Site Information
About Us
- RonPaulForums.com is an independent grassroots outfit not officially connected to Ron Paul but dedicated to his mission. For more information see our Mission Statement.
lol that $#@!'s nuts
- Kim KardashianIt's all about taking action and not being lazy. So you do the work, whether it's fitness or whatever. It's about getting up, motivating yourself and just doing it.
Donald Trump / Crenshaw 2024!!!!
My pronouns are he/him/his
I thought it was odd that they just up and dropped the investigation, but the official fake IDs would throw a wrench in the accusation that he willingly and knowingly had sex with a minor.
Not a lot of difference between 17 and 18 and if she shows you an actual driver's license issued by a government office then that would be hard to fault.
I'd heard about the extortion of Gaetz's father but that's the first I've heard about the tax commissioner.
"And now that the legislators and do-gooders have so futilely inflicted so many systems upon society, may they finally end where they should have begun: May they reject all systems, and try liberty; for liberty is an acknowledgment of faith in God and His works." - Bastiat
"It is difficult to free fools from the chains they revere." - Voltaire
It's becoming collected, consolidated, analyzed and algorithmicized. And it's terrible. Where have you been?
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...haking-the-Jar
____________
Mises Institute
An Agorist Primer ~ Samuel Edward Konkin III (free PDF download)
The End of All Evil ~ Jeremy Locke (free PDF download)
"And now that the legislators and do-gooders have so futilely inflicted so many systems upon society, may they finally end where they should have begun: May they reject all systems, and try liberty; for liberty is an acknowledgment of faith in God and His works." - Bastiat
"It is difficult to free fools from the chains they revere." - Voltaire
Just to provide me with better understanding of the situation, does anyone have a full body shot of this alleged 17 year old?
If she looks like Schwarzenegger's maid, then I would have serious concerns about his judgement.
It's a start that you put those 2 question marks at the end. The answer is NO.
I just Follow the Money, brother. Don't tell me that there's no such thing as TSA, Patriot Act, Gitmo, NSA scooping up data without a warrant, etc. Otherwise, there really is no hope for you, even though you put 2 question marks at the end.
____________
Mises Institute
An Agorist Primer ~ Samuel Edward Konkin III (free PDF download)
The End of All Evil ~ Jeremy Locke (free PDF download)
"And now that the legislators and do-gooders have so futilely inflicted so many systems upon society, may they finally end where they should have begun: May they reject all systems, and try liberty; for liberty is an acknowledgment of faith in God and His works." - Bastiat
"It is difficult to free fools from the chains they revere." - Voltaire
The reality is that reality is reality. It is refreshing to have reality at least presented.
Complaining about everything especially things that cannot be changed is a waste of energy.
I think it would be wise to attach to the positive change, if any, and maybe that would gain momentum and possibly afford more change.
Any person that thinks that the USA will be a Libertarian Utopia is delusional. Truth be told there is no such thing. Libertarians cannot even agree on any basic concepts.
____________
Mises Institute
An Agorist Primer ~ Samuel Edward Konkin III (free PDF download)
The End of All Evil ~ Jeremy Locke (free PDF download)
In 1790, the benefits of U.S. citizenship included several key aspects:
1. **Political Participation**:
- **Voting Rights**: Citizenship conferred the right to vote in federal elections, although voting rights at the state level could be more restrictive based on property ownership, race, or gender.
- **Office Holding**: Only U.S. citizens could hold federal office or serve in certain capacities within the government.
2. **Protection and Rights**:
- **Legal Protections**: U.S. citizens were entitled to the protections of the U.S. Constitution, including rights under the Bill of Rights (freedom of speech, religion, etc.).
- **Diplomatic Protection**: Citizens could seek protection from the U.S. government when abroad, which was crucial given the geopolitical landscape of the time.
3. **Land Ownership**:
- **Property Rights**: While not exclusive to citizens, citizenship could facilitate easier access to land ownership in some states, especially as the U.S. expanded westward.
4. **Economic Opportunities**:
- **Trade and Commerce**: Being a citizen could ease the process of obtaining licenses or engaging in certain trades or professions, especially those regulated by federal law.
- **Access to Federal Lands**: Policies like the Homestead Act (which came later in 1862) would eventually provide benefits explicitly for citizens.
5. **Social Status**:
- **Social Integration**: Citizenship symbolized full membership in the American polity, providing a sense of belonging and acceptance in society.
6. **Military Service**:
- **Voluntary Service**: Citizens could join the military, which wasn't just about protection but could also offer paths to land grants or other benefits.
7. **Jury Service**:
- **Participation in the Legal System**: Citizens could serve on juries, an important civic duty and right that influenced legal proceedings.
However, these benefits had significant limitations:
- **Racial Restrictions**: The Naturalization Act of 1790 restricted citizenship to "free white persons," excluding many from these benefits based on race.
- **Gender**: Women's rights were tied to their husbands' or fathers' citizenship status, with few independent rights.
- **Slavery**: Enslaved individuals were not considered citizens and thus had no access to these benefits.
Remember, the concept of citizenship and its benefits evolved over time. The benefits listed were foundational and would expand (or in some cases, be redefined) as the nation grew and its laws changed.
At the time the Bill of Rights was ratified in 1791, migration into the United States wasn't controlled in the modern sense, but there were foundational steps towards what would become immigration policy:
- **Lack of Formal Control**: There were no extensive federal immigration laws or border controls as we understand them today. States had some local regulations, but the federal government did not have a comprehensive system for immigration control.
- **Naturalization Process**: The first significant legislative action on citizenship was:
- **The Naturalization Act of 1790** (passed shortly after the Bill of Rights, in 1790):
- This act established the first federal procedures for naturalization, essentially how one could become a U.S. citizen. It set forth:
- **Eligibility**: Only "free white persons" of "good character" could apply for citizenship.
- **Residency Requirement**: Applicants needed to have resided in the U.S. for two years before applying for citizenship.
- **Procedure**: Applicants needed to appear before a court to declare their intent to become citizens and to swear an oath of allegiance.
- **Race and Citizenship**: The 1790 Act explicitly limited citizenship to "free white persons," reflecting the racial biases of the time which would influence immigration policy for over a century. This act was the first to legally define who could become a citizen based on race.
- **Context of the Bill of Rights**: While the Bill of Rights (the first ten amendments to the U.S. Constitution) does not directly address immigration or naturalization, it laid down the framework for individual rights which would later be interpreted to include non-citizens in certain contexts. The Fourteenth Amendment, ratified in 1868, would eventually extend citizenship to all persons born or naturalized in the United States.
- **Posts from X**: Discussions on social media platforms like X often highlight the Naturalization Act of 1790, focusing on its racial restrictions, indicating public interest or debate on how early U.S. citizenship laws were structured.
In summary, at the time of the Bill of Rights, migration control was minimal, but the groundwork for citizenship was laid with the Naturalization Act of 1790, which was very restrictive in terms of who could become a citizen based on race and residency.
Citations:
- [](http://hrlibrary.umn.edu/immigrationlaw/chapter2.html)
- [](https://x.com/kenzietuff/status/1685720951126642688)
It is kind of funny how the main reason for citizenship was to be able to participate and vote. Now some think open borders and allowing illegals to vote is fine.
The first real immigration policies in the United States were enacted in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, with significant milestones including:
1. **The Page Act of 1875**:
- This was the first restrictive federal immigration law, aimed at limiting the entry of certain groups:
- It prohibited the entry of convicts, prostitutes, and Chinese contract laborers.
- This act is often cited as the beginning of federal control over immigration because it was the first to define categories of people who were inadmissible.
2. **The Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882**:
- This was the first law to explicitly exclude an entire ethnic group from immigrating to the United States.
- It suspended Chinese immigration for ten years and later made this exclusion permanent until its repeal in 1943.
- It also barred Chinese immigrants from naturalization.
3. **The Immigration Act of 1891**:
- Created the Office of the Superintendent of Immigration within the Treasury Department, formalizing federal administration of immigration.
- This act expanded the list of excludable classes, including those likely to become public charges, people with contagious diseases, and polygamists.
4. **The Immigration Act of 1903**:
- Further expanded exclusion criteria to include anarchists, epileptics, and those with mental or physical disabilities.
- It also established the practice of deporting immigrants who had entered the country illegally or committed crimes after entry.
5. **The Immigration Act of 1917 (also known as the Asiatic Barred Zone Act)**:
- Introduced a literacy test for immigrants over 16, which was designed to limit immigration from southern and eastern Europe.
- Created an "Asiatic Barred Zone," excluding immigration from most of Asia, except for Japan and the Philippines.
6. **The Emergency Quota Act of 1921**:
- Introduced the first numerical limits on immigration, setting annual quotas based on 3% of the number of foreign-born individuals of each nationality residing in the U.S. in 1910.
- This act marked the beginning of a policy based on national origins, favoring immigration from Western Europe.
7. **The Immigration Act of 1924 (Johnson-Reed Act)**:
- Established a more stringent quota system, reducing the annual quota to 2% of each nationality's population in the U.S. as per the 1890 census, effectively reducing immigration from Southern and Eastern Europe.
- It also completely excluded immigration from Asia (formalizing the exclusion of Japanese immigrants).
These laws were the first to systematically control immigration based on nationality, race, health, political beliefs, and economic criteria, setting the foundation for modern U.S. immigration policy. They reflect a shift from an era of relatively open immigration to one where the U.S. government began to more explicitly select who could enter based on various criteria, often with discriminatory intent.
To consider how the founders might view the Bill of Rights in relation to the present day, we must analyze their original intentions, the context of the time, and how those intentions align or diverge from current interpretations and applications:
### **Original Intentions and Context:**
- **Protection Against Government Overreach**: The founders, particularly those like James Madison, George Mason, and Thomas Jefferson, saw the Bill of Rights as essential protections against potential tyranny. They aimed to ensure that the new federal government would not infringe upon fundamental liberties that the states and individuals were to retain.
- **Specific vs. General Rights**: Some founders, like Madison, were initially skeptical about the need for a Bill of Rights, fearing that listing specific rights might imply that those not listed were not protected. However, the inclusion of the Ninth and Tenth Amendments was meant to address this, preserving rights not explicitly mentioned to the people or the states.
- **Federalism**: The Bill of Rights was intended to limit the federal government's powers, not initially the states'. The concept of "incorporation" (applying the Bill of Rights to the states via the Fourteenth Amendment) would have been a significant shift from the original federalist structure.
### **Present-Day Application and Interpretation:**
- **Expansion Through Incorporation**: The founders would likely be surprised (or perhaps pleased, depending on their views on state vs. federal power) by how the Supreme Court has applied most of the Bill of Rights to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses.
- **Interpretation of Rights**:
- **First Amendment**: The breadth of free speech protections today, including digital speech, would be a notable evolution. Founders might be intrigued by the debates over social media platforms and free speech.
- **Second Amendment**: The founders would likely see the current debates over gun control and the right to bear arms quite differently from today's polarized perspectives, given their context of militias and personal defense in a less densely populated, less technologically advanced society.
- **Fourth Amendment**: The implications of digital privacy and surveillance would be a significant consideration, as the founders worried about unlawful searches but could not have foreseen modern technology's capabilities.
- **Civil Rights and Liberties**: The extension of rights to groups not explicitly considered at the founding, such as women, African Americans, and other minorities, would be a profound change. Founders like Jefferson and Madison, who later advocated for broader human rights, might appreciate this evolution, while others with more restrictive views on citizenship might not.
- **Modern Challenges**:
- **National Security vs. Individual Rights**: The balancing act between security measures and civil liberties post-9/11 would be a point of contention, reflecting debates about the balance of power and liberty that were central to the founding era.
- **Technology**: The founders would have to grapple with how rights apply in the digital age, from privacy online to free speech on platforms not envisioned in their time.
### **Potential Views:**
- **Madison**: Might view the incorporation doctrine and expansive interpretation of rights as necessary adaptations to ensure liberty in a changing society, though he might also caution against overreach by a central government.
- **Federalists vs. Anti-Federalists**: Federalists who were initially against a Bill of Rights might see its modern application as an overreach unless they accepted the necessity of adapting to new threats to liberty. Anti-Federalists would likely be pleased with the Bill's enduring role in protecting individual rights against government power.
- **General Reaction**: The founders would probably recognize the Bill of Rights as having evolved into a more dynamic tool for liberty than they might have anticipated, possibly with mixed feelings about how some rights have expanded while others remain contentious in modern debates.
In summary, the founders would likely have a complex view, appreciating the enduring relevance of the Bill of Rights but also debating its application in contexts they never could have imagined, like digital rights, modern weaponry, and the balance between national security and personal freedoms.
Agreed. The point of PAF's posts lately is to derail every thread into his paranoid fears coupled with a purity test. Case in point, this thread was about Matt Gaetz and the weaponization of these blackmail schemes. There was a time not so long ago, that these things could be done without fear of being exposed. It's good that this is no longer the case.
"And now that the legislators and do-gooders have so futilely inflicted so many systems upon society, may they finally end where they should have begun: May they reject all systems, and try liberty; for liberty is an acknowledgment of faith in God and His works." - Bastiat
"It is difficult to free fools from the chains they revere." - Voltaire
You seem to somehow think that voting actually matters. It's not as if immigrants prevented Trump to win.
You guys are given a "choice" among the preselected by the tptb, this time Trump/Kamala, who were both given money by BlackRock and Israel Firsters. And then you go into a voting booth and actually feel like you participated in something wonderful as you put that sticker on your jacket. Immigrants didn't force you to vote for Trump anymore than they did Kamala. Peter Thiel, Miriam Adelson, BlackRock, the MIC, throw literally millions and millions into those campaigns when immigrants don't even have enough left over to shine their own shoes.
Voting. Fair elections. Cheating. Good grief, the Bankers, Technocrats, Israel, MIC et al thank you for your dedication to this thing called "voting". Yippee. And when Rights are trampled on, you blame the immigrants as you allow it to happen because "it's going to happen anyway".
Purity test my @ss @CaptUSA As Sheldon says: think, monkey, think. Instead of parroting lamestream msm propaganda. Where's the ball!
PS, @CaptUSA , "weaponization" of Matt Gaetz. I'm glad his sorry @ass is out of there:
Matt Gaetz voted YES on S. 546 Federal Police Grants - Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution does not authorize Congress to support local law-enforcement agencies. Federal funding of local police departments and county sheriffs comes with strings attached, usually in the form of oversight, regulations, and other homogenized standards — none of which are constitutional.
Matt Gaetz voted YES on H.R. 4824 Carbon Sequestration - The federal government has no authority under Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution to engage in energy or environmental policy. Furthermore, carbon sequestration is closely connected to the UN 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, which is antithetical to the Constitution and U.S. sovereignty.
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...-On-The-Record
Last edited by PAF; 11-26-2024 at 12:08 PM.
____________
Mises Institute
An Agorist Primer ~ Samuel Edward Konkin III (free PDF download)
The End of All Evil ~ Jeremy Locke (free PDF download)
"Foreign aid is taking money from the poor people of a rich country, and giving it to the rich people of a poor country." - Ron Paul
"Beware the Military-Industrial-Financial-Pharma-Corporate-Internet-Media-Government Complex." - B4L update of General Dwight D. Eisenhower
"Debt is the drug, Wall St. Banksters are the dealers, and politicians are the addicts." - B4L
"Totally free immigration? I've never taken that position. I believe in national sovereignty." - Ron Paul
Proponent of real science.
The views and opinions expressed here are solely my own, and do not represent this forum or any other entities or persons.
"Foreign aid is taking money from the poor people of a rich country, and giving it to the rich people of a poor country." - Ron Paul
"Beware the Military-Industrial-Financial-Pharma-Corporate-Internet-Media-Government Complex." - B4L update of General Dwight D. Eisenhower
"Debt is the drug, Wall St. Banksters are the dealers, and politicians are the addicts." - B4L
"Totally free immigration? I've never taken that position. I believe in national sovereignty." - Ron Paul
Proponent of real science.
The views and opinions expressed here are solely my own, and do not represent this forum or any other entities or persons.
...
https://x.com/ScottAdamsSays/status/1859959779487285659
Just an FYI, Scott Adams retweeted the long thread about Gaetz.
"Foreign aid is taking money from the poor people of a rich country, and giving it to the rich people of a poor country." - Ron Paul
"Beware the Military-Industrial-Financial-Pharma-Corporate-Internet-Media-Government Complex." - B4L update of General Dwight D. Eisenhower
"Debt is the drug, Wall St. Banksters are the dealers, and politicians are the addicts." - B4L
"Totally free immigration? I've never taken that position. I believe in national sovereignty." - Ron Paul
Proponent of real science.
The views and opinions expressed here are solely my own, and do not represent this forum or any other entities or persons.
Hey, radical idea here:
you think maybe we could start with the worst politicians we'd like to see out of office, and then work our way up to the ones who are actually kind of decent? Or just "meh" politicians, if you like? Or maybe "bad" but not outright evil like the ones who would blackmail a congressman's family to raise money to rescue a CIA agent?
Do we have to start with the best of the bad? (or the worst of the best) Because in Gaetz's case, I see no reason to celebrate "his sorry ass" being out of there.
I would love to see Mitch McConnell's, or Chuck Schumer's, or Lindsey Graham's sorry asses out of there. Instead, Matt Gaetz is out, and . . . you're celebrating.
Or do the purity tests not work like that? Let's knee cap the people we could work with on some things, before we solo-confront the people who are responsible for the really evil sh!t.
I just want to understand the strategy here. It's not what I would do, but maybe I just don't see the genius of it.
Last edited by nobody's_hero; 11-26-2024 at 05:34 PM.
It’s just like lamestream media where they omit the parts they don’t want you to see:
Matt Gaetz voted YES on S. 546 Federal Police Grants - Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution does not authorize Congress to support local law-enforcement agencies. Federal funding of local police departments and county sheriffs comes with strings attached, usually in the form of oversight, regulations, and other homogenized standards — none of which are constitutional.
Matt Gaetz voted YES on H.R. 4824 Carbon Sequestration - The federal government has no authority under Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution to engage in energy or environmental policy. Furthermore, carbon sequestration is closely connected to the UN 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, which is antithetical to the Constitution and U.S. sovereignty.
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...-On-The-Record
No, we should continue on the same exact path and celebrate those who don’t give a flying flip about us just because “in the news”, while they vote to implement Police-State and U.N. Agenda 2030 Agendas. It has worked every time so far so why change now.
This forum. The people on it. Go figure.
____________
Mises Institute
An Agorist Primer ~ Samuel Edward Konkin III (free PDF download)
The End of All Evil ~ Jeremy Locke (free PDF download)
Here, let’s all support him and celebrate non-purity:
Matt Gaetz On The Record
FloridaDistrict 1st
Republican
Matt Gaetz voted YES on S. 546 Federal Police Grants - Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution does not authorize Congress to support local law-enforcement agencies. Federal funding of local police departments and county sheriffs comes with strings attached, usually in the form of oversight, regulations, and other homogenized standards — none of which are constitutional.
Matt Gaetz voted YES on H.R. 4824 Carbon Sequestration - The federal government has no authority under Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution to engage in energy or environmental policy. Furthermore, carbon sequestration is closely connected to the UN 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, which is antithetical to the Constitution and U.S. sovereignty.
Matt Gaetz voted YES on H.R. 406 ASEAN Relations - ASEAN is a political and economic union, as opposed to an individual sovereign nation. Providing a permanent ASEAN mission in the United States with the same privileges and immunities as embassies further accelerates globalist designs of collectivizing nations into regional unions rather than dealing with them as individual sovereign states. Furthermore, two of the 10 member-states that comprise ASEAN officially have Marxist-Leninist governments: the Socialist Republic of Vietnam and the Lao People’s Democratic Republic. This resolution expands U.S. relations with the communist regimes that oppress those two nations and that heavily influence the policies of the ASEAN union.
Matt Gaetz voted YES on Juneteenth Federal Holiday - The United States already observes 10 other federal holidays. Furthermore, seeing as slavery ended on December 6, not June 19, the inclusion of the words “National Independence Day” to Juneteenth creates the appearance of supplanting July 4 as America’s Independence Day. This perpetuates a false and dangerous notion that the United States has different days of independence depending on one’s race or ancestry, and is consistent with the communist tactic of “dividing the people” along racial lines.
Matt Gaetz voted YES on H.R. 133 Appropriations/Coronavirus (Part 1) - We oppose. Congress is failing to address its profligate spending that yielded an annual federal deficit of $3.1 trillion in fiscal 2020. Moreover, Congress is minimizing its accountability to voters by combining all “discretionary” federal spending and coronavirus aid into one gigantic bill and only holding two votes on that bill in the House.
Matt Gaetz voted YES on H.R. 266 Coronavirus - We oppose. Nowhere in the Constitution is the federal government authorized to disburse loans to small businesses or cover the salaries of laid-off employees. It is not the responsibility of the federal government to bail out businesses or the unemployed.
Matt Gaetz voted YES on H.R. 5430 USMCA - We oppose. Congress is not authorized by the Constitution to surrender our national sovereignty to any transnational regional government, including the nascent North American Union.
Matt Gaetz voted NO on H R 2500 On Agreeing to the Amendment 33 to H R 2500 - We support Representative Amash’s amendment. Indefinite detention without trial is a serious violation of 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).
Matt Gaetz voted YES on H R 2157 Disaster Supplemental Appropriations - We oppose. The federal government has no constitutional authority to rebuild areas stricken by natural disasters. Such activity should be undertaken by private companies and charities first, and, as a last resort, handled by local or state governments. Disasters would arguably be handled more effectively this way compared to the feds.
Matt Gaetz voted YES on S 47 Public Lands - We oppose. The Constitution does not authorize Congress to purchase private property except “all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings.”
Matt Gaetz voted YES on H.J.R. 31 - We oppose. Most of the bill’s spending programs are unconstitutional and unacceptably expand our debt and deficit.
Matt Gaetz voted YES on H.R. 6157 Appropriations for Defense, Labor-HHS-Education, and Continuing Appropriations - We Oppose. Social welfare spending falls outside the enumerated powers of the federal government, and lumping multiple appropriations bills into one mega bill reduces lawmakers’ accountability to their constituents. Moreover, even though defense spending is constitutional, the “defense” budget is bloated with funding for overseas military operations that have not contributed to the defense of our own country.
Matt Gaetz voted YES on H.R. 302 FAA Reauthorization and Supplemental Disaster Appropriations - We Oppose. The bill is comprised of unconstitutional federal overreach in both aviation and disaster relief. One example is the TSA, which is known for groping and violating air travelers in the name of providing security. Instead of relying on an inefficient federal bureaucracy, security should be provided by the airlines, which have a vested interest in keeping their customers safe. Another area the feds should stay out of is the regulation of private-sector drones, which instead should be managed by local ordinances or (at most) state laws. And the market, not the feds, should determine such issues as the dimensions of seats on passenger airliners. Regarding disaster relief, this should be handled by private charitable efforts, not the federal government.
Matt Gaetz voted YES on S. 1182 Flood Insurance - We Oppose. The Constitution does not give the federal government authority to get into the insurance business. Having the federal government as an insurer essentially subsidizes risky behavior, such as building in flood-, fire-, and earthquake-prone areas, and forces the taxpayer to pick up the tab. Insurance policies for natural disasters should be offered by private insurers, with the market setting the rates for such coverage.
Matt Gaetz voted YES on H.R. 4909 School Violence - We Oppose. School safety is not a proper function of the federal government. School safety should be addressed at the local level. The nationalizing of local police and school security, as well as any other gun-control measures contained in the bill, are all strictly unconstitutional.
The STOP School Violence Act of 2018 (H.R. 4909) would authorize $75 million a year through fiscal year 2028 for the Justice Department’s Secure Our Schools grant program. SOS is a grant program of the Justice Department’s Office of Community Oriented Policing Services, which has been instrumental in laying the foundations for nationalizing local police by providing federal “assistance” in the form of funds, equipment, training, and development of guidelines to local law-enforcement agencies.
In a podcast interview with Conservative Review, Representative Thomas Massie (RKy.) said the “STOP School Violence Act was bad enough for nationalizing defense of our schools,” but he further revealed, “There is money in that bill that is going to go to gun control groups. It literally says in there you can give it to the 501-C3s, and then it also says in there it can’t go to train anybody on gun safety. It’s got to go for all the liberal sort of agendas.”
Matt Gaetz voted YES on S.139 Warrantless Surveillance - We Oppose. FISA, while supposedly put in place to gather intelligence on foreign targets, has been used to spy on U.S. citizens. The bill does provide provisions to, ostensibly, protect the privacy of U.S. citizens, but given the track record of intelligence agencies, it is unlikely that they would actually follow these rules. The FISA Court gives a green light to just about any surveillance request that comes its way, and FISA-approved NSA warrantless surveillance of American citizens has become common knowledge
Matt Gaetz voted YES on H.R. 3180 Intelligence Authorization - We Oppose. The very idea of Congress authorizing classified amounts of spending is unconstitutional, as well as frightening. Furthermore, some of the agencies that this “classified” spending is funding are themselves engaged in unconstitutional activities, such as spying on and gathering data from U.S. citizens without a warrant. While assessing (dubious) Russian influence in U.S. politics is an acceptable use of federal funds, much of this bill’s spending is unconstitutional and should be rejected.
Matt Gaetz voted YES on H.Res.397 NATO - We Oppose. The United States should stay clear of entangling alliances such as NATO, which undermine the provision in the U.S. Constitution that assigns to Congress the power to declare war.
Matt Gaetz voted YES on H.R. 1616 National Computer Forensics Institute Authorization - We Oppose. Providing federal equipment and training to state and local law-enforcement officers not only is unconstitutional, but also further federalizes the police system.
Matt Gaetz voted YES on H.R. 1628 ObamaCare Replacement - We Oppose. We have assigned pluses to the nays because ObamaCare should be repealed, not replaced with a Republican variant of unconstitutional government healthcare that more liberty-minded lawmakers have referred to as "ObamaCare Lite" and "ObamaCare 2.0."
https://thenewamerican.com/freedom-i.../congress-115/
____________
Mises Institute
An Agorist Primer ~ Samuel Edward Konkin III (free PDF download)
The End of All Evil ~ Jeremy Locke (free PDF download)
Awesome, now do one for Chuck Schumer and tell me which one you'd rather see get run out of office first.
I'll save you time. I don't even have to look it up:
Chuck Schumer votes YES on damn near everything that grows the power of the state.
Lindsey Graham votes YES on printing new money and laundering it to Ukraine.
Now, that I've accurately guessed without even having to look it up:
I'm gonna use your same G-damned scorecard:
Lindsey Graham (surprisingly) has 56% constitutional votes over his career.
Mitch McConnell? 56% (again, that's kind of surprising)
Chuck Schumer? 13%. (not surprising)
Pelosi ... 15% over her career. (A whopping 0% of the votes right in 2023-24).
Matt Gaetz has 85%. It looks like he is one of the few who actually improved while in office. Let's all be glad to see his "sorry ass" go. You ever heard the saying "perfect is the enemy of the good"?
That's you man.
Uh oh, the New American says Thomas Massie only got 99%.![]()
![]()
![]()
Last edited by nobody's_hero; 11-27-2024 at 12:15 AM.
Most people consider 85% to be pretty good lol
- Kim KardashianIt's all about taking action and not being lazy. So you do the work, whether it's fitness or whatever. It's about getting up, motivating yourself and just doing it.
Donald Trump / Crenshaw 2024!!!!
My pronouns are he/him/his
Unless you get 100% you're a traitor.
Actually, you should get more than 100%. You need to be bleeding purity from your eye sockets. If Jesus was in the seat next to you, your record had better put him to shame.
Ron Paul's lifetime score is only 97%. I feel like my whole life has been a lie.
Caution: It'll break your heart:
https://thenewamerican.com/freedom-i...lator/p000583/
Last edited by nobody's_hero; 11-27-2024 at 12:36 AM.
- Kim KardashianIt's all about taking action and not being lazy. So you do the work, whether it's fitness or whatever. It's about getting up, motivating yourself and just doing it.
Donald Trump / Crenshaw 2024!!!!
My pronouns are he/him/his
I don't do On the Records for Democrats, because outside of Civil Liberties, there's nothing that I want to hold them accountable for. But if that's your bar in choosing "republicans", may God help you.
Sure, let's praise him on the bones here and there in exchange for: Federalized Police-State, Warrantless Surveillance, Indefinite Detention Without A Trial, ASEAN Relations, NATO, ObamaCare Replacement [not repeal] and U.N. Agenda 2030 Agendas. That sounds like an equitable trade and something that you and some others would personally welcome. I don't.
Don't even "shift the blame" and give me that crap about "immigrants" destroying our country - not when you and other 'Merikans support and are accepting of pathetic policies like that.
Last edited by PAF; 11-27-2024 at 08:01 AM.
____________
Mises Institute
An Agorist Primer ~ Samuel Edward Konkin III (free PDF download)
The End of All Evil ~ Jeremy Locke (free PDF download)
Connect With Us