A moment of silence for the first amendment

[Adonia]

But never let the US Constitution be disrespected like this by a leader again

Oh man, that is one tall order. Our last President thought he had the power to make new laws all by himself. He was shot down by the Supreme Court just about every time he tried one of his end runs around the Constitution.

 

[Gold Dragon]

Oh man, that is one tall order. Our last President thought he had the power to make new laws all by himself. He was shot down by the Supreme Court just about every time he tried one of his end runs around the Constitution.

If what you say is true, that is obama respecting the constitution by respecting the judiciary’s role in keeping the executive in check. Disrespecting the constitution would be ignoring the judiciary when it didn’t agree with him. Like trying to cover up a violation of the 1st amendment.

 

[Adonia]

If what you say is true, that is obama respecting the constitution by respecting the judiciary’s role in keeping the executive in check

No, he disrespected the Constitution by even trying to do the things he did. He is on video time and time again in front of Hispanic audiences saying he cannot just make new immigration laws all by himself, that he wasn't a King, that the Congress had to act and he would then sign the bill sent to him into law. Then, one day out of the blue he signs an Executive Order, the DACA Executive Order, which in essence was a new immigration law. He did not have the constitutional authority to do such a thing, only the Congress has the authority. Therefore he disrespected the Constitution terribly by doing what he did and in my humble opinion should have been impeached.

You certainly have a convoluted way of thinking.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Everyone will now disappear from this thread because they are unable to address what contradicts their worldview. Myopic.

You noticed

 

[Use of Time]

No, he disrespected the Constitution by even trying to do the things he did. He is on video time and time again in front of Hispanic audiences saying he cannot just make new immigration laws all by himself, that he wasn't a King, that the Congress had to act and he would then sign the bill sent to him into law. Then, one day out of the blue he signs an Executive Order, the DACA Executive Order, which in essence was a new immigration law. He did not have the constitutional authority to do such a thing, only the Congress has the authority. Therefore he disrespected the Constitution terribly by doing what he did and in my humble opinion should have been impeached.

You certainly have a convoluted way of thinking.

Evexutive Orders huh. You really want to go there? Lol.

 

[Gold Dragon]

Everyone will now disappear from this thread because they are unable to address what contradicts their worldview. Myopic.

Call me the eternal optimist. I’ve been around here for a long time, not because I enjoy receiving ad hominems but hopeful that my brothers and sisters in Christ would free themselves from the manipulation of those who take advantage of their trust.

 

[Adonia]

Evexutive Orders huh. You really want to go there? Lol.

Bring it on. Every time President Trump was challenged on his Executive Orders, the Supreme Court upheld them, ruling against the leftist Federal Judges who ruled in the first place and then the leftist dominated lower Appeals Courts.

 

[Gold Dragon]

Barr throwing a USPP tactical commander under the bus for this incident.

Barr says he didn’t give tactical order to clear protesters

Barr said the plan was supposed to be put into action soon after the meeting, but additional officers and National Guard troops had to be called in because of a high number of officers who had been injured throughout the weekend. It had not yet been implemented when he arrived at the park later in the evening and the crowd had grown much larger than it was in the afternoon, Barr said.

Still, he said he did not give the officers the orders to proceed — they were already in the process of doing so when he showed up.

"They told me they were about to make the announcement and I think they stretched the announcements over 20 minutes. During the time I was there, I would periodically hear announcements,” Barr said. “They had the Park Police mounted unit ready, so it was just a matter of execution. So, I didn’t just say to them, ‘Go.’”

Barr said it was a Park Police tactical commander — an official he never spoke to — who gave the order for the law enforcement agencies to move in and clear the protesters.

“I’m not involved in giving tactical commands like that,” he said. “I was frustrated and I was also worried that as the crowd grew, it was going to be harder and harder to do. So my attitude was get it done, but I didn’t say, ‘Go do it.’”

Barr attempts to distance himself from removal of peaceful protesters before Trump photo-op - CNNPolitics

Barr and other top officials from agencies responsible for securing the White House had previously planned to secure a wider perimeter around Lafayette Square, a federally owned green space just north of the building, in response to fires and destruction caused by protesters on Sunday night. That plan, developed earlier Monday, would have cleared the area later used for the President's walk to the nearby church for a photo-op by 4 p.m. ET, the official said.

But when Barr arrived at Lafayette Square just after 6 p.m., in a scene that was captured on news cameras and elicited heckles from the large, peaceful crowd, the attorney general saw that the area had not been emptied, and told police to clear the area, the official said.
If federal law enforcement was met with resistance by the protesters, crowd control measures should be implemented, Barr had said, according to the official.

 

[Use of Time]

You know it’s pretty pathetic how after you guys took your shots at Golden Dragon and he ends up validating his argument everyone clears out of here or tries to change the subject like Adonia who did the “what about Obama” thing.

Trump made a mockery of the constitution and Christianity in on afternoon. Very impressive.

 

[RighteousnessTemperance&]

Call me the eternal optimist. I’ve been around here for a long time, not because I enjoy receiving ad hominems but hopeful that my brothers and sisters in Christ would free themselves from the manipulation of those who take advantage of their trust.

Yes, it's especially hard to watch those who allow themselves to be so blindly, mindlessly misled by the godless progressive leftist media and politicians, but no one can force them to give it up, rather it's something they will have to realize themselves, much like Candace Owens did.

 

[Use of Time]

Yes, it's especially hard to watch those who allow themselves to be so blindly, mindlessly misled by the godless progressive leftist media and politicians, but no one can force them to give it up, rather it's something they will have to realize themselves, much like Candace Owens did.

Deflections. People ignoring this thread like the plague now because they got dosed with a helping of crow.

 

[Adonia]

You know it’s pretty pathetic how after you guys took your shots at Golden Dragon and he ends up validating his argument everyone clears out of here or tries to change the subject like Adonia who did the “what about Obama” thing.

Trump made a mockery of the constitution and Christianity in on afternoon. Very impressive.

I made my case many times over, the Obama thing was just a side bar. Do I need to say it again? No one's constitutional rights were violated, no one was arrested, they were just moved to a different location so they could continue on with their chanting of spells, the making of potions, sticking Trump dolls with pins and their perceived injustices. So not only were their protesting rights respected, but their religious rights as well.

 

[RighteousnessTemperance&]

Deflections. People ignoring this thread like the plague now because they got dosed with a helping of crow.

Nonsensical, but all too typical, non sequitur. Try to follow what is actually being said. The post I replied to was ridiculously general to the point of being an obvious lie.

The hypocrisy of thinking oneself the deliverer of the conservative mindset by posting skewed information from progressive leftist media as if it's the truth is too rich a target. He even appealed as an ad hominem victim, though he himself typically resorts to ad hominem whenever outed for carelessly propagating even dangerous bias.

We all tend to see things from our own perspective. You and GD are no exception, obviously deceived by progressive leftist propaganda.

 

[Use of Time]

Nonsensical, but all too typical, non sequitur. Try to follow what is actually being said. The post I replied to was ridiculously general to the point of being an obvious lie.

The hypocrisy of thinking oneself the deliverer of the conservative mindset by posting skewed information from progressive leftist media as if it's the truth is too rich a target. He even appealed as an ad hominem victim, though he himself typically resorts to ad hominem whenever outed for carelessly propagating even dangerous bias.

We all tend to see things from our own perspective. You and GD are no exception, obviously deceived by progressive leftist propaganda.

Still not addressing the content of his post. We all know why pal. Keep deflecting. I’ve been here long enough to know that this is all smoke and mirrors to keep you away from addressing his post. You aren’t the first to do it here and won’t be the last.

 

[Gold Dragon]

Former White House chief of Staff John Kelly: 'I agree' with Jim Mattis on Trump

Former White House chief of staff John Kelly said Friday he agrees with former Secretary of Defense Gen. Jim Mattis' stark warning this week that President Donald Trump is "the first president in my lifetime who does not try to unite the American people" as nationwide protests have intensified over the death of George Floyd.

"I agree with him," Kelly told Anthony Scaramucci, former White House communications director, during a live-streamed interview.

"There is a concern, I think an awful big concern, that the partisanship has gotten out of hand, the tribal thing has gotten out of hand," Kelly said. "He's quite a man, Jim Mattis, and for him to do that tells you where he is relative to the concern he has for our country."
...
"I think we need to look harder at who we elect," Kelly said on Friday. "I think we should look at people that are running for office and put them through the filter: What is their character like? What are their ethics?"

89 former Defense officials: The military must never be used to violate constitutional rights

He also had a force, including members of the National Guard and federal officers, that used flash-bang grenades, pepper spray and, according to eyewitness accounts, rubber bullets to drive lawful protesters, as well as members of the media and clergy, away from the historic St. John’s Episcopal Church. All so he could hold a politically motivated photo op there with members of his team, including, inappropriately, Defense Secretary Mark T. Esper and Gen. Mark A. Milley, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

Looting and violence are unacceptable acts, and perpetrators should be arrested and duly tried under the law. But as Monday’s actions near the White House demonstrated, those committing such acts are largely on the margins of the vast majority of predominantly peaceful protests. While several past presidents have called on our armed services to provide additional aid to law enforcement in times of national crisis — among them Ulysses S. Grant, Dwight D. Eisenhower, John F. Kennedy and Lyndon B. Johnson — these presidents used the military to protect the rights of Americans, not to violate them.
...
We are alarmed at how the president is betraying this oath by threatening to order members of the U.S. military to violate the rights of their fellow Americans.
...
As defense leaders who share a deep commitment to the Constitution, to freedom and justice for all Americans, and to the extraordinary men and women who volunteer to serve and protect our nation, we call on the president to immediately end his plans to send active-duty military personnel into cities as agents of law enforcement, or to employ them or any another military or police forces in ways that undermine the constitutional rights of Americans. The members of our military are always ready to serve in our nation’s defense. But they must never be used to violate the rights of those they are sworn to protect.

Colin Powell: Trump has 'drifted away' from the Constitution

We have a Constitution. And we have to follow that Constitution. And the President has drifted away from it," Powell, a retired general who served under President George W. Bush, told CNN's Jake Tapper on "State of the Union."
...
"I think what we're seeing now, is (the most) massive protest movement I have ever seen in my life, I think it suggests the country is getting wise to this and we're not going to put up with it anymore," the retired general told Tapper
...
Asked why it was so important to him that Trump not be reelected, Powell said that he thinks Trump has not been an effective president and that he lies "all the time."

"What we have to do now is reach out to the whole people, watch these demonstrations, watch these protests, and rather than curse them, embrace them to see what it is we have to do to get out of the situation that we find ourselves in now," he told Tapper. "We're America, we're Americans, we can do this. We have the ability to do it, and we ought to do it. Make America not just great, but strong and great for all Americans, not just a couple."
...
"You have to agree with it. I mean, look at what he has done to divide us," he said. "I agree with all of my former colleagues."

"I'm proud of what they're doing. I'm proud that they were willing to take the risk of speaking honesty and speaking truth to those who are not speaking truth," Powell said.

 

[Adonia]

Former White House chief of Staff John Kelly: 'I agree' with Jim Mattis on Trump



89 former Defense officials: The military must never be used to violate constitutional rights




Colin Powell: Trump has 'drifted away' from the Constitution

I would like to know how these men feel about the times the military was used in the United States against it's own people. Specifically for General Powell I would like to ask him if it was okay when President Eisenhower sent men from the 101st Airborne Division into Little Rock, Ar. to enforce a Supreme Court decision there. Had we "drifted away" from the Constitution then?

Was it okay to send Federal Forces into Los Angeles during the 1992 riots to quell them? The California National Guard was Federalized and active duty Federal troops were sent in. Had we "drifted away" from the Constitution then?

How about the time President Hoover sent the Army led by General McArthur and his aide Major Eisenhower into Washington DC to confront what was called "The Bonus Army" which was made up of WW1 veterans who only wanted to get the bonus they had been promised by the government. Had we drifted away from the Constitution then also?

So we can see that there was precedent for the President, any President, to use the powers granted to him by the U.S. Constitution in his role as Commander-in-Chief to use the military within the continental United States and against United States citizens. I said ANY PRESIDENT, not just ANY PRESIDENT except Donald J. Trump.

 

[RighteousnessTemperance&]

Deflections. People ignoring this thread like the plague now because they got dosed with a helping of crow.

Still not addressing the content of his post. We all know why pal. Keep deflecting. I’ve been here long enough to know that this is all smoke and mirrors to keep you away from addressing his post. You aren’t the first to do it here and won’t be the last.

The irrational obstinacy and irrelevance of your posts in the face of simple truth is truly amazing, but I suppose meshes well with the hypocritical condescension of GD's post (below) which you seem so desperate to legitimize.

BTW just who all are posting under "Use of Time"? I probably shouldn't ask, unless I'm prepared for the reply, "Our name is <self-edited>!"

Call me the eternal optimist. I’ve been around here for a long time, not because I enjoy receiving ad hominems but hopeful that my brothers and sisters in Christ would free themselves from the manipulation of those who take advantage of their trust.

 

[Gold Dragon]

I would like to know how these men feel about the times the military was used in the United States against it's own people. Specifically for General Powell I would like to ask him if it was okay when President Eisenhower sent men from the 101st Airborne Division into Little Rock, Ar. to enforce a Supreme Court decision there. Had we "drifted away" from the Constitution then?

Was it okay to send Federal Forces into Los Angeles during the 1992 riots to quell them? The California National Guard was Federalized and active duty Federal troops were sent in. Had we "drifted away" from the Constitution then?

How about the time President Hoover sent the Army led by General McArthur and his aide Major Eisenhower into Washington DC to confront what was called "The Bonus Army" which was made up of WW1 veterans who only wanted to get the bonus they had been promised by the government. Had we drifted away from the Constitution then also?

So we can see that there was precedent for the President, any President, to use the powers granted to him by the U.S. Constitution in his role as Commander-in-Chief to use the military within the continental United States and against United States citizens. I said ANY PRESIDENT, not just ANY PRESIDENT except Donald J. Trump.

The statement from the 89 addressed this.

While several past presidents have called on our armed services to provide additional aid to law enforcement in times of national crisis — among them Ulysses S. Grant, Dwight D. Eisenhower, John F. Kennedy and Lyndon B. Johnson — these presidents used the military to protect the rights of Americans, not to violate them.

 

[RighteousnessTemperance&]

The statement from the 89 addressed this.

They only mentioned it; they didn't address it, much less demonstrate a valid difference. Sounds very much like a political hit job.

 

[Adonia]

The statement from the 89 addressed this.

We see how people can pick and choose when they think if someone's rights were violated. I would put forth the notion that the rights of the veterans who had gotten together to protest that they had not received their promised bonus were violated. They were peacefully encamped when General Macarthur descended upon them with his troops tearing down their tents and forcefully removing them. So those 89 former defense officials didn't deem that action to be a major violation of their rights? I'm astounded, completely astounded!

It's all political, it's all against "Orange Man Bad". The authority that other President's have had to do things does not apply to President Trump. I get it.