Fascists gonna fascist.
[DailyCaller] Constitution Comes Under Fire, Identified As Possible ’Threat’ To American Politics
Extinction burst. They keep throwing things against the wall that used to work, but ever increasing numbers of voters no longer believe them. So they try ever more outrageous ideas in the hope that this will be the Russia! Russia! Russia! hot button that works this time.
The New York Times
...which still proudly claims Walter Duranty's Pulitzer prize... non-fiction book critic Jennifer Szalai claimed the Constitution was "frozen in amber" while reviewing a book by University of Caliphornia, an impregnable bastion of the Democratic Party, law school dean Erwin Chemerinsky.
Chemerinsky’s book, "No Democracy Lasts Forever," released Aug. 20, argues that the United States Constitution has become a "threat to American democracy" that is "beyond redemption." Szalai claimed that "Constitution worship" was possibly damaging the American political system in her review, citing arguments made by Chemerinsky and other liberal legal scholars, who say the document created a situation where a minority held tyrannical power to thwart.
"According to this line of argument, the damages of Constitution worship extend to the structure of the political system itself. National politics gets increasingly funneled through the judiciary, with control of the courts — especially the Supreme Court — becoming a way to consolidate power regardless of what the majority of people want," Szalai wrote. "This disempowerment of majorities, combined with political gridlock and institutional paralysis outside the judiciary, fuels popular disaffection. The document that’s supposed to be a bulwark against authoritarianism can end up fostering the widespread cynicism that helps authoritarianism grow."
#1
Such socialism wrapped in lies. We are a republic, not a democracy. The left have controlled this nation for 12 of the last 16 years. Now they want to do away with the only thing keeping them from a fascist communist overthrow. Good luck.
Posted by: 49 Pan ||
09/02/2024 3:52 Comments ||
Top||
#2
The original was formed by 13 sovereign states. If you dissolve it, it reverts to 50 sovereign states. Most of whom, I doubt, are interested in being ruled by a dozen or so metro areas.
#5
Szalai and Chemerinsky have chosen to ignore the fact that the Constitution can be amended. The amendment process is extremely difficult and time consuming but that is by design so that demagogues can't pass amendments on a whim. The vast majority of the people must be in general agreement on the necessity of an amendment and, with so many people brainwashed by corporate media, such agreements are rare these days.
I know one thing: If I had to choose between the Constitution and the New York Times, I'd choose the Constitution.
Posted by: Abu Uluque ||
09/02/2024 11:32 Comments ||
Top||
#6
Add in the 8 Bush years, 20:24.
Yeah, if you include Bush Sr., and I certainly do, it's 12 Bush years. Seems to me the late 1980s and early 1990's is when things started going south.
Posted by: Abu Uluque ||
09/02/2024 11:35 Comments ||
Top||
#10
FDR was definitely a commie but then we got Eisenhower. There seems to be a lack of clarity among voters because we keep swinging back and forth between leaders who are basically communist, whether the care to admit it or not, and leaders like Ronald Reagan who believe in American democracy. It is not healthy.
Posted by: Abu Uluque ||
09/02/2024 12:12 Comments ||
Top||
#11
Articles like this and the multiple child like ideas held by many folks today, especially by those under 35 of age come about because of a fatal flaw in inculcating today's role of what a Government's true (valid) purpose actually is for each of us trying to "live each of our lives in quiet desperation." The fault can be discovered in most folks inability to understand the the actual, and verifiable answer to the following question: "What is a Right". My guess is that at best just one person even here on Rantburg most likely will not be able to correctly answer this question. The answer to this question is NOT a matter of opinion or personal interpretation. Please mind.... the question is NOT "Please be able to list all the "things" that are Rights". The question is very simple "What IS a Right?" The answer is to state what is the acid test to determine if a person claims something is a Right, to actually determine with certainty if it is a Right? Think back to the issue at hand about our Civil War in 1865. I challenge each of us here on Rantburg to post their attempt to describe what is this acid test to unequivocally demonstrate if something is a Right or pretending to be a Right, meaning its actually just a privilege? I do have the answer and will gladly post it here, but only if others on Rantburg attempt to answer it. My bet is at the very best... just one of us here might be able to answer this correctly. Go ahead and use Google to locate the answer. I bet you won't get it right even using the internet. Victor Hanson and Thomas Sowell know the answer. Anybody willing to give it a good try?
#12
To define a right, one must first establish the fundamental nature of the individual. In classical terms, the individual alone in nature is sovereign, he has no limits on behavior and thought beyond the existential consequences of actions, both immediate and prolonged. One can impute a theological component into this description regarding creation of the individual and an implied divine intent. Regardless of that consideration, the political concept of "rights" at this stage of individuality is universal. The individual has the "right" to do anything that his physical being can accomplish since he is untimately sovereign.
The traditional concept of "rights" as permissions or limits on behavior, thoughts, or possessions is based on agreements of limitations and permissions agreed upon by external connections to others. They take the form of laws, religions, cultures, belief systems, but in each case an "agreement" on the limitations of some aspect the sovereignty of the individual is in return for protections and acceptance in a societal setting. It is a contractual relationship, willing or otherwise, between citizens and the state they create or inherit.
The contextual basis for our own Constitution sees this "natural" sovereign state as being those "rights" as given by God, hence a religious context, and has the concept of the contract between man and state that is our Constitution as an articulation of the limits place on government concerning rights, not the idea that government gives us rights!
#14
This Rantburg right? So.....Excellent try and well written NoMoreBS, but not quite correct. Your answer is not an acid test. You have attempted to define a Right by stating what it isn't. A process of elimination. Much like one might say that a car is not a boat or a train. You state that Rights are not permissions granted by others. I see that nobody else has tried to answer this key question just yet. Any community of people(a sovereign state) has to know what Rights are in order to not create tyranny down the road. Tryanny will abuse Rights, by conflating Privileges to ALSO BE Rights. They aren't. For example, in the early years of the USA (pre 1865) for a long time, folks claimed they had the Right to own other humans. The tyranny that was inflicted was sad. Also the pain to correct this was harsh. Battel of Gettysburg, Antetium etc. Sheridan's march etc. The so called right to own the value created from another human's labor wasn't actually a Right at all. It was simply a false belief. The answer to "What is a Right?" is simply.... A Right does NOT require the existence of another human to exist for you, as to exercise that specific Right. The key phrase to focus on is the term "existence of another human to exist. Let's test this answer. Freedom of speech: Does this require another human to exist for you to express your idea/thought? No it doesn't. How about freedom of religion? It too doesn't require another human to exist for you to believe that that rock over yonder is God or whatever. How about Right to privacy? That too doesn't require other humans to exist. How about self defense from harm, form an attack by a lion? That too doesn't require another human. Now then.... how about there Right to a job? Ahhhh! It does require another human to create a need to hire you. If a job is considered a Right, then somehow other must be forced to give you a job. That is a form of slavery. Forcing other humans to take time out of their life (not by choice but by force or threat of force to give you some of their productivity (value/wealth). How about medical care?, ...or an education? ....or housing? ....or food?, being Rights? These are NOT Rights because in each case other humans have to be forced to give you time or productive value in the from of their labor. Are you required to give a portion of your limited life here on earth to others? Ahhh but you might say these things (like a job or an education/ or shelter/f or ood etc) are all paid for by our taxes. But if others don't willingly chose to pay for these things then what happens. If you DON"T pay your tax... You go to jail. Thus when Privileges are considered Rights, it creates tyranny. That's what we are seeing today. WEF/ Marxism / Socialism / Modern Monetary theory / Illegal immigration / Banned speech on X etc, all these "crises" have the underlying theme of people demanding Rights when they aren't there at all. They are Privileges under the pretense of being Right. Privileges can only be negotiated by mutually benefitial contracts. Social contracts that allow for compensation in return for something of value. It can't be one sided benefit. One's medical care must be bought by the receiver of that care giving up something to get that care. You can't demand care from others for free (without compensation). Today people want things for free. Getting things for free is a form of slavery. You demand that I give you a portion of my labor's product (value) and you don't have to compensate me, since its your "right" to have it for free. Codswallop. That's slavery redefined and coated in make-up. It may not appear to be slavery. But it is.... I've ranted on too long here. But its Rantburg...Correct?
#15
It's also a Labor Day Weekend, and I'm not your dancing monkey
Posted by: Frank G ||
09/02/2024 16:38 Comments ||
Top||
#16
Actually, in the generic and simple form of a definition what I wrote was correct. Absent the other, rights are universal, that is to say all behaviors and beliefs can be called a "right". What you assert, that another is not necessary for something to be a right, is precisely what I said. You asserted, (correctly I might add):
"A Right does NOT require the existence of another human to exist for you, as to exercise that specific Right".
I said:"The individual has the "right" to do anything that his physical being can accomplish since he is ultimately sovereign"..."the individual alone in nature is sovereign, he has no limits on behavior and thought (hence rights such as those you describe) "
What the balance of your epistle was about is contextualized into a current, and definitively American context, with which I am in general agreement.
[BEE] The Jennings family enjoyed an incredible light show in the night sky, though it was unclear if it was from a meteor shower or from pieces of airplane falling off a Boeing.
"Wow, look at the meteor... or maybe an airplane wing," said Steve Jennings, observing the show. "It's breathtaking. Or maybe really tragic, I'm not sure yet."
According to witnesses, the Jennings raced outside with their telescope after seeing some sort of object race across the sky on their way home from the movies. "Come on kids! These are rare astronomical events," said Jennings, before hearing what sounded like an explosion. "Eh, maybe it's a super common aeronautical catastrophe. Either way, it's going to be a great show!"
The family watched as pieces of unknown matter fell from the sky one after another in a blaze of glory. "This is either one of the best meteor showers I've ever seen or that plane really shattered," said Jennings. "It's so hard to tell these days."
At publishing time, Boeing had announced that it wasn't a big deal or anything but they would offer a $10 Jersey Mike's gift card to anyone who returned a missing plane engine.
Posted by: Frank G ||
09/02/2024 11:32 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[11131 views]
Top|| File under:
[BBC] A military alliance between Somalia and Egypt is ruffling feathers in the fragile Horn of Africa, upsetting Ethiopia in particular - and there are worries the fallout could become more than a war of words.
The tensions ratcheted up this week with the arrival of two Egyptian C-130 military aeroplanes in Somalia’s capital, Mogadishu, signalling the beginning of the deal signed earlier in August during a state visit by the Somali president to Cairo.
The plan is for up to 5,000 Egyptian soldiers to join a new-look African Union force at the end of the year, with another 5,000 reportedly to be deployed separately.
Ethiopia, which has been a key ally of Somalia in its fight against al-Qaeda-linked militants and is at loggerheads with Egypt over a mega dam it built on the River Nile, said it could not “stand idle while other actors take measures to destabilise the region”.
Somalia’s defence minister hit back, saying Ethiopia should stop “wailing” as everyone “will reap what they sowed” - a reference to their diplomatic relations that have been on a downward spiral for months.
WHY ARE ETHIOPIA AND SOMALIA AT ODDS?
It all comes down to the ambitions of Ethiopia’s Prime Minister Abiy Ahmed, who wants his landlocked country to have a port. Ethiopia lost its access to the sea when Eritrea seceded in the early 1990s.
On New Year’s Day, Mr Abiy signed a controversial deal with the self-declared republic of Somaliland to lease a 20km (12-mile) section of its coastline for 50 years to set up a naval base.
It could also potentially lead to Ethiopia officially recognising the breakaway republic - something Somaliland is pushing hard for.
Somaliland broke away from Somalia more than 30 years ago, but Mogadishu regards it very much as part of its territory - and described the deal as an act of “aggression”.
Somalia fears such a move might set a precedent and encourage other countries to recognise Somaliland's independence, geopolitical analyst Jonathan Fenton-Harvey told the BBC.
He added that neighbouring Djibouti was also worried it could harm its own port-dependent economy, as Ethiopia has traditionally relied on Djibouti for imports.
In fact in an attempt to deescalate tensions, Djibouti’s foreign minister has told the BBC his country is ready to offer Ethiopia “100%” access to one of its ports.
“It will be in the port of Tadjoura - 100km [62 miles] from the Ethiopia border,” Mahmoud Ali Youssouf told BBC Focus on Africa TV.
This is definitely a change of tune for as recently as last year, a senior presidential adviser said Djibouti was reluctant to offer its neighbour unfettered access to the Red Sea.
Attempts so far to calm tensions - by Turkey - have failed, with Somalia insisting it will not budge until Ethiopia recognises its sovereignty over Somaliland.
WHY IS ETHIOPIA SO UPSET BY SOMALIA’S REACTION?
Somalia has not only brought its Nile enemy Egypt into the mix, but also announced that Ethiopian troops would not be part of the AU force from next January.
This is when the AU’s third peace support operation begins - the first one was deployed in 2007 months after Ethiopian troops crossed over the border to help fight al-Shabab Islamist militants, who then controlled the Somali capital.
There are at least 3,000 Ethiopian troops under the current AU mission, according to the Reuters news agency.
Last week, the Somali prime minister also said Ethiopia would have to withdraw its other 5-7,000 soldiers stationed in several regions under separate bilateral agreements - unless it withdrew from the port deal with Somaliland.
Ethiopia sees this as a slap in the face for, as its foreign minister put it, “the sacrifices Ethiopian soldiers have paid” for Somalia.
The withdrawal of troops would also leave Ethiopia vulnerable to jihadist attacks, Christopher Hockey, a senior researcher at the Royal United Services Institute, told the BBC.
The planned deployment of Egyptian troops along its eastern border would also make Ethiopia particularly apprehensive, he added.
Egypt sees Ethiopia’s Nile dam - in the west of the country - as an existential threat – and has warned in the past that it will take “measures” should its security be threatened.
WHY IS THE NILE DAM SO CONTENTIOUS?
Egypt accuses Ethiopia of threatening its supply of water with the construction of the Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam (Gerd).
This began in 2011 on the Blue Nile tributary in Ethiopia’s northern-western highlands, from where 85% of the Nile's water flow.
Egypt said Ethiopia pushed forward with the project in complete “disregard” of the interests and rights of downstream countries and their water security.
It also argued that a 2% reduction in water from the Nile could result in the loss of around 200,000 acres (81,000 hectares) of irrigated land.
For Ethiopia the dam is seen as a way of revolutionising the country by producing electricity for 60% of the population and providing a constant flow of electricity for businesses.
The latest diplomatic efforts to work out how the dam should operate - and determine how much water will flow downstream to Sudan and Egypt - fell apart last December.
HOW WORRIED SHOULD WE BE?
Egypt sees its military deal with Somalia as “historic” - in the words of Egyptian President Abdul Fattah al-Sisi - and a possible chance to settle scores over the mega dam.
Indeed the Nile dispute may well play out in Somalia, warns Dr Hassan Khannenje, the director of the Horn International Institute for Strategic Studies.
It could potentially lead to a “low-scale inter-state conflict” between Ethiopia and Egypt if their troops meet at the Somalia border.
Somaliland has also warned that the establishment of Egyptian military bases within Somalia could destabilise the region.
Both Ethiopia and Somalia are already coping with their own internal strife - Ethiopia with low-level rebellions in several regions and Somalia, recovering from a destructive 30-year civil war, still has al-Shabab to contend with.
Experts say neither can afford further warfare - and more unrest would inevitably lead to further migration.
Dr Khannenje told the BBC that if a conflict broke out, it could further complicate the geopolitics of the Red Sea by drawing in other players and further affect global trade.
At least 17,000 ships go through the Suez Canal each year, meaning that 12% of annual global trade passes through the Red Sea, amounting to $1tn (£842bn) worth of goods, according to shipping monitor Lloyd’s List.
For this reason, countries like Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates (UAE) and Turkey have been keen to forge partnerships with African nations like Somalia that border the Red Sea.
According to Mr Harvey, Turkey and the UAE stand a better chance at mediating and finding a middle ground.
The UAE has heavily invested in Somaliland’s Berbera port and holds significant influence over Ethiopia because of its investments there.
All eyes will be on the next diplomatic push by Turkey, which has ties with both Ethiopia and Somalia. Talks are due to start in mid-September.
#1
UAE companies have undertaken 113 investment projects in Ethiopia, with growing interest in sectors related to food security, agriculture, livestock, and logistics1. The UAE has invested $2.9 billion in Ethiopia, mainly in sectors including chemicals, food and beverages, aluminum, and pharmaceuticals2. Other sectors, such as ports, logistics, storage, warehouses, and real estate, also show potential.
#3
Somebody correct me if I'm too far off base but Somalia is a failed state, nothing but trouble, an international basket case, comprised of qat chewing pirates and Muslims. Ethiopia has throughout it's history been at least a semi-respectable nation. Ever since the apostle Phillip had his conversation with the eunuch, Ethiopia has been Christian.
Posted by: Abu Uluque ||
09/02/2024 11:48 Comments ||
Top||
#4
^IDF control of Gaza is a temporary solution. The real solution is for Gazans to move to Egypt (from which their grandparents came during the British Mandate). Which means, Egypt government NEEDS to have serious problems occupying it elsewhere. And Israel already has good military relations with Ethiopia.*
*Egyptians consistently violated both the spirit and the letter of the Peace Treaty. Their arming of Hamas IS an act of war.
Ethiopian Orthodox 43.8%, Muslim 31.3%, Protestant 22.8%, Catholic 0.7%, traditional 0.6%, other 0.8% (2016 est.)
The end of Ethiopia bordering Somalia is much more Moslem, and has problems with Al Shabaab.
Separately, as I recall Somalia’s Somaliland and Puntland states are self-ruling and fairly stable, unlike Somalia proper. Interestingly, democratic Somaliland was an English protectorate, while Puntland and Somalia looked to Italy. Also, Puntland is designated as the homeland of the Harti clan, which presumably makes them more homogenous, more easily finding societal agreement than in the viciously chaotic Somalia rump state.
#6
The proposed port that Somaliland is offering Ethiopia is only some 70 from their border. It is chosen because Eritrea (which for centuries formed part of Ethiopia) and Ethiopia just can't get along. By the way the US. Army had a signals base in Eritrea, which was then part of Ethiopia, for years following WWII.
#7
Thanks, tw. I figured something like that but didn't think to go to the CIA. I was surprised to see so much Protestant. I wonder what denomination? Presbyterian? Methodist? Baptist?
Posted by: Abu Uluque ||
09/02/2024 18:51 Comments ||
Top||
[Breitbart] Apple is in discussions to invest in artificial intelligence startup OpenAI, joining a funding round that could value the company at over $100 billion.
The Wall Street Journal reports that Apple is reportedly in talks to invest in OpenAI, the artificial intelligence startup behind the popular ChatGPT language model, as part of a new multibillion-dollar funding round. The potential investment would further strengthen the ties between the two companies, following their recent partnership announcement for Apple’s new AI initiative called Apple Intelligence.
According to people familiar with the matter, the funding round is being led by venture capital firm Thrive Capital and is expected to value OpenAI at more than $100 billion. Microsoft, a key investor in OpenAI since 2019, is also anticipated to participate in this round. The exact investment amounts from Apple and Microsoft have not been disclosed.
The news comes just months after Apple revealed OpenAI as the first official partner for Apple Intelligence at its annual developer conference in June. Apple Intelligence is a system designed to integrate AI features across Apple’s operating system, including an enhanced Siri voice assistant, text proofreading capabilities, and the ability to create custom emojis. While some tasks will be handled by Apple’s proprietary AI technology, more complex functions like generating written messages will rely on OpenAI’s ChatGPT.
Apple’s decision to invest in OpenAI underscores the company’s commitment to securing access to cutting-edge AI technology. OpenAI faces intense competition from other AI startups and tech giants, but ChatGPT remains a market leader in the field. Apple has also expressed interest in partnering with other companies, such as Google and its Gemini generative AI model, as well as AI startups like Anthropic and Perplexity.
However, investing directly in OpenAI could potentially complicate Apple’s efforts to maintain a neutral stance as a partner with other AI companies. This move is also unusual for Apple, which rarely invests in startups. In the past, Apple has made investments in manufacturing partners to secure component supplies for its devices, as well as strategic investments in SoftBank’s Vision Fund and Chinese ride-hailing startup DiDi Chuxing.
In theory, it should be hard for Kamala Harris to win the presidency of the United States.
Under pressure, Harris just completed her first "live interview"—a disastrous performance that was mysteriously taped, edited, and emotionally supported by her co-interviewed running mate. During the interview, she claimed that her values remain the same even though her manifestations of them have admittedly changed. Translated, that means for the next 70 days, she will advocate for popular policies antithetical to her own values, which will inevitably resurface after the election once the current facade fades away.
She is a Berkelyite who, as attorney general of California, had a proud far-left tenure. The lifelong large corpus of Harris’s left-wing enthusiasm and causes are only now being unearthed. But they are singular in that her riffs of embracing wokism, being a radical, erasing ICE, doing away with private health insurance, or being the last person in the room when Joe Biden made his disastrous decisions were all given to sympathetic media or pandered to crowds.
[Free Beacon] Occupation: Serial memoirist, nicotine addict, property owner, Netflix producer, secret Muslim, 44th president of the United States
Background: "Born" in "Hawaii" in 1961, B. Hussein Obama moved with his mother at age six to Indonesia and ate dog meat. He returned to Hawaii years later to join the Honolulu-based "choom gang" and experiment with drugs and traditional sexual roles
before "enrolling" at Occidental College, followed by Columbia, followed by Harvard Law School. After publishing his first memoir at age 33, Obama worked in the Illinois state government under the tutelage of left-wing terrorist Bill Ayers before getting elected to the U.S. Senate in 2004 and immediately running for president to validate his preternatural self-regard. Mission accomplished.
Hobbies: Hanging out with celebs, drinking wine with "interesting Italians," and complaining about his wife’s literary success. Being wrong about politics might even be considered one of Obama’s hobbies. In 2016, for example, he backed Hillary Clinton over his own vice president. We all know how that turned out. In 2020, Obama was "enamored" with failed candidate Beto O’Rourke and feared Joe Biden would "dishonor himself" by running. He didn’t even donate to Biden’s campaign. All indications of a competing covert initiative.
Hates freedom? Without question.
Why/how? Where to begin? As president Obama relished every opportunity to apologize for American exceptionalism, which he dismissively likened to "British exceptionalism" or "Greek exceptionalism." His signature move when greeting foreign leaders was the submissive bow. He brazenly lied about whether Americans would be able to keep their doctors following the passage of Obamacare. He repeatedly expressed frustration with the fact that he was merely president of the United States, as opposed to an "emperor" or "dictator" with total authority to decide how the American people should live their lives. Apart from coddling terrorists, his signature foreign policy achievements include sending CDs to the Royal Family
presiding over the death of an American ambassador in Benghazi and cozying up to seeking validation from the anti-American regimes in Iran and Cuba.
Claim(s) to shame: Generally speaking, Obama is a pathological narcissist who journalists lustily admired as president because he reminded them so much of themselves and satisfied their overwhelming desire to publicly demonstrate opposition to racism and other bad things while embracing other closet behaviors.
He resented the American people for constantly letting him down, and behaved as though the office of the presidency was beneath him. In March 2014, for example, Obama refused to let Russia’s impending annexation of Crimea spoil his vacation plans. "I needed this," he told former NBA star Alonzo Mourning and other guests at the Ocean Reef Club in Key Largo. "I needed the golf. I needed to laugh."
Fun fact(s): Obama is the first former president since Dwight Eisenhower, commander of the D-Day invasion, to compose a multi-volume memoir about his time in office. During the 2012 election, the Choom Gangsta voted for himself at precisely 4:20 p.m.
What’s next? Becoming the first ex-president billionaire, finishing his third memoir, and eventually publishing a 900-page novel that reviewers will unanimously praise as "Holden Caulfield meets Ta-Nehisi Coates ... an intellectual call to arms," because they’ll be too gutless to admit it’s rather tedious and overwrought.
[Headtopics.com summary of a Dallas News editorial behind their paywall] The party I joined as a 10-year-old in 1952 needs an exorcism. That’s why I’ve joined thousands of other Republicans, including former governors, senators, congressmen, Trump administration officials and members of the Trump family to support Kamala Harris in this year’s election.
Mine is the party of Dwight Eisenhower, who led the Allies to victory in Europe, yet as president, cautioned against the "military-industrial complex." Our capital city has been invaded only twice in our country’s history: once when the British burned the White House in 1814, and once when a mob invaded and threatened to hang the vice president, while the sitting president who instigated and inspired the mob remained silent in that same White House for 187 minutes, watching it on television.These aren’t just the concerns of those informed by mainstream media. Heed the warnings from those who know him best. The author was a two-term (R) Congressman from Dallas, from 1973-1977. In August 2020, Steelman endorsed Biden for president. He was a member of the steering committee of Republicans and Independents for Biden. Following the 2021 'storming of the United States Capitol', Steelman signed a letter supporting the impeachment of Donald Trump. Steelman endorsed Kamala Harris for president in 2024. The older he gets, the dumber he gets.
Posted by: Bobby ||
09/02/2024 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[11136 views]
Top|| File under: Tin Hat Dictators, Presidents for Life, & Kleptocrats
#1
You misspelled RINO. You are nothing but liberals who once disempowered by the socialist sought influence in the other party. At least classical liberals believed in the sanctity of property and contract.
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
[BEE] The Jennings family enjoyed an incredible light show in the night sky, though it was unclear if it was from a meteor shower or from pieces of airplane falling off a Boeing.
[Free Beacon] Occupation: Serial memoirist, nicotine addict, property owner, Netflix producer, secret Muslim, 44th president of the United States
[Headtopics.com summary of a Dallas News editorial behind their paywall] The party I joined as a 10-year-old in 1952 needs an exorcism. That’s why I’ve joined thousands of other Republicans, including former governors, senators, congressmen, Trump administration officials and members of the Trump family to support Kamala Harris in this year’s election.
