believe in swift justice for those who break the laws of a civilized society.

That was before all the reports of police falsifying crime reports and judges getting kick backs from prisons for profit.

Many things seem to be broken or have severe cracks in the frame work that we call America; justice is right up there at the top IMO.

[Ninurta]

@"BIAD" 

It gets worse, from my perspective - now I'm too old and give out, worn out over the foolishness that people have allowed, that I can't even bring myself to grieve the loss of freedom we've undergone in the past 25 years or so. It's a bit breathtaking, the speed with which the takeover has occurred.

In 1965, the rate at which police solved murders was 90% here in the US. Now it's hovering around 60%, mostly because it appears the police have better things to do, safer things, like hassling the citizenry - and in the process, enriching themselves via forfeiture laws. The Constitution says that government or it's agents may not deprive a person of their property without due process, but that is universally ignored now, and people are routinely deprived of their property on mere allegations, or some times less. I've seen that happen with my own eyes twice now. Police descending on the innocent like a swarm of locusts, picking and choosing what they want and seizing it under "forfeiture". I heard with my own ears the cops divvying up an innocent man's property before they even took it out of his house and filled out the forfeiture paperwork, and discussing whether or not they should just take MINE, too - which never happened, as the idea met with some resistance. Some of the stuff they took from the guy had absolutely no connection with any potential crime - a laser printer the police department wanted, a DVD collection that God knows who wanted, none of the items described in particular detail on a warrant as the Constitution demands.

None of the seized stuff is EVER returned, regardless of how the court case comes out or how innocent the victim is. It's been "forfeited".

In the 60's and 70's, it was a standard plot device to have people stopped at road blocks with the canned request of "your papers, please" from the nice guy in the black uniform - that was how the viewer knew that man was evil, because of course only in repressive regimes like Nazi Germany or the Soviet Union could things like that ever happen... now it is a fact of life and a matter of course here in the good ol' USA. Instead of actually getting out and, you know, working, policing, catching the bad guys, they set up random road blocks in the hope of catching someone in a drag net operation, a fishing expedition. Robo-cops mounted to poles at intersections now issue tickets so that police don't have to disturb themselves and actually chase a miscreant down (the road blocks might suffer if one of those dozens of cops actually had to leave to catch a violator)... and as for the right guaranteed by the Constitution to face one's accuser in court, good luck getting that camera to appear, even with a subpoena.

I've spent the past couple of days searching for black powder revolvers on the internet because guns are once again under fire for no good reason, and black powder weapons are, at the moment, less highly regulated - not to mention the fact that one "rolls his own" bullets for them, and I strongly suspect that ammo is slated to come under fire again real soon.

My son and I were discussing a conversation he had earlier this week with a co-workers who wanted to know why people needed "weapons of war" - the latest catch phrase since "assault weapon" has failed so dismally due to abuse and mis-definition - and I asked him if those people didn't  even have a hammer in their house. Once upon a time, wars were fought with clubs, therefore a hammer is a "weapon of war". After all, a hammer is nothing but a short club with a weighted, concentrated, and hardened end, perfect for crushing holes in skulls. Bows, arrows, swords, knives - even your wife's favorite kitchen knife - ALL are "weapons of war".

The anti-gun hysteria is so thick over here you could cut it with a... well, let's not say a "weapon of war".

The president makes decrees with a stroke of the pen now that carry the force of law, bypassing Congress entirely in the process. Who even needs a Congress when the president has usurped their position and now makes law? Even petty bureaucrats now regularly make "regulations" that carry the force of law, all without any congressional or judicial oversight. Petty tyrants in their own little petty kingdoms.

I fought for the people of this country. My dad fought for the people of this country (but he was a real soldier, in a real army, unlike myself), at least 3 of my great and great great granddads fought for the people of their countries during the Civil War (one north, two south) and at least 5 of my great-great-so many greats-back granddads fought for the people of this country in the Revolution.

All of that fighting was a wasted effort. We ALL lost. The people we fought for now routinely undergo forfeiture, home invasions by black-clad thugs, road blocks manned by yet more black-clad thugs who even demand to see "your papers, please", "laws" made by the stroke of petty dictatorial pens, rights routinely violated by a system stacked against the people that it is allegedly in place to "serve", and which routinely ignores it's own rules as embodied in the US Constitution, only paying lip-service to it or trying to find a loophole in it when the regime needs one for advantage - the advantage NEVER goes to the People any more.

This must be what it's like to live in ISIS-stan. Just do exactly what the nice black-clad thug tells you to do, and no one gets hurt. All of my ancestors are no doubt spinning like tops in their graves, and one day I will be, too. I guess it's exercise, so there's that.

Post Script: I bet this post is enough to get ME put on their damned list, and I'm now too old and worn out to even give a rat's ass about THAT. Note to regime enforcers - just stay the hell away from me, and we'll all be fine. I'm too old and decrepit to present much of a danger, but keep in mind that I'm old and already nearer the grave than you are, anyhow, and I'VE got nothing left to lose. You've already taken everything of value, everything I fought for when I was able. Can you say YOU'VE got nothing left to loose too? If not, then just play it safe and stay the hell away.

[Armonica_Templar]

Nothing like the FBI being slapped back by Loretta Lynch


Comments have already been made how the FBI hands are tied due to Obama admin., hence why dropped the ball on the Orlando shooter some claim.


Those 2 need to be on the same side, not opposing sides.....sigh

We are moving to empire phase of the republic

Loretta Lynch is a new LT for white house
she has to bring so much in and follow orders

The people are not realizing that Loretta Lynch has NO say what is law or to be able to interpret it
just enforce it..

What LAW is she enforcing

[Armonica_Templar]

Yes, those on the "No Fly" list can be legally enslaved. Slavery has never actually been abolished in the US, only the criteria for enslaving someone has been changed. Note well the words "except as punishment...", which give the privilege of enslaving anyone - all couched in pretty language that only appears to abolish slavery. There is no abolition of slavery when the word "except" comes into play - only a change in the criteria required for enslavement. Abolition would have been along the lines of "People can't own other people. Period" rather than "People can't own other people, unless..." Other cultures use much the same evasion, such as "people can't own people, unless those people owned are captured in warfare". Different criteria, same principle.

This so-called "no fly list" does amount to a Bill of Attainder, or more precisely, legal actions taken which are predicated on it are Bills of Attainder. Once these individuals and groups have been singled out for different treatment from any other citizen, solely based upon who they are or what group they belong to rather than actions they have taken, the stage is set for massive abuse. What is to keep them from adding any other person or group to the list on a mere whim, once the list is established? What is there that will prevent them from adding Republicans, or Libertarians, or Jews, or Methodists from the list if someone high enough in the food chain takes a sudden dislike to one of those groups?

As it stands right now, one cannot even KNOW if they are on the list unless they take some legislatively prohibited action (prohibited ONLY for those on the list, based solely on their presence on the list, for example flying or buying a gun). Even once one finds out they are on the list through some prohibition they encounter, there is NO way to get off of it.

Nixon kept an Enemies List. Hitler kept an Enemies List. Mao kept an Enemies list... and now the US government does the same. This is no longer the free land I was born in, nor the free land I fought for. It looks a lot more like the old Soviet Union - they very folks we were fighting against back in the day. The Republic has already fallen, without a shot even being fired.

You must be a hoot at parties...lol

(I know because It kills the mode and fun when I bring this up.. lol)

Take the Jews.. it is illegal to own slaves 
But the Catch is, JEWISH slaves
everyone else is allowed technically
(may be hyperboyle but goes with the point)

not to mention everyone forgot the last slaves in NA if I remember correctly were on native american reservations

It is sounding grim but, their is a small light

[Armonica_Templar]

...Nixon kept an Enemies List. Hitler kept an Enemies List. Mao kept an Enemies list... and now the US government
does the same. This is no longer the free land I was born in, nor the free land I fought for. It looks a lot more like
the old Soviet Union - they very folks we were fighting against back in the day.
The Republic has already fallen, without a shot even being fired...

My Gosh! Not a truer word spoken.

I cannot comment on the gun-control situation as I'm not of the USA, but there's another principle
that Ninurta points at in the above paragraph that I totally agree with.

The overall foundations that the USA is built on is constantly being undermined by the tactic of
conditioning people to only look at different facets of 'security-orientated' debates. Piece-by-piece,
your liberties have not only been eroded, in some cases, they have gone.

Yet the media -who only need snippets and news-bites for their rating-coveting businesses, deliver
the information in such a way that the entire landscape of your freedoms is never truly shown.
Hence it's gun-control, politically-correct leniency for certain belief structures, fear-mongering for
certain belief structures, alleged Police strong-arm tactics, racial and gender arguments and many,
many more.

All bars on the fencing for herding the sheep to the pen.
Said with respect.

me just about a decade ago

" Seaman XXXX, what in SAM H#$$ do you think you are doing!"

"Chief.. Say BAHHHHHH.. This sheep is putting on his wolf skin from the last mother F#$%er who messed with him.."

I learned my lessons on how those with power cheat and win

The perceived need for security even in the military has to be built on liberty
This led to a hour and half long debate

"Ok.. Then how many men are you gonna have to post on street corners to enforce it.. You yourself chief said to be smart about how you do things.. Think long term not short term when you chewed out Ensign XXXXXXXX.." After a short pause with pissed off looks on SEVERAL chief's faces and a smiling LT. just sitting there, "Hearts and minds.. Long term you require the trust of thee citizens and the people above you and below you.. So far this god D@#$ command is full of F#$%ing backstabbing morons and cu# guzzlers.. Not to mention their are a few females here.. So let me put this real simple.. How many people here would you trust with a rifle in their hands covering your six?" 
Silence as they looked at each other..
"How many people here would be dying for their country from friendly unfriendly fire? I can count those on one hand who I would do what they said to do immediately.. Those who I would make sure made it.."

This whole example in the article is nothing more then a low level Lt. follow masters orders

[Armonica_Templar]

I used to believe totally in the death penalty for certain crimes.

I used to believe in swift justice for those who break the laws of a civilized society.

That was before all the reports of police falsifying crime reports and judges getting kick backs from prisons for profit.

Many things seem to be broken or have severe cracks in the frame work that we call America; justice is right up there at the top IMO.

Same here

Ditto on your statement

Its truthfulness covers it all

It is onne of those where you said it simpler and plainer and covered it better then I could

[Armonica_Templar]

@"BIAD" 

It gets worse, from my perspective - now I'm too old and give out, worn out over the foolishness that people have allowed, that I can't even bring myself to grieve the loss of freedom we've undergone in the past 25 years or so. It's a bit breathtaking, the speed with which the takeover has occurred.

In 1965, the rate at which police solved murders was 90% here in the US. Now it's hovering around 60%, mostly because it appears the police have better things to do, safer things, like hassling the citizenry - and in the process, enriching themselves via forfeiture laws. The Constitution says that government or it's agents may not deprive a person of their property without due process, but that is universally ignored now, and people are routinely deprived of their property on mere allegations, or some times less. I've seen that happen with my own eyes twice now. Police descending on the innocent like a swarm of locusts, picking and choosing what they want and seizing it under "forfeiture". I heard with my own ears the cops divvying up an innocent man's property before they even took it out of his house and filled out the forfeiture paperwork, and discussing whether or not they should just take MINE, too - which never happened, as the idea met with some resistance. Some of the stuff they took from the guy had absolutely no connection with any potential crime - a laser printer the police department wanted, a DVD collection that God knows who wanted, none of the items described in particular detail on a warrant as the Constitution demands.

None of the seized stuff is EVER returned, regardless of how the court case comes out or how innocent the victim is. It's been "forfeited".

In the 60's and 70's, it was a standard plot device to have people stopped at road blocks with the canned request of "your papers, please" from the nice guy in the black uniform - that was how the viewer knew that man was evil, because of course only in repressive regimes like Nazi Germany or the Soviet Union could things like that ever happen... now it is a fact of life and a matter of course here in the good ol' USA. Instead of actually getting out and, you know, working, policing, catching the bad guys, they set up random road blocks in the hope of catching someone in a drag net operation, a fishing expedition. Robo-cops mounted to poles at intersections now issue tickets so that police don't have to disturb themselves and actually chase a miscreant down (the road blocks might suffer if one of those dozens of cops actually had to leave to catch a violator)... and as for the right guaranteed by the Constitution to face one's accuser in court, good luck getting that camera to appear, even with a subpoena.

I've spent the past couple of days searching for black powder revolvers on the internet because guns are once again under fire for no good reason, and black powder weapons are, at the moment, less highly regulated - not to mention the fact that one "rolls his own" bullets for them, and I strongly suspect that ammo is slated to come under fire again real soon.

My son and I were discussing a conversation he had earlier this week with a co-workers who wanted to know why people needed "weapons of war" - the latest catch phrase since "assault weapon" has failed so dismally due to abuse and mis-definition - and I asked him if those people didn't  even have a hammer in their house. Once upon a time, wars were fought with clubs, therefore a hammer is a "weapon of war". After all, a hammer is nothing but a short club with a weighted, concentrated, and hardened end, perfect for crushing holes in skulls. Bows, arrows, swords, knives - even your wife's favorite kitchen knife - ALL are "weapons of war".

The anti-gun hysteria is so thick over here you could cut it with a... well, let's not say a "weapon of war".

The president makes decrees with a stroke of the pen now that carry the force of law, bypassing Congress entirely in the process. Who even needs a Congress when the president has usurped their position and now makes law? Even petty bureaucrats now regularly make "regulations" that carry the force of law, all without any congressional or judicial oversight. Petty tyrants in their own little petty kingdoms.

I fought for the people of this country. My dad fought for the people of this country (but he was a real soldier, in a real army, unlike myself), at least 3 of my great and great great granddads fought for the people of their countries during the Civil War (one north, two south) and at least 5 of my great-great-so many greats-back granddads fought for the people of this country in the Revolution.

All of that fighting was a wasted effort. We ALL lost. The people we fought for now routinely undergo forfeiture, home invasions by black-clad thugs, road blocks manned by yet more black-clad thugs who even demand to see "your papers, please", "laws" made by the stroke of petty dictatorial pens, rights routinely violated by a system stacked against the people that it is allegedly in place to "serve", and which routinely ignores it's own rules as embodied in the US Constitution, only paying lip-service to it or trying to find a loophole in it when the regime needs one for advantage - the advantage NEVER goes to the People any more.

This must be what it's like to live in ISIS-stan. Just do exactly what the nice black-clad thug tells you to do, and no one gets hurt. All of my ancestors are no doubt spinning like tops in their graves, and one day I will be, too. I guess it's exercise, so there's that.

Post Script: I bet this post is enough to get ME put on their damned list, and I'm now too old and worn out to even give a rat's ass about THAT. Note to regime enforcers - just stay the hell away from me, and we'll all be fine. I'm too old and decrepit to present much of a danger, but keep in mind that I'm old and already nearer the grave than you are, anyhow, and I'VE got nothing left to lose. You've already taken everything of value, everything I fought for when I was able. Can you say YOU'VE got nothing left to loose too? If not, then just play it safe and stay the hell away.

It aint over yet
it is just getting there

You see things can still be done to stop them

Liberty can be taken back still by the ballot box
it has not shifted completely yet..
Almost but not completely

Echo chambers
proxy organizations
infiltration and abuses

They have shown us great tools to use against them

[Ninurta]

You must be a hoot at parties...lol

(I know because It kills the mode and fun when I bring this up.. lol)

The very life of the party! Of course, sane folk don't frequent the sort of parties I do...

Take the Jews.. it is illegal to own slaves 
But the Catch is, JEWISH slaves
everyone else is allowed technically
(may be hyperboyle but goes with the point)

Ditto Muslims. Muslim slaves are not allowed, all others are fair game. That's how ISIS got the Yezidi sex slaves they're currently trying to peddle - Mohammed himself allowed "those whom your right hand possesses" - i.e., war captives. The Yezidi girls and women were taken in war, making them fair game for sex slavery. They were being sold on the auction block in Mosul for $ 350 US right after they were taken, but recently ISIS has started trying to sell them on the internet for around $ 8000 US.

Fact is, the Constitutional Amendment that everyone thinks "abolishes" slavery does nothing of the kind, even in modern America. It has an exception built-in ("except as punishment for...") that kept slavery legal in America. I personally believe it was written that way intentionally, considering who wrote it - Reconstruction Era Republicans. In those days, the Republicans were the "Progressives", although they didn't use that term. They called themselves "Radicals". Reconstruction was nothing of the sort - nothing was rebuilt, especially not by the northerners or the Republicans - the carpet Baggers and Scalawags who invaded the south along with the occupation forces to protect them.

All indications are that they intended to "turn the tables", make the Freedmen the aristocracy, and enslave the whites. For a long time, Freedmen could vote while white southerners could not - they had been legally disenfranchised, and were not permitted by law to vote. In many locations, former slaves were organized as militia, given muskets by the occupation forces, and "patrolled", while white southerners were not permitted to bear arms, legally.

It's a part of US history that one seldom hears about, and Reconstruction is taught in history classes with a bit of... let's call it "spin", to be kind to the Liberals.

If you think I may be wrong, just research the demographics of the South Carolina legislature during Reconstruction. I bet you get a surprise. The backlash from Reconstruction was harsh and often violent, and was the direct cause of a need for the Civil Rights movement in the 60's.

[Ninurta]

It aint over yet
it is just getting there

You see things can still be done to stop them

Liberty can be taken back still by the ballot box
it has not shifted completely yet..
Almost but not completely

Echo chambers
proxy organizations
infiltration and abuses

They have shown us great tools to use against them

Depending on which way this election goes, it could seal the fate of America for the next 200 years. If Hillary wins, the light at the end of the tunnel will be extinguished - she will piss on it and put it out herself. We are a hair's breadth away from becoming precisely like the former Soviet Union, and Hillary will nudge it past that hair into the oblivion of Empire that was the end of Rome.

If Trump wins, there is still a fighting chance, but it will be without a doubt an uphill battle, because we have already fallen so far...

[Ninurta]

I've been pondering the above post, and have come to the conclusion that I was wrong. We are NOT in danger of becoming like the old Soviet Union - we have surpassed her. Not even in the darkest, most repressive days of the former Soviet Union did the Politburo, even in the safety of their lakeside dachas, ever envision forcing the entire populace to do business with private corporations.  That takes a special kind of depravity, of the Fascist brand. This also means I may have to re-evaluate my conclusion that Obama is a communist... after all, Obamacare was his baby, and it's fascist to the very core.

Either way, whether communist or fascist, the collectivists (covering both communists and fascists - they are all on the old "left") aim to kill or enslave us all.

[BIAD]

If Trump wins, there is still a fighting chance, but it will be without a doubt an uphill battle, because
we have already fallen so far...

What gets me is the way the media on both sides of the pond make him out to be an idiot, as if
he's a lone crazy-man who's just throwing good money away for nothing. I can understand it when
people look and say "Oh man, this guy's gonna rid the country of any foreigners" but that's not what
he's saying.


I believe he's fitting himself into the position of a Patriot that's sick and tired of Lobbyist's self-interests
and back-handers of cash on Capital Hill that only benefits the few. 
Those at the top.. what could be seen as the 'Breakaway Society' have lost the ability to listen to
the people and all he's done is heard the crowd and catering to it.

The money-making aspect really means nothing to him, he seems to be able to turn a buck whether
he's in politics or not.

He's over in Scotland at his Turnberry Golf Resort and after being asked about what he thought
about the UK's exit of the European Union, all he said before he launched into talking about his
hotel (free advertisingon TV!) -was 'I'm happy they've taken their country back'

And 51% of the UK agreed with him! So just how dumb is he?

[guohua]

@"BIAD"  OH, he's Not Dumb At All,,,, No it's the News Media That Are Stupid, just think, if Trump is Successful and Wins and Become the POTUS.
Trump does not Strike Me As Someone Who Forgets.
 If I was Trump, I'd Ask Bernie To Run As My VP.   
Hillary You Feel The Bern NOW? Bitch!

[Armonica_Templar]

I am putting this here because the overreach continues

The “Second-Class” Second Amendment Right

In the final day of its term, the Supreme Court decided a gun case, while managing to sidestep the Second Amendment.

In Voisine v. Unites States, by a 6-2 vote, the Court gave an expansive reading to the federal law prohibiting gun possession by persons convicted of a “misdemeanor crime of domestic violence.” The majority held that the statute applies to the reckless use of force against a domestic partner or family member, even in the absence of a conscious intent to do harm. Writing for the majority, Justice Kagan gave the example of throwing a plate in anger against a wall near where your wife is standing.

Justice Thomas was not pleased that the right to gun possession could be deprived for such a minor transgression. He filed a dissent accusing the majority of relegating the Second Amendment to a “second-class right.” Although Justice Sotomayor joined his dissent as to the meaning of the statute, she did not join the portion of his opinion arguing that to apply the statute more broadly would offend the Second Amendment. Only Justice Thomas thought the statute raised a Second Amendment issue. It was the second time Justice Thomas had accused a Court majority of treating the Second Amendment as a “second-class right.” The first was his dissent, joined by Justice Scalia, from the Court’s refusal last year to review a lower court ruling upholding a state assault weapon ban.

One need not give the Second Amendment “second-class” status to recognize what should be obvious: by its very nature, the Second Amendment is a different kind of right. Why? Because it is a uniquely dangerous right.

In 2008, in District of Columbia v. Heller, the Supreme Court cast aside established precedent and, for the first time in our history, recognized an individual right to possess guns in the home for self-defense. It is undeniable that exercise of that right exposes individuals, their families and the community-at-large to a vastly increased risk of harm. The fact is that those who exercise the Heller right have no assurance that a gun in the home will be used only for the salutary purpose of self-defense. Indeed,research shows that, for every time a gun in the home is used in a self-defense shooting, there are four unintentional shootings (often involving young children), seven criminal assaults (often involving domestic disputes, with women as the victims) and eleven completed or attempted suicides. Given that attacks with guns are far more likely to be lethal than attacks with other weapons, it is hardly surprising that the presence of a gun in the home increases the risk of homicide in the home three-fold and increases the risk of suicide five-fold.

The increased risk from exercise of the Heller right also is borne by the community-at-large. Residents of the states with the highest rates of gun ownership (Louisiana, Alabama, Mississippi, Wyoming, West Virginia and Arkansas) are more than 2.5 times more likely to become homicide victims than those in the states with the lowest rates of gun ownership (Hawaii, Massachusetts, Rhode Island and New Jersey). The more Americans decide to exercise the Heller right, the more deadly violence becomes.

Of course, it is possible for the exercise of other rights, particularly freedom of expression under the First Amendment, to create a risk of violence or physical injury. But if that risk becomes sufficiently great, the courts will deny the protection of the First Amendment altogether. The core exercise of freedom of expression is unlikely to pose a serious risk of physical harm, particularly lethal harm. The same cannot be said of the Second Amendment right. For this reason, it is misguided for courts to reflexively apply to the Second Amendment the same constitutional standards and reasoning developed in First Amendment cases.

Given the uncertainty about the Court’s future composition, it is not at all clear that the High Court will continue to recognize a Second Amendment right to have guns for self-defense, particularly since the Heller five-justice majority opinion is built on a historical house of cards that professional historians have denounced as “law office history.” But if the Heller right survives the continuing attack on its false originalism, at least the judiciary should give the right its own unique jurisprudence. It is a uniquely different kind of constitutional right.

The fallacy of the analogy between the First and Second Amendments is revealed in the Thomas dissent in Voisine. “I have little doubt,” he writes, “that the majority would strike down an absolute ban on publishing by a person previously convicted of misdemeanor libel.” Surely the risk that a person convicted of libel will inflict future injury to another’s reputation by libeling again is transparently of a different nature than the risk created by allowing someone who has committed an act of domestic violence to possess a lethal weapon. Damage to reputation is simply not comparable to a gunshot wound.

It is to be hoped that there will be other occasions for Justice Thomas to complain that a Supreme Court majority is treating the Second Amendment as a “second-class right.” It will likely mean that the Court has sensibly recognized that it is the most dangerous right.

Follow Dennis A. Henigan on Twitter: www.twitter.com/DennisHenigan

Please note I will post a link in propaganda but the full post here


This is the continued plan

All that comes to mind is Brexit and the reason why

measured with the other acts makes me see a plan


Their is one thing to note

I mention somewhere a long while back that it looked like someone was blackmailing the supreme court
This also qualifies as another link in the chain