Posted on 09/27/2020 2:43:08 PM PDT by Lazamataz
She is exposing a global Marxist activist group called "Sunrise" that recruits children for a "Young Pioneers" brainwashing. It seems like a red diaper training club. She has video "Zoom" organizational meetings with the children's faces pixelated and the adults giving them their marching orders. Millennial Millie Weaver even includes a clip where twenty or so "Sunrise" members are confronting and browbeating Dianne Feinstein in the hall outside her office for not being leftist enough.
Patriots need to support PDJT by electing as many new federal and state patriot lawmakers as they can who will promise to fully support Trump’s already excellent work for MAGA.
I don’t see any problem with voting Republican ticket for 2020 elections.
Insights welcome.
Republicans did not turn out in 2016, especially urban ones per my model from back then. They turned out at maybe 90%-95% rate.
Lower Black turnout, as well as flipping white union and rural folks, carried Trump to victory.
It’s almost like you read nothing LS wrote.
Ok, you read your own comment but that doesn’t count.
thumbs up here also.
i checked your posting history and noticed that you’re a thinly disguised anti-trump troll who specializes in “concern” posts and otherwise are nothing but a nattering nabob of negativism ... NEVER anything constructive or positive to say here ... it’d be nice if you just went away ... FR would be a much nicer place without you ...
Dems were pushing 'chaos under Trump' but citizens saw the truth: chaos under democrat mayors in Democrat states... Big Mistake...total miscalculation.
Thanks, and keep your great info coming, Larry!
I learned earlier that Zero pardoned/released 1700+ people, more than even BJ’s 60 plus
Same here.
I know 1 who will never vote Dem again. Hated Trump in 2016. Will now vote for him and straight Republican. 1 Hillary voter not going to vote for president. She still dislikes Trump, but will probably vote the rest Republican this year, if she votes at all. So a 1.5 vote swing to Trump.
Amen!
I’m prone to agree with LS....
Spend the time.
Larry’s a busy guy.
Larr, I got the gist of what chick was saying. She proves that there are groups that give tactical and strategic training on how to subvert and overthrow the United States.
Frankly, it’s nothing I didn’t know before, and probably nothing you didn’t know before.
Yes, there are professional, militarily-organized subversive groups in the Democrat party and aligned with it. Big woop. We knew this.
About the only takeaway from this knowledge is that President Donald Trump, when re-elected, will need to go all Augustus Pinochet on a few motherhuggers.
Has Larry been paying attention to Roberts? I'll take a solid 5-4 though. Bring on the 2A cases.In just over 30 days we will have something none of us ever dreamed, a 6-3 conservative Supreme Court.
Yes, but Thomas will retire some day, and . . .Thomas is the best person on the court. We need Barrett to replace him.
Roberts is the median justice, like Kennedy was after O’Connor retired - always with the winning side, in 5-4 votes defining the winning side.
And as Chief Justice he gets to decide who writes the opinion for any majority of which he is a part. He wants to be in the majority, and he prefers more unanimity than 5-4 decisions imply. Put Barrett on the court, and Roberts’ position changes. If originalists have 5 reliable votes, his default will be to go along with them, and use his position to soften the opinion with his choice of opinion author, or even by writing the opinion himself.
It does give him preeminence, but not the preponderance he enjoyed before RBG left the court. He can only steer the opinion to the median of the court, and if the fifth justice is more conservative than he likes, he has to either go along with him (presuming it won’t be Barrett) or let the majority select its own opinion author by joining the minority.
As to what precedent is in the most pressing need for reversal, there is Wade of course - but IMHO New York Times Co. v. Sullivan is also crucial. And if possible, overturning it would be a heavier lift than overturning Roe. Sullivan is an even older (1964) Warren Court decision, and it was unanimous with enthusiastic concurrences.
Sullivan is IMHO the linchpin of “the media” in its present, ever-more-tendentious form. By preventing Republican politicians from suing for libel (Democrats never need to), Sullivan allows wire service journalism (that is, ideologically homogenous journalism) to detach itself from reality. Thus, overturning Sullivan definitely requires 5 solid originalist justices - probably 6 of them - plus concurrence by Roberts.
Thomas currently advocates for a review of Sullivan, and Scalia also did. Scalia’s explanation is that Sullivan stands or falls on its assertion that
". . . libel can claim no talismanic immunity from constitutional limitations. It must be measured by standards that satisfy the First Amendment”. . . and yet the claim that 1A touches libel law at all was novel in 1964. For the very good reason that the Federalists who wrote 1A and got it ratified were, provably, not trying to change anyones rights. At all.And you know the history: the Federalists didn’t include a bill of rights in the Constitution, but were forced by opponents of their greatest desire - replacement of the Articles of Confederation with the Constitution - to promise a bill of rights by amendment. But as the Federalsts knew, attempting a comprehensive enumeration of rights which came down in history as an inchoate conglomeration of court precedents - was a fool’s errand. So in fact they didn’t even seriously attempt it. What they did was pass the first eight amendments, which enumerate rights which had historically been abused by tyrants - and then to pass both
and
- Amendment 9
- The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
- Amendment 10
- The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
But notice the wording of the First Amendment: 1A does not refer simply to “freedom of the press” but to “the freedom of the press.” Scalia noted that freedom of the existed at the time of the composition of the Constitution - and so did the right to sue for compensation for libel.
Had the First Amendment referred to " freedom of the press” in the abstract, it would arguably have extinguished both the right of the people to sue for libel and the rights of governments to enforce anti pornography laws. And that would have been controversial - could have been the poison pill which would have subverted the entire Bill of Rights project to solidify consensus around the new Constitution. Instead 1A refers to “the” freedom - freedom within limits - of the press as traditionally understood.
The conclusion, Scalia asserted, is that the First Amendment was crafted to not touch the law of libel. And given the Christian cultural milieu in which the Federalists were immersed,
The conceit that “this is not a Christian nation” flies in the face ofallowing the violation of the Ninth CommandmentArticle I Section 7: If any Bill shall not be returned by the President within ten Days (Sundays excepted) after it shall have been presented to him, the Same shall be a Law, in like Manner as if he had signed it, unless the Congress by their Adjournment prevent its Return, in which Case it shall not be a Law.. . . which might be said to treat every Sunday (not the Jewish Sabbath but the Christian “first day of the week”) as a holiday.Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour. Exod 20: 16on an industrial scale - libel - would have been an extremely heavy lift even had they wished (a fact not in evidence) to undertake it.No originalist can have any respect for Sullivan as good precedent.
from link:
Just before leaving office in 2017, Barack Obama commuted the sentence of Bradley Manning (you may also know him as Chelsea), who leaked hundreds of thousands of sensitive government documents to WikiLeaks. A traitor in every sense, in 2013 Manning was convicted and sentenced to 35 years in prison. But, Bradley Manning became a hero of the political left for declaring himself to be transgender, and Obama made his controversial commutation literally just days before leaving office. Manning maintains hero status amongst the left today.
Obama also commuted the sentence of convicted terrorist Oscar Lopez Rivera, the leader of the Fuerzas Armadas de Liberación Nacional Puertorriqueña (FALN), a Puerto Rican terrorist group. FALN was responsible for 130 attacks in the United States, and at least six deaths.
Very well stated. I agree about Sullivan and you present the issue very well.
Where will we find someone to fill Thomas’s shoes?
Thanks
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.