Yeah, I know who Ron is.

Well, the MRA’s have been in that recently exploding persona non grata group for a really loooong time. They were pretty much the first one’s put in there. As for the issues you raise – socialism, police state – many were screaming against those too, way ahead of the curve. Maybe not ideologically, but definitely in regard to the Govt policies those things brought about – family destruction & over ruling due process. Granted, this was an accident because family men were the first adult casualties.

I dabbled with MR’s way back, but moved on as I saw the futility of being in a movement that EVERYONE hated – left, right, conservative, liberal, non political, male, female – everyone hated, ridiculed, shut down & lied about MRA’s from way back in the early 90’s. And yes they have done little to change anything, but I would argue the above in their defense. I would also point out they were bellwethers on a lot of the dissident rights current points.

True. The southern States knew that Lincoln’s actions nullified the US Constitution and those States chose to withdraw consent and fall back to the Articles of Confederation. Hence, “Confederate States of America”.
Something not taught in schools, ever.
The Constitution itself was a takeover of the government of the USA.
We almost were a Switzerland, Confederation Helvetica.
Confederation America.sounds nice.
Instead we went from Boston Tea Party to Whisky Rebellion in 18 years.

“first Jewish president”

Funny that. They ALL were Jews. Even Obama, Clinton, etc.
Obama’s mother was a descendant of Lord Stanley and the Dunham’s. Related to Lena Dunham.

Every US President, R or D, is related to the same intertwined ultra wealthy families that have always run the America project. Meaning all Presidents are related to each other.

It’s a small club.

#RESIST45 just consumed two and a half years of headline news and commentary with a load of crap. Keeping everyone’s minds off of anything really important. Just like Monica and her stain did for the US invasion of former Yugoslavia.

@futurethirdworlder & @95 Theses, thank you both for your kind words. I only received custody because it was in Indiana and the psychologist saw through her lies.

Whew! What a nightmare! Good for you that things turned out alright. And for your kids.

Ron Paul: “All decent people oppose domestic violence and terrorism. ”

I guess that means that the Founding Fathers weren’t decent people then, since they used terrorism, i.e., violent acts intended to achieve a political result.

The problem here is “decent people” and their fucked up sense of decency. The very Christian American compulsion to be “decent” has led to the overriding of principles expressed in the Constitution again and again. It was abolitionists’ sense of “decency” which led to war, and inclusion of negroes into the republic as citizens and voters. Later, the same attitude led their progeny to pass Affirmative Action laws, granting preferences to the children of alien races over their own white children. They were quite willing to sacrifice “their posterity” on the altar of their so-called decency.

Now Ron Paul says they’re coming for your guns, using the VAWA as a pretext. But how else? Back in frontier times, a man needed a shootin’ iron for rustlin’ up some grub or to defend his animals from coyotes, and if he beat his wife now and then, it was considered his own business. Nowadays though, very few people need to depend on firearms for day-to-day survival, and so all decent people are in favor of restricting them. Only deplorables object. Likewise with VAWA. This is the ever-onward march of “decency”, trampling freedom and the Constitution, or what remains of it, under foot. Besides, who cares about it? Certainly not “decent” people, since the Constitution was written largely by those notorious slave-owning white men from whom everyone with any sense of “decency” now wants to distance themselves. Freedom itself is suspect. Should men be free to beat their wives? Surely nobody “decent” would agree.

If there really were a God, we should pray to him to save us from the “decent” people even more than from the criminals, or the worst diseases. A suitable epitaph to put on the nation’s tombstone: “Dead, but decent”.

Wow, to hear at the end of your story that you recieved sole custody was a real twist. I’m happy that it worked out for you.

Dr. Ron Paul nails it once again. As the victim of a bogus restraining order, I was shocked just how easy it was for my ex-wife to get one. We lived in the state of Indiana, and she fled to NC. Once there, she filed for an order and NC sent it back to Indiana. In December of that year, Indiana threw out the order and I was to get my kids for winter break. Well, two weeks later, she files for another protective order and it’s not heard until March of the following year. In the hearing, the judge in NC spoke to the judge in Indiana and sent it back to Indiana. In the hearing, my ex-wife took the stand and told her side of the story. My attorney never had the chance to cross examine her, I never had the opportunity to take the stand myself. But after everything was sent back to Indiana, she was still awarded a protective order by NC. Yet I was never served with the order. To this day, I have no idea if this is on my record or not. But the ease that my ex was able to get an order and the rush to judgment by the state of NC blew me away. In our custody evaluation in Indiana, the psychologist noted that NC had already come to an a priori assumption of my guilt and that no evidence to the contrary would dissuade them. Thankfully I received custody of my children and mom hasn’t seen them in 5 years. VAWA has been weaponized to unilaterally give women the power in any relationship, and has rewarded women with cash and prizes for blowing up their families.

In English, por favor?

The purpose is to wipe out the family.
There no longer being families and long-term co-operative relations between a man and a woman clearly is seen as instrumental to handier governance of peoples.
So the whole system works in that direction.

I know it’s a reality hard to cope with — but all of that is coming to pass (and is, in my opinion, going to “grow”) solely because men are too busy one-upping each other and trying to lord it over as many other man as they can, while they have no qualms about prostrating to women.

It’s privilege’s nature to seek growth, and to rationalise its search as want of fairness (reversing reality and fancying that it currently lies in a state of disadvantage).

The growth-seeking and the growth are stopped by nothing but pressure from without, certainly not by any self-awareness and/or want for actual fairness.

I couldn’t use the [AGREE] just now, but great comment, Rational. I’m surprised more family court judges have not gone to an early grave … just sayin’. Things are going to get much worse economically, and I’m not sure how long men with nothing left to lose are going to stand down.

Don’t take this wrong, Zedrick, but Dr. Paul has been AROUND the whole time. “Dr. No” was fighting against all violations of the US Constitution since before some readers here were born. The “Dr. No” appellation was given to this guy, because he voted against most everything. GOOD! Ever hear the pundits say “oh, this guy was in office for 20 years, and what legislation has he accomplished?” To me, that’s a mark of excellence there.

I did get off the subject, so let me reply with this: Where have MRA’s been over the last years when Socialism and the US Police State were slowly implemented? That’s a real question, not rhetorical. I don’t know how real-conservative the MRAs have been, besides on their one VERY GOOD issue.

Where you been Ron? This was news to MRA’s/realists 20+ yrs ago.
Pretty sure those same folks made a whole lot of predictions back then, that have since come true.

AMERICA IS A CRIMINAL STATE—AND VAWA PROVES IT.

Thanks, Sir. You are so right. But things are even worse.

VAWA (Violence Against Women Act) proves that USA is a criminal state. It really stands for:

VAWA = Vicious Animal Whore’s Act.

VAWA is the draconian, brazenly unconstitutional, anti-male, anti family law on the books. Yet, men have been unable to make a dent in this barbaric law or get it repealed.

Under VAWA, a petitioner (hereinafter referred to as a “VAWA whore” can simply filling out a preprinted form falsely get a restraining order against any man, even her husband, ex parte, without his knowledge, behind his back.

All the VAWA whore has to start the scam rolling is to simply fill out a form (a TRO petition) and fill out her name and address, and that of her target, and check one or more boxes like this:

“I have been threatened”
“I have been assaulted”
“I have been stalked.”

There is no box like “I am angry” or “I am having a bad day,” or “my husband will not buy me that big TV”.

In other words, the only allowed boxes are in support of VAWA petition.

No evidence is necessary at all. No medical records needed. No photos/videos needed.

In other words, the govt. incites and forces women to frame men, even their husbands—in order to destroy the family.

In fact, research has shown that over 90% of these TRO petitions are fake. They are filed for ulterior reasons, such as anger, to cover up an affair, to steal or extort money, to cover up drug abuse and child abuse by the woman, to steal man’s property instantaneously, etc.

Yes, almost all are approved, if they are filed by a woman. They should fire all the Judges and put vending machines instead, that will print out a restraining order against anybody a whore wants.

Many VAWA whores then demand the man double the legal amount of child support or pay a large alimony to dismiss the bogus TRO.

Using this scam, a VAWA whore can kick her husband out of HIS house, and take over it, steal his property, etc. and keep him away while she drinks, does drugs, brings in another man and gets screwed in the very house and bed that belongs to her husband, and even turn to full blown prostitution, and abuses her children secretly….

All with the full support of the crooked whore-mongering legal system, under VAWA induced state laws.

Research has show VAWA whores start realizing that the legal system is a joke and lying pays. As a result, VAWA whores are more likely to turn to drugs, prostitution and all sorts of crime. Since VAWA, crime, even violent crime, among women has mushroomed out of control.

We need to set up a database of VAWA whores.

Men need to set up websites and organize to repeatedly take VAWA up to Supreme Court and get this barbaric law repealed.

Would you not agree that the Mueller Report ought to be made available in full to Congress? Yes-no. Why?

No. Because the law forbids it.

The report also explicitly says that “did not establish” does NOT mean “there was no evidence”. So pundits will quite rightly distinguish between “did not establish [beyond a reasonable doubt]” and “no evidence” of conspiracy (or “coordination,” which Mueller apparently defined identically as “conspiracy”).

Oh yea, then where is the evidence? It’s nothing more than Mueller and his crew playing word games to let this drag on. Admit it. The whole thing was dreamed up by the DNC to take the heat off the information in the upcoming Wikileaks dump on Clinton, and that is exactly what has happened. No one remembers the damning evidence against her in that dump, because all anyone has heard since that time has been Russian collusion.

By the way, Papadopoulos has aleady disputed “evidence” in Mueller’s report:
https://www.theepochtimes.com/papadopoulos-disputes-key-claim-in-mueller-report_2890361.html

What you seem to be missing, is that Part II is not a report at all. It is a political narrative filled with hearsay and conjecture. It contains zero evidence.

“the inciters must pay”. Umm hmmm…:

now comes the Trump-Barr crackback against the

“inciters”

and it’ll be as phony as Mueller’s “investigation”. Both

intended to keep Drumpf’s White voters from noticing that

he has betrayed them on every single issue. Drumpf has, however,

done real good by Israhell. Which is why a certain

Wandering Zionist living in Seattle

continues to defend him.

Carlson is right about the misuse of public funds to investigate public officials about things that don’t relate to the public business. It is invasive to economic elites and power brokers, the unnecessary and distracting probes of things unrelated to the issues that we elect them to solve, like reducing wage-undercutting mass immigration to reasonable levels, which Trump has not done.

But I am pretty sure that most voters are much more worried about Fourth Amendment privacy rights as it pertains to average citizens, barely scraping a living out of this Surveillance Economy, this Peeping Tom Economy, this Scam Churn-Gig Economy if they’re making it at all. Many aren’t. Ninety-five million US citizens are out of the labor force, and the average employee in the USA works part time. It is a lose / lose situation for most Americans, this low-energy job creation in a Fourth Amendment-free economy. It is more damaging to the serfs, facing rent that has inflated by 72% since 1995, than to these economic elites who have a lot to lose and a lot to gain: millions upon millions of insulating dollars for any invasive losses of their rights due to an over-reaching government.

This is a Sham Economy, with a lot of corporations making it mostly because of borrowing money from the Federal Reserve Bank to buyback their own stock.

Under the guise of competing with China in one more G-number mobile-tech marketing blitz, they’re trying to create a Fourth Amendment Free economy, hooking us all up to biometric devices that read every expression on our faces and gauge our heart rate, fishing for even more invasive data to sell, acting like that is a real economy, not just a Peeping Tom Economy, even though US tech companies only employ a handful of US citizens and a lot of foreign nationals.

The surveillance tech is appropriate for some uses, but not for extending into the private space of citizens in a so-called republic. The privacy-invading facial-recognition tech could have prevented a lot of heinous school shootings. The parents, the kids and any approved grandparent babysitters who pick them up from school would get through the door, with any others—including possible shooters—prevented from entering all doors by the facial-recognition tech.

That’s a proper use of it in a public space, but that is not what they are planning. They are planning a data-mining economy that is super-privacy-invading, even in our homes, and we are just supposed to trust them despite all of the scammy, aggressive, destructive and even dangerous uses of personal data that are out there. Despite all sorts of non-reputable companies, seeking to make a buck off of the wholesale destruction of the Fourth Amendment, we are supposed to be happy since a handful of US programmers and a bunch of foreign nationals get some high-paying gig jobs out of it.

What is the Republican plan?

It appears to be just bragging about an economic status quo that only serves the interests of the top 20% and their welfare-eligible, noncitizen, cheap servants, with a lot of complaining about the burdens of elites, like heavy-handed investigations of unimportant issues.

Aside from all of the things pertinent to how economic elites jockey for power and try to unseat other economic elites from power, the part about the Commander in Chief’s control over the military means that Trump could have built the Southern Border Wall promised to voters, using the Army Corps or Engineers as Ann Coulter pointed out many times to no avail. If he had to defer to Congress Critters on the matter of “acquisitions of materials,” so be it. A guy named Fischer made clear that he could build the Wall at a much cheaper rate than other contractors offered, with otherwise big-spending congressional purse-string clutchers thumbing their noses at what people voted for.

Without Resurrection, life after death, life is meaningless, Napolitano says if I read him right. He must mean belief in life after death, since belief is all we have to go on. That’s pretty insulting to those who think their lives are “meaningful” (definition, please?), yet who believe that when they die, that’s it.

This is a good article, using specific historical analogies to make the points, but like all such articles, it focuses more on transgressions against the Constitution that threaten rich elites more than the serfs. Take the invasiveness of the Stamp Act, which the author connects to protecting average citizens’ privacy in their homes. How old school is that concern in an era when it’s just the privacy invasions of powerful & rich political elites, harangued by FISA warrants and such, that are the subject of angst by elite lawyers.

The low-wage employees in the bottom 80% dodge all kinds of privacy intrusions due to surveillance-capitalism / Peeping Tom Capitalism that pierces their private / public spaces, all for the privilege of engaging in everyday commerce or holding a temp / churn gig, paying an insufficient amount to cover rent. It is not like we cede privacy for the benefit of accruing world fame and inter-generational wealth, like these high rollers that make lucrative clients for Constitution-focused lawyers.

There is a difference between a public and private space, though. Consider all of these museums and architectural gems. All over the world—from Brazil to France—we’re seeing the most treasured museums and public architecture destroyed by fire, with inconclusive explanations for the frequent destruction of public buildings that was not the norm a few decades back. These are often under-funded public spaces that could benefit from surveillance tech without the privacy issues. People who aren’t employed by the museums aren’t in those spaces very long, so the technology would not constitute a privacy violation. But it might protect irreplaceable human creations in a cost-effective way.

Not only did Judge Swamp ignore the explosive news of Assange’s arrest, he ignored the obvious parallels between his chosen topic and Assange’s arrest.

In the spirit of the Easter season I say to Napolitano……….GET FUCT!

Hey, is the Napolitano comments section open again?

Let me say the same thing I always say: Napolitano is a crypto-open borders freak.

When you look up “muh Constitution,” the Koch brothers and Napolitano (the wretched Boomer) are pictured. As orcs and Communists wipe out the last Whites in America, Napolitano will say from his deathbed, “And what news of the National Archives, is the Constitution intact?!”

There’s hope for the dead? Sorry, humans have no reward more and no advantage over a dead cat.

Ecclesiastes 9:5-10 For the living know that they will die, but the dead know nothing; they have no further reward, and even their name is forgotten…in the realm of the dead, where you are going, there is neither working nor planning nor knowledge nor wisdom.

Ecclesiastes 3:19-21 Surely the fate of human beings is like that of the animals; the same fate awaits them both: As one dies, so dies the other. All have the same breath; humans have no advantage over animals. All go to the same place; all come from dust, and to dust all return. Who knows if the human spirit rises upward and if the spirit of the animal goes down into the earth?”

No fictional magical Jew character concocted by Hellenized Jews is going to change reality.

All this nonsense, all this money and time wasted with this ridiculous “probe”, makes me wonder of the Deep State wasn’t actually scared of Trump for a few minutes there. He’s bent over backwards for them, shown he’s one of the boys, so they’ve given him a pass, for now. And he’s still better than any dem anywhere. The dems are now the “reparations” party. Any White, Hispanic or Asian who votes for them, is suicidal. We’ll see what happens.

An article by Mercer is often a chance to both read mostly agreeable thoughts and run across new words.
I think she wouldn’t mind the nickname “Ilana Thesaurus”.

Boomer blame is high level jewing.

Boomers have nothing to do with Trump breaking his promises.

Don’t get tunnel vision. There are plenty of deluded gentile Boomers in the Swamp who think we’re still debating marginal tax rates and the Commerce Clause who are plotting against Trump to return us to the days of impotent Republican principled principletarianism.

Obviously it was nonsense from the start and I had no interest in it, and paid no attention to it.

The nose is behind it. The nose wants open borders/white genocide. Trump said he was going to do something about immigration. So, the nose had to wreck his presidency. Now that Trump shit on his base and went back on his promise to do something about immigration, the probe is shut down and he’s in the clear.

Face it, the nose wins again.

The Stamp Act 1765 was objectionable mostly due to the taxation it imposed explicitly on the colonies, and led to cries of “No taxation without representation” at protests around the colonies.

General warrants, as well as unconstrained Executive Powers, were well on their way out of vogue following the ratio decidendi in Entick v Carrington [1765] EWHC KB J98, which regarded General Warrants as neither authorised by statute nor by precedent, therefore not allowable under English Law. The case is considered the inspiration for the Fourth Amendment.

In Clinton’s case, the OSC wasn’t directed at finding any criminal charges to bring against Clinton. The whole thrust of the investigation was to cover up the murder of Foster and to divert the House impeachment process from looking at Clinton’s actual crimes including conspiracy to commit murder.

Starr’s sham investigation supported the shifting the focus of the impeachment proceedings to a charge of mere to marital infidelity, rather than the numerous felonies that the Clintons had been committing from the time they first gained power in Arkansas and continuing into their co-presidency, so-called because of Hillary’s statement, “We are the president”.

The coroner’s ruling of suicide in Foster’s death was a direct result of Brett Kavanaugh’s work under the direction of Ken Starr.

http://www.fbicover-up.com/miguel-rodriguez.html

Would you not agree that the Mueller Report ought to be made available in full to Congress? Yes-no. Why?

“For in the legal penumbra in which the U.S. Office of Special Counsel operates, aggressively professing your innocence can amount to obstructing “justice.””

LOL, thanks for the huffing and puffing. You can now sit down, We can take it from here. According to un-redacted parts of the Mueller report, there are several important things to consider.

The Special Counsel’s Office exercised its judgment regarding what to investigate and did not, for instance, investigate every public report of a contact between the Trump Campaign and Russian-affiliated individuals and entities.

In August 2017, Rosenstein *explicitly* authorized Mueller to investigate criminal charges on the subject of whether Page, Manafort, or Papadopoulos were “colluding” (the exact term used!) with the Russians.

Mueller’s summary of the Report’s content does NOT say he looked at conspiracy with anyone BUT Russian government officials. That means that Barr probably has misrepresented the Report in saying that it looked at conspiracy with *all* Russian nationals.

The report also explicitly says that “did not establish” does NOT mean “there was no evidence”. So pundits will quite rightly distinguish between “did not establish [beyond a reasonable doubt]” and “no evidence” of conspiracy (or “coordination,” which Mueller apparently defined identically as “conspiracy”).

Moreover, Barr’s use of “collusion” AT MOST referred to “Scenario 1 [of 4]”—collusion by criminal conspiracy. His *political trick* was to pretend he was referring to all four types, which the report clearly outlines.

(1) Collusion by conspiracy (a crime)*
(2) Collusion by other crimes (a crime)*
(3) Noncriminal collusion (a national security threat)*
(4) Noncriminal collusion (an ethical offense)

So it appears that Mueller anticipated the Trump-Barr line of political rhetoric and fully defuses it in the first two pages of his Report.

I haven’t trusted him for a long long time. At his core he is an ardent statist, Liberty be damned.

What ought to be abolished is this sorry-ass excuse for a democratic republic we live in. We need it like we need a hole in the head.

If the divine would underpin our worldly governments as the judge so eloquently has put forth, we would be in a much better place.

Some say this time of awakening has a divine origin to put us back on this path.

However, there are dramas unfolding similar to that of Easter.

Recently, President Trump washed his hands off Julian Assange when he apparently was led to be slaughtered.

The fight for Assange’s justice is probably far more important than fighting deep state attacks on President Trump.

In this time of celebration many will join in prayer for Julian’s release from his oppressors.

Since November 2017, I and several other commenters have noted Mr. Napolitano’s carrying water for the Establishment’s priestly (lawyer) class in the context of Russiagate. I no longer trust him. Nor should you.

Propaganda is usually recognized when overt, but narratives also are woven – holes between the threads – through omission. Using the search tool upper right, I just looked for “Assange” in Mr. Napolitano’s 269 columns since 2013 here at The Unz Review: “No results found.”

In fairness, “WikiLeaks” has appeared four times. But two were in “Judge’s” 2017 and 2018 Office Pool humor (?) columns. And the other two mentions were back in 2016, when he was dubious about the rollout of Russiagate in the context of the Clinton emails, and even referred to WikiLeaks as “the courageous international organization dedicated to governmental transparency.”

It remains to be seen whether and how “Freedom Watcher” will address the recent rendition and subsequent treatment of Mr. Assange. But in the meantime, St. Mueller’s altar boy looks pretty pious in his Easter bonnet, doesn’t he?

God I hate Napolitano, this worthless hack belongs in a home for senile politicians that should have been hanged but weren’t.

You can blame Chief Justice Roberts of the SCOTUS’ cuck wing for this fiasco. The government cannot compel commerce which the individual mandate provision of the ACA does then levy a fine on anyone who fails to buy health insurance.

Prior to Roberts flipping the (((media))) were running all kinds of stories about Roberts being a racist if he ruled against ACA and that he had a chance to “get it right” by ruling in favor of Obama’s ACA baby. And Roberts was obviously listening intently to the (((voices))) calling to him.

John Roberts did not rule based on the plain language of the statue. His opinion went beyond mere judicial activism and he actually rewrote the law from the bench to change the “fine” for not purchasing a healthcare plan into a “tax” since according to him that’s what the (((framers))) of Obamacare really meant to say.

And voila! The ACA is suddenly Cohenstitutional since the feds can tax anything under the sun! Even judge nappy concurs.

But this is still bad law and legal precedent since the federal government can’t tax you for not engaging in a form of commerce when they only have power to regulate interstate commerce, not compel it and fine those not engaging in compulsory commerce.

The libertarians and conservatives who have written books about the Constitution flailed in the Obamacare litigation because they do not understand the US Individual Income Tax, the 16th Amendment, the ting clauses in the Constitution, and so left the door open forJustice Roberts’ legal ju-jitso.
Specifically, they contended that if the individual mandate was a tax, it would be n unconstitutional, UN-apportioned direct tax. But, income taxes are excise taxes. The Supreme Ct has said so, over and over, even before, and certainly after, the passage of the most misunderstood Amendment XVI.
If Randy Barrett understood this, they could have boxed Roberts in.
The corrrct reasoning is that if the individual mandate is indeed a tax and therefore an indirect excise, it can only apply to those whose income comes from the exploitation of a federal privilege for profit, ie federal workers, primarily. The federal government does not have the extensive taxing power Napolitano ascribes to it. Rather, Judge Marshal’s decision in McCullogh v Maryland circumscibed that power. The federal governments taxing power is dependent on its sovereignty. It an only tax that which it creates, or exists by its permission. All it’s taxing power comes from the powers delegated by the Constitution. It cannot simply tax anything it wants.
Judge Roberts in NFIB vs Sebelius gave us a summary of federal taxing powers. In that summary, he specifically stated the Feds can tax “certain licensed occupations “. Why is this distinction even expressed, when the current income tax is supposed to tax all occupations?
If Barnett and the other Constitutional experts understood the income tax, they would have Undestood the mandate could only apply to those under federal sovereignty, ie federal workers and private contractors on federal payroll. So, the Feds can require its own workers to have health insurance, but not the public at large, who are non-taxpayers. He who pays the piper, calls the tune.
Fortunately, a libertarian named Pete Hendrickson understands the income tax, and how to file a proper tax return. Armed with this knowledge, many thousands have received full refunds of all withheld taxes, state and federal, including payroll taxes, since 2003. See http://www.losthorizons.com

Find a constitutional way to pay for it. Try a gas tax, try an import tax, try a stamp tax, but fuck if the US government has a right to tax the people for being alive.

Taxing an American for being alive goes against the concept of

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness

If I posses liberty, how am I to be punished for being alive and choosing not to participate in a health insurance scheme? This was a tax on being a living citizen; taxing life, rejecting liberty.

Some root for Ginsberg’s death, I give offerings to my Gods in hope that Roberts finds his death sooner than she does.

good, you pay for it

So, Judge, you say the government can create a tax against me if I don’t agree to where a tie. The Constitution describes only two taxing powers allowed the Federal Government: Direct Taxes and Indirect Taxes. My first question to you is: Which category would the “Mandatory Necktie Tax”
fall into? The Constitution further restricts Congress’ taxing authority by specifying that Direct Taxes must be “apportioned”, while Indirect Taxes must be “uniform”. We know “apportionment”
refers to the requirement for the tax to be quantified by reference to the number of Congressional Representatives a Union State has. Meaning a State with a smaller population would pay the Federal Government less tax dollars than would A State with a larger population. Also, it would be the State’s Legislators who would be responsible for coming up with the money, by convincing the people who elected them that the Federal Government did indeed have a legitimate need for the money. There is no mention in the Constitution wherein one might imagine the tax as any sort of “punishment” for the people doing or not doing something. Indirect Taxes, on the other hand, are a bit more simple to explain. Indirect Taxes are laid upon privileges, which are activities the people may be engaged in, and which are allowed to be regulated as such by the Constitution.
So, Judge, I ask once again: Which type of tax does the AFC Act penalty clause fall under? And, please, explain how you arrived at your conclusion.

That change can seriously undermine the credibility of the DOJ.

Which part of the US government has any credibility left? So, why cry about DOJ’s?

“When the ACA was enacted in 2010, it was a stool with four legs.”

Looks like the guido Napolitano is trying to break into comedy. A judge he’s not.

Scores of countries in the early 21st Century offer their citizens universal health coverage, including ones we wouldn’t consider very developed or wealthy. Conservatives might not like this, but it has become one of the general trends in civilization:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_with_universal_health_care

“When the Supreme Court took a preliminary vote after oral arguments on the constitutionality of the individual mandate, the tally was 5 to 4 to invalidate it. Then Chief Justice John Roberts had second thoughts. He saw the polls, which showed Mitt Romney safely ahead of President Barack Obama in the then upcoming presidential race, and Republicans looking good to capture Congress. He reasoned to his colleagues that it would be better for history and the court’s legacy if the political branches invalidated legislation as controversial as the ACA, rather than the court.”

Where does Mr. Napolitano get his political gossip? He never cites a source or provides a link. Has this been reported elsewhere? If not, it seems odd to read of it years later.

Maybe doing the Winchell/Kilgallen thing goes along with serving as St. Mueller’s altar boy.

Precisely.

“Do you have the stomach for it?” You’re most likely aware of the CIA personnel that stated electronic/microwave weapons of torture should “first be used on ex-pats.”

I know I am.

Because I am a farang. And won’t stop.

the rule of law — which requires that no one be above the law’s commands or beneath its protections — applies to everyone but him

When did Jussie Smollett become President?

Why is this asshole Napolitano even on here? If he gets 10 comments 9 of them are making fun of him. He is turning into a male(?) Kamala Harris looking for who he can suck off to further his career. Remove this clown or start a new category called DUMBASS Columnists.

What about Clinton reclassifying satellite technology, taking it out of the Defense Department’s purview, so that it could be sold to the Chinese? He also got campaign contributions from the Chinese, and in the ensuing decades (between 2000 – 2010), 6 million US manufacturing jobs were shifted to China.

Acting against your own country’s economic interests is just fine, especially if top 20%ers benefit.

The worst, morally speaking, was the abandonment of between 1,205 — 20 soldiers in Vietnam, with a CIA division created to suppress information dribbling out of the area, like 14,000 total sightings of the soldiers and, even a year later, scientifically transmitted PAVE data confirming the exact ID numbers of 20 still-alive American soldiers.

The story is detailed far more than most of today’s so-called reporters bother to do in that linked Syd Shaunberg article on of Ron Unz’s articles.

Is it legal for a POTUS to leave US soldiers behind to be tortured or starved in a war-ravaged region? Presidents have gone to great lengths to save foreign nationals who befriended US troops, or who worked for the CIA, from harm when the US leaves a battle-scarred region, even putting citizens in jail when they reveal information that could lead to their death or injury (Chelsea Manning).

Those soldiers left behind in Vietnam were drafted.

They were citizens—something that means nothing, obviously. They went to Vietnam to fight for a country that left them behind to die, knowingly, bypassing the chance to save them with a mere $3.25 million payment to the Vietcong government. A US president who did business with Chairman Mao was too horrified to give a communist government that payment, a fraction of what the US government now spends on womb-productive illegal aliens every year ($113 billion).

What about that story on here about so-called Tokyo Rose, Iva Torguri, a natural-born citizen who was sentenced to (in total) 7 years of prison time. They punished to the max this zoology major, and later grocery-store manager, for what turned out to be nothing like the narrative.

It was a series of war-time broadcasts by a girl stuck in Japan after Pearl Harbor that didn’t really involve overt propaganda as it turns out. Several girls were compelled to make the tapes, so they used intonations in their voices to convince non-English-speaking people that they were doing what they were told, trying to stay safe until they could go home.

Which President was in office when, years later, the CIA made 2 men present false testimony against this little fish, an individual citizen who could not have been any threat to anyone, leading to a stiff sentence? She was finally pardoned by a POTUS, but not until her youth was over.

Even if these things were legal, it just shows what a huge gap exists between what is legal and what is moral, with even the smallest illegalities treated much more harshly that outright, life-ruining immorality.

The President can break (or perhaps a better word would be, ignore) the law, but only if the rich and powerful find it to be in their interest for him to do so.

If it is not in the interest of the rich and powerful for the president to perform some action, then it is illegal (and racist and fascist and LITERALLY HITLER), even if it isn’t.

The ‘poof’ viewpoint.

I USED to be a fan.

No one with an IQ of any positive integer. Ron Unz should really no longer publish this garbage.

I hope that you weren’t just messing with me. You’re not a “Judge” fan, are you?

Fact is Democrats are invincible, invulnerable and each and every time their scandals are exposed the lügenpresse covers for them til the point when the scandal has faded away, has been “forgotten”.

If the remaining sane and loyal Republicans do not finally wake up to the fact that they are at war with the Democrat scumbags the country will go down the tubes to never be rescued.

Their only hope is to finally cast off their hellish fear of the “race card”.

AN is a covert leftist/Democrat and he has no fucking clue as to what he is blathering about.

Authenticjazzman “Mensa” qualified since 1973, airborne trained US Army vet, and pro jazz artisit.

The President’s main duty is to protect the country from invasion. The fact that Trump can’t do this without being second-guessed by a hostile media, and mired in endless lawsuits in corrupt courts staffed by disloyal dual citizen judges, n attacked in Congress by violently anti-American dual citizen “representatives” is a sad commentary on the collapse of our American institutions.

I would almost welcome an invasion by Chinese or Russian soldiers to put the pathetic circus in DC out of its misery n bring sanity n order back to the US.

“we all know how the nixon days ended” ?

Do we really?

Name the five worst things Nixon did and anybody who cares about our republic can name five similar and worse things that all the other presidents of his generation did.

I grant that there is room for argument, but it is school-child level ignorance to single out Richard Nixon in the way Ignorant Lawyer Napolitano a.k.a. Judge Napolitano did in this sad demagogic rant.

Can the President Legally Break the Law?

That depends, are we talking about a special-class citizen President, or a second-class citizen President?

So far, a special-class citizen President, like Obama, can break the law with impunity and get away with it. Obama has yet to answer for his many crimes. Actually, even a special-class citizen who is not President, like Hillary Clinton, can do the same.

But a second-class citizen President, like Trump, cannot legally follow the law without getting attacked in the press and threatened with prosecution.

So the real question is, are real Americans still legal in their own country? Or is it not their country anymore?

Is this possibly the same Napolitano who I listened to speaking a Mises U? That guy was at least coherent.

The Mueller report is intended for by use of the AG. He has the discretion to do with it, or not do with it, what he chooses.

Whatever in the world does that have to do with whether a president can commit a crime?

Of. purse the president can commit a crime, and even be prosecuted for it, but, since he is in charge of the DOJ, he would have to be really incompetent for that to happen.

No, not since about November 2017. I’ve submitted dozens of comments about his weird veneration of Washington’s priestly (legal) class and his propaganda in behalf of the Establishment that has truly been meddling in the 2016 election. He seems to have lost the respect of most of the readership here, which is why I asked my question.

You?

Haw, haw! (slaps knee)

Trump building a wall even tho Congress won’t? So Trump breaks the Constitution?!?
Shoot fire, y’all, that ain’t nothin’.

When I broke the Constitution I did it up right, lemme tell yew.

I got your sons sent off to wars in lots of places, and them wars are like medieval wars, goin’ on fer decades and nobody knows why or what for!!
(An’ yore daughters, too. Ah’m equal opportunistic)

An’ I shore didn’t ask no Congress for no declaration of war, like them dang Conservatives said that dang Constitution requires. Who needs that? It’s just a piece of paper.

When some of them Democrats said they’s gonna impeach me over that, that was just for show. It was their turn to “pretend fight” so that all of y’all would think there’s two parties.

Mah buddy Dennis Kucinich stopped lookin’ fer UFO’s long enough to fill out the paperwork to impeach me, after I got with Nancy Pelosi and we came up with that plan an’ told Dennis to be the pit-bull. That fed his ego.

It got all of y’all riled up like roosters fightin’ over the only hen! So it was one of the best fund-raisers that both of us ever piggy-backed off of! Or I should say “we” since we’re just one uni-party inside D.C.

Oh, ah better git back to talkin’ ’bout Religion of Peace and how we have to fight wars on everybody over there instead of fightin’ somebody else somewhere.

After we got mah buddy Bayrack in there, he just kept it goin’. That way ah dont look so bad. We all agreed beforehand to keep it that way. Bi-partisan!

An’ no TV judge never said I broke no laws – even when I got us in endless wars on fake evidence!
Mah buddy Dick said I should do that, so ah did.

If his Executive Order banning “bump stocks” is allowed to stand, then that means POTUS has more power than the legislative branch when it comes to the guns.

Do you?

Mr. Napolitano still gets to wear a robe. But he’s now an altar boy for St. Mueller, vainly swinging the Constitution thurible to cover the stench of all things Washington.

Who here still takes this columnist seriously?

I didn’t know this asshole was a Constitutional expert but if he says so then I guess he must not be a traffic court judge anymore. I cringe and change the channel every time this pompous jerkoff is on Fox. But I’m sure he is so vain he reads these comments and I hope he gets indigestion when he sees that most everybody knows he’s a total asshole.

Judge,

I would very much like to hear your thoughts on a similar topic … States passing laws negating constitutionally mandated Electoral College procedure.

I have read that 25 States have passed laws that would require state electors to vote for the candidate who won the majority of national populous vote as opposed to the current, I believe, constitutionally mandated system of the state electors voting for the candidate who won the majority of the votes in the state.

If such State laws were in place during the 2016 election, Clinton would now be President.

“Can the Congress amend the Constitution? Can it cede to the president powers that the Constitution has delegated to Congress? Every time the courts have addressed these questions, they have answered with a resounding NO.”

Gee, tell that to the IRS, HHS, EPA, OSHA, FAA, and hundreds of other Executive Branch agencies that issue regulations that have the force of law by delegation of that power by Congress. If Congress is not happy with the President using existing laws they previously consented to by legislation they passed, they can repeal those laws by the same process that delegated that authority. If they have a valid beef, overriding the veto should be a trivial matter.

Seriously, Mr. Napolitano, you have no grasp of constitutional law.

Can Congress Amend the Constitution?

Why amend it when they can just ignore it.

Surely, there are already sufficient laws on the books to deal with this alien invasion without declaring an emergency or building a wall? It’s simply a matter of having the will to enforce them.

ALIEN INVASION = ACT OF MASSIVE WAR

Sir, the alien invasion of millions of 3rd world aliens into the USA is an emergency bigger than any hurricane.

The alien hurricane is the biggest hurricane.

The biggest typhoon.

Bigger than any tsunami.

Bigger than any invasion of any nation in the history of the world.

The alien invasion is a war crime to dwarf all war crimes.

Calling it an emergency is like calling a terminal skin cancer a scratch.

Trump has not just the power, but a DUTY to send the military to the border, and build a wall to protect this county.

Please add a humor section to this site and put this asshole’s columns in there……

Here’s the Truth: the money was spent. Not on something of the remotest value to me, but on Blacks. Black population expanded four times from 1970 to 2015. Do you feel better now that all that money was spent on the insatiable “human needs” instead of going to Mars? In Illinois, we no longer hear in public of Black women complaining about their useless “Bay Daddies.” Why? Because all that money you cry about that could have been spent on space exploration has gone to the squeakiest wheels in American politics.

Your exact words could have been uttered by virtually ALL Blacks in the USA during the 1960s. I know as NOT ONCE did I ever hear any Black support the space program back then.

All the Southern States withdrew from the Democrat Party decades ago.

For Texans, the problems were government overreach and systemic corruption.

Texans will ditch a few RINOs from time to time, but is NOT going back to the Democrats.

Actually Rand, Emergencies DO have constitutional implications.

The Suspension Clause of the Constitution (Article I, Section 9, Clause 2), states: “The Privileges of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended unless when in Cases of Rebellion of Invasion the public Safety may require it.” Although the Constitution does not specifically create the right to habeas corpus relief, federal statutes provide federal courts with the authority to grant habeas relief to state prisoners. Only Congress has the power to suspend the writ of habeas corpus, either by its own affirmative actions or through an express delegation to the Executive. The Executive does not have the independent authority to suspend the writ.

https://www.heritage.org/constitution/#!/articles/1/essays/61/habeas-corpus
https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/habeas_corpus
https://quod.lib.umich.edu/j/jala/2629860.0029.205/–lincoln-s-suspension-of-the-writ-of-habeas-corpus?rgn=main;view=fulltext

That notwithstanding, Abraham Lincoln’s power to suspend the writ of habeas corpus was extensively explored during the Civil War, but since then his suspensions have escaped detailed scrutiny despite the controversy they provoked, their widespread and effective use to combat malignant opposition to the war, and their uncertain grounding in the Constitution.

I leaned toward Rand Paul & Ted Cruz EARLY in the 2016 Presidential Primary. However, upon closer review of the candidates …

Ted Cruz was Article II ineligible, & Rand Paul was an ‘Open-Borders-Guy’. So, I voted for Donald Trump in the 2016 Texas Republican Presidential Primary.

And Rand Paul is STILL an ‘Open-Borders-Guy’.

Indeed, the anti-gun lobby back in the 90s used to argue that the Second Amendment’s opening statement about a militia meant exactly that – only the military should have guns and not individuals.

The second amendment also says the right of the people to keep and bear arms which clearly meant it conferred the right of individuals to own guns for two reasons. The first is that the people were the militia and vice versa and militia members were expected to have their own firearms. When they weren’t serving in the militia they weren’t required to hand in their guns to a central authority.

The second is that for almost 200 years after our founding the federal or state governments never argued that the second amendment did not confer an individual right to own firearms or that the rise of municipal police departments meant that individual ownership of firearms was made unnecessary and obsolete. Gun laws were far more liberal decades ago then they are now and at one time people could purchase rifles through the mail and were even allowed to own machine guns up until 1968.

The second amendment was not put in place for duck and deer hunting or self defense, but to give the people the means to throw off the yoke of government tyranny which we now live under.

The precedent for an individual to own military grade firearms was set long ago and anything else is just Jewish sophistry and fake history to justify unprecedented infringements upon the second amendment like gun seizures and/or widespread bans of popular semi-auto firearms.

JOE

I’m being sarcastic. Blacks criminals purchase “scratches” (Slang for serial numbers filed off) on the street, usually stolen in burglaries. Often they have been used in other crimes.

When I was young if you wanted a gun there was a street corner in Detroit you drove to and a man stood on the corner who would sell guns for $500, whatever make and model.

None of them were rifles, so the NRA is a joke.

DC

The very FEW white men who go off the rails are either Bulger-type mafia running paramilitary crime organizations or they are Dahmer or Nilsen-type serial killers with high IQ’s whose victims are on the margins of society-Milwaukee ghetto poor gay minorities; SOHO rent boys.

They don’t get apprehended for years. Their income or sex life depends upon avoiding apprehension.

Black crime is a random, spur-of-the-moment impulse-driven crime. They are not particular sophisticated criminals.

Point well taken; i.e. that chart. I feel the conversation has been way to narrow,i.e guns, racial groupings (what group represents all those kids shooting up classmates) angry former employees, the list goes on. If no attention is paid to the example violent US foreign policy, over several generations, sets in influencing the rest of us, we’ll never get a handle on it. Why should we risk losing our guns because the DOD is trigger-happy with theirs?

An NRA Board Member said that Black people think they will be able to obtain guns regardless of IL’s gun control laws. IL just had Gov. “Jelly Belly” Pritzker sign a bill mandating video surveillance and recording of gun shop visitors. Presumably, this is to force the small FFL dealers out of business.

In Illinois, we have a so-called “Firearms Owner ID” card. The card just failed to stop Black Workplace Violence in Aurora, IL. But the gun controllers now are demanding that police come and collect your guns if your FOID card is revoked (DuPage County). But of course, the funniest part of all this is that the FOID card is backed by the FBI “Instant Check” that also failed.

So why hasn’t any so-called “Conservative” moved to rid us of the IL FOID since it is duplicated by the more timely “Instant Check?”

And we also have a 3-day waiting period on ALL gun transfers through an FFL. Think of all the gas and time wasted traveling to the gun shop TWICE to make some Cosmopolitan gun controller happy!

Murdered people are usually noticed BY THEIR ABSENCE.

The missing-but-unreported children of Mitchelle Blair prove that murdered people CAN go un-noticed in the ‘hood.  Given this, it’s not too surprising that Black people think Whites kill each other just as frequently as Blacks do and just get away with it more.

Napolitano is just another brick in the wall that reveals how useless is politics (and celebrity) in solving the problems of politics (and celebrity.)

No truth will ever emerge from anyone who has access to The Megaphone. The Megaphone’s carrier frequency is LIES. Truth is completely out of phase with it, and thus is silent.

JOE

Why is black gun violence in Chicago so high if gun control in Illinois is so rigid?

I am not saying that there are not more black-commited murders, but that I suspect the statistics in both England and the US are skewed in that direction.

You “suspect” that the statistics are skewed? By what? Racial bias among cops, you allude.

This calls for empiricism on your part. Go to a predominantly white area and hang around at night for a couple weeks. Then do the same in a predominantly black area. We can compare notes if you survive the latter.

PS: Your comment suggests that there are murders committed by whites that go unsolved and unreported. Pray tell, on what data do you base this? Murdered people are usually noticed BY THEIR ABSENCE.

“The Conservative Case for Gun Control.”

In Illinois, the so-called “Conservative” Republican Jeanne Ives running against Gov. Bruce Rauner in the Republican Party stated that bans on ‘bump stocks and trigger cranks’ was “reasonable” gun control. I only happened to come across that when I read it on her campaign website and nowhere else.

Then I was watching a WTTW program where “Conservative” Republican Rep. Peter Roskam was appearing along with some Democrat Party hack who happened the mention the “bump stocks” as something to deal with; Roskam said: “We got it done.” So the alleged “Conservative” was actually NO DIFFERENT from the standard communist gun controller we have in IL.

Yeah they could certainly reinterpret the 2nd amendment to mean whatever they want in a one party Democrat US and I would not put it passed the so called conservative politicians to jump on either.

You mean, like this?

@ Mike etc etc
To judge fairly, judge America black violence statistics against numbers from black nations and not just against white nations. The meme I was suggesting would include all American violence worldwide and not remain parochial, confined to weapon choices or group blame selection.

In 2015, the homicide rates were (per 100,000 population):
20.9 for blacks (non-Hispanic)
4.9 for Hispanics
2.6 for whites (non-Hispanic)
5.7 for all races

In England we have similar statistics. It occurs to me that if one postulates a racially biased police (which seems to me pretty certain) then not only will more black men be accused and convicted than should be, on the evidence, but more white murderers will get away with murder because they are white and fewer whites will be suspected of murder than the evidence would suggest. I am not saying that there are not more black-commited murders, but that I suspect the statistics in both England and the US are skewed in that direction.

“Second, Pelosi couldn’t confiscate guns because guns are protected by the constitution.”

Not entirely correct. What will stop the future one party democrat state from reinterpreting the Second Amendment to mean that individuals don’t really have gun rights after all? Indeed, the anti-gun lobby back in the 90s used to argue that the Second Amendment’s opening statement about a militia meant exactly that – only the military should have guns and not individuals. Watch for a future court system controlled by democrats to outlaws guns, but restrict them heavily first. I predict that conservatives, being worthless, will do nothing. They’ll hand them over and then the National Review will write, “The Conservative Case for Gun Control.”

Misrepresentation. If you are going to have an honest discussion about violence in America then you must discuss the affect of negro violence upon the greater numbers.

Control for negros (statistically) and violence in the US resembles crime rates of other primarily white countries.

Trump’s national emergency for building a wall in certain areas of the border might hurt feelings and political sensibilities but does not violate anyone’s basic civil liberties. If private property issues arise then the owners will be justly compensated.

Unilaterally placing walls and/or barriers at the nation’s border isn’t exactly an end run around the Constitution as nappy and the rest of the chicken littles are saying. And if 400K to 600K or so attempted illegal crossings every year doesn’t constitute an invasion and justify a national emergency then nothing does.

When the nation is being invaded you don’t have to sit around and wait for Congress to authorize you to do something about it.

Trump had the power on Day One to order the military to build the wall.

Whether he squeaks by in 2020 or not, he’s the last retardican president. Texas and Florida are almost blue states.

When whichever communist slag takes over in 2024, the false dichotomy of the Uniparty will be gone.

It will be communists vs. everyone else.

We don’t have a “gun violence” problem. We have a Black violence problem.

In 2015, the homicide rates were (per 100,000 population):

20.9 for blacks (non-Hispanic)
4.9 for Hispanics
2.6 for whites (non-Hispanic)
5.7 for all races

No, it’s not short-term thinking. It’s long-term thinking from people who have been around for the long(er)-term. In other words, you sound naive about it, Mark, that’s all. I’ve been following politics a long time, and ever since the mid-1990’s NOTHING has been changing for the better, i.e. toward greater freedom and smaller government. NOTHING.

If we listen to Dr. Paul on this one (though President Trump is no Libertarian/Constitutionalist to begin with, so he wouldn’t) and just keep letting the country get invaded, while we go through all legal channels for 10 years, here will be the deal: 10 years later, there will be another 10,000,000 illegal aliens that, guess what, Mark?: DON’T vote for smaller government and don’t give a rat’s ass about Constitutionality. In the meantime, the Blue-team squad of our Socialist Party will come up with all the emergencies they want to. Have you heard these people worrying about the US Constitution any single time over the last 3 decades, Mark?

The other side is playing hard-ball, while (Bless his heart – I really appreciate the guy) Ron Paul urges we continue to play whiffleball.

Napo is sounding just like a leftist at worst, neocon big business first open borders advocate at best. Firstly, by your logic every national emergency or use of executive power is unconstitutional, but I haven’t heard you complain about any others except the one that protects US borders. Second, Pelosi couldn’t confiscate guns because guns are protected by the constitution. Lastly, there is plenty of evidence there is a crises on the border the caravans are just the most blatant and reported about examples, but there are plenty more. I view legal immigration H1-B and stuff as worse for America, but that doesn’t mean I am fine with open borders for illegals. The President was voted in primarily to stop immigration and he tried to do it through Congress that was unsuccessful so he had to take a different legal approach.