I TOLD YOU SO HAHAHAHAHA

I TOLD YOU SO HAHAHAHAHA

Nothing new about that. They've hated everyone who is not a white hetero christian all along.
I will say though that I don't think this has anything to do with Padilla's race. This is an administration that has no respect for the rights of anyone who disagrees with them, even with regard to the most minor of issues. I think they would have given Adam Schiff the same rough treatment. They might have even given him a solid kick to the ribs considering the way Trump has demonized him.

Posted by johnny_hotsauce at 2025-06-13 05:18 PM | Reply

It used to be if you weren't a WASP you weren't White enough. That's the way it used to be.

They did walk him in and he was seated behind the press but when he stood up and approached the podium while Noem was speaking, that is considered rushing the stage in security terms.
Yes, he objected. Yes, he wore a Senate polo. And yes, he identified himself while being taken down. But DHS says they didn't recognize him, didn't see a Senate pin, and saw his approach as a threat.
The truth is, both things are possible.
He didn't intend harm and security still saw a treated this as a threat.

Posted by BillJohnson at 2025-06-13 02:57 PM | Reply

You think you know everything about everything but you don't. You're a partisan hack job that makes up stuff just to cover up for your party's misdeeds. It's painfully obvious to me and anyone else here.

Shrimp,
"Padilla did not identify himself but instead interrupted Noem, raised his voice, and then lunged toward the podium"
Also, he was wearing a jacket in the photo I saw where a firearm could be easily hide.
Based on what I've read what other course of action should have been taken?

Posted by BillJohnson at 2025-06-13 02:14 PM | Reply

You make up all kinds of mox nix stuff to justify the unjustifiable. You're full of smelly brown stuffs as per the usual.

The Buffoon strikes out again.

Posted by et_al at 2025-06-12 09:55 PM | Reply

Too bad it's not permanently. Just sayin

Hey Corky. You're wasting your time with BillJohnson. His brain is like mush if you will. Just sayin

GFY DNC. Rotten to the core.

I would have preferred it go more like this when Kerry had this ------------ tased...
www.youtube.com

good times.....

Posted by eberly at 2025-06-12 03:55 PM | Reply

LMFAO yes. That was hilarious.

AI Overview

+4
The tax-exempt status of churches in the United States is generally considered constitutional, not unconstitutional. The First Amendment's Establishment Clause prohibits the government from establishing a religion, but the Supreme Court has consistently upheld tax exemptions for religious organizations, finding them to be a form of "benevolent neutrality".
Elaboration:
Historical Context:
Tax exemptions for religious organizations have a long history in the United States, dating back to before the Bill of Rights.
Walz v. Tax Commission:
The Supreme Court case Walz v. Tax Commission (1970) is a key precedent regarding the constitutionality of tax exemptions for religious organizations. The Court found that these exemptions did not violate the Establishment Clause.
"Benevolent Neutrality":
The Court's decision in Walz established the principle of "benevolent neutrality," which allows the government to grant tax exemptions to religious organizations without violating the Establishment Clause.
Purpose of Exemptions:
Tax exemptions for religious organizations are intended to encourage their beneficial secular effects while avoiding excessive government entanglement with religion.
Benefits and Limitations:
While churches enjoy tax-exempt status, they are also subject to certain limitations, such as restrictions on political campaign intervention and lobbying.
Constitutional Support:
The tax exemption for churches stems from the Constitution and specific IRS codes.
IRS website on the Johnson Amendment
The Johnson Amendment, for example, restricts political activity for tax-exempt organizations, including churches.

Freedom of Religion and Freedom of Speech mean churches are free to express political views. Whether you "have a problem" with it is irrelevant. The Constitution protects their right to speak, not your comfort level.

Posted by BillJohnson at 2025-06-12 12:21 PM | Reply

Yes they are free to speak and they are free to lose their tax exempt status. Just sayin

I love am assuming you meant when churches inject religion into politics.
It is injecting politics into the church I worry about. When the government starts dictating church doctrine.

Posted by BillJohnson at 2025-06-12 11:59 AM | Reply

No. When a church states what politics their parishioners must have I have a problem with that. If they do that I believe they should lose their tax exempt status. That's what I meant.

Yes, the President of the United States has direct control over the District of Columbia National Guard. Unlike the National Guards of the states and territories, which are under the command of their respective governors, the D.C. National Guard is always under the President's authority. This unique arrangement stems from the D.C. National Guard's historical role as a protector of the newly created District of Columbia and the President's role as Commander-in-Chief, as established by Thomas Jefferson.
Here's a more detailed explanation:
Unique Command Structure:
The D.C. National Guard is the only National Guard unit that reports directly to the President, not a governor.
Historical Roots:
This direct control dates back to the early 1800s when the D.C. National Guard was formed by President Thomas Jefferson to defend the District of Columbia.
Delegate Authority:
While the President is the Commander-in-Chief, the President has delegated the command authority to the Secretary of Defense and then to the Secretary of the Army.
No Governor Control:
The D.C. Mayor does not have control over the D.C. National Guard.
Dual Mission:
The D.C. National Guard provides mission-ready personnel and units for active duty in the armed services during times of war or national emergency, and it also retains its mission as the protector of the District of Columbia.

The National Guard in the District of Columbia is controlled by the POTUS through the Department of Defense. Pelosi has nothing to do with it. Why do you spread lies Jeff??

What about churches that are injecting themselves into the immigration issue?
Should they be taxed since there are no ifs ands or butts?

Posted by BillJohnson at 2025-06-11 09:35 PM | Reply

How do you mean?? Expound on that question please.

Taxing churches would require government oversight of religion.
Should the IRS start deciding what counts as a "real" church?
How about other non-profits? Or does your outrage only apply to the ones you don't like?
You think you sound edgy but you're not seeing the big picture.

#4 | Posted by BillJohnson at 2025-06-11 07:55 PM | Reply

They can preach that same sex marriage is a sin and not allowed here and I have no problems with that. When they inject politics into the church I have a problem with that. Once they do that they should start being taxed. No ands ifs or butts.

When do we start taxing the southern Baptists?? Just curious.

Can we make sure that bison is fed extra rations tonight??

Nah, Trump knows I and the resistance are here, kicking yalls ass everyday.

#7 | Posted by boaz at 2025-06-11 11:28 AM | Reply

You couldn't kick your way out of a wet paper bag. Just sayin

Send me the github of this PoS websites source code.

#38 | Posted by oneironaut at 2025-06-10 08:46 PM | Reply

RCADE needs to LZK Your hiney.

I find it laughable that oneironaut actually believes that Trump actually cares about a branch of the military celebration of the anniversary of their founding. Especially considering that he is a draft dodger and all.

After watching Rachel Maddow yesterday (I do not watch cable news). I can say with absolute certainty that I know for a fact Zed watches regularly and I now understand why he's as nuts as he is.

Posted by Bluewaffles at 2025-06-10 07:46 PM | Reply

Rachel Maddox is a Rhodes scholar. You on the other hand are a .

Terry Moran was fired from ABC today for speaking truth to power.