3650
Comments (277)
sorted by:
223
stick_in_the_eye 223 points ago +223 / -0

its a globalist/satanic plot to destroy the western/christian world. theres nothing else to understand. and once you realize it, everything else makes perfect sense.

61
deleted 61 points ago +69 / -8
-36
deleted -36 points ago +19 / -55
59
change_bidens_diaper 59 points ago +59 / -0

The only power government has is that which is voluntarily lent to it by consent of the governed. From the Declaration of Independence:

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.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That** whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. **

It was Lincoln and the North that violated the founding principles of the nation. Any state should be free to withdraw their consent and leave the union.

-24
deleted -24 points ago +4 / -28
17
IvermectinWorks 17 points ago +17 / -0

And if you no longer recognize the law, who is going to stop you?

14
Falling_ferret 14 points ago +16 / -2

The guy above you lol,

They can only leave with unanimous consent of all the other states. Unilateral secession is unconstitutional.

There is only 1 law that is anything more than just two guys in a room with fists... God's law.

Everything else is nothing more than a contract between men - if one side doesn't uphold their end, the only reprocessons come from the upholder in terms of force.

The nation was ruled by the voice of all the people electing their representatives. So tell me, what does the constitution do for me when the top of the power went against it?

There is no law, there are no courts, there is no government, there are no politicians who have power that may derived from anything other than us. So what do they have when they ignored us?

It's just two men in a room with fists. The constitution doesn't protect us if they don't follow it.

I could have you sign a piece of paper that says you won't murder me...but then you do. What good was that paper?

That is where we are today. Either you believe the election was stolen and the government is illegitimate or the election wasn't stolen and you still give the government your consent.

I don't consent to having my vote stolen. I don't consent to "you" murdering me, regardless of what any paperwork says....where does that leave us, "government"?

14
IvermectinWorks 14 points ago +14 / -0

Well said. The only way to have a civil society is when people acknowledge the right of the other to exist. The moment that's gone is the moment society ceases to be civil.

3
TheEvacuator 3 points ago +3 / -0

The government doesn't give a fuck about the Constitution, they dont think of it as a contract, they just want to remove religion and enslave the population, that's all.

1
change_bidens_diaper 1 point ago +1 / -0

I assume you're referring to me...where exactly in the Constitution does it state that all other states must agree to a secession for it to be legitimate?

As far as your consent to the current situation goes, you are free to withdraw your consent and renounce your citizenship at any time, and after that the US federal government has no authority over you. By not renouncing your citizenship, you're implying your continued consent to be governed by the US.

34
Beaver_Den 34 points ago +35 / -1

I see you have fallen for the propaganda. There wasn't a battle fought in the North until at least 1 year into the war.

So how did they "wage war" if every battle was on their soil? They were defending themselves.

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

-32
deleted -32 points ago +8 / -40
31
Tennessee_Jed 31 points ago +32 / -1

You really don't know American history very well. The emancipation proclamation didn't come around till the war was almost over. Only 2 states, Mississippi and Alabama, even said anything about slavery in their reasons for joining in on the war. And even when they joined, the slaves STILL hadn't been freed by Lincoln. Not till years later.

The civil war was started because Lincoln started the Moriff Tarrif. NC and Virginia said fuck you, we are gonna charge whatever we want for imports and undercut your taxes, then people will want to import thru our states instead.

Lincoln responded by blockading those states and refusing them ANY imports. The people began to get starved out. And the states said enough is enough, and fought against the blockades, starting the civil war.

2
SPEDMan64 2 points ago +2 / -0

Um, Georgia does mention slavery as a factor in the first paragraph of their reasons for seceding.

http://civildiscourse-historyblog.com/blog/2018/7/1/secession-documents-georgia

2
Forbidden_outcast 2 points ago +2 / -0

Mentions it in the same sense that it is being used as political tool, rather than true conviction. That’s what I got, anyway. Same as today.

2
TheEvacuator 2 points ago +2 / -0

Yep, a lot of people don't seem to realize that Lincoln started the Civil War because of mistakes he made.

He wasn't really a hero like people think he was.

-8
deleted -8 points ago +4 / -12
20
machoman88 20 points ago +20 / -0

“I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races … I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of Negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races from living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be a position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race.” -Abraham Lincoln Don't act like the north were some white knights. It was absolutely federal over reach that got the ball rolling.

6
Tennessee_Jed 6 points ago +6 / -0

Where does it say anywhere there that slavery is the reason for secession? All that says is slavery is something they're embracing. Nothing more.

3
becky21k1 3 points ago +4 / -1

You're a retard.

20
Tripin 20 points ago +21 / -1

The war wasn't about slavery rofl. Keep on believing what they teach in public schools.

2
TheEvacuator 2 points ago +2 / -0

Hold on, do people actually believe that the Civil War was about Slavery?

I thought that was a joke they said in schools back in the day?

0
deleted 0 points ago +1 / -1
-8
deleted -8 points ago +4 / -12
1
Mordecai87 1 point ago +1 / -0

That is fake news

3
Clandestiny 3 points ago +3 / -0

You need to educate yourself on this topic more, because for people who've studied the civil war and surrounding events - you sound like a retarded faggot.

3
deleted 3 points ago +3 / -0
-19
deleted -19 points ago +8 / -27
5
Thrasymachus 5 points ago +5 / -0

Oh, it's retarded.

2
Mordecai87 2 points ago +2 / -0

If the south won we would be a more free country.

-10
deleted -10 points ago +2 / -12
2
Mordecai87 2 points ago +2 / -0

Hey libtard, it was Lincolm that invaded the south.

10
deleted 10 points ago +10 / -0
5
becky21k1 5 points ago +6 / -1

Jesus what a retard. The south seceded over unfair taxation. Lincoln drove them to war. He's the one who committed treason.

6
Clandestiny 6 points ago +6 / -0

Lincoln was a war criminal.

2
TheEvacuator 2 points ago +2 / -0

bUT He frEeD tHe SlavES!

Fuck that asshole, he was a crooked mf who was making people starve. The Biden from the 19th century.

1
Mordecai87 1 point ago +1 / -0

Fuck the yanks.

42
Wanderlust 42 points ago +42 / -0

Some reddit retards were bewildered why green groups would attack nuclear. There is no greener energy than nuclear (especially the modern variants).

Makes perfect sense in above context. Same reason green groups exist at all, destroy the western Christian world.

20
NomadicKrow2 20 points ago +20 / -0

Because China can't make money on our nuclear plants. Unless they own them. But power would be so cheap then.

This feels like a plot to constrict the American spending ability. The people's ability that is.

1
deleted 1 point ago +1 / -0
6
not_a_glowie_just_fo 6 points ago +8 / -2

According to Alex Jones nuclear energy is actually extremely polluting if not followed by extremely impossible regulations and nobody follows them because it makes it too expensive.

13
aconcernedtroll 13 points ago +14 / -1

Alex Jones is wrong on this one. Nuclear energy tech has come a long way, but, it's a slow process to implement.

7
DJTrump 7 points ago +8 / -1

He is wrong. Modern nuclear is practically free energy. Unless solar in a few hundreds years is radically more efficient, nothing will surpass nuclear.

0
CrackerJack2 0 points ago +1 / -1

Fission reactors suck! I've been paying big bucks for over 20 years for mistakes made in New York's reactor problems.
What were the promises made in the 1960s? Energy too cheap to meter. Complete B.S. Found a real glowie!.

2
DJTrump 2 points ago +2 / -0

Yeah, I'm glowie.. lmao

-1
CrackerJack2 -1 points ago +1 / -2

Why don't you just build your own nuclear powered plane and fly it everywhere. You can be the reactor engineer sitting next to the lightly shielded reactor.
You'd get combat pay to take that seat.

On the plus side, you'd never need to pay for an X-Ray, ever.

4
SPEDMan64 4 points ago +4 / -0

They already tried developing nuclear-powered aircraft. The programs were scrapped mostly due to the problem of making a reactor small enough to be carried by the aircraft in a practical manner.

0
CrackerJack2 0 points ago +1 / -1

They probably have some now that can even be remotely piloted.
I wouldn't want to be a ground crew member though.
May be we can draft some of the glowies from here for that task.

-1
CrackerJack2 -1 points ago +1 / -2

Well, what the heck,
if you can build a nuclear bomb small enough for an ICBM you can certainly build a reactor that size, or maybe 3x-8x as big.
You just don't want to loose one after all of that investment in technology. As an engineer, I don't see any insurmountable barriers towards completing this task. A still better approach is to [... redacted by the DOD... ]. Now that would be an extremely valuable idea. A game breaker! Wow. Got to patent that idea. I wonder if the gov't will steal it or let it be published in the Patent Gazette.

2
Thrasymachus 2 points ago +2 / -0

That was a stupid thing to post, and everyone realizes implicitly that you knew it, but posted anyway. Are laughable straw-man arguments your only play, or do you think you have some ad-hominem left to pull out of your tiny bedazzled feathered cap?

0
CrackerJack2 0 points ago +1 / -1

You, as do I know full well the hazards of radiation. I worked at a company that made nuclear reactor components. Radiation exposure is no joke. And neither is the byproducts that stay around for 1,000s of years.
"Too cheap to measure".
Yeah, right.

Now fusion energy is definitely something that should explored further. Hense the new race to the Moon.
( https://www.esa.int/Enabling_Support/Preparing_for_the_Future/Space_for_Earth/Energy/Helium-3_mining_on_the_lunar_surface )

1
not_a_glowie_just_fo 1 point ago +1 / -0

I'm pretty agnostic just repeating what I heard.. ;)

18
deleted 18 points ago +26 / -8
-7
Pandas4Trump -7 points ago +9 / -16

A saturday consumetrannycock.win brigade? Were you kicked out of the Tuesday discord crew? faggot

16
Bardwitha45 16 points ago +19 / -3

Forget it, we're all awake to the fact that fighting the globalists means fighting a lot of people of Jewish descent.

We don't care about being called anti-semitic to save the country anymore.

-17
deleted -17 points ago +5 / -22
15
DONT_reply_with_THIS 15 points ago +16 / -1

He speaks of me.

For every Stephen Miller there were 99 Jared Kushners.

7
not_a_glowie_just_fo 7 points ago +7 / -0

Both 'stormfags' and 'Jews' in one comment :D You are looking for trouble LOL

10
SHILL_DETECTOR 10 points ago +11 / -1

stormfags must run israel based on the genocide going on over there

6
not_a_glowie_just_fo 6 points ago +6 / -0

Looks like the 4th Reich. Same cruelty. Slow painful death. Children as well.

1
Clandestiny 1 point ago +1 / -0

kek

-10
deleted -10 points ago +3 / -13
2
Bardwitha45 2 points ago +2 / -0

...........not helping your case.

1
Thrasymachus 1 point ago +1 / -0

After you get banned again for Bill Mitchell-ry maybe you'll realize that it wasn't unfair; you're just a useless cunt with nothing to say.

1
deleted 1 point ago +2 / -1
-7
deleted -7 points ago +4 / -11
4
Pandas4Trump 4 points ago +6 / -2

Consumetrannycock.win... the home of the few, the proud, the Gnostic Qanon! GET HYPE!

7
Willholbert09 7 points ago +7 / -0

that's a pumpkin spice latte with extra garlic.

5
Runfree 5 points ago +5 / -0

Agreed and I do think the reason they are pushing for the high percent of vaccinated, besides population control and money, is to take away the control group.

Basically you can blame all the negative symptoms on Covid as long as you don't have the unvaccinated group to compare to.

74
sustainable_saltmine 74 points ago +76 / -2

There's no instance where Federal Law overrides any state law. It's the other way around, stupid cunt

13
deleted 13 points ago +20 / -7
32
Gesirisi 32 points ago +32 / -0

Laws made in PURSUANCE of the constitution reign Supreme. Vaccine mandates are not pursuant to the constitution.

9
WhatevaIDoWhatIWant 9 points ago +9 / -0

I was arguing with someone today who said basically the Government can go ahead and make any unconstitutional laws they want, and the purpose of the judicial branch is then determine if those laws are constitutional.

This seems backwards because then you have Government blatantly violating the constitution and THEN deciding if something is constitutional or not, despite many of these things being clearly unconstitutional. Even if the courts were not corrupted, things like the mandate would have done too much damage by the time it could be overruled.

Can anyone provide insights?

3
change_bidens_diaper 3 points ago +3 / -0

This concept is called 'judicial review', and it was established by the Supreme Court in Marbury v. Madison. The Constitution doesn't mention this concept at all, but it was discussed by Hamilton in the Federalist Papers (#78), so it's not like the Court just pulled this idea out of their ass.

Hamilton described it as part of the system of checks and balances, but was careful to explain that judicial review didn't give the judicial branch superior power over the legislative branch -- it simply was to ensure that the legislature remained 'the servant' of the Constitution, and not 'the master'. (The Anti-Federalists were very critical of this concept, and Hamilton's response was directed towards them). Anti-Federalists were keenly aware of all the flaws in the Constitution and foresaw almost all of the issues that eventually came up....see arguments of Patrick Henry, George Mason, also Richard Henry Lee (as Federal Farmer) and Robert Yates (as Brutus) in Anti-Federalist Papers.

1
WhatevaIDoWhatIWant 1 point ago +1 / -0

Appreciate the detailed answer Pede. I will look into the Supreme Court Case and The Anti-Federalist papers.

3
wufwugy 3 points ago +3 / -0

Unfortunately, that's the way it works. The judiciary has the final (and thus only legal) say on what is constitutional.

Worse than the government passing whatever they want is that the judiciary has no enforcement power, resulting in the court "interpreting" the constitution towards what is politically viable and socially accepted. Plenty of obviously unconstitutional things are ruled as constitutional by the court, because ultimately they're interpretations the people want.

2
deleted 2 points ago +2 / -0
2
WhatevaIDoWhatIWant 2 points ago +2 / -0

Well it would seem we have a major flaw in our system.

0
CrackerJack2 0 points ago +2 / -2

The Judiciary should NOT have say over what laws are Constitutional and what are not, as they are approved merely by a simple majority of the Senate. The Constitution and amendments, however, are approved by a minimum of 2/3rds of the States. A much higher bar to cross. Something is wrong here, there must be a mistake in how the Judiciary is selected.

1
Medicnz2 1 point ago +1 / -0

The scotus can’t see enough cases fast enough to strike down the laws being formed. Nor can they be struck down unless someone has been harmed and appealed their way to the top. It’s an impossible check and balance

1
deleted 1 point ago +1 / -0
-10
deleted -10 points ago +1 / -11
21
Gesirisi 21 points ago +23 / -2

Read the US constitution, it is not that complicated. It doesn't say tge feds have a right to do vaccine mandates. So they can't. Its that simple.

26
Demonspawn 26 points ago +27 / -1

A lot of people don't understand the constitution:

For the federal government, the constitution denies everything it doesn't explicitly allow.

For the states, the constitution allows everything it doesn't explicitly deny.

7
deleted 7 points ago +7 / -0
7
BigBadJim 7 points ago +7 / -0

Without the states, there is no federal government.

Without the people, there are no states.

Everyone in government has either wilfully forgotten this, or are simply ignoring this fact

-1
Do_the_Math -1 points ago +2 / -3

The government simply needs to make the case that it is for the overall good and protection of the people. It is the Supreme Court that has allowed vax mandates in the past. The Supremacy Clause does in fact allow preemption of state rights. The 10th Amendment is conditional.

It is essential that great legal minds prepare to defend states and the People by building the case that vaccines are not safe and effective. That is the only defense against vaccine tyranny.

14
Gesirisi 14 points ago +14 / -0

They take the words General Welfare from the fucking PREAMBLE and create a Soviet government out of it.

8
deleted 8 points ago +8 / -0
8
Mother_of_gains 8 points ago +8 / -0

That assumes that the federal law in question is made with respect to the enumerated federal powers in the constitution.

There are clearly issues that are the purview of the state governments and not pursuant to federal law. Which is why you see cases where the federal government has to coerce the states by withholding federal funding. Best example is alcohol consumption. The drinking age in every state is 21. That's not because of a federal law, but because the federal government threatened to withhold highway funds to states that didn't raise their drinking age.

It clearly would have been easier to just set a national drinking age at the federal level, but the federal government doesn't have the authority to regulate alcohol consumption within the states.

5
OffendingSomeone 5 points ago +5 / -0

You can thank the 17th Amendment for those types of laws. Prior to it, the Senators represented their given state's government. Now, they're just beholden to the people, the same as the House is.

If Senators had represented the interests of their states, coercive legislation like that would never have passed.

4
SorosHasBallsackEyes 4 points ago +4 / -0

Uh oh. References to the US Constitution may indicate radicalization!

1
Brucesky420 1 point ago +1 / -0

Quick, fact checkers I need the comment hidden with a warning to it's reference of white supremacist material known as "the US constitution"

7
MAGAnology 7 points ago +7 / -0

It says "The powers delegated to the US by the Constitution," NOT by the Legislature, Jen.

4
akira2501 4 points ago +4 / -0

There's no instance where Federal Law overrides any state law.

The "Interstate Commerce Clause." It's a dirty bullshit trick slipped into our legal system by a bad act of the Supreme Court, but it's the "go to excuse" for overriding state law.

On the other hand, the question immediately to Psaki should have been: "Okay, which federal law? Which chapter? Which section? Which paragraph? Cite for me exactly the law you've apparently passed by executive fiat?"

2
bubadmt 2 points ago +2 / -0

How about drug laws? Many times the feds will raid dispensaries because federal law makes it illegal, even though states legalized it.

10
ComTruiseWasRight 10 points ago +10 / -0

Feds can only raid what they own

6
Brucesky420 6 points ago +6 / -0

Those were illegal. but it mostly happened in California and you weren't going to get judges to push hard against it, especially when Obama was doing it. Obama actually campaigned on stopping the raids, but only increased how many were being done

They used loop holes to get around it. One of the tactics was to not charge them with anything but seize the drugs, since weed was still schedule 1 you weren't gonna have much fun fighting it federally. Many that were raided were operating again a week later. But they mainly targeted flagrant shops that they had evidence of selling to people without medical cards. The seizures were a scare tactic to limit the number of people who would get into the business because the CIA didn't like making less money. The cartel took a hit in California, a place that was one of their biggest weed consumers in the country

1
when_we_win_remember 1 point ago +1 / -0

I'm pretty sure you're all legally wrong. Morally right. Under the system, what's legal is whatever courts say is legal, and they support the Federal government in many cases.

43
Great_Gazoo 43 points ago +44 / -1

Mandates are not law...

Also there is no delegation of powers to cover peoples medical choices.

18
AbsurdOpinion 18 points ago +18 / -0

This is the most important thing people are missing. A presidential EO is NOT a Federal Law. It has extremely limited authority, mostly over Federal Employees. This is also why it doesn't extend to Congress or the Judiciary due to the seperation of powers. The President cannot order Congress to do jack squat and vice versa.

And it sure as hell doesn't apply to PRIVATE COMPANIES.

What the Biden commies are trying to do, and this would never hold up in court, is issue an EO to OSHA and then having OSHA issue a regulation requiring people to have the jab to work in the building. But OSHA has no such authority.

36
MAGAborn 36 points ago +36 / -0

Is that why several states have legalized marijuana?

21
okboomer59 21 points ago +21 / -0

Not to mention sanctuary states that violate Federal immigration law

-1
deleted -1 points ago +1 / -2
25
Atlas_Honked 25 points ago +26 / -1

We're not voting our way outta this.

15
BigBadJim 15 points ago +15 / -0

We never voted our way into it to begin with

The bolsheviks have been cheating for more then a century.

6
NomadicKrow2 6 points ago +6 / -0

They're going to have a harder time with Americans than they did with Russians.

7
1776ThereIsaidIt 7 points ago +7 / -0

Great username.

3
Falling_ferret 3 points ago +4 / -1

That's what I keep telling people. You don't stop your abusive husband by asking him to stop...

1
deleted 1 point ago +1 / -0
15
Justlooking250 15 points ago +15 / -0

That socialist [email protected] doesn't follow it anyways

14
sk39999999 14 points ago +14 / -0

When psychopaths take over a government - a "Pathocracy" - officials are put in place due to their level of corruption and psychopathy - not competency. That means they have to get very low IQ people to fill the jobs because psychopaths are a low percentage of the population. They don't care about "facts", they think they "create their own reality" and that they can force it onto others through force. "Post Modernism" is just the psychopathic view of reality going mainstream.

8
CarpenterRichard 8 points ago +8 / -0

Damn.

https://pathocracy.wordpress.com/definition/

This is evil, no kidding.

4
__I_dindu__nufin_ 4 points ago +5 / -1

That's awesome, I'm gonna post this link so more people see it

3
__I_dindu__nufin_ 3 points ago +4 / -1

Excellent and concise.

I offer a symbolic hug to you

11
TheOutlawPepeWales 11 points ago +11 / -0

Anti-Commandeering Doctrine

"States can refuse to provide personnel or resources for any federal activity regardless of its constitutionality."

8
ObongoForPrison2020 8 points ago +8 / -0

I do not consent.

7
SigAR 7 points ago +7 / -0

Her appearance is so disgusting

7
tom_machine 7 points ago +7 / -0

Any time these people start with the phrase "We know that...", we definitely do not know that.

7
Redleg37 7 points ago +7 / -0

Yes

6
Bluridgegirl 6 points ago +6 / -0

We know you are an idiot...

6
Smarmcastic 6 points ago +6 / -0

Jen taking her US Constitution leads from Guido.

4
NomadicKrow2 4 points ago +4 / -0

She has to call prison to talk to Avenatti, the only lawyer she trusts lol

6
Redditcensorsyouandi 6 points ago +6 / -0

Rather than conform their narrative to reality

They use their narrative to tweak the gullible masses perception of reality.

These commie propaganda peddling traitors are devious and devilish.

Government is a necessary evil that we the people must remain vigilant in restricting as much of their power as possible.

The fact that so many politicians are becoming multi millionaires is evidence that we have failed to enact checks and balances adequately.

5
CHEMST 5 points ago +5 / -0

Inside every Progressive is a petty tyrant pretending he is supports Freedom.

5
QueensOwn 5 points ago +5 / -0

Why would anyone believe that this progressive intellectual moron knows, understands or cares about the Constitution of the United States? They literally want to shred it only they don’t want you to know that is what they want.

Pedes from New Jersey might recall that it was the dim witted Governor of New Jersey Phil Murphy the Richie Rich of the Garden State who literally said the “understanding of the Constitution was above my pay grade. “ You know the very thing he literally took an OATH to “protect and defend”. Ignorance is bliss, I guess.

5
Agent_86 5 points ago +6 / -1

It's pretty damn simple. States have all the power. They just lend a little to the feds. So yes state's rights supersedes federal law. Hell even your local Sherrif in his or her county out ranks the feds.

2
Falling_ferret 2 points ago +3 / -1

Individuals have all the power and then it trickles down from there. Instead of the reverse which is humanities default apparently (kings).

So it would make sense that the individual is most sovereign (well, of course under God), then local, then state, then fed.

If it goes in the reverse, well gee, doesn't that just sound like another fucking dictatorship?

5
Skippious 5 points ago +5 / -0

It's the way they believe it should be, and damn all evidence to the contrary. After all, reality is subjective and you can make your own reality as long as you just believe in it. That's another of their beliefs.

5
NomadicKrow2 5 points ago +5 / -0

Listen to my truth!

4
Do_the_Math 4 points ago +4 / -0

Unfortunately, the courts have allowed the federal laws to preempt state law citing the Supremacy Clause even when those laws do not conflict with the Constitution. Preemption is usually written into new laws and statutes which are then upheld by the courts. The usurping of state rights has been a slow and gradual process.

These words from Psaki should send chills down the spine of every red state. These are words that could, and possibly should, invoke a Civil War as they foreshadow a possibly dark purpose. Very dark.

4
TeeRoyAL 4 points ago +4 / -0

haha, wheres that guys 1st amendment video, he can do a 10th amendment video now !

4
PopMaca 4 points ago +4 / -0

Milosevic was thinking the same. Next: states got some weapons.

Next Next: some neighbors decided to defend their street:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2u9SmU8M4YI

4
kaduh 4 points ago +4 / -0

She is a gash to the nth degree.

4
Panopticon 4 points ago +4 / -0

It was short hand (not 100% but almost always) that between fed and state rules you went with whichever gave you more rights... Re: public school taught in the past.

3
NomadicKrow2 3 points ago +4 / -1

Well, neither "give" rights. You'd go with the one that steals less of them.

I never thought I'd be closer to an anarchist than a law and order guy. My current inspiration is Anarchist Batman from Red Son.

1
Falling_ferret 1 point ago +2 / -1

You're not an anarchist, you just appose tyranny.

The government went from protecting the people to subjugating them when they silenced our voices by stealing the election.

You and I haven't changed, the government has. And it's an abusive relationship now...

1
Panopticon 1 point ago +1 / -0

Can you enlighten us with the correct term?

1
NomadicKrow2 1 point ago +1 / -0

Your rights come from God. If they come from man, man can take them.

Not sure what you wanted the term of.

1
Panopticon 1 point ago +1 / -0

There it is again. Rights.

If rights is the wrong word for me to use then what is the correct word?

1
NomadicKrow2 1 point ago +1 / -0

Why are you under the impression I implied rights was the wrong word?

4
PocketPosse 4 points ago +4 / -0

What a dangerous awful thing to say. They really believe in hierarchies of power rather than balance of rights.

4
thenotfakepaul 4 points ago +4 / -0

Imagine being press secretary and not knowing the difference between a law and an executive order.

4
brundlefly777 4 points ago +4 / -0

Absolutely not ignorance. These people know very well what they're doing.

4
Vashts1985 4 points ago +4 / -0

Supremacy clause pertains to powers granted to the government in the constitution. tenth says any power not granted to the government in the constitution is up to the states.

does the government have the enumerated power to compel individuals to take medicine?

2
NomadicKrow2 2 points ago +2 / -0

Nooope. And neither does the state.

3
Greenhills 3 points ago +3 / -0

It’s arrogance

3
slimcoat 3 points ago +3 / -0

It's evil.

3
AmericanPatriotPride 3 points ago +3 / -0

Its us being silent while we watch them ignore the constitution. Nobody seems to be down to leave their house and organize in numbers big enough to not be ignored so,.. the left continues to win.

They have all things in their pocket to win. Billionaire's, social media, msm, banks, pharmaceutical, hollywood and so much more. Its too bad the right never took strongholds in these areas.

3
UnitedStatesofSmash 3 points ago +3 / -0

There is only one way out of this and it is neither easy nor pleasant. I doubt it will happen though. Everyone seems content enough with their bread and circuses.

3
runonce 3 points ago +3 / -0

Maximus Civilitis right into the Gulagatorium

3
SocialismSucks2 3 points ago +3 / -0

We did NOT vote for Communism The fools that did are going to wish they had guns. #AmmoUp

3
Kerra_Holt 3 points ago +3 / -0

Expect nothing less from a commie.

3
RufusPillula 3 points ago +3 / -0

Did the ignorant skank really say that?

3
Awan-CIA-Car-Lot 3 points ago +3 / -0

Yes

1
NomadicKrow2 1 point ago +1 / -0

Sure did.

3
Minndeplorable 3 points ago +3 / -0

Orange girl bad

3
sentient-potato 3 points ago +3 / -0

It's the thought police changing definitions again.

Doubleplusgood.

3
BoughtByBloomberg2 3 points ago +3 / -0

Federal supremacy is solely about the constitution and the laws and treaties that follow from it. If it's not in the constitution Congress can pass whatever law it wants it ain't happening.

We saw that for over 100 years of ignoring federal immigration law, the law that SHOULD be enforced under the Supremacy clause because the United States (the federal authority) are granted sole powers by the constitution to control the borders. So spare me the moaning leftists. The vax mandate is going down.

3
deleted 3 points ago +3 / -0
3
bwjenkins1 3 points ago +3 / -0

What a lying manipulative POS

3
TheMAGAlorian787 3 points ago +3 / -0

All of the above.

3
buckiemohawk 3 points ago +3 / -0

They are know trying to say Bannon had a call with Epstein over not releasing dirt on Trump. And Im like Michael Wolff is lying has been known to lie and make shit up. If any of that was true they would have had years ago

4
Awan-CIA-Car-Lot 4 points ago +4 / -0

Isn't that the guy who invented the Gorilla Channel? 😂

3
buckiemohawk 3 points ago +3 / -0

Yep. They have been trying to link Trump to Epstein when its them. Thats all theyre trying to do. And Michael Wolff is a reliable as giving yr keys to a thief.

3
stitching 3 points ago +3 / -0

If she thinks we are too stupid to remember the low prices of 2 years ago, how in the hell would she think that we would know our constitutional rights? (Honestly, I've learned so much in the last 6 years about my constitutional right and the constitution THANK YOU TRUMP!

3
Quietam_Unum 3 points ago +3 / -0

There's a great line in a Traveling Willburys song by Bob Dylan: "In Jersey anything's legal as long as you don't get caught."

Fed Gov (aka ZOG) has been using that philosophy to get away with murder for, what, a century and a half? A HUGE percentage of what zog does now is "extra-constitutional," especially at the bureaucrat level.

3
Eatinglue 3 points ago +3 / -0

My third favorite amendment behind the 1st and 2nd

3
Sgt-Pepper1 3 points ago +3 / -0

It's a job that, otherwise, the cunt would not have. She can't spell Constitution.

3
EredAmlug 3 points ago +3 / -0

It's the Jews. They created an ugly cunt of a red head. That's the real crime. Red heads should be pretty. She's a cunt. It's the Jews.

3
deleted 3 points ago +3 / -0
3
dontdrinksoy 3 points ago +3 / -0

TO THE PEOPLE

3
COLDWARPATRIOT55 3 points ago +3 / -0

The average American under the age of 50 has no clue what the constitution says, nor do they care. Thus, it is ignorance, and they knew this when they got rid of civics and American history as basics in school. They have planned well...