Comments by "Scott Tovey" (@scotttovey) on "Forbes Breaking News"
channel.
-
27
-
16
-
11
-
8
-
5
-
4
-
4
-
3
-
3
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
The first continental army casualty in the American Revolutionary war was a Jew. When a Representative or Senator in Congress, makes antisemitic statements of hatred against Jews, they are in fact dishonoring the memory of all the Jews that have fought and died not just in the American Revolutionary war, but throughout the history of the United States of America.
Supporting the enemies of the United States is not protected by the First Amendment.
Supporting terrorists and the enemies of the United States is adhering to the enemies of the United States, giving them aid and comfort and IS NOT protected by the freedom of speech clause in the First Amendment.
Refusing to enforce immigration laws and allowing terrorists to enter the United States, is levying war against the United States. It is adhering to the enemies of the United States, giving them aid and comfort.
It is not the prerogative of an elected Representative, Senator, or President to levy war against the United States. It is not the prerogative of an elected Representative, Senator, or President to adhere to the enemies of the United States, giving them aid and comfort.
Doing these things in word and in deed, is treason.
United States Constitution
Article III. - The Judicial Branch
Section 3 – Treason
Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.
The Congress shall have power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.
1
-
@mgbl2808
"If facts made a difference you wouldn’t still be defending your cult leader."
You are a hypocrite.
All the while you are accusing that @tinadarst5928 of defending his or her cult leader, you are defending your cult leader.
Are you so dull in mind that you do not understand that if you strip Trump of his right to a fair and speedy trial, you are stripping yourself of your right to a fair and speedy trial?
You are literally arguing for the overthrow of the Constitution of the United States because you don't like Trump.
If your defense attorney is not permitted to argue your case in a court of law, facts do not matter in that trial and that trial is unconstitutional and any verdict rendered in that trial by the judge, will be overturned by a superior court or the supreme court.
Now here's something you should consider; a judge that disregards a defendants rights under the Constitution is violating the law and can go to federal prison for doing so. The charge will be; Corruption of office, abuse of power, and most likely something I am not aware of.
Amendment 6 - Right to Speedy Trial, Confrontation of Witnesses. Ratified
12/15/1791.
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Shelmerdine745
"What guilt? You’re clearly not from a country with the rule of law."
From my point of view, he is acting like he is guilty of something.
He is unwilling to allow her to complete a sentence.
Why is he so hostile to the Pam Bondi's answers?
Why is he demanding that she answer the question the way he wants it answered?
Is he afraid that she will do an investigation to determine what laws the democrats have broken?
Is that why he wants her to commit to not doing an investigation?
Is he in fact, guilty of something?
Yes, just as everyone in the United States is guilty of violating some law that he or she has no knowledge of.
How?
Through the use of administrative rule.
Congress passed a law specifying a regulation, and politicians like Schiff, have worked over the years to game the system by having appointees put in place that, through the administration process, things that the normal person would do and not think anything wrong with, have become illegal.
What rules you may ask?
Now, that is the problem isn't it?
If non of us know what those rules are, and not a single one of us can find out those rules, then we are not able to determine whether those rules are sensible, or just the tyrannical overreach of unconstitutional, and therefore unlawful, government.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@beverlytaff4914
"What happened to the concepts of political freedom in your nomenclature?"
The habitual lies and levying war against the United States of America by the anti-American left; destroyed it.
By the way, there are limits to freedom. Just as freedom of speech does not permit one to cry fire in a crowded theater, political freedom does not permit one to levy war against the United States, nor does it permit one to adhere to the enemies of the United States and give them aide and comfort.
All elected Senators and Representatives have a legal obligation to take an oath of office that they will uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States. "shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution (Article VI)". Democrats habitually pass legislation to abridge the rights of the people that are enshrined and protected by the Constitution of the United States.
United States Constitution
Article III. - The Judicial Branch
Section 3 – Treason
Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.
The Congress shall have power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.
Article. VI. - Debts, Supremacy, Oaths
All Debts contracted and Engagements entered into, before the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution, as under the Confederation.
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@DevilsAdvocate43
"but I must say, taxpayers are not paying for anyone's insurance."
That seems to be the case on the face of it, but when you go deeper it is not the case.
The flood fund is in the hole. If that deficit is paid for by tax payer dollars, then tax payers are paying for the insurance, not the home owner.
I live in subsidized. I do so because for over 10 years I have been disabled and my monthly income is still below $1000. While part of my income is used to pay rent, heat and electricity; what my income will not cover is being subsidized by tax payers.
The flood insurance is no different. The insurance premiums are insufficient to cover all the homes that have been damages over the years. But this is not the only problem with the Federal flood insurance program. There are those living near water ways, that would like to purchase flood insurance but cannot because they are, according to regulations, not close enough to the waterway to justify them purchasing flood insurance. I heard about this years ago reading a story about a couple who could not get flood insurance insurance despite the fact that their home had been flooded by the waterway they were not close enough too.
I would include the 3 following parts in the solution;
1) Simply expand the area in which people can get flood insurance.
No one in the Rocky Mountains knew they needed flood insurance until Helene hit a few weeks ago.
2) Have water damage caused by a pipe bursting, be reclassified and covered by flood insurance.
This would give people the justification to buy flood insurance, where the likelihood of a flood happening, is next to nil.
3) Have lands that are flooded 5 or more times over a period of say 20 years, be transferred into a national park, thereby reducing the number of homes in flood zones over a period of time.
1
-
1
-
@sandram.d.6164
"I just don't see how voting in a rigged system is logical."
To not vote because of a perceived "rigged system" is illogical.
By not showing up to vote, you are participating in the cheating by allowing them to cast your vote for you.
That's how some districts had more votes cast than registered voters.
"We keep playing the same game, and we're losing."
Of course, because the leadership is a part of the problem.
Do you know how to properly vet a candidate?
Yet, those that claim to be leaders, tell you that certain candidates are good, and you believe them because they are supposed to be good leaders. Then, when that candidate they endorsed gets elected, he votes against you.
Is it because the candidate lied to you, or the leadership lied to you?
"I look around and see how much we've been deceived. I assume most of us didn't vote for it. The election system is an illusion to make us believe our vote really matters. I'd prefer to use my voice (while I still can) then vote in a rigged system. That's my opinion. I understand yours. I used to think that way too."
Your position is illogical and lacks vision and foresight.
Our duty as citizens is to show up and cast our vote.
Personally, I'm not giving those lying, thieving, murders, the opportunity to cast a vote with my name on it because I didn't show up to vote.
That's what they want.
They want you to not show up and vote so that they can win by default.
As Americans, we do not have the right to back down because the system has been corrupted. We have the duty to fight and fix it.
We do not have the right to be "war weary".
You cannot expect the system to be corrected if you are not willing to show up and vote for the people that will correct the system.
You claim that voting doesn't work.
Then explain the knee jerk reaction that the leftist deep state had after their chosen candidate Clinton lost and the people's choice Trump, was elected in 2016.
Trump, was not supposed to win.
Their knee jerk reaction tells me that it is possible to vote them out and true patriots in.
For some delusional reason, Christians and conservatives have this brain dead expectation that they shouldn't have to fight. They shouldn't have to go through hardships and fight to retain their rights. In that regard, they are no different than the entitled, spoiled, woke brats demanding that everything be handed to them, that they shouldn't have to work hard to get ahead.
They also have the delusional psychopathy that Trump should be completely perfect, know all things, be able to do all things, and do make no mistakes, despite the fact that he is not God, he is a man.
1