Why New York Cops Thought Britain’s Unarmed Police Were “Ridiculous”.

 Ok, one thing which sort of makes me different from a lot of people on the "left" is that I have a more pragmatic view of defence and justice issues. So, I thought I would share this clip from Britain's ITN (Independent Television News) news from 1966.

 A lot has changed in 50 years and British police can be seen carrying guns, or have access to firearms.

Let's not forget that not only can we see the police improperly using their firearm, but we can also see civilians using firearms on the police. So, it's not a one way street. 

If people won't amend the constitution, it should be followed to the letter!

 In this case the war powers act,  As I have already pointed out, under the United States Constitution, war powers are divided. Under Article I, Section 8, Congress has the power to:

•     declare war
•     grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal (i.e., license private citizens to capture enemy vessels)
•     raise and support Armies (for terms up to two years at a time)
•     provide and maintain a Navy
•     make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces
•     provide for calling forth the Militia
•     make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water
•     provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia; and
•     govern such Part of [the militia] as may be employed in the Service of the United States.

Section 8 further provides that the states have the power to:

•     Appoint the Officers of the Militia; and
•     train and equip the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress.

I have an interest in comparative constitutional law, and France's interpretation of the separation of church and state: Laïcité, which got me looking at the  constitution of the Fourth French Republic (1946), Article 7, which deals with declaring war:

War may not be declared without a vote by the National Assembly and the preliminary opinion of the Council of the Republic.

I've already pointed out that the executive, or the commander in chief of the military, should not be charged with this ability, which was something which concerned the founders. They expressed a dislike for a standing military.

Unfortunately, their fear has come to pass and the US has a large, standing military. And it is being used to pursue "forever wars".

Recent events have highlighted that the founders were right and some sort of legislation with teeth should be put in place to prevent military adventures. 

Why I think Juneteenth is nonsense

No one really cares about it. In fact, it kind of reminds me of the Greaseman's reaction to another black holiday.

On the other hand, there are things like Odunde and Notting Hill Carneval that have people who really get into them.

 Notting Hill Carneval has been in the public eye for a lot longer than Juneteenth: Sixty years!

Not that many people had heard about Juneteenth before 2020, let alone 1966!

HE'S GUILTY

The trial is ending with an admission. 

 Live with it.

Especially since you wasted your money on his defence:

This is what Karen Agnifilo Friedman had to say about him on the Anderson Cooper 360 Degrees That was aired December 10, 2024 - 20:00 ET  https://transcripts.cnn.com/show/acd/date/2024-12-10/segment/01:

And I agree with much of what everybody is saying. But I think one thing I just want to point out is it looks to me like this -- there might be a not guilty by reason of insanity defense that they're going to be thinking about, because the evidence is going to be so overwhelming that he did what he did.  

Your energy would have been better spend trying to change the system through legal means: not violence. 

Former republican makes a shocking confession

 Back to what I have been saying about Bernie Sanders and his politics being popular if it was given a chance.