Investigate the Moore/Trump Accusers

[protectionist]

Muslims should be in Congress if they win the election. Islam is not banned. Try enforcing any ban on Islam and we will make a bet how long that lasts before it is overturned by the Courts and make it in hours. If you think they should not be then you are a BIGOT and IDIOT.

Your post is BULLSHIT!! Moore did say that we didn't need any amendments after the 10th. Which means that slavery would still be legal and women would not be able to vote. Read the Constitution some time.

I would not make that bet if I were you. Trump could ban Islam (based on Constitution Article 6, Section 2) and it would be upheld by the SCOTUS, just as his Muslim countries ban was.

And here is the Constitution for YOU to read >>.

"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land;"

Sorry, but your bigot card does not supercede the Constitution, nor does Islam, or any other supremacism.

 

[ph3iron]

Now I see your pic glorifying a wife cheater
Guess you don't believe Ike was screwing his sec either?

So I guess we know where you are coming from

Why would I believe any of this trash ?... when it was all just devised to win an election. You got some proof of the sec thing ? If so, let's hear it.

You got proof that this was all devised to win an election?

Show it to us.

Well, to our wife cheater Ike admirer
The women came out because of Weinstein

 

[ph3iron]

Muslims should be in Congress if they win the election. Islam is not banned. Try enforcing any ban on Islam and we will make a bet how long that lasts before it is overturned by the Courts and make it in hours. If you think they should not be then you are a BIGOT and IDIOT.

Your post is BULLSHIT!! Moore did say that we didn't need any amendments after the 10th. Which means that slavery would still be legal and women would not be able to vote. Read the Constitution some time.

I would not make that bet if I were you. Trump could ban Islam (based on Constitution Article 6, Section 2) and it would be upheld by the SCOTUS, just as his Muslim countries ban was.

And here is the Constitution for YOU to read >>.

"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land;"

Sorry, but your bigot card does not supercede the Constitution, nor does Islam, or any other supremacism.

Supremacism??
You mean the C grabber?
Still glorifying Ike?
Constitution, piece of paper written by slave owners and rapists.
No wonder you post a wife cheater as your pic.

 

[busybee01]

Muslims should be in Congress if they win the election. Islam is not banned. Try enforcing any ban on Islam and we will make a bet how long that lasts before it is overturned by the Courts and make it in hours. If you think they should not be then you are a BIGOT and IDIOT.

Your post is BULLSHIT!! Moore did say that we didn't need any amendments after the 10th. Which means that slavery would still be legal and women would not be able to vote. Read the Constitution some time.

I would not make that bet if I were you. Trump could ban Islam (based on Constitution Article 6, Section 2) and it would be upheld by the SCOTUS, just as his Muslim countries ban was.

And here is the Constitution for YOU to read >>.

"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land;"

Sorry, but your bigot card does not supercede the Constitution, nor does Islam, or any other supremacism.

The Constitution does not ban Islam so it does not matter. Nor does it prevent a Muslim from serving in any office.

 

[protectionist]

Well, to our wife cheater Ike admirer
The women came out because of Weinstein

HA HA HA. I'm laughing too hard to type any more.

 

[protectionist]

Supremacism??
You mean the C grabber?
Still glorifying Ike?
Constitution, piece of paper written by slave owners and rapists.
No wonder you post a wife cheater as your pic.

Is there a doctor in the house ? I mean really.

 

[protectionist]

The Constitution does not ban Islam so it does not matter. Nor does it prevent a Muslim from serving in any office.

It bans Islam and all supremacisms other than the Constitution itself. Can you read ?

 

[ph3iron]

Supremacism??
You mean the C grabber?
Still glorifying Ike?
Constitution, piece of paper written by slave owners and rapists.
No wonder you post a wife cheater as your pic.

Is there a doctor in the house ? I mean really.

We need one for the C grabber cult?
Has pics , still love Ike, the wife cheater? Or didn't you know?
The writers were not slave owners and rapists?

 

[Skylar]

Muslims should be in Congress if they win the election. Islam is not banned. Try enforcing any ban on Islam and we will make a bet how long that lasts before it is overturned by the Courts and make it in hours. If you think they should not be then you are a BIGOT and IDIOT.

Your post is BULLSHIT!! Moore did say that we didn't need any amendments after the 10th. Which means that slavery would still be legal and women would not be able to vote. Read the Constitution some time.

I would not make that bet if I were you. Trump could ban Islam (based on Constitution Article 6, Section 2) and it would be upheld by the SCOTUS, just as his Muslim countries ban was.

And here is the Constitution for YOU to read >>.

"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land;"

Sorry, but your bigot card does not supercede the Constitution, nor does Islam, or any other supremacism.

No Trump could not 'ban islam'. To do so he'd have to deal with the *actual* law. And you're insane ramblings that Islam isn't a religion isn't recognized by any court or any law.

You're offering us a blithering fantasy as a likely legal outcome. The courts have *never* found that Islam can be banned from the US, under any context. You're literally making that up.

 

[Skylar]

The Constitution does not ban Islam so it does not matter. Nor does it prevent a Muslim from serving in any office.

It bans Islam and all supremacisms other than the Constitution itself. Can you read ?

Sorry, Protectionist.....but the constitution doesn't ban Islam or even mention it. You're hallucinating. No court recognize that Islam 'isn't a religion'. Islam, like Christianity and Hinduism and a litany of other religions, is protected by the 1st amendment.

You disagree, imagining your own meaningless pseudo-legal gibberish as your justification. No court nor law recognizes your gibberish as having any legal relevance.

What's the point of a 'legal' argument that isn't recognized by any court or acknowledged by any law?

Spoiler Alert: There is no point. You're offering us a fantasy. Not a probable legal outcome.

 

[protectionist]

No Trump could not 'ban islam'. To do so he'd have to deal with the *actual* law. And you're insane ramblings that Islam isn't a religion isn't recognized by any court or any law.

You're offering us a blithering fantasy as a likely legal outcome. The courts have *never* found that Islam can be banned from the US, under any context. You're literally making that up.

No, I didn't make up the Constitution. If you claim to not know that Islam is a supremacism (largest one in the world), then you're either lying, or very ignorant. And even a kid in the 5th grade can see that the Constitution's Supremacy Clause bans all supremacisms (other than itself)

Just because laws are not enforced (like immigration law for example), doesn't mean they aren't laws.

The "actual" law is Article 6, Section 2, part 1.

As for Islam not being a religion, not being recognized, you are wrong and ignorant. Most peope around the world don't accept Islam to be a religion, including some nations (Example - Italy)

Italy: Islam Not Recognized as a Religion — Denied Religious Tax Status

Islam Watch - About Us

Islam Is Not A Religion, It Is Foreign Law

Islam: not a religion? « The Immanent Frame

Islam is not a religion nor is it a cult. It is a complete system. « Avid Editor's Insights

Islam Watch - About Us

Italy: Islam Not Recognized as a Religion -- Denied Religious Tax Status - Atlas Shrugs

Why Islam is Not a Religion > Rebecca Bynum

Islam is a political system ? NOT a religion | Creeping Sharia

Islam and the Definition of Religion

 

[protectionist]

Sorry, Protectionist.....but the constitution doesn't ban Islam or even mention it. You're hallucinating. No court recognize that Islam 'isn't a religion'. Islam, like Christianity and Hinduism and a litany of other religions, is protected by the 1st amendment.

You disagree, imagining your own meaningless pseudo-legal gibberish as your justification. No court nor law recognizes your gibberish as having any legal relevance.

What's the point of a 'legal' argument that isn't recognized by any court or acknowledged by any law?

Spoiler Alert: There is no point. You're offering us a fantasy. Not a probable legal outcome.

1. Not only do courts refuse religious recognition to Islam, some entire countries refuse it too, and consequently, deny Islam religious tax status.

Italy: Islam Not Recognized as a Religion — Denied Religious Tax Status

2. Can't ban a religion. FALSE! Even if Islam WAS a religion, it still could be banned (and is)
Not if the religion is supremacist. The Supremacy clause is the most important part of the constitution, which has NO EXCEPTIONS. The first amendment is the weakest part of the Constitution, which has numerous exceptions (ex. with freedom of speech you have > slander, libel, perjury, obscenity laws, fighting words, inciting a riot, sedition, > all illegal).

 

[Skylar]

Sorry, Protectionist.....but the constitution doesn't ban Islam or even mention it. You're hallucinating. No court recognize that Islam 'isn't a religion'. Islam, like Christianity and Hinduism and a litany of other religions, is protected by the 1st amendment.

You disagree, imagining your own meaningless pseudo-legal gibberish as your justification. No court nor law recognizes your gibberish as having any legal relevance.

What's the point of a 'legal' argument that isn't recognized by any court or acknowledged by any law?

Spoiler Alert: There is no point. You're offering us a fantasy. Not a probable legal outcome.

1. Not only do courts refuse religious recognition to Islam, some entire countries refuse it too, and consequently, deny Islam religious tax status.

Italy: Islam Not Recognized as a Religion — Denied Religious Tax Status

2. Can't ban a religion. FALSE! Even if Islam WAS a religion, it still could be banned (and is)
Not if the religion is supremacist. The Supremacy clause is the most important part of the constitution, which has NO EXCEPTIONS. The first amendment is the weakest part of the Constitution, which has numerous exceptions (ex. with freedom of speech you have > slander, libel, perjury, obscenity laws, fighting words, inciting a riot, sedition, > all illegal).

You....you realize that no court is bound to the inane ramblings of an anonymous blog, right? Anymore than your insistence that Islam isn't a religion binds no court to anything you've said?

Again, if you're going to talk about *actual* legal outcomes, you'll need to deal with the law as it exists. And there's zero precedent in our courts that Islam isn't a religion. That's just you, citing yourself. And legally speaking, you're nobody.

Show us the court cases where Islam has been ruled to be not a religion, or void of 1st amendment protections. Show us the laws that have passed constitutional muster saying as much. Not Italian law. US law.

You can't. You can only quote yourself. And you're irrelevant to the outcome of any court case. Rendering your 'legal conclusions' mere pseudo-legal gibberish that has no impact on any legal proceeding.

 

[bodecea]

Now that the Dec. 12 date is passed, and Doug Jones squeaked out a tie victory (less than 1%), thanks to a lot of very dumb Alabama voters, it's time to investigate the accusers who put Jones over the top. As many in the country see these women as probable paid hit women, it should be interesting to see if their financial conditions change over the next year (2018).

If these accusers did get paid for acting, they will be people who likely are hard pressed for money, and not likely to hold back on spending it. Should be interesting to see if they suddenly find themselves in a new house or car, wearing high-priced clothes and jewelry, buying boats, going on expensive vacations, quitting jobs, and investing significant sums of money.

Questions will be asked. If these woman become rolling in dough, the Moore campaign people as well as the US govt, should be asking them where they got all this money. Anyone could find ways to hide money, but spending it is another thing. Spending always has people on the seller side of the sale. Some of those sellers are bound to be Republicans, and knowledgable of who these women are.

They also would not be fond of the idea of losing a US Senate seat to a wacky headed Democrat, with hare-brained policies. If these accusers start spending big bucks, a thorough investigation must commence immediately. That goes for the ones who accused President Trump too. If/whenever bribery is discovered, the payers should be prosecuted along with the accusers. That could start with investigating California congresswomen Jackie Spier (D-CA), Rep. Lois Frankel (D-FL), Sen. Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY), et al who, calling for an investigation of Trump, seem to have an inordinate interest in these accuser women.

Sickening to see Doug Jones talking about what his people "showed" the country. All they showed is that a high level govt job can be won by DECEITFUL CHEATING, and the govt must be tougher against the cheaters. Now that Democrats have found they can win just by throwing charges against their opponent (with zero proof), how many Republicans running for office will now be accused of every unprovable thing you can think of ? This is one of the worst things to happen to our democracy in its history.

Good idea....then they can also put someone like Moore and trump under oath......

 

[bodecea]

So all the people killed in the Holocaust- that we don't have actual proof of their dying- they were not victims- because we don't have proof of their deaths?

I think that if they were still alive that they would disagree.

If you have no proof of their victimization, than NO, you can't call them victims.

And.....there you have it.

 

[Syriusly]

Sorry, Protectionist.....but the constitution doesn't ban Islam or even mention it. You're hallucinating. No court recognize that Islam 'isn't a religion'. Islam, like Christianity and Hinduism and a litany of other religions, is protected by the 1st amendment.

You disagree, imagining your own meaningless pseudo-legal gibberish as your justification. No court nor law recognizes your gibberish as having any legal relevance.

What's the point of a 'legal' argument that isn't recognized by any court or acknowledged by any law?

Spoiler Alert: There is no point. You're offering us a fantasy. Not a probable legal outcome.

1. Not only do courts refuse religious recognition to Islam, some entire countries refuse it too, and consequently, deny Islam religious tax status.

Italy: Islam Not Recognized as a Religion — Denied Religious Tax Status

No court in the United States has ever refused to recognize Islam as a religion- not one.

Not ever.

Instead the courts, and the U.S. government have consistently- and logically recognized that the religion of over 1 billion people is a religion.

You are frankly delusional.

Does Italy recognize Islam is a religion? Yes they do. They just don't provide religious funding to Islam- Islam is treated exactly the same the Presbyterian Church.

Religion in Italy - Wikipedia

You have been told this ad nauseum but of course in your delusional rants ignore the facts.

 

[Syriusly]

[
2. Can't ban a religion. FALSE! Even if Islam WAS a religion, it still could be banned (and is)
Not if the religion is supremacist. The Supremacy clause is the most important part of the constitution,

There is no 'most important part of the constitution'- that is again just another of your delusional fallacies. Nor is the Supremacy clause what you appear to believe it is

The Supremacy Clause says that the Constitution

federal laws made pursuant to it, and treaties made under its authority, constitute the supreme law of the land.[1] It provides that state courts are bound by the supreme law; in case of conflict between federal and state law, the federal law must be applied. Even state constitutions are subordinate to federal law.[2]

So the Supremacy Clause cannot over-rule the U.S. Constitution- because the Supremacy Clause says that the U.S. Constitution is supreme- and that includes the First Amendment- which says very clearly that you are advocating that the government violate the Constitution:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;

You are just demonstrating once again that your bigotry is more important to you than the Constitution.

 

[Syriusly]

The Constitution does not ban Islam so it does not matter. Nor does it prevent a Muslim from serving in any office.

It bans Islam and all supremacisms other than the Constitution itself. Can you read ?

We can all read. Which is why we all know what a fool you are.

 

[Syriusly]

Muslims should be in Congress if they win the election. Islam is not banned. Try enforcing any ban on Islam and we will make a bet how long that lasts before it is overturned by the Courts and make it in hours. If you think they should not be then you are a BIGOT and IDIOT.

Your post is BULLSHIT!! Moore did say that we didn't need any amendments after the 10th. Which means that slavery would still be legal and women would not be able to vote. Read the Constitution some time.

I would not make that bet if I were you. Trump could ban Islam (based on Constitution Article 6, Section 2) and it would be upheld by the SCOTUS, just as his Muslim countries ban was.

a) Trump could certainly try to ban Islam- and it surely would appeal to his Constitution hating base.
b) No it would not be upheld by the Supreme Court. The only reason why the Supreme Court upheld Trump's travel ban was because Trump argued it was not a ban on Muslims, or a ban on Muslim countries- but a ban on specific countries that just happened to be mostly Muslim

Issued in September, the third edition of the travel ban placed varying levels of restrictions on foreign nationals from eight countries: Chad, Iran, Libya, North Korea, Syria, Venezuela, Somalia and Yemen.

Pretty sure North Korea and Venezuela don't have many Muslims there. The Trump administration has argued consistently that the ban was not a Muslim ban- because unlike you- they know that a ban on Muslims would be slapped down by the Supreme Court.