Search Results: making it official

I do not believe people should be penalized for building wealth, gaining success, or even making achievements that surpass others.

Where I believe the line is crossed is when there are intentions to suppress others from being able to own a home, maintain stability, and to achieve their own success. This may occur in the form of monopolies, mega industries in the business of buying up single family homes, strict zoning ordinances and codes, criminalizing homelessness, excessive regulation and red tape, and penalizing people for living in cars, RVs, sheds, and even tents to survive.

There have been cases where people have been fined, threatened legal action, and even forced to forfeit their own land for living in a camper or RV. A more-rural county near me recently passed ordinances banning camper living. I have seen videos where a woman is sitting on a sidewalk with all of her belongings in the open as officials tow her RV.

I feel many cases of homelessness, poverty, and hunger are manufactured crisises.

Is it that you refuse to acknowledge these things or are unaware?:

1. Officials that can't define what a woman is
2. Mass invasion of illegal aliens at the American taxpayer's expense
3. Small business owners of Christian faith fined and threatened for refusing to bake a cake for a gay wedding or refusing to create a website for a gay wedding, even though it goes against their Christian morals
4. Letting biological boys into a girl's bathroom or locker room and punishing the girls for voicing concerns against it
5. Assigning biological boys to room with girls on school field trips
6. Punishing a 5 year old child for creating art that says "All Lives Matter".
7. Mandating workers to attend "Diversity Training" that enforces Critical Race Theory, telling white men they have "privilege" to inflict guilt onto them
8. Criminalizing Christians for gathering during the COVID pandemic
9. Allowing biological men to compete in women's sports
10. Surveillance of Christians for making purchases of bibles using their Bank of America accounts.
11. Surveillance of parents for speaking out at school board meetings against woke ideologies
12. Pushing the "Me Too" movement where due process was stripped from men as a result of false allegations
13. Radical feminism that claims "harassment" for even looking at a woman for more than a few seconds and attacks on masculinity
14. Conspiring with social media companies to censor conservatives and their posts
15. Punishing people for failing to use and acknowledge prefered pronouns
16. Obscuring and downplaying the cognitive decline of a sitting president
17. Waiting until the primaries have concluded before installing another Dem candidate, bypassing the voters
18. Attempting to enforce a false idea that only white people can be racist.
19. Shoving social engineering and sociopolitical propaganda into the everyday American's faces, including children's shows and movies

App That Tracks ICE Raids Sues U. S., Saying Officials Pressured Apple to Remove It

The developer of ICEBlock, which notifies users of ICE agent sightings, said Attorney General Pam Bondi censored his free speech.

For six months, Apple distributed an app called ICEBlock that allowed users to alert people when they saw Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents. But after the Trump administration complained that the app endangered officers, Apple removed it.

On Monday, the app’s developer, Joshua Aaron, sued top Trump administration officials, accusing them of pressuring Apple to stifle his free speech and his right to create, distribute and promote ICEBlock.

The suit, which was filed in the U. S. District Court for the District of Columbia, claimed that Attorney General Pam Bondi abused the government’s power when the Justice Department contacted Apple and demanded it remove the app, which she said she had done in a statement to Fox News in October. She said that Apple removed the app after her request.

The legal action could reveal more about Apple’s decision making and compliance with edicts from the Trump administration. According to Apple’s own public reports, it has removed apps at the request of authoritarian governments like China and Russia, but not from the U. S. government.

Before GAG trashes my question as fake... this is about our food industry...

Understand my perspective. Epstein files release sets a few people free whom were enslaved by a rich man and abused, against the law I assume.

But our food industry creates and markets all sorts of garbage chemical junk foods, processed seed oils, 15,000 chemicals some of which will cause problems, high fructose corn sugars, hydrogenated oils, natural and artifical flavors an foods dies, GMO's... the list goes on. This is the stuff that makes us sick, but they are addicted to it at a young age and in our culture.

It is promoted, it is understood by officials and medical community, this is causing high rates of obesity, girls sexually mature sexually now by age 9, etc etc.. Our environment is making us sick, but it is by our choice we ar doing it to ourselves.

China in contrast and Europe to some extent, protects their people from harm, their food quality is superior in many ways. Their junk food is more edible, less sweet, doesn't create the sickness.

This... is child abuse! Do you agree? Or is it just "freedom"...

NYS Republicans file federal lawsuit challenging planned switch to even years for local elections

GOP officials are trying to get federal courts to intervene after a similar lawsuit failed in state courts. Just two weeks ago, New York's top court ruled the law constitutional in a 7-0 decision.

The suit argues moving county, town and other elections to even-numbered years is a violation of candidates' free speech rights. The plaintiffs claim the fact that local candidates will be trying to communicate with voters at the same time as statewide and national candidates amounts to an illegal restriction.

The law "imposes a direct and substantial burden on core political speech and association under the First Amendment - not merely by raising costs, but by degrading visibility, distorting content and increasing bias in the act of voting. This burden cannot be justified by generalized appeals to convenience."

Their other primary claim is that the switch will "exacerbate racially polarized voting" and, therefore, violates federal voting rights laws. The Republicans assert: that "minority-preferred candidates... will face reduced visibility and increased racially polarized voting, resulting in minority voters losing the ability to elect candidates of their choosing."

The Democratic-led State Legislature and Gov. Kathy Hochul, a Democrat, enacted the law making the switch in 2023. Democrats and good-government groups noted voter turnout is always better in even-numbered years, so the law would boost participation. Also, Democrats in New York have higher turnout in even-numbered years.

Republicans opposed, saying local races and candidates would be overlooked by voters. Also, the GOP historically had seen better turnout numbers than their rivals in odd-numbered years.

My take: If you can get FOX & MSNBC to agree in solidarity, then you MUST be wrong Pete.

Secretary of War Pete Hegseth has imposed new restrictive conditions on media access to the Pentagon, requiring reporters to commit to not acquiring or using any unauthorized information, whether classified or unclassified. Journalists must sign an agreement to this effect or risk losing their press credentials and physical access to the Pentagon. This policy also restricts reporters' movements within the Pentagon, banning access to large areas without official escorts and relocating dedicated workspace for news organizations to undisclosed locations, making it harder for reporters to interact with military personnel. Hegseth's policy demands that any information reported must be preauthorized for release by Pentagon officials, effectively granting the Pentagon editorial control over what journalists can publish. This move has been widely criticized by the Pentagon Press Association and major news outlets—including ABC, CBS, CNN, NBC, Fox News, The New York Times, and many others—who see it as a violation of First Amendment rights and an unprecedented attack on press freedom. Almost all media organizations have refused to sign the new rules, and many reporters have turned in their Pentagon press passes in protest.Hegseth defends the restrictions as common-sense measures to safeguard classified information and maintain order, but critics argue this escalates censorship and stifles transparency regarding military affairs. The policy also moves the Pentagon press corps toward an unprecedented absence of mainstream news coverage inside the Pentagon, breaking a tradition that had lasted since the Eisenhower era. Only one right-wing outlet, One America News, has agreed to the new conditions, while nearly all others stand in solidarity against them