ADMIN

nashville-shooting-index-1.jpg?quality=75&strip=all&profile=RESIZE_400x(PatriotHQ) Nashville Christian school shooting murdered six, including three 9-year-olds , horrible in every way!

To make matters worse why is there a threat of Antifa-driven trans-terrorism?

Can someone explain this?

Confused! Audrey Hale a individual who chose to become a trans-gender person brought death to the Covenant School! This Nashville Christian school killing three children and three adults and the suspect seems to be not bad enough but talking about it carries penalties!

Why?

Get this. Twitter banned Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene's (R-Ga.) congressional account for posting about the "Trans Day of Vengeance" march.

After posting a rally poster, Greene's congressional account was limited.

Greene said on Tuesday:  Antifa was planning a "Trans Day of Revenge." Twitter blocked Greene until she erased the offending message.

After fixing it, Greene posted another congressional update. "Today, my Congress Twitter account was shut off," the post claimed. "…. how is talking about the "Trans Day of Vengeance" a day after a mass massacre by a transgender person "violent speech"?

Greene stated: “I condemned the violence and requested a DOJ investigation in the Tweet.”

WHAT? After post, Congress suspended Greene's account for seven days.

Twitter: Twitter's trust and safety chief Ella Irwin tweeted the company was removing the poster due to concerns it could incite violence. "We had to have our platform automatically search for and delete more than 5,000 tweets and retweets of this ['Trans Day of Vengeance'] poster," Irwin stated. "Vengeance" is violent protest. Peaceful protests are okay." Irwin said the platform "simply limited the material" and "not put any strikes on anyone."

Greene: "This is a lie," Greene tweeted. "My Congressional account was taken away for 7 days because I alerted people about Antifa, who were planned a violent event called "Trans Day of Vengeance" the day after a trans shooter killed a bunch of kids." Restore my account immediately."

"In the wake of a transgender gunman targeting a Christian school and killing kids, every American should recognize the threat of Antifa-driven trans-terrorism," Greene wrote on her personal account an hour earlier. Twitter shouldn't hide political violence calls."

Did you ever suppose the "complaints" might be from "Trans Day of Vengeance" supporters who didn't want a lasting record of their appeals for murder and revenge following the Tennessee shooting?

In conclusion. America is mentally Fxcked up! But besides the usual libtard-rants how can anyone look at this horrible event on the murder of three children and three adults as an excuse to sponsor a day of vengeance? Against whom? For what reason? …and how can success of such a dark and terrorist event be measured?

Also, when a sitting Congress person denounces such an even their Twitter account gets blocked.

Is it now illegal to complain against evil?

I really want to know your thoughts!

You need to be a member of Command Center to add comments!

Join Command Center

Email me when people reply –

Replies

    • Congress calls the convention, either way. That means they set the rules, etc. 

    • Disagree, and for these reasons. The ONLY constitutional powers authorized for Congress in the clear language of Article V are, EITHER to propose amendments by a 2/3 majority vote of both chambers, OR to call a Convention of States for the same purpose of proposing amendments after 2/3 of the State legislatures have submitted resolutions to do so, then get out of the way. Congress has an administrative function to "call" the convention and determine whether the proposed amendments would be ratified by the State legislatures or by state conventions, but they have no control or constitutional authority over the rules for either the legislatures or the conventions that will choose to ratify or not. If the purpose of an Article V Convention of States is to reign in an out-of-control Congress, as the Founders clearly intended in their deliberations, notes and writings of that time, then it would make no logical sense to allow the Congress to make the rules for an Article V Convention of States.

    • Agreed... good synopsis.  The states petition, Congress calls, and the States assemble and administer the convention.  With 2/3rds of the states proposing an amendment and 3/4ths ratifying the proposed amendments before they become constitutional law.  Both of those hurdles are very HIGH BARS to overcome before the convention can amend the Constitution.

    • Yep, and these intentionally "high bars" were done so that our precious Constitution can be protected from both a "runaway convention", as so-called by those who may overtly oppose or wish to subvert the Article V process, and from an out-of-control Congress itself. We have already seen how well many members of Congress have honored their sacred oaths to protect and defend our founding document and its principles of citizen self-governance.

    • Congress calls.... the States conduct the convention... Congress is not even present.  We know this as it takes 2/3rds of the States (Not Congress), in convention, to propose an Amendment and 3/4ths of the States to ratify it to become Constitutional Law.   Both the proposal of amendments and their ratification are conducted by the states in convention ...  no mention of Congress doing anything but 'calling' the Convention.  Congress has its own means to propose amendments. 

      see article 5 Article V, U.S. Constitution | National Archives 

      Article V, U.S. Constitution
      * * * * * * * * * * Article V The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution…
    • P/S Congress doesn't set the rules for an Article 5 Convention to propose amendments... they are not part of the convention they have their own means to propose amendments (separate from the convention) in article 5 to propose amendments see article 5 ... read it carefully.

      Article V, U.S. Constitution | National Archives

      Article V, U.S. Constitution
      * * * * * * * * * * Article V The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution…
    • Colonel Nelson appears to be correct on the history, but that history somewhat muddies the waters around the current issue at hand. ALL nineteen (19) "passed" states have submitted legal resolutions since 2014 that are nearly identical in their content in order to define the scope of such a convention. This is vitally necessary to avoid the chaos that would ensue if the entire Constitution is to be opened for debating and proposing amendments. The people of the States preceded the formation of the federal government, and it will be up to us to get it back under our control, as the Almighty Creator and the Founders intended.

    • Exactly and one of the ways we avoid further chaos in government is to strictly follow the Constitution without adding to it or fearing it needs tweaking with procedural gerrymandering.  Under Article 5 the States in convention may propose as many amendments on as many subjects as the convention submits for debate and approval. 

    • There is no constitutional provision requiring petitions for an Article 5 convention to be uniform or limited in scope... to any particular amendment. 

      The Convention once called and convened may propose any number of amendments.  It takes 2/3rds of the convention to propose an amendment and 3/4ths of the State legislatures to RATIFY the proposed amendment before it becomes Constitutional Law.

    • You are correct about there being no constitutional requirement for uniform state resolutions in Article V. However, many constitutional scholars have recommended, and I believe correctly, that it is a prudent way to prevent opening up the entire Constitution to amendment, especially in these uncertain and contentious political times. After all, most of that document has survived the test of time and served this country well for almost 250 years, albeit because some of our politicians have strived to actually follow it. I would humbly suggest that we try to fix what is obviously broken right now, and leave the rest to our posterity.

This reply was deleted.