Below is my column in The Hill on the controversial remarks of Sen. Tim Kaine (D. Va.) denouncing a nominee who believed in natural law and the concept of God-given rights. By the end of the hearing, Kaine effectively lumped Alexander Hamilton with Ayatollah Khomeini in his statement at the committee hearing.
Here is the column:
Sen. Tim Kaine (D-Va.) this week warned the American people that a Trump nominee for a State Department position was an extremist, cut from the same cloth as the Iranian mullahs and religious extremists.
Riley Barnes, nominated to serve as assistant secretary of State for democracy, human rights and labor, revealed his dangerous proclivities to Kaine in his opening statement when he said that “all men are created equal because our rights come from God, our creator; not from our laws, not from our governments.”
It was a line that should be familiar to any citizen — virtually ripped from the Declaration of Independence, our founding document that is about to celebrate its 250th anniversary.
Yet Kaine offered a very surprising response in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing.
“The notion that rights don’t come from laws and don’t come from the government, but come from the Creator — that’s what the Iranian government believes,” he said. “It’s a theocratic regime that bases its rule on Shia (sic) law and targets Sunnis, Bahá’ís, Jews, Christians, and other religious minorities. They do it because they believe that they understand what natural rights are from their Creator. So, the statement that our rights do not come from our laws or our governments is extremely troubling.”
In my forthcoming book celebrating the 250th anniversary, Rage and the Republic: The Unfinished Story of the American Revolution, I detail how the Declaration of Independence (and our nation as a whole) was founded on a deep belief in natural laws coming from our Creator, not government.
That view is captured in the Declaration, which states, “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”
Kaine represents Virginia, the state that played such a critical role in those very principles that he now associates with religious fanatics and terrorists.
In fact, Kaine’s view did exist at the founding — and it was rejected. Alexander Hamilton wrote that “The sacred rights of mankind are not to be rummaged for among old parchments or musty records. They are written, as with a sunbeam, in the whole volume of human nature, by the hand of the Divinity itself, and can never be erased or obscured by mortal power.”
Although the Framers were clear, Kaine seemed hopelessly confused. He later insisted that “I’m a strong believer in natural rights, but I have a feeling if we were to have a debate about natural rights in the room and put people around the table with different religious traditions, there would be some significant differences in the definitions of those natural rights.”
This country was founded on core, shared principles of natural law, including a deep commitment to individual rights against the government. The government was not the source but the scourge of individual rights.
This belief in preexisting rights was based on such Enlightenment philosophers as John Locke who believed that, even at the beginning when no society existed, there was law, “The state of nature has a law of nature to govern it, which obliges every one,” he wrote. “And reason, which is that law, teaches all mankind.”
Note that a natural law can also be based on a view of the inherent rights of human beings — a view of those rights needed to be fully human. Like divinely ordained rights, these are rights (such as free speech) that belong to all humans, regardless of the whim or want of a given government. They are still not “rights [that] come from our laws or our governments.”
The danger of legal positivism is that what government giveth, government can take away. Our prized unalienable rights become entirely alienable if they are merely the product of legislatures and courts.
It also means that constitutional protections or even the constitutional system itself is discardable, like out-of-fashion tricorn hats. As discussed in the book, a new generation of Jacobins is rising on the American left, challenging our constitutional traditions. Commentator Jennifer Szalai has denounced what she called “Constitution worship” and argued that “Americans have long assumed that the Constitution could save us. A growing chorus now wonders whether we need to be saved from it.”
That chorus includes establishment figures such as Erwin Chemerinsky, dean of the Berkeley Law School and author of “No Democracy Lasts Forever: How the Constitution Threatens the United States.”
Other law professors, such as Ryan D. Doerfler of Harvard and Samuel Moyn of Yale, have called for the nation to “reclaim America from constitutionalism.”
That “reclamation” is easier if our rights are based not in natural law, but rather in the evolving priorities of lawmakers like Kaine. Protections then become not the manifestations of human rights, but of rights invented by humans.
Kaine’s view — that advocates of natural law are no different from mullahs applying Sharia law — is not just ill-informed but would have been considered by the founders as constitutionally blasphemous.
He is, regrettably, the embodiment of a new crisis of faith in the foundations of our republic on the very eve of its 250th anniversary. This is a crisis of faith not just in our Constitution, but in each other as human beings “endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights.”
Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro professor of public interest law at George Washington University and a best-selling author whose forthcoming“Rage and the Republic: The Unfinished Story of the American Revolution” explores the foundations and the future of American democracy.
In 1937, the Roosevelt administration observed the 150th anniversary of the drafting of the U.S. Constitution by publishing ‘The Story of the Constitution,’ by U.S. Representative Sol Bloom (D-NY). It contained a Q&A section that stands in sharp contrast to the recent vacuous remarks by Senator Kaine:
“Q. Does not the Constitution give us our rights and liberties?
“A. No, it does not, it only guarantees them. The people had all their rights and liberties before they made the Constitution. The Constitution was formed, among other purposes, to make the people’s liberties secure—secure not only as against foreign attack but against oppression by their own government. They set specific limits upon their national government and upon the States, and reserved to themselves all powers that they did not grant. The Ninth Amendment declares: ‘The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.'”
Q.E.D. and all that. But how many modern Democrats would endorse Mr. Bloom’s interpretation?
The National Archives and Records Administration still hosts a slightly abridged version of the Q&A as “Constitution questions and answers” at https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/constitution-q-and-a
Tim Kaine stated that the written law provides our right. I provide a quote.
“Where does the right to trial by jury come from? The right to bear firearms? Freedom of the press? The right to be free of cruel and unusual punishments? The right to not have your property taken without due process of law? The right to peacefully assemble and petition government for redress of grievances? The right to vote?”
If he believes these things why does he belong to a political party that wants to take away the right to bear arms. Why does he belong to a political party that encouraged censorship by Twitter and Facebook even to the point of coercion? Concerning peaceful assembly, why does he belong to a political party where the leadership said that the mostly peaceful BLM riots should continue? Why does he belong to a political party that wants to cancel the value of your vote by allowing non citizens to vote? My dad used to talk about mealy mouthed politicians. Tim Kaine is the quintessential example of the type of politician he was talking about.
-Not that the world has stopped over this, but yesterday in a comment, I used the terms “laws of nature” and “natural law” almost interchangeably, while in the post and comments, there is emphasis on “natural law.” This was not error or misunderstanding on my part. I am of the philosophical schooling that there is significant overlap and I offer, e.g., a fellow script as support:
“Questions about the historical origins and development of claims that nature is lawlike are generally treated as entirely distinct from the development of ethical natural law theories. By looking at the many intersections of law and nature in antiquity, this paper shows that such a sharp distinction is overly simplistic, and often relies crucially on the imposition of an artificial and anachronistic suppression of the role of gods or divinity in the worlds of ancient natural philosophy.”
“Furthermore, by tightening up the terms of the debate, we see that the common claim that a conception of ‘laws of nature’ only emerges in the Scientific Revolution is built on a superficial reading of the ancient evidence.”
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0039368106000744
lin,
I suspect some of our laws emerge and reflect behaviors shaped by evolution.
When it became possible through the development of agriculture to have large populations people came face to face with significant social problems.
The wildness that was probably an advantage to a hunter/gatherer society proved disruptive in settled communities. Simply to survive a group likely had to banish, outlaw or kill its most disruptive members and that likely evolved the group to a tamer population who expressed their now instinctive behaviors as laws.
Evolved behavior preceded and shaped legalities.
We can see evolved taming in dogs who live with us from wolves who generally are not amenable to living with people. We not only tamed wolves to dogs we likely also tamed ourselves to tolerate each other. I also suspect we unconsciously co-evolved our relationship with dogs because a tribe that is almost in symbiosis with its dogs will have an advantage in natural selection over a tribe that can’t use them to guard, hunt, track and kill.
Our sense of right and wrong is likely an evolved sense as is our sense of the rights that we cherish.
So rights are natural after all.
*. The age of reason. Anyway “inclinations” or “instinct” are used during the time period.
Locke had much to do with it.
God rests in reason. .. I don’t know what S/He is doing the rest of the time.
*and neither did Locke.
“. . . the imposition of an artificial and anachronistic suppression of the role of gods or divinity in the worlds of ancient natural philosophy.”
Aristotle’s biological works are one of the greatest scientific (laws of nature) achievements in ancient Greece. (See David Balme and James Lennox) There is not a smidgen of “the role of gods or divinity” in those works. They are pure science and reason.
Either that writer does not know Aristotle’s biological works (which would be negligence), or he is trying to impose his mysticism on them.
I don’t believe Aristotle contributes much to this discussion, but regardless, I lean more toward Descartes than Aristotle here. However, if you read my earlier comment yesterday about this being more about innate morality than formal “religions,” you would see that I agree with you regarding Aristotle’s basic assertion of the primacy of sense over intellect, i.e., “there is nothing in the intellect that is not previously in the senses,” -yet, I then flip to Descartes and Locke, Hume, et al, with respect to Aristotle’s lack of causal power/ mechanism to produce a theory of moral obligation or divine command.
You would be a fun one to have lunch with or a drink. But my earlier muses have now led both of us off-topic, which is not fair to other contributors, and for which I apologize. Thanks for your thoughts.
“I don’t believe Aristotle contributes much to this discussion . . .”
Huh?
From the article you quoted:
“. . . the role of gods or divinity in the worlds of *ancient natural philosophy*.” (emphasis added)
“Ancient natural philosophy” is ancient Greece. And Aristotle is *the* key figure of that era.
P.S. Thanks for introducing an intellectually engaging topic.
Mornin,’ Sam, glad I saw your reply and thank you.
My sentence, “I don’t believe Aristotle contributes much to this discussion . .” is referring to the TOPIC by Professor Turley regarding Tim Kaine and his role in this. (I had previously apologized elsewhere for leading discussions OT from JT’s focus on Kaine. I started going OT by opining about distinguishing religion from innate sense of morality.)
(2) Perhaps you misread the quote I offered from the article’s author, who was decrying (in OTHERS’ writings) “the simplistic [and “crucial” reliance] on the imposition of an artificial and anachronistic suppression of the role of gods or divinity in the worlds of ancient natural philosophy.” Of course, Aristotle contributed greatly with his perception of what a god might be. But as I said previously, -and I may be wrong, but I do not recall that Aristotle contributed much to the discussion of “causal power/mechanism to produce a theory of moral obligation or divine command.” (my words.)
“. . . is referring to . . .”
I didn’t realize that.
“Perhaps you misread the quote . . .”
I didn’t misread that mischaracterization of ancient natural philosophy. The scholar you cited is merely the latest in a centuries-long list of religious thinkers who have attempted to coopt Aristotle and ancient Greece.
That “causal power” in Aristotle can be found in his work the _Nicomachean Ethics_. That “power,” though, is not a divine command or a duty. It is an individual’s choice to use reason to guide his life by the virtues.
*. Didn’t Immanuel Kant prove via reason the perfection of Jesus Christ and the meaning of moral? The reason God does not “conform” as man does to moral action? It’s because they have no duty to do otherwise, no instinct nor inclination to do otherwise being morality itself as seen in perfect person Christ?
The Constitution is well aware.
do you consider Kant as part of “ancient history?”
Release the Epstein client list!!! Release the um, Epstein list! Release the errrrr, never mind!!!
Clinton Note Found In Epstein’s “Birthday Book” Released By House Oversight Committee
SEP 9, 2025
“It’s reassuring isn’t it, to have lasted as long, across all the years of learning and knowing, adventures and [illegible word], and also to have your childlike curiosity, the drive to make a difference and the solace of friends”
– Bill Clinton
https://dallasexpress.com/national/clinton-note-found-in-epsteins-birthday-book-released-by-house-oversight-committee/
WSJ Report Reveals Bill Clinton’s 50th-Birthday Note to Jeffrey Epstein
Jul 24, 2025
https://www.politico.com/news/2025/07/24/epstein-birthday-book-bill-clinton-entry-00476639
Like Russa, Russia, Russia, the MSM can not stop humping the Epstein list.
The Memo: Trump’s all-guns-blazing approach backfires on Epstein birthday letter
09/09/25 5:53 PM ET
https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/5494814-trump-epstein-book-strategy/
Not a single mention about Bill Clinton’s gushing Birthday note to Jeffrey Epstein re: the latter’s “childlike curiosities”.
Americans do not hate the MSM enough
Estovir — Where is our host? No entry this date…
Estovir: I share your sentiment, not so much over Clinton, but over MSM’s relentless “leave no stone unturned” in their focus to ‘get Trump.’ Unless there is produced an actual recording or photo of Trump having sex with a young minor girl, -or him verbally expressing same, it serves only to contribute to my disdain for MSM. (I do acknowledge, however, after being in a courtroom listening to cases of statutory rape, a young girl lying about her age in order to make some big $$$ is not generally considered exculpatory evidence.)
DJT’s card was type written with dialogue . Sure…
Epstein is about lots and lots of gold.
It is better to be thought a fool, than to open one’s mouth and remove all doubt. Words that the Senator from Virginia should take to heart. So glad I no longer reside in Virginia.
Should all documents mean what they say, or only the Constitution?
Wills, contracts, statutes, judgments, writs, and the like.
If they don’t mean what they say, what’s the point?
What about the UN Charter?
UN Charter. Rubbish. More like a recipe for cake.
The difference lies in whether a document is within a generally accepted legal system. You can go to court and enforce a contract, even many verbal contracts, ultimately to drawing on the power of the state if needs be. Same with a Will or, for that matter, a Constitution. The UN is more like The League of Nations, supposedly good intentions gone sour and preempted by bad actors. Try enforcing the Nuremburg Code against Fauci, for example…same, same. Better, if that is your inclination, to use actual laws.
Supposedly the UN Charter was going to bring an end to war. How has that worked out? It’s more like a sacred shrine to grifting and theft.
ENOUGH!
It is long past time for the Supreme Court to extricate the judicial branch from the executive branch.
The head of the executive branch is elected by the People to lead and execute at his discretion and as he deems appropriate.
The executive power is vested in “a President of the United States” and not in the legislative or judicial branch.
No legislation or adjudication may usurp and exercise executive power.
The legislative branch may impeach and convict the President at any time.
It seems to me that the emphasis on “rights” is backwards. We should be able to do anything we want UNLESS the government tells us otherwise. In other words, we deserve “freedom”. Logically, “rights” are exceptions or “carve outs” to a broader supervisory power. We should view the matter as the State needing “rights” to restrict our freedom. Some of the Founding Fathers understood this distinction and opposed the promulgation of a “Bill of Rights.” The issue is what the government can do, not what the citizenry can do.
I hope you aren’t expecting social security or disability benefits if you get into a car accident and can’t work.
In a social compact, certain natural rights are retained and other positive rights (like entitlements or trial by jury) are created.
What you’ve described above is not the reality of this social compact, i.e., America.
Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and all the other components of the communist American welfare state are unconstitutional per Article 1, Section 8, and the absolute 5th Amendment right to private property, that not being public property, to be absolutely clear.
When does the Supreme Court start doing its job, its duty?
You keep trotting out government benefits as an example of “rights.” They’re benefits. Rights refers to your ability to do things that you want to do, and your ability to avoid government intrusions on your privacy, etc. Monetary benefits doled out by Uncle Sam are a poor example. Try and be a little more thoughtful, please.
If you want to cast them as rights, as in “right to receive from the government,” then that disconnects your argument from our nation’s founding documents.
Benefits are a type of positive right. Some positive rights like trial by jury are enshrined in the Constitution while others like entitlements are created by the government. Madison says precisely this as I noted yesterday.
Madison et al. wrote the Constitution, and it does not allow taxation for individual, specific, or particular welfare, merely general welfare, which means all or the whole. Congress cannot tax for Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, etc. Congress has no power to regulate the insurance or financial industry, retirement investment entities, or healthcare. Please cite the Constitution for any power to do so. Read the law, the Constitution.
Your “dictatorship of the proletariat” regarding retirement and healthcare plans is not the freedom the Founders had in mind.
Americans are free to create the wealth to be able to afford retirement plans and healthcare.
Americans are free to make something of themselves after being created equal.
What you’re doing is imposing the enslavement of communism, or the “dictatorship of the proletariat,” to effect “from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs,” or the pipe dream of a psychotic invalid and drunk, Karl Marx, which is clearly nowhere to be found in the American thesis or the U.S. Constitution.
What the —- school did you go to, and what the —- did those fanatical communist union so-called teachers teach you?
Do you even know what rubbish you’re retching?
Try Article 1, Section 8.
Let’s not forget it is a duty to be beneficent when possible. Don’t forget the high moral conscience either. Don’t forget respect for law having been written by people of moral conscience.
Cite the Constitution.
Monetary benefits are a great example of type of positive right created by the government. You should read the SCOTUS scholarship on this as pretty much all of administrative and disability law is based on this concept.
Article I, Section 8
The Congress shall…lay…Taxes…to pay…Debts and…Defense and general Welfare…
_________________________________________________________________________________________
Not individual, specific, or particular welfare, and not favor, or charity.
State governments may not deny state residents and Americans their constitutional freedoms and rights to personal freedom, free enterprise, free industries, and free markets by interfering in those free market activities with governmental industrial, commercial, and retail operations.
States may not interfere in free market retirement and healthcare sectors, using governmental financial, investment, and insurance business operations, to deny Americans their constitutional rights and freedoms to operate in those sectors.
“Central planning, control of the means of production (i.e. unconstitutional regulation), redistribution of wealth, and social engineering.”
“The dictatorship of the proletariat (i.e. the hired help).”
“From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs.”
– Karl Marx, The Communist Manifesto
___________________________________________
Karl Marx was a psychotic, drunken invalid and his Communist Manifesto was and remains unconstitutional.
Karl Marx wrote the Communist Manifesto 59 years after the adoption of the Constitution because none of the principles of the Communist Manifesto were in the Constitution. Had the principles of the Communist Manifesto been in the Constitution, Karl Marx would have had no reason to write the Communist Manifesto. The principles of the Communist Manifesto were not in the Constitution then, and the principles of the Communist Manifesto are not in the Constitution now.
The American Thesis is Freedom and Self-Reliance.
I would agree in principle with much of that, but the Founding Fathers attempt to create a just government in the latter 17 hundreds, must be viewed in the context of their belief in the fundamentals of Western Judaeo-Christian Biblical principles and moral concepts, while rejecting the, at the time, majority world view that Monarchical birthright established the authority to grant or deny that what the Founding Fathers saw as divine rights, as provided by solely by God, the Creator, and therefore above any reproach by man.
—————————————
–Oddball
“Take it easy Big Joe, some of these people got sensitive feelings.”
Trump apparently tried to stop Israel’s attack in Qatar.
When this failed he tried to warn Qatar of the impending attack and distanced himself from the attack.
Then he started grovelling to Qatar, saying it will never happen again.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA !!!!!!
WHAT A TOTAL LOSER !!!!!!
President Donald Trump revealed that the U.S. military discovered Israel’s plan to strike Hamas officials in Qatar after it was “too late to stop the attack.”
In a Tuesday post on Truth Social, Trump suggested he had no control over Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s decision to target a Hamas negotiating delegation in Qatar.
“This morning, the Trump Administration was notified by the United States Military that Israel was attacking Hamas which, very unfortunately, was located in a section of Doha, the Capital of Qatar,” the U.S. president explained. “This was a decision made by Prime Minister Netanyahu, it was not a decision made by me.”
“I immediately directed Special Envoy Steve Witkoff to inform the Qataris of the impending attack, which he did, however, unfortunately, too late to stop the attack,” he continued. “I view Qatar as a strong Ally and friend of the U.S., and feel very badly about the location of the attack.”
“I also spoke to the Emir and Prime Minister of Qatar, and thanked them for their support and friendship to our Country,” he added. “I assured them that such a thing will not happen again on their soil.”
Cry harder Gigi, we can’t hear you. Trump is the most consequential president since FDR.
I am feeling the consequences.
I’m feeling the benefits!
Evildoers are by their own admission feeling the consequences. Good people are feeling the benefits.
You could say that the Germans benefited from National Socialism.
It’s obvious what’s going on.
Trump is afraid that Qatar will take back his fancy new 747 aircraft.
You pathetic losers here think that Trump unconditionally has Israel’s back.
Trump has NOBODIES back unless they pay up somehow.
So your pathetic, whining leader is willing to sell out Israel for a fancy new plane.
Cry louder Gigi, we can’t hear you.
WINNING!
THE CAIN(KAINE) MUTINY!
CAINE!!! Movie name!
Rights are inherent in mankind, not granted by governments. And the purpose of government is “…to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.” Governments secure the rights we have. They don’t grant rights. And governments have limited powers. Just powers. Not whatever power people, even a majority of the people (the mob) consent to. Just the just powers we consent they have. And those just powers can’t infringe on or inalienable rights. And that’s why the Constitution delimits only a small number of powers to the Federal Government and reserves all the rest to the states or the people. Not to Senators or anyone else in the federal government.
*. The Constitution references John Locke and the age of enlightenment. Creator and nature’s creator is a direct reference and life, liberty and property regarding man being independent within nature having all freedom impaired only by another’s life, liberty and property if harmed. Equality refers to that equality within nature of each person. Equality is a necessity when creating any contract acknowledging all freely consent in making it a valid contract.
Religion references each man’s conscience to do what is moral and honest and the freedom of such. So the rest goes.
It’s the age of enlightenment and reason is to prevail. Kingdoms are rejected as a political system. The new system relies upon the people, the governed. It’s before Darwin and evolution, and anthropology, sociology and psychology as sciences.
It’s not rocket science. It’s s a phrase minority. It protects freedom and does not give anything. Reason dictated at some point that women vote and are free people. It expanded to be rid of slavery and endentured servitude as an economic system. It expanded once again to include what was there.
We got rights is a phrase of absurdity. You have freedom.
*
The inevitable correction—-> majority minority .
It should function by concensus without a need to compromise. Laws should ought to effect everyone positive and no one negatively or you’re into overreach land. Don’t spend my money, take my money for what you might earn yourself. Don’t trespass on my property then spend my money for your rights, don’t spend my money on that which my conscience does not allow nor think moral nor good and honest.
OT, the ballsnatching Karen who took the young boy’s baseball at the Phillies-Marlins game has been identified by some internet sleuths: It was Senator Elizabeth Warren.
The Declaration of Independence was created to counter essentially a theocratic dictator that violated the English Bill of Rights and Magna Carta. A dictator (monarch) that opposed religious freedom.
The First Amendment was created because Christians were persecuting other Christians. The European Anglican Church was punishing and persecuting Baptists or any non-Anglican religion.
The First Amendment was and is today a double-edged sword. The first part granted freedom to worship any religion any person wants to worship. The second part protects Americans from government imposing religion on them against their will.
Ironically, we have an American leader publicly saying he wants to be a dictator that violated the American Bill of Rights less than 24 hours after taking the oath of office, by illegally amending the U.S. Constitution through executive order (skipping the constitutional-amendment process).
Many of his supporters are religious “theocrats” – they oppose religious freedom and believe government should impose religion onto Americans. The opposite of everything the Declaration of Independence stands for.
Tim Kaine – a former Christian missionary that performed mission work in third-world nations is also opposed to theocratic dictators. Everything the Declaration of Independence stands for.
Cry harder Gigi, we can’t hear you.
“A former Christian missionary”… The job didn’t work out huh. Not hard to figure why.
All together now!
Gimme dat, gimme dat, gimme, gimme, gimme dat
Gimme dat ding, gimme dat, gimme, gimme dat
Gimme dat ding, gimme dat, gimme, gimme dat
Gimme, gimme, gimme, dat ding
(Oh, sing it one more time, mama)
“Kaine accepted clothes, vacation as gifts”
–By Isaac Arnsdorf, 06/30/2016 05:21 AM EDT
Excerpts:
“Virginia Sen. Tim Kaine took advantage of the state’s lax gift laws to receive an $18,000 Caribbean vacation, $5,500 in clothes and a trip to watch George Mason University play in the NCAA basketball Final Four during his years as lieutenant governor and governor, according to disclosures he filed.”
“Now a leading contender to be Hillary Clinton’s running mate, Kaine reported more than $160,000 in gifts from 2001 to 2009, mostly for travel to and from political events and conferences, according to disclosures compiled by the Virginia Public Access Project. The givers included political supporters, a drug company that soon after bought a facility in Virginia, and Dominion, the state’s biggest provider of electricity.”
Like insider trading, it was all legal of course, under Virginia law. The legal geniuses in Virginia never considered anything beyond the pop bottle return “honesty” policy to be necessary. The old saying in D.C., being; “It is not what is illegal in Congress that is an issue, rather it is what is entirely legal in Congress that is the basis of corruption.”
https://www.politico.com/story/2016/06/tim-kaine-virginia-veep-mcdonnell-clinton-224888
————————————
–Oddball
“Take it easy Big Joe, some of these people got sensitive feelings.”
OT
Good. Israel eliminated posh Hamas leadership in Qatar. Now do the rest of them.
https://freebeacon.substack.com/p/fafo-israel-strikes-hamas-in-qatar?r=5vjyf5&utm_medium=email
There has been a recent media effort to distinguish ‘innocent’ Gazans from Hamas.
Mistake. On October 7 nearly the entirely population of Gaza celebrated in raptures of joy and many helped hold abused hostages in their homes. The entire population has been infected with evil. Other Muslim countries know this from experience and that is why they don’t want them. Maybe UK PM Starmer will take them, and, yes, he really is that stupid.
But get them out of Gaza. Gaza belongs to Israel. And don’t let any of them come here and particularly not to Chicago not matter how welcome there, and yes, Mayor Brandon really is that stupid.
Shades of Afghanistan and Osama Bin Laden* .. .
“”The State of Qatar condemns in the strongest terms the cowardly Israeli attack targeting the residential headquarters of several members of the Hamas Political Bureau in the Qatari capital, Doha. This criminal attack constitutes a flagrant violation of all international laws and norms and a serious threat to the security and safety of Qataris and residents of Qatar,” a spokesperson for Qatar’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs posted on X.”
*allegedly killed by Seal Team 6 and flown to a waiting submarine in the Indian ocean to avoid the appearance of ‘martyrdom’
WWPD?
What Would Putin Do?
Now go into Saudi Arabia et al., take the oil, and give the King, the Princes, and the Sheiks jobs in the refineries.
We stopped pussyfooting around with the Caribbean/Latin American Narcoterrorist Narco-States when we smoked their drug boat, right?
Why does America endlessly send all its money to these foreign miscreants and watch them spend and enjoy it?
“No more Mr. Nice Guy.”
No post today? 🤔
Young, thanks for the info. I read it elsewhere with less detail.
Israel should have done it sooner.
S. Meyer,
Yes, it would have been better to eliminate them sooner. I think, however, a number of political alignments probably had to have been made first. It is likely Trump said “OK’ and maybe Qatar too. Nice that the posh terrorists felt safe and comfortable enough to gather in one place…saves on bombs.
Young
You might want to look at Trump’s Truth Social post about the attack.
He says he tried to stop it.
When Netanyahu refused, he tried to warn Qatar about the impending attack.
After the attack he started grovelling to Qatar.
He said he feels very badly about the attack.
He basically apologized and said it would never happen again.
What a whining, pathetic loser.
Probably politic to say that. Odd that Netanyahu went on and on that this was solely Israel’s decision and Israel’s assets. Almost convinced many that Trump was in on it.
But I don’t care what Trump says officially on this matter. It had to be done one way or the other to expunge a stain of evil and, frankly, I wish Israel hadn’t been so delicate handling Gaza after the horrific October 7 attacks. I would have preferred Dresden type ruthlessness to get it over fast. By now everyone would be focused on Taylor Swift and Greta would be protesting coal power again.
Young – Gigi, to whom you responded, is too dull to understand that world leaders say one thing publicly, and say and do different things privately. This is virtually always the case with any action taken by Israel. The typical pattern is public condemnations combined with private thank you’s and sighs of relief. A stark example is when Israel deprived Saddam Hussein of nukes in 1981. That pattern repeats as long as Israel exists and keeps the Middle East’s most rogue nations and terrorist organizations in check. Perhaps that’s what you meant by “politic.”
omfk
What a stupid comment.
It may well be that world leaders sometimes play games like publicly condemning something while privately thanking.
But in this case, Trump didn’t simply condemn it after the fact and leave it at that, which is what normally happens.
He admits he tried to stop it, then grovelled with an apology to Qatar.
That goes WAYYY beyond the games you speak of.
Trump is simply concerned that Qatar will take back his fancy new 747.
Nothing more, nothing less.
Anonymous – what a stupid comment. Trump is not “concerned that Qatar will take back his fancy new 747.” That’s the most ridiculous conclusion anyone could possibly come to (perhaps it’s par for the course for lamebrained left-wing TDS sufferers). Trump is a multi-billionaire running the biggest economy in the world by far. He is not concerned that America might go without a modern plane if Qatar changes its mind. If you’re going to call me stupid for saying something plausible, your response should not then to say something patently absurd and pretend it’s true.
omfk
So why did Trump go grovelling to Qatar by apologizing and saying it will never happen again.
It is one thing to simply make a public condemnation while privately thanking Netanyahu
It is another thing entirely to go further by grovelling, and apologizing to Qatar and saying it would never happen again.
What exactly is your explanation for the President of the US grovelling and apologizing to Qatar.
Trump never grovels or apologizes. If you don’t know that by now, you’re not living on this earth.
If it is not grovelling and apologizing, then what is it.
That is the question I am asking but you refuse to answer.
What exactly is this, if not a pitiful display of grovelling.
Whatever “this” is, it appears to be confined to your own mind. You have never specified anything in the actual world. You think that you can simply assert something, then refer to that something as “this” – and, voila! it’s reality?
You know perfectly well that Trump went grovelling and apologizing to Qatar, because he is afraid of losing his fancy plane.
You know it, I know it, everyone knows it,
It is right there in Trump’s very own words.
The bigger issue is that Netanyahu was willing to do this without telling Trump, and then refusing to stop it when Trump found out.
This indicates that Trump’s influence in the world is diminishing before our very eyes. Netanyahu is now willing to ignore Trump.
This pattern is playing out elsewhere. When India refused to stop buying oil from Russia, Trump slapped 50% tariffs on them. Modi’s response was basically, “shove it”. Then Modi, Xi, and Putin held their big summit, which was a huge middle finger to Trump. They are now willing to challenge his leadership in the world. Netanyahu is now piling on, also giving Trump the finger.
Trump has managed to alienate the entire world, and they are now banding together in a unified front to completely ignore him.
Oldman–
“Perhaps that’s what you meant by “politic.”
That’s exactly what I meant.
So you are not concerned that Trump tried to stop the attack.
Your pathetic whining leader is afraid that Qatar will take back his fancy new 747 aircraft.
This is obviously the reason he tried to stop the attack.
You losers here seem to think that Trump unconditionally has Israel’s back.
Trump has NOBODY’S back unless they pay him off somehow.
Trump is willing to sell out Israel for a fancy new plane.
And you still think the sun shines out of his a$$.
What a stupid comment.
I believe 50,000 innocent German civilians died in the Dresden firebombing.
Sherman said war is all hell and it can’t be made better.
How many innocents did the Germans kill and keep killing?
How many innocents did the Japanese kill and keep killing?
Asking politely wouldn’t make people using gas chambers and beheading competitions stop.
Sherman the Butcher that subsequently was sent westward to practice his genocidal mechanics of war on the plains Indians. Yeah, I would quote that maniac. The answer is No, you don’t kill non combatants of men, women and children in the effort to root out evil. This will all end badly for Israel.
It looks to me like we’ll all be Moslems one fine day except for the Chinese.
Do you choose communist or moslem? Maybe both? The worst punishment the creator can serve up. 😏
If people have a right to life, if life is so precious, then why were the lives of thousands of Redcoats taken just so that some colonists could pay lower taxes?
Oh, come now.
You don’t really think the MAGA mob here is capable of rational thought.
They are incapable of independent thought.
All they know is what the Glorious Leader tells them.
ROFL
Have those of you on the left no shame ?
You should be so embarrassed by the long long list of lies that you bought hook line and sinker that you should not dare make claims about the guilibility of others – especially those that did NOT buy into you delusions.
Those not on the left did not buy the collusion delusion
The apha bank hoax
The Russian disinformation nonsense.
The Covid came from a wet market nonsense.
The vaccines are safe idiocy.
The masks work stupidity.
The Biden is competent hoax.
And on and on and on.
Lincoln was correct – you can not fool all of the people all the time.
But left wings nuts ARE fooled ALL THE TIME.
People who live in glass houses should not throw stones – especially at people who live in brick homes.
That was very amusing. Have you been hitting the bottle again?
He expresses himself with platitudes learned by rote.
“Glorious Leader”
“If all earthly power were given me, I should not know what to do, as to the existing institution [of slavery]. My first impulse would be to free all the slaves, and send them to Liberia, to their own native land. [My plan’s] sudden execution is impossible, [but can we make freed blacks] politically and socially our equals? My own feelings will not admit of this, and [even] if mine would, we well know that those of the great mass of white people will not … We can not, then, make them equals.”
– Abraham Lincoln, Peoria, Illinois, October 16, 1854
People do have a right to life based on natural law. But that doesn’t mean all non-natural deaths amount to a violation of the decedent’s rights. Examples are: combat deaths, accidental deaths, executions carried out in accordance with due process, and the death of a violent criminal where the victim exercises self defense.
“I love the smell of deportations in the morning. .. Chicago about to find out why it’s called the Dept. of War”
*.. . WHEN in the Course of human Events, it becomes necessary for one People to dissolve the Political Bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the Powers of the Earth, the separate and equal Station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent Respect to the Opinions of Mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the Separation.
….and who didn’t feel this way when Biden and Mayorkas threw wide-open the borders for years, or when Biden mandated the injections and people lost jobs/careers, or when Biden’s deteriorating health and cognition was hidden and resulted [shockingly] in secret rule by the unelected.
The majority of people are not with you on fomenting insurrection. The best solution for you is to self-deport, expatriate. Either tone down your rhetoric and accept the results of a free-election or expatriate if you cannot stand the results and abide civilly.
You’ve got your parties muddled again, Dianna Bec. It’s president Trump who has explicitly declared war on Chicago the Hell Hole. .. not me!
Furthermore, if one must ‘love it or leave it’, as you suggest, that doesn’t leave any room for improvement, does it?
Don’t believe the elections are fair or free. .. in part due to Citizens United, the elections are now bought and sold to ‘gerrymandered’ highest bidder (i.e. Republicans and Democrats .. . you will not find any districts gerrymandered for the Whig party these days.)
*I agree Biden flung the doors open and invited in untold millions of immigrants, so arrest president Biden if that was ‘illegal’. .. not the vast majority of immigrants looking for a better life – that’s what this country was built on.
Enforcing the immigration laws that are duly enacted by the people’s representatives serves the national interest in countless ways, including the health and safety of the citizenry, and many others.
You conflate rhetoric with reality. You dislike the rhetoric, so you pretend it’s reality and end up attacking a straw man. That is a weak form of argumentation.
You’re in over your head again, old man .. . enforcement of immigration laws, according to the recent SCOTUS ruling, belongs exclusively to the president to apply however Trump see fit.
Justice Brett Kavanaugh said the lower-court judge had gone too far in restricting how Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents can carry out brief stops for questioning. “The prospect of such after-the-fact judicial second-guessing and contempt proceedings will inevitably chill lawful immigration enforcement efforts.”
Which begs the question, when Biden ‘flung the doors open’ and invited in millions of immigrants, was that a ‘lawful immigration’ effort?
*in any case, if you invite someone to dinner you should at least feed them.
I’m having a little trouble here remembering sending any invitations to the entire globe that we, the American taxpayers intended to provide the illegal aliens from anywhere on the planet with a no questions background check or medical clearance for infections diseases; five star hotel housing; illegal and segregationist systemic governmental discrimination policies providing them with Federal tax payer dollars or State taxpayer dollars to attend universities, and secondary public schools, at a discounted rate below that charged to legal American citizen, and feed them four squares a day, free medical care, free cell phones, X-Box entertainment centers, the list goes on and on, if only they would be so kind as to just leave their countries and deposit themselves here in violation of our immigration laws. Was it gold embossed?
—————————-
–Oddball
“Take it easy Big Joe, some of these people got sensitive feelings.”
>”I’m having a little trouble here remembering sending any invitations to the entire globe.. . ”
Perhaps this will jog your memory “….and who didn’t feel this way when Biden and Mayorkas threw wide-open the borders for years,” ~ Dianna Bec
*once again, if president Biden and Sec. Mayorkas ‘threw wide-open the borders’, how is that the fault of the immigrants who accepted that invitation?
Nothing you say undermines the legitimacy of trying to enforce the immigration laws on the books. You avoid that like the plague, and instead blow smoke to try to confuse things.
No foreigner has the right to come here in violation of the laws of our land, regardless if one particularly dementia-addled president goes to sleep and stops enforcing those laws. Anyone entering illegally has already broken our laws and should, under the law, be deported. You can’t legitimately deny that or deflect from it with silly analogies about invitations to dinner. Try a little harder, please.
Whether it was Biden’s incompetence or a deliberate intent to ‘throw open the gates’ is a distinction without much difference. There are remedies to a lawless president.
Nothing ‘legitimate’ about Trump’s love of deportations in the morning .. . or that Chicago will soon find out why it’s called the Dept. of War.
There are remedies to a lawless president.
Yup and the voters decided on a remedy last November. Trump is acting consistent with his campaign promises. He is doing exactly what the voters elected him to do.
Hold that thought. ..
*the remedy last November was much more a rejection of Biden than an affirmation of Trump.
much more a rejection of Biden than an affirmation of Trump
You might feel that personally, but it has nothing to do with why the voters besides you decided the way they did.
Me personally, I think it was both factors combined. They are, after all, quite intertwined (hey, that even rhymed).
<<"Perhaps this will jog your memory",,,
So then what is supposed to jog our memories or my memory? You neglected to say.
You do however keep asserting that this was all due to a corrupt and demented President and his sidekick "Che" Guevara Mayorkas, (IMO of course), when the truth is that the co-conspirators include the leftist entire Democrat Socialist/Marxist party, the majority of the corrupt leftist Federal judiciary system, along with the leftist elitists funding the law fare to keep the illegal aliens here for their virtue signaling, or their TDS, using up our tax dollars, along with the soft in the head RINO's in what serves as a wet noodle Republican party who desperately clutch their pearls to maintain a high brow decorum of elitism themselves along with a health dose of long gone obsolete value in bipartisan cooperation with outright anti-American enemies. And not just the ones in Congress. Why the ole Turtle Head of the Senate, made a fortune off our Communist enemies (IMO of course). But I digress…
So what is it that will jog all our memories?
———————————————
–Oddball
"Take it easy Big Joe, some of these people got sensitive feelings."
dgs – There are laws on the books, passed by Congress, that regulate immigration. “Joe Biden” refused to enforce them. Trump is trying to enforce them. In the meantime, the damage caused by “Joe Biden’s” malignant actions is widespread and affects every single American, some more severely than others.
Now that we actually have a real president doing what presidents are supposed to do – enforce the laws on the books – you say that “if you invite someone to dinner you should at least feed them” as some sort of reason to stop enforcing the laws? You’ve gone bat-s–t crazy.
First, it’s not the ‘immigrant’ boogie man that’s tearing this country apart, old man .. . you’ve gone around the bend, up sh!t creek without a paddle.
Secondly, if president refused to ‘enforce immigration laws’ arrest him – not the millions of immigrants, those poor huddled masses, yearning to breath free.
*Evidently, the SCOTUS refuses “The prospect of such after-the-fact judicial second-guessing and contempt proceedings will inevitably chill lawful immigration enforcement efforts.”
Lastly, president Trump’s love of deportations in the morning and that Chi-Town will soon find out why it’s called the Dept. of War .. . is not “enforcement of immigration law’.
Trump is being very generous. If an immigrant yearning to be free didn’t know that they were breaking our laws, they can self-deport and try to enter legally another day.
That made no sense whatsoever.
It made perfect sense to me. I’m one of the reasonable ones.
Meyer – that made sense to me. The anonymous commenter who said otherwise must have limited brain capacity.
Kansas, thanks. The anonymi are brain-dead yet slap each other on the back while thinking they are intelligent. They have no understanding of the Constitution or natural rights.
Trump is not a generous. .. or moral man.
>”If an immigrant yearning to be free didn’t know that they were breaking our laws, they can self-deport and try to enter legally another day.”
If president Biden flung the doors open, and put them up in 5-star hotels, how would an immigrant know they were breaking the law? They were trying to enter legally,
*they probably thought they’d died and gone the heaven.
Maybe you wouldn’t have known, but they are not ignorant or unaware. Biden let them in by not enforcing immigration laws. Now Trump wants them out. They can self-deport, and Trump will help them.
What is happening is simple and logical. At the same time, America will benefit.
Trump is generous and probably more moral than most men. He certainly is more moral than almost all Democrats. He looks out for the little guy.
OMFK
If I am able to change the laws to those I would personally prefer My assurance that those laws will be then followed – after the difficult task of changing the law, is that the laws that I did not like were enforced.
That is what the rule of law means.
The failure of both parties – but ESPECIALLY democrats to enforce laws they do not like rather than work to change them is a massive reason not to trust them.
If either party changes the law to something I would prefer – but that change is not put into effect – because those in power chose to ignore it. What have I gained by getting the law or constitution changed ?
The rule of law requires the enforcement of all laws – even those we think are bad laws.
I actually want BAD laws vigorously enforced. That is what inspires the public backlash to get rid of bad laws.
People do not much care about bad laws – when they are only enforced against others.
“It’s president Trump who has explicitly declared war on Chicago the Hell Hole. .. not me!”
Nope that is just political rhetoric. This is where I part company with Prof. Turley – regardless of parties.
Politicians and ordinary people are free to use violent rhetoric that meets the requirements of protected speech in Brandeberg Vs. Ohio.
Judgement on that violent rhetoric belongs to the people.
Trump does not have the power to “declare war” unilaterally.
He does have the power to send federal law enforcement and in some cases the national Guard to uphold the rule of law. Which is what he appears to be doing.
Trump can send in the NG when other law enforcement – such as that of ICE is being hindered.
He can send in the NG to enforce criminal law in DC which is part of the Federal govenrment.
It is debatable whether he can unilaterally send in the NG to enforce local law without the agreement of the state – there is no federal general police power.
Overall I think it is preferable that he does NOT – left Chicago take responsibility for itself.
I am not in favor of federal bail outs failed local govenrment – that creates moral hazard and does not correct the underlying problems. Chicago must fix its own problems.
Regardless, we are not dealing with lawless actions of a president. Trump is vigoriously enforcing federal immigration law in Chicago – he is constitutionally both free to do so and OBLIGATED to do so.
“if one must ‘love it or leave it’”
No one has suggested that.
You are free to try to change the government – by changing the law, by changing the constitution, by protesting.
You are NOT free to use FORCE to alter or abolish the existing govenrment EXCEPT where individual rights are being routinely violated and all non-violent remedies have been employed.
If you seek to change the govenrment to RESTRICT the rights of citizens – then you should leave.
“Don’t believe the elections are fair or free.”
Correct, they are not – we have not followed our election laws.
” in part due to Citizens United”
ROFL
CU allows people acting as a group the same political rights as people acting individually – that is all.
The lefts position on it is farcically absurd.
“the elections are now bought and sold”
No one has “bought” my vote – did someone buy yours ?
The ONLY evidence of votes possibily being improperly influenced is mailin voting – no other nation in the world allows ballots to leave the polling places – for good reason. The secret ballot provisions in the constitutions of 38 states that were the result of massive buying and selling of votes in the 19th century, are there so that it is impossible for a third party to ascertain how you have voted – therefore they will not Buy your vote and you can not sell your vote. Further no third party can threaten or induce you to vote in anyway – because no one can prove how they voted.
Enforce state constitutional secret ballot requirements and buying and selling votes is not possible.
Anyone who wishes (except the government being elected) is free to express themselves on elections, and you can freely chose to listen or not.
You seem to be under the delusion that money determines the outcomes of elections.
Trump has been massively outspent by democrats in each of the last three elections, and won 2 clearly and the 3rd was extremely close. Massive election spending does not effect elections. But even if it did it would be constitutional.
Gerrymandering is much ado about nothing. TX is trying to gerrymander a few more GOP seats. Whoop di do.
CA, IL, MA, …. are already massively lopsidely gerrymandered to democrats.
The overall nationwide impact of gerrymandering is a few seats in the house at most and it FAVORS democrats.
“I agree Biden flung the doors open and invited in untold millions of immigrants, so arrest president Biden if that was ‘illegal’”
It is not illegal, it is a violation of his oath of office – to uphold the constitution and the laws of the land.
You impeach and remove for that – that is incredibly difficult – as it ought to be.
” not the vast majority of immigrants looking for a better life”
The largest portion of those being deported are criminals.
Nearly all the legal fights are over deporting CRIMINALS.
Absolutely millions of people want to come here for a better life – an estimate 3/4Billion accross the world.
Are you going to let everyone who wants to come and is “seeking a better life” to come ?
“that’s what this country was built on.”
Nope, pretty much from the start the US has had immigration laws – restrictions on immigration.
At some times we have been more open to immigration than others – though in all of US history there has NEVER been a period in which there were not draconian restrictions on the immigration of asians.
Ema Lazurus’s “The New Colosus” is aspirational. It is NOT and never has been US law.
Regardless, I am FINE with millions of new immigrants per year. But they must enter lawfully if they wish to be allowed to stay. Right now thousands are “self deporting” Trump has offered thousands of dollars and a free plane ticket to those who would self deport. Further if you self deport, you remain eligable to apply to enter legally. If you are caught in the US illegally you may NEVER legally immigrate.
If you came to the US illegally – when you are caught, you will be removed.
You are NOT losing anything that you had a right to in the first place.
You are being sent home – not to prison. if you are detained pending deportation – you can terminate that detention at anytime by agreeing to go home.
I would personally support more legal immigration.
But I am NOT entitled to force my wishes requarding immigration on others.
The rule of law REQUIRES we follow the laws that we have, until such time as we can change them to our liking.
We are each free to disagree about what the law should be.
“It is debatable whether he can unilaterally send in the NG to enforce local law without the agreement of the state – there is no federal general police power.”
It’s not debatable. The Posse Comitatus act makes it illegal to use the NG or the military to enforce or engage in law enforcement in a state that is not under attack, invasion, or dealing with crime in cities. Trump is acting lawless when he sends the NG or the military to “help” other cities with their crime problems.
“Regardless, we are not dealing with lawless actions of a president. Trump is vigoriously enforcing federal immigration law in Chicago – he is constitutionally both free to do so and OBLIGATED to do so.”
Absolutely not. President Trump is acting lawless. He’s already been rebuked by the courts for bypassing due process and seeking to deport individuals who had a right to a hearig and constest their deportation by moving them in secret and not letting the courts catch up with the lawlessness until it’s too late.
That is NOT following the law. He’s seeking to get rid of birthright citizenship by fiat, also a lawless action. There are plenty more. President Trump IS being lawless. He waits until the Supreme Court tells him to stop and ignores the lower courts. That is lawless action.
Dianna
I have rejected the claim that we are currently anywhere near a civil war.
We have and will see more left wing violence – violence is inherent int he nature of the left.
The American revolution was relatively bloodless compared to the french revolution – compared to ALL left wing revolutions.
The left can not win and hold the hearts and minds of people, it must take power and hold by FORCE.
We will see more and more left wing violence – it is in their nature.
J6 was not an insurrection. It was not even close.
It was not sedition. It was not even tresspassing – the right to petition government REQUIRES that the capital must be open to the public especially political protests while Congress is in session.
That said the lawlessly conducted 2020 was a significant step towards justifying an actual insurrection.
The declaration of independence places TWO constraints on actual insurrection/revolution, the use of force to abolish or alter government.
The use of FORCE to alter or abolish govenrment REQUIRES that government has been abusive of the rights of the people. It must have acted unconstrained by the constitution and constitutional laws, and it must have done so to the detriment of the natural or god given rights of individuals.
The 2nd requirement is that the abuse by govenrment must be long lived – it can not just be a transient abuse.
And non-violent remedies must have failed.
The left can never meet those requirements – because the abuses of power the left claims are nearly all for the BENEFIT of individual rights, not their detriment. Cutting spending, enforcing laws the left does not like, protecting the rights of citizens – these do not ever constitute justification for revolution, for the use of force.
This is not just about accepting the results of “free and fair elections” – that is an aspiration. We certainly did not conduct either 2020 or 2024 lawfully. Regardless if we freely and fairly elected a government that was going to infringe on the natural rights of a significant minority of americans – that would meet the first requirement for a just revolution.
“It was not even tresspassing – the right to petition government REQUIRES that the capital must be open to the public especially political protests while Congress is in session.”
That is wrong. Tresspassing was committed. The right to petition government does not involve violently breaking into buildings. The Captiol was NOT open to the public that day. The public can hold political protests outside designated barriers and hold up signs, chant, be loud, etc. It does not mean the public can force their way in, attack law enforcement, destroy government property, and issue threats to lawmakers. Civility rules still apply and Congress can and does have the power to restrict the public for security and safety reasons.
If you wish to leave – you are free to do so – no one is stopping you.
There are plenty of so called left wing paradises that you are welcome to move to.
Canada, France, the UK, Cuba, Venezeula, China, ….
In this country – you had your chance. You had power and you blew it and you pissed off most of the country.
What you are NOT free to do is impose your will on the rest of us by FORCE.
If you want a Venezuealan or Haitian Nanny – move to Haiti.
You do NOT get to drag more than 10 million prospective Nannies here and FORCE them on the rest of us in violation of our laws.
If you do not like the laws – CHANGE THEM. If you do not like the constitution
AMEND IT.
If you can not do those things – live with the laws and constitution as they are or LEAVE.
LEAVE! Who said anything about leaving?
*as the Most American .. . you’d be lost without me.
Where did this idea that our rights are given to us by God come from.
Jesus said, render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s and what is God’s unto God.
He was saying that all the riches of the world could be Caesars but the one thing he could not have was man. Believing this, our founders created the bill of rights and correctly stated that these rights were not being given by the men who were writing them but rather by god. Matin Luther King believed this when he declared that “We shall overcome” because we were given the right to do so by God.
The left holds King up as a hero while at the same time rejecting the principles of freedom that he espoused. You can be sure that Kaine would not make such a statement if he thought that it would not be approved by his fellow Democrats. Sooner or later their Socialistic belief that the rights of men rest only in their hands rises to the surface. Caesar believed the same thing because like them he also believed that he was a god.
Good point about MLK. Another similar hero of both left and right is Rosa Parks. She refused to sit at the back of the bus even though the man-made law said she had to. In essence, she was appealing to natural law. The discrimination embedded in the man-made law violated the higher law (natural law) and was therefore invalid.
Great example.
On the contrary, it wasn’t ‘natural law’ (i.e. the ‘law of the jungle’) Rosa Parks was appealing to.
*you’ve got your laws mixed up again, S. Meyer.
Natural law is not the same thing as the law of the jungle. In fact they’re pretty much opposite, notwithstanding that jungles exist in nature. You’re obfuscating based the way “nature” can be used in multiple ways. That makes your argument a textbook example of the fallacy of equivocation.
The point is, I very much doubt Rosa Parks was appealing to ‘natural law’ when she refused to give up her seat. .. more likely she was appealing to Nature’s God.
*in any case, there is only the absolute .. . and the contingent.
Her actions, at their essence, were indeed appealing to natural law. The Declaration does not suggest there is a meaningful difference between that and appealing to Nature’s God. If you think there is a difference relevant to Rosa Parks, please explain.
The Declaration does distinguish between the Laws of Nature and Nature’s God.
WHEN in the Course of human Events, it becomes necessary for one People to dissolve the Political Bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the Powers of the Earth, the separate and equal Station to which *the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them*, a decent Respect to the Opinions of Mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the Separation.
*but I shan’t quibble; how ‘meaningful’ that distinction is, is debatable.
dgsnowden – you did not read my comment carefully enough. I didn’t say the Declaration fails to distinguish between the laws of nature and nature’s God. I said it fails to make a meaningful distinction between an appeal to the laws of nature and an appeal to nature’s God.
Now, if you still disagree with me, please give me an explanation that is actually relevant to my assertion.
I carefully examined your comment and gave it all the due diligence it deserved.
You said, and I quote, “The Declaration does not suggest there is a meaningful difference between that (i.e. Natural Law) and appealing to Nature’s God.”
That is false. .. especially in the case of Rosa Parks.
dgsnowden – I’m starting to question your ability to read basic English. The word “that” refers back to what went before. What went before, in this case, is: Her actions, at their essence, were indeed appealing to natural law.
Your failure to understand that can perhaps be excused based on inability; but your refusal to defer to my explanation of what I meant – especially when my explanation is entirely consistent with what I wrote – is less forgivable. As is your pattern, you are just obfuscating and deflecting, rather than trying to engage in honest dialogue. Enjoy your evening.
The distinction is between the instinctive behavior of creatures that do not have free will and the chosen behavior of those that do.
Accept that humans have free will and the rest of natural law follows logically.
I don’t know what you are talking about. Read Oldman’s comment and get your head straight.
Natural law is not the “law of the jungle”.
Natural law is the law that flows naturally from the FACT that humans have Free will.
Other creatures in nature do NOT have free will. The law of the jungle is the law of lions and Tigers and bears.
It is NOT the natural law of humans.
While our founders did not separate natural law from he rights endowed us by our creator,
There is no need for a god to reach the same natural law, and the same distinction with the “law of the jungle”. All that is necescary is to accept that nature is ordered – that it behaves in accordance with laws, and that Humans have free will. The rest flows logically.
?????????
When you try to take from what others have said and jumble it up into your own sermons, you tie you shoes in knots and fall over.
You could just as easily argue that Rosa Parks was asserting rights passed by Congress in 1966., and “constitutiuonalized” 2 years later. Equal protection under the law. God had forsaken the freed slaves in the South for 100 years. What kind of impotent, feckless God is that? Not one to be relied upon for rights.
You could just as easily argue that Rosa Parks was asserting rights passed by Congress in 1966
That would have been difficult since her act of civil disobedience occurred in 1955.
Well said! I whole heartedly concur . . . .
God is the Nature of Begin in the natural state of order, un-aflicted by manifest of Mankind’s cognoscente (Laws), in a stream of evolutionary enlightenment, of which there are no boundaries to the limitless Heavens.
Basically, ‘GOD’ is a way of Life throughout endless time.
Bwahahahahaha Newscum and Bass lose again!!!
Eat it libturds.