actually - I believe even illegals
The Great Awakening
- Thread starter Thread starter Hempy McNoodle
- Start date Start date
Hempy McNoodle
Well-known member
Only citizens have 2nd Amendment rights, so... I'm not sure you are correct.
Hempy McNoodle
Well-known member
I thought judges were supposed to be unbiased contitutionalists, not TDS activists...
Sometimes Chuck Schumer tells it like it is.
Sometimes Chuck Schumer tells it like it is.
Maybe not that one (because of the strict restrictions) but they bear other rights afforded to anyone in America. Check it out.
Reminder of your statement - "Non- citizens don't have constitutional rights."
Hempy McNoodle
Well-known member
Here's what google says:
Yes, travelers in the US, including non-citizens, generally have constitutional rights, although the scope of those rights may vary depending on their legal status.
Here's a more detailed explanation:
Constitutional Rights for Travelers:
The U.S. Constitution protects the rights of all individuals, including travelers, from government overreach, regardless of their citizenship status.
Freedom of Movement:
The right to travel, or freedom of movement, is a fundamental right recognized by the U.S. Constitution, allowing citizens to move freely between states.
Equal Protection:
The Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause ensures that all individuals, including travelers, are treated equally under the law.
Due Process:
The Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments guarantee due process, meaning that the government cannot deprive anyone of life, liberty, or property without following fair legal procedures.
First Amendment Rights:
While the First Amendment primarily protects citizens, non-citizens also have First Amendment rights, although their protection may be limited in certain contexts.
Restrictions on Rights:
Certain constitutional rights, such as the right to vote or hold federal office, are limited to citizens.
Travel Rights and Non-Citizens:
Non-citizens, including tourists and immigrants, are generally entitled to the same constitutional rights as citizens, but their rights may be subject to certain restrictions based on their immigration status.
Examples of Rights:
Freedom of Speech: Travelers have the right to express themselves freely, as long as their speech does not incite violence or violate other laws.
Freedom of Religion: Travelers have the right to practice their religion freely.
Right to Privacy: Travelers have the right to privacy, meaning that the government cannot search their belongings or listen to their conversations without a warrant.
Right to Due Process: Travelers have the right to due process, meaning that the government cannot punish them without following fair legal procedures.
Limitations on Rights:
Immigration Status: Certain constitutional rights may be limited for non-citizens, such as the right to vote or hold federal office.
National Security: The government may restrict the travel of individuals who pose a national security risk.
Reasonable Suspicion: Law enforcement officers may stop and question travelers if they have reasonable suspicion that they are involved in criminal activity.
Border Security: The government has the right to inspect travelers and their belon
gings at ports of entry.
Hempy McNoodle
Well-known member
So, there are limits and restrictions.
Sanders and AOC tell packed arena Trump is ‘screwing over’ working class
Progressive political stars say president and billionaire Elon Musk are turning US into oligarchy at rally in Arizona
www.theguardian.com
The GREAT AWAKENING?
A piece in the Globe by Thomas Homer Dixon, a Canadian global security expert:
If you want peace, prepare for war – an ancient lesson Canada must remember
Thomas Homer-Dixon
Special to The Globe and Mail
Si vis pacem, para bellum.
If you want peace, prepare for war. This ancient Roman aphorism is starkly relevant to Canada’s situation today, no matter how contrary it seems to our national culture.
U.S. President Donald Trump believes that the treaty that demarcates the Canada-U.S. border is invalid and that the boundary should be moved. Put simply, he wants to take our land. And the risk of that happening is higher if we pretend it doesn’t exist.
There are people who want to believe that Mr. Trump’s annexation talk is just a tactic to get us to make bigger trade concessions. The tariffs aren’t intended to make annexation easier, they say, but are instead part of a strategy to restructure the U.S. economy, reduce the country’s deficit and lower taxes.
Similarly, until a couple of weeks ago, any suggestion that the United States would use military force against Canada was derided as ridiculous. And anyway, commentators argued, Canada can’t be militarily defended, because our population is strung out in a thin line along America’s northern border.
But those perspectives are shifting fast.
Earlier this week, the renowned Yale historian Timothy Snyder (and visiting professor at the University of Toronto) wrote that “war with Canada is what Trump seems to have in mind.” He highlighted Mr. Trump’s “strangely Putinist” fiction that Canada isn’t real – that we’re not economically viable, that most of us want to join the U.S., and that the border is artificial. The assertion that Canada isn’t real is the kind of lie, Dr. Snyder said, that “imperialists tell themselves before beginning doomed wars of aggression.” It’s preparation “not just for trade war but for war itself.”
Other scholars are now seriously addressing the possibility of war. Aisha Ahmad, a Canadian specialist in failed states, recently argued that an invasion of Canada would “trigger a decades-long violent resistance, which would ultimately destroy the United States.” And last week the military historian Elliot Cohen published an assessment of past U.S. attempts to conquer Canada, with a reminder to the Trump administration that they produced “dismal results.”
You’re likely shaking your head by now. This can’t be possible! But Mr. Trump’s modus operandi is to turn craziness into reality. We need to stop shaking our heads at his craziness and see the new reality he’s creating.
Mr. Trump isn’t just “a quasi-fascist,” said Jonathan Leader Maynard of King’s College University in London in a message to me a few days ago, “but an absolute fantasist who treats things as true because he fantasizes about them. Canada as the 51st state, Gaza as a hotel resort, tariffs making the economy boom, splitting Russia off from China – all these ideas are fantasies. But given free rein, he might pursue any or all of them.”
If one observes Mr. Trump carefully, one can see his tell – an unintended hint of his subconscious fantasy about geopolitics. It’s there in the school-room map on a stand beside his desk in the Oval Office, emblazoned with “Gulf of America.” And it’s there again in his comments on March 13, when he talked about the “beautiful formation of Canada and the United States.”
“It would be one of the great states anywhere,” he said. “This would be the most incredible country visually.”
Mr. Trump is playing the board game Risk, and the main players are the U.S., Russia and China. A nation’s power equates to its visible expanse of territory across a cartoon-like world map. All countries are ineluctably locked into a planet-spanning winner-take-all conflict. And to prevail, the United States needs to absorb Canada (and to take over Greenland and the Panama Canal) not just to Make America Great, but to achieve “hemispheric control,” in Steve Bannon’s eager locution.
Mr. Trump’s board-game imaginings may be fantastic, but they’re creating, day by day, a stark, hard reality: The rules-based international order that originated with the 17th century jurist and philosopher Hugo Grotius – and on which the principle of territorial sovereignty is based – is unravelling. Emerging in its place is something akin to Thomas Hobbes’ state of nature – a world governed by brute force and the will of the strongest.
The unravelling process will take time. An assault on Canadian territory won’t happen soon, not this year, nor likely the next. But if we choose to remain weak, here’s how things could go before the end of Mr. Trump’s term, especially if domestic unrest and dysfunction further radicalize his regime, encouraging it to try to distract attention by picking fights with outsiders.
Mr. Trump will steadily escalate his demands on Canada, tying them to progressively broader political and territorial grievances. He’ll also increasingly question our country’s basic legitimacy as a sovereign nation, as he’s already started to do. A flood of lies from his associates, cabinet members, and the MAGA-verse will paint us as, at best, an irresponsible neighbour that’s not protecting America’s northern flank, or, at worst, an outright security threat, because at any moment we can restrict access to the energy, potash, water and other critical resources the United States needs.
Once we’re framed as an enemy, intelligence and military co-operation (for instance, under NORAD) will end. And at that point – with the U.S. military’s senior ranks purged of resistance and Trump loyalists in place – demands for territorial concessions, explicitly backed by the threat of military force, will be a simple next step. They’ll likely start with something small – an adjustment to the border in the Great Lakes, for instance – as a test of our will. But they won’t end there.
What’s the probability of this kind of scenario? Ten per cent, 5 per cent, or 1 per cent? No one can say for sure. But it’s certainly not zero. And given the existential cost to Canada, we’d be stupid not to take it seriously. In game-theory terms, we need to pursue a strategy of “minimax regret” – to minimize, as best we can, the possibility of worst-case outcomes.
This means, first, recognizing that channelling Neville Chamberlain won’t work. Mr. Trump knows what he wants – our territory – and he’s out to get it. There’s no happy middle ground that can be reached through appeasement. He’ll take our concessions and demand more.
And it means, second, that we need to move to a wartime footing in all respects – economically, socially, politically and (perhaps hardest for us to accept) militarily.
The doubters who say Canada can’t be defended are wrong. Canada can indeed prepare effectively to resist U.S. military force. Scandinavian countries have developed elaborate and popular plans for homeland defence against a massive external threat. We can do the same, starting now by standing up a national civil defence corp, a capacity that would also equip us to better deal with all disasters, natural and human caused.
Already, Canadians in every walk of life are discussing privately how they’re prepared to protect our homeland. True, in any violent contest between Canada and the U.S., we can’t possibly win in a conventional sense. But we can ensure in advance that an authoritarian, imperialist U.S. regime knows the cost will be high enough to make it far less likely to attack in the first place.
The stronger we are, the lower the risks. Si vis pacem, para bellum.
A piece in the Globe by Thomas Homer Dixon, a Canadian global security expert:
If you want peace, prepare for war – an ancient lesson Canada must remember
Thomas Homer-Dixon
Special to The Globe and Mail
Si vis pacem, para bellum.
If you want peace, prepare for war. This ancient Roman aphorism is starkly relevant to Canada’s situation today, no matter how contrary it seems to our national culture.
U.S. President Donald Trump believes that the treaty that demarcates the Canada-U.S. border is invalid and that the boundary should be moved. Put simply, he wants to take our land. And the risk of that happening is higher if we pretend it doesn’t exist.
There are people who want to believe that Mr. Trump’s annexation talk is just a tactic to get us to make bigger trade concessions. The tariffs aren’t intended to make annexation easier, they say, but are instead part of a strategy to restructure the U.S. economy, reduce the country’s deficit and lower taxes.
Similarly, until a couple of weeks ago, any suggestion that the United States would use military force against Canada was derided as ridiculous. And anyway, commentators argued, Canada can’t be militarily defended, because our population is strung out in a thin line along America’s northern border.
But those perspectives are shifting fast.
Earlier this week, the renowned Yale historian Timothy Snyder (and visiting professor at the University of Toronto) wrote that “war with Canada is what Trump seems to have in mind.” He highlighted Mr. Trump’s “strangely Putinist” fiction that Canada isn’t real – that we’re not economically viable, that most of us want to join the U.S., and that the border is artificial. The assertion that Canada isn’t real is the kind of lie, Dr. Snyder said, that “imperialists tell themselves before beginning doomed wars of aggression.” It’s preparation “not just for trade war but for war itself.”
Other scholars are now seriously addressing the possibility of war. Aisha Ahmad, a Canadian specialist in failed states, recently argued that an invasion of Canada would “trigger a decades-long violent resistance, which would ultimately destroy the United States.” And last week the military historian Elliot Cohen published an assessment of past U.S. attempts to conquer Canada, with a reminder to the Trump administration that they produced “dismal results.”
You’re likely shaking your head by now. This can’t be possible! But Mr. Trump’s modus operandi is to turn craziness into reality. We need to stop shaking our heads at his craziness and see the new reality he’s creating.
Mr. Trump isn’t just “a quasi-fascist,” said Jonathan Leader Maynard of King’s College University in London in a message to me a few days ago, “but an absolute fantasist who treats things as true because he fantasizes about them. Canada as the 51st state, Gaza as a hotel resort, tariffs making the economy boom, splitting Russia off from China – all these ideas are fantasies. But given free rein, he might pursue any or all of them.”
If one observes Mr. Trump carefully, one can see his tell – an unintended hint of his subconscious fantasy about geopolitics. It’s there in the school-room map on a stand beside his desk in the Oval Office, emblazoned with “Gulf of America.” And it’s there again in his comments on March 13, when he talked about the “beautiful formation of Canada and the United States.”
“It would be one of the great states anywhere,” he said. “This would be the most incredible country visually.”
Mr. Trump is playing the board game Risk, and the main players are the U.S., Russia and China. A nation’s power equates to its visible expanse of territory across a cartoon-like world map. All countries are ineluctably locked into a planet-spanning winner-take-all conflict. And to prevail, the United States needs to absorb Canada (and to take over Greenland and the Panama Canal) not just to Make America Great, but to achieve “hemispheric control,” in Steve Bannon’s eager locution.
Mr. Trump’s board-game imaginings may be fantastic, but they’re creating, day by day, a stark, hard reality: The rules-based international order that originated with the 17th century jurist and philosopher Hugo Grotius – and on which the principle of territorial sovereignty is based – is unravelling. Emerging in its place is something akin to Thomas Hobbes’ state of nature – a world governed by brute force and the will of the strongest.
The unravelling process will take time. An assault on Canadian territory won’t happen soon, not this year, nor likely the next. But if we choose to remain weak, here’s how things could go before the end of Mr. Trump’s term, especially if domestic unrest and dysfunction further radicalize his regime, encouraging it to try to distract attention by picking fights with outsiders.
Mr. Trump will steadily escalate his demands on Canada, tying them to progressively broader political and territorial grievances. He’ll also increasingly question our country’s basic legitimacy as a sovereign nation, as he’s already started to do. A flood of lies from his associates, cabinet members, and the MAGA-verse will paint us as, at best, an irresponsible neighbour that’s not protecting America’s northern flank, or, at worst, an outright security threat, because at any moment we can restrict access to the energy, potash, water and other critical resources the United States needs.
Once we’re framed as an enemy, intelligence and military co-operation (for instance, under NORAD) will end. And at that point – with the U.S. military’s senior ranks purged of resistance and Trump loyalists in place – demands for territorial concessions, explicitly backed by the threat of military force, will be a simple next step. They’ll likely start with something small – an adjustment to the border in the Great Lakes, for instance – as a test of our will. But they won’t end there.
What’s the probability of this kind of scenario? Ten per cent, 5 per cent, or 1 per cent? No one can say for sure. But it’s certainly not zero. And given the existential cost to Canada, we’d be stupid not to take it seriously. In game-theory terms, we need to pursue a strategy of “minimax regret” – to minimize, as best we can, the possibility of worst-case outcomes.
This means, first, recognizing that channelling Neville Chamberlain won’t work. Mr. Trump knows what he wants – our territory – and he’s out to get it. There’s no happy middle ground that can be reached through appeasement. He’ll take our concessions and demand more.
And it means, second, that we need to move to a wartime footing in all respects – economically, socially, politically and (perhaps hardest for us to accept) militarily.
The doubters who say Canada can’t be defended are wrong. Canada can indeed prepare effectively to resist U.S. military force. Scandinavian countries have developed elaborate and popular plans for homeland defence against a massive external threat. We can do the same, starting now by standing up a national civil defence corp, a capacity that would also equip us to better deal with all disasters, natural and human caused.
Already, Canadians in every walk of life are discussing privately how they’re prepared to protect our homeland. True, in any violent contest between Canada and the U.S., we can’t possibly win in a conventional sense. But we can ensure in advance that an authoritarian, imperialist U.S. regime knows the cost will be high enough to make it far less likely to attack in the first place.
The stronger we are, the lower the risks. Si vis pacem, para bellum.
Hempy McNoodle
Well-known member
Trump orders immediate declass of all FBI documents related to 'Crossfire Hurricane.'
Immediate Declassification of Materials Related to the Federal Bureau of Investigation's Crossfire Hurricane Investigation
MEMORANDUM FOR THE ATTORNEY GENERAL THE DIRECTOR OF NATIONAL
www.whitehouse.gov
Captain Red Eye
Well-known member
I distinguish between actual rights and government granted revocable privileges. Calling one the other is a deception.
In reality if a person is assigned citizen status because somebody else says that's the status they have, whether they like it or not....that person has had their most precious right, the right to freely choose, taken away at the very beginning.
All people have the right to defend themselves. No people have the right to use offensive force...even if they claim otherwise or call themselves "government".
Government is not the source of rights. They aren't even good at protecting rights, since at the onset they remove them and say they have to, in order to protect them. That is a circular logic defying lie wrapped up in official ritualistic horse shit for the purpose of gaining power over people,
Hempy McNoodle
Well-known member
LET THERE BE LIGHT: Javier Milei Will Declassify and Release All Records Regarding Nazi Criminals Who Migrated to Argentina After WW2 | The Gateway Pundit | by Paul Serran
Argentina's President Javier Milei is set to unveil crucial documents detailing the migration of Nazi criminals to the nation post-World War II, challenging historical narratives and shedding light on this dark chapter.
www.thegatewaypundit.com
I doubt the accuracy and integrity in Amy Goodman's DN newscasts have changed a bit. I think it's more apt that her reports conflict with Hempy's adoration for the Orange Felonious Nuisance, and cause grief for the cult-like blinders involved.
Integrity and trump go together like romaine lettuce and motor oil..
Integrity and trump go together like romaine lettuce and motor oil..
A propaganda meme.
There were baseless and erroneous allegations here recently that Soros had funded our local anti-Trumptard protests. Absolutely ZERO proof of any of it. Fallacy and manipulation intended to cause the ignorant and gullible to circle their Trumpy-Bear wagons.
Don't be a gullible dummy. There's plenty of them in the world (and especially in the USA) already.
RobFromTX
Well-known member
Did I find a jew that moose likes?
