« CONSTITUTION Home | Email msg. | Reply to msg. | Post new | Board info. Previous | Home | Next

Re: Free Speech? What's that? - SPLC 

By: monkeytrots in CONSTITUTION | Recommend this post (2)
Sun, 15 Oct 17 10:55 PM | 9 view(s)
Boardmark this board | Constitutional Corner
Msg. 21692 of 21692
(This msg. is a reply to 21691 by starlight)

Jump:
Jump to board:
Jump to msg. #

Fully aware, Starlight. Putting Spencer on their hate-list, and getting Amazon and google (and others-with threats of boycotts, denial of service, removal from the web via ISP's, deny DNS service, a whole slew of tactics) to go after him (and many others) provides pretty solid evidence of their intentions. They are also out to destroy any pro-life person, any conservative Christians, any anti-left spokesmen, any anti-sexual-deviancy spokespeople - they are non-discriminatory that way - anybody that doesn't toe their line on everything, they are out to destroy. With malice aforethought.

Not just those speaking out the truth about the musselman religion.

twitter, google, amazon - those are the big-3 clubs that are first deployed by splc; but there are more co-conspirators every day playing the splc hate mongering fiddle.




Avatar

Finally, brethren, whatsoever things are true, whatsoever things are honest, whatsoever things are just, whatsoever things are pure, whatsoever things are lovely, whatsoever things are of good ...


- - - - -
The above is a reply to the following message:
Re: Free Speech? What's that? - SPLC
By: starlight
in CONSTITUTION
Sun, 15 Oct 17 8:47 PM
Msg. 21691 of 21692

Something you might not know about the SPLC. They are committed to destroying the entities on their hate list -- islamophobes, as they call people who speak of Islam.


« CONSTITUTION Home | Email msg. | Reply to msg. | Post new | Board info. Previous | Home | Next

« CONSTITUTION Home | Email msg. | Reply to msg. | Post new | Board info. Previous | Home | Next

Re: Free Speech? What's that? - SPLC 

By: starlight in CONSTITUTION | Recommend this post (1)
Sun, 15 Oct 17 8:47 PM | 13 view(s)
Boardmark this board | Constitutional Corner
Msg. 21691 of 21692
(This msg. is a reply to 21690 by monkeytrots)

Jump:
Jump to board:
Jump to msg. #

Something you might not know about the SPLC. They are committed to destroying the entities on their hate list -- islamophobes, as they call people who speak of Islam.


- - - - -
View Replies (1) »

- - - - -
The above is a reply to the following message:
Re: Free Speech? What's that?
By: monkeytrots
in CONSTITUTION
Tue, 03 Oct 17 11:15 PM
Msg. 21690 of 21692

Starlight and Mr. Wizard - thanks to both of you. Good posts on the subject.

The three most dangerous attacks currently underway against the First Ammendment; in order of clear and present danger:

1.) Major pushes to criminalize 'hate speech'.

2.) Attempts to regulate the internet - making it legal to remove web-sites that are deemed 'fake', 'hateful', or 'promoting terrorism'. Southern Poverty Law Center is front and center on these efforts. Regulation- absolutely - with near monopoly powers those that control Domain Name Service, domain services, hosting services and other basics needed for pubishing on the internet MUST be treated as public utilities - they can NOT remove any web-site because of content or violating some pull-it-out-your-butt 'user agreement'. The expenses of fighting these bass-turds in civil courts basically strip all but the extremely rich of any protections of our rights in these cases.

A contract is a contract. If we are paying for it - it must be honoured. If a site is to be removed for 'criminal activity' - IT MUST BE DONE THROUGH COURT ACTIONS THAT ARE IN ACCORD with our US Constitution - not by some business that simply 'declares' it to be 'illegal' or in 'violation of policies' - or some government bureaucrat, Law enforcemnt, or even the DOJ ruling it is illegal.

3.) Pushes for declaring who are considered 'valid journalists' for purposes of exercising our Rights to Freedom of the Press. This has very explicit results in civil cases especially where 'journalists' are afforded unequal protection against libel charges vs. non-journalists. Very different standards of evidence, proof, and presumptions of innocence.

Yeah- I know #2 goes against a LOT of the current arguments. Property Rights are just as important to libery as First Ammendment Rights - without Property Rigts - it all fails - and you can kiss the First good-bye as being worthless.


« CONSTITUTION Home | Email msg. | Reply to msg. | Post new | Board info. Previous | Home | Next

« CONSTITUTION Home | Email msg. | Reply to msg. | Post new | Board info. Previous | Home | Next

Re: Free Speech? What's that? 

By: monkeytrots in CONSTITUTION | Recommend this post (1)
Tue, 03 Oct 17 11:15 PM | 26 view(s)
Boardmark this board | Constitutional Corner
Msg. 21690 of 21692
(This msg. is a reply to 21688 by Beldin)

Jump:
Jump to board:
Jump to msg. #

Starlight and Mr. Wizard - thanks to both of you. Good posts on the subject.

The three most dangerous attacks currently underway against the First Ammendment; in order of clear and present danger:

1.) Major pushes to criminalize 'hate speech'.

2.) Attempts to regulate the internet - making it legal to remove web-sites that are deemed 'fake', 'hateful', or 'promoting terrorism'. Southern Poverty Law Center is front and center on these efforts. Regulation- absolutely - with near monopoly powers those that control Domain Name Service, domain services, hosting services and other basics needed for pubishing on the internet MUST be treated as public utilities - they can NOT remove any web-site because of content or violating some pull-it-out-your-butt 'user agreement'. The expenses of fighting these bass-turds in civil courts basically strip all but the extremely rich of any protections of our rights in these cases.

A contract is a contract. If we are paying for it - it must be honoured. If a site is to be removed for 'criminal activity' - IT MUST BE DONE THROUGH COURT ACTIONS THAT ARE IN ACCORD with our US Constitution - not by some business that simply 'declares' it to be 'illegal' or in 'violation of policies' - or some government bureaucrat, Law enforcemnt, or even the DOJ ruling it is illegal.

3.) Pushes for declaring who are considered 'valid journalists' for purposes of exercising our Rights to Freedom of the Press. This has very explicit results in civil cases especially where 'journalists' are afforded unequal protection against libel charges vs. non-journalists. Very different standards of evidence, proof, and presumptions of innocence.

Yeah- I know #2 goes against a LOT of the current arguments. Property Rights are just as important to libery as First Ammendment Rights - without Property Rigts - it all fails - and you can kiss the First good-bye as being worthless.




Avatar

Finally, brethren, whatsoever things are true, whatsoever things are honest, whatsoever things are just, whatsoever things are pure, whatsoever things are lovely, whatsoever things are of good ...


- - - - -
View Replies (1) »

- - - - -
The above is a reply to the following message:
Re: Free Speech? What's that?
By: Beldin
in CONSTITUTION
Tue, 03 Oct 17 2:53 PM
Msg. 21688 of 21692

Why? Because Rubio is a mangina who has absolutely no clue what The Constitution says.

First Amendment
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Sorry, Marco ... but you and your little libtard and mooslim buddies do not have the right or the authority to define what is or is not free speech. Free speech is just that - free - you have that right, I have that right, and every other American has that right. However, no one has the right to not be offended. If you are offended by what someone else has to say, too bad ... tune them out, turn your back on them, walk away, or civilly exercise your right to free speech and rationally refute their statements. But, you do not get to rescind their First Amendment rights because you got your pajama-boy panties all in a twist over words you do not wish to hear or read.


« CONSTITUTION Home | Email msg. | Reply to msg. | Post new | Board info. Previous | Home | Next

« CONSTITUTION Home | Email msg. | Reply to msg. | Post new | Board info. Previous | Home | Next

Re: Mueller's case 

By: monkeytrots in CONSTITUTION | Recommend this post (1)
Tue, 03 Oct 17 11:00 PM | 24 view(s)
Boardmark this board | Constitutional Corner
Msg. 21689 of 21692
(This msg. is a reply to 21686 by micro)

Jump:
Jump to board:
Jump to msg. #

Close to the best piece of horse crap ...

I think the one from Sen. John Cornyn surpassed it recently - not posted either - but even worse than the one from Cruz because it included a condescending diarrhea regurgitation about the 'situation with russia' history ... errr... propaganda. At least Cruz didn't attempt to lecture me. I did firmly respond to Cornyn about 'not addressing the actual issue raised' - and, surprisingly (not), received no response whatsoever. *lol*

I think Cornyn actually surpassed himself in manure-piling-exhibitory skills over his reply to my contact years ago about the weasel-mouthing opposition by repugs to scotus nominee soda-mayor that resulted in them AGREEING not to block it with filibuster. I blistered his ass on that one.

MT - author of "How to make Enemas and Piss the Crap out of Others".

Cornyn's response to 'Mueller Unfit' contact ... (similarly dismissive about contact regarding our attack on Syria with missiles.)

Dear Mr. Monkeytrots:

Thank you for contacting me regarding the United States’ policy toward Russia. I appreciate having the benefit of your comments on this matter.

As you may know, the Obama Administration announced its misguided policy to “reset” U.S.-Russia relations in February 2009. From its inception, I had serious concerns regarding this now-defunct policy. Russian actions in recent years have proven that Russia must take responsibility and work to improve relations with the United States. Russia’s ongoing land grabs and violations of Ukrainian sovereignty, the 2010 revelation and arrest of members of a Russian spy ring inside the United States, Russia’s opposition to proposed U.S. missile defenses in Europe, as well as Russia’s resistance to broad sanctions against Iran, support for the Assad regime in Syria and the bombing of innocent civilians in Aleppo, expanded ties with North Korea, and the reported interference in the 2016 U.S. presidential election have clearly demonstrated that the Russian government’s policies and pursuits contradict U.S. national security and geopolitical goals.

When the atrocities in Syria began in 2011, I started pressing the Obama Administration to end all U.S. government business dealings with Rosoboronexport—the Russian state-owned arms broker that facilitates the Russian Federation’s arms transfers to Syria and which the United States previously sanctioned in 2007 for its reported role in helping Iran with the development of its nuclear program. I offered Senate Amendment 3260 to the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013 (P.L. 112-239), which was signed into law on January 2, 2013, and prohibits U.S. government funding for any further contracts or business agreements with Rosoboronexport. Although the Obama Administration subsequently skirted this law and procured additional Mi-17s for FY2013, I am pleased that the Department of Defense heeded my call and ceased the procurement of all additional Mi-17s, including 14 that were planned for FY2014. On September 3, 2015, the U.S. Government sanctioned Rosoboronexport, barring all future U.S. military purchases with the company, and on June 22, 2016, the State Department announced Rosoboronexport had violated the Iran, North Korea, and Syria Nonproliferation Act (P. L. 109–353) and placed additional sanctions on the arms dealer.

Most recently, several agencies of the U.S. Intelligence Community jointly assessed that the Russian government orchestrated the hacking of the Democratic National Committee and other organizations of the Democratic Party in the year prior to the 2016 presidential election, releasing thousands of stolen emails. I support the bipartisan congressional probe of alleged Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election, including investigating former national security adviser Michael Flynn’s interactions with the Russian ambassador. As a member of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, I am pleased this committee is conducting a robust, independent review of Russian interference in the election and will keep your comments in mind as the inquiry moves forward. Ensuring U.S. elections remain transparent, fair, and free of foreign influence is essential for the future of our democracy. Russian actions that seek to undermine American public confidence in the electoral process must have consequences. The United States must also increase its defensive cybersecurity capabilities to protect against states and individuals who wish to do us harm, such as stealing intellectual property from U.S. businesses and compromising our national security.

Finally, the Russian government’s respect for the rule of law and human rights has further degraded in recent years. According to the Department of State, Russia has engaged in attacks and killings of journalists, arbitrary detention and politically motivated imprisonments, and infringement on freedoms of speech and expression. There is also evidence of widespread corruption throughout the executive, legislative, and judicial branches of the Russian government. We cannot turn a blind eye to these deep-seated problems.

For this reason, I was proud to cosponsor the Sergei Magnitsky Rule of Law Accountability Act of 2011, which was signed into law as part of the Russia and Moldova Jackson Vanik Repeal and Magnitsky Rule of Law Accountability Act (P.L. 112-20Cool on December 14, 2012. This legislation directs the Secretary of State to impose sanctions against individuals responsible for extrajudicial killings, torture, and other human rights violations committed against individuals seeking to promote human rights in Russia or expose illegal activity and corruption by Russian Federation officials.

I appreciate having the opportunity to represent Texas in the United States Senate, and you may be certain that I will keep your views in mind as these matters are discussed. Thank you for taking the time to contact me.

Sincerely,

JOHN CORNYN

United States Senator

517 Hart Senate Office Building

Washington, DC 20510

Tel: (202) 224-2934

Fax: (202) 228-2856

http://www.cornyn.senate.gov




Avatar

Finally, brethren, whatsoever things are true, whatsoever things are honest, whatsoever things are just, whatsoever things are pure, whatsoever things are lovely, whatsoever things are of good ...


- - - - -
The above is a reply to the following message:
Re: Mueller's case
By: micro
in CONSTITUTION
Mon, 02 Oct 17 8:19 PM
Msg. 21686 of 21692

Well now professor

you have to admit....

That is the best piece of pass the horse shit that you ever got for a response, is it not?

WHat a weasel... Did not even touch what you wrote about..


Really disappointing..... IS there ONE Senator that is not a weasel or part of the swamp????

Wow..... Rolling Eyes Rolling Eyes Rolling Eyes


« CONSTITUTION Home | Email msg. | Reply to msg. | Post new | Board info. Previous | Home | Next

« CONSTITUTION Home | Email msg. | Reply to msg. | Post new | Board info. Previous | Home | Next

Re: Free Speech? What's that? 

By: Beldin in CONSTITUTION | Recommend this post (3)
Tue, 03 Oct 17 2:53 PM | 30 view(s)
Boardmark this board | Constitutional Corner
Msg. 21688 of 21692
(This msg. is a reply to 21687 by starlight)

Jump:
Jump to board:
Jump to msg. #

Why? Because Rubio is a mangina who has absolutely no clue what The Constitution says.

First Amendment
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Sorry, Marco ... but you and your little libtard and mooslim buddies do not have the right or the authority to define what is or is not free speech. Free speech is just that - free - you have that right, I have that right, and every other American has that right. However, no one has the right to not be offended. If you are offended by what someone else has to say, too bad ... tune them out, turn your back on them, walk away, or civilly exercise your right to free speech and rationally refute their statements. But, you do not get to rescind their First Amendment rights because you got your pajama-boy panties all in a twist over words you do not wish to hear or read.




Avatar

The essential American soul is hard, isolate, stoic, and a killer. It has never yet melted. D.H. Lawrence


- - - - -
View Replies (1) »

- - - - -
The above is a reply to the following message:
Free Speech? What's that?
By: starlight
in CONSTITUTION
Tue, 03 Oct 17 3:17 AM
Msg. 21687 of 21692

Passed Senate - https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/senate-resolution/118

Why Did Marco Rubio Submit an Islamist MPAC Resolution Against Islamophobia?

Posted on June 21, 2017

http://counterjihadreport.com/2017/06/21/why-did-marco-rubio-submit-an-islamist-mpac-resolution-against-islamophobia/

Front Page Magazine, by Daniel Greenfield, June 20, 2017:

The Senate can’t seem to repeal ObamaCare. Or get much of anything done. But it found time for important matters like this… as Judith Bergman at Gatestone reveals.

On April 4, 2017, the US Senate passed Senate Resolution 118, “Condemning hate crime and any other form of racism, religious or ethnic bias, discrimination, incitement to violence, or animus targeting a minority in the United States”. The resolution was drafted by a Muslim organization, EmgageUSA (formerly EmergeUSA) and the Muslim Public Affairs Council (MPAC).

The resolution includes the claim that…
Whereas, in 2015, hate crimes targeting Muslims in the United States increased by 67 percent, reaching a level of violence targeting Muslim Americans that the United States had not experienced since the aftermath of the September 11, 2001, attacks, according to the Federal Bureau of Investigation;

There’s also boilerplate language about anti-Semitism and hate crimes in general.

Kamala Harris, Feinstein, Susan Collins and Rubio introduced it. And the Islamists credited them.

“Thanks to the hard work of Senator Marco Rubio, Senator Dianne Feinstein, Senator Susan Collins and Senator Kamala Harris we have achieved the approval of Senate Resolution 118, an anti-hate crimes bill drafted by Emerge-USA.”

Emerge USA is exactly what you would expect from Islamists.

Over the years, EMERGE has held a number of events at terror-linked mosques, like: (a) Masjid Al-Qassam (a.k.a. Islamic Community of Tampa), which was founded by Palestinian Islamic Jihad leader Sami al-Arian, and (b) Masjid Darul Uloom (based in Pembroke Pines, Florida), where “Dirty Bomber” Jose Padilla was a student and the late al-Qaeda Global Operations Chief Adnan el-Shukrijumah was a prayer leader. EMERGE has also sponsored speeches made by various Muslim extremists, such as Sayed Ammar Nakshawani, who has called for the destruction of Israel.

EMERGE’s executive director, Nauman Sabit Abbasi, is the president of public relations for the Islamic Foundation of South Florida (IFSF), a radical mosque that seeks to “establish a powerful base for the growth of Islam in North America,” and whose youth leader once wrote on the Internet: “[Y]es, Allah … has Decreed that we will over-take the World in numbers…” Abbasi’s Facebook page urged to people to “support the true leadership of the world who are at war with Zoinists.”

So why introduce the resolution and what is the agenda? Judith Bergman asks.

 Why would the House of Representatives find it necessary to make such redundant statements, if not in order to redefine the concept of a hate crime? Perhaps by including “hate speech”?
And she notes that…

On May 6, EmgageUSA published the following on its Facebook page: “Representative Barbara Comstock, second term Republican from Virginia’s 10thDistrict is teaming up with EmergeUSA and MPAC to successfully pass a House Resolution which condemns ethnic, religious and racial hate crimes.”

The Senate unanimously passed its version. And this shows once again that Islamist groups are still managing to get their claws into Republicans.

Meanwhile an MPAC piece credits ADL involvement. And that would figure.


« CONSTITUTION Home | Email msg. | Reply to msg. | Post new | Board info. Previous | Home | Next

« CONSTITUTION Home | Email msg. | Reply to msg. | Post new | Board info. Previous | Home | Next

Free Speech? What's that? 

By: starlight in CONSTITUTION | Recommend this post (1)
Tue, 03 Oct 17 3:17 AM | 26 view(s)
Boardmark this board | Constitutional Corner
Msg. 21687 of 21692
Jump:
Jump to board:
Jump to msg. #

Passed Senate - https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/senate-resolution/118

Why Did Marco Rubio Submit an Islamist MPAC Resolution Against Islamophobia?

Posted on June 21, 2017

http://counterjihadreport.com/2017/06/21/why-did-marco-rubio-submit-an-islamist-mpac-resolution-against-islamophobia/

Front Page Magazine, by Daniel Greenfield, June 20, 2017:

The Senate can’t seem to repeal ObamaCare. Or get much of anything done. But it found time for important matters like this… as Judith Bergman at Gatestone reveals.

On April 4, 2017, the US Senate passed Senate Resolution 118, “Condemning hate crime and any other form of racism, religious or ethnic bias, discrimination, incitement to violence, or animus targeting a minority in the United States”. The resolution was drafted by a Muslim organization, EmgageUSA (formerly EmergeUSA) and the Muslim Public Affairs Council (MPAC).

The resolution includes the claim that…
Whereas, in 2015, hate crimes targeting Muslims in the United States increased by 67 percent, reaching a level of violence targeting Muslim Americans that the United States had not experienced since the aftermath of the September 11, 2001, attacks, according to the Federal Bureau of Investigation;

There’s also boilerplate language about anti-Semitism and hate crimes in general.

Kamala Harris, Feinstein, Susan Collins and Rubio introduced it. And the Islamists credited them.

“Thanks to the hard work of Senator Marco Rubio, Senator Dianne Feinstein, Senator Susan Collins and Senator Kamala Harris we have achieved the approval of Senate Resolution 118, an anti-hate crimes bill drafted by Emerge-USA.”

Emerge USA is exactly what you would expect from Islamists.

Over the years, EMERGE has held a number of events at terror-linked mosques, like: (a) Masjid Al-Qassam (a.k.a. Islamic Community of Tampa), which was founded by Palestinian Islamic Jihad leader Sami al-Arian, and (b) Masjid Darul Uloom (based in Pembroke Pines, Florida), where “Dirty Bomber” Jose Padilla was a student and the late al-Qaeda Global Operations Chief Adnan el-Shukrijumah was a prayer leader. EMERGE has also sponsored speeches made by various Muslim extremists, such as Sayed Ammar Nakshawani, who has called for the destruction of Israel.

EMERGE’s executive director, Nauman Sabit Abbasi, is the president of public relations for the Islamic Foundation of South Florida (IFSF), a radical mosque that seeks to “establish a powerful base for the growth of Islam in North America,” and whose youth leader once wrote on the Internet: “[Y]es, Allah … has Decreed that we will over-take the World in numbers…” Abbasi’s Facebook page urged to people to “support the true leadership of the world who are at war with Zoinists.”

So why introduce the resolution and what is the agenda? Judith Bergman asks.

 Why would the House of Representatives find it necessary to make such redundant statements, if not in order to redefine the concept of a hate crime? Perhaps by including “hate speech”?
And she notes that…

On May 6, EmgageUSA published the following on its Facebook page: “Representative Barbara Comstock, second term Republican from Virginia’s 10thDistrict is teaming up with EmergeUSA and MPAC to successfully pass a House Resolution which condemns ethnic, religious and racial hate crimes.”

The Senate unanimously passed its version. And this shows once again that Islamist groups are still managing to get their claws into Republicans.

Meanwhile an MPAC piece credits ADL involvement. And that would figure.


- - - - -
View Replies (1) »

« CONSTITUTION Home | Email msg. | Reply to msg. | Post new | Board info. Previous | Home | Next

« CONSTITUTION Home | Email msg. | Reply to msg. | Post new | Board info. Previous | Home | Next

Re: Mueller's case 

By: micro in CONSTITUTION | Recommend this post (2)
Mon, 02 Oct 17 8:19 PM | 31 view(s)
Boardmark this board | Constitutional Corner
Msg. 21686 of 21692
(This msg. is a reply to 21682 by monkeytrots)

Jump:
Jump to board:
Jump to msg. #

Well now professor

you have to admit....

That is the best piece of pass the horse shit that you ever got for a response, is it not?

WHat a weasel... Did not even touch what you wrote about..


Really disappointing..... IS there ONE Senator that is not a weasel or part of the swamp????

Wow..... Rolling Eyes Rolling Eyes Rolling Eyes


- - - - -
View Replies (1) »

- - - - -
The above is a reply to the following message:
Re: Mueller's case
By: monkeytrots
in CONSTITUTION
Mon, 25 Sep 17 7:48 PM
Msg. 21682 of 21692

I finally received a reply from Sen Cruz regarding my contact with him stating that Mueller was not legally qualified to serve as a special prosecutor.

I was disgusted by the lack of reply - and have not recontacted him to express that disgust. I will do so - when I can do it in a hard hitting and respectful reply.

Since I posted my original Contact on PopeIV - it is documented that I made no mention about the Russian investigation, nor about supporting the investigation, nor that I had ANY interest in seeing the investigation continue.

Here are the contents of the reply from Sen. Cruz:
United States Senate
Washington, DC 20510

Dear David,

Thank you for contacting me regarding investigations of Russian interference in American elections. Input from fellow Texans significantly informs my decision-making and empowers me to better represent the state.

As you may know, the Federal Bureau of Investigation has confirmed an ongoing investigation into the Russian government’s efforts to interfere in the 2016 presidential election. Additionally, Russian meddling in American elections has been under investigation by committees in both houses of Congress. I have faith in these institutions and believe we should let those investigations run their course. Please be assured that I will keep your concerns in mind as Congress continues to consider this important issue.

Thank you again for sharing your views with me. Please feel free to contact me in the future about any issue important to you or your family. It is an honor to serve you and the people of Texas.

For Liberty,

Senator Ted Cruz


« CONSTITUTION Home | Email msg. | Reply to msg. | Post new | Board info. Previous | Home | Next

« CONSTITUTION Home | Email msg. | Reply to msg. | Post new | Board info. Previous | Home | Next

Klukowski: Scalia Says Bills to Protect Special Counsel from Firing are Unconstitutional 

By: monkeytrots in CONSTITUTION | Recommend this post (2)
Sun, 01 Oct 17 8:41 PM | 28 view(s)
Boardmark this board | Constitutional Corner
Msg. 21685 of 21692
Jump:
Jump to board:
Jump to msg. #

Good Article - solid, Constitutional reasoning - mt agrees.

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/10/01/klukowski-scalia-says-bills-to-protect-special-counsel-from-firing-are-unconstitutional/

... excerpt

Against this backdrop, it becomes clear that the legislation Congress is now considering to restrict the ability to fire a special counsel is in fact trying to revive the concept of an independent counsel, which for twenty years was authorized by the Ethics in Government Act of 1978.

But as all of these cases show, even when independent counsels were authorized by statute, they were nonetheless unconstitutional.

The Supreme Court had to perform linguistic gymnastics to uphold that statute when it was legally challenged in its 1988 case Morrison v. Olson. Yet even in doing so, the Court could not deny, “There is no real dispute that the functions performed by the independent counsel are ‘executive.’”

Justice Antonin Scalia dissented in Morrison in the most famous dissent in this area of law (called administrative law), so much so that most law students read his dissenting opinion in law school. He argued that any federal prosecutor must be removable by the president at any time.

“The Founders conspicuously and very consciously declined to sap the Executive’s strength in the same way they had weakened the Legislature: by dividing the Executive power,” Justice Scalia explained. “Proposals to have multiple executives, or a council of advisers with separate authority were rejected.”

Surprised that the statute before him was such a flagrant violation of the Constitution’s separation of powers, Justice Scalia continued:

Frequently an issue of this sort will come before the Court clad, so to speak, in sheep’s clothing: the potential of the asserted principle to effect important change in the equilibrium of power is not immediately evident, and must be discerned by a careful and perceptive analysis. But this wolf comes as a wolf.

Quoting Article II of the Constitution, which begins, “The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America,” Justice Scalia emphasized that “this does not mean some of the executive power, but all of the executive power.”

“Governmental investigation and prosecution of crimes is a quintessentially executive function,” Justice Scalia added.

... in-cerpt *s*




Avatar

Finally, brethren, whatsoever things are true, whatsoever things are honest, whatsoever things are just, whatsoever things are pure, whatsoever things are lovely, whatsoever things are of good ...


« CONSTITUTION Home | Email msg. | Reply to msg. | Post new | Board info. Previous | Home | Next

« CONSTITUTION Home | Email msg. | Reply to msg. | Post new | Board info. Previous | Home | Next

More 1st Amendment Supression - Berkeley working for Terrorist Organization 

By: monkeytrots in CONSTITUTION | Recommend this post (1)
Mon, 25 Sep 17 8:10 PM | 26 view(s)
Boardmark this board | Constitutional Corner
Msg. 21684 of 21692
Jump:
Jump to board:
Jump to msg. #

http://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/267946/updated-exposing-sjp-terrorist-front-uc-berkeley-sara-dogan

Editorial note: On Thursday night, the poster above and several others were put up all over the campus of UC Berkeley in conjunction with Milo Yiannopoulos’s “Free Speech Week.” The next morning, as soon as they were discovered, Berkeley’s new chancellor, Carol Christ, ordered her minions to tear down the posters, lest they be seen and read by Berkeley students. Chancellor Christ accompanied this assault on free speech with an announcement that her staff was investigating to see whether the posters constituted a “hate crime.”

...

Editor’s note: The David Horowitz Freedom Center today announced the University of California-Berkeley as the first school named in its new report on the “Top Ten Worst Schools that Support Terrorists.” Coinciding with the release, the Freedom Center placed posters on Berkeley’s campus exposing the links between Students for Justice in Palestine and the terrorist organization Hamas, whose stated goal is the destruction of the Jewish state.

As revealed in recent congressional testimony, Students for Justice in Palestine is a campus front for Hamas terrorists. SJP’s propaganda activities are orchestrated and funded by a Hamas front group, American Muslims for Palestine, whose chairman is Hatem Bazian and whose principals are former officers of the Holy Land Foundation and other Islamic “charities” previously convicted of funneling money to Hamas. The report and posters are part of a larger Freedom Center campaign titled Stop University Support for Terrorists. Images of the posters that appeared at UC-Berkeley may be viewed at

http://www.stopuniversitysupportforterrorists.org.




Avatar

Finally, brethren, whatsoever things are true, whatsoever things are honest, whatsoever things are just, whatsoever things are pure, whatsoever things are lovely, whatsoever things are of good ...


« CONSTITUTION Home | Email msg. | Reply to msg. | Post new | Board info. Previous | Home | Next

« CONSTITUTION Home | Email msg. | Reply to msg. | Post new | Board info. Previous | Home | Next

edit: Free Speech Fascist Suppression - Dearborn, Michigan 

By: monkeytrots in CONSTITUTION | Recommend this post (1)
Mon, 25 Sep 17 8:02 PM | 28 view(s)
Boardmark this board | Constitutional Corner
Msg. 21683 of 21692
Jump:
Jump to board:
Jump to msg. #

A very effective anti-Jihaadist died recently. Included are two articles written concerning this man.

The first is from FrontpageMag.com -
NABEEL QURESHI, 1983-2017
Reflections on a fallen Counter-Jihadi.
September 25, 2017 Danusha V. Goska

http://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/267937/nabeel-qureshi-1983-2017-danusha-v-goska

This article is well worth reading, and describes the battle and techniques used by Nabeel, a tribute from Goska; and of Goska's own battle against jihaadism.

However, the REAL point of this post is to demonstrate how far along we are to an ABSOLUTE POLICE STATE in this Country. Granted it is from Little Baghdad, USA - this is still a chilling account.

http://www.americanfreedomlawcenter.org/press-release/city-of-dearborn-apologizes-for-arresting-christians-at-2010-arab-festival-settlement-reached-in-lawsuit/

City of Dearborn Apologizes for Arresting Christians at 2010 Arab Festival; Settlement Reached in Lawsuit

(excerpt)

On June 18, 2010, David Wood, Nabeel Qureshi (co-founders of Acts 17 Apologetics) and Paul Rezkalla were arrested by Dearborn police officers at the Dearborn Arab International Festival (“Arab Festival”), while they were engaging in a peaceful dialogue about their Christian faith with several festival attendees. Wood, Qureshi, and Rezkalla were subsequently charged with breach of peace, a misdemeanor offense.

The decision to arrest these individuals was based in part on information provided to the Dearborn police by Arab Festival attendees, workers, and volunteers. When all of the information—including the video captured by Wood, Qureshi, and Rezkalla—was presented to a Dearborn jury, the jury found that these individuals were not guilty of the criminal offense of breach of peace.
 

...
Yerushalmi added, “While the dispute with the City is over, there is still unfinished business with the Arab Chamber. As the City itself noted in its apology, Arab Festival volunteers and workers, who were acting under the guidance and direction of the Arab Chamber and its executive director, Fay Beydoun, and pursuant to the Chamber’s festival ‘rules and regulations,’ are similarly responsible for the violation of our clients’ rights, and we intend to hold them accountable.”

(end excerpts)

The terms of the settlement are sealed - almost certainly due to Dearborn's insistence.

I have not followed up to see if The Arab Chamber was successfully held accountable. Somehow - I seriously doubt that there was any justice delivered on that issue.





Avatar

Finally, brethren, whatsoever things are true, whatsoever things are honest, whatsoever things are just, whatsoever things are pure, whatsoever things are lovely, whatsoever things are of good ...


« CONSTITUTION Home | Email msg. | Reply to msg. | Post new | Board info. Previous | Home | Next

« CONSTITUTION Home | Email msg. | Reply to msg. | Post new | Board info. Previous | Home | Next

Re: Mueller's case 

By: monkeytrots in CONSTITUTION | Recommend this post (1)
Mon, 25 Sep 17 7:48 PM | 29 view(s)
Boardmark this board | Constitutional Corner
Msg. 21682 of 21692
(This msg. is a reply to 21681 by Beldin)

Jump:
Jump to board:
Jump to msg. #

I finally received a reply from Sen Cruz regarding my contact with him stating that Mueller was not legally qualified to serve as a special prosecutor.

I was disgusted by the lack of reply - and have not recontacted him to express that disgust. I will do so - when I can do it in a hard hitting and respectful reply.

Since I posted my original Contact on PopeIV - it is documented that I made no mention about the Russian investigation, nor about supporting the investigation, nor that I had ANY interest in seeing the investigation continue.

Here are the contents of the reply from Sen. Cruz:
United States Senate
Washington, DC 20510

Dear David,

Thank you for contacting me regarding investigations of Russian interference in American elections. Input from fellow Texans significantly informs my decision-making and empowers me to better represent the state.

As you may know, the Federal Bureau of Investigation has confirmed an ongoing investigation into the Russian government’s efforts to interfere in the 2016 presidential election. Additionally, Russian meddling in American elections has been under investigation by committees in both houses of Congress. I have faith in these institutions and believe we should let those investigations run their course. Please be assured that I will keep your concerns in mind as Congress continues to consider this important issue.

Thank you again for sharing your views with me. Please feel free to contact me in the future about any issue important to you or your family. It is an honor to serve you and the people of Texas.

For Liberty,

Senator Ted Cruz




Avatar

Finally, brethren, whatsoever things are true, whatsoever things are honest, whatsoever things are just, whatsoever things are pure, whatsoever things are lovely, whatsoever things are of good ...


- - - - -
View Replies (1) »

- - - - -
The above is a reply to the following message:
Mueller's case
By: Beldin
in CONSTITUTION
Mon, 25 Sep 17 4:54 PM
Msg. 21681 of 21692

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2017/09/muellers-case.php

By Scott Johnson
Powerline
September 24, 2017

Andrew McCarthy devotes his weekly NRO column to the unlimited mandate and uninhibited prosecutorial tactics of Robert Mueller. The column is "Mueller scorches the earth." Reviewing the proceedings to date, Andy writes:

You are forgiven if you can recall only vaguely that supposition about Trump-campaign collusion in Russian espionage against the 2016 election was the actual explanation for Mueller's appointment as special counsel. To the extent there was any explanation, that is. Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, a Trump appointee, did not comply with the regulations requiring a description of the crimes Trump's Justice Department is too conflicted to investigate, purportedly necessitating a quasi-independent special counsel.

The way it's supposed to work, the Justice Department learns of a crime, so it assigns a prosecutor. To the contrary, this Justice Department assigned a prosecutor - make that: Seventeen hyper-aggressive prosecutors - and unleashed them to hunt for whatever crime they could find.

If you sense that this cuts against the presumption of innocence, you're onto something ...

McCarthy seems to be approximately the only observer troubled by the improprieties on which the Mueller investigation is predicated and the tactics with which it has been conducted. It's not entirely clear to me why.


« CONSTITUTION Home | Email msg. | Reply to msg. | Post new | Board info. Previous | Home | Next

« CONSTITUTION Home | Email msg. | Reply to msg. | Post new | Board info. Previous | Home | Next

Mueller's case 

By: Beldin in CONSTITUTION | Recommend this post (2)
Mon, 25 Sep 17 4:54 PM | 27 view(s)
Boardmark this board | Constitutional Corner
Msg. 21681 of 21692
Jump:
Jump to board:
Jump to msg. #

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2017/09/muellers-case.php

By Scott Johnson
Powerline
September 24, 2017

Andrew McCarthy devotes his weekly NRO column to the unlimited mandate and uninhibited prosecutorial tactics of Robert Mueller. The column is "Mueller scorches the earth." Reviewing the proceedings to date, Andy writes:

You are forgiven if you can recall only vaguely that supposition about Trump-campaign collusion in Russian espionage against the 2016 election was the actual explanation for Mueller's appointment as special counsel. To the extent there was any explanation, that is. Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, a Trump appointee, did not comply with the regulations requiring a description of the crimes Trump's Justice Department is too conflicted to investigate, purportedly necessitating a quasi-independent special counsel.

The way it's supposed to work, the Justice Department learns of a crime, so it assigns a prosecutor. To the contrary, this Justice Department assigned a prosecutor - make that: Seventeen hyper-aggressive prosecutors - and unleashed them to hunt for whatever crime they could find.

If you sense that this cuts against the presumption of innocence, you're onto something ...

McCarthy seems to be approximately the only observer troubled by the improprieties on which the Mueller investigation is predicated and the tactics with which it has been conducted. It's not entirely clear to me why.




Avatar

The essential American soul is hard, isolate, stoic, and a killer. It has never yet melted. D.H. Lawrence


- - - - -
View Replies (1) »

« CONSTITUTION Home | Email msg. | Reply to msg. | Post new | Board info. Previous | Home | Next

« CONSTITUTION Home | Email msg. | Reply to msg. | Post new | Board info. Previous | Home | Next

Re: Another uh oh ... I meant to post this on the Pope Board 

By: Beldin in CONSTITUTION | Recommend this post (2)
Thu, 21 Sep 17 6:19 PM | 45 view(s)
Boardmark this board | Constitutional Corner
Msg. 21680 of 21692
(This msg. is a reply to 21679 by monkeytrots)

Jump:
Jump to board:
Jump to msg. #

I agree. The use of the word "inquisition" in this article is spot on, IMHO!




Avatar

The essential American soul is hard, isolate, stoic, and a killer. It has never yet melted. D.H. Lawrence


- - - - -
The above is a reply to the following message:
Re: Another uh oh ... I meant to post this on the Pope Board
By: monkeytrots
in CONSTITUTION
Thu, 21 Sep 17 4:57 PM
Msg. 21679 of 21692

No apology needed - Mr. Wizard. This is an EXCELLENT example of another case demonstrating just how far along we are in the fascist destruction of FIRST AMMENDMENT RIGHTS - freedom of the press, right to petition for grievances, and, of course, freedom of speech.


« CONSTITUTION Home | Email msg. | Reply to msg. | Post new | Board info. Previous | Home | Next

« CONSTITUTION Home | Email msg. | Reply to msg. | Post new | Board info. Previous | Home | Next

Re: Another uh oh ... I meant to post this on the Pope Board 

By: monkeytrots in CONSTITUTION | Recommend this post (4)
Thu, 21 Sep 17 4:57 PM | 43 view(s)
Boardmark this board | Constitutional Corner
Msg. 21679 of 21692
(This msg. is a reply to 21678 by Beldin)

Jump:
Jump to board:
Jump to msg. #

No apology needed - Mr. Wizard. This is an EXCELLENT example of another case demonstrating just how far along we are in the fascist destruction of FIRST AMMENDMENT RIGHTS - freedom of the press, right to petition for grievances, and, of course, freedom of speech.




Avatar

Finally, brethren, whatsoever things are true, whatsoever things are honest, whatsoever things are just, whatsoever things are pure, whatsoever things are lovely, whatsoever things are of good ...


- - - - -
View Replies (1) »

- - - - -
The above is a reply to the following message:
Another uh oh ... I meant to post this on the Pope Board
By: Beldin
in CONSTITUTION
Thu, 21 Sep 17 4:42 PM
Msg. 21678 of 21692

Oh well, I will re-post it over there, too.


« CONSTITUTION Home | Email msg. | Reply to msg. | Post new | Board info. Previous | Home | Next

« CONSTITUTION Home | Email msg. | Reply to msg. | Post new | Board info. Previous | Home | Next

Another uh oh ... I meant to post this on the Pope Board 

By: Beldin in CONSTITUTION | Recommend this post (2)
Thu, 21 Sep 17 4:42 PM | 40 view(s)
Boardmark this board | Constitutional Corner
Msg. 21678 of 21692
(This msg. is a reply to 21677 by Beldin)

Jump:
Jump to board:
Jump to msg. #

Oh well, I will re-post it over there, too.




Avatar

The essential American soul is hard, isolate, stoic, and a killer. It has never yet melted. D.H. Lawrence


- - - - -
View Replies (1) »

- - - - -
The above is a reply to the following message:
Uh oh ... she caused a heatwave in the Land of Snowflakes
By: Beldin
in CONSTITUTION
Thu, 21 Sep 17 4:40 PM
Msg. 21677 of 21692

No one expects the return of the Title IX inquisition

http://hotair.com/archives/2017/09/21/no-one-expects-return-title-ix-inquisition/

In 2015 Northwestern professor Laura Kipnis wrote an article for the Chronicle of Higher Education criticizing Title IX investigations on campus. The response to the article was a forerunner of what we saw at Evergreen State College earlier this year. Students carrying mattresses marched across campus to the president's office with a petition demanding a "swift, official condemnation" of Kipnis.

In addition, a graduate student who was briefly mentioned but not named in Kipnis' article filed a Title IX complaint against her claiming the article constituted retaliation. Months later, Kipnis was cleared of any wrongdoing, coincidentally just hours after she published a follow-up article detailing her "Title IX Inquisition."

That was more than two years ago and in the interim Kipnis has written a book on the topic titled "Unwanted Advances: Sexual Paranoia Comes to Campus" which was published earlier this year. The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education offers this description of the book's contents:

"Unwanted Advances" tracks the events leading up to Kipnis' first investigation in the spring of 2015 and explores the story of former Northwestern philosophy professor Peter Ludlow, who resigned from his position at the university amid an investigation into his relationships with two Northwestern students.

Ludlow claimed the relationships were consensual. The two students involved alleged that portions of them were not. In her book, Kipnis explores these dueling claims, uncovering what The New York Times calls "a shadow world of Title IX investigations."

In response, a student involved in the Ludlow case filed a defamation lawsuit and, with a group of other students, launched another Title IX complaint against Kipnis. From the New Yorker:

Kipnis told me that she was surprised when Northwestern once again launched a formal Title IX investigation of her writing. (A spokesperson from Northwestern did not respond to a request for comment by press time.) Kipnis said that investigators presented her with a spreadsheet laying out dozens of quotations from her book, along with at least eighty written questions, such as "What do you mean by this statement?," "What is the source/are the sources for this information?," and "How do you respond to the allegation that this detail is not necessary to your argument and that its inclusion is evidence of retaliatory intent on your part?" Kipnis chose not to answer any questions, following the standard advice of counsel defending the court case.

She did submit a statement saying that "these complaints seem like an attempt to bend the campus judicial system to punish someone whose work involves questioning the campus judicial system, just as bringing Title IX complaints over my first Chronicle essay attempted to do two years ago." In other words, the process was the punishment. Possible evidence of retaliatory purpose, she learned, included statements in the book that aggressively staked out her refusal to keep quiet, expressed in her trademark hyperbole. Her prior Title IX investigation, she writes, "has made me a little mad and possibly a little dangerous. ... I mean, having been hauled up on complaints once, what do I have to lose? 'Confidentiality'? 'Conduct befitting a professor'? Kiss my ass. In other words, thank you to my accusers: unwitting collaborators, accidental muses." Also presented as possible evidence was her Facebook post quoting a book review - "Kipnis doesn't seem like the sort of enemy you'd want to attract, let alone help create" - on which Kipnis had commented, "I love that."

This time the investigation only took a month. The school once again decided that Kipnis had not violated any rules by writing a book critical of a Title IX case that happened at her university. That's the good news.

The bad news is that someone put together that detailed spreadsheet of quotations from Kipnis' book and, under its Title IX authority, the university attempted to interrogate her about each statement in detail. Was there no one at the university who recognized this kind of inquisition, especially a second time around, was a bad idea?



« CONSTITUTION Home | Email msg. | Reply to msg. | Post new | Board info. Previous | Home | Next