AnneBonny

The report does not mention Rear Admiral Ronny Jackson, who served as the physician to the president from 2013 to 2018 under both Barack Obama and Donald Trump. Stat, which first reported on the OIG's new report, noted that Jackson had been accused of fostering a toxic work environment, engaging in alcohol-fueled misconduct, and misusing Ambien, specifically. OIG received those allegations during the first part of 2018, around the same time when the pharmacy complaints came in. And some of the allegations against Jackson were confirmed by a separate OIG investigation released in 2021.

Yikes.

I don't disagree with his opinion, I just think he is a tremendous hypocrite.

Disingenuous? He has billions of dollars stored in a 501(c)(3).

A 501(c)(3) organization is a United States corporation, trust, unincorporated association or other type of organization exempt from federal income tax under section 501(c)(3) of Title 26 of the United States Code.

He's a fucking clown.

I don't have any idea.

The article says:
The bill says the use of force is “justifiable” if a defendant believes that criminal trespass, robbery or “unlawful camping” is occurring on their property.

The law says:

2 (1) The use of physical force by a defendant upon another person is justifiable when the
3 defendant believes that such force is immediately necessary to prevent:
...
12 (c) The commission of unlawful camping in violation of Section 17 of this Act,
13 when the offense is occurring on property owned or leased by the defendant,
14 the individual engaged in unlawful camping has been told to cease, and the
15 individual committing the offense has used force or threatened to use force
16 against the defendant.

Not mentioning that force is not authorized unless the person camping unlawfully has either used force or threatened to use force already is a glaring omission.

The same way you dispute the truth of any statement in a court of law.

No one is stopping you from giving money to the government.

You can make a gift to reduce public debt here: https://www.pay.gov/public/form/start/23779454

You can donate to the U.S. Government here: https://www.pay.gov/public/form/start/708094624

The article says:

The bill says the use of force is “justifiable” if a defendant believes that criminal trespass, robbery or “unlawful camping” is occurring on their property.

The bill says:

2 (1) The use of physical force by a defendant upon another person is justifiable when the
3 defendant believes that such force is immediately necessary to prevent:
... 12 (c) The commission of unlawful camping in violation of Section 17 of this Act,
13 when the offense is occurring on property owned or leased by the defendant,
14 the individual engaged in unlawful camping has been told to cease, and the
15 individual committing the offense has used force or threatened to use force
16 against the defendant.

2 (1) The use of physical force by a defendant upon another person is justifiable when the
3 defendant believes that such force is immediately necessary to prevent:
4 (a) The commission of criminal trespass, robbery, burglary, or other felony
5 involving the use of force, or under those circumstances permitted pursuant to
6 KRS 503.055, in a dwelling, building or upon real property in his or her
7 possession or in the possession of another person for whose protection he or
8 she acts;[ or]
9 (b) Theft, criminal mischief, or any trespassory taking of tangible, movable
10 property in his or her possession or in the possession of another person for
11 whose protection he or she acts; or
12 (c) The commission of unlawful camping in violation of Section 17 of this Act,
13 when the offense is occurring on property owned or leased by the defendant,
14 the individual engaged in unlawful camping has been told to cease, and the
15 individual committing the offense has used force or threatened to use force
16 against the defendant.

I haven't been through all the amendments yet, and I'm not a lawyer, but the author of the article may have mischaracterized a portion of the bill.

I want you to think about the current SCOTUS, what their decisions might look like coming out of this, and that the executive branch isn’t “cops”.

The Department of Homeland Security, Federal Bureau of Investigation, United States Marshals Service, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosive, Drug Enforcement Administration, United States Customs and Border Protection, National Security Agency, Immigration and Customs Enforcement, and Department of Justice are cops. There is a Medicare Fraud Strike Force. They don't walk a beat, but they are cops.

they’re going to nuke the idea that something can be included in legislation if it isn’t explicitly stated

They will not.

This kills the EPA, the FCC, literally any decision making body within the Executive and replaces it with the incredibly slow Judicial system that benefits the wealthy EVEN HARDER than Chevron.

Won't happen.

That wasn’t specifically called out as a pollutant in the NEPA, guess you can’t regulate it until the Legislature adds a clause to allow you to regulate that specific new pollutant.

You think it's going to be legal to kill Clarence Thomas because there is not a law that specifically prohibits killing Clarence Thomas? I doubt it.

That would be funny as fuck.