TIME Claims Elite Cabal Conspired To Stop Trump, Manipulating Laws And News

[phill4paul]

Ummmmmm...that's not hypothetical. That happens every day. It's called "gun control inc."



Do I think that people should be able to donate money to support something that is currently illegal and unconstitutional? Ummm...yes. You do not? Once upon a time slavery was protected by the U.S. Constitution. I don't think abolitionist newspapers should have been illegal. Once upon a time people donated millions to change the constitution to make alcohol illegal. Then other people donated millions to reverse that amendment. Some people might want to make flag burning illegal and might donate millions to try to pass a law (which would get struck down again) to change the law or the constitution to facilitate that. It should be legal to donate money to decriminalize marijuana and it should be legal to donate money to keep marijuana criminal. Why would you think otherwise?

Well, I think the problem comes down to who is making the donations and how much they are investing and how they are investing. Zuck threw in $450 million into this election in a successful effort to affect it. Most Globalists did. They don't like an America First policy. Amazon loves that small business is destroyed. Facebook loves that people are sitting on their ass with nothing to do and nowhere to go while reaping ad profits. Thousands of Corporations love having their products made by slave labor.
So, I for one would like to see the HEAVY spending curtailed in some way. It's one of the reasons I didn't get behind Citizens United. At the time it was seen as a way of bolstering Republican politics. Now it's turned around, bit them in the ass, and supports the Progressive agenda.

 

[jmdrake]

It would be a lot cheaper/easier to just nullify/secede.

Abraham Lincoln removed both of those, as an option.

Nope. Wrong on both counts. Andrew Jackson killed secession but nullification was allowed and nullification still happens. Lincoln merely carried out Jacksons "no secession" doctrine.

http://www.civilwarcauses.org/jackson.htm

Now you may argue "But the southern states seceded 11 years later anyway." Yes, but on weak moral grounds. Had they seceded when Jackson was president, tariffs would have clearly been the issue. When they seceded, and in their own declarations of secession highlighted primarily Lincoln's opposition to the expansion of slavery, they lost the moral high ground they could have had against Jackson who was, himself, a slave owner.

Sanctuary cities are a liberal version of "nullification."

https://scholarlycommons.law.case.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1047&context=caselrev

There are states that aren't enforcing federal marijuana laws. More nullification.

https://content.sciendo.com/view/journals/bjals/8/1/article-p37.xml?language=en

Some county sheriffs have openly announced they won't enforce federal gun confiscation. That's more nullification.

https://www.salon.com/2019/04/09/in...cials-refuse-to-enforce-new-gun-laws_partner/

Some state legislatures have nullified federal gun laws altogether.

https://gunwars.news21.com/2014/eight-states-have-passed-laws-voiding-federal-firearms-regulations/

The bottom line is that the federal government cannot force a state to enforce its laws.

https://www.npr.org/2018/03/14/593398902/what-happens-when-states-defy-federal-laws

Sure, the federal government could send federal troops in to enforce gun laws but that would be a violation of posse comitatus. And yeah, FBI and ATF agents could legally do it, but there aren't enough of them to accomplish the task.

 

[jmdrake]

Well, I think the problem comes down to who is making the donations and how much they are investing and how they are investing. Zuck threw in $450 million into this election in a successful effort to affect it. Most Globalists did. They don't like an America First policy. Amazon loves that small business is destroyed. Facebook loves that people are sitting on their ass with nothing to do and nowhere to go while reaping ad profits. Thousands of Corporations love having their products made by slave labor.
So, I for one would like to see the HEAVY spending curtailed in some way. It's one of the reasons I didn't get behind Citizens United. At the time it was seen as a way of bolstering Republican politics. Now it's turned around, bit them in the ass, and supports the Progressive agenda.

Okay. I can see that. But, as you pointed out, under Citizens United it's currently legal. Actually I don't know if it was ever illegal to donate millions to a lobbying campaign on gun rights. But what Time described might have been illegal prior to Citizens United. But then the question comes up about the money spent before the election versus the money spent after the election. And the Zuckerbergs of the world can argue (and are arguing according to the Time article) that their lobbying efforts were "neutral." Doing away with a requirement that absentee ballot signatures be verified is facially neutral even though, as applied, that effort was skewed in one direction.

 

[TheTexan]

Nope. Wrong on both counts. Andrew Jackson killed secession but nullification was allowed and nullification still happens. Lincoln merely carried out Jacksons "no secession" doctrine.

Lincoln carried it out with violence, is the key part.

http://www.civilwarcauses.org/jackson.htm

Sanctuary cities are a liberal version of "nullification."

https://scholarlycommons.law.case.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1047&context=caselrev

There are states that aren't enforcing federal marijuana laws. More nullification.

https://content.sciendo.com/view/journals/bjals/8/1/article-p37.xml?language=en

Some county sheriffs have openly announced they won't enforce federal gun confiscation. That's more nullification.

https://www.salon.com/2019/04/09/in...cials-refuse-to-enforce-new-gun-laws_partner/

Some state legislatures have nullified federal gun laws altogether.

https://gunwars.news21.com/2014/eight-states-have-passed-laws-voiding-federal-firearms-regulations/

The bottom line is that the federal government cannot force a state to enforce its laws.

https://www.npr.org/2018/03/14/593398902/what-happens-when-states-defy-federal-laws

Sure, the federal government could send federal troops in to enforce gun laws but that would be a violation of posse comitatus. And yeah, FBI and ATF agents could legally do it, but there aren't enough of them to accomplish the task.

These are mostly recent developments. We got to where we are today because Lincoln (or Jackson or whatever) removed it as an option, and for 100+ years it was unthinkable to nullify (unless you wanted to get brutally skull fucked by federal soldiers).

I'm glad that states are trying to reclaim whatever tiny amounts of sovereignty that they can, but even today states are extremely hesitant to nullify.

Nullification as a doctrine won't be fully restored until the right of secession is also restored.

The right of one, depends on the other, wholly & completely.

 

[jmdrake]

Lincoln carried it out with violence, is the key part.



These are mostly recent developments. We got to where we are today because Lincoln (or Jackson or whatever) removed it as an option, and for 100+ years it was unthinkable to nullify (unless you wanted to get brutally skull $#@!ed by federal soldiers).

I'm glad that states are trying to reclaim whatever tiny amounts of sovereignty that they can, but even today states are extremely hesitant to nullify.

Nullification as a doctrine won't be fully restored until the right of secession is also restored.

The right of one, depends on the other, wholly & completely.

The doctrine that the federal government cannot force states to enforce its mandates has been affirmed the the SCOTUS since 1992.

See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tenth..., Congress cannot directly compel,In Printz v.

Granted 1992 isn't all that long ago, but it's not "yesterday" either. And what about counties in states where the state have enacted horrid gun control laws? What constitutional right do those counties have to secede?

 

[phill4paul]

Okay. I can see that. But, as you pointed out, under Citizens United it's currently legal. Actually I don't know if it was ever illegal to donate millions to a lobbying campaign on gun rights. But what Time described might have been illegal prior to Citizens United. But then the question comes up about the money spent before the election versus the money spent after the election. And the Zuckerbergs of the world can argue (and are arguing according to the Time article) that their lobbying efforts were "neutral." Doing away with a requirement that absentee ballot signatures be verified is facially neutral even though, as applied, that effort was skewed in one direction.

I agree that much of it might be, on the face, legal. There are other aspects that may not. Of course we will never have a full accounting. Because, well, dark money. And the influence it buys.

 

[TheTexan]

The doctrine that the federal government cannot force states to enforce its mandates has been affirmed the the SCOTUS since 1992.

See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tenth..., Congress cannot directly compel,In Printz v.

That ruling isn't exactly an affirmation of the right of nullification. I'm glad that things are moving in the right direction regarding nullification, but its got a long way to go before the doctrine is considered more of a right, than a privilege.

Currently the doctrine of nullification is basically an angsty teenager who stays out 20 minutes past curfew just to piss off the parents.

It'll grow some balls eventually, it just hasn't yet.

And what about counties in states where the state have enacted horrid gun control laws? What constitutional right do those counties have to secede?

Why shouldn't they have a right to secede? To force someone to stay in a union that they oppose, is pretty much the textbook definition of slavery.

 

[Occam's Banana]

Some state legislatures have nullified federal gun laws altogether.

https://gunwars.news21.com/2014/eight-states-have-passed-laws-voiding-federal-firearms-regulations/

Missouri is currently trying to do this again (the previous bill passed, but was vetoed by the governor):

https://www.ksdk.com/article/news/p...-laws/63-299d18f7-d7e2-47e9-85fd-a191c5c6357c

 

[Occam's Banana]

Currently the doctrine of nullification is basically an angsty teenager who stays out 20 minutes past curfew just to piss off the parents.

It'll grow some balls eventually, it just hasn't yet.

This. Things like this don't happen overnight. They have to build up a head of steam.

The straws being placed upon the camel's back are accumulating nicely ...

 

[familydog]

Ummmmmm...that's not hypothetical. That happens every day. It's called "gun control inc."

No law has been passed that confiscated all privately owned firearms.

Do I think that people should be able to donate money to support something that is currently illegal and unconstitutional?

That was not my question. My question pertained to changing existing laws. See your words that I quoted for a reminder.

Once upon a time slavery was protected by the U.S. Constitution.

I try not to nit-pick. However, it is worth pointing out that Lysander Spooner wrote an entire book on why this was untrue.

Once upon a time people donated millions to change the constitution to make alcohol illegal. Then other people donated millions to reverse that amendment. Some people might want to make flag burning illegal and might donate millions to try to pass a law (which would get struck down again) to change the law or the constitution to facilitate that. It should be legal to donate money to decriminalize marijuana and it should be legal to donate money to keep marijuana criminal. Why would you think otherwise?

You appeared to answer my question. Jeff Bezos (as the wealthiest person in world history) could donate his entire fortune to making private firearm ownership illegal and you wouldn't have any problem with that. That's really all I was curious about.

 

[TheCount]

Did anyone actually read the article? They spun the living snot out of it. The narrative is, they didn't steal, they prevented a theft.

Some of you are reacting like there was an overt admission that the will of the people was subverted. This is a narrative. It's a spin job slick enough to make Swordshyll green with envy.

It's 2021. No one reads the source. They watch reactions to reactions to tweets about tweets about the source.

 

[Danke]

https://www.bitchute.com/video/P1EZMx5VbJa9/

 

[acptulsa]

You appeared to answer my question. Jeff Bezos (as the wealthiest person in world history) could donate his entire fortune to making private firearm ownership illegal and you wouldn't have any problem with that. That's really all I was curious about.

As long as the Second Amendment withstood the attack, who wouldn't? I'd like to see Bezos selling pencils on the street.

You can only get as much liberty as you give. The money donated to state marijuana initiatives has been put to good use.

 

[DamianTV]

It truly is a mental illness. They feel righteous and justified, through all of this. Which makes them just that much more dangerous.

“Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.”

- CS Lewis

So yeah, CS Lewis would absolutely and whole heartedly agree with you.

 

[DamianTV]

This. Things like this don't happen overnight. They have to build up a head of steam.

The straws being placed upon the camel's back are accumulating nicely ...

It appears not not be Straw but Bricks!

Where are these bricks coming from? Double meaning on that as we never really did get a clear answer to the question of "where did the bricks come from" during last summers Riots, so yes, doubles as both Straw and Physical Bricks...

Did they just ADMIT to being the ones that also PURCHASED THE BRICKS? They really sincerely believe in this Broken Window Fallacy shit dont they?

 

[Okie RP fan]

It truly is a mental illness. They feel righteous and justified, through all of this. Which makes them just that much more dangerous.

Spot on. Leftism is a mental disease in its current state. Certainly arguable it always has been, but now it definitely can be argued they have a legit diagnosis due to all of their brainwashing they've received.

Funny thing is, they say the same thing about us and everyone else who doesn't think like them.

 

[jmdrake]

No law has been passed that confiscated all privately owned firearms.

You asked about people donating millions to try to pass such a law. They have. I am against that law but I support their right to be wrong.

That was not my question. My question pertained to changing existing laws. See your words that I quoted for a reminder.

I don't think even you know what you are trying to say at this point and I certainly do not. But I will quote you again.

Hypothetically, let's say millions of dollars were donated to pass a law that confiscated all privately held firearms.

Now, what you said ^there does NOT mean they were successful. Could have been. Might not have been. The Ron Paul movement donated millions of dollars twice to elect Ron Paul president. He wasn't elected president.

But what you seem to be trying to argue is "Say if they were successful?" Ummm....okay. That would be bad and I would do what I could to overturn such a law and encourage others to do the same. But...what the hell is your point?

You appeared to answer my question. Jeff Bezos (as the wealthiest person in world history) could donate his entire fortune to making private firearm ownership illegal and you wouldn't have any problem with that. That's really all I was curious about.

So...you think that the only way someone can have a problem with something is if they want it to be illegal? And you are a member of a libertarian forum? That's curious...and strange. I don't think it should be illegal for people to use heroin. That doesn't mean I don't have a problem with it. Would you have a problem if Jeff Bezos was donating his entire fortune to KEEP guns legal?

Edit: And NONE of this gets to my original point which is that what they admitted to appears on its face to be legal. They is possibly (probably IMO) illegal acts that they did not admit to doing in this article. What FB, Twitter and Google did, in sharing information about who to de-platform, is a prima facia violation of the Sherman Anti Trust Act which is a federal felony with up to 10 years in prison. But THAT wasn't talked about in the TIME article.

 

[jmdrake]

Missouri is currently trying to do this again (the previous bill passed, but was vetoed by the governor):

https://www.ksdk.com/article/news/p...-laws/63-299d18f7-d7e2-47e9-85fd-a191c5c6357c

Good for them! And they need to recall that governor.

 

[familydog]

As long as the Second Amendment withstood the attack, who wouldn't? I'd like to see Bezos selling pencils on the street.

The entire history of this country is just a timeline of lost liberties. I have absolutely zero confidence that it will change any time soon.

 

[familydog]

You asked about people donating millions to try to pass such a law. They have. I am against that law but I support their right to be wrong.

That's not what I asked. Regardless, I find myself less cavalier about someone trying to steal my liberties. Politics ain't the MLB. Real harm to individuals and potentially irreversible damage to society is done by individuals and groups who just throw money at the state.

Now, what you said ^there does NOT mean they were successful. Could have been. Might not have been. The Ron Paul movement donated millions of dollars twice to elect Ron Paul president. He wasn't elected president.

Fair enough. You don't take it personally when people want to harm you or try to destroy what you stand for. I do. That's the difference.

But what you seem to be trying to argue is "Say if they were successful?" Ummm....okay. That would be bad and I would do what I could to overturn such a law and encourage others to do the same. But...what the hell is your point?

I didn't start out with a point. I was just curious about your position. Which is why I asked a question instead of typing an opinion column. This far in the discussion, I have my answer. You think the loss of liberties and freedoms can simply be reversed if enough people want it. You also assume enough people would want them reversed. I don't share those assumptions. Once liberty is lost, it's typically gone forever.