Currently, 32% of Democrats -- down from 43% in 2017 and 56% in 2013 -- are extremely proud. The decline preceded the election of Donald Trump but has accelerated in the past year. Political liberals are even less likely than Democrats to say they are extremely proud -- just 23% do so, compared with 46% of moderates and 65% of conservatives. Extreme pride among liberals has dropped nine points in the past year and 28 points since 2013.
What is most interesting about this Gallup poll is that by and large Republicans and Conservatives remain proud of the country, regardless of who is in the White House and which Party is in control. Democrats and liberals (on the flip side) seem to be much more patriotic and proud of our country when a Democrat sits in the White House, than they do when a Republican takes office.
I guess partisanship runs rampant even in the deep seeded emotions of liberals. Moreover, their own self importance apparently takes precedence. If Americans don't share their personal political choices, then they just can't be proud. Like Michelle Obama once said. The election of her husband was the first and only time she was ever proud to be an American.
60 comments:
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.
The decline among Republicans is deafening to some people.
Plagiarism because you don't have a link on the post.
or prohibiting the free exercise thereof
Unless, of course, the free exercise of religion gets in the way of liberal dogma... then liberals will take em to court so those who practice religion can get their just punishment.
https://news.gallup.com/poll/236420/record-low-extremely-proud-americans.aspx?g_source=link_NEWSV9&g_medium=LEAD&g_campaign=item_&g_content=In%2520U.S.%2c%2520Record-Low%252047%2525%2520Extremely%2520Proud%2520to%2520Be%2520Americans
The Fourth of July also marks the death of two of our greatest Founding Fathers, Thomas Jefferson and John Adams, who died on the same day, exactly 50 years after the Declaration of Independence was signed.
We made it for nearly another 200 years. And then, for some reason, the Democrats decided to give our country away to the rest of the world.
http://www.anncoulter.com/columns/2018-07-02.html#read_more
Blogger Roger Amick said...
Plagiarism because you don't have a link on the post.
says the blog's foremost plagiarist.
WTF? Taking them to court if they are imposing their beliefs upon others such as "shudder" gay couples by refusing to service them is not unconstitutional, is the imposition of their religious beliefs.
The current Supreme Court upheld their religious beliefs gave them to rights for discriminate against gay couples.
I see both sides but I dare to disagree with you. You have the right to choose those who can post here. But if this was a business operation would you have the absolute right to prevent me for daring to differ?
Anything posted by rrb that has proper use of the English language is plagiarism.
WTF? Taking them to court if they are imposing their beliefs upon others such as "shudder" gay couples by refusing to service them is not unconstitutional, is the imposition of their religious beliefs.
so, being gay supersedes the baker's first amendment right to freely practice their religion.
huh.
is that so?
Other demographic differences in national pride largely reflect the political leanings of U.S. adults. Young adults, college graduates, nonwhites and women -- all Democratic-leaning groups -- are below the national average in terms of being extremely proud to be Americans. Meanwhile, older adults, those without a college degree, whites and men -- who are more Republican-leaning -- are above the average.
So folks we are seeing that the blue Wave has been reaching hurricane force.
https://news.gallup.com/poll/236420/record-low-extremely-proud-americans.aspx?g_source=link_NEWSV9&g_medium=LEAD&g_campaign=item_&g_content=In%2520U.S.%2c%2520Record-Low%252047%2525%2520Extremely%2520Proud%2520to%2520Be%2520Americans
That's what the Supreme Court upheld. They are able to impose their religious beliefs upon others such as shudder gay couples who want a wedding cake!
OMG
Roger...
I believe we live in a country where someone should be able to marry who they want and ALSO believe what they want. I am not going to fall to the ground, stomp my feet and fists on the ground in a crazed temper tantrum every time someone believes something different from me.
This country basically stands for freedom for ALL, not freedoms for some. It's the very idea that you can have Christians, Jews, Muslims, and anyone else living here, and we will respect all of those religious beliefs (even if we don't agree with them). We don't make it illegal for someone to not eat meat on Fridays, or for a woman to cover herself head to toe, if that is what they want to do.
I guess I would like to live in a country where rights co-exist, not compete. Where we live up to the promises of the RFRA, where only as a "last resort" when all other reasonable options have been eliminated can the State force someone (by law or legal action) to do things that are against their strongly held religious beliefs... whether those beliefs are Muslim, Buddhist, Jewish, and yes... even (gasp) Christian.
But the modern day liberals are not about co-existence or getting along or respect for those they disagree with... they are about slamming their views down everyone else's throats, with the threat of legal action anytime anyone doesn't follow along.
Here is the reality Roger.
When you are the side trying to force other people to follow "your" beliefs with coercion and threats... then you are the oppressors. It doesn't make your cause more relevant because your beliefs make you angry with people who disagree. Your anger is 100% on you. Period.
Even Hitler and the Nazis thought their cause was good... and worth pushing on other people.
The current Supreme Court upheld their religious beliefs gave them to rights for discriminate against gay couples.
so, if i can understand your pidgin english, what you're saying is that religious beliefs take a backseat to sexual orientations and preferences.
even if there are other bakers or florists who in the area who would not hold a constitutionally protected religious objection.
i see.
so... by declaring gay marriage constitutional on the federal level the gays now believe they have the right to troll the religious and impose their sexuality on whoever the fuck they please.
you see alky, this is exactly why the gay marriage issue should've been left to the states. when the ruling was made there were already 36 states with legal gay marriage. but that just wasn't good enough for the gays. they had to beat the entire fucking country into submission over their fetish.
in case you haven't made the connection, it's shit like this that got you trump, and it's the continuation of shit like this that'll get you even more trump.
I guess I would like to live in a country where rights co-exist, not compete.
and there's the ultimate irony in all this.
bakers compete and florists compete in a free market society. gays believe that the marriage ruling gives them the right to TROLL every bakery and florist in the nation rather than just moving on to the ones that will serve their celebration.
it's socialism straight up - with the government essentially controlling the situation and imposing a rigid set of beliefs on the entire society.
that ain't freedom and it is certainly not what we celebrate today.
the baker's first amendment right to freely DISCRIMINATE AGAINST GAYS AND practice their religion.
Fixed it for you rat hole.....
ou are the side trying to force other people to follow "your" beliefs with coercion and threats.
Like you and the right constantly do?????? Gays bad.....homophobia win!!!
Dennis, don't you see that underneath it is a deeply sensitive issue with homosexuality?
rrb by declaring gay marriage constitutional on the federal level the gays now believe they have the right to troll the religious and impose their sexuality on whoever the fuck they please.
He should come out and be true to himself instead of being a pathological bigot.
About the Declaration there is a finality that is exceedingly restful. It is often asserted that the world has made a great deal of progress since 1776, that we have had new thoughts and new experiences which have given us a great advance over the people of that day, and that we may therefore very well discard their conclusions for something more modern. But that reasoning can not be applied to this great charter. If all men are created equal, that is final. If they are endowed with inalienable rights, that is final. If governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed, that is final. No advance, no progress can be made beyond these propositions. If anyone wishes to deny their truth or their soundness, the only direction in which he can proceed historically is not forward, but backward toward the time when there was no equality, no rights of the individual, no rule of the people. Those who wish to proceed in that direction can not lay claim to progress. They are reactionary. Their ideas are not more modern, but more ancient, than those of the Revolutionary fathers.
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2018/07/the-eternal-meaning-of-independence-day-2-4.php
you see alky, this is exactly why the gay marriage issue should've been left to the states. when the ruling was made there were already 36 states with legal gay marriage.
Actually Rat...
Only Maine, Maryland, and Washington had voter referendums that allowed same sex marriages. Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Minnesota, and Rhode Island passed laws doing so.
Thirty one states voted to ban same sex marriages. Only two of those amendments failed (52-48 in Arizona, and 53-47 in Minnesota).
The remaining states did not have any specific laws, but were not (until 2015) recognizing gay marriage. Ironically, because they never passes specific laws, they were effectively immune from the Circuit Court decisions.
Then in 2014 Federal courts started ruling on whether or not the constitutional amendments to State constitutions were "unconstitutional". Several circuit courts ruled that they were, and a couple dozen more states now had legal marriage. Only the 6th circuit upheld those bans in a handful of states.
So while gay marriage had become legal in 37 states, it was only by voter or state choice in a select few. The rest were required by court decision to recognize gay marriage.
He should come out and be true to himself instead of being a pathological bigot.
The irony here Rog... is that "tolerance" specifically means respecting those people who disagree with you. Tolerance has nothing to do with "what you believe" and everything to do with what you DON'T believe.
You can be a transgender immigrant with the most diverse background in the world, and if you treat the people with whom you disagree with poorly, or demand that they follow your beliefs... then you are by the very definition of the word "intolerant".
In the case of the gay couple and the baker, the best you can argue is that neither side is being tolerant. The gay couple is being intolerant of the Baker's religious views (because they don't share them) and the baker is being intolerant of the gay couple's right to marry (because he doesn't share their belief that it's right).
If the gay couple was truly tolerant of everyone's views, then they would walk down the street and go see a different baker. There quite literally is no other reasonable acceptable "tolerant" move there. Taking the baker to court is the very essence of being "intolerant" of someone else's view point.
So the real question here Roger... isn't which side is being intolerant, because they both are. The question is if we believe that it's up to the Courts to pick sides and say that it's okay to be intolerant of someone's religious beliefs, but not okay to be intolerant of someone's belief on same sex marriage.
You are expecting the Courts to say one intolerance is okay, while the other is not. More to the point, the person who is being intolerant because he is following his own religious views has that EXACT VERY RIGHT spelled out in the Constitution. The very reason that we spelled that out in the Constitution is because not everyone understand or wants to respect someone else's religious views. We decided at the birth of this country, that we would allow any and all religious views to be respected (precisely because not everyone would understand or agree).
Blogger Roger Amick said...
Dennis, don't you see that underneath it is a deeply sensitive issue with homosexuality?
i love the way you instantly resort to overt intellectual dishonesty in a feeble attempt to make a point.
so let's turn your "logic" on it's head, alky. why to gays have such deeply sensitive issues with heterosexuals? and why are they so insecure in their homosexuality that they feel the need to jam their sexual preferences down everyone's throat?
why must the rights of both the gay and the vendor compete? why can't they coexist in your fucked up little world? why must homosexuals resort to de facto fascism to exercise their right to marry?
in a polite society, not one run by the left, if a gay couple walked into a bakery only to have the baker politely explain his or her constitutionally protected freedom of religion, the gay couple would politely acknowledge those rights and gracefully exit in search of another vendor who would oblige them.
that's how it SHOULD work.
but in your fucked up little totalitarian world you would have the gays use their sexual preference as a cudgel to beat the religious into submission.
that ain't freedom alky, and it damned sure isn't the "coexistence" of a polite society.
if you clowns are going to put the bumper sticker on the back of your prius you ought to try living up to it.
So while gay marriage had become legal in 37 states, it was only by voter or state choice in a select few. The rest were required by court decision to recognize gay marriage.
indeed. my poorly conveyed point was that with 37 in compliance the rest should've been left to their own devices and probably would've come around eventually. and if not, then perhaps it was better left up to the states. is it always wise to make these things into federal cases? i'm not sure.
He should come out and be true to himself instead of being a pathological bigot.
your psychological projection reveals a key point -
gays should come out as the vicious trolls that they are in demanding that EVERYONE comply with their wishes, those wishes being superior and taking precedent even over those rights codified in our very first constitutional amendment.
thanks for pointing that out alky.
i love the way you instantly resort to overt intellectual dishonesty
The only dishonesty here is posted by you and CH and your wanton disregard for everyones rights. You presuming the rest would come around without court intervention is the most naive postulate you have ever made!!!! Sorry rat hole....I know a bridge for sale in your state....LOL
The only dishonesty here is posted by you and CH and your wanton disregard for everyones rights.
everyone as in the devoutly religious?
you're an imbecile, d0pie.
eat a pistol. you'll instantly improve the planet.
eat a pistol. you'll instantly improve the planet.
AWESOME COMEBACK, ASSHOLE....Go fuck KD, the devoutly religious who think discrimination is the word of God.....I;m sure you agree with that, jag off since you promote that kind of stupidity.....I'd bet a buck you don't even go to church once a year.....asshole...
indeed. my poorly conveyed point was that with 37 in compliance the rest should've been left to their own devices and probably would've come around eventually. and if not, then perhaps it was better left up to the states
North Carolina was the 31st state to vote for some sort of ban on same sex marriage (61%). They did so in 2012, as they also voted to give their electoral votes to Barack Obama. Overwhelmingly it was the black vote that put that amendment over the edge to make marriage between a man and a woman.
My guess is if the USSC had voted the other way, and invalidated all previous court decisions and allowed all of the state constitutional amendments to stand, that we would still have a majority of the states with a ban on same sex marriage.
I would seriously doubt if any of the 31 states would have overturned their constitutional amendments over the past six years via vote, and I would offer that at least a few more states would have voted for the same...
A reasonable assumption would be that no more than 10-15 States in 2018 would have legal same sex marriage, had it not been for court decisions. Neither you or I would have lived to see a day when every state had legal same sex marriage.
.I'd bet a buck you don't even go to church once a year.....asshole
I haven't been to church for anything other than a wedding or funeral since I was probably in my twenties, when Grandma would come to town and we would pretend that we were devout Lutherans.
The fact that I am "not" religious, and still respect those who are, is exactly what makes me "tolerant". The fact that you don't respect those who are religious (just because you are not) is what makes you "intolerant".
It's not an unreasonable concept to be in favor of both the right of two men or two women to get married, and the right of a devout Christian/Jewish/Muslim to not be coerced into participating in that event.
I think that ultimately that 7-2 USSC decision validates my beliefs. I have a feeling if this comes back to the court again (with a new USSC Justice) we will see a much more robust and much more sweeping 5-4 decision in favor of religious objection.
I think our society would get along better if we simply stopped trying to force everyone else to believe what we do, and accept that there are differences of opinion, and that your opinion is no more important than anyone else.
How often a person goes to church/temple has always been a piss poor measure of how devout a person is to his faith.
My guess is if the USSC had voted the other way, and invalidated all previous court decisions and allowed all of the state constitutional amendments to stand, that we would still have a majority of the states with a ban on same sex marriage.
The "right" to gay marriage only exist through the will and proclamation of Justice Anthony Kennedy. The right to practice your religion is enshrined in the 1st amendment of the Constitution.
"So folks we are seeing that the blue Wave has been reaching hurricane force. " Roger
On the clock, you see it as a shift like 2010 in the US House?
If the person in question has religious beliefs beyond the Constitution " Roger
How is this Possible?
All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
No state has the authority to ban gay marriage or interracial marriage. Making gay marriage available in every state is guaranteed by the 14th amendment.
Gavin Newsom, Kamala Harris: ‘Reform’ ICE, Don’t ‘Abolish’ ICE"
Well that splits the Democrats.
His personal bigotry is not allowed by the 14th amendment to the Constitution.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
The equal protection of the laws.
If the person in question has religious beliefs beyond the Constitution " Roger
How is this Possible?
Jihad comes to mind... but that's assuming you accept that particular interpretation of the Koran.
The RFRA suggests (and most court precedent) will accept religious rights as long as the Government has a reasonable alternative to condemning or taking them away. Obviously you cannot state your religious freedom allows you to kill other people under the guise of religion, because there really is not any reasonable alternative other than still considering the act of killing someone murder or an act of war. You cannot say that the government is burdening you because they won't let you kill people of other religions. It's not a reasonable argument, and there is certainly a compelling Government interest in preventing it.
So the question that comes into play is whether or not religious freedom can protect you from other laws (not so serious as murder)... such as discrimination laws. The courts generally follow the letter of the RFRA law, which is to determine whether other reasonable alternatives exist. Does the law compelling someone to provide a service "have to exist" or is it just a matter of convenience.
Thus there are differences between whether or not a pharmacist can refuse to provide birth control to a customer, depending on whether there is a reasonable alternative for everyone involved. Same would hold true in a Supermarket where a Muslim doesn't want to handle pork. If you are the only pharmacist in a 100 mile radius and nobody else is working, it becomes unreasonable for you to not provide a legal prescription to someone. But if Charlie is working with you and is with another Customer, it's not considered unreasonable for the Customer to wait for Charlie to get done to assist (as to not compel the pharmacist to go against his religious practice unless absolutely necessary).
There are laws that have been passed (and not challenged) saying that a pharmacy must provide birth control, but a specific pharmacist can hand that duty off as long as someone else is there. Refusal to provide the birth control (or any medication) over religious objection can lead to fines (if nobody is willing to provide it). But you cannot fine an individual who refuses... thus it's sort of up to the Pharmacy to make sure someone is on duty to provide birth control.
But those are medical prescriptions. If you hold the same standards to a baker, the concept would have to be a specific law that requires a baker to bake any cake (or have someone on duty willing to)... but that doesn't make sense because baking a cake and filling a medical prescription isn't the same thing... not to mention that there are always going to be other bakers available.
So while some would have you believe that anti-discrimination laws are absolute and that you cannot even offer a mild inconvenience to say a gay couple wanting to order a special wedding cake, the laws and precedent suggest that someone's "convenience" does not override a religious objection. Only in situations where nobody else can provide the service is the State allowed to "force" the religious person to provide the service.
Roger, why is this so hard for the left?
In both the baker and florist cases the business owners had served gays visiting their shops. If they wanted a dozen roses or a cookie they were served. The issue is the gays wanted to enter into a separate contract with those business owners and those owners should be allowed to decline the offering of those separate services for whatever reason.
No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Which is why the State of Colorado and their commission got into trouble. They protected the right of a gay baker to not make a religious cake (when that baker refused because he felt it hostile to gay people) but required the religious baker to bake the cake for the gay wedding (when he refused because he felt it was hostile to his religious beliefs).
See Roger... these equal protection things are either very uncomplicated or very complicated depending on which side the argument you are in.
Bottom line: you are not allowed to use the same argument to argue one thing, while pretending the same rights don't exist in other areas of the law. Either equal protection exists, or it doesn't. You don't get to pick and choose.
CHT, exactly.
Roger, why is this so hard for the left? "
That is unnecessary.
Republicans believe every day is the Fourth of July, but the democrats believe every day is April 15. Ronald Reagan
Read more at: https://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/ronald_reagan_147701
No state has the authority to ban gay marriage or interracial marriage. Making gay marriage available in every state is guaranteed by the 14th amendment.
Nonsense. You are conflating two different things altogether. Marriage is a natural institution and prohibiting a man and woman from entering into that institution because of race denies them a natural right and does violate the equal protection clause.
It takes a perverted and twisted definition of marriage to even say not recognizing gay marriage violates the 14th amendment. A definition that is not supported in law, history, or culture.
The bottom line is that marriage between two people of the same sex is not possible under traditional definitions. There is no natural right to marriage between same sex couples simply because institution doesn't exist for them.
Now societies can change definitions but it is something best done through the democratic process and not dictated to by a small clique of elites.
Otherwise, you have social disorder. Something we are seeing now.
Social Democrat Antifa shut down th Statue of Liberty disrupting the travel plans of Thousands of Travelers.
KD said...
Social Democrat Antifa shut down th Statue of Liberty
You really are a maven of abject stupidity and a liar....Your post is another example of you circulating fake news like the liar and chief....you really need help!!!
The woman who climb the Statue of Liberty was an immigrent activist and she did ruin 4th of July events for thousands who made to trip to Liberty and Ellis islands.
So Dennis what part was not true?
woman who climb the Statue of Liberty was an immigrent activist
And the stupidity marches on.....maybe she should be deported back to the Congo.....a shit hole country and should never have been allowed in the first place....The funny thing is, she is not a antifa as claimed by your idiot friend and the organization she belongs to is duly registered as a non- profit and legal.....sorry menstral your point is pointless like everything you post...Your complaint about ruining for thousands is oh well....so did rain....asshole....
Latest polls as generic keeps creeping back toward D's and trumps approval may have hit its peak and is heading back where it belongs.....in the shitter....
President Trump Job Approval Reuters/Ipsos Approve 43, Disapprove 54 Disapprove +11
2018 Generic Congressional Vote Reuters/Ipsos Democrats 44, Republicans 34 Democrats +10
I visited liberty and ellis islands on memorial day. I would've been pissed if i wasn't able to see them because of one a-hole activist .
More high paying jobs heading overseas....wonder why?????
Boeing Co. is forming a $4.75 billion venture with long-time industrial partner Embraer SA, a move that will expand the U.S. planemaker’s manufacturing base abroad while extending its reach into the market for small jetliners.
Under a preliminary deal, Boeing will own 80 percent of a partnership controlling Embraer’s commercial airplane and services business while the Brazilian manufacturer holds 20 percent, the companies said in a statement Thursday. The tie-up caps years of talks between the two, while extending the duopoly held by Boeing and Airbus SE as competitive threats emerge from rivals in Russia, Japan and China.
I would've been pissed if i wasn't able to see them because of one a-hole activist .
Gee I'd be pissed too.....but really, how do you get rid of all the assholes in the world.....I'd start with you ballz....lololol
Trump's legacy will be the creation of Concentration camps for families seeking asylum from various countries infiltrated by gangs and oppression.
WHEN THE Obama administration argued, in 2015, that an influx of migrant families illegally entering the country was justification for detaining the families indefinitely, federal courts rejected that stance out of hand. Now the Trump administration is making a similar argument with a fresh twist: that a new court ruling ordering that separated children be promptly reunited with their parents amounts to a green light for federal officials to detain them — together.
That’s a neat bit of lawyerly jujitsu. It attempts to turn a federal judge’s reunification ruling last week, based partly on grounds of compassion, into a rationale for extending the current administration’s cruel crusade against migrant families. As a legal matter, it’s also unsupportable.
Beaners Olinsky and let them rot.
Washington Post story
nice op/ed alky.
and every time you invoke concentration camps you insult the victims of the holocaust.
your seething hatred of the jews has been duly noted.
David Tuck was born in Poland in 1929. He was enslaved by the Nazis and survived multiple concentration camps. In the wake of pundits and politicians comparing illegal immigrant detainment facilities in modern day America to Nazi concentration camps, Tuck felt compelled to speak out.
Today, Tuck has a message for those comparing American illegal immigrant detainment facilities to the Holocaust. “They know nothing of the Holocaust,” Tuck says. “Grow up. You can’t compare. Every time I hear it, it’s sickening.”
“Wake up,” he said in an exclusive interview with The Daily Caller. “This is not the Holocaust.”
http://dailycaller.com/2018/07/01/nazi-concentration-camp-survivor-message-for-america/
“This is not the Holocaust.”
And it took the daily caller to write something for you to realize that??? No wonder why you support trump.....idiot...
"Wake up,” he said in an exclusive interview with The Daily Caller. “This is not the Holocaust.”"
Wake up indeed.
The never Trumper traitors like Roger have three long months to make this particular catastrophe to stick.
Since they, especially Roger, have the attention span of a gnat...
Roger -
The problem with the recent court ruling was that it simply did not take any consideration as to what the previous rulings have already provided.
Basically if you put the two rulings together then:
Anyone traveling with children cannot either be:
- Detained together (new ruling)
- Detained apart (old ruling reinforced multiple times)
Effectively meaning anyone arrested at the border for any criminal activity including human, drug, weapons trafficking cannot be held, if they simply bring children over the border with them. This creates the situation we have seen where adults come across the border with children who are not their own, but claim that they are.
They can be arrested for drug, weapons, or human trafficking...
But you effectively cannot detain them for more than 20 days.
Typical Liberal reasoning, right?
Open borders. Let all criminal roam free.
The fact of the matter Rog... and one that seems completely fucking lost on you and your ridiculous ilk... is that we simply (in this country) do not detain juveniles with adult criminals at any level, any where, at any time. We never have, never should, and hopefully never will.
Believe it or not... most reasonable people would assume that a criminal detainment center is not the best place for Children to be. But then again, all intellectual reasonableness is lost on those with TDS.
Hi Dennis.
"organization she belongs to is duly registered as a non- profit and legal"
What is the Name of that Organization?
Post a Comment