PDA

View Full Version : Poll: Judge Roy Moore leads competitors in runoff




Pages : [1] 2 3 4 5

Swordsmyth
08-04-2017, 04:54 PM
The poll found that Moore leads Strange 34-32, with 35 percent undecided, in a hypothetical runoff. A matchup between Moore and Brooks has Moore garnering 43 percent support to Brooks’ 20 percent, with 37 percent undecided.
A matchup between Strange and Brooks has Strange leading Brooks 42-22, with 36 percent undecided.

More at: https://www.conservativereview.com/articles/poll-judge-roy-moore-leads-competitors-in-runoff

AuH20
08-08-2017, 03:06 PM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Avx4osbbFik

William Tell
08-08-2017, 11:54 PM
Go Roy Moore.

Keith and stuff
08-09-2017, 08:01 AM
Brooks is the most pro-liberty of the 3. Trump endorsed Strange, the least pro-liberty of the 3.

Madison320
08-09-2017, 11:50 AM
Go Roy Moore.

Seriously? I live in Alabama. Roy Moore is an idiot.

Keith and stuff
08-09-2017, 12:03 PM
Seriously? I live in Alabama. Roy Moore is an idiot.
Maybe that's why William supports him? A lot of people voted for Trump not because they like him, but because he is entertaining.

William Tell
08-09-2017, 12:05 PM
Seriously? I live in Alabama. Roy Moore is an idiot.

Seriously. I'd trade you Ted Cruz for Roy Moore any day. Moore wants the government completely out of education and healthcare and he opposes unconstitutional wars.

Sonny Tufts
08-09-2017, 02:21 PM
he opposes unconstitutional wars.

He's also in favor of unconstitutional religious displays and ignoring court orders he doesn't agree with, both of which got him removed as from the Alabama Supreme Court in 2004. After he was subsequently reelected to the court he was charged with six ethical violations, all stemming from his effectively telling Alabama probate judges to ignore the U.S. Supreme Court's Obergefell decision and to refuse to issue same-sex marriage licenses. The charges included:

1.Violation of the Alabama Canon of Judicial Ethics, for disregarding a federal injunction.
2.Violation of the Alabama Canon of Judicial Ethics, for demonstrated unwillingness to follow clear law.
3.Violation of the Alabama Canon of Judicial Ethics, for abuse of administrative authority.
4.Violation of the Alabama Canon of Judicial Ethics, for substituting his judgment for the judgment of the entire Alabama Supreme Court, including failure to abstain from public comment about a pending proceeding in his own court.
5.Violation of the Alabama Canon of Judicial Ethics, for interference with legal process and remedies in the United States District Court and/or Alabama Supreme Court related to proceedings in which Alabama probate judges were involved.
6.Violation of the Alabama Canon of Judicial Ethics, for failure to recuse himself from pending proceedings in the Alabama Supreme Court after making public comment and placing his impartiality into question.

On April 20, 2017 a special Alabama Supreme Court affirmed Moore's removal from the court.

Moore is a theocratic demagogue who thinks he's above the law.

William Tell
08-09-2017, 02:26 PM
He's also in favor of unconstitutional religious displays and ignoring court orders he doesn't agree with, both of which got him removed as from the Alabama Supreme Court in 2004. After he was subsequently reelected to the court he was charged with six ethical violations, all stemming from his effectively telling Alabama probate judges to ignore the U.S. Supreme Court's Obergefell decision and to refuse to issue same-sex marriage licenses. The charges included:

1.Violation of the Alabama Canon of Judicial Ethics, for disregarding a federal injunction.
2.Violation of the Alabama Canon of Judicial Ethics, for demonstrated unwillingness to follow clear law.
3.Violation of the Alabama Canon of Judicial Ethics, for abuse of administrative authority.
4.Violation of the Alabama Canon of Judicial Ethics, for substituting his judgment for the judgment of the entire Alabama Supreme Court, including failure to abstain from public comment about a pending proceeding in his own court.
5.Violation of the Alabama Canon of Judicial Ethics, for interference with legal process and remedies in the United States District Court and/or Alabama Supreme Court related to proceedings in which Alabama probate judges were involved.
6.Violation of the Alabama Canon of Judicial Ethics, for failure to recuse himself from pending proceedings in the Alabama Supreme Court after making public comment and placing his impartiality into question.

On April 20, 2017 a special Alabama Supreme Court affirmed Moore's removal from the court.

Yeah. Those are other reasons I support him. We need someone to stand up to the fedcoats and he proved he has guts.

Madison320
08-09-2017, 02:59 PM
Seriously. I'd trade you Ted Cruz for Roy Moore any day. Moore wants the government completely out of education and healthcare and he opposes unconstitutional wars.

I don't trust him as far as I can throw him. He's all politician. He filmed himself sneaking a statue of the 10 commandments into the courthouse, knowing it would cause a controversy and he wanted to make a name for himself. It's been awhile since it happened (2001?) so I can't remember all the stupid crap he did, but he was one of the reasons I quit voting for republicans after I moved to Alabama. Before that I used to vote libertarian and republican. Now I vote libertarian and leave the rest blank.

Sonny Tufts
08-09-2017, 03:01 PM
We need someone to stand up to the fedcoats and he proved he has guts.

Spin it however you want, but the fact remains that Moore was removed for violating the Alabama Canons of Judicial Ethics, which are state rules, not federal ones. As the Alabama Court of the Judiciary noted in its decision:


At the outset, this court emphasizes that this case is concerned only with alleged violations of the Canons of Judicial Ethics . This case is not about whether same-sex marriage should be permitted; indeed, we recognize that a majority of voters in Alabama adopted a constitutional amendment in 2006 banning same - sex marriage , as did a majority of states over the last 15 years . Moreover , this is not a case to review or to editorialize about the United States Supreme Court's June 2015 split decision in Obergefell v . Hodges , 135 S . Ct . 2584 (2015), a decision that some members of this court did not personally agree with or think was well reasoned. This court simply does not have the authority to reexamine those issues . This court convenes only "to hear complaints filed by the Judicial Inquiry Commission" as to alleged violations by judges of the Canons of Judicial Ethics adopted by the Alabama Supreme Court. See§ 157 , Ala . Const . 1901 (Off . Recomp.) As this court stated in the 2003 action against Chief Justice Roy S . Moore:

"The Canons are not merely guide lines for proper judicial conduct; they are binding on all judges by the oath taken upon assuming office, and violations of the Canons can serve as the basis for disciplinary action. The charge or charges against a judge must be proved by clear and convincing evidence before any discipline may be imposed."

***

On the basis of the evidence presented, this Court unanimously finds that the JIC proved by clear and convincing evidence that Chief Justice Moore is guilty of charges nos . 1 - 6. Specifically, Chief Justice Moore is guilty of violating:

• Canon 1, in that he failed to uphold the integrity and independence of the judiciary;
• Canon 2, in that he failed to avoid impropriety appearance of impropriety in all his activities;
• Canon 2A, in that failed to respect and comply with the law and failed to conduct himself at all times in a manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary;
• Canon 2B, in that he failed to avoid conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice that brings the judicial office into disrepute;
• Canon 3, in that he failed to perform the duties of his office impartially; and
• Canon 3A (6), in that he failed to abstain from public comment about a pending proceeding in his own court.

http://lawprofessors.typepad.com/files/sept-30-2016-order-in-re-roy-moore-1.pdf

Moore could have disagreed with and fought against the adverse decisions in both the Ten Commandments and gay marriage cases, but he couldn't do so in a manner that violated his oath of office, and that's exactly what he did.

William Tell
08-09-2017, 03:05 PM
Spin it however you want, but the fact remains that Moore was removed for violating the Alabama Canons of Judicial Ethics, which are state rules, not federal ones. As the Alabama Court of the Judiciary noted in its decision:
I know. The state government are bootlickers Roy's the only one who isn't.

Madison320
08-09-2017, 03:10 PM
I know. The state government are bootlickers Roy's the only one who isn't.

He's a theocratic weasel.

This is from Wikipedia:

"A month after his election, Moore began making plans for a larger monument to the Ten Commandments, reasoning that the Alabama Supreme Court building required something grander than a wooden plaque. His final design involved a 5,280 pound (2,400 kg) granite block, three feet wide by three feet deep by four feet tall, covered with quotes from the Declaration of Independence, the national anthem, and various founding fathers.[20] The crowning element would be two large carved tablets inscribed with the Ten Commandments. High-grade granite from Vermont was ordered and shipped, and Moore found benefactors and a sculptor to complete the job.

On the evening of July 31, 2001, despite some initial installation difficulties and concerns regarding structural support for the monument's weight, Moore had the completed monument transported to the state judicial building and installed in the central rotunda. The installation was filmed, and videotapes of the event were sold by Coral Ridge Ministries, an evangelical media outlet in Fort Lauderdale, Florida, which later used proceeds from the sales of the film to underwrite Moore's ensuing legal expenses. Coral Ridge was the operation of the late Reverend D. James Kennedy, a staunch Moore supporter.[21]

The next morning, Moore held a press conference in the central rotunda to officially unveil the monument. In a speech following the unveiling, Moore declared, "Today a cry has gone out across our land for the acknowledgment of that God upon whom this nation and our laws were founded. ... May this day mark the restoration of the moral foundation of law to our people and the return to the knowledge of God in our land.""

Brian4Liberty
08-09-2017, 03:31 PM
Hopefully all of this talk about establishment shill and comic book villain Luther Strange is wishful manipulation, just like all of the polls during the last POTUS race.

Mo Brooks is the best choice, and his platform is #DitchMitch. Swamp creatures are doing everything they can to stop him.

specsaregood
08-09-2017, 03:40 PM
He's a theocratic weasel.

This is from Wikipedia:

"A month after his election, Moore began making plans for a larger monument to the Ten Commandments, reasoning that the Alabama Supreme Court building required something grander than a wooden plaque. His final design involved a 5,280 pound (2,400 kg) granite block, three feet wide by three feet deep by four feet tall, covered with quotes from the Declaration of Independence, the national anthem, and various founding fathers.[20] The crowning element would be two large carved tablets inscribed with the Ten Commandments. High-grade granite from Vermont was ordered and shipped, and Moore found benefactors and a sculptor to complete the job.

On the evening of July 31, 2001, despite some initial installation difficulties and concerns regarding structural support for the monument's weight, Moore had the completed monument transported to the state judicial building and installed in the central rotunda. The installation was filmed, and videotapes of the event were sold by Coral Ridge Ministries, an evangelical media outlet in Fort Lauderdale, Florida, which later used proceeds from the sales of the film to underwrite Moore's ensuing legal expenses. Coral Ridge was the operation of the late Reverend D. James Kennedy, a staunch Moore supporter.[21]

The next morning, Moore held a press conference in the central rotunda to officially unveil the monument. In a speech following the unveiling, Moore declared, "Today a cry has gone out across our land for the acknowledgment of that God upon whom this nation and our laws were founded. ... May this day mark the restoration of the moral foundation of law to our people and the return to the knowledge of God in our land.""

I'm not religious and I have no problems with any of that. oh no, he got a big monument with words and quotes on them installed. big whoop.

Madison320
08-09-2017, 03:43 PM
I'm not religious and I have no problems with any of that. oh no, he got a big monument with words and quotes on them installed. big whoop.

If you don't mind living in a theocracy.

specsaregood
08-09-2017, 03:47 PM
If you don't mind living in a theocracy.

You must be reading something other than what you posted. I didn't see anything in it that indicates a theocracy taking hold. Oh no a moral foundation! big whoop. oh no, the knowledge of god. big whoop.

William Tell
08-09-2017, 03:48 PM
I don't trust him as far as I can throw him. He's all politician. Well that's your right and I respect that. But I trust him because he's always been consistent. I might disagree with him and be annoyed at him some times, but he's not going to wake up tomorrow and start voting like a RINO.


He filmed himself sneaking a statue of the 10 commandments into the courthouse, knowing it would cause a controversy and he wanted to make a name for himself. It's been awhile since it happened (2001?) so I can't remember all the stupid crap he did, but he was one of the reasons I quit voting for republicans after I moved to Alabama. Before that I used to vote libertarian and republican. Now I vote libertarian and leave the rest blank.
I can see how attention seeking would turn you off. But to me that's the least of my worries in politics I just care about how someone's going to vote on legislation and where they are pushing the ball. Strange is the second coming of Lindsey Graham. Brooks is Sessions/Cruz/tea party lite, endorsed by Hannity, Lamar Smith, and Mark Levin. Moore is a devout evangelical with a high regard for defending the Constitution as he understands it. Seems to me Moore is the best thing we could realistically get out of this race looking at the polls.

Btw what do you think about Trip Pittman? He's running for senate also and he's a legislator who supported Ron Paul.

Madison320
08-09-2017, 04:08 PM
You must be reading something other than what you posted. I didn't see anything in it that indicates a theocracy taking hold. Oh no a moral foundation! big whoop. oh no, the knowledge of god. big whoop.

Maybe if you heard some of his speeches. He reminds me exactly of this guy:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rzIs51GUVgg

William Tell
08-09-2017, 04:14 PM
If you don't mind living in a theocracy.
If having the 10 commandments in court makes a nation a theocracy we already are one, lots of times people swear oaths on the bible in court. I don't see why a monument is so controversial. The whole nation is going the opposite way, even if Roy was a theocrat he'd never accomplish anything like that. And considering the only thing he will have a chance to maybe accomplish is voting to shrink our out of control government I see exactly zero downside to electing him.

Madison320
08-09-2017, 04:15 PM
Well that's your right and I respect that. But I trust him because he's always been consistent. I might disagree with him and be annoyed at him some times, but he's not going to wake up tomorrow and start voting like a RINO.

I can see how attention seeking would turn you off. But to me that's the least of my worries in politics I just care about how someone's going to vote on legislation and where they are pushing the ball. Strange is the second coming of Lindsey Graham. Brooks is Sessions/Cruz/tea party lite, endorsed by Hannity, Lamar Smith, and Mark Levin. Moore is a devout evangelical with a high regard for defending the Constitution as he understands it. Seems to me Moore is the best thing we could realistically get out of this race looking at the polls.



Yuch, I'll just leave my ballot blank.





Btw what do you think about Trip Pittman? He's running for senate also and he's a legislator who supported Ron Paul.

I never heard of him but if he likes Ron Paul then he's probably worth voting for.

William Tell
08-09-2017, 04:17 PM
Yuch, I'll just leave my ballot blank.




I never heard of him but if he likes Ron Paul then he's probably worth voting for.
I found this a while back.
http://theresurgent.com/trip-pittman...esponsibility/ (http://theresurgent.com/trip-pittman-on-philosophy-and-running-for-the-us-senate-liberty-requires-responsibility/)

specsaregood
08-09-2017, 04:18 PM
Maybe if you heard some of his speeches. He reminds me exactly of this guy:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rzIs51GUVgg

So to back up your claim, you link to a clip of a comedy, fictional movie? Well that's about all I need to know.

Madison320
08-09-2017, 04:18 PM
If having the 10 commandments in court makes a nation a theocracy we already are one, lots of times people swear oaths on the bible in court. I don't see why a monument is so controversial. The whole nation is going the opposite way, even if Roy was a theocrat he'd never accomplish anything like that. And considering the only thing he will have a chance to maybe accomplish is voting to shrink our out of control government I see exactly zero downside to electing him.

It was the way he did it, and the way he spoke (god this, god that, amen brothers and sisters). I don't get the sense that he even believes in god. To me it seemed like an act to get elected.

Madison320
08-09-2017, 04:21 PM
So to back up your claim, you link to a clip of a comedy, fictional movie? Well that's about all I need to know.

It's an analogy. Duh.

I'll see if I can find some actual footage of the Judge for ya.


Here you go, AMEN BROTHER!!!!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=90M4DEuM0V8

dannno
08-09-2017, 05:25 PM
He's also in favor of unconstitutional religious displays

I wasn't aware the Constitution prohibited religious displays :confused:



and ignoring court orders he doesn't agree with

Could be good, could be bad.




stemming from his effectively telling Alabama probate judges to ignore the U.S. Supreme Court's Obergefell decision and to refuse to issue same-sex marriage licenses.

So he is pro states rights?

AuH20
08-09-2017, 06:53 PM
Strange was a Never Trumper. This is the downside of Trump.

Keith and stuff
08-09-2017, 11:59 PM
Strange was a Never Trumper. This is the downside of Trump.

Trump endorsed him, even though he is the worst candidate in the primary race. Sad.

Madison320
08-10-2017, 08:11 AM
I wasn't aware the Constitution prohibited religious displays :confused:


"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion"

I would argue that displaying a big monument with the 10 commandments in a courthouse is the first step in establishing an official religion.

Aren't judges supposed to be impartial? The whole thing stunk. What about the Christian group that payed for the monument? And they made a video of moving the monument and sold it. You don't think they might get preferential treatment? A judge should keep a low profile.

What if a muslim judge moved a statue of Muhammad into the courthouse and displayed the koran? And it was funded by a Islamic group? You'd be ok with that?

Sonny Tufts
08-10-2017, 09:06 AM
I wasn't aware the Constitution prohibited religious displays :confused:

It does when you place the display in a government building with the explicit purpose (as Moore admitted) of acknowledging the supremacy of the Judeo-Christian deity.


The Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, made binding upon the States through the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, provides that government "shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion." The question presented to this court is whether the Chief Justice of the Alabama Supreme Court violated the Establishment Clause when he placed a slightly over two-and-a-half ton granite monument--engraved with the Ten Commandments and other references to God--in the Alabama State Judicial Building with the specific purpose and effect, as the court finds from the evidence, of acknowledging the Judeo-Christian God as the moral foundation of our laws...

Based on the evidence presented during a week-long trial and for the reasons that follow, this court holds that the evidence is overwhelming and the law is clear that the Chief Justice violated the Establishment Clause. But, in announcing this holding today, the court believes it is important to clarify at the outset that the court does not hold that it is improper in all instances to display the Ten Commandments in government buildings; nor does the court hold that the Ten Commandments are not important, if not one of the most important, sources of American law. Rather the court's limited holding, as will be explained below in more detail, is that the Chief Justice's actions and intentions in this case crossed the Establishment Clause line between the permissible and the impermissible...

Both in appearance and in stated purpose, the Chief Justice's Ten Commandments monument is an "extreme case"; it is nothing less than "an obtrusive year-round religious display" installed in the Alabama State Judicial Building in order to "place the government's weight behind an obvious effort to proselytize on behalf of a particular religion," the Chief Justice's religion...

In the Chief Justice's understanding, the Judeo-Christian God is sovereign over both the church and the state in this country, and both owe allegiance to that God... The court appreciates that, as a matter of conscience, one may believe that the Judeo-Christian God is sovereign over the state. In fact, the court understands that it is just this type of belief that the Free Exercise clause and the Establishment Clause are meant to protect. Thus, the court stresses that it is not disagreeing with Chief Justice Moore's beliefs regarding the relationship of God and the state. Rather, the court disagrees with the Chief Justice to the extent that it understands him to be saying that, as a matter of American law, the Judeo-Christian God must be recognized as sovereign over the state, or even that the state may adopt that view...

The court appreciates that there are those who see a clear secular purpose in the Ten Commandments, for they command not only such things as "I am the Lord thy God" and "Thou shalt have no other Gods before me" but also, among other things, that "Thou shalt not kill" and "Thou shalt not steal," and that we should "Honour thy father and thy mother." If all Chief Justice Moore had done were to emphasize the Ten Commandments' historical and educational importance (for the evidence shows that they have been one of the sources of our secular laws) or their importance as a model code for good citizenship (for we all want our children to honor their parents, not to kill, not to steal, and so forth), this court would have a much different case before it. But the Chief Justice did not limit himself to this; he went far, far beyond. He installed a two-and-a-half ton monument in the most prominent place in a government building, managed with dollars from all state taxpayers, with the specific purpose and effect of establishing a permanent recognition of the "sovereignty of God," the Judeo-Christian God, over all citizens in this country, regardless of each taxpaying citizen's individual personal beliefs or lack thereof. To this, the Establishment Clause says no. Glassroth v. Moore, No. 01-T-1268-N (M.D. Alabama 2002)


So he is pro states rights?

No, he's pro Roy Moore and thinks that his opinions are superior, as a legal matter, than those of the United States Supreme Court.

William Tell
08-10-2017, 11:58 AM
I voted for one of these Champions. Wish I could vote for the other. Defend the Constitution August 15th, Alabama!:D

https://scontent-dft4-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/20663669_10155671076262188_744742108247773397_n.jp g?oh=382a455347220f5620087c746dd89438&oe=5A2F1FF5

r3volution 3.0
08-10-2017, 01:32 PM
If having the 10 commandments in court makes a nation a theocracy we already are one, lots of times people swear oaths on the bible in court. I don't see why a monument is so controversial. The whole nation is going the opposite way, even if Roy was a theocrat he'd never accomplish anything like that. And considering the only thing he will have a chance to maybe accomplish is voting to shrink our out of control government I see exactly zero downside to electing him.

My concern with Moore isn't his religious policy per se, but that he might focus on that to the exclusion of things that actually matter.

There's a similar problem on the other side, e.g. with Libertarians and pot.

Basically I have no interest in electing any more culture warriors, of any stripe.

Where are the politiques (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politique)?

William Tell
08-10-2017, 02:20 PM
My concern with Moore isn't his religious policy per se, but that he might focus on that to the exclusion of things that actually matter.

There's a similar problem on the other side, e.g. with Libertarians and pot.

Basically I have no interest in electing any more culture warriors, of any stripe.



Although I guess I can see your point I frankly don't think it holds up as an objection when you think about it. Yeah, the headlines Roy makes may be about his own priorities, but senators make thousands of votes. He's going to be on the right side of more of them than everyone but Rand and maybe Lee. Same thing goes for Libertarians and pot. Every legit statesman has pet issues. For Ron it was the Fed and wars, for Rand it seems to be NSA spying/privacy. If you were elected you'd have some pet issue, and it might not be mine but as long as you stand strong on most issues you will be an asset to the cause.

#Pragmatism;)

Swordsmyth
08-10-2017, 02:29 PM
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion"

I would argue that displaying a big monument with the 10 commandments in a courthouse is the first step in establishing an official religion.

Aren't judges supposed to be impartial? The whole thing stunk. What about the Christian group that payed for the monument? And they made a video of moving the monument and sold it. You don't think they might get preferential treatment? A judge should keep a low profile.

What if a muslim judge moved a statue of Muhammad into the courthouse and displayed the koran? And it was funded by a Islamic group? You'd be ok with that?

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion"

It says nothing about anyone but congress (you could try to stretch it to encompass the state legislature), and it prohibits nothing but the making of laws to establish a religion. If the people don't like a cultural/religious display in a court house they can through the legislature or the ballot box seek to change the judiciary or prohibit the display, the Feds have no say whatsoever.

r3volution 3.0
08-10-2017, 02:36 PM
Although I guess I can see your point I frankly don't think it holds up as an objection when you think about it. Yeah, the headlines Roy makes may be about his own priorities, but senators make thousands of votes. He's going to be on the right side of more of them than everyone but Rand and maybe Lee. Same thing goes for Libertarians and pot. Every legit statesman has pet issues. For Ron it was the Fed and wars, for Rand it seems to be NSA spying/privacy. If you were elected you'd have some pet issue, and it might not be mine but as long as you stand strong on most issues you will be an asset to the cause.

#Pragmatism;)

Sure, but isn't that true of Brooks as well?

As I see it, Brooks is pretty much the same as Moore, but without the distracting culture war stuff.

Sonny Tufts
08-10-2017, 03:24 PM
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion"

It says nothing about anyone but congress (you could try to stretch it to encompass the state legislature)

What you call a stretch has been the law for quite some time. Most of the Bill of Rights has been made applicable to the States via the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incorporation_of_the_Bill_of_Rights

It never ceases to amaze me how some believers see no problem with government officials promoting a particular religious belief (as long as it's theirs, of course).

Swordsmyth
08-10-2017, 03:42 PM
What you call a stretch has been the law for quite some time. Most of the Bill of Rights has been made applicable to the States via the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incorporation_of_the_Bill_of_Rights
A prohibition against establishing a religion is not a "privilege" or an "immunity" held by a citizen, that would have to be phrased "the people shall not be subjected to an established religion", in any case I don't want the states to "establish" a religion either but that is a legislative function and distinct from placing a monument in a courthouse.


It never ceases to amaze me how some believers see no problem with government officials promoting a particular religious belief (as long as it's theirs, of course).
You never answered the rest of my comment, so I will repeat it.

It prohibits nothing but the making of laws to establish a religion. If the people don't like a cultural/religious display in a court house they can through the legislature or the ballot box seek to change the judiciary or prohibit the display, the Feds have no say whatsoever.

Keith and stuff
08-10-2017, 04:19 PM
My concern with Moore isn't his religious policy per se, but that he might focus on that to the exclusion of things that actually matter.

There's a similar problem on the other side, e.g. with Libertarians and pot.

Basically I have no interest in electing any more culture warriors, of any stripe.

Where are the politiques (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politique)?

William has the right to support any statist he wants! Sure he supports the anti-liberty candidate Moore, and that is fine. Just like he had the legal right to support Obama or Clinton. Just because his chosen candidate hates us and liberty doesn't matter. His rights come first!

Trip Pittman is the Ron Paul Republican (http://www.al.com/news/mobile/index.ssf/2017/06/state_sen_trip_pittman_hopes_f.html), Mo Brooks is the only libertyish person with a chance, then there are the many anti-liberty candidates likes Moore. This is a somewhat free country (well, at least it is in New Hampshire), and people have the right to vote to destroy it!

Sonny Tufts
08-10-2017, 05:23 PM
It prohibits nothing but the making of laws to establish a religion. If the people don't like a cultural/religious display in a court house they can through the legislature or the ballot box seek to change the judiciary or prohibit the display, the Feds have no say whatsoever.

The Establishment Clause means much more than that. As much as you may not like it, the real law regarding the Clause that will be applied by the courts (except, of course, by courts in Moore's theocratic fantasyland) is determined by the Supreme Court, subject to the Court's reversing itself or the Constitution's being amended. And a long line of SCOTUS decisions leads to the inescapable conclusion that no government, whether federal, state, or local, can promote a particular religions belief. As the Court of Appeals noted in affirming the ruling against Moore:


The First Amendment does not say that no government official may take any action respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. It says that “Congress shall make no law” doing that. Chief Justice Moore is not Congress. Nonetheless, he apparently recognizes that the religion clauses of the First Amendment apply to all laws, not just those enacted by Congress. See Everson v. Bd. of Educ., 330 U.S. 1, 15, 67 S. Ct. 504, 511 (1947) (holding that the Establishment Clause applies to the states through the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment). Even with that concession, his position is still plenty bold. He argues that because of its “no law” language, the First Amendment proscribes only laws, which should be defined as “a rule of civil conduct . . . commanding what is right and prohibiting what is wrong.” Brief of Appellant at 19 (quoting 1 William Blackstone, Commentaries *44). Any governmental action promoting religion in general or a particular religion is free from constitutional scrutiny, he insists, so long as it does not command or prohibit conduct. The monument does neither, but instead is what he calls “a decorative reminder of the moral foundation of American law.” Brief of Appellant at 19. The breadth of the Chief Justice’s position is illustrated by his counsel’s concession at oral argument that if we adopted his position, the Chief Justice would be free to adorn the walls of the Alabama Supreme Court’s courtroom with sectarian religious murals and have decidedly religious quotations painted above the bench. Every government building could be topped with a cross, or a menorah, or a statue of Buddha, depending upon the views of the officials with authority over the premises. A crèche could occupy the place of honor in the lobby or rotunda of every municipal, county, state, and federal building. Proselytizing religious messages could be played over the public address system in every government building at the whim of the official in charge of the premises.

However appealing those prospects may be to some, the position Chief Justice Moore takes is foreclosed by Supreme Court precedent. County of Allegheny, 492 U.S. at 12, 109 S. Ct. at 3110, which held unconstitutional the placement of a crèche in the lobby of a courthouse, stands foursquare against the notion that the Establishment Clause permits government to promote religion so long as it does not command or prohibit conduct. Id., 109 S. Ct. at 3110 (“To be sure, some Christians may wish to see the government proclaim its allegiance to Christianity in a religious celebration of Christmas, but the Constitution does not permit the gratification of that desire, which would contradict ‘the logic of secular liberty’ it is the purpose of the Establishment Clause to protect.”) (citation omitted).

If you really want to know the applicable law in this area, please read the appellate court's opinion here: https://web.archive.org/web/20040112235506/http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/ops/200216708.pdf

Swordsmyth
08-10-2017, 05:30 PM
The Establishment Clause means much more than that. As much as you may not like it, the real law regarding the Clause that will be applied by the courts (except, of course, by courts in Moore's theocratic fantasyland) is determined by the Supreme Court, subject to the Court's reversing itself or the Constitution's being amended. And a long line of SCOTUS decisions leads to the inescapable conclusion that no government, whether federal, state, or local, can promote a particular religions belief. As the Court of Appeals noted in affirming the ruling against Moore:



If you really want to know the applicable law in this area, please read the appellate court's opinion here: https://web.archive.org/web/20040112235506/http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/ops/200216708.pdf
Then nothing the government does is unconstitutional because the supreme court gives them permission?
I don't care what nonsense the supreme court has said in the past, Moore's actions were not unconstitutional and shouldn't be, we should all be fighting for a restoration of the constitution as it should be and I have proven what it has to say on this subject.

NorthCarolinaLiberty
08-10-2017, 05:47 PM
It never ceases to amaze me how some believers see no problem with government officials promoting a particular religious belief (as long as it's theirs, of course).


The Establishment Clause means much more than that.


It never ceases to amaze me how government institutions like schools continue to promote their own religious beliefs embodied in secular humanism, which was declared to be a religion by a federal court in accord with the Establishment Clause.

It also never ceases to amaze me how your behavior here is progressive/antithetical to the site, and how your presence here apparently has nothing to do with liberty. Why is that, tax lawyer?

William Tell
08-10-2017, 05:49 PM
William has the right to support any statist he wants! Sure he supports the anti-liberty candidate Moore, and that is fine. Just like he had the legal right to support Obama or Clinton. Just because his chosen candidate hates us and liberty doesn't matter. His rights come first!Lol thanks, Keith.:) But actually it was the Live Free or Die state that elected Obama and voted for Hillary.;)



Trip Pittman is the Ron Paul Republican (http://www.al.com/news/mobile/index.ssf/2017/06/state_sen_trip_pittman_hopes_f.html), Yeah. I was the first person on this site to point that out and it would be great if he makes the runoff.


Mo Brooks is the only libertyish person with a chance, then there are the many anti-liberty candidates likes Moore. He's a career back bencher politican and he's been winning elections for decades by going with the flow. Moore stands for what he believes even when it means losing.

There's a reason Lamar Smith and Hannity and Levin endorsed Brooks. Looking at his voting record I honestly can't see a difference between him and your average NeoCon. I mean you're calling a guy who supports Indefinite Detention, the Patriot Act and the Export Import bank 'libertyish' but I'm supporting an anti liberty candidate? What are you smoking??


This is a somewhat free country (well, at least it is in New Hampshire), and people have the right to vote to destroy it! You really are fond of the arbitrary lines drawn on a map. I really do wish the FSP the best. But you guys aren't even honest about your own state's problems. You have some of the worst most draconian homeschooling laws in the nation in New Hampshire and when I pointed it out you just trashed the organization that dared to give you a bad grade, and then went on to say asking permission to school your kids isn't so bad after all.

At least those of us in other parts of the world can admit our local government is bad and try to make corrections instead of blindly worshipping it and playing down tyranny.

specsaregood
08-10-2017, 06:05 PM
You really are fond of the arbitrary lines drawn on a map. I really do wish the FSP the best. But you guys aren't even honest about your own state's problems. You have some of the worst most draconian homeschooling laws in the nation in New Hampshire and when I pointed it out you just trashed the organization that dared to give you a bad grade, and then went on to say asking permission to school your kids isn't so bad after all.


3rd highest property tax rate in the US aint anything to cheer about either. When the only states worse than your own are NJ and IL, its time to get to work...

William Tell
08-10-2017, 06:15 PM
Sure, but isn't that true of Brooks as well?

As I see it, Brooks is pretty much the same as Moore, but without the distracting culture war stuff.No. Brooks supported the Patriot Act for crying out loud, vote for the NDAA and voted in favor of warrantless searches. He has supported intervention and a police state on multiple occasions. Why anyone on this site supports him is beyond me. I'm posting some of his bad votes below so people can see them.

William Tell
08-10-2017, 06:16 PM
Name: Mo Brooks

Congress: Alabama, District: 5, Republican

Cumulative Freedom Index Score: 74%

Status: Active Member of the House

Score Breakdown:
77% (114th Congress: 2015-2016); 62% (113th Congress: 2013-2014); 82% (112th Congress: 2011-2012)

S 2943: National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA)
Vote Date: December 2, 2016 Vote: AYE Bad Vote.
This bill (S. 2943) authorizes $611.2 billion for military programs in fiscal year 2017, including $59.5 billion for foreign operations in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Syria. Among its many provisions, the massive bill creates a “Global Engagement Center” to counter “foreign state and non-state propaganda and disinformation efforts.” Dubbed an Orwellian “Ministry of Truth” by critics including THE NEW AMERICAN, this new government propaganda center is authorized to “provide financial support” to (among others) “media content providers,” including “local independent media who are best placed to refute foreign disinformation and manipulation in their own communities.”

The House passed the NDAA on December 2, 2016 by a vote of 375 to 34 (Roll Call 600). We have assigned pluses to the nays because the authorizations in this bill go way beyond providing for our national defense. Our foreign military interventions in the Middle East in particular have exacerbated terrorism and undermined U.S. security. The creation of the Orwellian “Global Engagement Center,” which was added to the NDAA without Congress being able to vote on it as a stand-alone bill, also falls outside the scope of legitimate national defense. Rather than agreeing to the version of NDAA they did, our lawmakers should have rejected it and passed instead a constitutionally sound version.

H R 5293: Warrantless Surveillance
Vote Date: June 16, 2016 Vote: NAY Bad Vote.
During consideration of the Defense Appropriations bill (H.R. 5293), Representative Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) introduced an amendment to bar the use of funds in the bill from being used to conduct warrantless searches of Americans’ digital communications that have crossed the U.S. border. Massie noted in a letter to his colleagues that “the Director of National Intelligence has confirmed that the government searches vast amounts of data — including the content of emails and telephone calls — without individualized suspicion or probable cause,” and that “the director of the FBI has also confirmed that it uses this information to build criminal cases” against Americans. Massie added that the National Intelligence and FBI directors “are not above the Fourth Amendment, and this practice should end.” Massie’s amendment would also prohibit funds from being used to pressure companies to build “backdoors” into their products for surveillance.

The House rejected Massie’s amendment on June 16, 2016 by a vote of 198 to 222 (Roll Call 321). We have assigned pluses to the yeas because Massie’s amendment seeks to uphold the Constitution and its protection of privacy rights.


H R 5293: Authorization for Use of Military Force
Vote Date: June 16, 2016 Vote: NAY Bad Vote.
During consideration of the Defense Appropriations bill (H.R. 5293), Representative Barbara Lee (D-Calif.) introduced an amendment to prohibit the use of funds in the bill for the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force Act. Enacted in the wake of 9/11, the AUMF authorized the president to “use all necessary and appropriate force” against the terrorists involved, as well as those who aided or harbored them. It was used as the authorization for U.S. military entry into Afghanistan in 2001, and over the years has also been invoked on other occasions by the executive branch to justify U.S. military intervention abroad.

The House rejected Lee’s amendment on June 16, 2016 by a vote of 146 to 274 (Roll Call 330). We have assigned pluses to the yeas because presidents have been able to claim broad authority to go to war whenever or wherever they choose under the AUMF, despite the fact that the Founding Fathers never intended for one man to make this decision, and under the Constitution only Congress may “declare war.”

H R 5471: Countering Terrorist Radicalization Act
Vote Date: June 16, 2016 Vote: AYE Bad Vote.
This bill (H.R. 5471) would authorize the Homeland Security Department to train state and local law enforcement in methods for countering violent extremism and terrorism. This training would take place at fusion centers that have been established across the nation by the Homeland Security Department and the U.S. Department of Justice for promoting information sharing between agencies such as the CIA, FBI, U.S. Department of Justice, U.S. military, and state- and local-level governments. It also would require the department to incorporate testimonials of former extremists and their friends and families into its efforts to combat terrorist recruitment and communications.

The House passed H.R. 5471 on June 16 , 2016 by a vote of 402 to 15 (Roll Call 333). We have assigned pluses to the nays because providing federal training to state and local law-enforcement programs is not only unconstitutional, but also further federalizes the police system.

H R 4909: Use of Military Force
Vote Date: May 18, 2016 Vote: NAY Bad Vote.
During consideration of the National Defense Authorization Act (H.R. 4909), Representative Barbara Lee (D-Calif.) introduced an amendment to repeal the Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) that was enacted in 2001 for the purpose of authorizing U.S. military intervention in Afghanistan in the wake of the 9/11 terror attacks. Since then, however, the AUMF has been invoked numerous times by the executive branch for U.S. military intervention not only in Afghanistan but elsewhere.

The House rejected Lee’s amendment on May 18, 2016 by a vote of 138 to 285 (Roll Call 210). We have assigned pluses to the yeas because presidents have been able to claim broad authority to go to war whenever or wherever they choose under the AUMF, despite the fact that the Founding Fathers never intended for one man to make this decision, and under the Constitution only Congress may “declare war.”

H R 597: Export-Import Bank
Vote Date: October 27, 2015 Vote: AYE Bad Vote.
This bill (H.R. 597), the Export-Import Bank Reform and Reauthorization Act of 2015, would reauthorize the Export-Import Bank’s charter through fiscal 2019. Additionally,the bill would reduce the limit on the Ex-Im Bank’s outstanding loans, guarantees,and insurance from $140 billion to $135 billion, as well as prohibit the bank from issuing new loans if the default rate reaches two percent. Under the new charter,the Ex-Im Bank would be required to increase the amount of its financing dedicated to small businesses from 20 to 25 percent,and be subject to a Government Accountability Office audit every four years.

The House passed H.R. 597 on October 27, 2015 by a vote of 313 to 118 (Roll Call 576). We have assigned pluses to the nays because the Export-Import Bank is a poster boy for corporate cronyism. The government finances or insures foreign purchases from U.S. companies that commercial banks are unwilling or unable to finance owing to the political or commercial risks inherent in the deals, leaving taxpayers on the hook in the event of default. Constitutionally speaking, the U.S. government should not be underwriting private businesses at taxpayers’ expense, regardless of whether or not such businesses are small,“mom and pop” companies.



H R 2393: Country of Origin Labeling Amendments Act of 2015
Vote Date: June 10, 2015 Vote: AYE Bad Vote.
Country of Origin Labeling.
The proposed Country of Origin Labeling Amendments Act of 2015 (H.R. 2393) would amend the Agricultural Marketing Act of 1946 to repeal the requirements of Country of Origin Labeling (COOL) for beef, chicken, and pork sold in the United States. This vote came after the World Trade Organization's recent ruling against an appeal from the United States to keep its COOL. Representative Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) opposed passage of the bill to repeal COOL. From the House floor, Massie elaborated: "What is the World Trade Organization, and who are they to tell Congress what laws we have to pass? These judges weren't appointed by the President. They weren't confirmed by the Senate. These are not judges from our Constitution. These are extra-constitutional judges, yet they are telling us here in Congress you have got to do this or there will be repercussions."

The House passed H.R. 2393 on June 10, 2015 by a vote of 300 to 131 (Roll Call 333). We have assigned pluses to the nays because this bill would cede national sovereignty over food-related choices and regulations to the WTO. Moreover, this bill would prevent American consumers from knowing where their food comes from.

H R 1731: National Cybersecurity Protection Advancement Act of 2015
Vote Date: April 23, 2015 Vote: AYE Bad Vote.
Cyberspace Intelligence Sharing.
The proposed National Cybersecurity Protection Advancement Act (NCPA) of 2015 (H.R. 1731) would amend the Homeland Security Act of 2002 to expand the role of the Department of Homeland Security's National Cybersecurity and Communication Integration Center, designating it the principal federal entity to receive and disseminate information about cyberspace threats from and to private companies and other federal agencies.

Expressing opposition to both H.R. 1731 and H.R. 1560, another related cybersecurity intelligence bill, Congressman Justin Amash (R-Mich.) said, "As drafted, these bills violate the Fourth Amendment, override privacy laws, and give the government unwarranted access to the personal information of potentially millions of Americans."

The House passed H.R. 1731 on April 23, 2015 by a vote of 355 to 63 (Roll Call 173). We have assigned pluses to the nays because this bill would further empower the unconstitutional Department of Homeland Security, erode the privacy protections enshrined in the Constitution, and gradually move the United States closer to becoming a police state.


H RES 162: Calling on the President to provide Ukraine with military assistance to defend its sovereignty and territorial integrity.
Vote Date: March 23, 2015 Vote: AYE Bad Vote.
Ukraine Military Aid.
House Resolution 162, which calls on the president "to provide Ukraine with military assistance to defend its sovereignty and territorial integrity," allows President Obama to provide Ukraine with defensive weapons to defend against aggression from Russia.

The House adopted H. Res. 162 on March 23, 2015 by a vote of 348 to 48 (Roll Call 131). We have assigned pluses to the nays not only because foreign aid is unconstitutional but also because this bill would further interject the United States into a foreign conflict. Allowing the U.S. president to provide lethal arms to Ukraine in order to fight Russia is tantamount to waging a proxy war on Russia without the constitutionally required congressional declaration of war. The House, by giving such power to the president, is relinquishing one of its constitutional responsibilities.


H R 4870: On Agreeing to the Amendment 52 to H R 4870
Vote Date: June 19, 2014 Vote: NAY Bad Vote.
Militarizing Local Police.
During consideration of the Defense Appropriations bill, Representative Alan Grayson (D-Fla.) introduced an amendment that would have prohibited any funding in the bill from being used to transfer excess military equipment, such as aircraft (including drones), armored vehicles, grenade launchers, and bombs, to local police departments. "Those weapons have no place in our streets, regardless of who may be deploying them," Grayson said in remarks supporting his amendment.

The House rejected Grayson's amendment on June 19, 2014 by a vote of 62 to 355 (Roll Call 329). We have assigned pluses to the yeas because the proper role of local police is undermined by converting them into militarized units more suitable for occupying hostile territory than for protecting their local communities from the criminal element. Providing local police with "free" U.S. military equipment also greases the skids for more federal control, leading ultimately to nationalized police beholden to Washington as opposed to independent police departments beholden to local citizens acting through their elected officials.



H R 4870: On Agreeing to the Amendment 56 to H R 4870
Vote Date: June 19, 2014 Vote: NAY Bad Vote.
Military Operations in Afghanistan.
During consideration of the Defense Appropriations bill, Representative Barbara Lee (D-Calif.) introduced an amendment that would have barred any funding in the bill from being used "pursuant to the Authorization for Use of Military Force [AUMF] ... after December 31, 2014," the date that was set as the official end of U.S. combat operations in Afghanistan. Enacted in 2001 in the wake of 9/11, the AUMF has been invoked numerous times by the executive branch for U.S. military intervention not only in Afghanistan but elsewhere.

The House rejected Lee's amendment on June 19, 2014 by a vote of 157 to 260 (Roll Call 330). We have assigned pluses to the yeas because presidents have been able to claim broad authority to go to war whenever or wherever they choose under the AUMF, despite the fact that the Founding Fathers never intended for one man to make this decision and under the Constitution only Congress may "declare war."


H R 4435: On Agreeing to the Amendment 13 to H R 4435
Vote Date: May 22, 2014 Vote: NAY Bad Vote.
Indefinite Military Detention.

During consideration of the National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal 2015 (NDAA, H.R. 4435), Rep. Adam Smith (D-Wash.) introduced an amendment to prohibit the indefinite military detention of any person detained under the Authorization for the Use of Military Force authority in the United States, its territories, or possessions by providing immediate transfer to a trial and proceedings by a court. It also would strike language that would provide for mandatory military custody of covered parties.

The House rejected Smith's amendment on May 22, 2014 by a vote of 191 to 230 (Roll Call 234). We have assigned pluses to the yeas because any attempt to limit or prohibit indefinite military detention is desirable, especially since persons detained may include U.S. citizens. Indefinite military detention is a blatant violation of the Sixth Amendment, and an executive who can wield such powers is akin to a monarch or dictator. As Rep. Smith said during consideration of the amendment: "That is an enormous amount of power to give the Executive: to take someone and lock them up without due process. It is not necessary. This President has not used the authority. President George W. Bush did not use it after about 2002 and then only in a couple of instances. It is not necessary. It is an enormous amount of power to grant the Executive, and I believe places liberty and freedom at risk in this country."


H R 4435: On Agreeing to the Amendment 17 to H R 4435
Vote Date: May 22, 2014 Vote: NAY Bad Vote.
Use of Military Force.

During consideration of the National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal 2015 (NDAA, H.R. 4435), Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) introduced an amendment to sunset the 2001 Authorization for the Use of Military Force 12 months after the enactment of the 2015 NDAA.

The House rejected Schiff's amendment on May 22, 2014 by a vote of 191 to 233 (Roll Call 237). We have assigned pluses to the yeas because the Authorization for the Use of Military Force, while granted by Congress, gives the president almost unlimited powers to invade countries, overthrow governments, and assassinate people under the pretext of waging the "war on terror." Congress essentially handed over its constitutional authority to declare war to the executive branch, thus giving the executive unconstitutional abilities. Any attempt to end the Authorization for the Use of Military Force is a step in the right direction.


H R 4152: To provide for the costs of loan guarantees for Ukraine
Vote Date: April 1, 2014 Vote: AYE Bad Vote.
Ukraine Aid.

This bill (H.R. 4152), as amended by the Senate (see Senate vote below), would provide $150 million for direct aid to Ukraine. It would also provide for loan guarantees (meaning that U.S. taxpayers would be stuck holding the bag if the loans are not paid). And it would impose sanctions on Russian and ex-Ukrainian officials deemed responsible for the crisis in the Ukraine.

[ The Senate version of this legislation - offered in the form of a substitute amendment to the House version, H.R. 4152 - would provide $150 million for direct aid to Ukraine. It would also provide for loan guarantees (meaning that the U.S. taxpayers would be stuck holding the bag if the loans are not paid). And it would impose sanctions on Russian and ex-Ukrainian officials deemed responsible for the crisis in the Ukraine. ]

The House voted for this legislation on April 1, 2014 by a vote of 378 to 34 (Roll Call 149). We have assigned pluses to the nays because foreign aid is unconstitutional. The rationale for providing U.S. aid to Ukraine is that the country needs our assistance to resist Russian hegemony and build "democracy." Yet the oligarchs wielding power in Ukraine are hardly "democrats," and (because money is fungible) U.S. assistance could effectively be funneled to Russia in the form of Ukrainian energy and debt payments.


H R 2642: To provide for the reform and continuation of agricultural and other programs of the Department of Agriculture through fiscal year 2018, and for other purposes
Vote Date: January 29, 2014 Vote: AYE Bad Vote.
Farm and Food Programs.

This bill (H.R. 2642) would reauthorize federal farm and nutrition programs through fiscal 2018, including crop subsidies and the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP, formerly known as food stamps. Though this bill is entitled the Agriculture Act of 2014, most of the funding in the bill is not for agricultural programs but for food programs. The Congressional Budget Office estimated that the final version of this legislation (conference report) would cost $956 billion over 10 years, of which $756 billion would be for nutrition programs.

The House passed the conference report on January 29, 2014 by a vote of 251 to 166 (Roll Call 31). We have assigned pluses to the nays because both farm aid and food aid are unconstitutional. The food subsidy programs are supposed to help the poor, but in practice they have done little to lift people out of poverty, as evidenced by the growing number of recipients of these programs.

H R 2397: On Agreeing to the Amendment 54 to H R 2397
Vote Date: July 24, 2013 Vote: NAY Bad Vote.
U.S.-China Joint Military Exercises.
During consideration of the defense appropriations bill (H.R. 2397), Rep. Steve Stockman (R-Texas) offered an amendment to prohibit funds to "be used for United States military exercises which include any participation by the People's Republic of China." On September 6, 2013, after this amendment was rejected, three Chinese warships arrived at Pearl Harbor to participate in a joint one-day search-and-rescue drill with the U.S. Navy guided-missile cruiser U.S.S. Lake Erie. The joint exercise was conducted on September 9, 2013. On November 12, 2013, for the first time in U.S. history, Chinese People's Liberation Army troops put boots on U.S. soil as they participated in a joint "Disaster Management Exchange" with the U.S. Army Pacific, the Hawaii Army National Guard, and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. The amendment to prohibit the use of funds for such ventures was intended to prevent the U.S. military from participating in them.

The House rejected Stockman's amendment on July 24, 2013 by a vote of 137 to 286 (Roll Call 404). We have assigned pluses to the yeas because communist China is a self-proclaimed enemy of the United States, responsible for the deaths of tens of millions of people in the 20th century; continues to persecute countless political dissenters, Christians, and other religious minorities; and has recently threatened to target and destroy U.S. cities with nuclear-tipped ICBMs. Military collaboration with the Chinese regime will not diminish the security threat it poses to the United States but, if anything, heighten it.


H R 2397: On Agreeing to the Amendment 64 to H R 2397
Vote Date: July 24, 2013 Vote: NAY Bad Vote.
Military Intervention.
During consideration of the defense appropriations bill (H.R. 2397), Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) offered an amendment to prohibit funding for military actions after December 31, 2014 that are carried out pursuant to the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF). As Rep. Schiff noted: "The 2001 AUMF was never intended to authorize a war without end, and it now poorly defines those who pose a threat to our country. That authority and the funding that goes along with it should expire concurrent with the end of our combat role in Afghanistan."

Schiff also noted: "The Constitution vests the Congress with the power to declare war and the responsibility of appropriating funds to pay for it. It is our most awesome responsibility and central to our military efforts overseas. We owe it to the men and women we send into combat to properly define and authorize their mission, and my amendment will effectively give Congress the next 16 months to do so."

The House rejected Schiff's amendment on July 24, 2013 by a vote of 185 to 236 (Roll Call 410). We have assigned pluses to the yeas because only Congress has the constitutional authority to declare war and appropriate funds to pay for it. Authorizing the president to use military force without a declaration of war is a shifting of responsibility from Congress to the executive branch that essentially allows the president to exercise dictator-like powers and should be opposed.


H R 2397: On Agreeing to the Amendment 70 to H R 2397
Vote Date: July 24, 2013 Vote: NAY Bad Vote.
NSA Surveillance of Phone Records.
During consideration of the defense appropriations bill (H.R. 2397), Rep. Justin Amash (R-Mich.) offered an amendment to end the blanket collection of records under the Patriot Act. Amash's amendment would also prevent the NSA and other agencies from using provisions of the Patriot Act to collect records, including phone records, from persons who are not subject to an investigation. As Rep. Amash noted during the debate on his amendment, "My amendment ... limits the government's collection of the records to those records that pertain to a person who is the subject of an investigation pursuant to section 215 [of the Patriot Act]."

The House rejected Amash's amendment on July 24, 2013 by a vote of 205 to 217 (Roll Call 412). We have assigned pluses to the yeas because any effort to limit the collection of Americans' personal information by the surveillance state is a good thing. Blanket collection of electronic records of citizens who are not under investigation is a violation of the Fourth Amendment's prohibition on search and seizure without a warrant.


H R 2397: On Agreeing to the Amendment 30 to H R 2397
Vote Date: July 23, 2013 Vote: NAY Bad Vote.
Buying Russian Helicopters for Afghan Security Forces.
During consideration of the defense appropriations bill (H.R. 2397), Rep. Mike Coffman (R-Colo.) introduced an amendment to defund a Defense Department purchase of 30 Russian Mi-17 helicopters. Circumventing Congress, the Defense Department on June 13, 2013 awarded a $553.8 million contract to the Russian state-owned arms export firm Rosoboronexport for the purchase of the helicopters. Coffman's amendment would specifically strip that amount from the DOD's Afghanistan Security Forces Fund.

The House adopted Coffman's amendment on July 23, 2013 by a vote of 346 to 79 (Roll Call 390). We have assigned pluses to the yeas because it is preposterous that the United States would take U.S. taxpayer dollars to purchase helicopters for the new Afghan military from Rosoboronexport, a Russian state-owned export company that has manufactured and supplied arms to enemy states, such as Iran and Syria.


H R 1947: Federal Agriculture Reform and Risk Management Act
Vote Date: June 20, 2013 Vote: AYE Bad Vote.
Farm and Food Programs.
This legislation (H.R. 1947) would authorize roughly $939 billion through fiscal 2018 for federal farm aid, nutrition assistance, rural development, etc. This bill would also institute programs to manage milk supplies and subsidies for farmers. Significantly, this proposed legislation would restrict eligibility for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), known as food stamps, and allow states to conduct drug testing on SNAP applicants.

The House rejected H.R. 1947 on June 20, 2013 by a vote of 195 to 234 (Roll Call 286). We have assigned pluses to the nays because this legislation would call for nearly $1 trillion in unconstitutional spending. The constitution does not authorize the federal government to subsidize food, farmers, or poverty. These subsidies have resulted in large market distortions as the government essentially picks winners and losers in the food production industry, and the fact that the number of people enrolled in food stamp programs has grown consistently illustrates that these programs do little to lift people out of poverty.


H R 1960: On Agreeing to the Amendment 12 to H R 1960
Vote Date: June 13, 2013 Vote: NAY Bad Vote.
Indefinite Military Detention.
During consideration of the defense authorization bill (H.R. 1960), Rep. Adam Smith (D-Wash.) offered an amendment to eliminate indefinite military detention of any person detained in the United States, its territories, or possessions, under the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force. Smith's amendment would call for the immediate transfer of such detained persons to trial in a civilian court. Furthermore, Smith's amendment would repeal a provision of the 2012 defense authorization law that requires mandatory military custody of members or associates of al-Qaeda who planned or carried out attacks against the United States or its coalition partners.

The House rejected Smith's amendment on June 13, 2013 by a vote of 200 to 226 (Roll Call 228). We have assigned pluses to the yeas because indefinite detention without trial is a serious violation of long-cherished legal protections including the right to habeas corpus, the issuance of a warrant based on probable cause (Fourth Amendment), and the right to a "speedy and public" trial (Sixth Amendment). Under the National Defense Authorization Act, the president may abrogate these rights simply by designating terror suspects, including Americans, as "enemy combatants." A government that would lock up anyone indefinitely without trial is certainly moving toward tyranny, and legislation to prevent this abuse of power is needed.


H R 2217: On Agreeing to the Amendment 27 to H R 2217
Vote Date: June 5, 2013 Vote: NAY Bad Vote.
Homeland Security Ammunition Purchases. During consideration of the Homeland Security appropriations bill (H.R. 2217), Rep. Mark Meadows (R-N.C.) offered an amendment specifying that "none of the funds made available by this Act may be used for entering into a new contract for the purposes of purchasing ammunition" until the Department of Homeland Security submits a report to Congress about its purchase and use of ammunition. Meadows explained on the floor of the House that a recent large ammunition purchase by DHS was a cause for concern. "Earlier this year, it was reported that DHS solicited bids for some 1.1 billion rounds of ammunition," he noted. "This was more than 10 times the amount that the Department purchased in fiscal year 2012." Meadows added that the current inventory of ammunition for the 62,618 DHS employees certified in firearms amounts to nearly 4,000 rounds per person.

The House adopted Meadows' amendment on June 5, 2013 by a vote of 234 to 192 (Roll Call 204). We have assigned pluses to the yeas because the size of DHS ammunition purchases is alarming - particularly considering that under our constitutional system domestic law enforcement is a local and state responsibility.

H R 624: Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection (CISPA) Act
Vote Date: April 18, 2013 Vote: AYE Bad Vote.
Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act (CISPA). This legislation (H.R. 624) would further legalize the massive sharing of private-user online data by Internet companies with federal government agencies, such as the National Security Agency (NSA), that has already been happening for years. As Robert X. Cringely posted in his article "The CISPA Circus: Send in the Clowns" on InfoWorld.com on April 19, the day after the CISPA bill passed in the House: "The problem with CISPA is that in its current form it's still vague and ripe for abuse. It absolves corporations of being responsible for what happens to the data they've collected. It allows data sharing with the entire federal government, not just the parts responsible for ensuring our safety. It circumvents other laws designed to limit governmental access to private information. And it can be deployed for a wide range of perceived threats that have nothing to do with attacks on our nation's infrastructure."

The House passed CISPA on April 18, 2013 by a vote of 288 to 127 (Roll Call 117). We have assigned pluses to the nays because the massive sharing of private citizens' online data by Internet companies with federal government agencies authorized by this bill violates "the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures" as set forth in the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution.


H R 933: Department of Defense, Military Construction and Veterans Affairs, and Full-Year Continuing Appropriations Act, 2013
Vote Date: March 21, 2013 Vote: AYE Bad Vote.
Continuing Appropriations for Fiscal 2013. This appropriations bill (H.R. 933) would finance the federal government through the end of fiscal 2013. Its provisions include five full-year appropriations bills - Agriculture, Commerce-Justice-Science, Defense, Homeland Security, and Military Construction-VA. It would also continue appropriations for the remainder of the federal government at 2012 levels, with certain adjustments. The spending includes $1.043 trillion in "discretionary" (non-mandatory) spending before sequestration.

In general, this appropriations bill perpetuates the Washington spendathon without making the needed decisions to slash government spending and eliminate deficit spending - projected to be $973 billion for fiscal 2013 in the budget Obama submitted in April.

H.R. 5949: FISA Amendments Act Reauthorization Act of 2012
Vote Date: September 12, 2012 Vote: AYE Bad Vote.
FISA. The proposed FISA Amendments Act Reauthorization Act of 2012 (H.R. 5949) would reauthorize for five years, through 2017, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), which governs electronic surveillance of foreign terrorism suspects. The law allows warrantless surveillance of foreign targets who may be communicating with people in the United States, provided that the secret FISA court approves surveillance procedures.

The Senate passed H.R. 5949 on September 12, 2012 by a vote of 301 to 118 (Roll Call 569). We have assigned pluses to the nays because warrantless surveillance is unconstitutional and violates privacy and individual liberty. While ostensibly carried out only on "foreign suspects" communicating with U.S. citizens, it is difficult to imagine this surveillance not extending to U.S. citizens.


H.Amdt. 1414 to H.R. 5856: An amendment to reduce appropriations made in Title IX of the bill by $20,843,869,000. The reduction shall not apply to the following accounts 1) Defense Health Program; 2) Drug Interdiction and Counter-Drug Activities, Defense; 3) Joint Improvised Explosive Device Defeat Fund; and 4) Office of the Inspector General.
Vote Date: July 18, 2012 Vote: NAY Bad Vote.
Afghanistan Withdrawal (Defense Appropriations Reduction). During consideration of the Defense appropriations bill for fiscal 2013 (H.R. 5856), Rep. Barbara Lee (D-Calif.) proposed an amendment to cut overseas military spending by almost $21 billion. The intent behind the amendment was to allow enough funding for an orderly withdrawal from the unpopular war in Afghanistan but not enough to continue the conflict. According to Rep. Lee, the original bill includes over $85 billion for the war in Afghanistan.

The House rejected Lee's amendment on July 18, 2012 by a vote of 107 to 312 (Roll Call 485). We have assigned pluses to the yeas because the massive expenditure on undeclared foreign wars and nation building is unconstitutional and unaffordable.


H.Amdt.1127 to H.R.4310: An amendment numbered 46 printed in House Report 112-485 to strike section 1022 of the FY2012 NDAA and amend Section 1021 of same Act to eliminate indefinite military detention of any person detained under AUMF authority in U.S., territories or possessions by providing immediate transfer to trial and proceedings by a court established under Article III of the Constitution of the United states or by an appropriate State court.
Vote Date: May 18, 2012 Vote: NAY Bad Vote.
Indefinite Detention. Detainee-related language in the National Defense Authorization Act (H.R. 4310) is so sweeping that American citizens accused of being terrorists can be detained by the U.S. military and held indefinitely without habeas corpus and without even being tried and found guilty in a court of law.

Rep. Adam Smith (D-Wash.) offered an amendment to strike this language from the bill, but the House rejected Smith's amendment on May 18, 2012 by a vote of 182 to 238 (Roll Call 270). We have assigned pluses to the yeas because the War on Terror must not be allowed to destroy constitutional legal protections, including the issuance of a warrant based on probable cause (Fourth Amendment) and the right to a trial (Sixth Amendment).


H.R. 2072: Export-Import Bank Reauthorization Act of 2012
Vote Date: May 9, 2012 Vote: AYE Bad Vote.
Export-Import Bank. This legislation (H.R. 2072) reauthorized the U.S. Export-Import Bank for two years and increased the agency's lending cap from $100 billion to $140 billion. The bank issues loans and loan guarantees to foreign governments or companies for the purchase of U.S. products.

The House passed H.R. 2072 on May 9, 2012 by a vote of 330 to 93 (Roll Call 224). We have assigned pluses to the nays because the federal government has no constitutional authority risking taxpayers' money to provide loans and terms that the private sector considers too risky to provide. Indeed, U.S. government-backed export financing is a form of corporate welfare, and if the Ex-Im Bank goes bust (as happened to Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae), the taxpayers will get stuck holding the bag.


H.R. 3521: Expedited Legislative Line-Item Veto and Rescissions Act of 2012
Vote Date: February 8, 2012 Vote: AYE Bad Vote.
Line-item Veto. This bill (H.R. 3521) would allow the President to rescind all or part of any dollar amount of funding for discretionary spending items in enacted appropriations bills. Although both houses of Congress would have to approve any such rescissions, they would be forced to do so very quickly by the bill's expedited procedures, including a prohibition on amendments in both Houses and filibusters in the Senate.

This bill dramatically and unilaterally enhances the power of the executive branch. Note that Article I, Section 1 and Article I, Section 7, Clauses 2 and 3, of the U.S. Constitution vest Congress with all legislative powers. Any bill that shifts legislative power away from Congress and to the President is violating the constitutionally defined separation of powers for the legislative and executive branches. A similar line-item veto law was passed when Clinton was President. That one was found to be unconstitutional by the Supreme Court.

The House passed H.R. 3521 on February 8, 2012 by a vote of 254 to 173 (Roll Call 46). We have assigned pluses to the nays because providing any form of line-item veto power to the President violates the Constitution's separation of powers.


H.R. 3080: United States-Korea Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act
Vote Date: October 12, 2011 Vote: AYE Bad Vote.
South Korea Trade Agreement. On a single day - October 12, 2011 - both the House and Senate approved three separate trade agreements with South Korea, Colombia, and Panama. These measures are three more in a series of "free-trade agreements" intended to transfer the power to regulate trade (and eventually other powers too) to super-national arrangements via a step-by-step process. NAFTA is a prime example of such an arrangement. So is the developing continental government now known as the European Union, which is an outgrowth of a free-trade arrangement once called the Common Market. In fact, the Common Market-EU trajectory to regional governance served as a model for the formation of NAFTA.

The South Korea agreement, to quote Congressional Quarterly, is "considered the most economically important trade deal since the 1994 North American Free Trade Agreement." For this reason, the "Freedom Index" editors selected this vote over the other two (Colombia and Panama) for inclusion in this index.

The House passed H.R. 3080, the measure to implement the South Korea trade agreement, on October 12, 2011 by a vote of 278 to 151 (Roll Call 783). We have assigned pluses to the nays because agreements such as this one are intended to transfer trade (and other) powers to super-national arrangements binding the United States, despite the fact that under the Constitution only Congress has the power "to regulate commerce with foreign nations."


The House agreed to this legislation on March 21, 2013 by a vote of 318 to 109 (Roll Call 89). We have assigned pluses to the nays because passage of this mammoth continuing resolution provided a way for Congress to perpetuate its fiscally irresponsible, unconstitutional spending habits with a minimum of accountability to its constituents.

https://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=38&Itemid=828&nameid=B001274

Swordsmyth
08-10-2017, 06:20 PM
https://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=38&Itemid=828&nameid=B001274
You must spread some reputation around before giving it to William Tell again.

William Tell
08-10-2017, 06:25 PM
Hopefully all of this talk about establishment shill and comic book villain Luther Strange is wishful manipulation, just like all of the polls during the last POTUS race.

Mo Brooks is the best choice, and his platform is #DitchMitch. Swamp creatures are doing everything they can to stop him.
After finally looking up his voting record, I can't see where you were coming from. Until today I thought they were both good but no way would I support Brooks now. The dude has a 74% rating on the Freedom index maybe slightly above your average swamp critter but his bad votes were the really bad ones.

William Tell
08-10-2017, 06:57 PM
Two new polls.




Roy Moore: 35%
Luther Strange: 29%
Mo Brooks: 19%
Trip Pittman: 9%
Mary Maxwell: 4%

http://www.fox10tv.com/story/36092853/moore-kennedy-lead-statewide-survey




The survey from Cygnal and L2 found Mr. Moore leading Sen. Luther Strange by a 30.7 percent to 22.6 percent margin and that Rep. Mo Brooks is running in third place with 18.1 percent of the vote.

Unless a candidate secures more than 50 percent of the vote in the primary next week, the top two vote-getters will face-off in a September contest.

************************************************** ************************************

The poll showed Mr. Moore has the highest favorability rating, coming in at 55.9 percent, versus 46.2 percent for Mr. Strange and 38.8 percent for Mr. Brooks.

And it showed that Mr. Moore would best Mr. Strange by 10 points in a head-to-head match-up. http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/aug/10/roy-moore-alabama-gop-senate-primary-strange-brook/

Origanalist
08-10-2017, 07:10 PM
.blah blah blah blah.....zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz//

Origanalist
08-10-2017, 07:15 PM
You must spread some reputation around before giving it to William Tell again.

Just did that.

Origanalist
08-10-2017, 07:21 PM
William has the right to support any statist he wants! Sure he supports the anti-liberty candidate Moore, and that is fine. Just like he had the legal right to support Obama or Clinton. Just because his chosen candidate hates us and liberty doesn't matter. His rights come first!

Trip Pittman is the Ron Paul Republican (http://www.al.com/news/mobile/index.ssf/2017/06/state_sen_trip_pittman_hopes_f.html), Mo Brooks is the only libertyish person with a chance, then there are the many anti-liberty candidates likes Moore. This is a somewhat free country (well, at least it is in New Hampshire), and people have the right to vote to destroy it!

That post was completely full of shit.

William Tell
08-10-2017, 07:33 PM
That post was completely full of $#@!.

Objectively, yes. But Keith's a good guy, I'm sure he'll be happy to explain how a patriot act supporter is libertyish or admit he didn't research the race.

Origanalist
08-10-2017, 07:35 PM
Objectively, yes. But Keith's a good guy, I'm sure he'll be happy to explain how a patriot act supporter is libertyish or admit he didn't research the race.

He is a good guy, hope my post wasn't misconstrued. And ya, I'll be waiting for that.

r3volution 3.0
08-10-2017, 11:12 PM
No. Brooks supported the Patriot Act for crying out loud, vote for the NDAA and voted in favor of warrantless searches. He has supported intervention and a police state on multiple occasions. Why anyone on this site supports him is beyond me. I'm posting some of his bad votes below so people can see them.

Judging by his voting record, he's quite good on economic issues, mixed on foreign policy (never met a DoD budget he didn't like, but has criticized some interventions and opposed some foreign aid), and horrible on civil liberties. On the other hand, Moore's voting record is...non existent. So how are we evaluating him? Has someone analyzed his judicial opinions? If we're just going by statements to the media, my take (as I said) is that he's in the same ballpark as Brooks on the liberty-scale, but then deeply obsessed with the culture war, which will not be helpful to our cause.

Sonny Tufts
08-11-2017, 07:11 AM
Then nothing the government does is unconstitutional because the supreme court gives them permission?
I don't care what nonsense the supreme court has said in the past, Moore's actions were not unconstitutional and shouldn't be, we should all be fighting for a restoration of the constitution as it should be and I have proven what it has to say on this subject.

The point is that someone has to make the determination of what's constitutional and have that determination have the force of law. And that someone isn't you or Roy Moore -- it's SCOTUS. Moore's antics are similar to George Wallace's standing in the doorway at the University of Alabama, refusing to let a black man enroll. in defiance of a federal court order. It might have pleased his bigoted followers, but it violated the law.

Sonny Tufts
08-11-2017, 07:18 AM
It never ceases to amaze me how government institutions like schools continue to promote their own religious beliefs embodied in secular humanism, which was declared to be a religion by a federal court in accord with the Establishment Clause.

Strawman. Just because the schools don't teach the brand of Christianity that some folks want them to doesn't mean they're teaching secular humanism.


It also never ceases to amaze me how your behavior here is progressive/antithetical to the site, and how your presence here apparently has nothing to do with liberty. Why is that, tax lawyer?

The antithesis of liberty is allowing the government, backed by force and financed by taxpayers' money, to promote a particular religious belief. Do you really want governmental bureaucrats making theological decisions about which particular belief is to be the government's favorite?

Madison320
08-11-2017, 07:47 AM
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion"

It says nothing about anyone but congress (you could try to stretch it to encompass the state legislature), and it prohibits nothing but the making of laws to establish a religion. If the people don't like a cultural/religious display in a court house they can through the legislature or the ballot box seek to change the judiciary or prohibit the display, the Feds have no say whatsoever.

My guess is the 14th makes it apply to states. That being said, I don't like the 14th.

Forget the constitution for a minute. It's just wrong for a judge, who's supposed to be neutral, to be sneaking a religious monument into a courthouse. And then filming and selling the video. I can't believe you guys are ok with that.

Like I asked earlier. What if it was a muslim judge sneaking in a statue of muhammad? And all his speeches were muhammad this, muhammad that.

William Tell
08-11-2017, 08:25 AM
The point is that someone has to make the determination of what's constitutional and have that determination have the force of law. And that someone isn't you or Roy Moore -- it's SCOTUS.So you would have went along with Dred Scott back in the day and said Roy violated his oath if he thought blacks were human. That's some funny stuff right there. You're welcome to worship black robes though that's your right. If Roy gets on SCOTUS someday I guess you'll worship him too.

Keith and stuff
08-11-2017, 08:37 AM
3rd highest property tax rate in the US aint anything to cheer about either. When the only states worse than your own are NJ and IL, its time to get to work...

2nd lowest overall tax burden in the nation. More than half of NH land is in current use tax status with very low property taxes. Some communities in NH don't even have property tax.
https://scontent-lga3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/18199013_1491869617522946_3355034764635273319_n.jp g?oh=e7368010a3f14488b7ee7d9a1b2655c7&oe=5A2AB1EB

Source: http://www.keypolicydata.com/blog-archives/2017/05/new-hampshire-has-second-lowest-tax-burden-nation-2015/

Keith and stuff
08-11-2017, 08:43 AM
Objectively, yes. But Keith's a good guy, I'm sure he'll be happy to explain how a patriot act supporter is libertyish or admit he didn't research the race.

Thanks and I enjoyed defending you and positive repping you, even if we disagree :)

Of the 3 candidates doing best in the polls, Mo is the least bad. There is a Ron Paul Republican in the race. If I lived in AL, that's the yard sign that would be in my yard and the person I'd vote for.

specsaregood
08-11-2017, 08:44 AM
2nd lowest overall tax burden in the nation. More than half of NH land is in current use tax status with very low property taxes. Some communities in NH don't even have property tax.


and yet


Real-Estate Property Taxes by State
Rank, State, Effective Real-Estate Tax Rate, Annual Taxes on $179K Home*, State Median Home Value, Annual Taxes on Home Priced at State Median Value
51 New Jersey 2.35% $4,189 $315,900 $7,410
50 Illinois 2.30% $4,105 $173,800 $3,995
49 New Hampshire 2.15% $3,838 $237,300 $5,100
48 Connecticut 1.97% $3,517 $270,500 $5,327

https://wallethub.com/edu/states-with-the-highest-and-lowest-property-taxes/11585/

Keith and stuff
08-11-2017, 08:47 AM
and yet

https://wallethub.com/edu/states-with-the-highest-and-lowest-property-taxes/11585/
Exactly. Just because NH is the freest state with the 2nd lowest overall tax rate, and has communities without personal income, sales, or property taxes, and has the most pro-liberty weapons laws in the nation, and the lowest murder rate, and the lowest poverty tax, and so on, doesn't mean it is perfect in every way, just much better than any other states on average and in those specific areas.

specsaregood
08-11-2017, 08:50 AM
Exactly. Just because NH is the freest state with the 2nd lowest overall tax rate, and has communities without personal income, sales, or property taxes, and has the most pro-liberty weapons laws in the nation, and the lowest murder rate, and the lowest poverty tax, and so on, doesn't mean it is perfect in every way, just much better than any other states on average and in those specific areas.

I just think of property taxes as the worst of all the taxes. But I pay property taxes in NJ, so who am I to bitch and point fingers...

Sonny Tufts
08-11-2017, 09:38 AM
If Roy gets on SCOTUS someday

LOL! You would sooner flap your arms and fly to the moon.

Swordsmyth
08-11-2017, 12:12 PM
The point is that someone has to make the determination of what's constitutional and have that determination have the force of law. And that someone isn't you or Roy Moore -- it's SCOTUS. Moore's antics are similar to George Wallace's standing in the doorway at the University of Alabama, refusing to let a black man enroll. in defiance of a federal court order. It might have pleased his bigoted followers, but it violated the law.
Bunk.
The constitution is written in English, it means what it says, segregation in government schools was a violation of the privileges and immunities clause, the 10 commandments monument was not.
SCOTUS is not holy and people should defy it's unconstitutional dictates.

Swordsmyth
08-11-2017, 12:18 PM
My guess is the 14th makes it apply to states. That being said, I don't like the 14th.

Forget the constitution for a minute. It's just wrong for a judge, who's supposed to be neutral, to be sneaking a religious monument into a courthouse. And then filming and selling the video. I can't believe you guys are ok with that.

Like I asked earlier. What if it was a muslim judge sneaking in a statue of muhammad? And all his speeches were muhammad this, muhammad that.
I would vote to prohibit the statue and unseat the judge, but the Feds or the courts would have no say.
America is a Christian nation, her laws were built on Christian legal doctrine a 10 commandments statue is not inappropriate in an American courthouse, if you and a bunch of Atheists don't like it you can vote to get rid of the monument or unseat the judge but the Feds have NO say whatsoever.

Sonny Tufts
08-11-2017, 12:20 PM
segregation in government schools was a violation of the privileges and immunities clause, the 10 commandments monument was not.
SCOTUS is not holy and people should defy it's unconstitutional dictates.

No, school segregation violated the Equal Protection Clause, and the Ten Commandments monument violated the Due Process Clause. While a Privileges and Immunity analysis might have been better suited to address things the states were prohibited from doing under the 14th Amendment, SCOTUS declined to adopt that analysis in the Slaughterhouse Cases in 1873. The P&I clause has been somewhat of a dead letter ever since.

It might be better if you read the caselaw and learn what the law really is, rather than what you would like it to be.

Swordsmyth
08-11-2017, 12:21 PM
LOL! You would sooner flap your arms and fly to the moon.
I notice you didn't respond to the point about Dred Scott.

Swordsmyth
08-11-2017, 12:28 PM
No, school segregation violated the Equal Protection Clause
Nonsense, going to school is a privilege, it does not protect you from anything.



the Ten Commandments monument violated the Due Process Clause.
Bunk, nobody was denied as single piece of "due process" because there was a statue in the courthouse, "process" is a way of doing things, an inanimate object does not affect a way of doing things by sitting in the lobby.


While a Privileges and Immunity analysis might have been better suited to address things the states were prohibited from doing under the 14th Amendment, SCOTUS declined to adopt that analysis in the Slaughterhouse Cases in 1873. The P&I clause has been somewhat of a dead letter ever since.
No part of the constitution is "dead", and legal opinions can't make it so.


It might be better if you read the caselaw and learn what the law really is, rather than what you would like it to be.
It might be better if you and SCOTUS learned English.

Sonny Tufts
08-11-2017, 12:43 PM
America is a Christian nation, her laws were built on Christian legal doctrine

The Constitution is a secular document, and the First Amendment in particular contravenes Christian doctrine. After all, it denies the government the authority to prohibit someone from being a Buddhist, Muslim, atheist, polytheist (contrary to the First Commandment), or any other non-Christian adherent, any one of which should result in death under Biblical doctrine (see Deuteronomy 13:6-11).

Swordsmyth
08-11-2017, 01:02 PM
The Constitution is a secular document, and the First Amendment in particular contravenes Christian doctrine. After all, it denies the government the authority to prohibit someone from being a Buddhist, Muslim, atheist, polytheist (contrary to the First Commandment), or any other non-Christian adherent, any one of which should result in death under Biblical doctrine (see Deuteronomy 13:6-11).
The "law of Moses" was given to Israel until Christ came and fulfilled the law, it no longer applies unlike the 10 commandments.

Luke 16:16 “The law and the prophets were until John: since that time the kingdom of God is preached, and every man presseth into it.”

John 1:17 “For the law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ.”

John
Chapter 8They say unto him, Master, this woman was taken in adultery, in the very act.5 (https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/John-8-5/)Now Moses in the law commanded us, that such should be stoned: but what sayest thou?
6 (https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/John-8-6/)This they said, tempting him, that they might have to accuse him. But Jesus stooped down, and with his finger wrote on the ground, as though he heard them not.
7 (https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/John-8-7/)So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.
8 (https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/John-8-8/)And again he stooped down, and wrote on the ground.
9 (https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/John-8-9/)And they which heard it, being convicted by their own conscience, went out one by one, beginning at the eldest, even unto the last: and Jesus was left alone, and the woman standing in the midst.
10 (https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/John-8-10/)When Jesus had lifted up himself, and saw none but the woman, he said unto her, Woman, where are those thine accusers? hath no man condemned thee?
11 (https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/John-8-11/)She said, No man, Lord. And Jesus said unto her, Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more.

Madison320
08-11-2017, 01:27 PM
I would vote to prohibit the statue and unseat the judge, but the Feds or the courts would have no say.
America is a Christian nation, her laws were built on Christian legal doctrine a 10 commandments statue is not inappropriate in an American courthouse, if you and a bunch of Atheists don't like it you can vote to get rid of the monument or unseat the judge but the Feds have NO say whatsoever.

Why would you vote to prohibit the statue if America is a Christian nation?

Swordsmyth
08-11-2017, 01:29 PM
Why would you vote to prohibit the statue if America is a Christian nation?
I was referring to the theoretical statue of muhammad.


Like I asked earlier. What if it was a muslim judge sneaking in a statue of muhammad? And all his speeches were muhammad this, muhammad that.

NorthCarolinaLiberty
08-11-2017, 02:29 PM
Strawman. Just because the schools don't teach the brand of Christianity that some folks want them to doesn't mean they're teaching secular humanism.

They're already teaching it. And you might want to learn the definition of strawman.




The antithesis of liberty is allowing the government, backed by force and financed by taxpayers' money, to promote a particular religious belief. Do you really want governmental bureaucrats making theological decisions about which particular belief is to be the government's favorite.


They already do. See above.




You also missed a question, chief. Here it is again:


It also never ceases to amaze me how your behavior here is progressive/antithetical to the site, and how your presence here apparently has nothing to do with liberty. Why is that, tax lawyer?

Madison320
08-11-2017, 05:27 PM
I was referring to the theoretical statue of muhammad.

Will you allow me to buy beer on sundays? That's really the main issue here.

Sonny Tufts
08-11-2017, 05:28 PM
The "law of Moses" was given to Israel until Christ came and fulfilled the law, it no longer applies unlike the 10 commandments.

The Ten Commandments were part of the Mosaic law. So if you're gonna toss Deuteronomy, you'll have to toss the Ten (which, btw, are part of Deuteronomy as well as Exodus).

Swordsmyth
08-11-2017, 05:41 PM
Will you allow me to buy beer on sundays? That's really the main issue here.
No it isn't.
States might be able to pass such a law I would be against it. (the law)

Swordsmyth
08-11-2017, 05:44 PM
The Ten Commandments were part of the Mosaic law. So if you're gonna toss Deuteronomy, you'll have to toss the Ten (which, btw, are part of Deuteronomy as well as Exodus).
No they were separate, Moses got the original 10 on the mount, the rest he got or made up himself later.
Christ told the woman to go and sin no more because adultery was still a sin.

Keith and stuff
08-13-2017, 12:38 PM
I just think of property taxes as the worst of all the taxes. But I pay property taxes in NJ, so who am I to bitch and point fingers...

Yeah, I don't much like 'em there, which is why I pay none/almost none. And I do that without living in a NH community that is property tax free.

As for a whole state, AL tends to have some of the lowest property taxes in the nation. So likely all of the Senate candidates pay a lot less in property taxes than you do ;) :)

William Tell
08-13-2017, 04:13 PM
Of the 3 candidates doing best in the polls, Mo is the least bad.How do you figure? What do you like about Brooks? What about Roy Moore makes him worse than a supporter of undeclared wars and the Patriot Act?


There is a Ron Paul Republican in the race. If I lived in AL, that's the yard sign that would be in my yard and the person I'd vote for.Go Pittman. I'm all for Ron Paulers winning. But in the event he loses as you agree is most likely go Roy Moore. And I am rooting for Moore + Pittman to make the runoff most certainly not Mo Brooks or Strange.

Most polls show it will be Moore vs Strange we will see. Of those two the choice is easy for sure.

William Tell
08-13-2017, 04:20 PM
LOL! You would sooner flap your arms and fly to the moon. A lot of people said the same about Trump becoming president. You like SCOTUS because they enforce humanistic socialism, someday the shoe may be on the other foot. That's the problem with giving unlimited power to an institution.

William Tell
08-13-2017, 04:22 PM
He is a good guy, hope my post wasn't misconstrued. And ya, I'll be waiting for that.

Ah well, hope you didn't hold your breath.:p But he + repped my post and said he defended me somehow, maybe by saying I am supporting a candidate who hates us all and liberty?

Sonny Tufts
08-13-2017, 05:31 PM
That's the problem with giving unlimited power to an institution.

SCOTUS doesn't have unlimited power. It cannot enforce its own decisions but must rely on the Executive Branch to do so. It has no control over its budget, which has to come from Congress. And its decisions can be overturned by the legislature (if the issue is one of statutory interpretation) or by an amendment to the Constitution (if the issue is a constitutional one).

And it's not that I like SCOTUS -- in fact I disagree with many of its decisions, including Kelo and the upholding of Obamacare's individual mandate -- but I recognize that there has to be some institution that ultimately decides legal matters involving the Constitution and SCOTUS just happens to be that institution.

Brian4Liberty
08-14-2017, 04:58 PM
http://www.lifezette.com/polizette/three-distinct-brands-of-conservatism-battle-in-alabama/


The Establishment Candidate: Sen. Luther Strange

"Big Luther," as his ads sometimes call him, is the nominal incumbent because he won the appointment to fill the seat after Sessions resigned to become attorney general. That has been both a blessing and a curse.

On the positive side, it has allowed Strange to build up a conservative voting record. He voted to repeal Obamacare and to confirm Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch, for instance. Incumbency also has given Strange access to deep pockets. He has raised more than $3.2 million, more than the other nine candidates combined. The Senate Leadership Fund, a super PAC affiliated with Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), also has dumped nearly $2 million into the race in support of Strange and pounded his opponents with negative ads.
...
The Tea Party Conservative: Mo Brooks

Brooks, who represents northern Alabama in the House of Representatives, is one of the most conservative members of Congress and a founding member of the House Freedom Caucus.

Brooks has the backing of grass-roots conservative groups, including Tea Party Patriots, and national conservative thought leaders such as LifeZette Editor in Chief Laura Ingraham, Fox News host Sean Hannity, and radio talk-show host Mark Levin.

Brooks gained national attention and free media throughout the state in June when a gunman opened fire while he and other Republican members of Congress were practicing for the annual congressional baseball game. He even used the incident in an ad defending the Second Amendment — a TV spot that drew criticism from some, including an aide to shooting victim House Majority Whip Steve Scalise (R-La.).

A win by Brooks would show the power of the Tea Party and the willingness of Alabama Republicans to send someone to the Senate with the potential to cause headaches for Trump and McConnell by holding out for the most conservative version possible of legislation, even at the risk of killing those bills.

The Social Conservative Firebrand: Roy Moore

Moore has been a household name and controversial figure in the state since 2000, when he parlayed an American Civil Liberties Union lawsuit challenging his display of the Ten Commandments in the Etowah County courtroom into a successful run for chief justice of the Alabama Supreme Court.

It did not take long for him to invite controversy. Without the knowledge or consent of the other justices, he had a large granite monument of the Ten Commandments erected in the lobby of the Alabama judicial building in the state capital of Montgomery. His failure to comply with a federal judge's order to remove the monument following a lawsuit led to his ouster from the court.

After a failed run for governor in 2006, Moore made a political comeback in 2012 to reclaim his old position as chief justice. In doing so, he defeated an incumbent who had been appointed by the governor and a Mobile County Circuit Court judge who once had been state attorney general. And he did so in a clean primary win, with no need for a runoff.

But Moore soon found himself mired in controversy once again, this time over gay marriage. After a federal judge in Mobile struck down the state's ban on same-sex marriage — and the U.S. Supreme Court refused to block her decision from taking effect — Moore instructed the state's probate court judges to follow state law, not the federal judge's ruling.

The action led to Moore's indefinite suspension, which formally ended when he resigned to run for the Senate.
...

parocks
08-14-2017, 10:09 PM
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion"

It says nothing about anyone but congress (you could try to stretch it to encompass the state legislature), and it prohibits nothing but the making of laws to establish a religion. If the people don't like a cultural/religious display in a court house they can through the legislature or the ballot box seek to change the judiciary or prohibit the display, the Feds have no say whatsoever.



If you ignore the actual words, you could pretend that it says something entirely different.


At least one state, Massachusetts I think, did actually have an established religion. The actual meaning of that part of the 1st A is simply - if you, state, have an established religion, we, congress, won't hinder you. And after 200 years, they've interpreted it so it doesn't make any sense at all.

The point of that part of the 1st A is to allow Moore to put up the 10.

Swordsmyth
08-14-2017, 10:14 PM
If you ignore the actual words, you could pretend that it says something entirely different.


At least one state, Massachusetts I think, did actually have an established religion. The actual meaning of that part of the 1st A is simply - if you, state, have an established religion, we, congress, won't hinder you. And after 200 years, they've interpreted it so it doesn't make any sense at all.

The point of that part of the 1st A is to allow Moore to put up the 10.

Good point.

Brian4Liberty
08-15-2017, 02:58 PM
Election Day. Fox News has been nice enough to cover the story by highlighting Trump's endorsement of Strange, and then having Karl Rove give his endorsement of Strange live.

William Tell
08-15-2017, 03:45 PM
Yes Faux was asking Strange the tough questions like
There are a lot of qualified candidates, why do you think Trump chose you?

William Tell
08-15-2017, 07:48 PM
Results coming in.


Moore still ahead
Moore is at 38 percent compared to Strange's 31 percent and Brooks' 22 percent. Brooks enjoyed a nice boost from his home base of Madison County but still lags behind. Still waiting on voter-rich Shelby County.

William Tell
08-15-2017, 07:49 PM
Moore has 41 percent of the vote and Strange has 32 percent with 42 percent of precincts reporting, with Rep. Mo Brooks trailing at 19 percent. If no candidate gets 50 percent of the vote, the top two will advance to a primary runoff on Sept. 26. http://www.politico.com/story/2017/08/15/trump-alabama-special-election-241665

Brian4Liberty
08-15-2017, 08:45 PM
Wait till the run-off. The establishment may make this the most expensive Senate race in history. How much can they smear (or set-up) Moore?

donnay
08-15-2017, 09:01 PM
No they were separate, Moses got the original 10 on the mount, the rest he got or made up himself later.
Christ told the woman to go and sin no more because adultery was still a sin.

Jesus told her to go and sin no more, because the scribes and Pharisees just brought the woman. Jesus was pointing out their hypocrisy. It takes two to tango. Also, Moses didn't make up any of the 10 Commandments they were all given from God.


Exodus 20:1 - 20:26
1 And God spake all these words, saying,..

Swordsmyth
08-15-2017, 09:29 PM
Jesus told her to go and sin no more, because the scribes and Pharisees just brought the woman. Jesus was pointing out their hypocrisy. It takes two to tango. Also, Moses didn't make up any of the 10 Commandments they were all given from God.


Exodus 20:1 - 20:26
1 And God spake all these words, saying,..
You misread my post, the 10 came from GOD, but Josephus tells us that Moses added the rest of the law a little bit at a time later, some of it also came from GOD but Christ himself repudiated Moses allowing divorce, much of the rest of the law is also clearly not divine and was Moses opinion.
Moses was not exactly perfect he defied GOD on several occasions and was barred from entering the promised land.

William Tell
08-15-2017, 09:30 PM
Wait till the run-off. The establishment may make this the most expensive Senate race in history. How much can they smear (or set-up) Moore?

It will take a lot. There are 67 counties in Alabama. One county hasn't come in yet. Brooks won 2. Strange won 5. Moore won the rest. If everyone who voted Moore shows back up for him he wins. Luther will need high turnout from the dense urban counties or else Moore swamps him.

donnay
08-15-2017, 10:23 PM
You misread my post, the 10 came from GOD, but Josephus tells us that Moses added the rest of the law a little bit at a time later, some of it also came from GOD but Christ himself repudiated Moses allowing divorce, much of the rest of the law is also clearly not divine and was Moses opinion.
Moses was not exactly perfect he defied GOD on several occasions and was barred from entering the promised land.

:eek:

God is a divorcee.

Jeremiah 3:8
And I saw, when for all the causes whereby backsliding Israel committed adultery I had put her away, and given her a bill of divorce; yet her treacherous sister Judah feared not, but went and played the harlot also.

Swordsmyth
08-15-2017, 10:31 PM
:eek:

God is a divorcee.

Jeremiah 3:8
And I saw, when for all the causes whereby backsliding Israel committed adultery I had put her away, and given her a bill of divorce; yet her treacherous sister Judah feared not, but went and played the harlot also.
Metaphor, GOD speaks to people in their own terms so they will understand.

Mark
Chapter 10 1 (https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Mark-10-1/)And he arose from thence, and cometh into the coasts of Judaea by the farther side of Jordan: and the people resort unto him again; and, as he was wont, he taught them again.
2 (https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Mark-10-2/)And the Pharisees came to him, and asked him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife? tempting him.
3 (https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Mark-10-3/)And he answered and said unto them, What did Moses command you?
4 (https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Mark-10-4/)And they said, Moses suffered to write a bill of divorcement, and to put her away.
5 (https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Mark-10-5/)And Jesus answered and said unto them, For the hardness of your heart he wrote you this precept.
6 (https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Mark-10-6/)But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female.
7 (https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Mark-10-7/)For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife;
8 (https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Mark-10-8/)And they twain shall be one flesh: so then they are no more twain, but one flesh.
9 (https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Mark-10-9/)What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.
10 (https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Mark-10-10/)And in the house his disciples asked him again of the same matter.
11 (https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Mark-10-11/)And he saith unto them, Whosoever shall put away his wife, and marry another, committeth adultery against her.
12 (https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Mark-10-12/)And if a woman shall put away her husband, and be married to another, she committeth adultery.

donnay
08-15-2017, 11:01 PM
Metaphor, GOD speaks to people in their own terms so they will understand.

Mark
Chapter 10 1 (https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Mark-10-1/)And he arose from thence, and cometh into the coasts of Judaea by the farther side of Jordan: and the people resort unto him again; and, as he was wont, he taught them again.
2 (https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Mark-10-2/)And the Pharisees came to him, and asked him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife? tempting him.
3 (https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Mark-10-3/)And he answered and said unto them, What did Moses command you?
4 (https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Mark-10-4/)And they said, Moses suffered to write a bill of divorcement, and to put her away.
5 (https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Mark-10-5/)And Jesus answered and said unto them, For the hardness of your heart he wrote you this precept.
6 (https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Mark-10-6/)But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female.
7 (https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Mark-10-7/)For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife;
8 (https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Mark-10-8/)And they twain shall be one flesh: so then they are no more twain, but one flesh.
9 (https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Mark-10-9/)What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.
10 (https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Mark-10-10/)And in the house his disciples asked him again of the same matter.
11 (https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Mark-10-11/)And he saith unto them, Whosoever shall put away his wife, and marry another, committeth adultery against her.
12 (https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Mark-10-12/)And if a woman shall put away her husband, and be married to another, she committeth adultery.

Yes but it is a forgivable sin since Jesus died for our sins.

Swordsmyth
08-15-2017, 11:05 PM
Yes but it is a forgivable sin since Jesus died for our sins.
I never said it wasn't.
If you look at how this discussion started you will see that my point was that Christians are not bound by the harsh "Law of Moses" the my opponent tried to stick us with.

Mikezelot
08-15-2017, 11:42 PM
Let's try and stay on topic guys.

Is this Moore guy a liberty politician? I don't know much about him.

Swordsmyth
08-15-2017, 11:51 PM
Let's try and stay on topic guys.

Is this Moore guy a liberty politician? I don't know much about him.
He is much better than Strange.

Anti Federalist
08-15-2017, 11:52 PM
Let's try and stay on topic guys.

Is this Moore guy a liberty politician? I don't know much about him.

TradCon mostly. Sorry about the wall o text, format fail.

https://www.roymoore.org/Positions/

Judge Roy Moore's Position on National Issues, 2017
Economy
Lower taxes, smaller government, and less spending will reduce the deficit and enable economic growth and a truly "stimulated" economy.
I believe in the reduction of taxes at all levels, and a need to reform the tax system by studying and implementing a "flat tax" or a "fair tax," which is a tax on goods and services purchased instead of a tax on income.
To paraphrase an old saying, the only two things in life that are certain are death and taxes, but the truth is we are being taxed to death while our businesses are failing and our economy continues to suffer.
We must return American manufacturing to our Country by rescinding unfair "free trade" agreements which have severely damaged our economy through loss of jobs and skill development. The phrase "Made in America" should mean something again.
We should cut the deficit and balance the budget using accurate data unlike budget projections used by past administrations.
Constitution
As a former Judge and Chief Justice of the Alabama Supreme Court, I know that the Constitution of the United States is the Supreme Law of the Land and all officials, state and federal, Legislative, Executive, and Judicial are bound thereby. All actions of state and federal officials must conform to the Constitution which should only be changed by amendments of the people, not decisions of activist judges. I support impeachment of judges and justices who knowingly and intentionally violate that principle.
Separation of Powers, Checks and Balances, States' Rights, and our Bill of Rights are integral parts of the Constitution which we must observe.
Immigration
We must stop the flow of illegal aliens across both our northern and southern borders. Open borders are a threat to our national security and to our economy.
We must allow willing states (like Arizona) to protect the health, safety, and welfare of their citizens, and use our own military to protect our border. If a wall is our only option, then we should build it immediately.
Health Care
We do not need socialized medicine which will ultimately lead to loss of quality and affordability of heath care, as well as a loss of access to the latest medical technology. Obamacare should be completely repealed as soon as possible.
Businesses should receive tax credits for employee health care coverage, and health insurance should be available between the states for competition and quality care.
Churches and charitable organizations should be encouraged to help the needy and poor.
Military
As a former military officer, Vietnam veteran, and graduate of the United States Military Academy at West Point, I believe in a strong military defense, and I will be a vocal advocate for the men and women who now serve in the Armed Forces.
More funding should be available to develop a missile defense system and to provide our Navy, Air Force, Army, Marines, and Coast Guard with the most modern technology including weapon systems.
Homosexuality should be against military policy as was the law prior to Bill Clinton.
We should not be entangled in foreign wars merely at the whim and caprice of a President.
Energy
To gain independence from foreign oil, we need to foster development of our own natural resources involving nuclear, solar, wind, and fossil fuels. Coal mining and oil drilling should be encouraged, subject only to reasonable regulations.
Education
The federal government should not hamper the educational systems of the states as there is no authority for federal involvement under the Constitution.
Programs like "Common Core" should be eliminated, and the development of educational programs returned to the people under state authority.
Competition between the states and freedom of various educational structures should be available to parents who are charged with the responsibility to teach their children.
Charter schools, vouchers, tax credits, home schooling, Christian schools, and technical training should be encouraged.
Foreign Affairs
America should serve as a good example to other nations.
We must treat sovereign nations as we would want to be treated and stand with allies to protect and preserve our national security.
Respect for our strength is the best defense. "Walk softly and carry a big stick" is and should be our guide.
We should not be subject to UN control and direction and should not rely on, or support, UN treaties like LOST (Law of the Sea Treaty) and the Convention on the Rights of the Child. Such treaties only undermine our sovereignty as a nation, as does the very presence of the United Nations on our soil.
We must maintain a strong nuclear defense and not rely on nuclear reduction treaties which leave us vulnerable to foreign powers.
Family
As a husband, father, and grandfather, I know the importance of the future we leave to our posterity.
A strong family based on marriage between one man and one woman is and should remain our only guide and model. I oppose abortion, same-sex marriage, civil unions, and all other threats to the traditional family order.
Federal funding for Planned Parenthood or any form of abortion should be stopped.
We must remain a moral and virtuous people, "One Nation under God." I support freedom of worship and the recognition of that God upon Whom we have always relied in peace and war.

Anti Federalist
08-16-2017, 12:00 AM
And a "law and order" republican.

William Tell
08-16-2017, 08:01 AM
Lol tell me this atheist progressive actually voted Roy Moore because Trump. That would be too good. https://twitter.com/BishopSavan/status/897814888076247040

Swordsmyth
08-16-2017, 09:40 AM
Lol tell me this atheist progressive actually voted Roy Moore because Trump. That would be too good. https://twitter.com/BishopSavan/status/897814888076247040
Maybe that is why Dump did it, his REAL base wasn't going to be fooled into voting for Strange and his enemies would vote against him, plus he gets bonus points from the establishment wing for the endorsement.

misterx
08-16-2017, 10:28 AM
I'll tell you one thing, he's not afraid to stand up to the establishment, and he doesn't back down like Trump has.

Sonny Tufts
08-16-2017, 03:49 PM
Moore came in first in the primary and will face Strange in a September runoff. He's apparently the favorite to win.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/16/opinion/roy-moore-alabama-senate.html?mcubz=0

If he gets to the Senate he'll likely have a stroke the first time a Muslim or Hindu gives the invocation as Guest Chaplain.

William Tell
08-16-2017, 07:46 PM
Luther Strange in Deep Trouble After Roy Moore Broke His ‘Ceiling’
Judge Roy Moore and incumbent Republican Sen. Luther Strange will advance to the runoff on September 26 for the U.S. Senate in Alabama. With nearly all of the precincts reporting, Judge Moore received 38.9% of the vote, or 162,570 total votes, while Sen. Strange earned 32.8%, or 136,910 total votes.

Let’s get right to the point.

Judge Moore broke his so-called ceiling and Sen. Strange is in big trouble. With President Donald Trump’s endorsement, the power of the incumbency and Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Kty., the appointed senator couldn’t even muster the support of a third of Republican primary voters in Alabama.

Judging by President Trump’s post-primary tweet, he learned Tuesday night what Barack Obama never did learn: Just because voters support you, doesn’t mean they’ll vote for an Establishment candidate they don’t like and don’t trust just because you told them to.

Private polling data conducted by PPD late last week indicated that nearly two-thirds of voters who planned to back Rep. Brooks would vote for Judge Moore against Sen. Strange in the runoff. Given we underestimated Judge Moore by several points, it is entirely possible some of those voters already made that strategic voting decision.

Still, an analysis of the results county-by-county, giving Judge Moore roughly half of the support that backed Rep. Brooks, finds there are 24 additional counties in which Judge Moore could carry the majority in the two-way matchup, including several larger counties.

Let’s take a look at the three-way margins, considering the constant for the margin is Moore to Strange to Brooks.

St. Clair went 44% to 36% to 14%, while Elmore went 48% to 21% to 17%, making both counties within range of a majority for Judge Moore given the statewide polling data. The same is true for Coosa (49% to 32% to 11%) and Cullman (48% to 31% to 15%).

There are also counties in which Judge Moore earned majority support and where he will likely increase that margin in a two-way race. Henry County is one of them, which went 53% to 25% to 13%.

Madison is a big county and a strong base of support for Rep. Brooks. This is one of the big ones to watch. It went for Rep. Brooks by 50% to only 19% for Judge Moore, while 27% backed Sen. Strange. While it may appear that those are vote-rich targets for the judge, we believe Madison County presents an opportunity for Sen. Strange to gain some ground.

Jefferson County, which is the largest and went 27% to 44% to 21%, also is more favorable territory for Sen. Strange.

Tuscaloosa, which went 40% to 36% to 15% for Judge Moore, is another question mark we see leaning toward the frontrunner. Calhoun is another rich target for Judge Moore, who earned 41% to 39% for Sen. Strange. But another 19% who backed Rep. Brooks are demographically more inclined to back the former judge.


continued https://www.peoplespunditdaily.com/news/elections/2017/08/16/luther-strange-in-deep-trouble-after-roy-moore-broke-his-ceiling/

William Tell
08-20-2017, 07:37 PM
A new poll shows former Alabama Supreme Court Chief Justice Roy Moore with a commanding lead over Luther Strange, the Washington establishment backed candidate, heading into the GOP primary runoff for the Alabama U.S. Senate seat left open this year.

The poll from JMC Analytics provided to Breitbart News ahead of its public release shows Moore with 51 percent, a majority, supporting him, while Strange trails nearly 20 points behind with just 32 percent—and 17 percent are undecided. Moore’s commanding lead comes after he outperformed polls to finish around 39 percent in a multi-way primary this past Tuesday. Strange finished the first round of voting with just under 33 percent, and this poll seems to indicate that Moore is the only candidate gaining more votes while Strange is stuck with a ceiling of what he got on primary day before the runoff. http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/08/20/exclusive-alabama-senate-poll-roy-moore-with-majority-support-takes-commanding-lead-over-luther-strange/

Swordsmyth
08-20-2017, 07:50 PM
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/08/20/exclusive-alabama-senate-poll-roy-moore-with-majority-support-takes-commanding-lead-over-luther-strange/

Lex Luther Strange will not be missed.

https://images.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=https%3A%2F%2Ftse3.mm.bing.net%2Fth%3Fid%3DOIP. HZ1LWjdS8L_AqBSXndlAHwEsEs%26pid%3D15.1&f=1

https://images.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=http%3A%2F%2Fimage.al.com%2Fhome%2Fbama-media%2Fwidth620%2Fimg%2Fspotnews%2Fphoto%2Fluther-strangejpg-8d0ed908c59d1e1b.jpg&f=1

William Tell
08-20-2017, 07:57 PM
We'll see how much money McConnell wants to flush into the swamp's septic system.

Swordsmyth
08-23-2017, 11:53 PM
Second poll shows Moore with big lead in Alabama Senate racehttp://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/347686-poll-moore-up-by-12-points-in-alabama-senate-race

Origanalist
08-24-2017, 07:56 AM
Roy Moore won’t support Mitch McConnell as Senate majority leader :)


Former Alabama state Chief Justice Roy Moore tells Conservative Review that should he successfully win his Senate race, he would vote against Senator Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., remaining Senate majority leader.

https://www.conservativereview.com/articles/roy-moore-wont-support-mitch-mcconnell-as-senate-majority-leader#undefined.uxfs

William Tell
08-27-2017, 06:24 PM
Sen. Trip Pittman, the primary candidate who supported Ron Paul for president has now enthusiastically endorsed Judge Roy Moore.http://www.al.com/news/index.ssf/2017/08/trip_pittman_endorses_roy_moor.html

Zap!
08-29-2017, 08:31 PM
Mo Brooks, who came in third place with nearly 20%, needs to endorse Roy Moore ASAP.

Swordsmyth
08-29-2017, 08:52 PM
Mo Brooks, who came in third place with nearly 20%, needs to endorse Roy Moore ASAP.

Moore probably already has his voters.

I believe Bannon endorsed Moore recently too.

Zap!
09-06-2017, 10:06 AM
House Freedom Caucus Chairman Mark Meadows endorsed former Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore today:

http://www.politico.com/story/2017/09/06/mark-meadows-endorses-roy-moore-alabama-242380

William Tell
09-08-2017, 02:02 PM
Moore stands with Rand.

906208953570353152
https://twitter.com/MooreSenate/status/906208953570353152

https://twitter.com/MooreSenate/status/906232535667142656

https://twitter.com/MooreSenate/status/906232779171647489

https://twitter.com/MooreSenate/status/906232995341893632

https://twitter.com/MooreSenate/status/906233128490082304

William Tell
09-08-2017, 02:20 PM
William has the right to support any statist he wants! Sure he supports the anti-liberty candidate Moore, and that is fine. Just like he had the legal right to support Obama or Clinton. Just because his chosen candidate hates us and liberty doesn't matter. His rights come first!


Guess Thomas Massie hates us and liberty too.:p

William Tell
09-09-2017, 02:16 PM
“Roy Moore has more political spine than anyone I know," Congressman Massie said. "He has twice chosen to lose his job rather than compromise his principles. He is a man willing to stand up to the out of control courts and help us return to the limited government outlined in our Constitution. I give him my full support and look forward to having him as a stalwart colleague in the Senate.” -Thomas Massie https://www.roymoore.org/Press-Releases/16/CONGRESSMAN-THOMAS-MASSIE-ENDORSES-JUDGE-ROY-MOORE

Origanalist
09-16-2017, 05:58 PM
909191177810915328

Still draining that swamp I see.

Zap!
09-16-2017, 09:26 PM
Rep. Mo Brooks just endorsed Moore!

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/congressman-backs-moore-tight-alabama-gop-senate-runoff/

AuH20
09-16-2017, 10:10 PM
They are scared to death of Moore inciting a brushfire that will spread to other primaries. That's why they are so adamant about spending money in Alabama.

AuH20
09-16-2017, 10:15 PM
895834228256067588

Swordsmyth
09-23-2017, 12:24 AM
As Trump campaigns for Strange in Alabama, he expresses some doubtsPresident Trump campaigned on Friday night for Alabama Senate candidate Luther Strange, in a race that has pitted him against his most loyal supporters and that holds the potential to upend the political dynamics for Republicans facing election in 2018. The endorsement of ‘Big Luther’ could prove to be a big boost for the interim Alabama senator, who is trailing his opponent, former state judge Roy Moore, in some public polls. But even Trump seemed unsure that the endorsement was the right move.
“I’ll be honest, I might have made a mistake,” Trump told the crowd at one point during his more than 30 minutes of remarks.
“If Luther doesn’t win they’re not going to say, we picked up 25 points in a short period of time,” he added, referring to the media. “If his opponent wins, I’m going to be here campaigning like hell for him.”
After some musing, he seemed to catch himself.
“Luther will definitely win,” Trump said.
It may not have been exactly the ringing endorsement Strange’s campaign had hoped for, but it would have to do.


“We have to be loyal in life,” Trump said. “He never went quid pro quo, he just treated me great.
“And I’m calling him. He was down like quite a bit and I said I’m going to endorse you,” Trump continued. “I shouldn’t be doing it … The last thing I want to do is be involved in a primary.”

“If Luther doesn’t make it, they’re going to go after me,” Trump said, referring to the media. “He went to third, second and now it’s almost pretty even right?”


More at: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2017/09/22/as-trump-campaigns-for-strange-in-alabama-he-expresses-some-doubts-i-might-have-made-a-mistake/?utm_term=.b9a826c6d792


Is he Damning with faint praise on purpose?

William Tell
09-23-2017, 06:30 AM
No, he's hedging his bets because Moore is seen as having a 70% chance of winning. Luther wins he will say see I knew he would win. Moore wins he will say he should have followed his gut but the people of Alabama did and he respects that. Both good guys as he said. Polls show 80% of voters won't be influenced in this race by Trump. Trump was already in for Luther but doesn't want to be seen as having lost his influence when Luther loses.

Swordsmyth
09-23-2017, 07:30 PM
The Trump communications team barred a Breitbart reporter from the press pool during a Trump rally in Alabama

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-09-23/trump-bars-breitbart-alabama-rally-feud-bannon-escalates

William Tell
09-24-2017, 06:49 PM
3 new polls out today. Tuesday is the runoff. The way things are looking Moore is unstoppable at this point despite 30 + million being thrown against him and a Trump rally for his opponent. This is unheard of in American politics.

Gravis has Moore at 48% vs Strange at 40.%
https://bigleaguepolitics.com/big-league-politics-gravis-alabama-gop-senate-runoff-poll-moore-leads-strange-48-40/

Emerson College has Moore at 50% vs Strange at 40%.
https://twitter.com/EmersonPolling/status/911916666065440769

Optimus has Moore at 55.4% vs Strange at 44.6%.


0ptimus partner Scott Tranter says he was struck by this statistic: "80% of those surveyed and 86% of primary voters know Trump endorsed Strange, which is up 5% since Tuesday and 15% since last week. Moore has maintained similar leads throughout this period."https://www.axios.com/first-look-alabama-poll-2489210856.html

William Tell
09-24-2017, 06:52 PM
The Judge has the Nige in his corner.

https://s17-us2.ixquick.com/cgi-bin/serveimage?url=http:%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FB8kP28Q.jp g&sp=e529cd0092e0f5f558cc4fe71432f21a

http://www.breitbart.com/london/2017/09/24/brexit-leader-nigel-farage-endorses-judge-roy-moore-will-speak-alongside-bannon-rally/ (http://www.breitbart.com/london/2017/09/24/brexit-leader-nigel-farage-endorses-judge-roy-moore-will-speak-alongside-bannon-rally/)

AuH20
09-24-2017, 06:55 PM
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/09/24/chamber-commerce-shut-roy-moore-remind-bannon-whos-charge/


U.S. Chamber of Commerce political strategist Scott Reed told the New York Times Saturday that it was important to defeat Judge Roy Moore in the Republican runoff for U.S. Senate in Alabama on Tuesday to rebuke former White House adviser and Breitbart News executive chairman Steve Bannon.

Reed, who is described by the Times‘ Jonathan Martin as “working with business leaders here to turn out votes for Mr. Strange,” said that a victory for appointed incumbent Sen. Luther Strange “would remind Bannon who’s in charge, and I think give the president and the governing wing of the party momentum. He added: “That’s why we’re going all in to shut it down now.”

William Tell
09-24-2017, 07:00 PM
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/09/24/chamber-commerce-shut-roy-moore-remind-bannon-whos-charge/
Unless something changes, Tuesday will be the biggest and most amazing real repudiation of the establishment in modern memory. Rand Paul's senate victory was a big deal but he was well funded. Roy is being outspent beyond belief. McConnell and the Chamber will be crying their eyes out Tuesday night.

AuH20
09-24-2017, 07:04 PM
911743751839670272

georgiaboy
09-24-2017, 07:05 PM
This is supercalifragilisticexpialidocious

AuH20
09-25-2017, 08:55 PM
Love me some Bannon.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1AUtBSWScxE


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E-lrIAgJ_ts

Sir Nigel


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y32_vckwCcY

William Tell
09-26-2017, 05:33 AM
Trip Pittman gave a passionate speech at the rally saying Judge Moore saying he has always admired Judge Moore and that he will defend the Constitution. Moore brought up Rand Paul and blasted the Senate for shooting down his Harvey amendment to curtail foreign aid, very critical of foreign aid saying it's not in the Constitution.


Moore isn't perfect but he'll be the only one besides Rand taking a stand on some things. On issues like enumerated powers he might be even more vocal than Rand. He will tilt at some of the right windmills no matter the cost. Looking forward to tonight's results!

Anti Federalist
09-26-2017, 09:46 AM
I know this is unlikely, but is there any chance of the Dem winning in AL in the general?

Brian4Liberty
09-26-2017, 10:27 AM
I know this is unlikely, but is there any chance of the Dem winning in AL in the general?

The Chamber of Commerce will do their best.

William Tell
09-26-2017, 10:47 AM
I know this is unlikely, but is there any chance of the Dem winning in AL in the general?

No. The MSM is pushing that scenario like they always do to coral the voters away from ultra conservatives like Moore towards moderates like Strange. But polling shows the opposite. The last Emmerson poll has Moore beating Dem. Jones 52-30 and Strange beating Jones 49-36. Election day would be more like 65-35 I'd guess. Alabama is so red the Dems did not even field a candidate against Sessions last time. He got 100%. If Moore can survive 30 million of smears and win the primary he can survive 50 million and win the general. I doubt the Dems want to go bankrupt on a suicide mission in Alabama anyway but they are morons at the top so who knows.



I think a slightly more likely scenario would be the Establishment runs Strange in the general election as an independed when he loses the primary. like they did against Joe Miller in Alaska. But depending on whether Alabama has a sore loser law that might be impossible. In a 3 way race all bets are off of course.

Anti Federalist
09-26-2017, 11:08 AM
No. The MSM is pushing that scenario like they always do to coral the voters away from ultra conservatives like Moore towards moderates like Strange. But polling shows the opposite. The last Emmerson poll has Moore beating Dem. Jones 52-30 and Strange beating Jones 49-36. Election day would be more like 65-35 I'd guess. Alabama is so red the Dems did not even field a candidate against Sessions last time. He got 100%. If Moore can survive 30 million of smears and win the primary he can survive 50 million and win the general. I doubt the Dems want to go bankrupt on a suicide mission in Alabama anyway but they are morons at the top so who knows.

I think a slightly more likely scenario would be the Establishment runs Strange in the general election as an independed when he loses the primary. like they did against Joe Miller in Alaska. But depending on whether Alabama has a sore loser law that might be impossible. In a 3 way race all bets are off of course.

This is exactly what I was thinking...the PTB would pull an Alaska scenario.

William Tell
09-26-2017, 01:28 PM
This is exactly what I was thinking...the PTB would pull an Alaska scenario.
I forgot. It's a special election to fill Sessions seat and the filing deadline passed long ago. Only the primary winners can be on the general ballot so the winner is safe until the term expires in 2020. PTB can only back the Democrat if Roy wins. Who knows, maybe the Chamber does want to spend another 30 million for another spanking but it will turn out even worse for them without McConnell and Trump who would never decide to end their careers by publicly backing a Dem in Alabama.

Zippyjuan
09-26-2017, 01:37 PM
I forgot. It's a special election to fill Sessions seat and the filing deadline passed long ago. Only the primary winners can be on the general ballot so the winner is safe until the term expires in 2020. PTB can only back the Democrat if Roy wins. Who knows, maybe the Chamber does want to spend another 30 million for another spanking but it will turn out even worse for them without McConnell and Trump who would never decide to end their careers by publicly backing a Dem in Alabama.


. Democratic Senate nominee Doug Jones will face the Republican winner in the Dec. 12 general election,

https://www.washingtonpost.com/powerpost/moore-vs-strange-polling-opens-in-alabama-republican-primary/2017/09/25/9c7192f8-a253-11e7-b14f-f41773cd5a14_story.html?utm_term=.11593b4a015f

AuH20
09-26-2017, 02:01 PM
Corker just stepped away from re-election. The Chamber knew he was toast.

William Tell
09-26-2017, 02:10 PM
https://www.washingtonpost.com/powerpost/moore-vs-strange-polling-opens-in-alabama-republican-primary/2017/09/25/9c7192f8-a253-11e7-b14f-f41773cd5a14_story.html?utm_term=.11593b4a015f
Yes just like I said. Jones is a primary winner. Moore or Strange will be the GOP primary winner when the runoff results come in tonight.

William Tell
09-26-2017, 02:13 PM
Oh shit, exit polls and turnout looking bad.
http://www.latlmes.com/world/first-exit-polls-in-alabama-runoff-spell-trouble-for-moore-1

samforpaul
09-26-2017, 04:13 PM
Oh $#@!, exit polls and turnout looking bad.
http://www.latlmes.com/world/first-exit-polls-in-alabama-runoff-spell-trouble-for-moore-1


Link gave me a music video.

What's the truth here, William?

PierzStyx
09-26-2017, 04:17 PM
Yeah. Those are other reasons I support him. We need someone to stand up to the fedcoats and he proved he has guts.

He isn't standing up for you. He wants to impose his will on you too. He just fought those who wanted to impose a differing will on you. He is just another fedcoat.

William Tell
09-26-2017, 04:41 PM
Link gave me a music video.

What's the truth here, William?It's called rick rolling, a stupid internet thing where we post a link and it shows that song instead of anything important. It was just a joke didn't mean to cause confusion.:p

The truth is it's too early to tell but the secretary of state is saying low turnout so far which most people think is good for Moore. We won't know till the polls close. If turnout is higher in Birmingham it might go poorly for Moore, that's Strange's stronghold. If Moore does good in North Alabama with Brooks voters it's a good sign. Here's the old map, and look for results tonight at the second link.

https://www.nytimes.com/elections/results/alabama-senate-special-election-primary


http://www2.alabamavotes.gov/electionnight/statewideResultsByContest.aspx?ecode=1000800

AuH20
09-26-2017, 05:15 PM
30 million in comparison to 2 million dollars is all I need to know. Moore will be a huge asset if he can prevail.

AuH20
09-26-2017, 05:26 PM
912805443092676608

AuH20
09-26-2017, 05:28 PM
912672060274614272

AuH20
09-26-2017, 05:30 PM
912308564105900033

AuH20
09-26-2017, 05:32 PM
Turtle is going down tonight in a big way. Time to call up the corporate donors and apologize!

912819385739497474

AuH20
09-26-2017, 05:45 PM
912823096196739072

AuH20
09-26-2017, 05:58 PM
912828000395255808

AuH20
09-26-2017, 07:07 PM
912845310568824832

AuH20
09-26-2017, 07:10 PM
912846670664290304

AuH20
09-26-2017, 07:16 PM
912847719307366401

samforpaul
09-26-2017, 07:21 PM
http://www.politico.com/story/2017/09/26/alabama-senate-results-strange-moore-243175


Moore up 58% to 42 %.
35% of precincts reporting.

AuH20
09-26-2017, 07:57 PM
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DKbkTbqXUAAYBB9.jpg

AuH20
09-26-2017, 08:03 PM
912857581651156994

AuH20
09-26-2017, 08:11 PM
912859405900812289

sparebulb
09-26-2017, 08:19 PM
God Bless Donald for endorsing Strange.

or

more 9D chess

or

maybe it just doesn't much matter at this point

AuH20
09-26-2017, 08:26 PM
912862617789779970

AuH20
09-26-2017, 08:27 PM
God Bless Donald for endorsing Strange.

or

more 9D chess

or

maybe it just doesn't much matter at this point

Bannon is the one with the real power. Trump not so much.

Swordsmyth
09-26-2017, 09:02 PM
U.S. SENATE SPECIAL REPUBLICAN PRIMARY RUNOFF ELECTION 2017 Statewide Results
Total Ballots Cast: 449,942 Total Registered Voters: 3,134,166 Voter Turnout: 14.36% Counties Reported: 65 of 67 Last Updated: 09/26/2017 09:54:20 PM The election results presented on these pages are unofficial and presented as a courtesy of the Alabama Secretary of State and Alabama’s Probate Judges. The accuracy of the election results is the responsibility of the Probate Judge for each county reporting.



UNITED STATES SENATOR









Percent


Votes








Roy S. Moore (REP)
http://www2.alabamavotes.gov/electionnight/images/barChartSlider-blue3dHorz12px.png

54.86%

246,764








Luther Strange (REP)
http://www2.alabamavotes.gov/electionnight/images/barChartSlider-blue3dHorz12px.png

45.14%

203,005








http://www2.alabamavotes.gov/electionnight/statewideResultsByContest.aspx?ecode=1000800

Swordsmyth
09-26-2017, 09:33 PM
U.S. SENATE SPECIAL REPUBLICAN PRIMARY RUNOFF ELECTION 2017 Statewide Results
Total Ballots Cast: 451,161 Total Registered Voters: 3,134,166 Voter Turnout: 14.39% Counties Reported: 67 of 67 Last Updated: 09/26/2017 10:21:00 PM The election results presented on these pages are unofficial and presented as a courtesy of the Alabama Secretary of State and Alabama’s Probate Judges. The accuracy of the election results is the responsibility of the Probate Judge for each county reporting.



UNITED STATES SENATOR









Percent


Votes








Roy S. Moore (REP)
http://www2.alabamavotes.gov/electionnight/images/barChartSlider-blue3dHorz12px.png

54.89%

247,553








Luther Strange (REP)
http://www2.alabamavotes.gov/electionnight/images/barChartSlider-blue3dHorz12px.png

45.11%

203,435

William Tell
09-26-2017, 10:00 PM
Roy Moore handed Mitch McConnell his ass tonight. Way to go Alabama! Next Mississippi, Arizona etc!

RonZeplin
09-26-2017, 10:07 PM
912862617789779970

Better to be loved by da Judge, than by that establishment loser Trump!

georgiaboy
09-26-2017, 10:26 PM
912862617789779970

Here's hoping for a strong ally.

Brian4Liberty
09-26-2017, 10:38 PM
More than anything, this is a rebuke of Mitch McConnell and the US Chamber of Commerce.

William Tell
09-26-2017, 10:41 PM
More than anything, this is a rebuke of Mitch McConnell and the US Chamber of Commerce.And a blow to Trump's ego. The state where he is most popular wanted a conservative bomb thrower more than they wanted to make him happy by being his buddy.

William Tell
09-26-2017, 10:41 PM
Trump is literally deleting his pro Luther Strange tweets. Hilarious.

Brian4Liberty
09-26-2017, 10:48 PM
Trump is literally deleting his pro Luther Strange tweets. Hilarious.

Wonder if he'll fire Kushner, who supposedly was the one who told him to endorse Strange.

Origanalist
09-26-2017, 10:51 PM
Trump is literally deleting his pro Luther Strange tweets. Hilarious.

I wonder if he's literally shaking? So, can we hope for the same treatment for the establishment shill Trump in 2020?

William Tell
09-26-2017, 10:51 PM
Wonder if he'll fire Kushner, who supposedly was the one who told him to endorse Strange.

Nah. Not the son in law. He'll kick the dog... er... Turtle.

William Tell
09-26-2017, 10:55 PM
Moore said that he had talked with the governor, his opponent Luther Strange, and Sens. Rand Paul (R-KY), Ted Cruz (R-TX), and Mike Lee (R-UT), among others.


Moore continued:

Together we can make America great! We can support the President. Don’t let anybody in the press think that because he supported my opponent that I do not support him and support his agenda.

As long as it’s constitutional, as long as it advance our society, our culture, our country, I will be supportive. As long as it’s constitutional. But we have to return to knowledge of God and the Constitution of the United States to the United States Congress.http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/09/26/roy-moore-victory-speech-together-we-can-make-america-great-we-can-support-president/


Good words. Constitution over personal politics.

Swordsmyth
09-26-2017, 11:11 PM
In a race where Moore has not only faced a significant financial disadvantage — his opponent has outspent Moore by 300 percent — he also has been challenged by President Donald Trump and Vice-President Mike Pence, who made special appearances for his opponent in the closing days of the campaign. Most of the $11 million that poured into Strange’s campaign came from the Senate Leadership Fund under the direction of Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell. Moore also had to fight against the National Rifle Association (NRA), which threw its support to Strange.

More at: https://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/politics/item/26998-us-senate-candidate-pulls-gun-at-rally-in-support-of-second-amendment


I will NEVER renew my old NRA membership.

William Tell
09-26-2017, 11:15 PM
I will NEVER renew my old NRA membership.When you are involved in principled politics those words will cross your lips sooner or later. I've lost count how many times I've heard that.

Origanalist
09-26-2017, 11:18 PM
In a race where Moore has not only faced a significant financial disadvantage — his opponent has outspent Moore by 300 percent — he also has been challenged by President Donald Trump and Vice-President Mike Pence, who made special appearances for his opponent in the closing days of the campaign. Most of the $11 million that poured into Strange’s campaign came from the Senate Leadership Fund under the direction of Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell. Moore also had to fight against the National Rifle Association (NRA), which threw its support to Strange.

More at: https://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/politics/item/26998-us-senate-candidate-pulls-gun-at-rally-in-support-of-second-amendment


I will NEVER renew my old NRA membership.

https://gunowners.org/

William Tell
09-26-2017, 11:19 PM
https://gunowners.org/
GOA, NAGR, and BAMAcarry all backed Moore.

William Tell
09-26-2017, 11:29 PM
912857581651156994 https://twitter.com/senatormcdaniel/status/912857581651156994

Zippyjuan
09-27-2017, 12:23 PM
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/09/26/roy-moore-victory-speech-together-we-can-make-america-great-we-can-support-president/


Good words. Constitution over personal politics.

Moore favors his religion over the Constitution. No separation of Church and State.

AuH20
09-27-2017, 05:26 PM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LMgr4rD3tC4

georgiaboy
09-27-2017, 07:49 PM
Here's to ya, Judge Moore.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6GxWmSVv-cY

EBounding
09-27-2017, 07:54 PM
912884581929508864

AuH20
09-27-2017, 07:54 PM
Bannon continues on the warpath. The true heart and soul of Trumpism as opposed to the idle POTUS?

http://www.politico.com/story/2017/09/27/steve-bannon-alabama-republican-incumbents-2018-243233


Bannon has told associates he wants to recruit candidates in a number of states, including Tennessee, Montana, Missouri, Nevada and Arizona. Bannon is said to be looking for people who will support a populist agenda and oppose candidates backed by the National Republican Senate Committee.

“He wants to just repeat Alabama over and over,” according to one associate.

Bannon wants to convince Trump that he is making a mistake by supporting establishment candidates and waffling on his hard-line campaign promises, according to people familiar with his plans.

He has particular disdain for Sen. Jeff Flake in Arizona and Sen. Bob Corker in Tennessee, who was on Bannon’s target list until he announced he was retiring Tuesday.

Bannon has also griped about Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell. “He really wants to get rid of McConnell,” said one person who frequently speaks to Bannon.

“Faux populism is the worst kind,” said Josh Holmes, a longtime chief of staff and adviser to McConnell. “When he goes to Appalachia, Mitch McConnell knows far more about the people than Steve Bannon ever will.”

Holmes added of Bannon: “What he’s doing is making things significantly harder on President Trump at every turn.”


While Trump cares about his TV coverage and his polls, Bannon tends to see it differently, loving the loud and large protests and musing that Trump should focus on the longer game even at the expense of wins.

“It’s all or nothing for Steve,” said Chris Ruddy, a Trump friend. “There is no compromise.”

AuH20
09-27-2017, 08:02 PM
Trump deserves the burn.

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/09/27/brand-damage-jared-kushner-sails-trump-rocks/


In what is becoming a disturbing pattern, Trump’s son-in-law and adviser Jared Kushner was apparently one of those who advised the president to back Strange, to once again sail into big, jagged rocks — a humiliation for Trump that anyone with any real-world political sense should have (and did) seen coming from a mile away.

enhanced_deficit
09-27-2017, 10:41 PM
It is on.
Team Bannon 1
Team Trump-Kushner 0.05

William Tell
09-28-2017, 10:49 AM
If there was any doubt, Roy Moore just won the general election. Doug Jones is Abortion Ken Doll. http://freebeacon.com/politics/democratic-alabama-no-restrictions-abortion/

https://s15-us2.ixquick.com/cgi-bin/serveimage?url=https:%2F%2Fi.pinimg.com%2F736x%2F1 4%2F59%2Ffd%2F1459fd05ba11c2b1a2332871e584a78e--pro-life-current-events.jpg&sp=37ea6d1a3e6760c74866071e36856049

William Tell
09-29-2017, 07:22 AM
And a "law and order" republican.
Based on what I've been reading I think that's not really what he is. More of an old fashioned Christian Andy Griffith type guy. Not the throw the book at them type. Looks like he's in the Rand Paul camp on some justice reform things based on how he was as a judge. The lawyer class has complained he sides with the little guy too much. http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?515420-The-Roy-Moore-I-Know

Swordsmyth
09-29-2017, 11:05 PM
Republican Roy Moore Outpolling Democrat Doug Jones in Alabama Senate RaceThe former Alabama Supreme Court justice is polling at around 50 percent versus 44 percent for Democrat Doug Jones. The remainder is undecided in the Decision Desk HQ poll, which has a margin of error of plus or minus 4 percent.

More at: https://www.yahoo.com/news/republican-roy-moore-outpolling-democrat-195907313.html

Zap!
10-14-2017, 10:19 AM
Roy Moore: Trump victory 'a day of light,' but now 'not much being accomplished' (http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/roy-moore-trump-victory-a-day-of-light-but-now-not-much-being-accomplished/article/2637492)

So true!

euphemia
10-14-2017, 10:39 AM
Moore favors his religion over the Constitution. No separation of Church and State.

That's not even in the Constitution, Zip. Personal faith is always personal faith. The State may not interfere or establish a religious test.

Sonny Tufts
10-14-2017, 05:43 PM
That's not even in the Constitution, Zip. Personal faith is always personal faith. The State may not interfere or establish a religious test.

The notion of separation of church and state is inherent in the Establishment and Equal Protection Clauses. The last thing any believer should want is for the State to use its power and influence to promote a particular religious belief. But Moore sees no problem in using the power of his office to push his particular views..

Swordsmyth
10-20-2017, 04:58 PM
Roy Moore has 11-point edge over Doug Jones in new Senate race pollhttp://www.wsfa.com/story/36630948/exclusive-roy-moore-leads-doug-jones-by-11-in-new-poll

William Tell
11-05-2017, 07:10 AM
The left is now saying Roy Moore is evil, selfish, and basically a thief because he protested his property tax evaluation. The horror.



Oh Roy Moore. He's such a caricature.

He always finds by a way to invoke his god. To make a buck.

Or to save a few.

Like back in 2015 when Moore, then Chief Justice of the Alabama Supreme Court, decided it was outrageous and unfair that property he owns in the Gallant community of Etowah county continued to increase in value.

Why, the property valuation used to set the taxes had risen 284 percent between 1995 and 2015. It had even risen since 2005, before the housing crash. So Moore -- like a lot of people who don't want to pay any more tax than they have to -- petitioned the county's board of equalization to reduce the valuation on the property.

And the board of equalization did it. It knocked off $41,200 from its valuation, agreeing that Moore's 4,300 square foot home on 16 acres with a seven-car garage was not, in fact, worth the $311,900 it had assessed.

It was worth only $270,700, the board agreed. That would put annual tax on the place at a little more than $1,000.

But that didn't end it.

Moore thought the reduction was not enough. So he hired a lawyer and sued the chairman of the board of equalization and the county's chief appraiser, arguing he should pay less.

Because ...

The Constitution.

And God.

Because let's face it, we are talking about Roy Moore here.

"The Plaintiff has been forced to suffer an unlawful seizure and/or ongoing obligation against his personal property," Moore's lawyer, Trenton Garmon wrote. "Said God-given right to private property ownership as acknowledged in the Declaration of Independence, the United States Constitution and the laws of the State of Alabama have been restricted and/or infringed upon."

I feel like I need to cough something up.

He was denied his god-given rights to save a few more dollars. Making clear that Roy's god bestowed more on him than on those saps who get caught up in the court system, who have been tossed in Alabama jails because they cannot pay fines in turnip-squeezing courts. Moore's own judicial system wrung the life, liberty and pursuit of happiness out of anybody who dared worship a god that wasn't just like his.

Oh Roy Moore. He's not just a caricature, but an opportunist who does God a lot more harm than good.

He's not God's prophet but he'll take god's profit.

He takes the lord's name in a vain attempt to save himself cash. The amount at issue in this silly little Etowah County case would have amounted to a couple hundred bucks a year. And on and on and on. http://www.al.com/opinion/index.ssf/2017/11/roy_moore_the_profit_of_god.html

fedupinmo
11-05-2017, 10:32 AM
The notion of separation of church and state is inherent in the Establishment and Equal Protection Clauses. The last thing any believer should want is for the State to use its power and influence to promote a particular religious belief. But Moore sees no problem in using the power of his office to push his particular views..

The government is not an entity in itself... it is made up of the will of people who have the right to make up their own mind. If they want to express their rights in favor of a certain religion, they can.
Now since the prohibition against establishment specifically mentions who can't violate it, extending that protection to the states doesn't change the entity that is prevented from "establishing". Congress.
Funny how the 2nd is a blanket prohibition against infringement yet can be selectively applied while the 1st is specific as to the who is to be prohibited, but can be argued by liberals to prohibit the dog catcher from sending you a Christmas card.

Swordsmyth
11-05-2017, 11:06 AM
The government is not an entity in itself... it is made up of the will of people who have the right to make up their own mind. If they want to express their rights in favor of a certain religion, they can.
Now since the prohibition against establishment specifically mentions who can't violate it, extending that protection to the states doesn't change the entity that is prevented from "establishing". Congress.
Funny how the 2nd is a blanket prohibition against infringement yet can be selectively applied while the 1st is specific as to the who is to be prohibited, but can be argued by liberals to prohibit the dog catcher from sending you a Christmas card.

Even if the prohibition on establishing a religion is applied to all branches of government it still has a narrow definition, and recognizing or celebrating religion as part of our culture and the foundation of our legal system does not fall under that definition.

Identity
11-06-2017, 04:53 PM
Moore favors his religion over the Constitution. No separation of Church and State.


I think the last time I stopped reading RP Forums was after a post you made where you claimed Trump's victory in the Nevada caucus proved he was doooomed for the rest of the primary season & general election due to the mystical Anti-Trump bloc voting. Seems as if your quality of posting hasn't improved at all.

Swordsmyth
11-06-2017, 05:01 PM
I think the last time I stopped reading RP Forums was after a post you made where you claimed Trump's victory in the Nevada caucus proved he was doooomed for the rest of the primary season & general election due to the mystical Anti-Trump bloc voting. Seems as if your quality of posting hasn't improved at all.

Please don't let zippy drive you away, just put him on your ignore list if you must.


This is why it is not good to have zippy on this forum.

William Tell
11-09-2017, 12:53 PM
Washington Post which endorsed Doug Jones running with accusations against Moore from women who were teenagers 34+ years ago. First time Moore has ever been accused of anything besides being too prudish. One month before the election.

William Tell
11-09-2017, 12:55 PM
Breitbart called it first. Then WaPo quickly released the attacks. http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/11/09/after-endorsing-democrat-teenagers-judge-fires-back-denial/

phill4paul
11-09-2017, 02:39 PM
Breitbart called it first. Then WaPo quickly released the attacks. http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/11/09/after-endorsing-democrat-teenagers-judge-fires-back-denial/

Set up? I don't know, but I do know that establishment GOP and Democrats are doing the happy dance.

Madison320
11-09-2017, 04:32 PM
Even if the prohibition on establishing a religion is applied to all branches of government it still has a narrow definition, and recognizing or celebrating religion as part of our culture and the foundation of our legal system does not fall under that definition.

As I've said before, being from Alabama I found Moore to be kind of a slimy. He sounds like a snake oil salesman when he talks. I think a judge should be unassuming and neutral. I'm agnostic and I'd hate to be sentenced by him. I think I'd go buy a cross just to be safe.

That being said, as long as he votes for liberty I don't really care that he acts like a weasel.

William Tell
11-09-2017, 04:50 PM
Set up? I don't know, but I do know that establishment GOP and Democrats are doing the happy dance.Almost exactly one month till the election. Kinda hard to come with an alibi for some day 38 years ago. Steve Deace reporting the Moores say they will sue the Post.

Krugminator2
11-09-2017, 04:51 PM
As I've said before, being from Alabama I found Moore to be kind of a slimy. He sounds like a snake oil salesman when he talks. I think a judge should be unassuming and neutral. I'm agnostic and I'd hate to be sentenced by him. I think I'd go buy a cross just to be safe.

That being said, as long as he votes for liberty I don't really care that he acts like a weasel.

The guy has always been a nut job. Alabama could have gotten most of the anti-establishment stuff that people wanted with Moore if they picked Brooks.

And Brooks is much smarter and better on the issues. And if people picked Brooks, you would get someone who is experienced who has been vetted.

William Tell
11-09-2017, 04:52 PM
The guy has always been a nut job. Alabama could have gotten most of the anti-establishment stuff that people wanted with Moore if they picked Brooks.

And Brooks is much smarter and better on the issues. And if people picked Brooks, you would get someone who is experienced.
We've been through this. Brooks supports the patriot act and endless wars.

Krugminator2
11-09-2017, 04:58 PM
We've been through this. Brooks supports the patriot act and endless wars.

I haven't kept up with the debate. Is Moore good on foreign policy and civil liberties? My sense is he would be good on some things like the budget but overall be a theocrat.

Brooks is already a good (not even close to great) Congressman. Brooks was one of the few people to be very complimentary of Ron Paul. Brooks would have been like Mike Enzi. Nowhere close to perfect, but much better than average.

William Tell
11-09-2017, 05:07 PM
I haven't kept up with the debate. Is Moore good on foreign policy and civil liberties? My sense is he would be good on some things like the budget but overall be a theocrat.

Brooks is already a good (not even close to great) Congressman. Brooks was one of the few people to be very complimentary of Ron Paul. Brooks would have been like Mike Enzi. Nowhere close to perfect, but much better than average.One of the main reasons Rand endorsed him was foreign policy. Moore is against foreign aid Brooks isn't. Moore is not a libertarian but he's pretty solid on what the constitutional role of government is, due process etc.

The establishment on both sides of the aisle will do everything in their power to make sure Moore loses this race. If he wins we'll see how he votes.

Danke
11-09-2017, 06:03 PM
Washington Post which endorsed Doug Jones running with accusations against Moore from women who were teenagers 34+ years ago. First time Moore has ever been accused of anything besides being too prudish. One month before the election.


You beat Zippy, congrats.


Now if this had been a 30 year old male democrat candidate dating male teenagers, the press would have been silent.

William Tell
11-09-2017, 06:36 PM
You beat Zippy, congrats.


Now if this had been a 30 year old male democrat candidate dating male teenagers, the press would have been silent.Or this. I never heard about it till today. https://www.infowars.com/senator-robert-menendez-may-have-had-sex-with-underage-hookers-in-the-dominican-republic/

spudea
11-09-2017, 06:57 PM
Doesn't look good for Moore, refusing to debate his opponent, now this. He's gonna have to fight like hell. Trump can't exactly swoop in and save him now with these disturbing allegations.

Swordsmyth
11-09-2017, 07:02 PM
Doesn't look good for Moore, refusing to debate his opponent, now this. He's gonna have to fight like hell. Trump can't exactly swoop in and save him now with these disturbing allegations.

I'm not worried.

specsaregood
11-09-2017, 07:56 PM
Doesn't look good for Moore, refusing to debate his opponent, now this. He's gonna have to fight like hell. Trump can't exactly swoop in and save him now with these disturbing allegations.

I must have missed it, what disturbing allegations? Is Moore a closeted tranny that has a secret career taking part in animal porn?

KEEF
11-09-2017, 08:07 PM
I must have missed it, what disturbing allegations? Is Moore a closeted tranny that has a secret career taking part in animal porn?
Just read a tweet from evil McCain about the allegations... I guess he tried to hook up with teenagers back when he was in his 30s.

AuH20
11-09-2017, 08:12 PM
Umm. Why didn't this come out during the primary?

William Tell
11-09-2017, 08:16 PM
Umm. Why didn't this come out during the primary?Or any of his other bitterly contested races of the last 3 decades?

phill4paul
11-09-2017, 08:22 PM
Umm. Why didn't this come out during the primary?

Do you have to ask? This gets the double digit Republican out of the race. Rules don't allow for another Republican to take his place this late in the game. Democrat wins. Why else would McConnel and McCain be asking him to step down?

William Tell
11-09-2017, 08:25 PM
Not sure if this is true but I keep seeing things like this. https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DOPL2LBUQAEy6H5.jpg

anaconda
11-09-2017, 08:48 PM
My only expectations of federal legislators is that they vote per the constitution. He might actually do it much of the time.

William Tell
11-09-2017, 08:58 PM
"I stand by the interview I did with (reporters) Stephanie (McCrummen) and Beth (Reinhard)," Gibson told AL.com, saying she had no further statement beyond what she told the Post reporters.


Corfman's son, Garner Polston, referred AL.com to Corfman's attorney but said, "I can say that my mom has no reason to lie about this."

OK? http://www.al.com/news/index.ssf/2017/11/moore_victims_attorney_im_sure.html

specsaregood
11-09-2017, 08:59 PM
Just read a tweet from evil McCain about the allegations... I guess he tried to hook up with teenagers back when he was in his 30s.

Oooooh how disturbing.

Swordsmyth
11-10-2017, 02:18 AM
Bannon compares Moore allegations to Trump 'Access Hollywood' tape"By the way, the Bezos Amazon Washington Post that dropped that dime on Donald Trump (http://thehill.com/people/donald-trump) is the same Bezos Amazon Washington that dropped a dime this afternoon on Judge Roy Moore," Bannon said Thursday.
"Is that a coincidence?" he asked.



http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/359738-bannon-compares-moore-allegations-to-trump-access-hollywood

anaconda
11-10-2017, 03:35 AM
What's the statute of limitations on these allegations?

anaconda
11-10-2017, 03:42 AM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dIzw6KKZLgA

Anti Federalist
11-10-2017, 05:59 AM
Now if this had been a 30 year old male democrat candidate dating male teenagers, the press would have been silent.

And what's wrong with that, you white cisgender transphobic shitlord?

Love is Love.

phill4paul
11-10-2017, 07:13 AM
What's the statute of limitations on these allegations?

They ran out long ago. His wife said they will sue the Post for defamation.

William Tell
11-10-2017, 07:28 AM
Washington post act III.


After the Roy Moore allegations, can Democrats really win in Alabama?
Doug Jones has a shot at winning — if the Democratic Party gets behind him.

fedupinmo
11-10-2017, 07:41 AM
Interesting how they bring up the 17 year olds... they are over the age of consent in Alabama, and were then as well.

William Tell
11-10-2017, 08:45 AM
Matt Drudge apparently hates Moore. He barely covered the primary and all his headlines were negative. Now he's going all out to destroy Moore and Bannon even putting up a headline from a homosexual site. Wonder if Matt's alleged personal preferences and Roy's outspokenness about morality are a part of that.

Tywysog Cymru
11-10-2017, 11:06 AM
People get really upset when someone says something bad about a certain sexual behavior.

specsaregood
11-10-2017, 11:21 AM
Matt Drudge apparently hates Moore. He barely covered the primary and all his headlines were negative. Now he's going all out to destroy Moore and Bannon even putting up a headline from a homosexual site. Wonder if Matt's alleged personal preferences and Roy's outspokenness about morality are a part of that.

They are sure pulling out all stops against him now, the GOP establishment and the liberals united...
makes me want to support moore just for that reason alone.

Swordsmyth
11-10-2017, 01:21 PM
Republican Senatorial Committee Cuts Off Roy Moore's Funding http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-11-10/white-house-says-roy-moore-will-do-right-thing-and-step-aside

Swordsmyth
11-10-2017, 01:23 PM
As pressure for Moore to step aside mounts, Axios (https://www.axios.com/mike-lee-roy-moore-fundraising-2508377868.html)is reporting that Sen. Mike Lee of Utah has asked Roy Moore's team to stop using Lee's image on their campaign fundraising materials. While it's too late for Moore to be removed from the ballot, but responses like those from Lee show he's quickly losing support from the GOP.

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-11-10/white-house-says-roy-moore-will-do-right-thing-and-step-aside

William Tell
11-10-2017, 01:40 PM
https://twitter.com/crusher614/status/929058118062845953

William Tell
11-10-2017, 01:42 PM
https://twitter.com/RightWingAngel/status/929052877582163968

William Tell
11-10-2017, 01:42 PM
Joe Biden's sign language interpreter?

Swordsmyth
11-10-2017, 01:54 PM
Washington Post Reporter Behind Roy Moore Hit Piece Has History Of Writing Fake Checkshttp://gotnews.com/breaking-washington-post-reporter-behind-roy-moore-hit-piece-history-writing-fake-checks/

William Tell
11-10-2017, 01:54 PM
Republican Senatorial Committee Cuts Off Roy Moore's Funding

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-11-10/white-house-says-roy-moore-will-do-right-thing-and-step-aside

Meh. He raised his money without them. SLF refused to spend money to support him anyway after he beat Strange. If Moore wins McConnell better kiss himself goodbye. This is the dirtiest campaign I've ever seen.

Swordsmyth
11-10-2017, 01:56 PM
Meh. He raised his money without them. SLF refused to spend money to support him anyway after he beat Strange. If Moore wins McConnell better kiss himself goodbye. This is the dirtiest campaign I've ever seen.

I'm not worried.

William Tell
11-10-2017, 01:57 PM
Washington Post Reporter Behind Roy Moore Hit Piece Has History Of Writing Fake Checks

http://gotnews.com/breaking-washington-post-reporter-behind-roy-moore-hit-piece-history-writing-fake-checks/

She's pretty happy with herself. Look what she just retweeted. https://twitter.com/MichaelMossC/status/929056762010984448

William Tell
11-10-2017, 02:54 PM
One of Roy Moore's accusers worked as interpreter for Hillary Clinton campaign
One of the women who said Senate candidate Roy Moore pursued her while she was in high school (http://www.al.com/news/index.ssf/2017/11/roy_moore_accused_of_sexual_mi.html)worked for Hillary Clinton's campaign as a sign language interpreter, according to videos and documents posted online.


Deborah Wesson Gibson, owner of the interpreting company Signs of Excellence, provided services for Clinton during her 2016 campaign, as well as working with former Democratic Vice President Joe Biden during other events. Photos posted to her company's social media site (https://www.facebook.com/pg/signsofexcellencellc/photos/?tab=album&album_id=1964650573766366) show her providing sign language services for Sen. Patrick Murphy and Sen. Bill Nelson, both Florida Democrats.


Gibson's company has offices in Florida and Alabama, providing sign language interpretation to businesses, politicians, governments and more.


Gibson did not respond to texts or email messages seeking a comment. The voice mail box for her phone is full. She told AL.com yesterday she stood by her comments (http://www.al.com/news/index.ssf/2017/11/moore_victims_attorney_im_sure.html) in the Washington Post interview.


In a 2016 interview with Florida's WLRN, (http://wlrn.org/post/whos-pumped-political-rally-sign-language-interpreter-thats-who) Gibson outlined the challenges that come with providing interpretation at a political rally.


"One of the things that she (Hillary Clinton) does," Gibson said, "Is that she'll say, 'You know what? If standing up for equal pay is playing the woman's card, then DEAL ME IN!'"


http://www.al.com/news/index.ssf/2017/11/_one_of_roy_moores_accusers_wo.html

Swordsmyth
11-10-2017, 04:07 PM
Roy Moore Denies "Completely False" Teen Sex-Abuse Allegations, Has "Evidence Of Collusion"http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-11-10/roy-moore-denies-completely-false-teen-sex-abuse-allegations-has-evidence-collusion

phill4paul
11-10-2017, 04:35 PM
http://www.al.com/news/index.ssf/2017/11/_one_of_roy_moores_accusers_wo.html

This has all the signs of a set up to me. I don't particularly care for the guy but I hope he sues the hell out of them, especially if he gets evidence of collusion.

specsaregood
11-10-2017, 04:59 PM
This has all the signs of a set up to me. I don't particularly care for the guy but I hope he sues the hell out of them, especially if he gets evidence of collusion.

Obviously a setup. And what might arguably make it worse is it appears to be a setup orchestrated by his own party.

Swordsmyth
11-10-2017, 06:35 PM
Gov. John Kasich: GOP must not support Alabama's Roy Moorehttps://www.cincinnati.com/story/news/politics/2017/11/10/gov-john-kasich-gop-must-not-support-alabamas-roy-moore/852034001/


Alabama State Rep. Says Roy Moore's Accusers Should Be Prosecutedhttps://www.yahoo.com/news/alabama-state-rep-says-roy-165329477.html


2 GOP Senators Drop Endorsements Of Roy Moore
While some GOP politicians have said Moore should step aside (https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/mitt-romney-roy-moore_us_5a05be95e4b0e37d2f371e99), Sens. Steve Daines (Mont.) and Mike Lee (Utah) are the first Moore backers to do so.
Daines made his announcement on Twitter.

I am pulling my endorsement and support for Roy Moore for U.S. Senate.
— Steve Daines (@SteveDaines) November 10, 2017 (https://twitter.com/SteveDaines/status/929122007224127488?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw)
Lee revealed his decision to a writer for The Washingtonian, citing both the accusations of Moore’s misconduct and his response to the allegations.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/2-gop-senators-drop-endorsements-232511304.html

phill4paul
11-10-2017, 07:00 PM
Gov. John Kasich: GOP must not support Alabama's Roy Moorehttps://www.cincinnati.com/story/news/politics/2017/11/10/gov-john-kasich-gop-must-not-support-alabamas-roy-moore/852034001/

Establishment.



Alabama State Rep. Says Roy Moore's Accusers Should Be Prosecutedhttps://www.yahoo.com/news/alabama-state-rep-says-roy-165329477.html

They will. In civil court.



2 GOP Senators Drop Endorsements Of Roy Moore
While some GOP politicians have said Moore should step aside (https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/mitt-romney-roy-moore_us_5a05be95e4b0e37d2f371e99), Sens. Steve Daines (Mont.) and Mike Lee (Utah) are the first Moore backers to do so.
Daines made his announcement on Twitter.

I am pulling my endorsement and support for Roy Moore for U.S. Senate.
— Steve Daines (@SteveDaines) November 10, 2017 (https://twitter.com/SteveDaines/status/929122007224127488?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw)
Lee revealed his decision to a writer for The Washingtonian, citing both the accusations of Moore’s misconduct and his response to the allegations.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/2-gop-senators-drop-endorsements-232511304.html

Establishment wanna be's.

Brian4Liberty
11-10-2017, 07:07 PM
Neoconservative dirty tricks. McCain jumped right on it like a good little doggy.

FSP-Rebel
11-10-2017, 07:20 PM
Mitch dumped $30 mill on Moore in the primary and only now does this come up.? Next, write-in campaign for Strange to dilute GOP votes when this defamation attempt fails.

Swordsmyth
11-10-2017, 07:40 PM
Per WaPo:



While reporting a story in Alabama about supporters of Moore’s Senate campaign, a Post reporter heard that Moore allegedly had sought relationships with teenage girls. Over the ensuing three weeks, two Post reporters contacted and interviewed the four women.
Levin posed the following questions:


How did the WaPo reporter know there were four women, who they were, and how to contact them?

How is it that the reporter's anonymous source, who they bumped into, knew about the four women who don’t know each other and have never met, and knew each woman's story and contact information?

Why hasn’t any of this been reported in Moore’s 38 years in politics? And why now – a month before an important election to fill Jeff Sessions’ senate seat?




More at: http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-11-10/roy-moore-story-unraveling-one-accuser-worked-hillary-another-claims-several-pastors

specsaregood
11-10-2017, 07:43 PM
Gov. John Kasich: GOP must not support Alabama's Roy Moorehttps://www.cincinnati.com/story/news/politics/2017/11/10/gov-john-kasich-gop-must-not-support-alabamas-roy-moore/852034001/
Alabama State Rep. Says Roy Moore's Accusers Should Be Prosecutedhttps://www.yahoo.com/news/alabama-state-rep-says-roy-165329477.html

2 GOP Senators Drop Endorsements Of Roy Moore
While some GOP politicians have said Moore should step aside (https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/mitt-romney-roy-moore_us_5a05be95e4b0e37d2f371e99), Sens. Steve Daines (Mont.) and Mike Lee (Utah) are the first Moore backers to do so.
Daines made his announcement on Twitter.

I am pulling my endorsement and support for Roy Moore for U.S. Senate.
— Steve Daines (@SteveDaines) November 10, 2017 (https://twitter.com/SteveDaines/status/929122007224127488?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw)
Lee revealed his decision to a writer for The Washingtonian, citing both the accusations of Moore’s misconduct and his response to the allegations.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/2-gop-senators-drop-endorsements-232511304.html

Next, they'll start smearing anybody that endorsed him that haven't actively taken it back already. I wonder if any of these sleaze bags have had the audacity to contact Randal and suggest he drop his endorsement.