Supreme Court justices allowed the BORDER PATROL TO CUT TEXAS RAZOR WIRE. SO NOW WHAT. Are citizens going to do to protect them selves ❓

We TEXAS HAS HAD THE RAZOR WIRE. TO BE CUT BY THE BORDER PATROL :bangbang: AND NOW WE ARE BEING OVER RAN :bangbang::us: AMERICAN CITIZENS DO NOT MATTER . To our GOVERNMENT :bangbang:

7 Likes

So if anyone thinks SCOTUS cares about the country here’s your sign.

2A decisions most likely will go to the liberal side. And they will allow states to choose who is on voter ballots.

13 Likes

10 Likes

It DOES seem pretty obvious that someone got to the Justices.

9 Likes

I’m not so sure about that. I’m no legal expert but from what little I understand about immigration and boarder security laws and legal precedent over the past two centuries is that it is up to the federal government to control and defend the national boarder and manage immigration. No one would want California in charge of who does or doesn’t get to enter our country.

The job of SCOTUS is to interpret the law. Not make up new laws just because the federal government isn’t doing its job. There are likely other laws and other methods, such as impeachment or lawsuits by the States, that could be used to force DC kleptocrats to do their job. But in this case it is likely SCOTUS went by the law for once instead of politicaly expedient biases.

Though I also agree that the current members of SCOTUS are not nearly as pro 2A as many people seem to believe and will likely fail to take up or will actually rule against cases that should be easily and logically interpreted to confirm the right to self defense and the appropriate tools to do it with.

5 Likes

It is also the federal government job to defend the constitution of the United States. Another job that they are failing at miserably.

9 Likes

And when that doesn’t happen (On purpose I might add) the Constitution provides the 2nd amendment against tyranny. It will be interesting to see how this plays out.

Funny how politics works. Marijuana is federally banned, yet is medically legal in 38 states, and recreationally legal in 24 states. Lots of money being made. You don’t see the Supreme Court stepping in to have the feds enforce that law.

6 Likes

There is a BIG difference between FAILING to defend and INTENTIONALLY REFUSING to defend.
This is tyranny for their own benefit. It is UNDENIABLY not for the benefit of America’s (LEGAL) citizens.

8 Likes

I totally agree with this article. There is something very wrong with all of those in government that continue to “go along” with the insanity that is rampant in today’s America. The “deep state” is NO different than the Mafia used to be, only bigger and better armed.
Threats and intimidation of otherwise decent people in the DC cesspool is, no doubt in my mind, an everyday occurrence. Business as usual.
If only we had a police agency in this country that operated within the “Rule of Law”, those who are operating these schemes that are blatantly obvious about the complete destruction of this once great nation could be rounded up and tried for treason, and put to death. Unfortunately, we have NO SUCH police agency anymore, maybe we never did.
The FBI? Please! While there are certainly some honorable agents in their midst, there is no chance for that particular agency’s redemption until the top fifteen layers of their leadership structure are dismissed.
The Military? Please! There are more and more each day that no longer know what gender they are. I would similarly submit that the top fifteen layers of their leadership should be dismissed.
Any other of our illustrious three letter agencies? How about the sheriff departments in the country who at present are NOT doing the job they were elected to do?
How about the bought and paid for Mayors and District attorney’s?
The SCOTUS is a complete disappointment, and I don’t feel the need to elaborate on why.
What then will it take to bring about change to such a monstrous failure that we call our government?

4 Likes

No one really likes the answer.

8 Likes

The SUPREME COURT JUST DECLARED WAR ON AMERICAN CITIZENS . They are worse than BIDEN :bangbang::us::tr::heart::white_heart::blue_heart::stop_sign::100::stop_sign::tr::tr::tr::tiger2::feather::feather:

4 Likes

Agreed, no one likes or wants to admit but, we all know. When to put the solution to work is the big question.

7 Likes

I’m getting too old for this $hit.

8 Likes

I’m no constitutional expert, IMHO, I specifically see an invasion.

Let’s take “invasion” first…

an unwelcome intrusion into another’s domain.

I fear we can all agree that’s what’s happening to Texas, Arizona and the entire United States!
Now that we’ve cleared that up let’s move onto.

Article I Section 10 of The United States Constitution. I’ll be paraphrasing, somewhat…

“No state shall, without Consent of Congress, lay any duty of tonnage, keep troops, blah, blah, blah…or engage in War, unles ( key word here ) INVADED, or in such imminent Danger…” Texas has every right to defend and protect itself. I may not have a clue about what I’m talking about, but I feel it in my bones!

Are Texas, Arizona or the rest of the United States being INVADED and in imminent Danger? Crime due to ILLEGAL ALIENS is up a whopping 2400% in 2021 that’s a combination of everything that’s ILLEGAL on a grander scale than stealing a Snickers Bar. That’s DUI, homicide, rape all drug related crimes, child trafficking. How much more HIGH CRIMES and misdemeanors are required to impeach this phucker!

I’m also prepared to be one of the two witnesses to give testimony to the OVERT act of TREASON.

SCOTUS got it wrong, those 5 women have no clue what they just did!
Like I stated I’m no scholar. Like porn, I’ll know it when I see it!

IMG_4559

SCOTUS is Dr. Zachary Smith!

10 Likes

But we ALL know what that answer is…don’t we Ron?

STOP THE THREAT!

mi dos pesos
adonde nosotros vamos uno nosotros ir todo!!!
Nessun passo sul serpente

7 Likes

That is what self defense teaches us.

5 Likes

Today’s Update:

9 Likes

You and me both.

8 Likes

Historically, the authority of SCOTUS has fluctuated between making law and interpreting the law.

For example, prior to the Great Depression, SCOTUS regularly endorsed courts overturning laws they disagreed with under the legal doctrine of “substantive due process.” The legal theory is that “due process” guarantees of the 5th & 14th Amendments gave the courts latitude to substitute their judgment for the policies of legislatures. Elements of the National Recovery Act (NRA) were overturned by SCOTUS under the doctrine of substantive due process. Roosevelt reacted by threating to pack the court with his acolytes. SCOTUS then abandoned “substantive due process.”

If the Court overturns the Chevron deference doctrine, we will return to the days where courts are free to make substantive law.

2 Likes

You, Me and Him both. (heavy sigh) :disappointed:

5 Likes