Comments by "Charles Brightman" (@charlesbrightman4237) on "Newsmax"
channel.
-
118
-
59
-
52
-
30
-
20
-
15
-
10
-
9
-
9
-
6
-
5
-
5
-
4
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
LEGAL QUESTION: As I currently understand it to be:
a. The President's Executive Order defines how classified documents are handled while the President is President. (Executive Orders tell the Executive Branch how to apply the already legal laws and do not make laws in and of themselves, or at least are not supposed to).
b. But then also, just because a US President issues an Executive Order does not remove the President's overall authority. Basically, the Executive Order is just to tell the Executive Branch of the US Government how things should 'normally' be done but it does not exclude the US President from disregarding the Executive Order as the Executive is of course the Executive and retains full rights and authorities to even disregard their own Executive Order, because they themselves are the Executive.
c. Now, I am not saying this is how it should be for the sake of America's and America's allies' national securities, but wouldn't the above understanding be correct?
* If anybody disagrees with the above understanding, I welcome refutes that have a legal basis for refuting.
Basically, "IF" America wants better controls over classified documents, then revise the US Constitution to make it so, so that even a US President could not overrule, nor the military and other government employees who swear an oath to protect and defend the US Constitution could legally disobey.
But from an actual operative standpoint:
What US ally would ever trust the US Government with any classified information ever again 'if' a US President could just declassify anything at all, regardless of the level of classification and/or harm that it could do, with their thoughts alone?
And declassifying items with the President's thoughts alone: what about if a President has a mental issue due to age and/or other physical issues? They just declassify whatever they want to, all the secrets of the US Government even, just because their mentally deranged mind wants to?
3
-
3
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Mr. White That's what is scary. Now at least one Republican wants to take people's guns away now too.
Consider the following:
The US Government gets ALL their powers and authorities from basically 'We The People'. Hence 'We The People' can alter and even abolish the US Government if the Government does not keep 'We The People' 'safe and happy' as 'We The People' deem that 'safe and happy' to be. (Per the Declaration Of Independence. Not only is it our right to do so, it's our duty to do so, per the DOI.)
So now, basically anything at all the US Government can do, so can every American citizen with their inherent powers. Just because 'We The People' set up a government, in no way takes away our inherent powers. So, if the Government can have tanks and fighter aircraft, automatic weapons, etc., so can 'We The People' with our inherent powers.
Now also, 'We The People' do not normally exercise those inherent powers, but they are there and they are ours none the less. We have a Government to help take care of the day to day operations of the country so 'We The People' can be 'safe and happy'. The US Government is there FOR 'We The People', ALL OF 'We The People', not the other way around, people here for the Government. It's a distinct but very important distinction.
Good luck anybody trying it though. But the inherent right is still legally there.
2
-
Earthlings: Fix This (if you can):
Current Analysis: (copy and paste from my files):
WARNING: NOT FOR ALL AUDIENCES: Only read this if you think you can handle it.
Future:
a. 6th mass extinction event (possibly occurring now), and the 6th won't be the last. (And 'yes', at least some humans will survive these earlier mass extinction events).
b. Sun becomes a red giant one day as it switches from burning hydrogen to burning helium and will wipe out all life left on this Earth if not even the entire Earth itself. (And 'yes', a long time from now, but the destination is set like a way point on a journey).
c. Our spiral shaped galaxy is most probably collapsing in upon itself, (note: adding to the red shift observations by the way), and it's possible ALL galaxies eventually collapse in upon themselves (not confirmed yet).
d. 'If' one believes in the big bang theory, and space itself expanding, then the entire universe and all in it will most probably end in a big freeze. (And 'yes', a long time from now, but the destination would be set like a way point on a journey). Note also: the singular big bang is probably not really true, there are other 'normal' explanations for the red shift observations, and the universe is most probably not going to end in a big freeze. Also, 'if' the current forces of nature came into existence in the early moments of the expansion of the singularity, and the singularity is still basically expanding, then the forces of nature will probably evolve one day, possibly even in the very next moment of expansion of this universe, and possibly wipe out everything in existence in basically a blink of an eye. Of which note also, the forces of nature as well as the universe always existed and never had a beginning. But 'if' modern science is correct, well ....................................blink...........................................
e. Outer space travel: Currently impossible to do for long periods of time due to:
1. Harmful cosmic radiation, including any potential neutrino impacts. (While most neutrinos go right through us, not all of them do all of the time). AI and biological life would most probably not survive unless proper protections were had.
2. Biological species, especially humans, need proper gravity conditions and large rotating space ships probably will not work for space bases on planets and moons. Otherwise, biological life, especially humans, will not survive long term.
3. Biological species, especially humans, need many more items to properly survive, otherwise they won't.
* Note: If anybody has any actual factual evidence to counter the above, I welcome it.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@Dylanesque I see one of a few scenarios:
a. Massive intelligence failure of the CIA and DOD, as they didn't know that the Afghanistan government and it's military would 'cut and run'.
b. Or, intelligence did their job, passed the information up the chain of command, but those in charge of the government ignored that information.
c. Or, intelligence did their job, passed the information up the chain of command, those in charge did not ignore that information, but then lied to the American people and the world as to the true conditions on the ground, due to whatever agendas those in charge of the government had.
* Depending upon which scenario is truly true, would help dictate the actions to take next concerning the US intelligence agencies and/or those in charge of the US Government.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2