NZ shooting, False flag?

Just a little free thinking here.

We are told that the NZ shooter visited Turkey and a few other Muslim countries. We are told that he was Not a citizen of AU? We are also told that he acquired his 5 AR-15’s legally? we are told that he wrote a rambling manifesto. We are told that he picked NZ because it would be the last place anyone would expect it. We are shown what appears to be his weapons with all kinds of writing on them that is luney.

Do I appear to have the basics right so far?

Next we have heard that muslim immigrants to AU are being shipped to NZ. We are also told that there was an expected release of an ISIS terrorist into the population in NZ. We are shown Multiple attacks and violent acts by muslims in a bunch of countries.  We have seen many towns and countries ruling structure taken over by muslims.  We see the anger on both sides rising. We see the media not reporting that which is told to us by other means.

So far does this all seem to be correct?

Now a thought framed around 2 words – physiologic operations(physi-ops).

What if, based on a growing fear and a need to redirect the narrative, you are tasked to change the narrative?  How would you do it? Would you get a guy, train him(he obviously had some skills with the 15. 180 shots? in about 2 minutes? then knowing the gun would need a cleaning after that many rounds, simply gets a new one for the next batch? shooting someone and wounding them then walking up to them and shooting them in the head?). Would you either make the guy appear off his rocker or get one that is off his rocker a bit (as evidenced by his manifesto?). And then tell him to go out and shoot as many as you can based on a profile? sacrificing a few for the narrative of the many? Have the media report tales of heroic sacrifice (??proven or not??).

If this is indeed the case then It would appear to have worked as for the moment public opinion has turned like expected. What is to be the next step? Simple , Look at the rules in the book for these types of operations.

Like I said this is all a thought exersize with the few facts we have been shown. A big what if with no proofs. And now we see all the usual political stuff coming out. Like a call for more gun control… etc.

Your thoughts?

 

Glenn

National Popular Vote

Is the National Popular Vote unconstitutional?

The National Popular Vote Interstate Compact (NPVIC) is an agreement among a group of U.S. states and the District of Columbia to award all their electoral votes to whichever presidential candidate wins the overall popular vote in the 50 states and the District of Columbia. The compact is designed to ensure that the candidate who wins the most popular votes is elected president, and it would come into effect only when it would guarantee that outcome.[2][3] As of February 2019, it has been adopted by eleven states and the District of Columbia. Together, they have 172 electoral votes, which is 32.0% of the Electoral College and 63.7% of the 270 votes needed to give the compact legal force.

By awarding the votes based on who ever gets more nationally this compact would virtually eliminate the electoral college. And allow 6 states to elect the President.

breakdown of Presidential Emergency order

https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/presidential-proclamation-declaring-national-emergency-concerning-southern-border-united-states/

Lets break this down

This part I am unsure of as the references don’t appear to match up. at least as far as my research.

NOW, THEREFORE, I, DONALD J. TRUMP, by the authority vested in me by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, including sections 201 and 301 of the National Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C. 1601 et seq.),

 

this part says he is calling up the ready reserve regardless of any other authority(iow:states can not pull their troops)

hereby declare that a national emergency exists at the southern border of the United States, and that section 12302 of title 10, United States Code, is invoked and made available, according to its terms, to the Secretaries of the military departments concerned, subject to the direction of the Secretary of Defense in the case of the Secretaries of the Army, Navy, and Air Force

this part lets him use military construction funds that haven’t been obligated yet.(allocated but not yet used). (for the simple folks this is like I am doing the house budget and put 50$ on the table for food, then you go and use 10$ for candy)

that the construction authority provided in section 2808 of title 10, United States Code, is invoked and made available, according to its terms, to the Secretary of Defense and, at the discretion of the Secretary of Defense, to the Secretaries of the military departments

As far as I can tell, the only thing I can find that would bother the states is that he is calling up the ready reserve without the states being able to say anything about it. If it were up to me as a judge, I would have to throw out the states claims as lacking standing.

Is the National Emergency Order right?

I sit here attempting to figure out if President Trumps latest National Emergency order is valid and right.

I went thru all the other such orders (58 of them) and found that in all but approx. 4, they all dealt with other countries. There was the 9/11 ones, and the ones about the elections. But all in all they mostly did not concern our nation directly.

in all but a couple it was restricting funds from other countries.

next I looked at the constitution.  and that was fuzzy on this.

It gives congress the power to raise revenue,

Article 1 – The Legislative Branch
Section 7 – Revenue Bills, Legislative Process, Presidential Veto

All bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills.

Article 1 – The Legislative Branch
Section 8 – Powers of Congress

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

To borrow money on the credit of the United States;  

and to appropriate funds for such laws as they should pass.

“Article 1 – The Legislative Branch
Section 9 – Limits on Congress

No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law; and a regular Statement and Account of the Receipts and Expenditures of all public Money shall be published from time to time.”

This last is where congress I would guess is fighting the President on his order. You see the constitution says no money can be drawn except by congress making a law.

The constitution gives the President executive power.  What does that entail? It does not say. The article describing the Presidency is very short.  Cornell law school Legal information institute shows that he can issue executive orders, which have the force of law but do not have to be approved by Congress. Now this next part is kinda fun and by this definition is where the President may have basis for his order, again this is from Cornell Law School.

Executive Orders

In times of emergency, the President can override Congress and issue executive orders with almost limitless power. Abraham Lincoln used an executive order in order to fight the Civil War, Woodrow Wilson issued numerous ones related to US involvement in World War I, and Franklin Roosevelt approved Japanese internment camps during World War II with an executive order

Now what would constitute an emergency? We know that the past 4 Presidents have all declared a national emergency at the border. We also know that there is a war on drugs and terrorism(loosely legislated by Congress).

Websters defines it as :

1 : an unforeseen combination of circumstances or the resulting state that calls for immediate action

2 : an urgent need for assistance or relief
So by definition 2 we see we do have an emergency.  And it rises to a national emergency. All this time we have heard from everyone, if it is such an emergency, why did he not take action sooner? I think I can answer that. Mr Trump has an odd way to govern. He actually wants the people that should be doing a job to do a job. In this case congress.  He has let it go this long to prove that they will not do the job. Now since they have failed he is forced to take action to fix the problem.  He has said that he didn’t have to do this action, true. He didn’t have to take this action if he wanted to wait 20 years for it to maybe get done. But since this is wrecking this country it has to be fixed now.
Does congress have reason to fear that he is overriding their authority? Maybe.  Does this set a precedent for future Presidents to simply declare an emergency to get the laws they want? I don’t think so, as this situation has been declared by previous Presidents and has been in the past authorized by congress to fix. This order takes nothing from the citizens and protects them.  This order does not break the constitution. It uses the powers given by the constitution and congress.
So based on all this, yes I can support his decision to issue an national emergency order, that actually is in defense of the nation. If you can find how I have gone wrong or made a mistake in this logic, Please let me know

 

 

ref:

Cornell Law School Legal Information Institute https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/executive_power

websters definition emergency : https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/emergency

The United States Constitution : https://usconstitution.net/xconst.html

 

Dem Leaders Hate the People

Here is my take on this shutdown and the President opening government. Yes It is yet another opinion piece more than likely badly written.

What I saw was the President asking for a pittance.  The democratic leadership in their hate for him decided they were not going to give him anything he asked for, especially anything from his campaign promises. We have seen this time and time again, The President issues an EO, Dems immediately go to court to block. In comparison under Obama as far as I know NO EO was ever blocked.

Now today we have seen how much the Democratic leaders hate the “little people”. During the 35 day shutdown we consistently saw the President and the republicans try to make a deal. From the democratic side it was all no deal, we won’t even talk. Speaker Pelosi’s own words when asked if he opened it up would they deal? her answer a big fat – NO!!!!.

Yes we have seen all the planned releases from the left on how it is hurting people and all the sad and crying eyes on the news. We saw how TSA was starting to have issues with people not able to go to work.  We saw air traffic controllers starting to call out. We saw reports that the FBI was unable to do it’s job (but was able to get a swat team to arrest Mr Stone). We heard all about how people were suffering due to missed paychecks. We saw federal employees going to the food banks. (the left media made sure we, the public saw all this). BUT, did the left even attempt to deal? Nope. It was their way or the highway. they didn’t care how much everyone suffered. You see, this was Trumps shutdown after all. They had no hand in it at all.

The President saw all this too. He saw that we were getting to a tipping point where national security and safety was being impacted, and he made a decision.  He decided  that the people were more important than a political power play. He decided that the safety of the nation was more important. He saw that the left had no interest in the nation and didn’t care.  What is a President, who has more than just his political aspirations to do? Play a little poker and turn the story around. open it up,  show that the left doesn’t care and wait. Once the Democratic leadership shows that they are not even interested in coming to the table he will be able to pull out his ace in the hole. Yes we might see one or two meetings with low level democrats that are not even allowed to make any real deals show up to these meetings.  However you will not see the people from the left that can actually do something. At that point we will be back to where we were and it will all be on the left.

And why are we to be punished in this way by the left? Because they thought Hillary should have won and they hate Trump. And now they are looking to 2020 elections and thinking this will win them the day and the election. People have short memories as a whole, but after this game of cards, I think they will remember how bad the left tried to screw America.  I expect very little out of this lame duck congress for the next 2 years other than they will show us all how much they hate the people and the constitution.

Trump never wanted to be President, it is actually a step down for him. He only ran because he saw how bad the country was getting and wanted to fix it. He has always said “America First”. So, let’s see where this goes from here.  We will definitely see a lot of crowing from the left, and disappointment from the right. But I am of the camp, let’s wait and see and verify what you are actually seeing.

Here is the Presidents tweet on this –

I wish people would read or listen to my words on the Border Wall. This was in no way a concession. It was taking care of millions of people who were getting badly hurt by the Shutdown with the understanding that in 21 days, if no deal is done, it’s off to the races!

Environmentalists-hurting or helping the environment

Have environmentalists gone too far? Back years ago they were instrumental in helping us save the trees. That was a good thing that provided for oxygen. Then it was coal. Okay that help clean up the atmosphere with cleaner burning coal. Cleaning up the water, okay yes we all need clean water to drink and to live with.

But now we have them calling for all these renewable energy sources. The problem is what happens later say 10 years, 15 years from now when all the solar panels, batteries (electric cars) and stuff reaches the end of its useful life. What do we do with all that hazardous material? Do we send it to a landfill? How do we recycle it? Have the environmentalist thought that far ahead or or are they just looking at today?

These are some very serious questions I am bringing up. As in less than a generation we will have to deal with all this problem. We see one of the problems already from what the green people wanted us to do and not don’t, nuclear energy. We now have megatons of nuclear garbage that will not be safe for 100 generations. What are we to do about that? While supposedly green energy may seem good, what do we do with what is left over after the lifespan of the product? Can anyone in the green energy industry answer this?

I have heard that solar panels have a lifespan of between 10 and 20 years. Battery typical life is 5 to 10 years. So what happens next? We also know that the manufacturer of these solar panels and batteries creates hazardous waste. So what is the answer?

Your comments?

Democratic buzzwords on the wall

So, let me get this straight. These are the current Democratic buzzwords or buzz terms being used against the barrier?

We should not endanger 800,000 people with a shut down over legislation that has not been put together yet on a vanity project that will not work and is not needed.

Did I miss anything?

So the Democrats are actually forgetting that they shut down the government and endangered 1 million people or so over there vanity project,   that project,  Obama care.  yes folks the Democrats did that back with Obama.  and now they are saying that we should not fight for something that would secure the borders better, that the experts at the border are asking for, that is only part of border security, and is only part of what is being asked for. yup more of the do as I say not as I do, from the Democrats. You have to give them credit they are really trying to back their lunatic leader Nancy Pelosi .

Why the Church Lost Me

I understand that this small missive may anger some. that is not my intention. It is but the thoughts of a small man that in no way is a religious zealot. These thoughts are meant to show my disappointment in the institutions that are supposed to make us better than what we are. If you disagree with this that is fine. But do not hold any that is said against me. And yes I am from an older generation than most that would read this.

In the past 20 years I have watched the slow decline of most organized religions. This started slow, as the next generation lost interest in church. Then we had the emergence of the 2% demanding that they get treated well. Ok, that’s fine, but then it started to be that the 2% wanted to make it that if you weren’t them you were bad. That if you thought different it was bad. At the same time the Church (and I will use that word for most of the organized Christian religions) decided that they needed to bring more people into the church so they could pay their bills or whatever.

When we were brought up in the church, we were always taught a few things. One was that God is infallible and perfect. another is that God created all of us in his (I use his not as a proper pronoun but as it has always been used) image. And we were also taught that God has taught us that a few things are wrong. He has even given us lessons about what happens when we go against these teachings. Now I do not profess to be a perfect Christian, the Lord knows I have plenty of faults. But I attempt to at least hold to the major teachings.

Among the wrongs are sexual deviations.(remember Sodom and Gomorrah?). And that God has joined man and woman to be one. That he created woman to be a companion and a help to man, and instructed man to be a companion and a help to woman. That with Gods help Man and Woman together could accomplish anything. that life begins at conception.  there is a lot more that He has taught us, but maybe that is for later.

Now we have the Church cow-towing to this group and leaving the teachings behind. They don’t even try to do as He wanted, to educate. They just accept and include. They have lost the word and I would suspect the connection to God.

For the church to say that a person of a gender created by God that feels like they are not of that gender, would seem to be that the church has forgotten a basic tenant. How can they reconcile that god is infallible and yet has made a mistake in the gender of the person? Or that same sex relations would be ok with the way he has taught us?

This is why the Church has left me. They have forgotten that they are the ones that are to be the spiritual leaders, and are supposed to show us the ways, if not the way to God. They have become no more than a business.

What do I think the Church should do? Embrace Gods teachings. Should we turn away those that are outside of these teachings? No. We should bring them into the Church and show them the path. Let them understand that which God has taught.  But we have to stick to the teachings. God took a prostitute and made her whole, and even made her his wife. He took a lier and taught him to tell the truth. He took a thief and taught him how to give.  He took the weakest of us, the sinners, and made them whole. This is what we are supposed to do. We are not, however, to abandon those teachings that we have already learned to accommodate those that would have us brought down to their level. And as always we have to show them God’s love. Go out unto the world and teach the way of the most merciful Lord God. Do not shun the smallest among us, rather give them a ladder so they may see.

I hope in some small way I have without malice in my heart, shown a glimmer of the light.

As always may the Peace of the Lord always be with you.

Glenn

Pelosi shut’s down SOTU

I was thinking(never a good thing). did you know that the date of the 29th is not Trump picking a date, it is by constitutional and congressional law. You see the constitution MANDATES that congress assembles once a year on a certain date unless congress changes the law. congress has set the 29th as the date to meet.
so since congress HAS to meet on that date the president is helping them fulfill their constitutional duty. How is that for irony. apparently Nancy hasn’t looked at the constitution in so long she forgot that one.
 
ohhh this also means that according to law Speaker Pelosi can not change the date arbitraily. she has to get congress to change the date.
did you also know the President can convene congress if he wants? He can call them into session and give his address. While this power under article 2 section 3 may not have been used since Pearl Harbor, it is in fact a tool the President could use.
 
20th amendment section 2 –
. The Congress shall assemble at least once in every year, and such meeting shall begin at noon on the 3d day of January, unless they shall by law appoint a different day.
 
article 2 section 3 –
He shall from time to time give to the Congress Information of the State of the Union, and recommend to their Consideration such Measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient; he may, on extraordinary Occasions, convene both Houses, or either of them, and in Case of Disagreement between them, with Respect to the Time of Adjournment, he may adjourn them to such Time as he shall think proper; he shall receive Ambassadors and other public Ministers; he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed, and shall Commission all the Officers of the United States.

a “radical law”?

I had what may be a radical thought, this thought came around when I was thinking about the Second Amendment and the Federalist papers. Going back to constitutional originality and what our framers were actually thinking when they made the laws, I came up with a thought  for a law that I know will never happen.

“We the people, in conjunction with United States Congress, and the President of the United States, enact the following law into the Federal Register.

In the following of the Constitution and the reasoning behind the Second Amendment, do ordain that in order to be prepared for a state or national emergency and the possibility of the unorganized militia being so conscripted into service of either the state or the federal government order that no person that could be so conscripted shall be denied the purchase of any weaponry that could be used in defense of the state or the nation.

That this law will make any state law invalid and override any future state law. This law does not require any individual to purchase such weapons.”

d

How about that for a law that will never get past anybody?  ROFL

Glenn

My Thoughts and News that no one cares about