Their duty is to the Constitution, not the politicians. Many of them have forgotten that fact.
I believe there are quite a few democrats unhappy about the swap with no say. They are being ignored by the MSM, and by their party. I recall seeing a few video's of Harris being heckled and protested by democrats at her miniscule rallies.
Likely a GBU-43/B.
The H1B Visa program is being abused, and Indians (conflict of interest) in leadership positions in the U.S. Tech companies are using H1B to hire other Indians to take over these companies. H1B is supposed to be for positions so technical that there are to few, or no, U.S. candidates for the role. That is being abused and exploited to hire for common support roles, manager and director roles, and other roles to import more Indian "talent".
This is illegal immigration because it is abusing a program in ways never intended. Most of the managers / directors are on H1B Visa's and not U.S. citizens. How can they have any say in hiring or H1B decisions? Conflict of interest that is not being investigated under Biden / Harris.
I contend that there is no need, nor has there ever been a legitimate need, for the H1B program. We have always had plenty of skilled professionals in the U.S. but companies started bring foreigners in to make less money in the same roles on our soil. Now, the make much higher salaries than Americans do in similar roles.
It is important that we, as Americans, understand that our Right to Bear Arms comes from our Creator, God, himself. No government has any authority to infringe on that right.
More importantly, the 2nd amendment was put into place to remind government of that prohibition on infringing on that preexisting right.
How does this play into the Courts? Because they are required to always use the Constitution, in the context of its original intent at the time it was written, as the measuring stick for any legislation or act of government.
“The public welfare demands that constitutional cases must be decided according to the terms of the Constitution itself, and not according to judges’ views of fairness, reasonableness, or justice. I have no fear of constitutional amendments properly adopted, but I do fear the rewriting of the Constitution by judges under the guise of interpretation.” ~ Justice Hugo L. Black (1886-1971) US Supreme Court Justice
“To prohibit a citizen from wearing or carrying a war arm ... is an unwarranted restriction upon the constitutional right to keep and bear arms. If cowardly and dishonorable men sometimes shoot unarmed men with army pistols or guns, the evil must be prevented by the penitentiary and gallows, and not by a general deprivation of constitutionally protected right.” ~ Wilson v. State 33 Ark. 557, at 560, 34Am. Rep. 52, at 54 (1878)
“ 'The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.' The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description, and not such merely as are used by the milita, shall not be infringed, curtailed, or broken in upon, in the smallest degree; and all this for the important end to be attained: the rearing up and qualifying a well-regulated militia, so vitally necessary to the security of a free State. Our opinion is that any law, State or Federal, is repugnant to the Constitution, and void, which contravenes this right.” ~ Nunn vs. State 1 Ga. (1 Kel.) 243, at 251(1846)
“The provision in the Constitution granting the right to all persons to bear arms is a limitation upon the power of the Legislature to enact any law to the contrary. The exercise of a right guaranteed by the Constitution cannot be made subject to the will of the sheriff.” ~ People vs. Zerillo 219 Mich. 635, 189 N.W. 927, at 928 (1922)
“If the legislature clearly misinterprets a constitutional provision, the frequent repetition of the wrong will not create a right.” ~ Amos v. Mosley Amos v. Mosley, 74 Fla. 555; 77 So. 619.
“Americans need never fear their government because of the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation.” ~ James Madison (1751-1836), Father of the Constitution for the USA, 4th US President
“Resistance to sudden violence, for the preservation not only of my person, my limbs and life, but of my property, is an indisputable right of nature which I have never surrendered to the public by the compact of society, and which perhaps, I could not surrender if I would. Nor is there anything in the common law of England inconsistent with that right.” ~ John Adams (1735-1826) Founding Father, 2nd US President Boston Gazette, September 5, 1763, reprinted in The Works of John Adams 438 (Charles F. Adams ed., 1851).
“And that the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press, or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms; or to raise standing armies, unless necessary for the defense of the United States, or of some one or more of them; or to prevent the people from petitioning, in a peaceable and orderly manner, the federal legislature, for a redress of grievances; or to subject the people to unreasonable searches and seizures of their persons, papers or possessions.” ~ Samuel Adams (1722-1803), was known as the "Father of the American Revolution." Debates and Proceedings in the Convention of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, 1788 (Pierce & Hale, eds., Boston, 1850)
“The militia of these free commonwealths, entitled and accustomed to their arms, when compared with any possible army, must be tremendous and irresistible. Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birth-right of an American ... the unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people.” ~ Tench Coxe (1755-1824) American political economist Pennsylvania Gazette, February 20, 1788
“The militia of these free commonwealths, entitled and accustomed to their arms, when compared with any possible army, must be tremendous and irresistible. Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birth-right of an American ... the unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people.” ~ Tench Coxe (1755-1824) American political economist Pennsylvania Gazette, February 20, 1788
“But if circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude, that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people, while there is a large body of citizens, little if at all inferior to them in discipline and use of arms, who stand ready to defend their rights” ~ Alexander Hamilton (1757-1804) American statesman, Secretary of the Treasury Federalist, No. 29
“Are we at last brought to such a humiliating and debasing degradation, that we cannot be trusted with arms for our own defence? Where is the difference between having our arms in our own possession and under our own direction, and having them under the management of Congress? If our defence be the_real_object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands?” ~ Patrick Henry (1736-1799) US Founding Father June 9, 1788, in the Virginia Convention on the ratification of the Constitution, in_Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution,_ Jonathan Elliot, ed., v.3 p.168 (Philadelphia, 1836)
“No free man shall ever be de-barred the use of arms. The strongest reason for the people to retain their right to keep and bear arms is as a last resort to protect themselves against tyranny in government.” ~ Thomas Jefferson (1743-1826), US Founding Father, drafted the Declaration of Independence, 3rd US President
“The people are not to be disarmed of their weapons. They are left in full possession of them.” ~ Zachariah Johnson June 25, 1788, Virginia Constitutional Ratification Convention. Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution, Jonathan Elliot, ed., v.3 p.646 (Philadelphia, 1836)
“To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them.” ~ Richard Henry Lee (1732-1794) Founding Father
“The highest number to which a standing army can be carried in any country does not exceed one hundredth part of the souls, or one twenty-fifth part of the number able to bear arms. This portion would not yield, in the United States, an army of more than twenty-five or thirty thousand men. To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for their common liberties and united and conducted by governments possessing their affections and confidence. It may well be doubted whether a militia thus circumstanced could ever be conquered by such a proportion of regular troops. ... Besides the advantage of being armed, ... the existence of subordinate governments ... forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of. ... [The governments of Europe] are afraid to trust the people with arms. ... Let us not insult the free and gallant citizens of America with the suspicion that they would be less able to defend the rights of which they would be in actual possession than the debased subjects of arbitrary power would be to rescue theirs from the hands of their oppressors.” ~ James Madison (1751-1836), Father of the Constitution for the USA, 4th US President The Federalist Papers, No. 46
If government put them there, the conviction must be suspect.
The burden of proof the founders put in place was that even the mother of the accused would have to be convinced of guilt.
“Our legislators are not sufficiently apprized of the rightful limits of their power; that their true office is to declare and enforce only our natural rights and duties, and to take none of them from us. No man has a natural right to commit aggression on the equal rights of another; and this is all from which the laws ought to restrain him; every man is under the natural duty of contributing to the necessities of the society; and this is all the laws should enforce on him; and, no man having a natural right to be the judge between himself and another, it is his natural duty to submit to the umpirage of an impartial third. When the laws have declared and enforced all this, they have fulfilled their functions, and the idea is quite unfounded, that on entering into society we give up any natural right.” ~ Thomas Jefferson (1743-1826), US Founding Father, drafted the Declaration of Independence, 3rd US President Letter to Francis W. Gilmer (27 June 1816); The Writings of Thomas Jefferson edited by Ford, vol. 10, p. 32.
“If a juror accepts as the law that which the judge states, then the juror has accepted the exercise of absolute authority of a government employee and has surrendered a power and right that once was the citizen's safeguard of liberty.” ~ Justice Theophilus Parsons (1750-1813) Chief Justice of the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts 2 ELLIOT’S DEBATES, 94, BANCROFT, HISTORY OF THE CONSTITUTION, p.267, 1788.
“But, sir, the people themselves have it in their power effectually to resist usurpation, without being driven to an appeal of arms. An act of usurpation is not obligatory; it is not law; and any man may be justified in his resistance. Let him be considered as a criminal by the general government, yet only his fellow-citizens can convict him; they are his jury, and if they pronounce him innocent, not all the powers of Congress can hurt him; and innocent they certainly will pronounce him, if the supposed law he resisted was an act of usurpation.” ~ Theophilus Parsons (1750-1813) in the Massachusetts Convention on the ratification of the Constitution, January 23, 1788, in Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution, Jonathan Elliot, ed., v.2 p.94 (Philadelphia, 1836)
“Nullification is but one legitimate result in an appropriate constitutional process safeguarded by judges and the judicial system. When juries refuse to convict on the basis of what they think are unjust laws, they are performing their duty as jurors.” ~ Judge Jack B. Weinstein (1921-) United States federal judge Considering Jury “Nullification”: When May and Should a Jury Reject the Law to do Justice?, 30 Am. Crim L. Rev. 239, 240 (1993)
Yale Law Journal Quote “The right of the jury to decide questions of law was widely recognized in the colonies. In 1771, John Adams stated unequivocally that a juror should ignore a judge’s instruction on the law if it violates fundamental principles: “It is not only ... [the juror’s] right, but his duty, in that case, to find the verdict according to his own best understanding, judgment, and conscience, though in direct opposition to the direction of the court.” There is much evidence of the general acceptance of this principle in the period immediately after the Constitution was adopted.” ~ Yale Law Journal Note: The Changing Role of the Jury in the Nineteenth Century, Yale Law Journal 74, 174 (1964).
“By liberty I mean the assurance that every man shall be protected in doing what he believes his duty against the influence of authority and majorities, custom and opinion.” ~ Lord Acton [John Emerich Edward Dalberg Acton] (1834-1902), First Baron Acton of Aldenham Lord Acton, in The History of Freedom in Antiquity (1877)
“In short, is not liberty the freedom of every person to make full use of his faculties, so long as he does not harm other persons while doing so? Is not liberty the destruction of all despotism -- including, of course, legal despotism? Finally, is not liberty the restricting of the law only to its rational sphere of organizing the right of the individual to lawful self-defense; of punishing injustice?” ~ Frederic Bastiat (1801-1850) [Claude Frederic Bastiat] French economist, statesman, and author. He did most of his writing during the years just before -- and immediately following -- the French Revolution of February 1848 What Is Liberty? "The Law" by Frederic Bastiat (1848)
I think they want the chaos that will ensue so they can claim it is too dangerous for an election and put it on hold for the "emergency).
All gave some, and some gave all. Regardless, none of us gave any freedoms to anyone else. Those come from our Creator, alone.
The DS want us to believe that we are protecting those freedoms by participating in the military actions they force us into. That is a lie, as well. They use that patriotic rhetoric to dupe us into going under the illusion of protecting our Constitution and our freedom. War is a racket.
I believed the rhetoric when I was deployed to the Middle East as a young man. Age and experience dispelled any illusions.
That said, I honor all of those who selflessly serve, even if they are being used by the cabal. Their sacrifices are real, even if the reasons they are sent are lies.
Our Founders specifically warned of the consequences of allowing a standing military. For all intents and purposes, the FBI, and most police organizations fall under that category, as well.
No, but when there are bio-labs funded by the US and China within the Ukraine creating biological weapons, then a country has a right to defend itself as it sees fit.
Obama, Biden, Fauci, and the communist democrats were involved with the creation of COVID-19, and other biological weapons. Obama had the operation moved off of US soil to prevent anyone from catching him, and made deals with China and the Ukraine governments to do the lab work. Why do you think Biden was over in the Ukraine to begin with?
Putin, like anyone else, is human. He may have been ruthless in the KGB, but he seems to be doing what he feels is right for his country. He is 100% in the right with Ukraine.
First of all, the Constitution does not grant that power to government, period. Second, her ruling goes against a primary foundational principle of our Constitutional Republic. That is government being created to protect our inalienable natural rights to life, liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness. Government is our servant, not our sovereign. We are sovereign over our government.
We are all under the same assault.
Yes, somehow the police can be corrupted, but the military is miraculously immune. Have you seen the state of our military lately?
I don't think it is the military that is going to save our Constitution. It is going to be everyone that looks into the mirror and realizes that the people responsible for restoring our Republic and our liberty are the people staring back at them.
The Irish have been fighting oppression for many years. Some of their groups have been labelled as terrorists by those in power ruling over them. However, one thing has been proven true, time and time again. They are far from unarmed.
That American citizens finally figure out that the people most responsible for saving our Republic are staring back at them when they gaze into a mirror. Freedom has a cost, and sacrifices are required. Unfortunately, most Americans today want others to be the one to pay the price so they can go on enjoying their liberty.
Our Founders knew the truth, and put it all on the line themselves. Our Creator made up the difference and history shows our Republic was born from impossible odds.
All power granted to government originates with the People, and is limited to the specific powers specified in the U.S. Constitution. Therefore, it is the people who are ultimately responsible for reigning in tyrannical government.
Be that as it may, it doesn't change the facts. Woke judges may rule unjustly, but they will all face the one Judgement that none will be able to escape. Therefore, it doesn't really matter if they ignore the law, in the big scheme of things. In the end, our Creator will work it all out.
How do we do that when the purpose of the 2nd Amendment is to prohibit government from infringing on our preexisting, God-given right to bear arms. We can't use the 2nd A, we can only hold government accountable to adhere to the prohibition.
We can, however, exercise our natural right to protect ourselves, our property, and our communities.
All gun bans are unconstitutional. It isn't really a win unless government obeys the Constitution 100% and 100% of the time.
Their ruling goes 100% against the Constitution, and the principles upon which our Republic was established. It is, therefore, null and void.
The foundational purpose of the framing of our Federal Government was to protect our individual rights, including the foremost important right. The right to life.
It has a 100% duty to respect our preexisting rights. That is why they are called inalienable.
America doesn't "allow" gun ownership, or weapons ownership. Americans have an inalienable right to own and carry weapons that comes from our Creator. Government has no authority over this right. The 2nd Amendment prohibits government from infringing in any way on that right.
That database and law is unconstitutional It violates the prohibition on government not to infringe on the preexisting Right to Bear Arms. No legislative act in violation of the Constitution is valid. It is null and void.
Government has no authority to allow, or not allow, any American Citizen from owning or carrying a weapon.
Do not comply. It really is that simple.