What is wrong with this country? Has America lost its mind?

[DexWest]

The United States, once a beacon of order, now seems to tolerate chaos in the name of protest. When did rioting become accepted? It erodes the very foundation of our society, built on laws and mutual respect. The Constitution, our guiding document, appears applied selectively, only when it suits certain narratives, ignoring its clear boundaries.
The 1st Amendment states: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” This protects peaceful assembly and the right to seek redress from government. It DOES NOT permit attacks on federal law enforcement or selective obedience to laws under the guise of social protest. States cannot neglect their duties to citizens simply because they dislike election results. Such actions betray the people’s trust.
The Constitution designates the courts as the arena for resolving disputes, not the streets. As Alexander Hamilton argued in Federalist No. 78, the judiciary’s independence ensures impartial administration of laws, acting as a barrier against encroachments by other branches. Protests MUST remain peaceful; they CANNOT trample the rights of fellow Americans who hold differing views.
This nation is a republic, not a pure democracy, as Madison stated in Federalist No. 10. He distinguished a republic, where representatives govern over a large sphere, from a democracy prone to factions and instability. Our system curbs majority tyranny through elected delegates. We stand united under Red, White, and Blue, symbols of our shared heritage.
Finally, federal law holds supremacy over states, per Article VI: “This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States… shall be the Supreme Law of the Land.” ICE raids, enforcing federal immigration laws, do not violate this framework. States must uphold their obligations.

[MrOracle]

The "protesters" are just useful idiots, being controlled and directed and paid for by the elites. They've been thoroughly indoctrinated, having been told that "silence is violence" and that "violence against perceived wrongs is fully justified" and ideas such as that.

No one has a problem if you want to protest, chant, or carry a sign. But that's not what's happening, and hasn't been what's been happening for a long time.

Remember this?

These "protesters" were throwing bricks, turning over cars, looting businesses, and even barricaded the doors of an occupied police station and tried to set the building on fire. Exactly NONE of that is legal or in any way protected by the constitution - it's wanton violence and destruction and theft.

On the very rare occasion that the Right does even a small percentage of this, the left loses their minds and calls it an Insurrection and puts people in jail for years just for being associated with people who did such acts. But when the left does it? DAs in these blue cities refuse to prosecute and they're back out on the streets within an hour.

The good news is that we no longer have to depend on the city or state DAs to do their job - these people are now facing FEDERAL charges, and will be put in front of a REAL judge to face those charges. It's going to be a big wake-up call for a lot of people who are used to getting away with it.

But, again, the ones facing those charges are largely just the useful idiots. The ones directing this action, and the ones funding it, are remaining at a distance. The useful idiots get paid to protest, are provided signs, food, water, and transportation (the same protesters get bussed all over the country - many have been identified from protests in Seattle and Portland), and they're the ones committing the crimes and putting people, including themselves, at risk. The elites just direct them, often using mis-appropriated taxpayer funds, and when they can't do that, they have people like Soros to fund them.

For the last 25 years or more, the law simply didn't apply to the leftist protesters. The media was fully controlled and dictated the narrative, the "justice system" in these states were fully co-opted and made sure that "their" people didn't get prosecuted, and so there were simply no consequences - and so it shouldn't shock anyone that the violence and crime grew steadily worse. We're finally dealing with all that properly, but this is just the beginning and there's a long way to go. It will get worse before it gets better.

[WindAtMyBack]

We made it through the 60s and early 70s, which was more chaotic than what's going on today. So...

I always thought that back-to-back Ford and Carter was just what the country needed then. That's because neither one did much of anything, which means they didn't do much controversial. It had a calming influence.

[msmissydc]

Actually america was known as the land of the free once and now its widely known as a dictatorship. Protests are just a form of freedom of speech that some people are so extremly proud of but the current president tried to shut protests down with the military. They shot the press! They kill people on streets. Thats as free as late 1920 germany.

[888theGreat]

correct

[Amy10223]

A agree. It lost its mind in November, last year ti be exact.

[Amy10223]

* To be exact. And--to add to my answer, I have to say that the rioting is a symptom of very unhappy people. Those who protest have a reason to do so--and I totally agree and partake in protests myself. Violence has been a part of American history, and thankfully before the protests of these times, nothing has ever happened before the Trump administration took office and he began his violence through ICR+E agents who are something like a Gestapo or Nazi group, who take people by force and do not allow them to protect themselves. This kind of violence has never been witnessed in the country before.

Riots themselves of course were more common, ie; In the 1960's when Blacks were finally allowed to attend schools with other Whites, the white communities were not thrilled. The massacre of Tulsa, Oklahoma in the 1920's lasted 18 hours and killed Blacks and ruined their businesses and homes. The Klu Klux Klan has been around for ages and they commit their own violence. Nationalist White groups do the same. SO--it's not a question of America losing its mind. It has already been violent before--and the orange leader who acts like a dictator has managed to bring in more protests because the people are fed up. I am waiting for a revolution.

[Lliam]

I guess you don't recall the civil rights protests against (legal) segregation laws in the 1950s, 60s and '70s that succeeded in changing the law.

In regards to protests against ICE, this country never had a nationalized paramilitary force before. It skirts the posse comitatus law against using military against U. S. citizens.

Since 2002, we have had to put up with TSA. And electronic surveillance has become more and more pervasive, monitoring our movements and personal correspondence.

With access to information via internet, people have woken up to the fact that they can't trust the government. It tells nothing but lies. And corporate media, including on-line platforms like Facebook, Instagram, Google and YouTube lie and hide factual information. Just look at how they promoted one, unified narrative about covid and how they portray Israel/Palestine, Syria, and the Ukraine conflict.

So, the people are right not to trust government and to exercise their first amendment rights.
Ironically, many people who support an increasingly authoritarian government ask why the German people went along with Nazism.

Our rights are under attack. Our government is controlled by corporations, billionaires, and foreign influences (Israel). It does not represent the will of The People.

Our founding fathers said it is the duty of The People to protest against injustice, protect their constitutional rights, and keep the government honest.

I have always been a strong advocate of liberty, freedom of speech, and the right to protest. I am also very concerned about a nationalized paramilitary force operating with impunity inside the USA.

[DexWest]

Did ice become part of the military? If so, I missed that memo.

Also, let’s agree with 2 principles.
1. The legislature creates the laws.
2. the president is charged with enforcing the laws.

Now, who among the city, county, state, or federal government entities is responsible for the presidential directives to execute the laws passed by the legislature?

Can a county sheriff execute federal law?

[888theGreat]

Our founders wanted states to have rights. not an over active , inflated Federal Gov't

[888theGreat]

If not , there would be no state offices.

[Lliam]

@dexwest. A county sheriff's job is to uphold the Constitution, not federal laws. Federal laws are often unconstitutional. That's why people should vote for "constitutional sheriffs" to protect their rights and safety.

@888theGreat is right about our Founders who didn't belief in a standing army and certainly not an occupying national paramilitary force.

[DexWest]

@Lliam

The claim that a sheriff’s primary job is to uphold the Constitution instead of federal laws ignores the Constitution’s structure. Article VI, Clause 2—the Supremacy Clause—explicitly states: “This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof… shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.” This means valid federal laws (those enacted under Congress’s constitutional authority) are binding on all state and local officials, including sheriffs. Sheriffs, as law enforcement officers, swear an oath to support the Constitution (as do federal officials), but this does not empower them to ignore federal laws. Instead, they are “incorporated into the operations of the national government” to enforce federal laws within their jurisdictions, as Alexander Hamilton explained in Federalist No. 27: “Thus the legislatures, courts, and magistrates, of the respective members, will be incorporated into the operations of the national government AS FAR AS ITS JUST AND CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY EXTENDS; and will be rendered auxiliary to the enforcement of its laws.”
The idea that sheriffs can nullify federal laws they view as unconstitutional has no basis in the Constitution, which doesn’t even mention sheriffs. Legal scholars and courts have consistently rejected this as a misinterpretation, noting that determining a law’s constitutionality is the role of the judiciary (established in cases like Marbury v. Madison, 1803), not individual law enforcement officers. Sheriffs are not “supreme” authorities; they operate under state constitutions and statutes, which themselves are subordinate to federal law under the Supremacy Clause. Refusing to enforce federal laws could amount to dereliction of duty or even obstruction, undermining the rule of law rather than protecting rights.

[DexWest]

@Lliam: The assertion that federal laws are frequently unconstitutional is a subjective opinion, but it doesn’t justify sheriffs acting as unilateral judges. The “constitutional sheriffs” movement promoted by groups like the Constitutional Sheriffs and Peace Officers Association (CSPOA) argues that sheriffs outrank federal and state authorities in interpreting the Constitution, answerable only to voters. This is a fringe theory with roots in anti-government ideologies like Posse Comitatus and sovereign citizen movements, not the Constitution itself. Critics, including the Anti-Defamation League and legal experts, describe it as extremist because it encourages sheriffs to selectively ignore laws on issues like gun control, immigration, or public health, potentially leading to arbitrary enforcement, voter intimidation, or threats to democracy.
The Federalist Papers emphasize a balanced federal system where powers are divided to prevent such unchecked authority. In Federalist No. 45, James Madison clarified: “The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite.” This division ensures federal authority in areas like interstate commerce or national defense, while states handle local matters, but always under the Supremacy Clause. Voting for sheriffs who pledge to nullify federal laws doesn’t “protect rights and safety”; it risks chaos, as sheriffs aren’t trained or authorized as constitutional arbiters. If a law is truly unconstitutional, the remedy is through courts or elections, not local vetoes.

[DexWest]

@Lliam: The claim that the Founders rejected standing armies or any “occupying national paramilitary force” oversimplifies their nuanced position. The Founders were indeed wary of standing armies, influenced by British abuses like the Quartering Acts and Boston Massacre. Anti-Federalists feared they could lead to tyranny, as Hamilton acknowledged in Federalist No. 8: “Standing armies… are not provided against in the new Constitution; and it is therefore inferred that they may exist under it.” He warned that without a strong union, disunited states would inevitably create their own standing armies, leading to “engines of despotism”: “The violent destruction of life and property incident to war… will compel nations the most attached to liberty to resort for repose and security to institutions which have a tendency to destroy their civil and political rights.”

[DexWest]

@Lliam: However, the Constitution explicitly empowers Congress “To raise and support Armies” (Article I, Section 8), with a check: no appropriation for armies can exceed two years, preventing indefinite funding. The Federalists defended this as necessary for national security, rejecting blanket prohibitions on peacetime armies. In Federalist No. 24, Hamilton argued against such restrictions: “It is not said, that standing armies SHALL NOT BE kept up, but that they OUGHT NOT to be kept up, in time of peace.” He noted that most state constitutions didn’t ban them, and a federal army under civilian control (with legislative oversight) was preferable to state militias or foreign alliances. Madison echoed this in Federalist No. 46, assuring that state militias and popular resistance would counter any federal overreach.
The assertion’s reference to an “occupying national paramilitary force”, I’m assuming, alludes to modern federal agencies (e. g., FBI or ATF), but the Founders envisioned a federal government with enforcement powers, including military if needed to suppress insurrections (Article I, Section 8). Hamilton in Federalist No. 27 argued that a strong union would reduce the need for force by integrating state officials into federal enforcement, fostering “a regular and peaceable execution of the laws.”  This contradicts the idea of the federal government as an inherent “occupier.”

[Lliam]

@dexwest. You have never experienced freedom. You have no idea what it felt like before 2002 when there was a successful coup d'etat against the Constitution that has been reinforced by every successive administration.
It seems normal to you and you defend it.
The UNITED STATES OF AMERICA CORPORATION of WASHINGTON DC continues to usurp the original Constitutional United States of America and solidify dictatorial control over people who are now considered corporate property, not sovereign citizens.

Oh, but it's for our own security and welfare.

[DexWest]

@Lliam: Ah, the Sovereign Citizen Movement. That glorious beacon of enlightenment for those who’ve watched one too many YouTube videos on “common law” and decided that reality is just a suggestion. Picture this: a world where you can declare yourself a “free man on the land,” scribble some nonsense on a napkin, and poof! No more taxes, no more driver’s licenses, no more pesky laws cramping your style. It’s like Dungeons & Dragons, but instead of rolling dice for initiative, you’re rolling up to court with a stack of affidavits claiming the judge is a maritime admiral. Spoiler: It never ends well, but oh, the entertainment value!

But wait, there’s more! These intrepid freedom fighters have mastered the art of pseudo-legal gibberish. They’ll file “notices of understanding and intent” that read like a drunk lawyer’s fever dream, demanding gold-fringed flags be removed from courtrooms because, obviously, that’s admiralty law, and we’re all ships at sea. Imagine showing up to pay a parking fine with a “bill of exchange” drawn on your imaginary treasury account. The clerk’s face? Priceless. It’s like trying to buy groceries with Monopoly money and then suing the cashier for treason when they laugh.
Of course, the real hilarity ensues when sovereign logic meets the real world. Remember that guy who “revoked” his citizenship and then wondered why he couldn’t get a passport? Or the ones who “travel” (not “drive,” mind you) without plates and end up with their “vessel” impounded? It’s a movement built on cherry-picked history, conspiracy theories, and a profound misunderstanding of how society works. If only we could all just “declare” our way out of responsibilities. I’d sovereign-citizen my way out of doing laundry forever.

[DexWest]

@Lliam: In conclusion, dear sovereigns, keep fighting the good fight against those tyrannical stop signs and income taxes. The rest of us will be over here, popcorn in hand, watching your YouTube meltdowns. Because nothing says “freedom” like turning a routine traffic stop into a sovereign standoff that lands you in actual jail. Bravo! If only the Founding Fathers had known about the power of quotation marks and red ink. We could’ve skipped the whole Revolution thing.

[Lliam]

@dexwest. You have no idea what I'm talking about, do you. You have no point of reference.

You are apparently fully indoctrinated to the point of mocking liberty and defending authoritarianism like strident Hitler youth or a believers in Mao's Great Leap Forward.

Who knows, maybe you will read some history one day that sheds light on who really runs things.

[BonzoInBitburg]

There is so much internal fighting in the US right now, no nation needs to declare war against the US because the US is destroying itself. The country's problems are either Biden's fault or MAGA's fault and nobody seems interested in having a civil conversation or taking responsibility. Because of all the shouting and name calling back and forth, nobody can see the bigger problems. In 2025, more LEGAL residents left than LEGALLY immigrated to the US, meaning the US is no longer a preferred place to live. The new $100k fee for HB1 visas means tech companies are expanding elsewhere bringing high paying jobs to other countries. Trump's threats around the globe and to businesses in the US and internationally haven't caused companies to invest in the US, they've forced companies and countries to go to their Plan B. I would consider Israel a friend of the US because the US bombs Israel's enemies but you'd be hard pressed to name another country that is a friend of the US.

There should be concern with the amount of people leaving that the US. The US is on the verge of population decline, and there's speculation that 2025 could be the first year of actual decline. What that means is less taxpayers and higher deficits (Dec 2025 was the highest monthly deficit on record). Clearly the bloom is off the rose when people don't want to immigrate to the US.

[Amy10223]

I agree with all you said, but the violence happening today in the streets is NOT Biden's fault--I repeat it is NOT Biden's fault. It is all due to the racist, unresaonable behavior and mental health of our orange leader.

[FunkyMonkee]

When democrats took over the country 38 years ago!! Yeah, I know, the Bushes were "republicans"! BULLSHIT!! They were both RINO's!!! They wanted to destroy the country just as much as the Clintons, Barry Soetoro, Biden, Skamala, Walz, Fry, Pelosi, Mad Maxine, Rachel Madcow, AOC, Schumer, Schiff and any other loony lefty!!!

[Miristheiss]

Keep in mind PROTEST... LEGAL PROTEST is peaceful.

The law does not protect LAW BREAKING.

We have been seeing LAW BREAKING... NOT LEGAL PROTEST.

[exitseven]

Almost half the country has gone crazy. There really are a lot if nutjobs

[Mike_Hum]

Chaos is the democrat’s way of punishing average people for voting for Trump.

[888theGreat]

Chaos created by Trump to get more power over the States

[Mike_Hum]

@888theGreat It’s not Trump letting in 10 million illegals and interfering with law enforcement, dummy.

[noohair]

Thank you, good job...

[BananaSeller]

i guess it is