I am having some health problems.
I will be gone for an undetermined time.
I am having some health problems.
I will be gone for an undetermined time.
Pennsylivania County Sheriff’s are telling Gov. Tom Wolf(Delusional-PA)they will not be enforce his unconstitutional schemes.
The sheriff’s office of Pennsylvania’s Cumberland County said on Friday that it will not enforce Gov. Tom Wolf’s (D) shutdown orders, vowing to continue to “honor our solemn oath to Support, Obey and Defend the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of this Commonwealth.
“The Cumberland County Sheriff’s Office will honor our solemn oath to Support, Obey and Defend the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of this Commonwealth,” the office said in a statement posted to social media on Friday, promising to “stand with the citizens in defense of all of our Constitutional Rights!”
“Our Office will not be enforcing any ‘order’ that violates our Constitutional Rights. Sheriff Anderson has stated ‘I have no intentions in turning local business owners into criminals,’” the office continued.
“This is only the stance of the Cumberland County Sheriff’s Office but does not mean that this is the stance of State or Local Law Enforcement in Cumberland County,” the office clarified:
In response to many messages that we have received on our stance of the shutdown order of businesses in our County:
The Cumberland County Sheriff’s Office will honor our solemn oath to Support, Obey and Defend the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of this Commonwealth. Our Office will stand with the citizens in defense of all of our Constitutional Rights! Our Office will not be enforcing any “order” that violates our Constitutional Rights. Sheriff Anderson has stated “I have no intentions in turning local business owners into criminals”.
UPDATE IN RESPONSE TO SOME CALLS AND FEEDBACK FROM THIS POST TO CLARIFY: This is only the stance of the Cumberland County Sheriff’s Office but does not mean that this is the stance of State or Local Law Enforcement in Cumberland County.
Here is the conclusion of the letter Joe Teri wrote home as he settled in during the Occupation of Japan. Please do not be offended by any slang that was used back in the day. The pictures are examples, none accompanied the letter.
Our airforce has done perfect precision bombing, they only wrecked just what they wanted to, the train system is perfect, the trolley line is in good condition, but the War plants are a mass of rubbish. The Japs have had more equipt than our eyes can believe, even our General here said, we under estimated the Japs at the time of our arrival here, by 60 percent and thats an awful lot, we had planned during the War to make an invasion here, if we had to we would have never got here it would have been suicide for every man and ship. The land out here…
View original post 1,046 more words
We have Mrs P. to thank for this letter. It came from her neighbor, Len G. whose uncle Joe reached Japan and wanted the family to know what it was like for him. This letter is being re-typed exactly as it originally reads.
Nov. 14, 1945 – 9PM
My Dear Carters & Son:
Received your most enjoyable letter some time ago on Oct 18, I was so very busy ever since I landed here in Japan, that I really hadn’t much time to write, I still owe about 4 letters out and hope I can get them written in the very near future, believe me. I am on duty now, while writing this letter to you, business is very slow now, so I have a good chance in getting this letter written. I am so sorry and ask your apoligy for not writing sooner, I’ll…
View original post 1,236 more words
Tomorrow is 1 May, the start of Military Appreciation Month. I thought it appropriate to remind some about the flag they fly under and why……
Some call me Old Glory, others call me the Star Spangled Banner, but whatever you call me, I am your Flag – the Flag of the United States of America. There has been something that has been bothering me, so I thought that I might talk it over with you here today.
I remember some time ago, (I think it was Memorial Day, or was it Veterans’ Day?) that people were lined upon both sides of the street for a parade. A high school band was behind me and, naturally, I was leading the parade. When your Daddy saw me coming along, waving in the breeze, he immediately removed his hat and placed it so that his right hand was directly over his heart.
View original post 511 more words
If this derails Slow Joe The Gaff Machine Biden who will become the nominee?
Presumptive Democratic nominee Joe Biden finally acknowledged on Friday former staffer Tara Reade’s allegations that he sexually assaulted her. He denied them, adding his voice to the chorus of prominent Democrats from House Speaker Nancy Pelosi to failed Georgia gubernatorial candidate Stacey Abrams who have already been fighting the battle on his behalf.
This full-court press is only partly about helping Biden defeat President Donald Trump in November. It is also a sign of wheels spinning as Democrats struggle to fight their own standards and parry the very rhetoric they used two years ago during then-judge Brett Kavanaugh’s confirmation hearings. That, of course, was when an allegation of sexual assault was the only thing standing in the way of the solidification of a conservative majority on the Supreme Court and a major political victory for Trump.
Biden and his allies may now reap the rewards of decades spent working to lower the bar for such allegations: on university campuses, where Biden himself oversaw implementation of punitive rules for sexual assault investigations, and in the public square, where their treatment of Kavanaugh was the climax of this campaign.
Democrats were all in on this approach two years ago. Pelosi, who on Thursday emphasized the importance of “due process,” insisted “we must #BelieveSurvivors.” A cadre of Senate Democrats, including a number of vice presidential contenders who have leapt to Biden’s defense, said then that the FBI must investigate “all credible allegations” against the now-justice, including the since-withdrawn claim that a teenage Kavanaugh organized gang rapes in his free time.
Biden himself said of Kavanaugh accuser Christine Blasey Ford’s allegations: “For a woman to come forward in the glaring lights of focus, nationally, you’ve got to start off with the presumption that at least the essence of what she’s talking about is real, whether or not she forgets facts, whether or not it’s been made worse or better over time.”
Now Biden must struggle to explain why his words do not apply to Reade.
It’s hardly the first time Biden’s views on an issue changed with the partisan winds. He oversaw the Senate investigation of Anita Hill’s allegations of sexual harassment against Clarence Thomas—an event Thomas would infamously label a “high tech lynching”—and eventually voted against the nomination. Seven years later, Biden voted against impeaching Bill Clinton over the Monica Lewinsky scandal; then, it was Biden who called accusations of sexual misconduct “a partisan lynching.”
Ironically, the hypocrisy of the Democrats is precisely why Biden should have expected to face his current conundrum. They have eased the way for anybody to lodge such allegations, without question or consequence.
The same dynamics have also tied their hands when they try to argue that this time is different, as Pelosi has done. (After all, she told reporters on Thursday, “Joe Biden is Joe Biden.”)
Maybe Biden is telling the truth, maybe he isn’t. But there is no reason for the public to believe that he and his defenders are motivated by honesty rather than partisanship.
That’s bad for victims and for the wrongly accused. And it’s bad for future candidates. When they lack the credibility to face their own scandals, all we can say is that they, like Biden, should have seen it coming.
New York changed its law and the Supremes punted on gun rights.
In an effort to avoid an almost sure adverse ruling by the Supreme Court in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. City of New York, the city changed the underlying law. It was an obvious and nakedly cynical attempt to have the case declared moot and dodge a likely expansion of gun rights in the United States.
That gambit worked. In a ruling announced this morning, the Supreme Court, in a 6-3 decision, has declared the case moot.
You can read the Court’s decision here.
Here’s the Associated Press’s Mark Sherman’s report:
The Supreme Court sidestepped a major decision on gun rights Monday in a dispute over New York City’s former ban on transporting guns.
The justices threw out a challenge from gun rights groups. It ruled that the city’s move to ease restrictions on taking licensed, locked and unloaded guns outside the city limits, coupled with a change in state law to prevent New York from reviving the ban, left the court with nothing to decide. The court asked a lower court to consider whether the city’s new rules still pose problems for gun owners.
The anti-climactic end to the Supreme Court case is a disappointment to gun rights advocates and relief to gun control groups who thought a conservative Supreme Court majority fortified by two appointees of President Donald Trump, Justices Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh, might use the case to expand on landmark decisions from a decade ago that established a right to keep a gun at home for self-defense.
But other guns cases remain in the high court’s pipeline and the justices could decide to hear one or more of those next term.
Although the opinion was unsigned, the court was split, 6-3, over the outcome.
Gorsuch joined Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas in dissenting from the dismissal. Kavanaugh wrote a brief concurring opinion in which he agreed with the result, but also said the court should take up another guns case soon.
Lower courts upheld the regulation, but the Supreme Court’s decision early in 2019 to step into the case signaled a revived interest in gun rights from a court with two new justices.
Officials at both the city and state level scrambled to find a way to remove the case from the justices’ grasp. Not only did the city change its regulation to allow licensed gun owners to transport their weapons to locations outside New York’s five boroughs, but the state enacted a law barring cities from imposing the challenged restrictions.
Those moves failed to get the court to dismiss the case before arguments in December.