Dennis Meadows, member of the WEF, has called for an 86% reduction in the human
population, arguing that "the goal can be achieved peacefully." He went on to s
y that the genocide of 86% is "inevitable."
y that the genocide of 86% is "inevitable."
Can you provide a link to this? I would like to share it.
I really cannot understand how some people ignore or don't care about calls for "active" depopulation like this one. It seems that the people who are less concerned are the same ones who think that the Republicans are the Nazis. Active depopulation, by removing specific demographics
-- Jews, Slavs -- was exactly what the German Nazis were up to.
Aaron Thomas wrote to All <=-
Dennis Meadows, member of the WEF, has called for an 86% reduction in
the human population, arguing that "the goal can be achieved
peacefully." He went on to say that the genocide of 86% is
"inevitable."
Part of his argument is that most of the world's population must be
wiped out so that survivors can "have freedom," giving new meaning to
the word.
This part of the WEF's mission makes me reconsider "They're changing
the racial Demographic to get Democrat votes." Now I believe there's
more: They're collecting "redundant humans" in the USA, because it's easier to centralize them in such a desirable place as opposed to some LDC. In Europe, they're luring them to Germany.
Can you provide a link to this? I would like to share it.
I put it on the bottom of that post:
https://slaynews.com/news/wef-advisor-do-we-need-so-many-humans/
I really cannot understand how some people ignore or don't care about calls for "active" depopulation like this one. It seems that the people who are less concerned are the same ones who think that the Republicans are the Nazis. Active depopulation, by removing specific demographics -- Jews, Slavs -- was exactly what the German Nazis were up to.
What I don't understand is, if you attended just 1 WEF meeting, does that make
ou a "member?" Because Trump attended at least 1 of them. But does every atten
e attend every conference? (It would be a crime if I don't also mention that b
h Sinema and Manchin attended recently!)
Part of his argument is that most of the world's population must be wiped out so that survivors can "have freedom," giving new meaning to the word.
They like to redefine words to mean the opposite of what they actually mean.
I wonder if these people are required to study George Orwell.
There's multiple layers here.
1. They want a COMPLIANT population and Americans, in general, are not compliant.
2. So we have the jabs, bad food, pollution, etc. to reduce the population - mostly American. Remember that the "migrants" didn't have to get the jab.
3. Then we have the illegal aliens, who like to breed like crazy, come in. Bu
these people are more compliant.
Dennis Meadows, member of the WEF, has called for an 86% reduction in the human population, arguing that "the goal can be achieved peacefully." He went on to say that the genocide of 86% is "inevitable."
All part of the "Climate Change" false Narrative.
more: They're collecting "redundant humans" in the USA, because it's easier to centralize them in such a desirable place as opposed to som LDC. In Europe, they're luring them to Germany.
There's multiple layers here.
1. They want a COMPLIANT population and Americans, in general, are not compliant.
2. So we have the jabs, bad food, pollution, etc. to reduce the
population - mostly American. Remember that the "migrants" didn't have
to get the jab. 3. Then we have the illegal aliens, who like to breed
like crazy, come in. But these people are more compliant.
Mike Powell wrote to Dr. What <=-
Which somehow seems in contradiction to their desire to remove 86% of
the population. The ones who are dependent on the government might be compliant, but the ones who are out there working are not necessarily
so.
Aaron Thomas wrote to Dr. What <=-
Yes, Climate Change is part of the depopulation agenda also. There's another WEF video floating around somewhere of a woman (forgot her
name) complaining about humans making too many carbons, or something,
and that "it must be stopped."
Yes, multiple layers. I think multiple layers are necessary because
they don't know which parts of their disgusting plans are going to fail
vs which ones will work as planned.
Perhaps they're unsure of when the
genocide should start, so in case there's any delay, they want us
"happy" while we wait to be killed. For us all to be happy, we need
crap like gender pronouns, freedom from the jab, and DEI training.
I put it on the bottom of that post:
https://slaynews.com/news/wef-advisor-do-we-need-so-many-humans/
I realize that "slaynews" isn't very reputable, but that short article breaks wn the "agenda" nicely, and contains a link to the video of Harari referring t
the "useless people" and that the genocide of them (us) is "inevitable."
Think of what the world would be like if we removed 86% of the population. An
keep in mind that most of that 14% would be the useless Elitists.
We would not have enough people to farm well, generate energy, manufacture good. All of that would increase prices majorly and, in some cases, some things would not be cost effective to produce at all.
And remember that the Elitists always mean the opposite of what they
say. "Happy" in this case means "angry". Keep the morons angry because you are "misgenering" them and they won't notice that they've been
jabbed, or that all their rights have been removed and that they have no future.
And, above all, keep the plebes from practicing at the gun range.
https://slaynews.com/news/wef-advisor-do-we-need-so-many-humans/
I realize that "slaynews" isn't very reputable, but that short article b wn the "agenda" nicely, and contains a link to the video of Harari refer t
the "useless people" and that the genocide of them (us) is "inevitable."
So I read the article (difficult due to all the pop-ups) and watched the video. I honestly did not see hardly any mention of 86%. What I did see is him pointing out something that a lot of Conservatives have been complaining about... that we have a large part of our population that
sits around doing nothing and not being productive.
So I read the article (difficult due to all the pop-ups) and watched the video. I honestly did not see hardly any mention of 86%. What I did see is him pointing out something that a lot of Conservatives have been complaining about... that we have a large part of our population that
sits around doing nothing and not being productive.
video. I honestly did not see hardly any mention of 86%. What I did see is him pointing out something that a lot of Conservatives have been complaining about... that we have a large part of our population that
sits around doing nothing and not being productive.
Mike Powell wrote to Dr. What <=-
I watched the video with the article. The guy has a point, sort of.
What they discuss is that because of computer automation, there are a
lot of people who are being put out of, or will be put out of, jobs who have no other skills.
video. I honestly did not see hardly any mention of 86%. What I did see
is him pointing out something that a lot of Conservatives have been complaining about... that we have a large part of our population that sits around doing nothing and not being productive.
Yea but there are no conservatives who will vote in favor of depopulating them
Liberals would probably be ok with it- if that's what Jimmy wants.
I watched the video with the article. The guy has a point, sort of. What they discuss is that because of computer automation, there are a lot of people who are being put out of, or will be put out of, jobs who have no other skills.
But none of that is new. How many blacksmiths are there now? How about carriage/cart makers? Street cleaners? The list is very long.
Times change. Technology changes. And people will change with it. "Doing something" about people being "left behind by technology" is just more Elitist
thinking. That some big, benevolent (for now), organization can come in and solve problems is a socialist pipe dream.
Yea but there are no conservatives who will vote in favor of depopulatin them
Liberals would probably be ok with it- if that's what Jimmy wants.
I would be in favor of them breeding less, that is for sure. A lot of
liberals wouldn't be in for killing them if they are already born, but your Elitist Leftists (i.e. the ones with money) or the radical environmentalists might be ok with it.
Mike Powell wrote to Dr. What <=-
I agree it has happened before, but this one might be a little
different.
It seems that the jobs that are growing are in sectors where
(1) people don't really want to work, like fast food, and that (2)
don't pay enough for someone to make the same living they used to --
i.e. they don't buy a house, have families, etc.
IMHO, part of the issue is more people going to college than in the
days of cart makers and street cleaners and majoring in things that
have never been paths to steady, decent paying employment.
Unless there is growth in some other industry that will either teach a
new person the skills they need, or pay for them to go to college/trade school to learn it, I am not sure what US on-shore industry will grow
for these people to take jobs in.
I would suggest to a young person to try learning about computers and automation if they want a future.
I didn't provide the right link and I accidentally conflated the "redundant hum
ns" WEF member with another WEF member. But the article I listed has a link to >his other article, on the same website, and it's this other WEF member, Dennis >eadows, calling for 86% reduction and saying that "genocide is inevitable."
https://slaynews.com/news/wef-member-calls-86-reduction-worlds-population/
I would be in favor of them breeding less, that is for sure. A lot of
That makes you one of them! I'm in favor of letting people breed to their hear
s content.
liberals wouldn't be in for killing them if they are already born, but your Elitist Leftists (i.e. the ones with money) or the radical environmentalists might be ok with it.
How many is "a lot?" I swear, when it comes to liberal voters, and that includ
a few "conservatives" also, they will vote in favor of stuff like "intentiona
y mutating SARS viruses," and maybe even "controlling the population" to make re that their elite kids get to breathe better air and have a better quality o
life.
OK, so this guy has been around since at least 1975 and seems to pop up whenever things are "bad." Back then he cowrote a book about the topic which has been cited by a lot of others who share his beliefs as a masterpiece.
What he does say is that he believes we do need to reduce the population by ~86%, and that he believes it can be done "peacefully," possibly by some benevolent dictator who will be "smart" but also lower the standard of living. He believes it should affect everyone "equally" so that it is
living in the Western World. They do probably have some truth in their ideas -- consumerism is difficult to sustain and takes its toll on the Earth -- but most of their ideas are pretty radical, IMHO.
That makes you one of them! I'm in favor of letting people breed to thei hear
s content.
I guess it does! I come from a big family. We did ok, but I firmly believe that people who don't have the means to support their kids shouldn't be bringing them into the world. There are too many successful forms of easy to obtain birth control out there now for people to have
any excuse for doing so.
It seems that the jobs that are growing are in sectors where
(1) people don't really want to work, like fast food, and that (2)
don't pay enough for someone to make the same living they used to -- i.e. they don't buy a house, have families, etc.
But jobs that pay like that were NEVER meant to be for living on your own, buying a house, etc. Those jobs were meant to be for young people to get experience working and develop good work skills that will help them later.
Also, you have the Scamdemic and how some states are **still** paying able bodied workers to not work,
OK, so this guy has been around since at least 1975 and seems to pop up whenever things are "bad." Back then he cowrote a book about the topic which has been cited by a lot of others who share his beliefs as a masterpiece.
He re-emerged in 2023 in that interview. I never heard of him until I found th
interview, and all I can find out about him is that he's an author who has wr
ten a book or two.
I find the concept of the WEC irritating. The wealthy and the
powerful, and the Democrats, talk about stuff behind closed doors in Sweden. e people who are content with the WEF (i.e. Democrat/RINO voters) are probably
he same ones who are content with "let's intentionally mutate SARS to make it
deadly as possible."
What he does say is that he believes we do need to reduce the population by ~86%, and that he believes it can be done "peacefully," possibly by some benevolent dictator who will be "smart" but also lower the standard of living. He believes it should affect everyone "equally" so that it is
Too many WEF members are making references to things that sound like they want
o kill us.
"What do we want so many humans for?" (2023 WEF member from the 1st video.) "We need to reduce the population by 86%" (2023 WEF member from 2nd video.) "Control population so our children can breathe cleaner air and drink cleaner ter" (2023 Kamala Harris.)
Of course the media and WH spox say "She mis-spoke" but yea right.
9 out of 10 leftists would also call it "too radical" if they knew about it, a
if they weren't so distracted by all the crap spewing from the media.
I guess it does! I come from a big family. We did ok, but I firmly believe that people who don't have the means to support their kids shouldn't be bringing them into the world. There are too many successful
forms of easy to obtain birth control out there now for people to have any excuse for doing so.
I know a couple that is completely out of their minds, neither of them work, th
ir disgusting apartment smells like cat feces, and they don't seem to get the c
ncept of soap and/or incense sticks. But they're raising a baby, and why not? T
e government should tell them that they can't?
I don't think people should tell them "You guys are scumbags, and you have no ains, and you don't have jobs, so you're prohibited from being parents."
Instead, I think we should adapt to them. Let them find out how ridiculously i
orant they are they hard way. Stopping services like food stamps and WIC would
e a more polite way of telling people "If you have a baby, you had better not pect the taxpayers to feed your child, and feeding your child could mean sacri
cing all the dumb things that you waste your money on."
But to intentionally reduce the population in any way, other than offering fre
condoms, sounds inhumane and unfair. There are some problems that just can't b
fixed in an ethical way.
Not sure about the last bit but yes, I am not sure why the leaders of nations are getting together with these rich folks behind closed doors.
I suspect it is the rich folks trying to lobby/pander for favors from governments under the guise of "fixing World issues."
"What do we want so many humans for?" (2023 WEF member from the 1st vide "We need to reduce the population by 86%" (2023 WEF member from 2nd vide "Control population so our children can breathe cleaner air and drink cl ter" (2023 Kamala Harris.)
Can you provide a link where Kamala said that?
They do indeed make it sound like they would like the population controlled. Maybe they have so much money now that it doesn't matter,
but I wonder who will buy all of the M$, Apple, and other expensive tech crap when they've killed off a good portion of their customer bases? Governments won't need as much of their expensive crap anymore, either,
if there are only a few of us left.
orant they are they hard way. Stopping services like food stamps and WIC would
e a more polite way of telling people "If you have a baby, you had bette pect the taxpayers to feed your child, and feeding your child could mean sacri
cing all the dumb things that you waste your money on."
If you can convince society to do this, it would be a step in the right direction and would be a way for the government to indirectly control
what they do.
That would probably somehow contradict their desire for the depopulation to be "humane" and also "fair and equal," though.
Mike Powell wrote to Dr. What <=-
Correct. The guy who was interviewed, who claimed that automation was going to remove jobs was talking about the ones that people can make a living off of. The jobs that are replacing those (the ones you can
make a living from) are jobs in the service sector - fast food, etc. - that you cannot make a living from.
Are they still paying them, though? Kentucky stopped the COVID unemployment extension quite a while back, when it expired. IIRC, that was well over a year ago.
I will question the knowledge of the guy interviewed then.
The low-skilled entry level jobs are getting automated because the Elitists keep wanting to increase the minimum wage, which basically prices those jobs out of the market. But they gotta keep going something to keep the people down.
If a job is getting automated it's because of 2 things:
1. It's a low-skilled/educated job.
2. The wage demands (whether through a Union or through gov't interference) have increased to the point where automation is feasible.
I've seen many UAW jobs go away due to automation (and that was some 30 years ago - so this is nothing new).
Sadly, too many people think that they can just get a job and never grow until
they retire. This has always been false and it has gotten even more false as technology increases. You always need to see where your job is heading and upgrade your knowledge or skills.
No but they should probably be smart enough not to, and the government does have the authority to remove children from homes if they are
deemed unsafe or the parents unfit.
But there's supposed to be a legal process around that.
Is it just me, or does it seem that the gov't doesn't think "due process" exists anymore?
I do have some conflict between what the government should be able to
do and the fact that dumb people are not likely to raise productive members of society.
No. They grow up to go into government.
If you can convince society to do this, it would be a step in the right direction and would be a way for the government to indirectly control what they do.
Nature does this already. If you have a population that has low death rate fo
children, plenty of food, ability to live comfortably for their whole life, then they will naturally have less children.
If you have a high death rate for children, low food, inability to live comfortably, then they will have more children - to increase the odds that som
of the children will grow up and be successful enough to support the parents.
Look at the birth rates for various cultures around the world, and compare it with their "ease" of life.
Mike Powell wrote to Dr. What <=-
One place I think they are wrong (i.e. the WEF and the interviewee) is that they seem to think that AI will start replacing skilled jobs soon.
I don't know about that. I still think AI is a long way off from
being able to replace the parts of the human experience which are also important in decision making.
"What do we want so many humans for?" (2023 WEF member from the 1st vid
"We need to reduce the population by 86%" (2023 WEF member from 2nd vid
"Control population so our children can breathe cleaner air and drink c
ter" (2023 Kamala Harris.)
Can you provide a link where Kamala said that?
http://tinyurl.com/298ejw6k
Supposedly, the office of the VP said that "The vice president misspoke." And agree that she probably misspoke, but I believe that it was a Freudian Slip, a
not just a "gaffe." The reason I think that way: Listen to her context! It so
ds a lot like she's talking about "cleaner water" and "cleaner air" for the ch
dren of the elites, especially considering the viewpoints from those other WEF
embers in 2023 (Same year she made that speech.)
They do indeed make it sound like they would like the population controlled. Maybe they have so much money now that it doesn't matter, but I wonder who will buy all of the M$, Apple, and other expensive tech crap when they've killed off a good portion of their customer bases? Governments won't need as much of their expensive crap anymore, either, if there are only a few of us left.
That's productive economic thought right there, Mike! Good questions. It seems
ike they won't need so many customers once they bolster an international rulin
class; what's more important to them than customers and money is "cleaner air"
nd "cleaner water," and they'll totally get those things if they control the p
ulation of their customers.
It sounds like this group wants the "ease" of life to be so lacking
that people don't have children... I am not certain there are too many existing examples of this that don't happen during war or famine as it generally goes against what happens naturally.
In most places, assuming there are enough resources, they want to have lots an
lots of kids. The belief is that most of the kids won't make it to adulthood.
My assumption is that the parents want someone to help them when they get too old to work. But it could also be just an instinct to keep the species alive.
embers in 2023 (Same year she made that speech.)
I don't think she misspoke. In order to get the things she is talking about, we will almost certainly need a smaller population. Whoever
helped her with the speech probably knew that.
Mike Powell wrote to Dr. What <=-
I think these folks are wanting to be sure there are not enough
resources.
There is that assumption, and there also are probably still areas where they need more bodies to help with the daily chores -- hunting,
gathering, harvesting -- that keep the family going. Instinct no doubt also plays a role.
I don't think she misspoke. In order to get the things she is talking about, we will almost certainly need a smaller population. Whoever helped her with the speech probably knew that.
I wish that every voter would take a look at this. It's difficult to pull peopl
out of the "everything is perfectly fine" state of mind.
married, which makes a preference for sons. Having lots of unmarried adult males around is not a good recipe for a society.
I wish that every voter would take a look at this. It's difficult to pull >peopl
out of the "everything is perfectly fine" state of mind.
The problem is that a lot of them would hear it but not listen to it,
i.e. they'd have no understanding of why what she says is something to be concerned about.
Ironically, the smaller population part seems to go against the current border policies.
Mike Powell wrote to Dr. What <=-
married, which makes a preference for sons. Having lots of unmarried adult males around is not a good recipe for a society.
Why would it be any worse than having a lot of unmarried adult females around?
Aaron Thomas wrote to Mike Powell <=-
Small towns haven't felt the burn yet from the border policies (or lack thereof.) They will.
IOW: They're comin for our jewelry! Lock up the safe, and put the safe
in a safe! ;)
Small towns haven't felt the burn yet from the border policies (or la thereof.) They will.
That's one of my concerns right now. These illegals are going somewhere and not all of them are going to "sanctuary cities".
I'm in one of those small towns but I'm near a large Left-run city.
Now, it's winter right now, so I'm not real concerned. But as things
warm up, I worry that I'll have to keep a loaded gun - just in case.
Small towns haven't felt the burn yet from the border policies ( thereof.) They will.
That's one of my concerns right now. These illegals are going somewh and not all of them are going to "sanctuary cities".
Small towns haven't felt the burn yet from the border policies (or lack thereo
) They will.
married, which makes a preference for sons. Having lots of unmarried adult
males around is not a good recipe for a society.
Why would it be any worse than having a lot of unmarried adult females around?
History has shown us that unmarried men, especially in large groups, tend to turn toward violence. That doesn't happen with women.
Small towns haven't felt the burn yet from the border policies (or lack thereo
) They will.
I disagree as I believe small towns along the border most certainly have.
Aaron Thomas wrote to Dr. What <=-
I thought the Texas government was going to arrest them all, but no, they're still shipping them to our interior states.
That sounds like a good idea. The media often reports illegals stabbing their victims, so based on their "helpful" clues, a gun seems ideal.
The nearest sanctuary city to me is Syracuse, 1 hour away, but we do
have a new under-the-bridge population here in Binghamton that didn't exist prior to Joe's treasonous maneuvers. It's unlikely that a brand
new population of not-illegal people would start living under a bridge
in freezing temperatures.
married, which makes a preference for sons. Having lots of unmarriedadult
males around is not a good recipe for a society.
Why would it be any worse than having a lot of unmarried adultfemales
around?
History has shown us that unmarried men, especially in large groups, tend to
turn toward violence. That doesn't happen with women.
In any case, having a balance of both is usually the best outcome.
But the Feds, on the other hand, are shipping many to who-knows-where
in the interior. I believe this is for 3 reasons:
1. To destablize the country as a whole.
2. To mess up the demographics of historical non-Liberal areas.
3. To give an excuse for more federal police in the country - especially in those historically non-liberal areas.
Aaron Thomas wrote to Dr. What <=-
It sounds true to me, but Biden's inhumane migrant crisis is beneficial
to Democrats in dozens of ways, so it's difficult to pinpoint which benefit they had in mind when they orchestrated this.
It sounds true to me, but Biden's inhumane migrant crisis is beneficial to Demo
rats in dozens of ways, so it's difficult to pinpoint which benefit they had in
mind when they orchestrated this.
I stopped looking at who it benefits and instead look at who it hurts.
If it hurts the American Public in general, then it's a bad thing and
the people who caused it are bad.
rats in dozens of ways, so it's difficult to pinpoint which benefit they >in
mind when they orchestrated this.
But does it really benefit them? Granted some of the folks coming across the southern border are not from countries south of here, but the Democrats still seem dumbfounded to the fact that Latinos and Hispanics tend to be more family oriented and are not likely to accept any
Democrat policies that they see as eroding the family unit.
Aaron Thomas wrote to Dr. What <=-
I'm confident that all Democrats are in on it and that they all get something out of it.
Any Democrats who are "against the migrant surge" are full of it (and a lot of Republicans also.)
There is a breed of humans that doesn't analyze anything, and they're preying on them.
Mike Powell wrote to AARON THOMAS <=-
But does it really benefit them? Granted some of the folks coming
across the southern border are not from countries south of here, but
the Democrats still seem dumbfounded to the fact that Latinos and Hispanics tend to be more family oriented and are not likely to accept
any Democrat policies that they see as eroding the family unit.
There is a breed of humans that doesn't analyze anything, and they're preying on them.
I always see this as proof of the Elitists wrecking the public education system. Too many people are reaching adulthood without critical thinking skills and with a habit of just trusting "experts".
Aaron Thomas wrote to Dr. What <=-
I always see this as proof of the Elitists wrecking the public education system. Too many people are reaching adulthood without critical thinking skills and with a habit of just trusting "experts".
Maybe the schools are contributing to the mindless behavior, but what about all the old people who are also brainwashed?
Long term: The children of the illegals, who aren't citizens but have never been in their parent's country, demand citizenship (remember DACA) and have been conditioned to accept the Elitists as their masters.
There is a breed of humans that doesn't analyze anything, and they'r
preying on them.
I always see this as proof of the Elitists wrecking the public education system. Too many people are reaching adulthood without critical thinking
skills and with a habit of just trusting "experts".
Maybe the schools are contributing to the mindless behavior, but what about al
the old people who are also brainwashed?
The children of an illegal immigrant is a citizen so long as they are
born here, which doesn't really make sense but has always been the case.
Maybe the schools are contributing to the mindless behavior, but what about all the old people who are also brainwashed?
This isn't a new thing. This has been going on for a long time.
Older people were "brainwashed" but in a different way. They grew up in
a time when the media WAS trustworthy and wanted to expose things. Quietly, slowly over time, the Elitists infiltrated those media
companies. Standard practice. They worked to keep that facade of trustworthiness until Trump ripped it down.
Older people tend to have not sought out alternate news and information sources. When you add that to their BS detector bypassed, they don't
even try to check things out for themselves (even if they knew how to).
Then there's the problem with many older people: They think that they
know more than you and, as one of my college professors once said, "The first step to being smart is knowing what you are dumb at." If you
think you know everything, you won't seek out information.
Maybe the schools are contributing to the mindless behavior, but what ab al
the old people who are also brainwashed?
Back during the Cold War Nikita Kruschev (sp?) made a threat about how
the USSR would bury the West. While many assumed he meant via war,
others took the threat differently and believe(d) he meant by
infiltrating our institutions, like the media, universities, etc.
If the latter group is right, it has been going on for a while now.
Mike Powell wrote to Dr. What <=-
The children of an illegal immigrant is a citizen so long as they are
born here, which doesn't really make sense but has always been the
case.
Aaron Thomas wrote to Dr. What <=-
Thanks for explaining that. This is useful to know, because there will
be times when I will need to explain this to elderly people.
Not that
all of them are in the dark, there are some exceptions, like my uncle
who is a WWII vet. He said to "Vote for Trump twice if you can!" If
most of our voters were veterans, we'd have it made.
That's good advice. I always tell people "You learn more from listening than by telling" and that "We all learn new things every day no matter
how old we get."
IB Joe wrote to Mike Powell <=-
I think we need to amend the amendment.... To prevent anchor babies...
I think we need to amend the amendment.... To prevent anchor babies.
I need to make some time to verify this, but I thought we already fixed the "anchor baby" loophole. At least to the extent that an illegal couldn't do it.
The children of an illegal immigrant is a citizen so long as they are born here, which doesn't really make sense but has always been the case.
No it wasn't. It was added in to the 14th Amendment... As you may not know..
Amendments 13-14-15 were added in during the Civil War... post civil war as we
... They were put in place to codify the gains made during that time in the U
..
They watch Wheel of Fortune and Jeopardy. (I watch those shows too.) I find it
onvenient to put the TV on on that channel early so I don't miss the show. Sur
y the loyal elderly wheel watchers do the same thing, and they inadvertently g
propagated by David Muir on ABC World News Tonight when they do it, 5 nights week.
I think we need to amend the amendment.... To prevent anchor babies...
I need to make some time to verify this, but I thought we already fixed the "anchor baby" loophole. At least to the extent that an illegal couldn't do it
It has always been the case *during my lifetime*. I know what those amendments are, just like I know the SCOTUS has previously found them
to be self-executing even though one of us keeps claiming they are not.
propagated by David Muir on ABC World News Tonight when they do it, 5 n week.
If they do that, they won't be seeing as much of the newscaster as much
as they will commericals. The last several minutes of most network newscasts are nothing but commercials and maybe a "feel good" story.
The "hard news" is at the beginning of the telecast.
IB Joe wrote to Dr. What <=-
The only way to fix this is to amend the constitution... Darn that constitution....
Mike Powell wrote to Dr. What <=-
A quick google search results in several hits that question whether or
not "birthright citizenship" in the case of an illegal alien parent was ever a given. Sounds a lot more murky than a child born of legal alien residents.
A quick google search results in several hits that question whether or not "birthright citizenship" in the case of an illegal alien parent was ever a given. Sounds a lot more murky than a child born of legal alien residents.
Ya, that's why I need to do more research on that (In my copious free time - http://www.catb.org/jargon/html/C/copious-free-time.html).
I remember the "anchor baby" stuff from a long time ago, and I remember people
saying that they were closing that loophole. But that's about it.
I think the real problem is how we write our laws.
Our language is not precise and the Elitists like to "bend" (I'd term it "warp")the meaning of words to mean something else.
But as Bruce Schneier wrote in "Liars and Outliars", there are ALWAYS people who want to bend the rules.
I suggest again reading the documents.
IB Joe wrote to Dr. What <=-
Some of laws, maybe well intended, but are bastardized by the left...
This is how are 3 letter agencies try to run our lives... Interpreting
and re-interpreting laws so that Congress doesn't have to make new
laws.
The federal government needs to be SMALL and do as little as
possible...
MIKE POWELL wrote to IB JOE <=-
Maybe you need to join Trump's legal team? Unlike you, Trump's team
DID NOT question Due Process when it came to the 14th Amendment. They
DID question whether or not it covered the Office of the President, but not whether or not Due Process has been given in its use.
Maybe you need to join Trump's legal team? Unlike you, Trump's team
DID NOT question Due Process when it came to the 14th Amendment. They DID question whether or not it covered the Office of the President, but not whether or not Due Process has been given in its use.
The problem here is that most of us are Arm Chair Lawyers.
I don't know about the rest of you, but I never studied law. I did, however, do very well in history and government in school. I was taught how things are
supposed to work in our legal system.
I think that it's very appearant today that our legal system is completely broken. The system does **NOT** work as it's supposed to.
We have wordsmiths warping the meaning of words in the court rooms, in Congress, and in 3 letter agencies. We have people who were just walking through a public building not causing problems getting bigger sentences than military people selling secrets to China. And more.
My point here is that it makes no difference what **we** think about this.
We have been determined to be irrelevant to the Elitists.
The Constitution is being ignored. Laws are being applied unequally.
We have bigger fish to fry than arguing about law that won't be applied equally.
Mike Powell wrote to Dr. What <=-
It does appear to be broken, yes. I would prefer it not to become more broken than it already is.
As an aside here, some of the video we've seen of people "walking
through a building" got there because the Capitol Police were
outnumbered and had no choice but to let them go once they got in. They also entered nonpublic areas that day.
"Trump did not advise federal law enforcement agencies that in his
speech on January 6, 2021, he was going to instruct the crowd to march
to the Capitol. As a result, law enforcement was not prepared for the attendees at the rally to descend on the Capitol."
In one of these cases, if they rule that the President has wide enough immunity that they must be impeached and convicted before they can be tried criminally for any crime, it will be the biggest fish we've had
to deal with in a while.
You and I seem to understand that the laws being applied unequally is
not right. Others here are willing to allow for a "get out of jail
free" presedence to be applied to Trump, even though that means that applying the law unequally to all Presidents will become lawful as a result.
In one of these cases, if they rule that the President has wide enough immunity that they must be impeached and convicted before they can be tried criminally for any crime, it will be the biggest fish we've had
to deal with in a while.
I don't understand that. The Constitution says that a sitting President must be impeached before being held accoutable. Trump was impeached, several times
and all failed.
But I can tell you right now that if the court rules that Trump didn't have immunity, then Osama... Obama didn't have immunity either and can be tried as well. So I don't think you'll see the Elitists push that too much.
You and I seem to understand that the laws being applied unequally is not right. Others here are willing to allow for a "get out of jail free" presedence to be applied to Trump, even though that means that applying the law unequally to all Presidents will become lawful as a result.
I'm not seeing what you are getting at here. Who is asking for a "get out of jail free" card for Trump? No one that I can see.
And no one is asking that Trump be treated differently. The ask is for Trump to be treated the same. So far, Trump has been treated completely different from any other President in history.
Mike Powell wrote to Dr. What <=-
They must be impeached if it is something he did as an official duty.
His law team has now argued that he cannot be charged of anything in a criminal court if he is not impeached, including assassination of political rivals, selling pardons, and selling military secrets.
No, they are now asking for all Presidents to be treated differently
than everyone else.
| Sysop: | deepend |
|---|---|
| Location: | Calgary, Alberta |
| Users: | 253 |
| Nodes: | 10 (0 / 10) |
| Uptime: | 02:34:37 |
| Calls: | 1,647 |
| Files: | 4,003 |
| Messages: | 387,134 |