I met BJ at my sister's retirement event. She worked for him. Good guy. I wonder if he knows he ended up being the balls? With his name they probably should have put him on the far end...
Did CJ John Roberts not change the word "penalty" to the word "Tax" in OBC ruling? Is that appropriate?
Tierney
The coup against President Trump is a remake of the coup against Nixon by the exact same players
Now that we've all had a ring-side seat to 3 years of Russia, Russia, Russia and FBI shenanigans to drive President Trump out of office, it's easy to see NOW how Watergate was indeed a setup to do the same to President Nixon. A coup to unseat an elected President.
Who helped? George HW Bush, the CIA, Stephan Halper, the FBI, the Washington Post and White House Counsel John Dean. The CIA and the U.S. military Joint Chiefs of Staff were at war with Nixon because they were opposed to the withdrawal of troops from Vietnam, they were opposed to the SALT arms limitations agreement with the Soviets, and they were opposed to Nixon's strategy to use China as leverage in his foreign policy. Sound familiar?
On June 17, 1972, a group of burglars, carrying electronic surveillance equipment, was arrested inside the Democratic National Committee offices in the Watergate building complex. The men were quickly identified as having ties to the Nixon reelection campaign and to the White House.
Though at the time the incident got little attention, it would snowball into one of the biggest crises in American political history, define Richard Nixon forever, and drive him out of the White House.
Most historical accounts judge Nixon responsible in some way for the Watergate burglary—or at least for an effort to cover it up. And many people believe Nixon got what he deserved. However, the real story about Watergate turns out to be an entirely different story than the one we thought we knew.
In his memoirs, Nixon described how he first learned about the burglary while vacationing in Florida, from the morning newspaper! He recalled his reaction at the time:
"It sounded preposterous. Cubans in surgical gloves bugging the DNC! I dismissed it as some sort of prank. The whole thing made so little sense. Why, I wondered. Why then? Why in such a blundering way. Anyone who knew anything about politics would know that a national committee headquarters was a useless place to go for inside information on a presidential campaign. The whole thing was so senseless and bungled that it almost looked like some kind of a setup."
Nixon was actually suggesting not just a setup, but one intended to harm him. Perhaps because anything he might say would seem transparently self-serving, this claim received little attention and has been largely forgotten.
Eric, your position on the pending abortion decision supports the widely circulated opinion that the draft was released by pro-life advocates within the Supreme Court to assure there would be no changes to the substance of the draft lest the court appear to shift reacting to politics (as opposed to allowing changes in position actually and routinely resulting from discussions among the justices.)
Seems the senators need to add a new word for proposed nominees to define at their hearings and that would be, "What is a religion?" If the current court members intend to define religion to include the current leftist propensity to worship secular idols as being antithetical to the establishment clause, or even if they are just stumbling into it, that would be so huge. An opportunity for some semblance of balance between the secular and religious views/morals or lack thereof.
Its is far more in line with the founders' intent of not having a state sponsored "Religion" from their frame of reference than the liberal interpretation of the separation of church and state as preached in schools and government today.
The establishment clause is another of the willfully negligent topics that are improperly taught throughout each person's education. Much like the original purpose of the Senate and who the senators represented. The current arguments about the illegitimacy of the senate and the unfairness of it not proportionally representing people points back to this. When the senate was created, who did the senators represent? They equally represented the government of their sovereign state who appointed them.
I remember high school history class lessons on this topic and how awful it was that senators where chosen by state legislators as being the reason for the 17th amendment. There was no discussion as to why it was set up as it was originally. Nor was their any discussion as to the impact of this in shifting the balance of power from the states to the federal government.
Righting Conceptions and wrong direction interpretations. Course there are always that are ignorant to rightful actions and will continue in previous thought patterns Right or Wrong. As always Erick Thank you for bringing the broader picture. Continue Forward 👍🏻
Oh, Erick, he might have. He might have. Watch it again. He has a somewhat knowing little smirk on his face. Anchorman making a subliminal statement perhaps? Ah, but we'll likely never know but it's fun to speculate, isn't it?
RIGHT?? There is no guy on the PLANET that doesn't know he just drew that! I'm sure his coworkers were hard on him for that one. What?? What did I say??
I met BJ at my sister's retirement event. She worked for him. Good guy. I wonder if he knows he ended up being the balls? With his name they probably should have put him on the far end...
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA
Did CJ John Roberts not change the word "penalty" to the word "Tax" in OBC ruling? Is that appropriate?
Tierney
The coup against President Trump is a remake of the coup against Nixon by the exact same players
Now that we've all had a ring-side seat to 3 years of Russia, Russia, Russia and FBI shenanigans to drive President Trump out of office, it's easy to see NOW how Watergate was indeed a setup to do the same to President Nixon. A coup to unseat an elected President.
Who helped? George HW Bush, the CIA, Stephan Halper, the FBI, the Washington Post and White House Counsel John Dean. The CIA and the U.S. military Joint Chiefs of Staff were at war with Nixon because they were opposed to the withdrawal of troops from Vietnam, they were opposed to the SALT arms limitations agreement with the Soviets, and they were opposed to Nixon's strategy to use China as leverage in his foreign policy. Sound familiar?
On June 17, 1972, a group of burglars, carrying electronic surveillance equipment, was arrested inside the Democratic National Committee offices in the Watergate building complex. The men were quickly identified as having ties to the Nixon reelection campaign and to the White House.
Though at the time the incident got little attention, it would snowball into one of the biggest crises in American political history, define Richard Nixon forever, and drive him out of the White House.
Most historical accounts judge Nixon responsible in some way for the Watergate burglary—or at least for an effort to cover it up. And many people believe Nixon got what he deserved. However, the real story about Watergate turns out to be an entirely different story than the one we thought we knew.
In his memoirs, Nixon described how he first learned about the burglary while vacationing in Florida, from the morning newspaper! He recalled his reaction at the time:
"It sounded preposterous. Cubans in surgical gloves bugging the DNC! I dismissed it as some sort of prank. The whole thing made so little sense. Why, I wondered. Why then? Why in such a blundering way. Anyone who knew anything about politics would know that a national committee headquarters was a useless place to go for inside information on a presidential campaign. The whole thing was so senseless and bungled that it almost looked like some kind of a setup."
Nixon was actually suggesting not just a setup, but one intended to harm him. Perhaps because anything he might say would seem transparently self-serving, this claim received little attention and has been largely forgotten.
Eric, your position on the pending abortion decision supports the widely circulated opinion that the draft was released by pro-life advocates within the Supreme Court to assure there would be no changes to the substance of the draft lest the court appear to shift reacting to politics (as opposed to allowing changes in position actually and routinely resulting from discussions among the justices.)
Seems the senators need to add a new word for proposed nominees to define at their hearings and that would be, "What is a religion?" If the current court members intend to define religion to include the current leftist propensity to worship secular idols as being antithetical to the establishment clause, or even if they are just stumbling into it, that would be so huge. An opportunity for some semblance of balance between the secular and religious views/morals or lack thereof.
Its is far more in line with the founders' intent of not having a state sponsored "Religion" from their frame of reference than the liberal interpretation of the separation of church and state as preached in schools and government today.
The establishment clause is another of the willfully negligent topics that are improperly taught throughout each person's education. Much like the original purpose of the Senate and who the senators represented. The current arguments about the illegitimacy of the senate and the unfairness of it not proportionally representing people points back to this. When the senate was created, who did the senators represent? They equally represented the government of their sovereign state who appointed them.
I remember high school history class lessons on this topic and how awful it was that senators where chosen by state legislators as being the reason for the 17th amendment. There was no discussion as to why it was set up as it was originally. Nor was their any discussion as to the impact of this in shifting the balance of power from the states to the federal government.
Righting Conceptions and wrong direction interpretations. Course there are always that are ignorant to rightful actions and will continue in previous thought patterns Right or Wrong. As always Erick Thank you for bringing the broader picture. Continue Forward 👍🏻
Oh, Erick, he might have. He might have. Watch it again. He has a somewhat knowing little smirk on his face. Anchorman making a subliminal statement perhaps? Ah, but we'll likely never know but it's fun to speculate, isn't it?
RIGHT?? There is no guy on the PLANET that doesn't know he just drew that! I'm sure his coworkers were hard on him for that one. What?? What did I say??
Oh, that happened so fast. So, the editors that put the pictures in that order, did they know what the plan was, to circle the pictures?
Anyway it sums up the Jan 6 commission nicely.
The public school that I went to in the 1930's had a bible verse read by the teacher at the start of the day. But that ended in the early 1940's.
I can't believe no one saw in the studio saw it, either. Too funny.