Category: Crime
His ‘Refutiation’ Is As Real As His Tan, Bigly (Project 2025)
While a lot of the people that follow Mock Paper Sissors follow me, I still loved this post so much and the way TG wrote it, I am reposting it here. Hugs. Scottie
Jon Stewart Debunks GOP’s City Crime Narrative | The Daily Show
America’s Looming Theocracy
Here is the main quote to remember when these people push these lies. Hugs. Scottie
“Recognizing the historical role of the Ten Commandments accords with our nation’s history and faithfully reflects the understanding of the founders of our nation with respect to the necessity of civic morality to a functional self-government. History records that James Madison, the fourth President of the United States of America, stated that “(w)e have staked the whole future of our new nation . . . upon the capacity of each of ourselves to govern ourselves according to the moral principles of the Ten Commandments.””
Here’s the problem: James Madison never said that. The quote actually comes to us from this stupid hick–David Barton, an evangelical Christian nationalist hellbent on turning America into a theocracy. He included a version of that quote in his book “The Myth of Separation,” aloong with severall other completely made up quotes from Founding Fathers. In that book, he cited a source that turned out to admit the quote came from a “1958 calendar of Spiritual Mobilization.” The quote got a lot of publicity back in the ‘90s when conservative shock jock and all-around piece of shit Rush Limbaugh said it on his shitty radio show, at which point the editors of Madison’s papers stepped in to report, “We did not find anything in our files remotely like the sentiment expressed in the extract you sent us. In addition, the idea is inconsistent with everything we know about Madison’s views on religion and government, views which he expressed time and time again in public and in private.”
So yeah, the basis for Louisiana requiring schools to display rules like “don’t lie” is a lie. But of course it is. It has to be, because the US was quite obviously founded, as a country, with religious freedom as an important concept. Not only is it enshrined in the first amendment, but also in a multitude of other documents, and letters, and rulings for the past 150 years or so. They MUST lie in order to pass this legislation.
Biden Campaign: The Heritage Foundation Threatens Violence In Their Attempt To Make Trump Into A King
The New York Times reports:
The president of the Heritage Foundation, a right-wing think tank that has developed a prominent series of policy plans to overhaul the federal government under a Republican president, said on Tuesday that the country was “in the process of the second American Revolution, which will remain bloodless if the left allows it to be.”
Allies of Mr. Trump, and Mr. Trump himself, have long used extreme rhetoric and suggestions of violence against his political opponents and against the left in general. Actual violence has occurred on multiple occasions, most notably during the white supremacist rally in Charlottesville, Va., in 2017, and in the storming of the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021.
Mr. Trump has said that shoplifters should be shot; implied that the former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff should be executed for treason; urged his supporters to “go after” the New York attorney general,and refused to rule out political violence if he were to lose in November.
Read the full article. Yesterday the Biden/Harris campaign released the statement below.
KING ME! The Supreme Court’s Utter Corruption | Christopher Titus | Armageddon Update
The Roads to the Declaration of Independence
Liberal Redneck – So America Has Kings Now
There are 2 blatant Constitutional issues w/SCOTUS immunity for a POTUS
at
I read a story, not here, today saying that the majority decision written by Chief Justice John Roberts which gave immunity to US Presidents for actions which they take while undertaking Official Acts; was based on NOTHING in the Constitution.
They just made it up.
I agree with that idea, because the Constitution says they can’t do it.
Issue #1:
Granting Immunity to a sitting President for all actions which they take while undertaking Official Acts
a) conflicts directly with Article II, Section 4 and
https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/article-2/#article-2-section-4
The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.
Article 1, Section 3, Clause 7:
https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/article-1/#article-1-section-3-clause-7
Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.
Presidents, like all other civil Officers of the United States are subject to be removed from Office on Impeachment for… high Crimes and Misdemeanors.
A Senate affirmation of a House Impeachment shall not extend further than removal from Office, and disqualification to hold any Office under the United States again.
BUT — the Party convicted of same, shall nevertheless be liable and subject to indictment, Trial, Judgement and Punishment, according to Law.
So, in plain English, a President is Impeached and removed from Office for a crime WHILE President and removed from the Office, once removed from Office they can still be indicted and prosecuted for the crime.
The John Roberts Court just said that isn’t true. But to my knowledge, no one has altered those portions of the Constitution, which means they remain in effect and the SCOTUS decision today is in conflict with the Constitution. When something new in Law is found to be in conflict with the Constitution, the Constitution wins. Every time.
Issue #2
The decision authored by Chief Justice John Roberts creates immunity out of thin air.
The problem is, there is a very good reason to believe that Presidents have no immunity because the founders never meant them to. The proof?
Article 1, Section 6: The immunity provided for members of Congress
https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/article-1/#article-1-section-6
The Senators and Representatives shall receive a Compensation for their Services, to be ascertained by Law, and paid out of the Treasury of the United States. They shall in all Cases, except Treason, Felony and Breach of the Peace, be privileged from Arrest during their Attendance at the Session of their respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the same; and for any Speech or Debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other Place.
You are free to peruse the entirety of Article II at this link:
https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/article-2/
There is not an iota of a hint of Immunity for the President in Article II. In fact when referring to behavior which might be corrupt, the only mention is of Impeachment and the reasons why a President might be impeached, in Article II, Section 4 (as noted above).
If the Constitutional Convention attendees of 1787 meant to provide Presidents with immunity, seeing as how they noted the immunity for Congress in Article I, wouldn’t they have ENUMERATED the form and style of immunity they meant for Presidents to have?
Since they absolutely did not enumerate any such immunity — it follows that the Founders never meant Presidents to have immunity.
As an aside, the Supreme Court is an appellate court, the Court of the last resort for appeals from the lower Federal Courts.
They are not empowered to create new law or to ALTER the Constitution with one of their decisions.
The only path to cure this damage is to limit the power and authority of the US Supreme Court via Article III, Section 2, Clause 2:
https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/article-3/#article-3-section-2-clause-2
In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.
That to my knowledge is the only place wherein the SCOTUS bench is liable to regulation, by Congress.
To make that happen?
The Democratic Party and President Biden need to rile up the Liberals and Moderates across America to come out and vote in numbers high enough to scare the living daylights out of the conservatives, in the Congress and the Legislatures. To come into power on Jan 3, 2025 with such a large majority in both Houses of Congress that the first 100 days of the new Congress will see such legislation as is necessary to rein in this corrupt and dangerous Court Bench.
Add seats to the Bench ( four to bring it to 13 seats to match the number of Circuit Courts) and force them to abide by the same Law which currently guides the actions and ethics of all the rest of the Federal Judges by updating The Judiciary Act.
This will bring balance back to the court (which would be 7 (D) appointed and 6 (R) appointed Justices), and prevent future overreach like that committed by the majority in the John Roberts Court in 2024.
Otherwise?
Bend over and kiss your democracy good-bye.
Scottie's Playtime 