You don’t need to be a lawyer to know that if you lie or intentionally mislead under oath, even to congress, it’s perjury.
You also don’t need to be a lawyer to know that 99.9% of undeniably proven perjury isn’t prosecuted.
I’m not a lawyer, but I grew up surrounded by lawyers and judges in the immediate family. Grandfather, uncle, and 3 cousins were lawyers, 2 of them judges….all Republicans btw. I’m no stranger to the law, thanks.
Trump lied on every question he answered under oath and nothing….but justices are SUPPOSED to be above reproach, no longer true.


(Edit; it bears noting, the petitioners claimed “ The legislature (not scientists or doctors) then found that at five or six weeks’ gestational age an unborn human beings heart begins beating“. But reality and science say “ the heart has four clearly defined chambers in the eighth week of pregnancy, but does not have fully organized muscle tissue until the 20th week” meaning it’s not a heart until 20 weeks in, so can’t possibly be a heart beating 14 weeks before there’s a heart…it’s a muscle cluster pulse, not a heartbeat anymore than a spark plug test firing is a running car.)

Did every justice in that 1954 Supreme Court say in their confirmation hearings under oath that Plessy was settled, reaffirmed precedent they respected? Was Plessy repeatedly challenged and upheld by multiple supreme courts? If not, I call red herring.

Your intentional pedantry is tiresome and uninteresting. Enjoy your beliefs. Bye Felicia.

Your opinion about perjury duly noted. I assume that you are a lawyer, and know exactly what you are talking about. Since all of their testimony is public record, shall I expect to see the appropriate prosecutor convening a grand jury to address this crime?

Your other opinion as to "how it works" is also duly noted. I guess SCOTUS should not have overruled Plessy vs Ferguson (decided in 1896) when they heard Brown vs Board of Education (1954).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separate_but_equal

There you go again, insisting that if police can’t kill with impunity and immunity, then anarchy will rule, there will be no police, and crime rates will skyrocket, making the US into Thunderdome in months.

Infantile, ignorant, and asinine, police in almost every other country kill far less than American police who kill around 3 people per day on average. In many countries they don’t carry guns, without a massive jump in crime. Imagine that. Are you saying US police are so incompetent that every other nation can police itself without letting them murder over nothing but contempt of cop, but divided America is totally incapable of that type of policing?

I would remind you, in the racist, sexist fantasy time period Trumpists wish to return to, police murdered non whites routinely and without fear. Wanting to return to that is pure racism…not surprising. Also, the Uber rich payed over 90% in taxes, without going bankrupt or just shutting down. Your “capitalist utopia” doesn’t exist without taxes at 3 times what they are now without loopholes. D’oh!
(For tax years 1944 through 1951, the highest marginal tax rate for individuals was 91%, increasing to 92% for 1952 and 1953, and reverting to 91% 1954 through 1963. For the 1964 tax year, the top marginal tax rate for individuals was lowered to 77%, and then to 70% for tax years 1965 through 1981)

I would also remind you how you screamed and cried over that terrorist bitch that was shot attacking the capitol with hundreds of armed violent cohorts that had already murdered and disabled dozens of police. You absolutely wanted that officer prosecuted if not just lynched….for a good shoot of a violent attacking murderer (part of the violent murdering mob makes you a murderer). Your blatant undeniable racist prejudice and obvious hypocrisy are showing, Bobby.

If police need to murder unarmed citizens over misdemeanors, they should absolutely stand down as that makes them the murderous criminal gang, not the police.

Not big as Them! https://videosift.com/video/Giant-Radioactive-Ants-will-be-the-End-of-Man-THEM-1954

Wait, a search in progress from 1954???

Your video, EVOLUTION of GODZILLA'S ATOMIC BREATH: Comparison 1954-2019, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

Your video, Niagara Falls Collapse - 1954, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion..."

"no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States."

Technically, neither party should be using religion for anything. Religion is supposed to be separate from the state. Our founders said this, our bill of rights backs it up, and that is the way it should have been.

Unfortunately, it seeps in. In God We Trust was never on money until a reverend asked that it be added to the two cent piece during the civil war. It didn't appear on paper money until the 1950's when President Dwight Eisenhower on July 30, 1956, declared "In God We Trust" must appear on American currency. It went on to be considered a side motto to E Pluribus Unum because of continued pressure.

Under God was not part of the pledge of allegiance until in 1954, at President Dwight D. Eisenhower’s urging, the Congress legislated that “under God” be added.

Both of these broke the guidelines set forth in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. They should have never happened but religious Judges keep allowing them under the pretext of Accommodationism, in that as long as they don't specifically recognize or benefit a 'single' religion they can be considered to be OK. They shouldn't be allowed. Churches should have to pay taxes on profits. Priests should be held by the same laws the rest of us are held by. But because of religious fanatics, we allow the blending of church and state. Many would say, to our detriment.

1954 - "Make sure you dial the correct number to make sure you do waste your time or inconvenience the person on the other line".

2018 - txt "send nudes plz"

Your video, 1954 How to dial your phone by Bell System, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

Don't students still recite the pledge of allegiance? It was changed into a national prayer in 1954, so not only is God allowed, it's required.

List of Films used:

Yojimbo (1961)
Secret of the Incas (1954)
Casablanca (1942)
Zorro Rides Again (1937)
Stagecoach (1939)
Zorro’s Fighting Legion (1939)
Lawrence of Arabia (1962)
Foolish Wives (1922)
Kiss Me Deadly (1955)
Citizen Kane (1941)

There's a great book on this and lots more written way back in 1954... How To Lie With Statistics by Darrell Huff.

It's available for free here: https://archive.org/details/HowToLieWithStatistics

radical islamic terrorism is the usage of a rigid fundamentalist interpretation as a justification predicated on abysmal politics.

ill-thought and short sighted politics is the tinder.
hyper-extremist fundamentalism is the match.

ISIS would never even have existed without al qeada,who themselves would not have existed without US interventionism into:iran,egypt and saudi arabia.

and this is going back almost 70 years.

so lets cut the shit with apologetics towards americas horrific blunders in regards to foreign policy.actions have consequences,there is a cause and effect,and when even in the 50's the CIA KNEW,and have stated as much,that there would be "blowback" from americas persistent interventionism in those regions.which stated goals (in more honest times) was to destabilize,dethrone (remove leaders not friendly to american business) and install leaders more pliant and easily manipulated (often times deposing democratically elected leaders to install despots.the shah and sadam come to mind).

see:chalmers johnson-blowback
see: Zbigniew Brzezinski-the grand chessboard.

or read this article:
http://www.globalresearch.ca/america-created-al-qaeda-and-the-isis-terror-group/5402881

so to act like islamic radicals just fell from the fucking sky,and popped out from thin air,due to something that has been boiling for almost 70 years is fucking ludicrous.

radicalization of certain groups in populations have long been understood,and well documented.

and religion,though the most popular,and easiest tool to motivate and justify heinous acts of violence for a political goal,is not the SOLE tool.

nationalism is another tool used to radicalize a population.
see:the nazi party.

but it always comes down to:tribalism of one kind or another.

@transmorpher

so when you use this "ISIS themselves, in their own magazine (Dabiq) go out of their way to explain that they are not motivated by the xenophobia or the US fighting wars in their countries. They make specifically state that their motivation is simply because you aren't muslim. You can go an read it for yourself. They are self confessed fanatics that need to kill you to go to heaven. "

to solidify your argument,all i see is someone ignoring the history and pertinent reasons why that group even exists.

you may recall that ISIS was once Al qeada,and they were SO radical,SO fanatical and SO violent in their execution of religious zeal..that even al qeada had to distance themselves.

because,again...
religion is used as the justification to enact terrorism due to bad politics.
but the GOAL is always political.

you may remember that in the early 90's the twin towers were attacked and it was the first time americans heard of al qeada,and osama bil laden.

who made a statement back in 1993 and then reiterated in 2001 after 9/11 that the stated goal (one of them at least) was for the removal of ALL american military presence in saudi arabia (there was more,but it mostly dealt with american military presence in the middle east).

but where did this osama dude come from?
why was he so pissed at america?
just what was this dudes deal?

turns out he was already on the road to radicalization during the 80's.coming from an extremely wealthy saudi arabian family but had become extremely religious,and he saw western interventionism as a plague,and western culture as a disease.

he left the comforts of his extremely wealthy family to fight against this western incursion into his religious homeland.he traveled to afghanistan to join the mujahideen to combat the russians,who were actually fighting the americans in a proxy war.and WE trained osama.WE armed him and trained him in the tactics of warfare to,behind the scenes,slowly drain russia of resources in our 50 year long cold war.

how's that for irony.

osama was not,as american media like to paint the picture "anti-democratic or anti-freedom".he saw the culture of consumerism,greed and sexual liberation as an affront to his religious understandings.

this attitude can be directly linked to sayyid qtib from egypt.who visited the united states as an exchange student in 1954.now he wasnt radicalized yet,but when he returned to egypt he didnt recognize his own country.

he saw coco cola signs everywhere,and women wearing shorts skirts,and jukeboxs playing that devils music "rock and roll".

he feared for his country,his neighbors,his community.
just like a southern baptist fears for your soul,sayyid feared for the soul of his country and that this new "westernization" was a direct threat to the tenants laid down by islam.

so he began to speak out.
he began to hold rallies challenging the leadership to turn away from this evil,and people started to take notice,and some people agreed.

change does not come easy for some people,and this is especially true for those who hold strong religious ideologies.
(insert religion here) tends to be extremely traditional.

so sayyid started to gain popularity for his challenge if this new "westernization",and this did not go un-noticed by the egyptian leadership,who at that time WANTED western companies to invest in egypt.(that whole political landscape is totally different now,but back then egypt was fairly liberal,and moderately secular).

so instead of allowing sayyid to speak his mind.
they threw him in prison.
for 4 years.
in solitary.

well,he wasn't radicalized when he went IN to prison,but when he came OUT he sure was.

and to shorten this story,sayyid was the first founder of the muslim brotherhood,whose later incarnation broke off to form?

can you guess?
i bet you can!
al qeade

@Fairbs ,@newtboy and @Asmo have all laid out points why radicalization happens,and the conditions that can enflame and amplify that radicalization.

so i wont repeat what they have already said.

but let us take dearborn michigan as an example.
the largest muslim community in america.
how many terrorists come from dearborn?
how many radicals reside there?
how many mosque preach intolerance and "death to america"?
how many imams quietly sanction fatwas from the local IHOP against american imperialistic pigs?

none.

becuase if you live in stable community,with a functioning government,and you are able to find work and support your family,and your kids can get an education.

the chances of you become radicalized is pretty much:zippo.

the specific religion has NOTHING to do with terrorism.
religion is simply the means in which the justifications to enact violent atrocities is born.

it's the politics stupid.

you could do a thought experiment and flip the religions around,but keep the same political parameters and do you know WHAT we find?

that the terrorists would be CHRISTIAN terrorists.

or do i really need to go all the way back to the fucking dark ages to make my point?

it's
the
politics
stupid.

I was born in 1954, and Kilroy was around and known to me as a kid.