Nye, the scientist and host of “Bill Nye The Science Guy,” used his speech at Rutgers’s commencement Sunday as a platform to tell students to start voting and find a way to stop climate change.
Source: Bill Nye talks climate change, racial conflict at Rutgers graduation | NJ.com
Nye, the scientist and host of “Bill Nye The Science Guy,” used his speech at Rutgers’s commencement Sunday as a platform to tell students to start voting and find a way to stop climate change.
Let me get this straight. This is YOUR America – land of the brave, the free and what else? So I want to make sure I understand this because obviously nobody else does.
We have a president who lies everyday and loves doing it. He disrespects the constitution and everyday, his little puppet-stringed hands take away my rights and does all he can to destroy even my God-given rights. He has robbed, killed, deceived, murdered and wasted billions of dollars that aren’t his.
We have a former secretary of state, under this same lying president, who has lied, cheated and stole and was responsible for killings and the murder of innocent people. She is part of taking bribes from foreign investors for her husband and then destroys all her evidence so she won’t get caught.
In short, the United States of America is probably the most corrupt it has ever been and spiraling to hell in short order.
And what is the lead headline today? Tom Brady! Demands that he be fired, stripped of his title. Suspended for an entire season, etc. Why? Because the NFL report stated that “PROBABLY” he was aware that a couple of managers were messing with air pressures in footballs. No real proof – just that they think it is “probable.” Nice!
Last time I checked, at least before the U.S. of A. became a slave state, run by a bunch of brainwashed idiots, pimping for the Vatican, the ruling establishment in this world of hate, “Probably” was not sufficient grounds to destroy a person.
The hypocrites on Fox News, who collectively might have enough brain power to know one should get in out of the rain, while carrying on about free speech and how people should have a right to free speech and be able to draw cartoons of Mohammed, turned to the next story wishing to crucify a man, whom it was obvious from the beginning, hated Tom Brady. What superficial, ignorant, hypocrites. They hate him out of jealousy, I would guess. What other reason is there? Well, other than one has a husband who is a back-up quarterback on….whose team? Another goes through life angry because he really wants to be a sports announcer and now we see why he isn’t one. And the third member is a Jets and Giants fan. Why didn’t these same mental midgets defend Tom Brady’s right to be held innocent until proven guilty. Where does it say, guilty, guilty, guilty, because he PROBABLY did it.
My God! Another example of the sewer in which this fake republic has opted to go live in.
I couldn’t care less about Tom Brady and the Patriots or any other football team. As a matter of fact, I don’t care an iota about any professional sports team or anybody who participates on those teams. This is about a person’s right. It’s about justice.
A 243-page report of the NFL’s investigation concludes that “PROBABLY” cheating occurred. Let’s hang the man by his “BALLS” that nobody can prove anything was done to them.
Meanwhile, the real crooks, the murderers, the thieves in Washington and the White House, walk free because they know they are protected and above the laws levied on us slaves. These have ruled over us for two centuries and there’s no end in sight. The future looks worse.
The Media should go straight to hell, right behind the NFL for issuing such nonsense!
I won’t be watching anymore NFL games or Fox News.
*Editor’s Note* – This is really kind of an old story but now that Senator Chuck Grassley has decided to open up the can of worms again, allow me to point out some things that should be obvious to Americans but evidently it is not.
Below is an article that can be found on Sen. Grassley’s website. It is about sending a letter to Attorney General Eric Holder asking why a disproportionate number of “mentally defective” military veterans are being added to the gun ownership ban list. How big of him.
As will be the case here, and is in all other cases, we are manipulated to focus on the terrible act of what appears to be a too many in one department being declared “mentally defective” while never addressing the real issue.
Why is it that we, once thought to be a free society, sit back and allow fascist government, enabled by totalitarian groups of ignorant people, to take away any of our rights? Why is it somehow acceptable that Government or any of its agents and/or employees, can, with the stroke of a pen, declare any of us mentally unfit to keep and bear arms? Doesn’t anybody alive in this country see this?
Evidently Sen. Grassley, not to pick on him because they are all the same bunch of selfish dictators, wants us to focus on just that there are more veterans that a nuts than other groups. In addition, he has proposed legislation that would allow judges to decide whether or not you or I are out of our freakin’ minds. Now there’s a Government solution for you. Oh, but don’t put on some charade about how terrible I am because I think Government and the Judicial system doesn’t give a damn about my mental health or my Constitutional and God-given rights.
I’ve seen what Government can do. I’ve seen what judges can do. I’ve seen what the Executive can do, and you really are interested in allowing any of them to determine your mental capacity? Hell, I refuse to ever go see a shrink because I will not allow someone who is nuttier than I am to determine how nutty I am. Some mentally defective moron sitting at a desk is allowed to play god?
This is all just nuts!
WASHINGTON – Senator Chuck Grassley of Iowa, Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, is requesting an explanation for why nearly all of the names on the Justice Department’s gun ban list in the “mental defective” category belong to veterans or their dependents.
“It’s disturbing to think that the men and women who dedicated themselves to defending our freedom and values face undue threats to their fundamental Second Amendment rights from the very agency established to serve them. A veteran or dependent shouldn’t lose their Constitutional rights because they need help with bookkeeping,” Grassley said.
All federal agencies are required to report names of individuals to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System’s (NICS) “mental defective” category. Placement on the list prohibits owning or possessing a firearm. The legal standard by which a name is supposed to be reported to the “mental defective” category is whether the individuals are a danger to themselves or others. However, the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) process does not support such findings. Instead VA reports individuals to the gun ban list if an individual merely needs financial assistance managing VA benefits. Although the VA process is not designed to regulate firearm ownership, it results in veterans and their loved ones being barred from exercising their fundamental, Constitutionally-guaranteed Second Amendment rights.
In a letter to Attorney General Eric Holder, Grassley outlined concerns that a number of failures, including the inconsistent application of standards and weak due process protections, are leading to a disproportionate number of names submitted to the gun ban list by the VA. Grassley notes that it appears veterans are particularly singled out and should not be required by the VA to shoulder the entire burden to prove that they have the ability to exercise their Second Amendment rights.
Grassley introduced legislation last Congress that included a provision requiring a judicial authority to find individuals to be a danger to themselves or others in order to be added to the mental defective category within NICS. This legislation would have effectively overturned administrative actions by the VA to add individuals to the NICS simply because they were unable to manage their financial affairs.
According to Congressional Research data from 2012, 99.3 percent of all names reported to NICS’ “mental defective” category were supplied by the VA. A 2013 Senate report indicated little change in that statistic.
Text of Grassley’s letter is below. A signed copy can be found here.
“For the past several years, the miners from the Galice Mining District, about 3o minutes west of Grants Pass, Oregon, have been arguing over who has the rights to the minerals in the ground around Galice Creek. The Galice mining district is compiled of a number of claims, owners and miners and has been in continuous operation since the early 1870’s, which makes it one of the longest running operations in the US. This specific operation predates the BLM bureaucracy by many decades in fact.”<<<Read More>>>
A bill is being proposed in the Maine Legislature that would do away with the concealed carry permitting process. One person, whose opinion was published in the Portland Press Herald, gives a list of reasons why this bill shouldn’t happen. His reasons are seriously flawed. Voters should understand that. Here’s a look at some of this person’s claims:
1. “The current system recognizes that concealed guns are dangerous and can be easily used for criminal purposes.” This simply is not true. The current system has been put in place because of ignorance of facts, along with totalitarians who just can’t resist stealing the right of self-defense from others. This statement assumes that we are to believe that when guns are concealed on a person, the person is more apt to commit a criminal offense. What attention is given to any laws by someone wishing to carry out a criminal offense?
2. “Polling consistently shows that more than 80 percent of Mainers support laws that improve gun safety..” Whether that statistic is true or not, doesn’t matter. It has nothing to do with the proposed legislation. It is a matter of one’s opinion, rather than fact, as to whether Maine residents consider concealed carry a matter of gun safety. Mainers may support gun safety, but it is quite doubtful that anything approaching 80% would oppose this proposed bill.
3. “…carrying a gun openly tends to attract the attention of bank guards, convenience store cashiers, police officers on patrol and the rest of us who are trying to keep our distance from people who aren’t emotionally stable.” Seriously? Isn’t this nothing more than the revelation of a person who lives in emotional fear over the day to day? Who walks about in fear, “to keep our distance from people who aren’t emotionally stable?” I think they designed padded rooms specifically for that kind of behavior.
4. “More guns do not make us safer.” In fact they do. Repeatedly it has been shown that an armed citizenry is safer than an unarmed one. Consider violent crime rates in places like Chicago and Washington, D.C. where guns are banned from everyone except the elite chosen few.
5. “They [guns] regularly kill and injure their owners and their owners’ children, spouses and partners.” Guns don’t do anything. They just lay where they are placed. From this person’s perspective, it would seem better to demand a ban on people. People kill people.
6. “We require a license to drive a car, in order to ensure that drivers are responsible. The current concealed-weapon system has the same rationale.” The author here forgets one very important difference between driving a car and having a right to keep and bear arms. Driving is a privilege in which a person must earn it. Keeping and bearing arms is a right guaranteed under the Second Amendment and self-defense is a right given us from God.
7. “…it protects all of us from guns in the wrong hands – or pockets.” No, it does not. To state that somehow requiring a permit to carry a concealed weapon keeps guns out of the hands of criminals, who consequently can hurt a lot of people, is misleading and irresponsible. It must be stated again that criminals have no interest in laws, especially public safety laws, created in error to convince people it will stop crimes. It just isn’t the truth.
The author went out of his way to show that other states have laws similar to the current requirements for concealed carry in Maine, but failed to mention states like Alaska and nearby Vermont. Those two states do not require a permit to carry a handgun concealed. Do these states have a higher rate of crime?
For decades the rigged system many people wrongfully label a democracy or a constitutional republic, has worked at every opportunity to prohibit hunters, trappers and fisherman from as much access to land as can possibly be done. At the same time efforts exist to ban hunting and rob people of their right to keep and bear arms. If they can’t do this outright, they will accomplish the same through what is often called incrementalism or back door regulations to chip away at any and all aspects of hunting, fishing and trapping, including land access.
Then along comes another effort to put an end, at least to some degree, to the continued prohibitions against land access and those who helped to build the rigged system cry foul and claim preferential treatment.
According to Pajamas Media, the Sportsman’s Act of 2015, “builds on previous efforts and adds new provisions to increase access and provide new opportunities for Americans to enjoy our federal lands.”
It appears that in this bill there are provisions that contradict the existing laws surrounding “wilderness” regions – those areas set aside as preferential treatment to only those wishing to see access to federal lands restricted to specific groups or individuals.
And herein we see the hypocrisy and elitist attitudes coming out from those who promote “wilderness” for their own selfish purposes.
“Certain language [in the act] may be interpreted to allow activities in wilderness areas that are not consistent with the Wilderness Act,” Ellis explained.
Leslie Weldon, deputy chief for the National Forest System at the U.S. Forest Service, a division of the Department of Agriculture, expressed concern that the bill seems to give preferential treatment to hunting, fishing and recreational shooting. That could prove problematic given the wide range of activities enjoyed on public lands — and the service’s charge to accommodate everyone from bird watchers and hikers to school groups, photographers and, indeed, hunters and fishermen.
Please understand this. As it exists now, within the rigged system developed and designed to eliminate hunting, fishing and trapping, preferential treatment is being promoted by restricting activities by some in order to promote the desires of others in an exclusive use – and they fear such a bill would be preferential to hunters and fishermen.
Also understand that that those who seem to believe they have a right to own and restrict others, lament that such a bill would cause problems because their choice in recreational activities might be infringed upon in order to accommodate others. This is the result of years of brainwashing that hunting, trapping and fishing is bad and shouldn’t be allowed, giving people the false belief that they have exclusive rights to use the land and that right shouldn’t be at all restricted in order to accommodate others. This is the epitome of blind selfishness.
This is an interesting presentation. I’m assuming the raw footage is real. The people there should be allowed to protest but their message is based upon wrong information. If we were free men, we would not be having the need to protest. If we were free men our right to self protection would not be limited. The misinformation is that the constitution was for the individual. It is a contract between the Federal Government and the States. America was never “won” from King George. The Paris Treaty of 1783 and the Jay Treaty of 1794 assured that. And what was left of any constitution was completely changed with the illegal passage of the 14th Amendment. Our rights come from God not man. We should all stand up for God-given rights; that no man can give and take away rights. Because of this, none of us are free men.
Obviously I decolonized my own mind! long ago and have been a practitioner re-indigenizing myself by growing the majority of my own food, raising my own fruit, meat, and using my immediate environment for wild leaves, herbs, roots, fish and meats. Wild meat preservation requires that I manage wild predators. I already tried what you preach and it is BS. So keep in mind readers that environ-mental-ism-ists are condemning hunter gathers who are trying to decolonize their minds from the European federalism which is a legal term for corporate contract which they promote and condemn us for re-indigenizing ourselves by practicing self determination food gathering rather than being coddled by their federal contractual corporate nanny king..? I laugh at the “federal” contractual corporate lands fraud and I realize that, like all things man made, this legal fraud will pass into the dust bin of bad ideas with the knit-wits that thought it up and those that do not comprehend it’s true meanings and purposes as set forth by the real owners of those corporate contracts.
What does “federal” really mean?
From the 1828 Webster’s Dictionary
FEDERAL– a. from L. faedus, a league, allied perhaps to Eng. Wed, Sax . Weddian,* * *.
1. Pertaining to a league or contract; derived from an agreement or covenant between parties, particularly between nations.
So the real meaning of “federal” is a contract or agreement and has nothing to do with a particular type government, although it was a contract that formed government.
So, where is your contractual agreement you signed giving you entitlement rights to my immediate environment and how I preserve it? Here’s a big clue, IT DOES NOT EXIST…
2. Consisting in a compact between parties, particularly and chiefly between states or nations;
YOU ARE NOT MENTIONED HERE AS YOU HAVE NO CONTRACT WITH A STATE OR A NATION. As stated by the judge in the Padleford case;
“But, indeed, no private person has a right to complain, by suit in court, on the ground of a breach of the Constitution. The Constitution, it is true, is a compact, but he is not a party to it. The States are the parties to it. And they may complain. If they do they are entitled to redress. Or they may waive the right to complain.”
Right here is all the proof you need that you are not a party to any compact (contract/Agreement) with the federal government or state government for that matter under any constitution.
#2 of Webster’s definition; founded on alliance by contract or mutual agreement; * * .
Your mutual agreement is with a private organization using the word “federal” in a fraud, because of people’s ignorance. Remember words are used against you every time it is in the criminal’s best interest. Now when you look at Black’s Law dictionary, they are carefully couched in constitutional terms and nations and compacts between the states and never use “Federal” as defined by Webster’s. Even Ballentine’s uses it, as does Blacks.
Now let’s move to present day (1969) Webster’s 7th Collegiate Dictionary. This now states what The Law dictionaries state and have thrown out the etymology of the word federal so you would have no idea it means a contract between parties, leading you to believe everything “federal” pertains to government.
Humm, ok, so what about federal express? Does that mean government express?
So I happen to have a 1911 Webster’s unabridged dictionary and the definition of “federal” is exactly word for word, the same as the 1828 Dictionary. So what happened in 1913 that changed the definition of “federal” to mean only pertaining to government? Think. Words are changed by men to mean what they want it to mean. The Random House Dictionary 1967 uses Webster’s 1828 definition, but also includes what the Law dictionaries define federal as. Here is proof as to how a word changes over the years by men that want control by starting to shove aside what “federal” really means. So the real word “FEDERAL” meant contract between men (parties) or agreement between them.
Waiting for you to show me a legitimate land title agreement between you and those men that set this fraud into motion’ – waiting… waiting… waiting…
It does not exist; YOU public lands owner own nothing. Every time you call those federal lands you mean someone else’s lands not your lands.
If you want an over population of wolves in your immediate environment you deserve what you get from that as well, a whole lot of nothing when it comes to wild elk meat..
This gets better the deeper we research it, you are Federal Human Resources property. How can property own property? How can non signatories of any federal contractual agreement with the international community own federal property? They cannot, they do not, they never did and they never will..
I’ve had this discussion with two judges, and nine lawyers. They have yet to prove me wrong. One of the Judges commended myself for figuring it out and that I was correct..
Have a nice life of lies, because you’ve been and still are owned property.
“Mr Bosworth was handcuffed and taken away. He was never read his rights; his gun was taken, illegally; he was refused an attorney, although asking for one at least six times; and he was interrogated illegally for several hours. The incident culminated when the Spokane County Sheriff intervened and Mr Bosworth was released after being cited for “failure to comply.””<<<Read More>>>
In my opinion, the Judeo-Christian concepts of Galatians 5:1, 13, 14, 15 are magic in that these verses are consistent with the assertion that the Bill of Rights to the US Constitution comes from the concept of Judeo-Christian God-given rights.
Gal. 5:1 “Freedom is what we have – Christ has set us free! Stand, then, as free people, and do not allow yourselves to become slaves again.”
13″But do not let this freedom become as excuse for letting your physical desires control you. Instead, let love make you serve one another.”
14 “For the whole Law [think the Bill of Rights] is summed up in one commandment: “Love your neighbor as you love yourself.”
[The American principle of “Mind your own business” comes to mind.]
15 “But if you act like wild animals, hurting and harming each other, then watch out, or you will completely destroy one another.”
[Don’t behead people for the common intellectual curiosity of exploring other faiths or even atheism.]
Galatians 5 shows us that arguments for marriages based on physical desires such as sexual preferences actually pushes Godless hedonistic sin cleverly masquerading as sacred Judeo-Christian God-given individuals’ freedoms protected under the US Constitution’s Bill of Rights.
Such deception is only possible through a systematic corruption of the national education system in particular law schools. And it may take beginning the discussion of yanking accreditation of law schools that bury, for example, US v Cruikshank 92 U.S. 542 (1875) [right of individuals to assembly and to bear arms predates US Constitution and are rights not dependent on the Constitution] before systemic changes can be made.
American Judeo-Christian God-given human rights for individuals address critically important freedoms from the brutality and barbarism of the King’s and of Roman Law’s absolutism (that Prof Hamburger discusses in legal treatise “Is Administrative Law Unlawful?” 2014). Somehow the Godless would have us believe that American individualism, that is, the Bill of Rights, should include marriages based on physical desires contrary to our Founders’ Judeo-Christian views of freedom. Trials without jury, baseless warrants, seizure of private property, beheadings and other cruel and unusual punishments and more are the true forms of slavery and oppression.
Consider also these sources:
Our individual rights are sacred.
“A legislative assembly has an inherent right to alter the common law, and to abolish any of its principles, which are not particularly guarded in the constitution. Any system therefore which appoints a legislature, without any reservation of the rights of individuals, surrenders all power in every branch of legislation to the government. The universal practice of every government proves the justness of this remark; for in every doubtful case it is an established rule to decide in the favor of authority. The new system is, there, in one respect at least, essentially inferior to our state constitutions. There is no bill of rights, and consequently a continental law may controul any of those principles, which we consider at present as sacred.” Id, Agrippa, Tuesday January 14, 1788, p. 538 Federalist and Other Constitutional Papers, Scott, 1902. [Spelling and capitalization in the original.]
Purpose and importance of the Constitution and its relationship to Government.
[Note that our Founders reference a Judeo-Christian God here as the Maker.]
“If it be considered separately, a constitution is the organization of the contributed rights in society. Government is the exercise of them. It is intended for the benefit of the governed; of course can have no just powers but what conduce to that end: and the awfulness of the trust is demonstrated in this – that it is founded on the nature of man, that is, on the will of his Maker, and is therefore sacred. It is then an offence against Heaven, to violate that trust.” Letter 4 by John Dickinson as Fabius, Pamphlets on the Constitution, p. 794 Federalist and Other Constitutional Papers, Scott, 1902. [Emphasis in the original.]
Livy, sharing thoughts from a bunkhouse on the southern high plains of Texas.