Page 2 of 42 FirstFirst 123412 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 60 of 1237

Thread: Poll: Judge Roy Moore leads competitors in runoff

  1. #31
    I voted for one of these Champions. Wish I could vote for the other. Defend the Constitution August 15th, Alabama!

    Quote Originally Posted by dannno View Post
    It's a balance between appeasing his supporters, appeasing the deep state and reaching his own goals.
    ~Resident Badgiraffe






  2. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  3. #32
    Quote Originally Posted by William Tell View Post
    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?



  4. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  5. #33
    Quote Originally Posted by r3volution 3.0 View Post
    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
    Quote Originally Posted by dannno View Post
    It's a balance between appeasing his supporters, appeasing the deep state and reaching his own goals.
    ~Resident Badgiraffe




  6. #34
    Quote Originally Posted by Madison320 View Post
    "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.
    Never attempt to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

    Robert Heinlein

    Give a man an inch and right away he thinks he's a ruler

    Groucho Marx

    I love mankind…it’s people I can’t stand.

    Linus, from the Peanuts comic

    You cannot have liberty without morality and morality without faith

    Alexis de Torqueville

    Those who fail to learn from the past are condemned to repeat it.
    Those who learn from the past are condemned to watch everybody else repeat it

    A Zero Hedge comment

  7. #35
    Quote Originally Posted by William Tell View Post
    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.

  8. #36
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    "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/Incorp...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).
    We have long had death and taxes as the two standards of inevitability. But there are those who believe that death is the preferable of the two. "At least," as one man said, "there's one advantage about death; it doesn't get worse every time Congress meets."
    Erwin N. Griswold

    Taxes: Of life's two certainties, the only one for which you can get an automatic extension.
    Anonymous

  9. #37
    Quote Originally Posted by Sonny Tufts View Post
    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/Incorp...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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Sonny Tufts View Post
    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.
    Never attempt to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

    Robert Heinlein

    Give a man an inch and right away he thinks he's a ruler

    Groucho Marx

    I love mankind…it’s people I can’t stand.

    Linus, from the Peanuts comic

    You cannot have liberty without morality and morality without faith

    Alexis de Torqueville

    Those who fail to learn from the past are condemned to repeat it.
    Those who learn from the past are condemned to watch everybody else repeat it

    A Zero Hedge comment

  10. #38
    Quote Originally Posted by r3volution 3.0 View Post
    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?
    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, 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!
    Lifetime member of more than 1 national gun organization and the New Hampshire Liberty Alliance. Part of Young Americans for Liberty and Campaign for Liberty. Free State Project participant and multi-year Free Talk Live AMPlifier.

  11. #39
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    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/20040112.../200216708.pdf
    We have long had death and taxes as the two standards of inevitability. But there are those who believe that death is the preferable of the two. "At least," as one man said, "there's one advantage about death; it doesn't get worse every time Congress meets."
    Erwin N. Griswold

    Taxes: Of life's two certainties, the only one for which you can get an automatic extension.
    Anonymous

  12. #40
    Quote Originally Posted by Sonny Tufts View Post
    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/20040112.../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.
    Never attempt to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

    Robert Heinlein

    Give a man an inch and right away he thinks he's a ruler

    Groucho Marx

    I love mankind…it’s people I can’t stand.

    Linus, from the Peanuts comic

    You cannot have liberty without morality and morality without faith

    Alexis de Torqueville

    Those who fail to learn from the past are condemned to repeat it.
    Those who learn from the past are condemned to watch everybody else repeat it

    A Zero Hedge comment



  13. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  14. #41
    Quote Originally Posted by Sonny Tufts View Post

    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).
    Quote Originally Posted by Sonny Tufts View Post
    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?
    Last edited by NorthCarolinaLiberty; 08-10-2017 at 05:52 PM.
    Quote Originally Posted by TheCount View Post
    ...I believe that when the government is capable of doing a thing, it will.
    Quote Originally Posted by Influenza View Post
    which one of yall fuckers wrote the "ron paul" racist news letters
    Quote Originally Posted by Dforkus View Post
    Zippy's posts are a great contribution.




    Disrupt, Deny, Deflate. Read the RPF trolls' playbook here (post #3): http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...eptive-members

  15. #42
    Quote Originally Posted by Keith and stuff View Post
    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,
    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.
    Last edited by William Tell; 08-10-2017 at 06:51 PM.
    Quote Originally Posted by dannno View Post
    It's a balance between appeasing his supporters, appeasing the deep state and reaching his own goals.
    ~Resident Badgiraffe




  16. #43
    Quote Originally Posted by William Tell View Post
    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...

  17. #44
    Quote Originally Posted by r3volution 3.0 View Post
    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.
    Last edited by William Tell; 08-10-2017 at 06:28 PM.
    Quote Originally Posted by dannno View Post
    It's a balance between appeasing his supporters, appeasing the deep state and reaching his own goals.
    ~Resident Badgiraffe




  18. #45
    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...nameid=B001274
    Last edited by William Tell; 08-10-2017 at 06:18 PM.
    Quote Originally Posted by dannno View Post
    It's a balance between appeasing his supporters, appeasing the deep state and reaching his own goals.
    ~Resident Badgiraffe




  19. #46
    Quote Originally Posted by William Tell View Post
    You must spread some reputation around before giving it to William Tell again.
    Never attempt to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

    Robert Heinlein

    Give a man an inch and right away he thinks he's a ruler

    Groucho Marx

    I love mankind…it’s people I can’t stand.

    Linus, from the Peanuts comic

    You cannot have liberty without morality and morality without faith

    Alexis de Torqueville

    Those who fail to learn from the past are condemned to repeat it.
    Those who learn from the past are condemned to watch everybody else repeat it

    A Zero Hedge comment

  20. #47
    Quote Originally Posted by Brian4Liberty View Post
    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.
    Quote Originally Posted by dannno View Post
    It's a balance between appeasing his supporters, appeasing the deep state and reaching his own goals.
    ~Resident Badgiraffe




  21. #48
    Two new polls.

    • Roy Moore: 35%
    • Luther Strange: 29%
    • Mo Brooks: 19%
    • Trip Pittman: 9%
    • Mary Maxwell: 4%
    http://www.fox10tv.com/story/3609285...atewide-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/...strange-brook/
    Quote Originally Posted by dannno View Post
    It's a balance between appeasing his supporters, appeasing the deep state and reaching his own goals.
    ~Resident Badgiraffe






  22. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  23. #49
    Quote Originally Posted by Sonny Tufts View Post
    .blah blah blah blah.....zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
    //
    "The Patriarch"

  24. #50
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    You must spread some reputation around before giving it to William Tell again.
    Just did that.
    "The Patriarch"

  25. #51
    Quote Originally Posted by Keith and stuff View Post
    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, 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 $#@!.
    "The Patriarch"

  26. #52
    Quote Originally Posted by Origanalist View Post
    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.
    Quote Originally Posted by dannno View Post
    It's a balance between appeasing his supporters, appeasing the deep state and reaching his own goals.
    ~Resident Badgiraffe




  27. #53
    Quote Originally Posted by William Tell View Post
    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.
    "The Patriarch"

  28. #54
    Quote Originally Posted by William Tell View Post
    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.

  29. #55
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    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.
    We have long had death and taxes as the two standards of inevitability. But there are those who believe that death is the preferable of the two. "At least," as one man said, "there's one advantage about death; it doesn't get worse every time Congress meets."
    Erwin N. Griswold

    Taxes: Of life's two certainties, the only one for which you can get an automatic extension.
    Anonymous

  30. #56
    Quote Originally Posted by NorthCarolinaLiberty View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by NorthCarolinaLiberty View Post
    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?
    We have long had death and taxes as the two standards of inevitability. But there are those who believe that death is the preferable of the two. "At least," as one man said, "there's one advantage about death; it doesn't get worse every time Congress meets."
    Erwin N. Griswold

    Taxes: Of life's two certainties, the only one for which you can get an automatic extension.
    Anonymous



  31. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  32. #57
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    "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.

  33. #58
    Quote Originally Posted by Sonny Tufts View Post
    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.
    Quote Originally Posted by dannno View Post
    It's a balance between appeasing his supporters, appeasing the deep state and reaching his own goals.
    ~Resident Badgiraffe




  34. #59
    Quote Originally Posted by specsaregood View Post
    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.


    Source: http://www.keypolicydata.com/blog-ar...n-nation-2015/
    Lifetime member of more than 1 national gun organization and the New Hampshire Liberty Alliance. Part of Young Americans for Liberty and Campaign for Liberty. Free State Project participant and multi-year Free Talk Live AMPlifier.

  35. #60
    Quote Originally Posted by William Tell View Post
    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.
    Lifetime member of more than 1 national gun organization and the New Hampshire Liberty Alliance. Part of Young Americans for Liberty and Campaign for Liberty. Free State Project participant and multi-year Free Talk Live AMPlifier.

Page 2 of 42 FirstFirst 123412 ... LastLast


Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 13
    Last Post: 07-20-2017, 08:59 PM
  2. Georgia: Kingston leads Perdue in Runoff
    By MichaelDavis in forum Liberty Campaigns
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 06-13-2014, 06:05 PM
  3. Stephen Moore of the WSJ on Judge Nap
    By nomark in forum Media Spin
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 01-20-2012, 09:11 PM
  4. Karzai Leads in Afghan Election, But Runoff Likely
    By FrankRep in forum World News & Affairs
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 09-03-2009, 11:32 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •