All aktivitet

https://x.com/clashreport/status/2052518691518972058 ... sa han "out of the Strait of Hormuz"...? Alle ler hysterisk over dette, både venn og fiende. Dette er sinnssyk.

Vi ønsker dere alle sammen en fin og god natt.🥱🥱💤💤😴😴

Vi ønsker dere alle sammen en god og fin natt.🥱🥱💤💤😴😴

🧝‍♂️🧝‍♀️

Har du flatbrød??

Tiger på både Ciaran & Ciara, siden vi må velge en. Men vi digger både løve og tiger.🦁🦁🐯🐯🥰🥰 Ulv eller Gaupe??

Opinion | John Roberts Believes in an America That Doesn’t Exist - The New York Times John Roberts and his conservative buddies are living in a fantasy world: NYT analysis - Alternet.org In his New York Times opinion column, Jamelle Bouie argues that Chief Justice John Roberts and the conservative Supreme Court majority operate under a fundamental misunderstanding of American reality, pursuing a "colorblind Constitution" that ignores the nation's persistent racial inequalities. Bouie traces the history of the Voting Rights Act since its 1965 passage, when President Lyndon Johnson called it "a triumph for freedom as huge as any victory that has ever been won on any battlefield." The landmark legislation transformed Black political participation, particularly after a 1982 amendment and a 1986 Supreme Court decision enabled the creation of majority-minority districts. By 1995, there were 43 Black voting members of Congress—a dramatic increase from just six in 1965. However, Bouie contends that the Roberts court has systematically dismantled these protections through a series of decisions beginning with Shelby County v. Holder in 2013, culminating in last week's Louisiana v. Callais decision. In Louisiana v. Callais, the court permitted Republican-led Southern states to dismantle majority-minority legislative districts by allowing partisan gerrymandering as a legitimate state objective. Bouie argues this represents a perversion of the 14th and 15th Amendments, which were ratified specifically to end Black subordination and ensure representation. Instead, the court has weaponized these same amendments against minority interests under the guise of colorblindness. The columnist criticizes what he calls the "racial entitlement" framing adopted by conservative justices, arguing that colorblind constitutional interpretation fundamentally cannot address group inequality in a nation defined by centuries of racial subordination. A constitution that refuses to "see color" becomes, paradoxically, a tool for perpetuating the very discrimination it was meant to remedy. Bouie invokes historical warnings from Frederick Douglass and Justice Thurgood Marshall, both of whom cautioned against courts that manipulate constitutional doctrine to enable racial discrimination. He suggests the current court is guilty of precisely this offense—using neutral language to achieve discriminatory outcomes. The immediate consequences are already materializing. Louisiana, Alabama, Tennessee and Mississippi are planning special legislative sessions to erase majority-minority districts in their states, potentially triggering the largest reduction in Black political representation since Reconstruction. Bouie concludes with a call for action beyond the courts themselves. He argues that Americans must reclaim constitutional interpretation as a democratic enterprise rather than ceding it entirely to judicial authority. Court reform through congressional action, combined with renewed public engagement in constitutional meaning-making, represents the only viable path forward. The column's central thesis—that Roberts "believes in an America that doesn't exist"—reflects Bouie's argument that the chief justice operates from a fictional premise of racial neutrality that ignores observable American reality, where racial polarization remains endemic and historical discrimination continues shaping political landscapes. Det er voksende fordømmelse som garantert kommer til å styrke seg ganske snart. Alle ser nå at det er rasister som styrer i USA, og dette har blitt for tydelig til dette kan ignoreres. Roberts trodd ikke feilaktig, han vet det var en løgn som han hadde brukt som et våpen for å ØDELEGGE Rekonstruksjonen - det vil ikke være overraskende om 1965-vedtaket om å forby rasedeling av immigrasjon inn til USA har blitt gjenskapt av Trumpregimet, og Roberts vil helt sikkert velsigne dette som "fargeløs" og "rasenøytralt". Og faktumet om det var en svart mann som i praksis har gjenreist Jim Crow-tilstanden og sørge for at de fargede i sørstatene vil ikke lenge kunne bruke deres stemmerett - Clarence Thomas som kom fra delstaten Georgia - gjør det mye mer oppbrakt enn hvis det bare var hvite "konservative" med skjulte rasistiske holdninger. Han er gal. Det er mye som tyder på at han lide av seriøs identitetsforvirring fordi han er giftet med en hvit kvinne, er sterkt troende og hadde blitt "oppdratt" i liberalistisk ideologi - som i slutten gjør at han bli den meste antiliberale dommeren i USAs historie. Han ønske total frislipp og religiøs ensretting som "Allahs vilje skje" i kristen omfatting. Er helt sikkert på at hans bestefar Myers Anderson på morsiden ville ha drept ham på flekken fordi han mente oppriktig at rasesegregasjon strider mot Guds bud og var en nærmest fanatisk tilhenger av de fargedes rett til å velge representanter, spesielt på det føderale feltet. The Injustices of Mr Justice Clarence Thomas - LA Progressive Som denne artikkelen forklarer; han tror rettighetene er gudgitt og at USA er et kristent land. If Rights Are “God-Given,” God May Take Them Back It's hard to know where to begin in debunking Thomas' fake history. But a good place to start is the myth that Thomas has been peddling since he joined the Court: that our rights come from God and that the United States is a Christian nation. In “The Bill of Rights, Thomas Jefferson, and the Danger of 'God-given Rights',” Andrew L. Seidel spells out why “premising our rights on some supernatural benevolence is dangerous.” Siedel, a constitutional attorney and Director of Strategic Response at the Freedom From Religion Foundation, explains that the danger of so-called “God-given rights” is that, as history has shown us, “what is given by a god can be taken away by those who speak with or for that god. Slavery was God’s will, until it wasn’t. Segregation and anti-miscegenation laws were meant to keep the races separate, as God intended. The opposition to same-sex marriage was largely based in religion: ‘God made Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve.’” He points out that “human rights are absolute and universal; not susceptible to religious whim and fancy. Simply by virtue of being human — just because you were born — you have certain inherent, inalienable rights.” It is true that the Declaration of Independence states that the people are “endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” But Siedel points out that in his draft Thomas Jefferson did not cite god as the source of our rights and that the phrase “endowed by their Creator” was added later by either Ben Franklin or John Adams. Elsewhere in the Declaration, Jefferson rejected the idea of God-given rights, as he had consistently done before and after writing the Declaration: In 1774, in “A Summary View of the Rights of British America,” Jefferson published a precursor to the list of Grievances in the Declaration. He wrote the list “with that freedom of language and sentiment which becomes a free people claiming their rights, as derived from the laws of nature, and not as the gift of their chief magistrate.” And as secretary of state, in 1793, in an “Opinion on the French Treaties,” Jefferson wrote that “Questions of natural right are triable by their conformity with the moral sense & reason of man.” He added that “the mass of mankind has not been born with saddles on their backs, nor a favored few booted and spurred, ready to ride them legitimately, by the grace of god.” But however one interprets the Declaration, it was succeeded by the US Constitution. Our Constitution is the binding legal document outlining the actual plan for the federal government. This is the document to which “all federal and state officials, including members of Congress, executive/judicial officers, and state legislators, take an oath to support” (Article VI). The President, Vice President, military personnel, and attorneys all swear to defend the Constitution. And it is a godless Constitution. Instead of claiming our rights are derived from God, it identifies the creators of the Constitution as “We the People.” To remove any doubt, the Constitution expressly bans religious tests for public office (Article VI, Clause 3). And when the Constitution was amended to add the Bill of Rights - to assuage concerns that the new federal government might violate the people’s rights - the very first words of the First Amendment state that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” Consequently, it is clear that Thomas is flat wrong in claiming that our rights are God-given or that the United States is a Christian nation. Thomas Is "As Ill Informed As He Is Mean-spirited." In an article in The New Republic, entitled "Clarence Thomas Can’t Get American History Right," Matt Ford argues that Thomas is "as ill informed as he is mean-spirited." Ford agrees with Reich that “the Progressive era emerged in the 1890s from the corruption and excesses of the Gilded Age. A broad range of activists, journalists, legislators, and judges challenged the societal ills that had emerged from the nation’s rapid industrialization.” “Good-government activists like Robert LaFollette and Lincoln Steffens exposed local corruption and promoted the secret ballot and primary elections. Ida Tarbell, William Hard, and other muckrakers exposed the oligarchical abuses of monopolies like Standard Oil and U.S. Steel. Trustbusters ranged from Louis Brandeis and William Jennings Bryan to William Howard Taft.” Arrayed against them were “corrupt party machines in the big cities and corporate tycoons that had concentrated wealth in the form of trusts and monopolies.”Not only is Thomas’s study of history deeply flawed; so are his ethics. Ford was astonished that Thomas had the audacity to castigate others for “fall[ing] prey to the enchanting siren songs of flattery” and being “enticed by access to things that were previously unavailable to them” once they arrived in DC, when Thomas himself praised his own generous benefactors: “My wife Virginia and I have many wonderful friends and acquaintances here, and it is so special to have our dear friends Harlan and Kathy Crow join us today,” Thomas fawningly told his audience at the start of his speech. The Crows, as Ford points out, are "the GOP megadonor who spent the last 20 years gracing Thomas with fancy vacations, personal gifts, and other forms of largesse that went unreported on public-disclosure forms.” Among the gifts were “luxury yacht trips, more than $100,000 for a portrait of Thomas at Yale Law School, starting funds for Ginni Thomas’s political organization, and much more." Ford adds, "No wonder the justice prefers the Gilded Age." Not everything Thomas said was false. He did call on Americans to stand up for their “principles” to preserve the nation's democracy. “In my view, we must find in ourselves that same level of courage that the signers of the Declaration have so that we can do for our future what they did for theirs,” he said. Ett er sikkert; Thomas vil bli de amerikanske fargedes Quisling.

Eventyr

Vi innrømmer at vi er snackssyke.😋😋

Bibliotek

148 604

Vi Er 100% Enige.❤️❤️❤️❤️ ❤️❤️❤️❤️.eginE %001 rE iV

Det har vi nesten Skal du sove nå??

Vi tar patent på tv og radio som ikke virker.

75192 er nede på havnen, for vi sover på dagtid.

Vi sier god helg.

Det vet vi ikke ennå @frohmage. Vi må pent vente til rettssaken er over, og dommen foreligger. (Hans siste sprell har kun handlet om forhold i varetekt. Ikke i fengsel. Han har ennå ikke fått noen dom, og sånn sett ikke begynt sin soning.)

Herregud.

Banner 75192 for å innrømme at han køddet med meg i spoiler.

Ylva - Lover

Hva er dommen?

Pluribus er langt over kanten. Den er sær, den er langtekkelig, den egen. Veldig mange synes den er gørrkjedelig. Likevel kaster Apple penger etter Gilligan. Tror det ville vært en perfekt arena for Hannibal, som er på sitt beste når den gir pokker i alle seriekonvensjoner og bare gjør sin egen sære homoerotiske kannibalkunst greie.

1. Nei jeg er ikke en av de. (Eller, jeg blir ikke lei meg om korset i flagget blir fjernet, men jeg ville heller ikke ha fremlagt det som en sak til politisk vurdering som nevnt). Jeg lever helt greit med det norske flagget slik det er. Jeg bryr meg egentlig ikke så mye om flagg av den ene eller andre typen. Det jeg reagerer på er den ekstreme motstanden enkelte (og da spesielt folk i religiøse miljøer i bibelbeltet har mot regnbueflagg, som om selve flagget skulle være farlig. 2. Jeg syns at hovedregnbueflagget er inkluderende nok (og jeg har ikke oversikt over alle flaggene heller). Men det er kanskje noen som vil ha et flagg som er mer spesifikt rettet mot sin gruppe, jeg ser ikke noe i veien for at de kan ha det. Ellers så mener jeg ikke at det skal være noen "flaggtvang", at offentlige bygg og organisasjoner osv skal måtte flagge med regnbueflagget. Det får være opp til den enkelte privatperson, bedrift, organisasjon, kommune, skole osv. Men det blir faktisk veldig feil at det blir som i denne saken om hotellet "The thief", at noen skal kreve å få flagget fjernet for at de skal bo på hotellet. Det er bedriftseier som må bestemme hvordan hen vil presentere sin egen virksomhet. Er det ikke bra nok, så får de heller finne et annet sted å overnatte. 3. Det samme kan man si om andre flagg som brukes i Norge, som sameflagget og kvenflagget, er ikke det norske flagget bra nok / inkluderende nok? Sånn sett så kan man vel si at det er sånn at ikke alle føler seg inkludert av det norske flagget, men at heller ikke alle føler seg inkludert av regnbueflagget. Det vil nok alltid være noen som føler seg utenfor, samme hvor inkluderende man forsøker å være. Men man bør iallefall forsøke, særlig å inkludere grupper som historisk og i nåtid har hatt det tøffere bare pga hvem de er.