The leader of the Republican Party in Texas suggested Friday that “law-abiding states” might want to form their own "union," after the U.S. Supreme Court rejected the Lone Star State’s lawsuit over the 2020 presidential election, according to reports.
After the ruling, Allen West, a former Florida congressman who has headed the Texas GOP since July, issued a response.
“The Supreme Court, in tossing the Texas lawsuit that was joined by seventeen states and 106 US congressman, [has] decreed that a state can take unconstitutional actions and violate its own election law -- resulting in damaging effects on other states that abide by the law, while the guilty state suffers no consequences,” West wrote, according to KTVT-TV of Dallas-Fort Worth.
“This decision establishes a precedent that says states can violate the U.S. Constitution and not be held accountable,” West continued. “This decision will have far-reaching ramifications for the future of our constitutional republic.
“Perhaps law-abiding states should bond together and form a Union of states that will abide by the Constitution,” he added.
This is what happens when the liberal media marginalizes Far Right individuals and organizations while tech companies deplatform them, and banks, credit card companies, and related services cutoff their access to digital financial gateways.
ReplyDeleteThe Far Right doesn't disappear. It just gets more determined and uses ingenuity to create its own social media and finds its own own way to transfer money online such as with cryptocurrency.
So what actually is happening? While the liberal media is congratulating itself on ignoring the Far Right, those who don't have their heads stuck in the sand know the Far Right has been talking about secession for years.
Basically, the updated version of secession is not to divide the Union and abandon the Constitution. The new secession is to use the freedom to travel and to relocate and to associate to hit back at the Left with same tactics used against the Far Right: to marginalize the liberals.
yes the treason of republicans and trump supports is justified - by the democrats made me do it.
ReplyDeleteNo, not justified. But the Right is schooled by the Left.
ReplyDeleteTrump's parting shot is to give as good as he got.
Hitler in "Mein Kampf" says he learned about street tactics from the opponents whom he tangled with.
wow you are claiming trump is merely imitating democrats
ReplyDeletetotal nosense!
hillary conceded did trump?
Daf Hayomi today Pesachim 21b
ReplyDelete“And R. Judah?- No verse is required for this: since you are commanded to maintain a ger, but you are not commanded to maintain a heathen [In a technical sense only: nevertheless Judaism teaches that the poor among heathens must be helped just as the Jewish poor, v. Git. 61a],1 a verse is not required, [for] it stands to reason. On the view of R. Meir who maintained,[to] a ger and a heathen alike, both selling and giving are permitted, it is well: since a verse is required to permit benefit from a nevelah, it follows that all other things forbidden in the Torah are forbidden in respect of both eating and [general] benefit. But according to R. Judah, who maintained, it comes from [the purpose of teaching that] the words are as they are written, whence does he know that all [other] things forbidden in the Torah are forbidden in respect of benefit? He deduces it from, “You shall be holy men ואנשי קרש to Me: meat torn in the field ובשר בשדה טרפה you must not eat; you shall cast it to a dog לכלב תשלכון אתו.” (Exodus 22:30) it you may cast to dogs, but you may not cast to dogs all [other] things forbidden in the Torah [ I.e., you may not derive any benefit from them].”
Beautiful. Rabbi Mei is strict. To R. Meir any Torah prohibition of eating automatically implies a prohibition of non-eating benefit unless Torah permits some non-eating benefit. R. Judah is lenient that a Torah prohibition of eating does not imply a prohibition also for non-eating benefit. Meat of a nevelah, an animal not slaughtered ritually, the Torah permits: “You shall not eat anything that has died a natural death כל נבילה; give it to the stranger within your gates לגר אשר בשעריך תתננה to eat ואכלה, or you may sell it to a foreigner או מכר לנכרי. For you are a holy people unto the Lord your God. You shall not seethe לא תבשל a kid in its mother’s milk.” (Deuteronomy 14:21). So, meat of a nevelah we can sell to a non-Jew to eat. Treif meat the Torah says to throw to a dog in Exodus 22:30. My theory. Ritual slaughtering is a Torah commandment for a holy people. The Torah says that it is OK for non-Jews to eat meat not ritually slaughtered. The Torah says to throw treif meat to a dog. Treif meat, may be bad meat. Both R. Meir and R. Judah agree that nevelah and treif meat---ok non-eating benefit such as selling to a non-Jew to eat. Meat cooked with milk---eating is forbidden and so are all non-eating benefits. Beautiful.
I agree with Joseph Orlow that DT is trying to drag down Trump without good cause.
more Fox news conspiracy theories
ReplyDeleteTorah thought Hanukkah 5th day Torah reading:
ReplyDelete“On the fifth day, it was the chieftain of the Simeonites, Shelumiel son of Zurishaddai. His offering: one silver bowl weighing 130 shekels and one silver basin of 70 shekels by the sanctuary weight, both filled with fine flour סלת with oil mixed in, for a meal offering; one gold ladle of 10 shekels, filled with incense; one bull of the herd, one ram, and one lamb in its first year, for a burnt offering; one goat for a sin offering; and for his sacrifice of well-being: two oxen, five rams, five he-goats, and five yearling lambs. That was the offering of Shelumiel son of Zurishaddai.” (Numbers 7:36-41).
Midrash Rabbah - Numbers XIV:13
“R. Simeon said: What is the purpose of the Scriptural statement, AT THE HANDS OF THE PRINCES OF ISRAEL? It teaches that they offered the gifts spontaneously, and that the offerings of all of them were identical, alike in length, alike in breadth, and alike in weight, no one of them offering more than another, for had one of them offered more than another, no one's offering would have overridden the Sabbath [Because in that case there would have been an element of personal honor in the sacrifices; hence they could not override the Sabbath.]. The Holy One, blessed be He, said to them: You have shown honor to one another and I shall therefore give you the honor of allowing you to offer on My Sabbath, in order that there may be no break between your offerings.”
God valued the gifts of the princes especially that they did not seek personal honor. They did not try to outdo each other. Beautiful. Harmony and unity. My theory. God gave them a foretaste of Gan Eden in the building of the Tabernacle and in life in the wilderness. The princes showed perfect harmony and unity in bringing their gifts. We need today more harmony and unity. Trump seeks to make America great, not personal honor. Trump's wonderful achievements do bring honor and good name to Trump. The princes in the wilderness 40 years did bring honor and good name to themselves. Their big failing was lack of Zionism...
Trump is finished and he only cares about himself!
ReplyDeleteDaas Torah “Trump is finished and he only cares about himself!” No. All Hanukkah we say full Hallel:
ReplyDelete“Not for our sake לא לנו, O Lord, not for our sake לא לנו but for Your name’s sake כי לשמך give glory תן כבוד for Your kindness על חסדך and for Your truth על אמתך. Why should the nations say למה יאמרו הגוים, Where, now איה נא, is their God? Our God is in the heavens בשמים; whatever He pleases He does כל אשר חפץ עשה.” (Psalms 115:1-3)
Artscroll Siddur “Although Israel remained imbued with faith, our oppressors soon began to scoff. Where is their God? We pray that God will intervene again in the affairs of man, not for our sake, but for His.”
Beautiful. Trump did so much wonderful good for America and for Israel. Yes, I do pray that God will intervene again in the affairs of man, that Trump will be POTUS 4 more years. Not for the sake of Trump, but for the sake of wonderful good for America and for Israel.
Scoff = speak to someone or about something in a scornfully derisive or mocking way. "Patrick professed to scoff at soppy love scenes in films"