Free Republic 3rd Quarter Fundraising Target: $88,000 Receipts & Pledges to-date: $76,373
86%  
Woo hoo!! And now less than $12k to go!! Let's git 'er done!! Thank you all very much!!

Posts by Jim 0216

Brevity: Headers | « Text »
  • Ohio lawmakers slam Obama plans to rename Mt. McKinley 'Denali' during Alaska trip

    08/31/2015 3:58:24 PM PDT · 57 of 57
    Jim 0216 to Old Sarge

    Yes, there are a lot of sleep walkers, but it is up to us who are awake to wake them up.

  • Endgame: Iran Deal Opponents Concede They Lack Votes to Overcome Veto

    08/31/2015 3:35:05 PM PDT · 2 of 45
    Jim 0216 to detective

    Is the power to negotiate an “executive agreement” by POTUS in the Constitution?

  • Obama Renames Mount McKinley "Denali"

    08/31/2015 2:50:09 PM PDT · 40 of 61
    Jim 0216 to SoFloFreeper

    Right, but the BIG issue is OWNERSHIP of Denali Park which is unconstitutionally in federal hands and should be reclaimed by Alaska.

  • Obama Renames Mount McKinley "Denali"

    08/31/2015 2:48:20 PM PDT · 39 of 61
    Jim 0216 to x

    I see little constitutional justification for the reasoning in Camfield. MANY states are territories before they become states. The issue is that once a territory becomes a state, Article I, Section 8, Clause 17 controls.

  • Obama Renames Mount McKinley "Denali"

    08/31/2015 2:44:31 PM PDT · 36 of 61
    Jim 0216 to TexasGator

    The BIG issue is ownership of Denali Park which is unconstitutionally in federal hand and should be reclaimed by Alaska.

  • Obama Renames Mount McKinley "Denali"

    08/31/2015 2:18:53 PM PDT · 23 of 61
    Jim 0216 to x

    States are not territories.

    Article I, Section 8, Clause 17 addresses land within states.

  • Obama Renames Mount McKinley "Denali"

    08/31/2015 2:00:34 PM PDT · 3 of 61
    Jim 0216 to Biggirl

    Re-posting here...

    Alaska can stop Obama is his tracks. Although Obama’s action would appear to be giving back the original state-centered name instead of the national “McKinley” name, this is really a series of unconstitutional federal acts.

    First of all, “national parks” are an unconstitutional federal land-grab from the states, regardless of how benign or benevolent such act may seem at the time. The only valid federal ownership of state land is described in Article I, Section 8, Clause 17 of the U.S. Constitution which says:

    “[Congress shall have Power…] to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;—”

    National parks were not purchased upon consent by state legislatures for the use of “Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings”, so national parks are unconstitutional federal acts. The states can make state parks according to the consent of the people and legislature of that state.

    Secondly, because national parks constitute unconstitutional federal commandeering of state land, the state may reject and nullify such an act. Unconstitutional federal acts are by definition acts of tyranny - it’s just that some acts of federal tyranny begin with a happy face. Sates have the right and the duty to stand against such acts.

    Here, Alaska can stop Obama in his tracks. First, Alaska can declare, on sound constitutional principle, that Denali was not purchased upon consent by the Alaskan state legislature for the use of “Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings” and can therefore, take back this land. If Alaska actually paid money to the feds for this land originally (I doubt it) then Alaska can pay back the equivalent or reasonable amount now. Most likely, the feds didn’t pay for Denali in which case Alaska can simply assume control of the land upon notification to the feds (NOT permission from the feds).

    Laying that groundwork would make the next step of throwing Obama’s act of renaming Mt. McKinley back in his face an easy one. Most likely Alaska would simply make this a state park. Either way, it is ALASKA, NOT Obama, who can name the mountain whatever it wants.

  • Obama is accused of ´constitutional over-reach and ´insulting all Ohioans´ by ditching former

    08/31/2015 1:55:19 PM PDT · 24 of 28
    Jim 0216 to Pontiac

    Do you know the history of this Alaskan act and it’s acquiescence to the feds?

    Regardless, the feds have no constitutional power over state land and over Denali. The only way the feds could have had a valid constitutional claim on Denali would be if Denali never became part of Alaska because the feds have valid control over the land of its territories (Art IV, Sec 3, Cl 2).

    Since Denali is part of the state, this offer is invalid, whether part of the statehood deal or not. The feds must refuse Alaska’s offer since the feds have no constitutional authority to accept and if just payment is due the feds to amend the original compact, so be it.

  • Having solved all other problems, Obama renames Mount McKinley

    08/31/2015 1:41:00 PM PDT · 20 of 21
    Jim 0216 to arbitrary.squid

    Nope. No concern at all. That’s because national parks are federal tyranny with a smiley face on. Except for those whose property and cattle is on or adjoins that land. We’ve seen how the feds treat those they THINK go onto their unconstitutionally-held land in the past. They’re thugs. You don’t care because apparently you’re not one affected by the land-grab.

    But it is YOUR STATE’S land they have commandeered and can do whatever they want to on it. Until Obama, you mainly saw benevolent federal leadership. But Obama is the face of the future because sooner or later, tyranny turns ugly.

    If you don’t stand up for your freedom and the Constitution that protects it now, it may too late when you get around to it.

  • Ohio lawmakers slam Obama plans to rename Mt. McKinley 'Denali' during Alaska trip

    08/31/2015 1:03:42 PM PDT · 33 of 57
    Jim 0216 to arbitrary.squid

    Good.

    Then all that remains in this issue is for Alaska to reclaim THEIR land.

  • Ohio lawmakers slam Obama plans to rename Mt. McKinley 'Denali' during Alaska trip

    08/31/2015 1:00:47 PM PDT · 32 of 57
    Jim 0216 to Mears

    Hope so. All that’s needed now is for Alaska to reclaim ALASKA’S land.

  • Having solved all other problems, Obama renames Mount McKinley

    08/31/2015 12:59:31 PM PDT · 17 of 21
    Jim 0216 to arbitrary.squid

    Who owns Denali National Park?

    Obama’s act brings up a BIGGER picture that needs changing.

  • Ohio lawmakers slam Obama plans to rename Mt. McKinley 'Denali' during Alaska trip

    08/31/2015 12:39:57 PM PDT · 16 of 57
    Jim 0216 to Trapped Behind Enemy Lines

    Nope.

    The ONLY authority POTUS has is enumerated in the Constitution.

    Do what Lincoln said: read the Constitution. It is your only legal bulwark of freedom against the tyranny of the feds.

  • Ohio lawmakers slam Obama plans to rename Mt. McKinley 'Denali' during Alaska trip

    08/31/2015 12:38:01 PM PDT · 15 of 57
    Jim 0216 to Genoa

    Don’t need feds permission, sorry.

    The feds have nullified the Constitution. Time to nullify the feds.

  • Ohio lawmakers slam Obama plans to rename Mt. McKinley 'Denali' during Alaska trip

    08/31/2015 12:36:27 PM PDT · 12 of 57
    Jim 0216 to Old Sarge

    You don’t take to a court and you don’t ask permission from the feds. That’s the whole point.

    Let’s try again.

    What is the only legal bulwark of freedom in America against federal tyranny?

    Answer: the Constitution which protects your freedom.

    What do the feds, the Left, the Dems and the Republocrats hate more than anything else in this country?

    Answer: the Constitution which protects your freedom.

    When are freedom lovers in each state going to stand up and say ENOUGH and begin rebelling through their state legislatures against federal nullification of the Constitution?

    Answer: If you don’t have an answer to this, and you care more about being “laughed at” than your own freedom, then you’re a candidate to be a POW of the Left.

  • Having solved all other problems, Obama renames Mount McKinley

    08/31/2015 12:27:19 PM PDT · 14 of 21
    Jim 0216 to arbitrary.squid

    Right.

    But it is ALASKA, NOT Obama and the feds, who should both own and name this land whatever they want.

  • Ohio lawmakers slam Obama plans to rename Mt. McKinley 'Denali' during Alaska trip

    08/31/2015 12:25:31 PM PDT · 1 of 57
    Jim 0216
    Alaska can stop Obama is his tracks. Although Obama’s action would appear to be giving back the original state-centered name instead of the national “McKinley” name, this is really a series of unconstitutional federal acts.

    First of all, "national parks" are an unconstitutional federal land-grab from the states, regardless of how benign or benevolent such act may seem at the time. The only valid federal ownership of state land is described in Article I, Section 8, Clause 17 of the U.S. Constitution which says:

    “[Congress shall have Power…] to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;--”

    National parks were not purchased upon consent by state legislatures for the use of “Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings”, so national parks are unconstitutional federal acts. The states can make state parks according to the consent of the people and legislature of that state.

    Secondly, because national parks constitute unconstitutional federal commandeering of state land, the state may reject and nullify such an act. Unconstitutional federal acts are by definition acts of tyranny - it’s just that some acts of federal tyranny begin with a happy face. Sates have the right and the duty to stand against such acts.

    Here, Alaska can declare, on sound constitutional principle, that Denali was not purchased upon consent by the Alaskan state legislature for the use of “Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings” and can, therefore, take back this land. If Alaska actually paid money to the feds for this land originally (I doubt it) then Alaska can pay back the equivalent or reasonable amount now. Most likely, the feds didn’t pay for Denali in which case Alaska can simply assume control of the land upon notification to the feds (NOT permission from the feds).

    Laying that groundwork would make the next step of throwing out Obama’s act of renaming Mt. McKinley an easy one. Most likely Alaska would simply make this a state park. Either way, it is ALASKA, NOT Obama, who can name the mountain whatever it wants.

  • Boehner condemns McKinley name change

    08/31/2015 12:04:37 PM PDT · 55 of 63
    Jim 0216 to PROCON

    Alaska can stop Obama is his tracks.

    First of all, “national parks” are an unconstitutional federal land-grab from the states, regardless of how benign or benevolent such act may seem at the time. The only valid federal ownership of state land is described in Article I, Section 8, Clause 17 of the U.S. Constitution which says:

    “[Congress shall have Power…] to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;—”

    National parks were not purchased upon consent by state legislatures for the use of “Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings”, so national parks are unconstitutional federal acts. The states can make state parks according to the consent of the people and legislature of that state.

    Secondly, because national parks constitute unconstitutional federal commandeering of state land, the state may reject and nullify such an act. Unconstitutional federal acts are by definition acts of tyranny - it’s just that some acts of federal tyranny begin with a happy face. Sates have the right and the duty to stand against such acts.

    Here, Alaska can stop Obama in his tracks. First, Alaska can declare, on sound constitutional principle, that Denali was not purchased upon consent by the Alaskan state legislature for the use of “Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings” and can therefore, take back this land. If Alaska actually paid money to the feds for this land originally (I doubt it) then Alaska can pay back the equivalent or reasonable amount now. Most likely, the feds didn’t pay for Denali in which case Alaska can simply assume control of the land upon notification to the feds (NOT permission from the feds).

    Laying that groundwork would make the next step of throwing Obama’s act of renaming Mt. McKinley back in his face an easy one.

  • Obama is accused of ´constitutional over-reach and ´insulting all Ohioans´ by ditching former

    08/31/2015 12:03:40 PM PDT · 9 of 28
    Jim 0216 to Nachum

    Alaska can stop Obama is his tracks.

    First of all, “national parks” are an unconstitutional federal land-grab from the states, regardless of how benign or benevolent such act may seem at the time. The only valid federal ownership of state land is described in Article I, Section 8, Clause 17 of the U.S. Constitution which says:

    “[Congress shall have Power…] to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;—”

    National parks were not purchased upon consent by state legislatures for the use of “Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings”, so national parks are unconstitutional federal acts. The states can make state parks according to the consent of the people and legislature of that state.

    Secondly, because national parks constitute unconstitutional federal commandeering of state land, the state may reject and nullify such an act. Unconstitutional federal acts are by definition acts of tyranny - it’s just that some acts of federal tyranny begin with a happy face. Sates have the right and the duty to stand against such acts.

    Here, Alaska can stop Obama in his tracks. First, Alaska can declare, on sound constitutional principle, that Denali was not purchased upon consent by the Alaskan state legislature for the use of “Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings” and can therefore, take back this land. If Alaska actually paid money to the feds for this land originally (I doubt it) then Alaska can pay back the equivalent or reasonable amount now. Most likely, the feds didn’t pay for Denali in which case Alaska can simply assume control of the land upon notification to the feds (NOT permission from the feds).

    Laying that groundwork would make the next step of throwing Obama’s act of renaming Mt. McKinley back in his face an easy one.

  • Having solved all other problems, Obama renames Mount McKinley

    08/31/2015 12:02:53 PM PDT · 9 of 21
    Jim 0216 to Sean_Anthony

    Alaska can stop Obama is his tracks.

    First of all, “national parks” are an unconstitutional federal land-grab from the states, regardless of how benign or benevolent such act may seem at the time. The only valid federal ownership of state land is described in Article I, Section 8, Clause 17 of the U.S. Constitution which says:

    “[Congress shall have Power…] to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;—”

    National parks were not purchased upon consent by state legislatures for the use of “Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings”, so national parks are unconstitutional federal acts. The states can make state parks according to the consent of the people and legislature of that state.

    Secondly, because national parks constitute unconstitutional federal commandeering of state land, the state may reject and nullify such an act. Unconstitutional federal acts are by definition acts of tyranny - it’s just that some acts of federal tyranny begin with a happy face. Sates have the right and the duty to stand against such acts.

    Here, Alaska can stop Obama in his tracks. First, Alaska can declare, on sound constitutional principle, that Denali was not purchased upon consent by the Alaskan state legislature for the use of “Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings” and can therefore, take back this land. If Alaska actually paid money to the feds for this land originally (I doubt it) then Alaska can pay back the equivalent or reasonable amount now. Most likely, the feds didn’t pay for Denali in which case Alaska can simply assume control of the land upon notification to the feds (NOT permission from the feds).

    Laying that groundwork would make the next step of throwing Obama’s act of renaming Mt. McKinley back in his face an easy one.

  • Alaska-bound, Obama makes waves by renaming Mount McKinley

    08/31/2015 6:43:20 AM PDT · 46 of 63
    Jim 0216 to HomerBohn

    Alaska could stop him in his tracks.

  • Say what you will about Trump...

    08/30/2015 6:33:57 PM PDT · 58 of 65
    Jim 0216 to Karl Spooner

    This thing they like to call “trade imbalance” is a false alarm, like what they use to jack up minimum wage.

    How did tiny little resource-poor Hong Kong get to be an economic giant? By setting up tariffs on every import because they were importing more than they were exporting? No. By letting the voluntary cooperation of the free market economy run its course, Hong Kong accumulated wealth over time by buying and selling on the open market, regardless of “trade imbalance.” The key was NO GOVERNMENT INTERFERENCE. The same is true with us today. As Reagan used to say, “Government is the problem, not the solution.” It is the feds with their minimum wage, union protection, and tonnage of useless, costly regulations that drive business away from the U.S.

    Tariffs, which is more government interference, completely fail to address those DIRECT CAUSES and in fact make the problem worse, as the feds always do in meddling with economic matters.

  • Say what you will about Trump...

    08/30/2015 5:43:28 PM PDT · 48 of 65
    Jim 0216 to goodnesswins

    Wonder what he meant by “mongoose”. Kind of a snake killer?

  • Say what you will about Trump...

    08/30/2015 5:23:32 PM PDT · 45 of 65
    Jim 0216 to Karl Spooner

    Well, again, Trump calls currency devaluation some kind of offensive move by China, when it actually is a sign of Chinese economic confusion. Money gauges economic strength like a thermostat gauges the temp. Changing measurements on the thermostat doesn’t change the temps. Likewise changing the comparative valuation of money doesn’t change a country’s economic condition. Money doesn’t CAUSE economic strength, it is the RESULT and MEASURE of economic strength.

    When countries start manipulating their comparative currency value instead of letting the market do it, then it is a sign of weakness and confusion, which is what happened to the U.S. when we deliberately devalued the dollar. Basing currency on a fixed standard like gold gives that currency stability and reliability which the markets need.

  • Say what you will about Trump...

    08/30/2015 4:19:10 PM PDT · 33 of 65
    Jim 0216 to Catsrus

    Well, I’ve seen where Trump has said or implied that he’s willing to flex if he sees it’s for America’s good - so that’s hopeful on some of these issues.

    So many don’t get tariffs which are nothing more than a tax on the country raising the tariff. If it weren’t for the 16th Amendment, tariffs could be a good way of raising revenue as it used to be. But tariffs are a TERRIBLE economic “tool” - it’s like shooting yourself in the foot - and does nothing to address the DIRECT CAUSES of our economic problems - minimum wage for example.

    Maybe someone other than Rand Paul has said it, but I have yet to hear anyone talk about REPEALING MINIMUM WAGE, probably the single most destructive economic factor the feds have perpetrated on the U.S. THE FEDS - not China, Japan, or the Man in the Moon - are the REAL economic culprits.

  • Say what you will about Trump...

    08/30/2015 3:46:42 PM PDT · 26 of 65
    Jim 0216 to tflabo; usconservative; Catsrus

    Like some of you, I think I comprehend that you can be for someone and still see problems and issues with them. Here’s my latest feeling about Trump...

    IMO, a RINO, is someone who love politics more than America. That is not Trump IMO. I think Trump is absolutely sincere about “making America great again” and his first foray in doing so is blasting political correctness and the anti-masculine popular culture - badly needed in America. Strong on defense and at least dealing decisively with illegal immigration. He has also said he wants to eliminate corporate tax (no such thing, really - a corporate tax is simply a hidden tax on Americans becasue the tax cost is passed on to the consumer with higher prices).

    Where Trump is off target is:

    - raising punitive tariffs to deal with economic symptoms which fails to address both the actual causes and effective solutions to our economic issues (hint: the REAL economic culprit is the $4 trillion mostly unconstitutional federal government and their forced minimum wage, union protection, and tonnage of costly, wasteful, dead-end, useless regulations.

    - graduated tax and actually wanting to raise upper-end taxes. EXACTLY the OPPOSITE of what we need. We need to nuke the 70-zillion-page tax code and replace with a simple flat tax, somewhere between 10-15%.

    - mixing up his personal love for women and their health with the constitutional limitations of the federal government which does not include authority to meddle in healthcare at all.

    Trump may be the beginning of the way out of America’s Obamesque quagmire, but America will need a strong leader with a Cruz-like vision of putting the federal government back into it constitutional cage and giving the country back to the people.

    Trump doesn’t seem to quite get that what made America great once and what will make America great again isn’t more government, but FREEDOM: the ABSENCE of government and replacing dependence on man with a faith, trust, and dependence in God.

  • Say what you will about Trump...

    08/30/2015 3:42:05 PM PDT · 23 of 65
    Jim 0216 to The Looking Spoon

    That’s the first thing I thought of when I heard Trump was running - he’ll at least make the otherwise boring, wretched “debates” palatable if not downright fun to watch.

  • "The Big Broadcast" Live Sunday 8/30 7-11pm est

    08/30/2015 3:39:22 PM PDT · 10 of 22
    Jim 0216 to Vision

    Great, Vision. God is good and despite FR’s unfortunate banishment of my pastor, Joel Osteen, he along with Joseph Prince continue to help me learn how to live a victorious Christian life.

    Hope all is well with you and yours.

  • "The Big Broadcast" Live Sunday 8/30 7-11pm est

    08/30/2015 2:21:23 PM PDT · 6 of 22
    Jim 0216 to Vision

    Hi Vision. Thanks for your faithful ping list posts here, but I don’t need to be pinged on this anymore, so please take my name off.

    Thanks and God bless.

  • Trump Wins Tea Party Group's 'Nashville Straw Poll'

    08/30/2015 12:47:25 PM PDT · 80 of 101
    Jim 0216 to erlayman

    Understood, but the double standard make me want to ralph.

  • Trump Wins Tea Party Group's 'Nashville Straw Poll'

    08/30/2015 12:44:26 PM PDT · 79 of 101
    Jim 0216 to DrewsDad; free_life

    I don’t think Trump’s a born-again Christian, so we should be praying for him. He may be close.

    From what I can tell Lincoln became a Christian AFTER he was in the White House.

  • Trump Wins Tea Party Group's 'Nashville Straw Poll'

    08/30/2015 12:40:37 PM PDT · 78 of 101
    Jim 0216 to cookcounty; WilliamIII

    IMO, a RINO, is someone who love politics more than America. That is not Trump IMO. I think Trump is absolutely sincere about “making America great again” and his first foray in doing so is blasting political correctness and the anti-masculine popular culture - badly needed in America. Strong on defense and at least dealing decisively with illegal immigration. He has also said he wants to eliminate corporate tax (no such thing, really - a corporate tax is simply a hidden tax on Americans becasue the tax cost is passed on to the consumer with higher prices).

    Where Trump is off target is:

    - raising punitive tariffs to deal with economic symptoms which fails to address both the actual causes and effective solutions to our economic issues (hint: the REAL economic culprit is the $4 trillion mostly unconstitutional federal government and their forced minimum wage, union protection, and tonnage of costly, wasteful, dead-end, useless regulations.

    - graduated tax and actually wanting to raise upper-end taxes. EXACTLY the OPPOSITE of what we need. We need to nuke the 70-zillion-page tax code and replace with a simple flat tax, somewhere between 10-15%.

    - mixing up his personal love for women and their health with the constitutional limitations of the federal government which does not include authority to meddle in healthcare at all.

    Trump may be the beginning of the way out of America’s Obamesque quagmire, but America will need a strong leader with a Cruz-like vision of putting the federal government back into it constitutional cage and giving the country back to the people.

    Trump doesn’t seem to quite get that what made America great once and what will make America great again isn’t more government, but FREEDOM: the ABSENCE of government and replacing dependence on man with a faith, trust, and dependence in God.

  • Trump Wins Tea Party Group's 'Nashville Straw Poll'

    08/30/2015 12:14:47 PM PDT · 75 of 101
    Jim 0216 to Starboard

    Right. The GOP is about the GOP. Americans are looking for someone who is about THEM.

  • Trump Wins Tea Party Group's 'Nashville Straw Poll'

    08/30/2015 12:12:38 PM PDT · 74 of 101
    Jim 0216 to erlayman
    he needs to get more specific at some point

    Right. The way Obama "needed" to get more specific in order to get elected. Hardly.

  • Trump reignites Megyn Kelly feud with 'bimbo' tweet

    08/24/2015 9:09:33 PM PDT · 115 of 374
    Jim 0216 to Savage Beast

    Kelly gradually started turning me off when I saw how she would bog after her interviewees no matter how on target they were, she would argue some point with them. Felt often like she was just being argumentative.

    I hate “fair and balanced”. If somebody’s telling the truth, what, you gotta “balance” it with a lie?

  • Trump reignites Megyn Kelly feud with 'bimbo' tweet

    08/24/2015 9:04:56 PM PDT · 105 of 374
    Jim 0216 to riri

    What is Boortz?

  • Trump reignites Megyn Kelly feud with 'bimbo' tweet

    08/24/2015 8:58:28 PM PDT · 94 of 374
    Jim 0216 to GrandJediMasterYoda

    I don’t think she’s a moron - she had to graduate form law school and pass the bar - not too many morons can do that.

    I think she’s intelligent but I think she’s also a bit lost.

  • Trump reignites Megyn Kelly feud with 'bimbo' tweet

    08/24/2015 8:56:03 PM PDT · 87 of 374
    Jim 0216 to VinL

    Can’t wait. Will they be selling tickets?

  • Trump reignites Megyn Kelly feud with 'bimbo' tweet

    08/24/2015 8:49:04 PM PDT · 73 of 374
    Jim 0216 to bigbob

    That’s about as well put as I’ve seen on this thread. Hit the nail on the head FRiend.

  • Trump Kept Hitler’s Speeches by his Bed [the nonsense begins]

    08/24/2015 5:05:40 PM PDT · 11 of 143
    Jim 0216 to SJackson
    The nonsense begins continues ad infinitum until Jesus returns.
  • Sorry, Donald Trump: America needs birthright citizenship

    08/24/2015 5:03:37 PM PDT · 37 of 65
    Jim 0216 to Kid Shelleen

    There is a very strong case against illegal birthright citizenship.

    The Left keeps misapplying the Ark case, where baby Ark was declared a U.S. citizen at birth, distinguished from the issue at hand because baby Arks parents were in the U.S. LEGALLY. Anything to confuse.

    The case more on point is the earlier 1884 Elk v. Wilkins where an indian was denied citizenship at birth becasue his parents were not legal citizens. The Left tries to convolute this too.

    The Left and Progressivism operates on confusion and lies.

  • Sorry, Donald Trump: America needs birthright citizenship

    08/24/2015 4:24:19 PM PDT · 9 of 65
    Jim 0216 to 2ndDivisionVet
    Sorry, This Week and the Left: America DOES NOT need birthright citizenship of children of illegal immigrants.
  • Sorry, Donald Trump: America needs birthright citizenship

    08/24/2015 4:22:06 PM PDT · 4 of 65
    Jim 0216 to 2ndDivisionVet
    Don't you love how the Left tries to IMMEDIATELY change the narrative.

    America does NOT need birthright citizenship of children of illegal immigrants.

  • HS Marching Band Barred From Playing Halftime Hymn...

    08/24/2015 3:22:53 PM PDT · 64 of 68
    Jim 0216 to Amendment10

    I must add, what followed was constitutionally convoluted but certainly did not void the Constitution (just as today’s federal nullification of the Constitution does not void the Constitution).

    The South, as again part of the Union, had the power to not ratify the three Reconstruction amendments. I know of no valid way the South could have been omitted from that process. Apparently they were “constructively” omitted because apparently the North coerced the South against their will to ratify the three amendments. (If the duress could be proved, it could nullify the validity of the 12-14 amendments.)

    What constitutionally should have happened was allowing the South to voluntarily vote and the amendments wouldn’t have passed, so you’re in the same situation as you were before the Civil War (”Have we learned anything children?”). One would hope the North wouldn’t try to force unconstitutional acts on the South. One would also hope the South would have learned to deal with unconstitutional federal acts on a step-by-step basis.

    At that point, the North should have left well enough alone (a benign move giving deference to the Constitution as imperfect but nevertheless the Law of the Land) and there is strong evidence the whole slavery thing would have passed soon enough.

    Again, the Constitution remains the supreme Law of the Land though many have tried to use the Civil War and Progressivism to void it. The Constitution may be muted (temporarily I hope) but will not be voided by anything other than an Article V process.

  • HS Marching Band Barred From Playing Halftime Hymn...

    08/24/2015 3:05:07 PM PDT · 63 of 68
    Jim 0216 to Amendment10

    Well, no, that idea is again an argument for unbridled federal power and tyranny and I do not believe it is supportable.

    The Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land (Art VI, Cl 2) and Article V provides the ONLY method of changing it.

    The Declaration of Independence gives instruction and guidance for valid secession. The D of I shows valid secession 1) should not be “for light or transient causes” 2) requires a certain “patient sufferance” while “evils are sufferable” 3) notifying and submitting the facts of abuse “to a candid world” (27 specific abuses are listed in the D of I) and finally 4) When a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object, evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty to throw off such Government.” This is not a constitutional dictate, but, as the D of I says, what “Prudence, indeed. will dictate...”

    The South jumped the gun when they ceded from the Union without first going through the necessary steps outlined by the D of I of first nullifying and notifying the feds of why certain acts are unconstitutional. So the South’s cessation was invalid IMO and I believe the North had a constitutional right to fight them and get them back into the Union.

    The Constitution was intact and remained so today, albeit, ignored and violated by dictates from the bench and Congress and the White House. Nevertheless, the Constitution remains the supreme Law of the Land and is the ONLY legal bulwark of freedom against the tyranny of the feds. This tyranny as I say, must be fought and resisted at every level, mainly at the individual state level at this point.

  • HS Marching Band Barred From Playing Halftime Hymn...

    08/24/2015 1:33:53 PM PDT · 61 of 68
    Jim 0216 to Amendment10

    You’re not paying attention: nobody knows what the RATIFIERS of the 14A meant by including the P&I clause.

    It is the ratifiers, not the authors, that determine the intent of the bill. The lack of a record of any debate is very strong evidence the ratifiers did not intend what the constitutional and governmental revolution the author intended.

  • Ouch! Donald Trump Thumps Jeb Bush in New Online Ad — Using Jeb’s Mother!

    08/24/2015 12:57:32 PM PDT · 12 of 38
    Jim 0216 to samtheman

    Yeah, “Enough already - America is Bushed.”

  • Ouch! Donald Trump Thumps Jeb Bush in New Online Ad — Using Jeb’s Mother!

    08/24/2015 12:56:10 PM PDT · 8 of 38
    Jim 0216 to Hojczyk

    How do you top that?

    Trump seems to be as quick on the draw as Reagan was.

    Go Trump.

  • HS Marching Band Barred From Playing Halftime Hymn...

    08/24/2015 12:53:35 PM PDT · 59 of 68
    Jim 0216 to Amendment10
    As the Supreme Court had indicated out, federal power to protect all constitutionally enumerated privileges and immunities by stopping the states from abridging such rights which Section 1 of the 14th Amendment prohibited the states from doing was intended to have the effect of strengthening such rights.

    Again, nobody knows what the ratifiers meant by the P&I clause in the 14A and as such, SCOTUS has no legitimate constitutional basis for such expansion of federal power. But once this unconstitutional "Corruption Doctrine" began in trickles, sooner or later the dam broke and we got the feds interfering with every area of our lives including banning prayer and the Bible in schools, forced integration, prohibiting state anti-abortion and anti-gay laws and on and on.

    Unconstitutional federal acts are, by definition, acts of tyranny and must be resisted at every level.

  • Questions on Acts 1

    08/24/2015 8:54:09 AM PDT · 36 of 42
    Jim 0216 to LearsFool

    Well I’ve been part of churches that taught that all the supernatural gifts stopped after the first century and didn’t believe in the baptism of the holy Spirit. It all kind of goes together.

    Many Christians are comfortable with that, but I’m not. I know he’s that same miracle-working God today as he ever was. I’ve seen his miracles many times including miraculous healings, words of knowledge, and prophecies.

    The greatest miracle of all is salvation. Those discounting the power of the Holy Spirit usually don’t deny God’s continuing work in saving people. That is the greatest miracle of all. Why would he deny His child the lesser miracles of healing and abundant blessings after giving His on Son for us? It doesn’t make sense. “He that spared not his own Son, but delivered him up for us all, how shall he not with him also freely give us all things?” Romans 8:32

    It’s OK. You are a beloved child of God through Jesus Christ and Heaven is your home. Praise the Lord. God wants to give us as much as we let him. The battle of life is letting God give us all that he has for us. The flesh ALWAYS says “No” to God (Gal 5:17). That is why we need the baptism of the Holy Spirit so by his grace and power, we are able to say “Yes” to Jesus.

    I’m not interested in a theological discussion like I said. I copied you becasue I thought you were interested and might prayerfully consider this stuff. But there are basically two camps in the Christian world: those who have not or will not let Jesus baptize them in the Holy Spirit and those that have. Both camps are loved by God and all will go to heaven. But I believe one camp has a greater chance of walking into their divine destiny and victory now than the other. There were about 2 million or so Israelites who were delivered from Egypt but only two made it into their God-given destiny here on earth. I think that may be an indicative ratio of the Christian world today. Salvation is wonderful and thank God all believers will be in Heaven. But there is so much more God has for those who will receive it. I’m talking to myself as much as anyone.

    “Lord, may I receive all that you have for me and may my brother also, in Jesus name, Amen.”