TXPower

If only the weapon sear were as cheap as the tax stamp...... that, as well as supply and demand, limit most folks ability to own weapons with a full auto fire selection. TXPower

The reason was to secure the impotent little deal known as the JCPA. The reason was to purchase what Obozo considered his legacy......

^Truth

The spying was wrongly authorized by and carried out by government officials, i.e. intercepting Communications etc. In the current context of discussion, the government is the police/FBI. It doesn’t matter that they also used some non-police “assets”, like say Halprin (directed by the government/police)in their poorly planned and executed sham. This was not a plot hatched and carried out by private citizens. It was a government, police, operation. No, I’m suggesting that the investigation brought forth not one legitimate conviction for why we were told the investigation was necessary, conspiracy or coordination with a foreign power to influence an election. I’m pointing out the little BS convictions(process crimes) it brought forth because the investigation had no merit. If, as you assert the real crime was espionage then all the folks who participated in the governments investigation should be fired because after more than 2 years of investigating not one shred of evidence leading to a conviction for espionage, conspiracy or coordination with a foreign power on the part of Trump or his team was uncovered. No crime is ever covered up that completely. So it either didn’t happen or the investigators weren’t up to the task. Truth is that’s why now the narrative has spun to obstruction and parroting by the MSM that Barr misrepresented Mueller’s findings. Truth is, it was a Big, Fat, Nothing Burger.

No sir, our Constitution is not best viewed through the prism of slavery. That is, unless, you are talking about the fact that many of the principle architects were slave holders who actually recognized the practice as an affront to morality. They wanted to kill slavery. Much like it had been in Europe. According to Constitutional Professor Paul Moreno, “As Frederick Douglas came to recognize, the founders wrote the Constitution as a document defining and protecting the liberty of all men, by which they hoped to provide for the eventual eradication of slavery by constitutional means, rather than by revolutionary means. The Declaration and Constitution do not even mention the institution of slavery because it was not written with slaves in mind. An instructive read here: https://www.heritage.org/the-constitution/commentary/what-the-constitution-really-says-about-race-and-slavery The Constitution is correctly viewed through the prism of the well educated students of world history, their well instructed understanding of the proclivities of men in general and the king specifically as it relates to power, corruption and mob rule. Were it not so, they would not have so carefully crafted a representative republic that separated powers as a means of blocking usurpation by any one man or one branch while simultaneously providing for an electoral college to rebuff the fickle public throng (mob rule). The correct prism to view the Constitution was the founders desire that our fledgling Republic never again be under the yolk of a king nor controlled by popularity. Very prescient if you ask me given the current context of the MSM and their vilification of some candidates and the veneration of others. Like, say, Trump vs. Hillary and Obozo. To steer it back to where we started, all of this of course included the 2nd amendment being written into our founding documents to thwart overzealous government, not with an eye on preservation of slavery. I do, however, concede that slavery took center stage almost one hundred years later leading up to The War Between the States. You point to the Heller decision as a radical departure from previous court precedent. Actually, Heller is more of a corrective re-alignment between law and the first principles expressed by our Founders in our Declaration of Independence and Constitution, specifically concerning second amendment issues. The first principles of the Founders held that an armed populace, referred to as a well regulated militia was the whole of the good people of the country. That means every good man. The militia in that time, and still today when viewed in the context of keeping overzealous government in check, was understood to be the sovereign and armed free people. Assertions concerning commas and such in the proper reading of the language of the second amendment just holds no water from an original intent and historical context. They meant that armed citizens had a god-given right to have arms with which to resist, nay overthrow, an overzealous government. I know that is not what you guys on here that are “leftist” want to hear but it is the historically correct view of the second amendment. A little light reading for you: https://imprimis.hillsdale.edu/the-second-amendment-as-an-expression-of-first-principles/ I’m not sure where you live in our great nation but your insinuation that whites in America want to go back to, “The good o’l days” while at the same time you craftily referenced Jim Crow is ridiculous and offensive. Black Americans are overwhelmingly victimized by Black Americans that’s the evidence and truth as you referred, “Being reported constantly on every medium”. See Chicago. Jim Crow has nothing to do with that. Guns in the right hands is what we need.

It’s not just militarized “police” it’s enforcement arms of historically administrative regulatory agencies. It’s ridiculous. The Founders did not enumerate the 2nd amendment for fear of or as a check on their overzealous neighbors power. No, quite the opposite. It was written because they and their neighbors feared government and wanted the ability to put an overzealous government in check. See Venezuela. Our police are well armed and trained to eliminate true threats. The vast majority of them believe every law abiding citizen should own as many weapons as they so desire. Its where criminals have weapons and good people don’t that problems arise. “An armed society is a polite society. Manners are good when one may have to back up his acts with his life.” Robert A. Heinlein

You don’t need to go over collusion and treason with me, you need to inform the leftists, those with whom you appear to agree, that this whole sham had merit. These words are their terminologies and preferred language. We’ve been bombarded with it for years now. I’m fully aware. Many aren’t. But thank you, clearing that up has value. Hopefully, others on the left will read what you have written here and get a clue that collusion does not accurately describe criminality in the context we’re discussing. A more fitting word would be conspiracy. Which again, I point out, the Mueller Investigation found NO evidence of. Sir, if I have to point out to you that spying is in fact a SEARCH and that said spying when predicated on fictitious information from a BS political opponent funded dossier who’s genesis can be described as troubling at best, is intentionally placed in a FISA warrant affidavit, it very likely makes any resulting criminal behavior exposed in the investigation(had there been any), the fruit of a poisonous tree. Perhaps law degrees leave much to be desired with regard to their value in instructing reasonable men concerning 4th amendment issues. It’s not me being obtuse. It likely will be litigated. Prosecuted, there, that’s a better word. Several convictions huh? You mean process crimes (such as lying to an FBI Agent). Tax fraud crimes committed by the likes of Paul Manafort. Or, are you talking about the indictment of nameless, faceless Russian techies who will never see a US Court Room. For clarifications sake, for any who struggle with the terminologies discussed above, what convictions material to the reason America was told the whole sham was perpetrated, conspiracy or cooperation with a foreign power to influence an election, have resulted against any American but especially members of the Trump Campaign?

Here’s a little clarification for ya. https://www.nationalreview.com/2014/04/united-states-swat-john-fund/

Both definitions lead to the same place in the current context. Nowhere. As evidenced by Mueller’s findings and already discussed, there was no collusion and thus no treason. It simply did not happen. Even if the investigation had, turned something up, because of the nefarious beginnings of this attempted hit job, the fruit of the poisonous tree would have been a major stumbling block for any successful prosecution. The whole thing all along was and is Junior Varsity. Right up to the very present Hail Mary Pass attempt by leftists desperate to keep this poppycock going in hopes that it will influence the next election enough to defeat Trump. It was never about right, wrong or truth.

Nope, it’s not, not by a long shot. The real investigation and indictments are coming. The rabid partisans that perpetrated this ridiculous exercise took the ride and now will have to pay for the ticket. Inchoate offenses, more than mere preparation? Well, it seems the Mueller Investigation failed to prove that up. Watching Barr at the hearings this week was like watching a cat play with a mouse. He is in control and at least 10 steps ahead of his would be inquisitors. He’s playing chess, the morons questioning him are playing checkers. Same as it was with Trumps legal team. They played chess while Mueller’s team played connect four.

Or Dunce Caps......

^Bingo.

Agreed. We shall see.

Ok, I’ll bite. You’ve asked more than once now for posters to identify what their perception of the “deep state” and now what the “administrative state”, is. For most, the terms are synonymous. The deeply partisan and activist career employees of the federal government. Those persons who enter government service and do not find themselves looking for employment upon the change that comes with election cycles every four or eight years. It means the folks you and I at one time would have defined as the bureaucracy, that is line or low level federal employees. Unfortunately, increasingly it better describes high ranking appointees, holdovers and the recurring names and faces of folks who just don’t go away whether it be because of their experience, influence or otherwise. Names like Brennan, Clapper, Comey and Strzock come to mind but suffice it to say there are many unknown names behind the scenes who agree with the aforementioned and would/will do their bidding no matter how wrongheaded. I offer the shenanigans of the FISA warrant, the dirty details of which aren’t yet fully exposed in example and all the persons and organizations that were targeted and mistreated by the IRS during the Obozo Administration because they were conservative, such as the Tea Party and their affiliates. What was hatched out above was carried out by those willing to do wrong, below. Just two quick examples of many available. The difference between the non-malignant bureaucracy of yesterday and the deep-state of today, if you please, is now, many of these career government employees have become emboldened to act out or against others in their official capacity. This term, to me, best describes appointed persons who both overtly and covertly act out with ever increasing malicious intent toward anyone they don’t agree with. Where the bureaucracy used to honorably go about fulfilling their duties faithfully, checking their politics and ideology at the office door daily, to serve Americans and American interest; the deep state both individually and collectively, perhaps illegally (story unfolding) works against the mission and goals of the current administration because personally/politically/ideologically they don’t agree with it. This likely transcends President Trump and could just as effectively describe malice practiced towards conservatives. Party/ideology over right and wrong and instead of service to others paramount, blatant partisanship replaces that. Vestiges of the bureaucracy of old still exist, I know this. Good women and men come and go to work everyday and serve no matter who they are serving because they are serving Americans not D’s, R’s I’s, etc. Unfortunately, their work is overshadowed by bad actors, usually in places of authority, who do much more harm than good. Their authority level and influence complement their mal-intent and also affect the actions of those below them and for the wrong reasons. As an added bonus for lower-level members of the deep or administrative state, it’s damn near impossible to fire them. This particular morsel is why folks like me don’t fret when the government “shuts down” except for truly essential services, which is what government should be providing. That’s another discussion however. Pay disparity between government service and private sector employment is elementary and for many years, government employees served not for hopes of financial enrichment but because a decent wage, decent retirement benefits and personal satisfaction were personally rewarding while serving others. Private for profit employment in general terms is service of self. Obviously there are some professions that step outside this generalization. One need only look at what private sector CEO’s make. Point being, many government employees are talented enough and could have gone into myriad other professions or made different choices within their current profession and made tons more money. I assume service to others or a unselfish cause drew then in and the rewards of serving others no matter how intangible, keeps them in. The taxpayer understands and wants a trade off between necessary, capable, dedicated public servants the cost of employing them and rewarding them after retirement. It goes without saying that taxpayers, especially those unemployed or underemployed often through no fault of their own, get a little mift when they see government employees who don’t give a damn about customer service being paid and retiring significantly better for their less than servant-like labors. This is compounded when it gets out that some of these government employees, deep staters, use their position to do wrong. Our friend @Jan van Eck often shares strong opinions about government bureaucrats. I’d like to disagree with his characterizations of them but often can’t. By the way, for government employees that go to work everyday to truly serve others as opposed to personal ideologies or politics or those of someone in authority over you, thank you.

There are already major problems in all the places you named. We’re really talking about Saudi when we say OPEC. We have some other tools to use to discourage the path you laid out that they might take.