The camera zoomed in on the survivors. Image hanging out a window, 100 stories off the ground w/a fire behind u. I yelled 2 my husband “Can’t a helicopter w/ a basket get them!!” He said a helicopter couldn’t get close enough. “What then, there’s got to be another way!” Al Qaeda didn’t just murder these people, Americans trying to do their jobs, terrorists tortured them to death. In the survivors’ last 30 mins on earth they had to CHOOSE whether to die by fire, or jump 100 stories to their death. Which is the quickest death? When @ZohranKMamdani says “3,000, died & I mourn all the people who died in wars afterward,” I’m infuriated. These Americans didn’t just “die,” they were tortured to death. & there would have been “no wars after” if not 4 Al Qaeda’s actions. I’m still mad Zohran choose #RamziKassem (lawyer of the WTC plotter!) as city’s top legal advisor. So disrespectful. @NYCCouncil@NYDSA@MicahLasher@RitchieTorres@DarializaforNY@claireforny@RepJeffries@RepTenney@lawler4ny@Grace4NY
Guys, she took the oldest son to the basement to murder him. He escaped, ran, hid in his father’s office, before she hunted him down and strangled him to death with a giant rubber band. And then repeated that process for the other two. She knew what she was doing.
What evidence is there that the capital earned from southern agricultural slave enterprises was invested in predominantly northern industrial enterprises, railroads, or similar endeavors rather than into property, slaves, and luxury goods? I’m sure it’s nonzero, but would be surprised if it’s not a very small percentage of both slave profits and industrial investment
The Clancy jury is facing a very complex situation.
On the one hand, there’s not really a dispute that she brutally murdered three children.
On the other hand, she was really sad and had strong feels so is personal responsibility really fair, and plus maybe we can blame a man instead and besides wine moms on TikTok have theories.
IF YOU CAN'T TAKE THE OATH OF OFFICE YOU CAN'T SERVE IN CONGRESS
Let's start a movement here and now, and make clear to our Republican friends in Congress, that any Democrat candidate (DSA candidates in particular) who've stated they cannot abide the Constitution or seek to fundamentally alter it (without even amending it), or state they are bound not by the Constitution but Sharia law, must not be seated in the next Congress. This position is compelled by the Constitution itself.
Article VI, Clause 3 of the Constitution states:
"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."
This is not some ceremonial act. It is a requirement of serving in Congress. The oath states:
"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God."
As Joseph Story wrote:
That all those, who are entrusted with the execution of the powers of the national government, should be bound by some solemn obligation to the due execution of the trusts reposed in them, and to support the constitution, would seem to be a proposition too clear to render any reasoning necessary in support of it. It results from the plain right of society to require some guaranty from every officer, that he will be conscientious in the discharge of his duty. Oaths have a solemn obligation upon the minds of all reflecting men, and especially upon those, who feel a deep sense of accountability to a Supreme being. If, in the ordinary administration of justice in cases of private rights, or personal claims, oaths are required of those, who try, as well as of those, who give testimony, to guard against malice, falsehood, and evasion, surely like guards ought to be interposed in the administration of high public trusts, and especially in such, as may concern the welfare and safety of the whole community.
Article 6, Clause 3: Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution 3:§§ 1838--43
https://t.co/L7agiAjUVT
Notice, too, that the oath itself warns against deceit by those who might take the oath but not seriously believe to what they are swearing -- "without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion." It is difficult to see how those who've publicly condemned the Constitution and reject it can take the oath and actually mean it. This is not to say that proposals for amending the Constitution should be treated as a bar to serve. There are two processes for amending the Constitution, both of which require super-majorities of the state legislatures to approve the constitutional changes. The problem for Marxists and Islamists is that their ideologies are, in fact, incompatible with our Constitution and the entire American experiment, as I've explained for years.
The fact is that winning an election for Congress is the first of two-steps, not the first and final step for serving. If you cannot legitimately take the oath, then you cannot serve in Congress, even though voters in a federal district or state supported your candidacy. The purpose of the Constitution is to preserve the Republic.
Much more can be said about this an undoubtedly will be.
When Mohsen Mahdawi was picked up by ICE, every media outlet rushed to his defense saying he wants peace and did nothing wrong.
A lengthy report was released yesterday, with quotes from him calling for the annihilation of all Jews. Not a single outlet has reported on it.
Weird.
This is day 246 of asking @LeaderJohnThune to pass the SAVE America Act.
Yes, 246 consecutive days of asking the Senate to do the job we elected them to do.
I found this map from 1950. Notice how Gaza belonged to Egypt and the West Bank belonged to Jordan, and there was no Palestine.
Jordan occupied the West Bank and Egypt occupied Gaza from 1948 to 1967, and during those years not once did ‘Palestinians’ try to establish an independent Palestinian state.
In fact, they only started calling for a Palestinian state after they joined forces with their Egyptian and Jordanian occupiers and lost the war they started against Israel in 1967, when Israel took over Gaza and the West Bank.
The whole Palestinian narrative is a lie.
@notgaetti Bill Russell’s basketball teammate at McClymonds High in Oakland. Vada Pinson (NEPTA) was his outfield wing man at the Mack before the Reds.