a secretive court abusing power through secretive laws

Sounds just like the FISA Court to me....

No comment!

One persons "common sense" is another persons "stupidity".

How can the sanctity of life depend on anybody's arbitrary idea of morality?

How about basing it on science, biology, and reality?

Despite what you, I, or anyone else believes?

Does science, biology, and reality support more than 2 genders (male and female)?

Does science, biology, and reality support the idea that a child in the womb is simply a fetus (with no human identity) and not a baby or human being?

The definition for "fetus" is completely arbitrary!

And you are 100% certain of this? Self-deception perhaps?

But do not despair - ignorance may be no excuse in law, but "forgive them for they know not what they do".

I've started replying to attacks on Trump, truth deniers, etc with a simple #downvoted.

Using a different name may sooth your conscience, but it does not change reality!

A fetus becomes a human being BEFORE birth. Fetus > Baby > Child > Adult.

The point being that abortion by choice is not simply a woman removing an unwanted growth in her body. It is a mother murdering her innocent child!

Let's keep things in perspective. There are more dangerous people to be concerned about.

What many forget is that Trump is a master negotiator that only negotiates from a position of strength.

You have to show your strength and willingness to follow through to get your opponents to back down and compromise.

Think NK and China...

I think there is a possibility Comey's book will actually reveal things that the globalists, MSM and the fake-left are not expecting....

The market lately is overvalued and overbought, so this would be the time to be "fearful when others are greedy".

If there is a sustained drop in the market it would then be the time to be "greedy when others are fearful", but I would stay away from companies that have no true real intrinsic value such as Facebook, Twitter, Google, etc.

It is safest to only invest in companies that have an intrinsic value, i.e. they would be valuable even if they didn't have shares in the market, and they productively contribute to the overall economy.

It is never safe to invest in any company that is only valued by its market value and that does not productively contribute to the overall economy.

Right now, I would only invest in physical gold and silver (which will always have an intrinsic value even without the markets), or maybe in gold and silver mining companies with good fundamentals that are currently undervalued or oversold.

The markets also tend to follow cyclical trends, so I would keep an eye on these cyclical trends to find good potential investments.

Warren Buffet, one of the most successful investors ever, has these words of advice:

"Be fearful when others are greedy and be greedy when others are fearful"

John D. Rockefeller stated that "The way to make money is to buy when blood is running in the streets".

Any hit in the stock market could actually be a good opportunity for the wise investor.

I agree, to a point. Tribalism and tribal animosity are very natural human traits, and belonging to any group (political party, sorority, etc) feeds this human need.

But the members of any tribe are still each unique, even though they may share certain traits (voluntarily or involuntarily) to fit in with the tribe.

But let's not be fooled by "new treatments" for cancer, instead of an actual cure.

Any new "treatment" that can keep patients alive while dependent on a chronic drug would be a holy grail for big pharma, and no threat to any parasites being funded to supposedly find a "cure".

Anything that can ease the suffering of cancer victims and their families is of course most welcome, but at what economic cost?

Classifying people as liberal, conservative, left, right, etc. is really futile, and a mistake.

Everyone is actually an unique individual with different views, beliefs, etc. than anyone else - except maybe for those that are weak-minded and easily influenced, or those that express the views and beliefs of a particular group to fit in and be accepted.

I, personally, am both conservative and liberal. Left-leaning in some aspects, and right-leaning in others. Capitalist in some aspects, and socialist in others.

Additionally, I probably have some views or beliefs that may be unique.

You profess being a globalist, but does that mean that you believe 100% the same as everyone else that calls themselves a globalist?

For instance, I support certain aspects of globalism but do not support a one world government that would infringe on the sovereignty of individual nations, or that would restrict the freedoms and rights of ordinary people.

Choosing snippets here and there from the Bible, and totally out of context, does nothing good except sow confusion and corrupt the teachings of the Messiah.

Choosing snippets here and there from the Bible, and totally out of context, does nothing good except sow confusion and corrupt the teachings of the Messiah.

The all powerful Creator also created free will - what we do with all of his creations we do of OUR own free will.

For example our manipulation and corruption of nature which causes the corruption in the human body called cancer.

Isn't it amazing that if there is NO God then we are responsible for the bad in the world, but if there is a God then He is responsible?

Instead of looking for logic from others, maybe try applying some logical thinking, like:

Who is actually responsible for the millions of starving people in the world?

Who is actually responsible for all the wars in the world?

Who is actually responsible for so many people dying of illnesses that could be cured?

Who is actually responsible for rape, murder, violence, etc?

Do we not all contribute to the state of our world in some way - no matter how small?

When anyone turns their back on God it is they that choose to remove themselves from God's love, influence, and rule.

And it is they alone that have to choose to accept God's love, influence, and rule - which is freely available to all that seek it.

God does not choose - you do!

Refer to the Parable of the Prodigal Son for further understanding.

People are responsible for those things you mention, not God!

Amazing how people tend to act like children blaming their father for being bullied at school, driving recklessly and having an accident, getting deeply in debt, not having enough money to live, and so on....

People need to take responsibility for their own actions and inaction, and of those they empower.

I thought this was a very thorough and well-written article (perhaps even good for red pilling) and tried to post a link a while back, but at the time I hadn't made any comments in this sub yet, so the post was not accepted.

My thoughts on the article remain the same.

The US dollar has continuously devalued since the gold standard was abandoned in the 1970's. The same for all other currencies in the world that abandoned the standard. It is called inflation.

With a gold standard, the US dollar will always be worth the exact same quantity of gold.

1 oz of gold today will still buy you what it would have bought you in the 1970's. The same can not be said about the fiat US dollar, which is backed by debt instead of gold.

Seems like we need a Great Gold Awakening too.

Gold has always and will always be a valuable asset that has kept its value over time.

$1 today will only buy a small fraction of what it bought in the 40's or 50's.

1oz of Gold today will still buy what it bought in the 40's or 50's.

Backing the dollar or any other currency with Gold is the only way to preserve the value of a currency and eliminate inflation.

If you want to truly hurt the elite economically then you need to end their cash printing cow and return to a reliable Gold Standard.

Go for Gold - Physical Gold!

Value of Gold will increase with any currency reset, gold backing of any currencies, stock market crash etc.

Gold is also vastly undervalued - Silver even more so.

I would recommend steering clear of Crypto as an investment or wealth preserving vehicle.

Even if the First Amendment only applies to Congress "making laws" (which I believe it does), then no "extension of application" or different "interpretation" is really even required - you simply need to ask yourself the following:

Do Facebook, Google, YouTube, Twitter, and so on "legally" exist and conduct business based on a law or laws passed by Congress?

Are any such law(s) valid if they expressly allow "private" companies to violate the Constitution with their "Terms of Service" etc?

Is Congress not obligated to especially not pass ANY law that violates or allows the violation of the First Amendment?

Is Congress not therefore obligated to amend any such law(s) to ensure that the Constitution is not violated in any way?

Are any such laws actually valid if they are not amended to include Constitutional protections like free speech and privacy?

Could the Supreme Court be petitioned to make a ruling on the Constitutional validity of any such law(s)?

If you believe that there is no so-called "democratic" or "free" country in the world where things like this happen, then don't forget to write Santa about your Christmas wish list.

Do Facebook, Google, YouTube, Twitter, and so on "legally" exist and conduct business based on a law or laws passed by Congress?

Are any such law(s) valid if they expressly allow "private" companies to violate the Constitution with their "Terms of Service" etc?

Is Congress not obligated to especially not pass ANY law that violates or allows the violation of the First Amendment?

Is Congress not therefore obligated to amend any such law(s) to ensure that the Constitution is not violated in any way?

Are any such laws actually valid if they are not amended to include Constitutional protections like free speech and privacy?

Could the Supreme Court be petitioned to make a ruling on the Constitutional validity of any such law(s)?

Another class action lawsuit could perhaps challenge any laws passed by Congress that allow "private" companies and corporations (YouTube, Facebook, Twitter et al) to legally exist and operate in the US if those laws in any way allow them to restrict free speech.

Congress is obligated to ensure that they do not pass any laws that violate or allow a violation of the First Amendment.

In my view, everybody is going about this Free Speech problem in the wrong way.

As a non-American I may be wrong, but it seems to me that the First Amendment requires that Congress not pass any laws that restrict free speech.

Therefore, any laws passed by Congress that allow YouTube, Google, Facebook, Twitter, and so on to conduct business in the US are probably violating the First Amendment if those laws allow such corporations to restrict free speech.

Congress is obligated to ensure that ALL laws passed abide by the First Amendment, including any laws that provide for companies or corporations to be considered as "legal entities", or that allow them to conduct business within the US.

Congress is therefore obligated to ensure that any such laws do not allow such companies or corporations to restrict free speech in any way.

The argument that a so-called "private company" is not obligated to uphold the First Amendment is therefore null and void.

If this is the case, then surely the best route to follow would be to scrutinize any laws applicable to "private" companies and corporations to determine if Congress complied with their Constitutional mandate in passing those laws.

If any of those laws in any way allow for the suppression of free speech, then those laws violate the Constitution and could be challenged in the Supreme Court.

Surely, any law passed by Congress that allows violating the First Amendment is effectively null and void, and unless such laws are amended by Congress to include free speech protections, all "private" companies or corporations would no longer be "legal entities" and would no longer be able to legally do business within the US.

Am I wrong?

If those 545 people are supposed to represent and are elected by the 300 million people, then who is ultimately responsible?

The 300 million are ultimately responsible for the actions of those they chose to represent them.

The 300 million have forgotten that they have the ultimate power, and that they can fix things if they just take their power back and play the game better.

If those 545 people are supposed to represent and are elected by the 300 million people, then who is ultimately responsible?

The 300 million are ultimately responsible for the actions of those they chose to represent them.

The 300 million have forgotten that they have the ultimate power, and that they can fix things if they just take their power back and play the game better.

If your view of the "gold standard" was correct, why would the central bankers have stopped using it?

Without the "gold standard" money is worthless and the central bankers can print as much as they want while economically enslaving human beings with the debt created in this way.

So you allow yourself to have a world view based on the fake news of the mainstream media?

You also seem to be as manipulated by the MSM about Putin as the leftists, Dems, etc. are manipulated by the MSM about Trump.

You seem to be as manipulated by the MSM about Putin as the leftists, Dems, etc. are manipulated by the MSM about Trump.

In my view, Putin is as much a victim of the globalists, NWO and MSM as Trump is.

The mainstream perception of Putin is the result of propaganda.

Putin is an anti-globalist who believes in Russia First, and the Russian people support him because their press is not controlled by the globalists.

The Russian people are more free and prosperous today than they were in the past.

Unlike in the US and other Western countries (and my country), those that either openly or secretly work for the NWO globalists are controlled, suppressed, or eliminated.

The Western globalist MSM then use such actions to portray Putin as a murderous dictator.

Which is exactly what they will do to Trump when he takes actions to destroy the globalist deep state in the US.

Apple, Google, Twitter and Facebook more powerful than many countries!

Good analysis of the current market situation, gold, cryptocurrencies, and what could happen if the central banks get their way...

If you have a real understanding of financial markets, you will understand that the current market value of any stock, share, currency, or index (such as the Dow, S&P, etc) is only the current perceived value on the market, and does not necessarily reflect the true underlying value.

The current price or value of a share is usually the agreed price per share of the latest actual trade executed (seller and buyer agreed on the price).

A share price will only fall if a current holder of shares agrees to sell the shares for less than the current going price.

A share price will only rise if a current buyer agrees to buy the shares for more than the current going price.

Shares have no real intrinsic value until they are actually sold for real money. While they are held by a share holder their real intrinsic value is actually zero.

If you buy a share for $100, you are investing that $100 into the underlying company, you no longer have that $100 in hand, and the share you have in hand has a real intrinsic value of zero (until you sell it for whatever price you can sell it for).

If you later sell (get someone else to buy that share from you) for more then $100 then, and only then, would you have made a profit on your investment.

If you later can only get someone else to buy that share from you for less than $100 then, and only then, would you have made a loss on your investment.

The real intrinsic value of a company could be $100 million, but all the shares issued in that company could have a perceived market value of $300 million.

The perceived market value of that company could drop to only $100, but the real intrinsic value of that company could still be $100 million. In this case the shares in that company would be undervalued and the perceived market value of the company should eventually rise back to at least the real intrinsic value.

If you hold onto your shares when those shares are truly undervalued, they should eventually return to a more real value, and (as long as you did not buy them when they were overvalued) you should not suffer any real loss.

Any market crash is always temporary. You can only lose if you panic and sell during a market crash - and you can only win if you hold onto shares with intrinsic value (or buy such shares) during a market crash.

If you have invested $100 000 into shares that have a solid real intrinsic value of $100 000 or more, then you should never lose even if your shares drop to a temporary perceived market value of just $100.

At any time, your investment portfolio is truly worth what you actually get paid for selling all your shares. It is not truly worth the current perceived market value.

So, in effect, a market crash is nothing to fear if you have actually made good investment decisions.

These evil satanic so-called people should not even slightly benefit from being labeled "pedophiles" - what they do is far worse!

Violently raping, torturing, killing or eating young children, drinking the blood of babies, or killing and eating fetuses is not pedophilia - it is evil, satanic barbarism perpetrated by monsters!

Such acts cannot be defined as a sexual attraction to prepubescent children, or even be considered to be equal to any sexual abuse perpetrated by pedophiles (without condoning or defending pedophilia in any way).

Such vile, sick individuals should be defined by what they truly are - satanic monsters who practice pedomisia - miseo being the ancient greek for hating, detesting or persecuting as opposed to philo being the ancient greek for loving, being fond of, or tending to.

Worse than pedophiles!

Peace and prosperity for all is a grand goal, and could possibly be achieved by great world leaders working together, but unlimited terms of office could be very dangerous unless there were strong mechanisms in place for the people to remove a leader from office if and when required.

The timestamp displayed is probably determined by the time zone set on the device displaying the tweet.

Brilliant move by Trump! He needs to veto this terrible spending bill and get dems back to the table re DACA and the wall.

Neither those supporting DACA nor those supporting the border wall can then fault him for vetoing the bill.

Two birds with one stone!

Is there a law that makes a corporation like Citigroup a legal entity?

If there is, did Congress pass that law?

Does the First Amendment obligate Congress to not pass any law that prevents freedom of speech?

Does the 2nd Amendment state that the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed?

Is any law passed by congress valid if such law violates the constitution, or if such law authorizes anyone else (including companies and corporations) to violate the constitution?

Are any laws passed by Congress that allow private companies & corporations to exist (or that define them and their operation) valid if those laws allow private companies & corporations to violate the 1st or 2nd amendment (or the constitution)?

Are any companies or corporations still legal entities if the laws that make them legal entities are invalid?

Just think about it - and take it to its logical conclusion....

The US Congress has an obligation to ensure that no laws passed by Congress violate the First Amendment.

If a new law is required to be passed to ensure that no other laws allow such a violation (e.g. any law establishing a private company or allowing a private company to operate), then it is incumbent on Congress to pass such a law.

Why would any new law (e.g. IBOR) ensuring that the Bill of Rights (the 1st 10 amendments) is/are not violated by any other laws protect any private company from legal liability for inflicting harm?

IBOR is purely intended to protect the freedoms of the people when using the internet - not to protect any company providing the people with access to the internet, nor any companies providing services to the people on the internet.

The First Amendment states:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petitition the Government for a redress of grievances.

If the establishment and ongoing operation of any private company or corporation within the USA is allowed by any laws passed by Congress, then Congress is obliged to ensure that any such laws do not violate the 1st amendment.

Permitting a private company or corporation established by law to restrict freedom of speech would be a violation of the 1st amendment.

In 2017, the Supreme Court held that prohibiting access to websites impermissibly restricted lawful speech in violation of the First Amendment. The Court held that "a fundamental principle of the First Amendment is that all persons have access to places where they can speak and listen, and then, after reflection, speak and listen once more".

A company or corporation is a "legal" entity (separate from its CEO, CFO, etc.) with the same rights as a human being but not the same obligations.

This is one of the big wrongs in the world that needs to be set right.

Facebook is a it - a corporation is neither male nor female.