Monday, September 11, 2023

On the New Mexico Gun-Grab FAIL...

New Mexico's citizens "Bartleby" the Governor's order with an "I'd prefer NOT to" noncompliance.

Kerry Pickett, "New Mexico governor’s suspension of gun rights draws fire from police, Dems, gun control advocates"
Within hours of New Mexico Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham’s emergency order suspending the right to carry firearms in Albuquerque and the surrounding Bernalillo County, a federal lawsuit to block the ban was filed, state lawmakers called for her impeachment and even gun control activists rebuked her for violating the U.S. Constitution.

The governor made the bold move to suspend gun rights for 30 days in response to a wave of deadly shootings in the Albuquerque area, calling it a public health emergency.

The order applies to open and concealed carry of firearms in most public places, ranging from city sidewalks to urban recreational parks. The state has a long history of allowing open carry of handguns in most public settings.

The National Association for Gun Rights and Foster Haines, a member who lives in Albuquerque, sued the governor in U.S. District Court in New Mexico and sought an immediate injunction against implementing her Friday order.
 
In a social media post, the gun group accused Ms. Lujan Grisham of a “tyrannical executive order banning firearm carry." 
The order by Ms. Lujan Grisham, a Democrat, also was criticized by New Mexico law enforcement, a liberal Democratic congressman and a prominent gun control activist.
“I support gun safety laws. However, this order from the Governor of New Mexico violates the U.S. Constitution. No state in the union can suspend the federal Constitution,” Rep. Ted Lieu, California Democrat said on X.

David Hogg, who as a student survived the deadly shooting at Florida’s Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School and went on to become a leader of the gun control movement, said Ms. Lujan Grisham had crossed the line.

“I support gun safety but there is no such thing as a state public health emergency exception to the U.S. Constitution,” he wrote on X.


New Mexico lawmakers accused Ms. Lujan Grisham of trampling on citizens’ rights and said she should be removed from office.

“Public health order for gun control? Stand strong, Bernalillo County! Stand up, New Mexico! We are not the criminals. Our rights are being trampled upon,” said state Sen. Greg Baca, the top Republican in the chamber.

State Reps. Stefani Lord and John Block went further, calling for the impeachment of the governor.

“This is an abhorrent attempt at imposing a radical progressive agenda on an unwilling populous, Ms. Lord said in a statement.


When announcing the emergency order, Ms. Lujan Grisham insisted it was not unconstitutional and was allowed under an “exception” to the Constitution’s guarantee of the right to bear arms.

“If there’s an emergency and I’ve declared an emergency for a temporary amount of time, I can invoke additional powers,” she said. “No constitutional right, in my view, including my oath, is intended to be absolute. There are restrictions on free speech. There are restrictions on my freedoms.”


Ms. Lujan Grisham argued that the violent crime wave has left parents who have lost children and that they deserve her attention and have the debate about suspending guns during an emergency.

“We can create a safer environment. Because what about their constitutional rights?”

When a reporter asked if there are already laws on the books against crime, she responded: “If I’m unsafe, who’s standing up for that right? If this climate is so out of control, somebody should do something.”

In response to the suspension order, the New Mexico Shooting Sports Association declared on social media: “We will not comply.”

“The NM Bill of Rights guarantees the right to keep and bear arms for security, defense, and all other lawful purposes,” the group said. “Under the New Mexico Civil Rights Act, signed by Lujan Grisham, a person whose rights are violated may sue to recover for damages and obtain injunctive relief.”

Under the act, damages of up to $2 million per person can be awarded.

Elon Musk, the tech billionaire and owner of X, chimed in on his social media platform: “At risk of stating what should be obvious, deliberately violating the Constitution is next-level illegal. How soon can this person be removed from office?”

Ms. Lujan Grisham based the public health emergency on violent crime rates spiking in metropolitan Albuquerque. Police and licensed security guards are exempt from the temporary ban on concealed or open carry of firearms.

Under the order, residents may still transport their firearms to some private sites, such as a gun range or gun store, provided the firearm has a trigger lock or some other container or mechanism making it impossible to discharge.

Ms. Lujan Grisham said she expected legal challenges to her order but decided to go forward with it because of the spate of shootings, including a recent shooting that resulted in the death of an 11-year-old boy outside a minor league baseball stadium.

She said state police would be responsible for enforcing the monthlong order for what amounts to civil penalties and a fine of up to $5,000.

Other gun control advocates lauded her aggressive move to curb the violence.

“If it saves one life, then it’s worth doing,” said Miranda Viscoli, co-president of New Mexicans to Prevent Gun Violence.

The Washington Times reached out to other gun control organizations for comment, including Brady United and Everytown, but did not hear back.

New Mexico law enforcement officials also were at odds with Ms. Lujan Grisham.

Albuquerque Police Chief Harold Medina said he would not enforce it, and Bernalillo County Sheriff John Allen said he is apprehensive because there are too many constitutional issues surrounding the emergency order.

“While I understand and appreciate the urgency, the temporary ban challenges the foundation of our constitution, which I swore an oath to uphold,” Mr. Allen said in a statement Friday. “I am wary of placing my deputies in positions that could lead to civil liability conflicts, as well as the potential risks posed by prohibiting law-abiding citizens from their constitutional right to self-defense.”

Albuquerque Mayor Tim Keller, a Democrat, distanced himself from the governor. He said on X that the Albuquerque Police Department would not be responsible for enforcing the order.

Ms. Lujan Grisham conceded that her emergency order was not popular.

“I welcome the debate and fight about how to make New Mexicans safer,” she said at a news conference where she was flanked by law enforcement officials, including the Albuquerque district attorney.

If I were a NM conceal-carry permit holder or just an open carry citizen, I'd strap on my guns and drive to Albuquerque to collect on my $2m "Government Stupidity Bonus". 

83 comments:

  1. Once again the "Militia Amendment" contributes to lethal crimes.

    The 2nd was adopted before the US had a standing army. Once that was established militias were primarily used to track down escaped slaves and to kill Native Americans.

    And for a Civil War against the United States just to preserve slavery.

    No wonder white racists like the Kenosha Killer punk LOVE the 2nd. Now white racists are brainwashed to believe THEY are the "real victims" of racism. They are brainwashed to believe the 2nd allows them to kill Democrats now, as they prepare for more civil war.

    Let's remember this September 11th.

    The white racist neo-Nazis HATE Biden for signing the Fairness for 9/11 Families Act into law.

    https://www.newsweek.com/lawmakers-who-voted-against-money-9-11-victims-families-1748071

    30 Republicans Who Voted Against Money for 9/11 Victims' Families

    Thirty Republicans and one Democrat opposed legislation Friday that provides compensation to the victims of 9/11 and their family members.

    The legislation, the Fairness for 9/11 Families Act, advanced the House in a vote of 400-31, and includes a total of $3 billion to increase compensation for 5,000 victims of 9/11 as well as their spouses and dependents, according to the New York Daily News.

    Jodey Arrington, Texas

    Andy Biggs, Arizona

    Dan Bishop, North Carolina

    Lauren Boebert, Colorado

    Mo Brooks, Alabama

    Ken Buck, Colorado

    Tim Burchett, Tennessee

    Michael Cloud, Texas

    Andrew Clyde, Georgia

    James Comer, Kentucky

    Dan Crenshaw, Texas

    Warren Davidson, Ohio

    Louie Gohmert, Texas

    Mark Green, Tennessee

    Glenn Grothman, Wisconsin

    Andy Harris, Maryland

    Diana Harshbarger, Tennessee

    Jody Hice, Georgia

    Blaine Luetkemeyer, Missouri

    Thomas Massie, Kentucky

    Greg Murphy, North Carolina

    Troy Nehls, Texas

    Ralph Norman, South Carolina

    Bill Posey, Florida

    Tom Rice, South Carolina

    John Rose, Tennessee

    Chip Roy, Texas

    Van Taylor, Texas

    Michael Turner, Ohio

    Daniel Webster, Florida






    ReplyDelete
  2. As for your "standing armies" argument, the Founders never intended that America have standing armies. It leads to the eventual disintegration of the "Cincinnatus Principle" upon which the Society of the Cincinnati were founded (btw- I am NOT a member, I'm more an IORM type guy (not Tammany)).

    ReplyDelete
  3. PS- Enjoy the endless wars gifted to you by standing armies.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Wars are started by politicians, not armies.

    If not for a standing army the King would have reclaimed the US in 1812.

    If not for a standing army the Confederacy would have destroyed the US to preserve slavery.

    Like police, they are a necessary evil, to be restrained and scrutinized for abuses.

    This is why we need a literate and informed public, over a brainwashed neo-Nazi cult willing to kill for their Malevolent Messiah.

    ReplyDelete

  5. Wars are started by politicians, not armies. Really? Then please explain the bold part of this text written by Madison...

    Under Article 13 of the Virginia Declaration of Rights he (Madison) wrote:

    That a well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defense of a free state, that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided as dangerous to liberty; and that in all cases the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.


    Some more context.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Today's Ukraine War represents the epitome of Madison's foresight. US and NATO Cold Warriors and members of the Military Industrial Complex have devised themselves a means of retaining their revelance, expanding their ricebowls, and extracting incredible profits.

    ReplyDelete
  7. ...all at the expense of several hundreds of thousands of Ukrainian and Russian patriots, dead.

    ReplyDelete
  8. ps - Wanna know what happens when a war (like the WoT) ends? Millions of soldiers get demobilized and the profits of defense contractors turn negative.

    ReplyDelete
  9. You should read Aristophanes' "Peace".

    You know, edumacate U-self.

    ReplyDelete
  10. There's no question that war is good for business, and the US has had a long history of it.

    Americans not only fell for the WMD and Saddam/al-Qaeda lies of Bush/Cheney, they reelected them after their lies, and torture, were exposed.

    This showed that enough of America was ready for an authoritarian leader. And they (you) found him in Trump.

    The military was following direct orders from men in the oil business. THEY started the war and THEY were politicians.

    Another belligerent politician is the dictator of Russia.

    For some reason you wouldn't name him or assign him ANY responsibility for his territorial expansion and HIS war of aggression. If Putin keeled over, the war would be over.

    Since Trump's cult openly favors Putin over any Democrat, YOU probably admire Putin too much to wish for his demise.

    Da, Tovarisch?





    ReplyDelete
  11. \\Wars are started by politicians, not armies. Really? Then please explain the bold part of this text written by Madison...

    Whatever...

    it is not realistic.

    Well, USA situated in such a place -- that you not need armies... that much.

    But still, and even your Founding Fathers thought so -- you need The Fleet, isn't it?

    But, what the difference??? Between fleet and army, this-vise?




    \\...all at the expense of several hundreds of thousands of Ukrainian and Russian patriots, dead.

    Ah... for give me my lack of knowladge of English.

    Do you call "patriots" those who fight for money?

    I thought they called mercenaries.




    \\Like police, they are a necessary evil, to be restrained and scrutinized for abuses.

    Yeah.

    "Necessary evil" of totalitarism and imperialism. ;-P



    \\This is why we need a literate and informed public, over a brainwashed neo-Nazi cult willing to kill for their Malevolent Messiah.

    Yap.

    Conditioning! That mean in itself.




    \\For some reason you wouldn't name him or assign him ANY responsibility for his territorial expansion and HIS war of aggression.

    Sharks and croks do what sharks and croks do.

    Is it much sense in blaming em??? for what is natural for em?

    Or... that is guilt of those who ALLOWED em...

    and that is -- USA.

    USA under rule of 0-bama The Demn AND Bi-den The Demn.

    THEY ARE ones who let that dogs... dogs of war, out.

    ReplyDelete
  12. \\YOU probably admire Putin too much to wish for his demise.

    And who just today, JUST NOW!

    Working thier butts out to protect liliPut's butt from spanking???

    By NOT providing Abramses and F-16s???

    "By their DEEDS... you will KNOW em" (c)



    \\Da, Tovarisch?

    And they call themself Gospoda/Masters today. ;-P

    ReplyDelete
  13. @Dave, we don't "favor" Putin, we just don't give a sh*t about him.

    @Q

    /But, what the difference??? Between fleet and army, this-vise?

    After the Revolution, America built forts to protect its' harbors. It put its' army inside these forts.

    The first vessels of the new U.S. Navy were launched in 1797; among them were the United States, the Constellation, and the Constitution. In 1825, President John Quincy Adams urged Congress to establish a Naval Academy "for the formation of scientific and accomplished officers." His proposal, however, was not acted upon until 20 years later.

    I guess we didn't plan to "invade" anybody. We were immitating Magnesia, from Plato's "Laws". And our merchant ships were generally "clippers"... capable of out-running the British fleet. They could always be granted letters of marque and become legal pirates.


    /Do you call "patriots" those who fight for money?
    I thought they called mercenaries.


    Fine, they can be both. But they get paid through Ukrainian intermediaries.

    ReplyDelete
  14. So you DON'T blame Putin for doing what he does.

    "Sharks and croks do what sharks and croks do.

    Is it much sense in blaming em??? for what is natural for em?"



    Thank you for stating the reason for having police and a military. Criminals and tyrants. Standing armies were needed to stop Hitler and Japan. Police are needed to remove murderers from society.

    AND why they should be restrained and scrutinized for abuses by governments accountable to voters applying equal justice under the rule of law.



    ReplyDelete
  15. Name the last war that America "won" Dave. We don't win wars. We perpetuate them so that nobody "loses" wars. Think "UNWRA".

    Wanna know the "origin" or your "rule of (international) law"? It can only be "enforced" by "outlaws".

    ReplyDelete
  16. ...because NOBODY is deceived by it. Neither Biden OR Putin.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Anon and Joe,
    OK, you're anarchists who don't want laws.
    You don't want a US Army, but want state militias instead.
    You don't want immigration laws either, I take it?

    ReplyDelete
  18. No, we don't want unenforced immigration laws, either.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Joe,
    You don't want laws and you don't want unenforced immigration laws?
    What DO you want?

    ReplyDelete
  20. You want laws? Then why don't YOU insist that our laws are UNIFORMLY enforced? You want laws for "other people", not YOURselves. That defeats the purpose of law.

    . . . the advent of Law entails a kind of ‘disalienation’: in so far as the Other itself appears submitted to the ‘absolute condition’ of Law, the subject is no more at the mercy of the Other’s whim, its desire is no more totally alienated in the Other’s desire. . . In contrast to the ‘post-structuralist’ notion of a law checking, canalizing, alienating, oppressing ‘Oedipianizing’ some previous ‘flux of desire,’ Law is here conceived as an agency of ‘disalienation’ and ‘liberation’: it opens our access to desire by enabling us to disengage ourselves from the rule of the Other’s whim.
    - Slavoj Zizek, "For They Know Not What They Do"

    ReplyDelete
  21. You are the reason nobody gives a sh*t about the rule of law anymore. You've perverted it to Democrats advantage.

    ReplyDelete
  22. So no, I don't want "laws". I want JUSTICE.

    ReplyDelete
  23. "Then why don't YOU insist that our laws are UNIFORMLY enforced? You want laws for "other people", not YOURselves."

    OK, It's obvious you didn't read what I wrote:

    they should be restrained and scrutinized for abuses by governments accountable to voters, applying equal justice under the rule of law.

    Now please enlighten us on how you obtain "justice" without the equal and fair application of the rule of law?

    Explain why the US doesn't need its Constitution as well, please.

    ReplyDelete
  24. they should be restrained and scrutinized for abuses by governments accountable to voters, applying equal justice under the rule of law.

    You think that the DNC does that? The lovers of Hunter justice?

    The US does need a Constitution. One that distinguishes "Liberty" from "Complete Unrestrained Freedom (aka anarchy). But out laws should only provide a leitmotif for our characters. Not a single ARIA that we all need to sing.

    The Constitution doesn't prescribe "social just-is". It prescribes... We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

    ...not badges and billyclubs for underpaid "world policemen".

    ReplyDelete
  25. OK, Joe. So NOW you WANT laws, and DON'T want laws. Got it.

    ReplyDelete
  26. Laws are not "justice". The legal system does not produce "justice" from "laws". I want people who follow a Kantian deontology that follows categorical imperatives.

    I went to the USMMA. Our honour code stated that "a midshipman shall not lie, cheat, or steal". We were not required, as members of other service Academies to add the "...or tolerate those who do". For those are the "enforcers" of the code. The "policemen" for the authors of the code.

    If there is to be a code, then impose it uniformly. If yoou don't, I don't have to follow it anymore.

    ReplyDelete
  27. ...our motto was "Acta non Verba". Laws are merely "verba". If the two do not match, you are a hypocrite.

    An old Italian saying, "Alexander never did what he said, and Caesar never said what he did." Which are you?

    ReplyDelete
  28. In Plato's "Magnesia" from "The Laws", there were no policemen. Everybody served as his own policeman (and lawyer). There were "laws" that instilled CHARACTER, not not racial/ social privileges.

    ReplyDelete
  29. As such, there were also no "classes" amongst the populace. Only "categories" of citizens and metics. And all metics were on a 10 year work permit.

    ReplyDelete
  30. If there is to be a code, then impose it uniformly. If yoou don't, I don't have to follow it anymore.

    How are enforced "codes" any different from enforced laws?

    If someone gets away with murder then it's OK for you to murder?

    I'm neither Alexander not Caesar. I'm Dave.

    Then there's your hero who says his lies put him above the Constitution.

    Trump declared: “Massive Fraud of this type and magnitude allows for the termination of all rules, regulations, and articles, even those found in the Constitution.”

    When enemies of the Constitution tell you what they are, believe them the first time.

    And by extension you are now allowed to violate the Constitution as well?

    ReplyDelete
  31. I don't believe anything that anyone SAYS. I watch what they do. And what has the Deep State done? Censor me. Shadow ban me. And threaten me with Draconian J6 style punishments.

    Acta non verba, baby. We've read both. And you've come up "hypocrites".

    ReplyDelete
  32. And there he goes, playing the patented Nazi "victim card".

    Oh! The humanity! Poor wittow "victim", like Trump. "WAAAH!!"

    ReplyDelete
  33. It didn't happen? I only "imagined" it? You're not reaaly a prick?

    ReplyDelete
  34. "And threaten me with Draconian J6 style punishments".

    Is this blog shutting down soon? You have a date when you are supposed to report to begin your prison sentence?

    ReplyDelete
  35. I'd like to see where "J6 style punishments" are in the US code.

    Maybe under the "Democrats are Marxist groomers" statute?

    These neo-Nazis can't separate their indoctrinated paranoid ideations from reality. No wonder Trump said, "I love the poorly educated".

    ReplyDelete
  36. ...Especially being a journalist and all.

    I guess he wasn't doing the "left kind of journalism". You know the kind, just making sh*t up.

    ReplyDelete

  37. Right, and Charles Manson didn't kill anybody too.

    FJ thinks death threats are no big deal.

    Prosecutors charged Shroyer because he had previously signed a deferred prosecution agreement after interrupting a congressional hearing in 2019 and had agreed as part of that case not to utter “loud, threatening, or abusive language, or to engage in any disorderly or disruptive conduct, at any place upon the United States Capitol Grounds.”

    “Democrats are posing as communists, but we know what they really are: they’re just tyrants, they’re tyrants,” Shroyer said on a bullhorn as he led a crowd to the Capitol on Jan. 6. “And so today, on January 6, we declare death to tyranny! Death to tyrants!”

    ReplyDelete
  38. Is that an admission that Democrats are tyrants, Dave?

    ReplyDelete
  39. \\/Do you call "patriots" those who fight for money?
    I thought they called mercenaries.

    \\Fine, they can be both. But they get paid through Ukrainian intermediaries.

    Ehm???

    "Russian patriots"???

    Those which die in numbers on the battlefield.

    To whom liliPut declared "go die for me... and I'll serve you a TON of rubles(russian currency... like 1c per 1ruble as of late ;-P)!!!"



    \\Laws are not "justice". The legal system does not produce "justice" from "laws".

    Bingo!


    \\I want people who follow a Kantian deontology that follows categorical imperatives.

    But. That is... that is... unpragmatic.




    \\ Blogger Dave Dubya said...

    \\These neo-Nazis can't separate their indoctrinated paranoid ideations from reality. No wonder Trump said, "I love the poorly educated".

    Do you understand yourself... how feverish this words is?

    Or... you freakingly unable to "separate their indoctrinated paranoid ideations from reality." ;-P




    \\And by extension you are now allowed to violate the Constitution as well?

    And are you?

    Under "code" of Extrime Measures Of Protection of Constitution?



    \\ So you DON'T blame Putin for doing what he does.

    What's the point of BLAMING if you not inclined to PUNISH????

    And Dems playing some strange game of "let's help liliPut to save it's face" -- not be defeated TOO bitterly, though it ALREADY WAS.

    While Reps... well, in a face of Joe here -- declare that they want to postpone duty of "world policeman". But... he frankly looking like not understanding why police needed -- to NOT ALLOW ganging. Because gangs are just too much for individuals or small "neighbour guard" to keep crime out.

    Because he treating as granted... that peace and trancvility he enjoy living in...

    and tend to blame cleansweepers for a some rare dirty spot.

    Or, that is how it seems. No offense intended.

    ReplyDelete
  40. No offense taken. But you have better options. Europe needs to "Join or Die". Do you hate your neighbors THAT much?

    Or confederate. The Confederacy of Europe. It has a certain "ring" to it.

    As for "unpragmatic". That's why I hold our 2nd Amendment so dear. :)

    ReplyDelete
  41. Neither Putin puppet wants to offend the other Putin puppet.

    ReplyDelete
  42. Minus and Qtard.

    ReplyDelete
  43. \\Europe needs to "Join or Die".

    To whom? Rush'A??? :-))))))))))))))))


    \\Or confederate. The Confederacy of Europe. It has a certain "ring" to it.

    they already are. EU. NATO.

    Doesn't ring a bell?

    ReplyDelete
  44. America/ Canada isn't Europe. And NATO today is a confederacy of dunces.

    ReplyDelete
  45. ...not sane people willing to trade their vast energy resources for western goods.

    ReplyDelete
  46. The left hemisphere always fights the right for dominance. But sometimes the Left needs o sleep.

    ReplyDelete
  47. \\America/ Canada isn't Europe. And NATO today is a confederacy of dunces.

    And whose fault it is?


    \\NATO was formed to fight communism, not "Russia".

    Well. Of course.

    Because it would need to admit that you was allied... with your enemy.

    And pumped it up to the level to became your rival. And imminent threat.

    HOW any politic in USA and state propaganda COULD admit such a despicable truth. ;-)

    ReplyDelete
  48. The republican Cloak of Gyges protects donald tRump. Why he wasn't prosecuted for colluding with Russia.

    ReplyDelete
  49. ...as his collusion consisted of asking Russia for Hillary Clinton's missing e-mails, and Hillary Clinton wasn't prosecuted for deleting them, it kinda sounds like an "offsetting penalty". Jes sayin'.

    ReplyDelete
  50. Who cares. ;-P

    dRunmp is GUILTY! dRump DID it! dRump is the ENEMY of Mankind!!!

    :-))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))

    ReplyDelete
  51. "...as his collusion consisted of asking Russia for Hillary Clinton's missing e-mails..."

    Yeah, that is the lie Qtard likes. Obviously you like it too. The tRump tower server wasn't communicating with a Russian bank. There was no meeting at tRump tower, Manfort didn't pass internal campaign polling to a Russian agent allowing Russia to microtarget Facebook ads and Roger Stone didn't coordinate with Julian Assange the release of data Russia hacked from the DNC servers. None of that happened.

    "Hillary Clinton wasn't prosecuted for deleting them"...

    She turned over the work related emails and deleted the personal ones. As she was allowed to do. Why she wasn't prosecuted.

    Ivanka and Jared used a private email server while they worked in the dotard administration -- and turned over nothing. Why weren't they prosecuted?

    Kushner was communicating with Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman using WhatsApp. Talking about their coverup of Jamal Khashoggi's murder? Is that why Jared got 2 billion?

    ReplyDelete
  52. \\Yeah, that is the lie Qtard likes. Obviously you like it too. The tRump tower server wasn't communicating with a Russian bank. There was no meeting at tRump tower, Manfort didn't pass internal campaign polling to a Russian agent allowing Russia to microtarget Facebook ads and Roger Stone didn't coordinate with Julian Assange the release of data Russia hacked from the DNC servers. None of that happened.

    You have SUCH a DEFINITE evidances!

    WHY dRump NOT in jail YET????

    Are you protecting him? ;-P

    Or... maybe you colluding with liliPut to make him next POTUS!



    \\Ivanka and Jared used a private email server while they worked in the dotard administration -- and turned over nothing. Why weren't they prosecuted?

    WHY you asking us, here?

    And not your Holy Bi-den???

    Well... I know, he is not a King. And cannot issue "holy decree" to behead that Ivanka and Jared... YET, isn't it??? ;-P

    ReplyDelete
  53. "Holy Bi-den" isn't in charge of the Justice Department. Neither is Joe Biden. But Qtard does not understand. Because it is an idiot.

    WHY does the idiot Qtard keep asking me why donald tRump hasn't been prosecuted for colluding with Russia? The idiot thinks Jeff Sessions or Bill Barr would have brought charges but did not... because tRump is innocent?

    :-))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))

    ReplyDelete
  54. \\"Holy Bi-den" isn't in charge of the Justice Department. Neither is Joe Biden. But Qtard does not understand. Because it is an idiot.

    Oh yes... and he is NOT top in chain of command? And he is not top in his DEMN party???

    Or idiot Derpy dunno what it mean.



    \\The idiot thinks Jeff Sessions or Bill Barr would have brought charges but did not... because tRump is innocent?

    HOW could I know -- innocent that dRump or not???

    I just judging from behavior of your "law protector", which are either corrupt... or impotent.

    ReplyDelete
  55. And I like how Derpy confirmed that it like Bi-den to be King. ;-P

    ReplyDelete
  56. And... no Dunya here in this thread anymore? ;-P

    That's how little resolve it have. And do not beleive to it's own propaganda. :-))))))))))))))))))

    ReplyDelete
  57. Idiot Qtard dunno what separation of powers mean.

    "And I like how Derpy confirmed that it like Bi-den to be King".

    Qtard likes its own delusions. No surprise.

    I like how Qtard confirmed that it would like political violence to break out in the USA. Well, not so much "like" as notice. Qtard obviously hates the United States. Maybe for good reason? Probably just because it loves totalitarianism so much -- and wants to see it spread around the world. But the "good" kind, where the oligarchs are in charge.

    Why it roots for donald tRump. Wants him to be "president for life" (like Minus FJ).

    ReplyDelete
  58. \\Qtard likes its own delusions. No surprise.

    Derpy calling itself Qtard? AGAIN.

    Well... who knows what kind of delusions making it bahave like that.

    More research needed.

    Continue-continue.

    My little piggy.

    ReplyDelete
  59. Qtard: Derpy calling itself Qtard? AGAIN.

    Impossible. I can't do something "again" that I have never done. Not even once.

    You have completely forgotten that (when you first showed up on this blog), you called yourself "Q"? It was so long ago that you don't remember?

    ReplyDelete
  60. So what? :-))))))))))))))))))))))))))


    You talking delusional BS here. And you saying some Qtard doing it.

    That looks like you have split personality. Or just perform childish lies.

    Which is quite consistent with other pecularities of your behavior.

    (like screaming "I NEVER said it" to your own words) ;-P


    You thought it would not be noticed? By much smarter opponent? :-)))))))))))))))))))

    Obviously, you do.

    ReplyDelete
  61. Qtard: So what? **moronic laughter**

    So you have forgotten that you called yourself "Q"? Maybe you have a brain tumor? I know you won't believe me, but you did. Ask Minus FJ.

    Qtard: You talking delusional BS here. And you saying some Qtard doing it.

    So, it must be delusional BS when you refer to someone/thing you call "Derpy"? Or are you "Derpy"? You certainly are a derp.

    Qtard: That looks like you have split personality.

    Self diagnosis?

    Qtard: Or just perform childish lies.

    Yeah, your childish lies. "I know you are but what am I?"

    Qtard: Which is quite consistent with other pecularities of your behavior. ...like screaming "I NEVER said it" to your own words... You thought it would not be noticed?

    Yes, I did notice that you do this. Like when you lied about "dRump collusion Rasha FAKE" not being your words. Or all the times you demand "quotes". The implication being that I mischaracterzed what you said.

    Qtard: By much smarter opponent?

    Thank you.

    Qtard: **moronic laughter** Obviously, you do.

    Yes. I agree that I am the much smarter opponent. Though that is a low bar, given that you are an idiot.

    ReplyDelete
  62. \\So you have forgotten that you called yourself "Q"? Maybe you have a brain tumor? I know you won't believe me, but you did. Ask Minus FJ.

    Calling myself "Q" -- it's my behavior.

    Talking about Qtard -- it's yours.

    That is damn simple and obvious. And even early teens have NO problem with distinguishing themself from surroundings.

    But you... seems like have severe cognitive problems -- with admitting that YOUR behavior, it is yours... and nobody else's. ;-P



    \\So, it must be delusional BS when you refer to someone/thing you call "Derpy"? Or are you "Derpy"? You certainly are a derp.

    Only little difference here.

    I -- CAN confirm MY claims with FACTUAL QUOTES. ;-P

    You -- not. :-))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))

    Cause you ARE I-D-I-O-T.

    Militant one.

    That trying to oppose to FACTS openly. Like screaming "I NEVER said it" about OWN DEMN WORDS ***EVEN***!!!! :-))))))))))))))))))



    \\Qtard: That looks like you have split personality.

    \\Self diagnosis?

    Funny that you asking that.

    In addition to idea that Qtard... it's alter-ego of yours.

    Maybe you coming to self-awarness???

    Naaah. :-))))))))))))))000



    \\Qtard: Or just perform childish lies.

    \\Yeah, your childish lies. "I know you are but what am I?"

    Please, continue-continue. :-)))))))))



    \\Qtard: Which is quite consistent with other pecularities of your behavior. ...like screaming "I NEVER said it" to your own words... You thought it would not be noticed?

    \\Yes, I did notice that you do this.

    Here it is. Again.

    You "noticing" that some Qtard doing... what YOU actually do.

    Easy to prove -- just press Ctrl-F and search for "I NEVER said it"... to reveal in whose comments it was.

    And they all are comments of certain someone... ;-P



    \\The implication being that I mischaracterzed what you said.

    Please, continue-continue. :-)))))))))))))))




    \\Qtard: **moronic laughter** Obviously, you do.

    \\Yes. I agree that I am the much smarter opponent. Though that is a low bar, given that you are an idiot.

    Idiot Derpy thinking that I am stoopid too.

    And would not notice how Derpy the Idiot chopped my comment into meaningless pieces... to subvert its meaning.

    :-)))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))0

    What an idiot you are, De-Ru-Pi.

    But. Continue-continue.

    Such a laborous self-revealing... fit of terinal idiocy adept. ;-P

    ReplyDelete
  63. Calling myself "Dervish Sanders" -- it's my behavior.

    Talking about Derpy -- it's yours.

    Qtard, the self-described foreigner from far far away, just admitted it suffers from a cognitive problem? I say YES.

    "And would not notice how Derpy the Idiot chopped my comment into meaningless pieces... to subvert its meaning".

    I have noticed that "Derpy" aka "Q" (nicknamed Qtard) does this. To subvert the meaning of what I write. But, now that you have admitted using this dishonest tactic, you're going to stop? I doubt it.

    ReplyDelete
  64. Clearly split-personality symptoms.


    \\I have noticed that "Derpy" aka "Q" (nicknamed Qtard) does this.


    Or that is just the level of your idiocy? Derpy the Idiot. ;-P


    That makes you NOT able to SEE... how it conflicting with YOUR OWN WORDS


    JUSt ABOVE!!! VVVVVVV HERE


    \\Talking about Derpy -- it's yours.


    Or... that ALSO that "Qtard" SAID IT????!!!


    And "Dervish Sanders said..." mean it NEVER EVER said it????



    :-)))))))))))))))))))))))))))

    ReplyDelete
  65. Me screaming "I never said it" is your false narrative, asshole. Obviously you will never stop pounding this lie. I don't deny making comments I have made. I stand behind what I write. Unlike you. YOU keep denying what you're written. Telling me to give a quote but I won't -- because you never said it. When we both know you did.

    ReplyDelete
  66. \\When we both know you did.

    If that'll be true -- you'd be able to do that -- give a quote.

    You -- not able to do that. Even though that is so-o-o-o simple.

    Which suggests ONLY TWO possibilities: you -- lying, absolutely idioticly, counter-factually, delirious lies
    OR
    you are damn idioticly stooopid, on the verge of imbecility -- unable to perform simplest of a tasks.

    Both is O.K. with me... as I know that much about miserable IT... for quite some times already.

    ReplyDelete
  67. Derpy is so scared that his DEMN Pelosi shitting on em, DEMN-junkies like De-Ru-Pi? ;-P

    Suits em well. :-)))

    ReplyDelete
  68. Something that isn't happening can't "suits em well". I am not scared of something that isn't happening.

    But donald tRump is shitting on his supporters. His supporters love it.

    ReplyDelete