|To: sense who wrote (2762)||6/20/2019 5:34:56 PM|
|Bongino: Mueller Probe ENTIRELY Based on Fraud, Upon Fraud, Upon Fraud... |
Rosenstein and the Special Counsel KNOWINGLY used fraudulent "evidence" in "Scoping" Memos... at least three times... while duplicating the circular parallel fraud of leaking a fraudulent story to the media, then using the publishing of the article in the media as "evidence" to justify the fraud...
FABRICATED events... to sustain the "investigation"...
There was NEVER ANY BASIS OTHER THAN FRAUD...
Also notes Trump making news by announcing in chat with Hannity that the DOJ is investigating the FBI spying on Trump's personal phone calls...
|RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (1)|
|To: sense who wrote (2763)||6/20/2019 5:56:49 PM|
| "the kind of language that makes Democrats roll their eyes"... is the reason Trump will win, again.|
If you think the language being used is hyperbole... you are suffering an (deliberate?) ignorance of the facts... overly dependent on "MSM" news sources... that purposefully aren't doing the work of journalists.
Obama weaponized the government... and used it to attack political opponents...
Trump's "news" discussing it as it impacted him... is only that "tip of the iceberg" that is visible... now...
But, the fact goes far beyond what is current in the media. The "IRS scandal"... didn't occur in a vacuum... but was duplicated inside every agency of the government.
No one who is right of center (as "the center" is defined by Obama) can EVER trust a Democrat in office again... and that includes a lot of Democrats... as Obama's Democrats in power HAVE ABUSED AND WILL ABUSE THAT POWER AGAIN... if ever given the chance...
That the problem is not being addressed ? That also tells you that they've not surrendered on making it work. That you see the effort being sustained now in the efforts to censor the speech of anyone other than extreme left wing Democrats... by using the fascist "private monopolies" of the left ?
The issue in the FBI is being made apparent... that a team of partisans took control of the agency and entirely politicized its operations and its decision making...
But, that is a PATTERN that was not exclusive to the FBI ?
We know it was also done at the DOJ, and the IRS...
But, no one seems interested in asking questions about the nature of the drivers or the limits in that deliberate effort ?
Democrats IN FACT changed the language government used to re-label Republicans and Libertarians as TERRORISTS... and then used the power of the government against them as if they were ? Also, in doing that, diverted all of the resources that otherwise would have been directed against real terrorists... to target their political opponents ?
|RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (1)|
|To: sense who wrote (2765)||6/20/2019 6:58:59 PM|
| Supreme Court seems inclined to retain cross on public land|
My opinion: Clear error exists in prior SCOTUS rulings on "separation of church and state"...
The point here being that "war memorials that use crosses to commemorate soldiers who died".... means that the memorials commemorate "the SOLDIERS" religious expression... not "the governments"... so that any government exercise of choice in relation to directing changes in the soldiers preference in expression (even in death) would violate the First Amendment.
The First Amendment imposes limits on the Federal government... and removes its limits on anyone else...
The limit the first amendment imposes (on government) is one that denies the government the ability to choose in matters of religion... it excludes government having any preference... which allows that choices are instead ENTIRELY left to the states, or to the people... while the Federal government itself remains aloof... essentially mandated to be blind, deaf, and dumb in matters of religion.
Choice is a simple matter, in logic, that consists of a sorting in, AND a sorting out... this, and not that. You can't have choice without the INHERENT pairing of both inclusion AND exclusion... even if one or the other is ignored in asserting choices made as only positive (inclusion) or negative (exclusion) choices.
Current rulings are in error as they validate the government choosing "and not that" as being an act of not choosing... when it is in fact the definition of the act of choosing. On that basis, the government has been wrongly suppressing private expression of religious belief... by excluding it... while claiming any persons presence on government property, or their employment by government, or mere association with government... converts their expressions into "government" speech... which clearly is ludicrous. (That second error in logic is obviously rooted in a wrongful extension of government ownership... to include persons, the people... as a part of the property of the government that is thus made subject to their control. )
Exclusion is choice. The government is disallowed by the First Amendment from either including or excluding any GOVERNMENT involvement in... the direction of... or the prohibition of... others expressions of religious belief. That right to express private opinion... includes the right to express private opinion in public.
That expression "occurs in public" does not convert the private expression of an opinion made in public... into "government speech".
The question then does become one of the nature of the lines drawn between what is "government" expression and what is a persons "private" expression...
My employment status... does not convert my opinion into the opinion of my employer ?
Government... cannot deny government employees their private right to have and express opinions, including in those opinions that are tied to their PERSONAL religious beliefs... government cannot exclude that expression by a person (including an employee) without exercising a government choice... but government also cannot allow any PERSONAL beliefs to be asserted by the government (and not a person), as being the government's belief... without exercising a choice.
Given the rigidity of the prohibition... no expression should ever be considered "government" expression... as long as there are no tax dollars being applied in generating a "forced" expression... constituting a "practice". The prohibition applies equally, also, in relation to any expressions by others that are made apparent in the study of others philosophy, or art work ? Religion is a fact... it exists... it has impact... and government cannot impose its opinion as a choice by forcing others to ignore the fact... so that the study of history should somehow inherit the government's requirement to be blind to religious difference ? The government being "blind" to religion... requires the government being blind to personal choices in the the study of religion ?
The Federal government doesn't run schools... so has no business addressing religion in schools... as doing so would itself be an prohibited exercise of government choice.
On matters of religion... the Federal government is required to be blind... deaf... and dumb... in relation to the states, or personal expressions... which every person is fully entitled to have and express as a personal choice.
|RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read|