Have there been any legal challenges to anti-boycott laws? Freedom of association, or nonassociation, is a core component of freedom of speech. It seems like these laws would be immediately struck down on challenge.
It seems like they're trying to cloud the issue and inappropriately intertwine it with foreign interference laws by not outright prohibiting boycotts of US ally states, but only when they are "encouraged or supported by a foreign state". Just because some country and I both happen to decide to boycott Israel doesn't mean there's any coordination between us or that I just didn't happen to come to the same decision they did independently.
Hey, we may have slipped to a third world equivalent in math, reading, and science, but at least we're still number one in something...
I have said for years that the democrat support for illegal immigrants and weakened voter identity laws was a fairly obvious ploy for demographic replacement.
They don't care if a former working class neighborhood is converted into Little Somalia and populated by idle welfare recipients as long as those people vote Democrat.
We've already seen that with the black community beginning in the 1960's. They used the levers of power to destroy the family unit, stoke racial tension and a victim mentality, and then provided the "solution" in the form of trading votes for handouts with a permanent underclass of their own creation.
They ought to empty their prisons, and give the worst of the worst a one-way bus ride to blue states and major blue cities, but they won't.
"Well, I had to pay $10 for breakfast, $20 for gas, and I lost $1000 because I couldn't work this morning, and I could have just not shown up and paid a $100 fine."
I don't understand this. I mean I absolutely get why the state would try and pay you nothing at all because they're fucking cheap and selfish and unethical, but what boggles my mind is that they think they can do that to you and then you will be impartial in any trial to which they are a party.
I'd be inclined to hang the jury just to take revenge on them for stealing my time. "Oh, you're going to fuck me out of a week's wages while I sit here? How about I just fucking destroy this trial and you can spend another $30K doing it all over again?"
Outdated because it depicted Africans as relatively competent warriors who could use successfully use superior numbers to destroy a British column at the Battle of Isandlwana despite having stone age weapons? Instead of depicting them as completely useless like their modem counterparts?
Really Rorke's Drift was an absolutely amazing defense and by all rights they should have been wiped out like their compatriots at Isandlwana. It's no criticism on the Zulus that they lost.
Don't forget her friends in Hawaii who said that the Second Amendment wasn't consistent with the "Spirit of Aloha" and their pre-American legal tradition.
I'm actually for this. I hope all the lower courts openly defy SCOTUS. They're going to put them in the position of either issuing a soul-crushing ruling that pretty much takes gun control completely out of the hands of the states, or they're going to show themselves to be completely impotent.
If it's the latter, you can expect right leaning states to jump on the bandwagon and begin ignoring any SCOTUS rulings that aren't consistent with their worldview as well.
Then we have the complete collapse of one of the branches of government, and some real shit might kick off.
I'll take "instant grounds for an appeal for $100, Alex".
While I'm assuming the frizzy haired negress is probably a shitty judge it has a very low understanding of the law, surely she knows that after saying that her decision will be automatically appealed, and the next higher court will be practically compelled to hear the case. At that point, you might as well save the paper you were using to write the rest of your opinion, as they'll be pretty much starting from scratch anyway.
For those countries with "duty to rescue" laws, I think it goes without saying that the government imposes no similar duty on its own employees or agents.
Likewise, even though you are compelled to render assistance, should you somehow suffer injury I can all but guarantee those governments won't be providing medical care or any other assistance to you.
When the fall happens, the US government is going to be shocked, not just at how many citizens will refuse to lift a finger to help it, but even more by how many have been nursing an impotent rage for years and turn on it like rabid dogs.
"We waz zombie hunters and sheet!"
The worst con in history was those insufferable "women's rights" groups getting a gender that makes up over 50% of the population labeled a "minority".
Get fucked, whore.
Just your daily reminder that Canada is not a democracy. They should have just stayed home during WWII; they'd probably be better off as a vassel state of the Germans or Japs.
Yes, it would have been a trial on the legality of succession, and not a question the north wanted answered. If he was found innocent that would have meant they just spent the last 4 years killing people and ravaging the South without any legal justification.
Interestingly, after he was held without bail for 2 years, a bunch of prominent Northern businessmen pooled their money to bail him out; people who didn't share any of his beliefs but felt that he was being denied due process and that was wrong. I have often said that in the past we were a more principled people, and that sort of thing demonstrates it.
There was no reason the South shouldn't have been able to withdraw from the union under the basic tenets that formed the foundation of the country. The Declaration of Independence clearly states that governments are formed by men, and when men no longer feel that their government is serving their needs they are free to leave and start a new one.
To say that they didn't mean that to apply to the United States as well is to completely lack understanding of the frame of mind of the founders.
Unfortunately, slavery is such a morally repugnant institution that we have allowed the issue to be clouded by the fact that the North ended it. Saying that the North was the right side in the Civil War is basically an ends justify the means argument and wouldn't be any different then saying it's okay to deny due process to a particularly offensive criminal.
The most famous example being Italy refusing to join the Central Powers in 1914.
The irony here is that, despite being on the winning side by joining the entente in 1915, Italy basically came out of the war as if it had been on the losing side. England and France basically reneged on all their promises used to induce them to flip sides.
Now hold on here, Australia pretty much banned guns, and we all know that nobody ever hurt anyone else before there were guns...
Pilots' uniforms usually show some sort of rank, so this is even crazier to me.
FYI, the rank doesn't really mean anything; it's a position identifier. The captain of the plane will have four stripes, just like the captain of a ship. The copilot/first officer will have three. The flight attendants wear a completely different uniform and don't have any.
In the airlines, everything is about position and seniority. The most senior captains will make the most money and have the most choice in their schedules.
I had a buddy that was a senior copilot at once of the major airlines, and when he first upgraded to captain, he actually fell further down priority list when choosing their schedule because he went from one of the most senior copilots to the most junior captain. Of course that's temporary, and the move opens up far more potential for earning and greater seniority down the line.
I have no idea about seniority at the regional airlines, which pay people like shit and are generally just used as a feeder to getting a job at one of the big ones. If you have a decent mid-level white color job, you probably make more than a pilot on a regional airline.
If you're not tough enough for the Marines, not smart enough for the Air Force, and you can't swim, there's only one branch left.
Good quote, but it's fake.
A congressman saw this in a letter to the editor in the Washington Star in 1957 and had it read into the Congressional record as proof of a communist plot. That prompted the paper to research it, and they determined that the book did not exist and traced the quote back to Eustace Mullins.
I don't doubt that leveraging racial tensions was the Soviet strategy to destabilize the United States, but this quote and the book it supposedly came from are fake.
So who shot first? The cop whose body cam we're viewing is arguing with him about opening the door and all the sudden there's gunfire and she takes off running.
I'm assuming the dindu, otherwise the article headline would have said something about them shooting at an unarmed man.
There's a lot to unpack here. First, one of the things about America is that when something goes wrong the public demands a scapegoat. I think small minds don't want to deal with the fact that rarely is a problem just one (or a few) person's fault, that systems can and do fail both regularly and spectacularly. They want things tied up in a neat bow, and this conviction gives it to them: it was all a warped kid his parents failed to stop him. Let's put those three in jail, and all is right with the world. You can return to your regularly scheduled programming.
The second is that this is a further step in the gun control agenda. Anti-gun groups have been clamoring for years to hold gun owners responsible when someone gets ahold of and misuses their gun. They hit the gold mine with two very unsympathetic parents who are undoubtedly negligent. But don't think for a second these are the only kind of people they want to hold to this level of liability. Left-leaning states are already passing laws that if your firearm is stolen and you don't immediately report it to the police you are liable for anything the thief later does with it. Their goal is to dissuade people from owning guns because they become too much of a liability risk if they are lost or stolen.
Finally, even though the parents have the lion's share of the blame here, let's not forget that on the very day the shooting occurred the school did not feel that he was such a threat that he had to be sent home or the police be notified, and it sounds like they didn't even ask:
Staff at Oxford High School did not demand that he go home but were surprised when the Crumbleys didn’t volunteer it during a brief meeting.
So if the very people who were on the ground at the shooting mere hours away from it occurring didn't see an imminent threat is it reasonable to expect that his parents would have had clairvoyance into his violent future?
Once you start noticing this sort of thing, you can't stop. Media is absolutely shot through with these little turns of phrase that promote legitimacy of organizations and ideas they like and cast subtle snubs on those they don't.
It's never worked on me, but I imagine it's terribly effective on normie cattle.
I'm completely failing to see a crime here other than "actions that damage the image of the Democratic Globohomo Party".
She was convicted of "conspiracy". Conspiracy to what? Where I live, laws are based entirely on the value of the item- your neighbor cut down 100-year-old tree that was the centerpiece of your landscaping? You're only going to recover the value of the lumber in court, they give zero fucks about the impossibility of replacing it or the intangible value of the thing. So what is the going market value for a diary that someone has already filled out?
Who cares. Women are stupid and say stupid things. "Ooh, it would be alone in a forest with a bear than a man" is just their sad version of an edge lord shit post. That an army of them keep reposting it like a bunch of seals barking on command is just for the proof of their stupidity.