That's an accusation from you that's not based on any facts or reality.

As to the wall.........................

As people borrow money from a bank to build their house and then have to pay it back with interest, so will Mexico pay for the border wall.

They'll be crying, but, they'll be paying.

The progressive income tax was and is a c*******ts dream.

It violates the very essence of our Constitution that requires everyone to be treated equal.

The progressive income tax is a way to divide and conquer.

In America, the people's government, highways, Dam, waterways, airports, where they are not privately owned, are owned by the people, they belong to us.

All government employees are our agents and assigns. They have a duty to maintain public property, because it is public property.

I know this is hard for you to understand, but, supposing a land owner has more properties than he can keep track of himself.
He might then hire a property management company to manage the properties for him.

For this they will receive a set fee, plus an expense account to handle the expenses necessary to carry out their duties.

That does not mean that the management company now owns those properties and that they can do wh**ever they want with them.

The owner still owns those buildings and retains all the rights and privileges of the property owner.

In a socialist country, the owner of all things is the state.

The citizens can only exercise those rights and privileges that the state allows them to have and at any time the state can take them back and dictate to them what they can and cannot have.

In America, the government now owns your health, thanks to ObamaCare.

You have to buy the policies they tell you you have to buy and you can only keep your old policies only if you ask the government for a wavier.

Just ask the Unions. How do you think that they kept their Cadillac plans when everyone else lost theirs?

You don't pay attention to what goes on around you, do you?

I know it's hard, but, try and remember back a few years when a new video camera came on the market that was equipped with an inferred option for night time.

But the manufacturer made a mistake and the inferred could be turned on in daylight.

All the cameras had to be recalled, because guys were using it during the day to video tape women and it was like viewing them without any clothes on.

The same thing happens in airports when people are scanned in the inferred and that's why they have a lot of rules about how it's to be used.

New Digital Camera Can See You Naked Through Clothes
https://www.infowars.com/digital-camera-can-see-your-penis-through-some-clothes/

And this is from ABC News, I thought ABC was you liberals go to news, don't you even watch them?
They do get a few things right once in a while or is that what you're afraid of that you might actually learn something?

Cameras Let Voyeurs See Through Clothes
By ABC News N E W Y O R K, Aug. 7

Sony discovered the cameras' X-ray ability in 1998 and quickly changed the way it manufactured its Nightvision cameras so they would not allow users to peer through clothes. But some people figured out how to modify the camera to get the see-through effect back and hundreds of the modified cameras are for sale on the Internet. The camera with all the filters sells for about $700 brand new, and is easy to obtain, H****r found. Sony said it has no responsibility for altered or modified products.
https://abcnews.go.com/GMA/story?id=126782&page=1

Let me get this straight...................

First you liberals are accusing Trump of making policies that will favour his hotels and businesses while in office and therefore making profit through the office of the presidency.

Now you're maintaining that after getting all this alleged business from other countries, he is now going to ban everyone from those countries from coming here, to take advantage of wh**ever financial advantage you think he set up.

And you think Trump is nuts?

I think you need to take a closer look in the mirror, if you're looking for crazy.

That is such a ludicrous statement it's hard to know where to start dealing with the ignorance it represents.

You're not very well informed....are you?

The travel ban was put on countries that are in so much turmoil and the law enforcement agencies are almost completely defunct, that it is next to impossible to determine who the people are that are coming from those countries.

The identities of the people coming from those countries can't be verified.

That's why those countries are banned.

Judge for yourself:

Michelle Obama a Man?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gvuulZPbfBg

Michelle obama Accidentally shows her penis”again” on live tv, more Proof she-he was born a man
http://countdowntozerotime.com/2015/03/15/michelle-obama-acidentally-shows-her-penisagain-on-live-tv-pictures-more-proof-she-he-was-born-a-man/

One way to settle this for sure is for someone to video tape Michaels crotch in the daylight with an inferred camera. You can't hide what's there from the inferred.

13 Similarities Between Obama And Hitler
A Factual Comparison

Both Hitler and Obama held rallies in outdoor stadiums to excite and inflame the people's passions. Frequently women would faint or break into tears.
•
Both Hitler and Obama wrote ghost-written autobiographies prior to the start of theri run for political office. Hitler wrote Mein Kampf (My Struggle), and Obama wrote Dreams Of My Father. Both men then wrote a second book talking about their goals
for German and America. Hitler wrote A New World Order, and Obama wrote The Audacity of Hope.
•
Both Hitler and Obama originally had last names that were changed later in life. Hitler used to be Schickelbruber, and Obama's last name was Soetoro.
•


Both Hitler and Obama hid their real identies. Hiter had a Jewish ancestry, and Obama
a Muslim one. But unlike Hitler, Obama flaunted his Muslim roots in his start as a politician in order to defuse the inevitable firestorm. His ploy of "hiding in plain sight" worked very well.
•
Both Hitler and Obama's supporters followed them blindly, and without question
•
Both Hitler and Obama used political power and coercion to conceal and hide their birth certificates from coming to public view. Hitler made his disappear, and Obama is unwilling and unable to produce his long-form birth certificate.
•


Both Hitler and Obama advocate using young people as a driving force to create an "army" of youth dedicated to their Ideals. Hitler had his Hitler Youth, and Obama his
Obama Youth Brigade.
•
Both Hitler and Obama were known for their tremendous oratorical sk**ls
•
Both Hitler and Obama received Messianic comparisons, and both men had songs of adoration written about them and for them.
•
Like Hitler, Obama rules in direct disregard to the will and wishes of the people.
•
Like Hitler, Obama has an obvious distaste for the Jews, and sides with the Muslims every chance he gets.
•
Both Hitler and Obama were able to mezmerize the people even when it was obvious that what they were saying was not true.
•
Both Hitler and Obama used d******c t*******ts to launch their careers. Hitler had his Brown Shirts from his beer hall days, and Obama had people like Bill Ayers, Bernardine Dohrn, and Rashid Khalidi.
•
Like Hitler, Obama advocates using murder as a means of population control.
http://www.nowtheendbegins.com/pages/obama/obama-and-hitler-similarities.htm

Obama compared to King George in the Declaration of Independence

Thomas Woodrow Wilson was the 28th President of the United States from 1913 to 1921.
He was the first to break the Declaration of Independence into two parts and he claimed the first part didn't matter just pay attention to the list of complaints.
That's because, that's where the sovereignty and the rights of man is placed above the government.
There has been an attempt, considering where we are at today, a successful attempt, to split the Declaration into two halves and have one half negate the other.


King George III, was a king and a tyrant, because ultimately, power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.
There was a reason that George Washington said, "We had enough of Kings."

Is Barac Obama just another Tyrant?
Did our fore-fathers fight to dispose one tyrant, just so we could elect another?
Is that what they fought for?

King George III, (1776), refused his Assent to Colonial Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.
Barac Obama, (2009), has abused its role over the Constitution and instituted fiat rules that are detrimental to the common good, such as: welfare, cap and trade, oppressive taxes, onerous regulations on business and now a take over of a citizens personal health through ObamaCare.

King George III, (1776), has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.
Barac Obama (2009), has forbidden governors of states to pass laws useful to local needs and has interfered in state business.

King George III, (1776), has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.
Barac Obama, (2009), has refused the right of local government to govern at home and has as a matter of course caused local legislators to carelessly assume they have no power.

King George III, (1776), has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.
Barac Obama (2009), has De-facto dissolved the authority of state governments so that the representatives of the people constantly defer to rule from Washington.

King George III, (1776), has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.
Barrac Obama (2009), has refused to secure the borders so that all manner of foreigners of the lowest station might flood these shores without hesitation while refusing to allow those foreigners with useful sk**ls and education to enter and apply for citizenship.

King George III, (1776), has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the Legislative powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.
Barac Obama (2009), has allowed capricious courts to usurp proper legislative duties and to rule from the bench.

King George III, (1776), has endeavored to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.
Barac Obama, (2009) has seated judges with no opposition or investigation and has not required judicial candidates to express an interest in the true meaning of the law of the land.

King George III, (1776), has obstructed the Administration of Justice, by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary powers.
Barac Obama, (2009) has erected a multitude of new regulatory offices few of which have any basis in the Constitution and has as a form of graft filled them with friends, lobbyists, and placemen.

King George III, (1776), has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.
Barac Obama, (2009), has refused to properly fund our armies in times of peace without including graft and monies unconnected to the needs of our armed forces.

King George III, (1776), has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people, and eat out their substance.
Obama, (2009), has therefore interfered with the military stopping it from operating at peak efficiency putting us all in danger in a dangerous world.

King George III, (1776), has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.
Barac Obama, (2009), has conspired with powers outside our duly constituted authority to take away our constitutional rights, to subvert our national laws, and has given assent to forces such as the UN to rule us from afar without accountability. These outside forces are h**eful of our system and desirous of its end. Therefore we accuse our government of attacking us from inside:
For positing that UN forces are superior in authority to our own:
For signing treaties inimical to our national interests:
For cutting off free trade with worthy countries such as Colombia, yet opening trade with evil countries such as China:
For imposing taxes on us without our consent:
For depriving us of our constitutional rights of property, life, and self-protection at every opportunity:
For creating rules that encroach on freedom of religion:
For increasing the size of government to never before seen size and power in a manner against our founding principles and for purposefully creating chaos in business, banking, and every other area of the private sector with never ending regulations that strangle, confuse, and stifle American growth:
For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:
And for corrupting our legislatures with federal largess and assuming unto the federal government all power to rule from Washington D.C.

King George III, (1776), has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil power.
Barac Obama, (2009), has abdicated its Constitutional role and essentially come to see the people as an enemy and waged philosophical war against us.

King George III, (1776), has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:
Barac Obama, (2009), has plundered our businesses with overweening regulations, capriciously outlawed entire fields of business, and burdened the lives of the people with oppressive taxes.

King George III, (1776), Quartered large bodies of armed troops among us:
For protecting them, by a mock Trial, from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:
For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:
For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:
For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury:
For t***sporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offenses
For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighboring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies:
For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws, and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:
For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.
Barac Obama, (2009), has created an army of police, tax-men and regulators to fan out across the land to assault and imprison our citizens, to confiscate lands to federal ownership and to lay waste the economy and bring our people into a form of dependency akin to s***ery.

King George III,  (1776), has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.
Barac Obama, (2009), has often sent our armed forces to foreign nations without a proper mission, held back necessary funding, and burdened it with untenable “rules of engagement” which has limited our troop’s ability to fight to win, and has allowed barbarous enemies to gain the upper hand on the battle field.

King George III, (1776), has plundered our seas, ravaged our Coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.
Barac Obama, (2009), has attempted to separate the citizenry into warring factions yet has allowed our enemy to easily enter the country and perpetrate a merciless Muslim warfare which is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes, religions and American institutions and intends ens***ement of us all.
In every stage of these violations millions of citizens have gathered in the streets to protest these government outrages yet no heed has been paid to the agony of the people in its hallowed halls.

Nor have we been heard by our Democrat brethren. We have warned them of the destruction of the American rule of law, yet they are uninterested in this plight. We have appealed to their love of country and we have reminded them of the glorious history of our great nation to no avail. They have turned a deaf ear to Constitutionality, a cold shoulder to our American character, and our law and we find their sympathies lie with Europeans instead of their fellow Americans. We must, therefore, consider them enemies of our national interests, safety, health, and welfare.
We, therefore, the representatives of the American tradition and character assemble as citizens proud of our history and institutions, and in the tradition of our national power being held in the hands of the people, assert our loyalty to our true American system. We hold this government to be illegitimate by its usurpation of power and its obviation of our laws. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence that has been rejected by our enemies, we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred Honor.

King George III, (1776), is at this time t***sporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to complete the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.

King George III, (1776), has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.

King George III, (1776), has excited domestic i**********ns amongst us, and has endeavored to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages, whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.

The above, is the kind of approach I expect.
Our fore fathers claimed their nature rights were violated and gave examples of their abuse.
Obama has also trampled our nature rights and those violations should be listed next to the proper complaint in the original Declaration of Independence. This is what reintroduces the Declaration of Independence to the American citizen, and compares it to Obama.
Obama wants to say that the Declaration is old and out of date. It can shown that he's wrong by demonstrating that he is doing the same thing King George III did in 1776.

Author unknown

The liberals are the G*******ts.

Some of the Liberals don't understand that, but, that's who they are supporting, whether they know it or not.

The biggest problem I have with internet taxes is that it violates states rights.

What they are trying to do is give one state authority over another states citizens.

That is they allowing one state to reach into another state to take taxes out of it, but, the first state is not controlled by the people they're taxing. This is taxation without representation.

If one state gets ludicrous with their taxes, they can push that burden onto another state and the citizen of the out of control state has no regress to protest the taxes their own state is burdensome on.

If all states are physically responsible, They don't create a situation where the citizens are trying to get out from under paying their taxes.

Lastly, if every state can collect taxes over the internet, then any extra taxes a particular state collects will be off set by the reduction of income paid by their own citizens to other states.

This might line the pockets of the politicians, but, at the expense of its citizens.

PS. taxes are raised to pay the expenses authorized by the citizenry.
Once the bills are paid, the government has no right to any more than that.

The government has no right to collect taxes just because it can.
They do it, but, only because the American people remain silent about it and don't raise a fuss.

Yes, the Constitution is the Supreme law of the land, it is above the Supreme Court, the Legislature and the president has sworn an oath to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.

That means upholding the Constitution, as written, and maintaining the separation of powers, which is what it was designed to do.

That means that it is the legislature that writes laws and not the Supreme Court legislating from the bench.
That would be an usurpation of power forbidden to it by the Constitution.

Since congress can make no law regarding religion, the Supreme Court would have no authority to interfere with prayer in school.

Since both the Constitution and the legislature has put policy decisions regarding immigration in the hands of the president of the United States of America, the Supreme Court would have no authority to dispute the presidents policies.

Such an act would again be an usurpation of power, by the Supreme Court, power that was deliberately withheld from it.

That also means that the Federal government has limited enumerated powers that restricts it to only those things it was assigned to do.

All other powers are reserved for the states or the people themselves.

Since the federal government was specifically forbidden to meddle in religion in any way, by the Constitution itself, that leaves that power to the states or the people themselves, also as specified by the Constitution.

The Federal government can't override any state or local law if that law is not within one of its enumerated powers.

There is a wall between federal and state powers.

You're like a broken record, The Constitution lays out the Federal government, not the state governments.

The Federal government was given certain, limited enumerated powers. All other powers are reserved for the states and the people themselves.

Religion was specifically forbidden to the federal government. Therefore the federal government has no say in it one way or the other.

Therefore religion falls under the states and the people themselves.

When the Constitution was written, several states had state religions and there is nothing unconstitutional about it.

Any time the citizens want to have a state religion again, they can have it and the federal government is forbidden to interfere, one way or the other.

So the federal government can't overrule the states and their religious laws, because the federal government is forbidden to stick their nose into it.

My daddy once pointed out that people that act with bravery are entitled to be called brave.
They earned that.

People who act with generosity, are entitled to be called generous.
They've earned it by their actions.

People who act with wisdom, are entitled to be called wise.
They've earned it.
They worked for it, so they are entitled to that which they've worked for.

It would be wrong for others to deny them that which they've worked for.

The world doesn't seem to have a problem with that.............until someone acts with stupidity.

For some reason someone that has worked hard at being stupid, does not want to be called stupid.

But, it's what they've worked for, they've earned it with their efforts.
Who are we to deny them that which they have worked so hard for and earned.
That would be very unfair of us to do that.

Now.............if they don't like the label they've earned, and are therefore entitled to, maybe they ought to put their efforts in a different direction.....................................?


I've read your posts Mr PeterS, You've worked hard to earn the insults.
Perhaps you ought to try and earn something else, rather than complain about those that are giving you what you've worked so hard to achieve?

Man!.....................you have really got to go back and study your history, American history in particular.

We have a republic, a government of representation of the people.

There is nothing stopping the people of any state to petition the government to establish a state religion.

If the majority of the people want it, then they can make it happen and there is nothing unconstitutional about it.

Read your damn history!

You'd better go back and study it again.

Congress is the federal government, not state government.

The state government by itself can't declare a state religion, but, it the people of that state wanted a state religion and put it on the b****t then the state would have to comply, assuming a majority v**ed for it.