For those of you liberfools unaware of how impeachment works, the Constitution requires a two-thirds super majority to convict a person of being impeached. The House may approve impeachment all they want, but it requires the Senate to enter a judgment on its decision, whether that be to convict or acquit, and a copy of the judgment is filed with the Secretary of State. Until the Senate passes judgment, it’s still nothing more than an accusation against a President presumed to be innocent until convicted as guilty. Merry Christmas! There are four criteria for impeachment: treason, bribery, and other high crimes and misdemeanors. Unless one of these is met, Congress does not have the authority to impeach. Alexander Hamilton stated that any act of Congress that is inconsistent with the Constitution is void if there is no judicial review. Congress is violating their oath of office. The framers of the Constitution did not give unlimited powers to the House of Representatives. Therefore, what Congress is doing now is abusing this power and violating their sworn oath of office. The President has the right to due process, the right to address his accuser, the right to have witnesses and the right to present evidence. So much of this evidence has been eviscerated by the House Intelligent Committee and rubber-stamped by the House Judiciary. The impeachment process is supposed to be non-partisan. Obviously it wasn’t. There was little first-hand knowledge presented by the Democrats.

PrintEmail Hits: 780

Is marijuana linked to psychosis, schizophrenia? It's contentious but doctors, feds say yes

Early one morning in March, Madison McIntosh showed up on his day off at the Scottsdale, Arizona, driving range and restaurant where he worked. The 24-year-old sat in his car until the place opened, then wandered around all day, alternating between gibberish and talk of suicide as co-workers tried to keep him away from customers.

When he was still there 12 hours later, the manager contacted McIntosh’s father in Las Vegas, who called police and rallied other family members states away to converge at the young man’s side.

They found a shell of the once-star baseball player. For months he’d been spending his days vaping a potent form of THC, the ingredient in marijuana that makes people feel high, and staying up all night. Now, he was wildly swinging between depression and euphoria.

The family rushed McIntosh to Banner Behavioral Health Hospital, where staff psychiatrist Dr. Divya Jot Singh diagnosed him with cannabis use disorder and a "psychotic disorder unspecified.”


Read more https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2019/12/15/weed-psychosis-high-thc-cause-suicide-schizophrenia/4168315002/

PrintEmail Hits: 727

Predator Pipeline

The NCAA metes out punishments to student athletes for bad grades, smoking pot or taking money. Yet it has no specific penalties for sex assault.
5:00 a.m. EST Dec. 12, 2019
Two women separately accused University of South Florida football player LaDarrius Jackson of sexual assault in 2017, saying the 6-foot-4, 250-pound defensive end forced himself on them in their own homes.


Read more  https://www.usatoday.com/in-depth/news/investigations/2019/12/12/ncaa-looks-other-way-athletes-punished-sex-offenses-play/4360460002/

PrintEmail Hits: 726

Republicans will try to bring back the ‘War on Porn’

Featured Image

bscenity Laws, Brian Babin, Culture, Department Of Justice, Donald Trump, Internet, Jim Banks, Mark Meadows, M

December 11, 2019 (LifeSiteNews) – Debate has erupted online recently over a renewed interest in the federal government’s role in restricting pornography, ignited by a letter urging U.S. Attorney General William Barr to prioritize the enforcement of existing laws on the subject.

Republican Reps. Jim Banks of Indiana, Mark Meadows of North Carolina, Vicky Hartzler of Missouri, and Brian Babin of Texas signed a December 6 letter to Barr decrying the accessibility of “obscene pornography” online and its harmful effects on both women ensared by the porn industry and the society in which porn is viwed, particularly young people exposed to the material.

“Fortunately, U.S. obscenity laws exist that, if enforced, can ameliorate this problem,” the letter states. “Those U.S. laws prohibit distribution of obscene pornography on the Internet, on cable/satellite TV, in hotels/motels, by retail or wholesale establishments, and by common carriers.”


While most lay readers would assume that all porn qualifies as “obscene,” in this context “obscene pornography” refers to a legal category. It is determined by whether an “average person, applying contemporary adult community standards,” would conclude that a piece of sex-related material appeals to an “erotic, lascivious, abnormal, unhealthy, degrading, shameful, or morbid interest in nudity, sex, or excretion”; whether it “depicts or describes sexual conduct in a patently offensive way”; and whether it “lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.”

The letter laments that enforcement of those laws was effectively shuttered by the Obama administration, and that President Donald Trump has yet to make good on his 2016 campaign pledge to enforce federal obscenity laws.

“Given the pervasiveness of obscenity it’s our recommendation that you declare the prosecution of obscene pornography a criminal justice priority and urge your U.S. Attorneys to bring prosecutions against the major producers and distributors of such material,” the letter says. “We urge you to take this simple yet important step toward protecting the lives of those affected by these long-ignored crimes.”

“As online obscenity and pornography consumption have increased, so too has violence towards women,” Rep. Banks told National Review. “Overall volume of human trafficking has increased and is now the third-largest criminal enterprise in the world. Child pornography is on the rise as one of the fastest-growing online businesses with an annual revenue over $3 billion.”

Several conservative pundits echoed the letter’s call, triggering several days of lively social media debate over both the dangers of porn and government’s role in addressing them. Among them was Daily Wire contributor Matt Walsh, who pushed back against fellow conservatives who oppose porn prohibition on limited government grounds.

“Consenting adults may well have the right to do what they want with each other in the privacy of their homes. But do they have a right to film it and then publish it on a forum where children in elementary school might easily access it?” he asked. “Where does this right originate? God? Did God instill in all humans the inalienable and sacred right to publish footage of their orgies on the internet for all to view? If God did not, then from where or what does this right spring? Perhaps we should consider the possibility that there is no such right.”

“You might argue that this is something for parents, and not government, to handle. But this argument ignores the reality of the situation,” Walsh argued. “Parents cannot possibly shield their children from a porn epidemic that is so ubiquitous and accessible. Even if they restrict all internet access in their own homes, and refuse to allow their children to have phones with internet access (a wise move, to be sure), all it requires is one friend whose parents have not taken that step. And every kid will have at least one friend like that — probably many more than just one.”

Last month, American Principles Project executive director Terry Schilling wrote an essay in First Things proposing further regulations on pornography that could be achieved within the Supreme Court’s current framework.

He suggested requiring internet service providers to “provide a default version of the Internet that is filtered of indecent content, while allowing adult users the ability to opt in to an unfiltered version of the Internet”; imposing new age-verification mandates; confining all porn to a .xxx website domain (clearing the way to simply prosecute any .com, .org, or .net domain on which porn appears); and making platform owners civilly liable for “obscene or indecent material” created by third parties.

“In our time, a new conservatism is being born—one less interested in managing our nation’s decline than in using political power to promote virtue, public morality, and the common good,” Schilling wrote. “The legal framework already exists within which we can tackle the online pornography crisis and defend the innocence of children. We must find the fortitude, finally, to do it.”


att Walsh, Obscenity Laws, Porn, Pornography, Republicans, Sex, Terry Schilling, Trump Administration, Vicky Hartzler, William BarrPornPornographyRepublicansSexTerry SchillingTrump AdministrationVicky HartzlerWilliam Barr

PrintEmail Hits: 764

More Articles ...