As bad as things look today, I feel we will fly again. Other countries will see to it. We are all interconnected, regardless of artificial blocks, borders, or divisions.

from Texas with love...

tryin' to see if I am capable of following our fearless leaders instructions... I gotta get to work and can't hang as usual... but maybe this is a picker-upper...

I've Been Everywhere Man (in Texas) - Brian Burns

I love the asides he throws in, like after Bridge City 'what a pity'! ROFLMAO! I have been just about everywhere mentioned. Spent much of 85-89 as a traveling salesman (you'd never guess I have awesome bird ties, in the closet for 30 years) just in Texas, probably did at least 150 of Texas' 250+ counties. I've been everywhere man, drove my tires bare man...

The Beer Song - (I drank lots of beer man) - Doug Moreland

I drank most of these beers too, but why put Keystone in a song? Great how he mentions Wicked Ale, which is a Shiner IPA and awesome, and after he says the name, he says 'wicked'. Yeah man, wicked.

I gotta fly to work, have a great day all!

it's coming this way, the fascists at this point in time
can't be stopped.

From the latest Private Eye, a sure indication of a government gone both mad and bad pic.twitter.com/c5NJBYscHE

— Richard Murphy (@RichardJMurphy) March 2, 2023

I've seen it mentioned that a right exists only if it can be enforced.

Do people have a right to clean water, clean air, housing, food and medical care? Can they enforce those rights? If not, it may be like that apochryphal story where some officer is telling Hitler something about the Pope objecting to some recent German action. The reply was "how many tank divisions does the Pope have?"

Did Occupy Wall Street have a "right" to peaceful assembly? It looks like someone decided they didn't, no matter what the protesters might have thought.

It seems like when talking about what rights you have, you need to ask yourself the Dirty Harry question: "Do ya feel lucky, punk?" If you don't feel too lucky, you may want to cross that right off the ever shrinking list of "things that I have a right to do/have".

liked this one;

edit to add thanks for the simplified instructions
on how to post videos easily

.

Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness were meant to be unalienable rights, I used the word "were" because I don't know if they are still tenable or not. As far as that goes I'm not sure that "rights" are a thing anymore either.

I read yesterday that Obama declared a national emergency after Crimea voted to rejoin Russia and Biden just reauthorized it for another year. Plus don’t forget that Obama rescinded habeas corpus and if you don’t have that right you are not free. This authorization gives Biden power that allows him to suspend any right he chooses. And one is he can freeze your bank account…

The FISA bill that allows any government agency to spy on us has been re-upped every year since. Biden is asking congress to do it again.

Executive order 13603

During Bush the idiot every government agency bought millions of rounds of ammunition and you gotta wonder what the government is planning on doing with it. IRS, SSA, and other agencies that have nothing to do with homeland security are armed to the gills. Biden said good luck with your AR-15 when they go against military jets. I’m betting that drones will be used against us one day.

has alien in it, so we must build a wall and pass some laws to stop it.
S/

This is a 2014 WHO commercial. It talks about creating a vaccine passport way back then which goes to show how long the parasites have been planning their takeover of the world.

But maybe there is hope:

In Tennessee, Rep. Bud Hulsey (R) introduced a bill (HB 726) that would involve the people, all branches of the state government, and the county governments in constitutional interpretation affecting vital policies when they believe the federal government is clearly wrong. Either the governor may issue an executive order declaring the federal policy void; any member of the legislature can trigger a floor debate and vote to nullify the policy; a state court may declare said policy unconstitutional if it arises during the course of a legitimate case or controversy; any combination of 10 local governing authorities – either through their respective executives or legislative branches – may submit a petition for nullification that triggers a vote in the legislature; and any group of 2,000 registered Tennessee voters may submit a similar petition triggering an automatic legislative vote on nullification.

SECTION 6: It is declared that federal laws, federal executive actions, and federal court opinions must comply with the jurisdictional limitations of the United States Constitution. It is further declared that any federal action outside the enumerated powers set forth in the United States Constitution are in violation of the peace and safety of the people of this state, and therefore, said acts are declared void and must be resisted.

Comment from Katherine:

Reader asked, by email, what the nullification process could look like in other states.

My response:

Uncharted waters.

The Tennessee law is based on the Tennessee state constitution, and the provisions of the US Constitution that lay out the relationships between federal and state power. Other states would need to look at their own state constitutions, and build their own bills around their state constitutions and the same parts of the US constitution cited in Tennessee.

The feds have been overstepping constitutional boundaries for a very, very, very long time. Back to the late 1700s, the bankers started chipping away.

What's different now is simply that so much unlawful power has accumulated in executive hands, and is being used for such obviously deadly purposes, that people are being directly, observably killed by the feds, through the illegitimate pseudo-laws, so states are finally starting to resist.

I should add, the last time states tried to stand up to the feds, Lincoln launched a war to suppress them.

Tennessee's action will push the feds toward having to make that decision again: whether to use overt military force (i.e. military force that isn't covert or hidden behind bioweapons and 'public health', which they've already been using since at least 1969) to try to quash what they will try to construe as rebellion, or allow the states and people to repossess usurped power.

It’s 20 years overdue and probably much longer, but if states will finally stand up to the unlawful rescission of the Constitution I’m all for this. Mike Lee runs on being an enforcer for freedom, but so far he’s been very lacking on actually doing anything about the unlawful laws that congress has been passing. Every time that the 702 bill has come up for reauthorization he should have been doing everything in his power to both bring attention to and block it from passing. Congress cannot give the government the power to abuse the constitution. I don’t think the founders stuttered! Congress shall make no law…. Just what came out of congress grilling the Twitter gurus for working with government agencies to stifle free speech! Nice show in my opinion and important information was seen and yet…..? Biden’s ministry of truth is still being formed. And how about the work around the government uses by letting foreign countries spy on us and then use their information?

JtC anyway to put a video in a certain area of the comment?

...for US citizens or for anybody else.

Rather than moral principles, the US has a moral "Culture" — an elaborate fantasy narrative that justifies its aggressive self interest at the expense of other nations, such as the US theft of Syria's oil that is taking place right now. The US Moral Culture been consistent throughout the country's brief history. This means that International treaties and agreements are regularly betrayed by US Government deceit when a new administration is seated.

People in the US often list Human Right among the rights they believe they have, according to the Constitution. But, of course, the Constitution has no idea what a Human Right is, and the civil rights that are conveyed in the Constitution are regularly misunderstood, revised, or pointedly ignored.

The United States prides itself on being a champion of human rights. Since its founding, the United States has often identified its belief in inalienable rights as a trait that has differentiates it from other countries. The United States pioneered international human rights law when Eleanor Roosevelt chaired the committee that drafted the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the precursor to many international human rights treaties. In the U.S. Department of State’s annual Human Rights Reports, it judges other countries’ human rights records. However, it is difficult to take U.S. commitment to human rights seriously when it regularly favors domestic political concerns over the international human rights community and continually demonstrates a unique reluctance to ratify international human rights treaties.

The United States is alone among other industrialized Western countries in its reluctance. It did not begin to ratify major human rights treaties until the late 1980s, taking almost 40 years to become the 98th country to ratify the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide. It still has not ratified many significant human rights treaties, including the Convention on the Rights of Persons With Disabilities and the International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights—part of the International Bill of Human Rights. The United States also has not ratified the Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW), one of only seven countries who hasn’t including Iran, Nauru, Palau, Somalia, Sudan and Tonga. The United States and Somalia are the only countries that have not ratified Convention on the Rights of the Child.

When the United States does ratify treaties, it uses a unique process that diminishes the treaties’ intended effects. Before the treaty is voted on, Justice Department lawyers search the documents for human rights protections that are more stringent than, and therefore would add to, U.S. law. When found, the United States limits the scope of the treaty by drafting a reservation, declaration, or understanding (RUD) to combat it and sends the treaty, RUDs attached, to the Senate for ratification.

Read on to learn what drives US fear and arrogance about ratifying treaties.

— from the Global Justice Center, "U.S. Aversion to International Human Rights Treaties"
.

In the end, the US government's isolationist attitudes continue to damage the lives and deny the rights of the US population.

Refusing to ratify human rights treaties weakens U.S. international leadership and deprives American citizens of protections they deserve. The United States is willing to sign onto substantive trade agreements but not human rights agreements. The US may participate superficially with the international human rights community by posing for a "signing" photo-op. But treaties are not legally binding unless they are ratified by the Senate. Human Rights treaties are rarely sent to the senate.

Such cynical behavior reveals the longstanding priorities of the US to legally limit the human rights of its citizens, which are regularly violated in the US. Leaders and politicians in the US may point to a human rights treaty that was signed at the UN by the US Ambassador, and treat it as a symbolic affirmations of US values. Normally, these international Human Rights treaties established the legal foundation that would translate into human rights victories for the citizens of the signing countries. But this is not the case in the United States, where these treaties were never ratified by the Senate. Human Rights are not the rule of law inside the United States, and the US is not the human rights champion it has so long claimed to be.

You want rights be alienable? Yes, I would like them alienable. Who wants to live with rights you can't get rid off? Must be a bad joke.

Aliens, whom did you want to mess around with. Can't fool me. Thanks.

It is helpful to not understand the meaning of aliens and alienable. hmm ... I guess some alien has messed around with my mind. Sorry.

@smiley7
good to see you are here
hope the back is better!

The right to life is granted by the universal magic, it seems to me, and the right to be free is grounded in same magi, evolution; i wonder if the founders discussed their intent this way?