![JoeKanYou Profile](https://pbs.twimg.com/profile_images/1697317445416136704/MTx5k2HE_x96.jpg)
JoeKanYou
@joekanyou
Followers
1K
Following
209K
Statuses
35K
The fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom. Ps 111:10 Pro: God. Family. Country, Patriarchy, Life. Christianity above "Conservatism."
Joined August 2015
@autocorrect2_0 If accepting Christ's offer of eternal life by simply believing in Him to forgive my many sins puts me in the "dumb" category, then count me in. Whatever people think of my decision, so be it: I'm going to live the rest of my life FOR HIM to the best of my imperfect ability.
12
8
60
@twatterbaas I hate to think about it, but even the Holy Bible recognizes that there is a time for war. Are the Boers going to rise, or be exterminated?
0
0
1
@PeterSchiff @zerohedge Attempted murder is still a criminal act, even though the intended result failed. The raw footage confirms that they indeed intended to influence the election, which should be punished.
0
0
2
RT @Roostersbak: Pam Bondi should issue a statement that no judges order to stop Doge will be enforced by the DOJ.
0
6K
0
@IdahoStatesman Proponents for birthright citizenship undermine their arguments when they fly foreign flags, want to transform America to reflect foreign cultures, and refuse to integrate into ours. What's the point of citizenship if your allegiance is elsewhere?
0
0
1
I'd probably get Daniel Penny'd or knifed, but there's no way I could just watch this go down right next to me and run away like a punk. If something bad happens to me, you know what to write on my tombstone.
0
0
0
While the outcry against feminism should not be ignored, the "live for yourself" movement points to a deep spiritual sickness on the social level which harms everyone. Data like these demand sea change, not surrender.
The feminists changed the laws to make marriages hostile to men and men are no longer getting married. The feminist pandering elite say that men "are afraid of commitment." Men aren't afraid of anything. Men are simply making intelligent choices.
0
0
0
@that_foot_is_me @harmonizedgrace And the SUBJECT was whether SNAP benefits should include unhealthy snack foods and soda (which lead to diabetes and other problems), not dooming people to pick cotton. Talk about dramatic!
0
0
1
@RobertMacD0nald @that_foot_is_me @harmonizedgrace Exactly! Receiving supplemental food - for free from the hard work and taxes of others, mind you - can't be a source of oppression! If they want to bake some cookies with the healthy ingredients provided, no one's going to stop them.
0
0
1
RT @SpurgeonBooks: “The surest road to wisdom is meditation upon the Word of God.” — Charles Spurgeon
0
75
0
@that_foot_is_me @harmonizedgrace Voluntary giving to the poor for their actual needs: a blessing. By govt compulsion to people who think they deserve it for simply existing (after officials skim off a large chunk for their own fat salaries): not a blessing.
1
0
0
@that_foot_is_me @harmonizedgrace I posted actual Scripture and you want me to "repent" knowing absolute ZERO about my experiences or finances? What a joke, "buddy." Poverty is not an automatic entitlement to free anything, much less sugar snacks. Want more? Earn it.
0
0
1
RT @BornAgainMissy: “Indeed, I count everything as loss because of the surpassing worth of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord. For his sake I hav…
0
8
0
Even if Trump were prepared to respect this lawless "order," he should post guards outside the building and revoke access to all employees. We wouldn't want any documents lost, now would we? The real answer: it's lawless, unconstitutional, and unenforceable. Ignore it.
LAWFARE: In an egregious and unconstitutional assault on executive authority, Judge Paul Engelmayer has unilaterally forbidden all of Trump's political appointees—including Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent—from accessing Treasury Department data. This ruling, concocted without legal precedent or constitutional justification, is nothing short of judicial sabotage. Worse, it was issued ex parte—meaning Trump administration lawyers weren’t given notice, weren’t allowed to argue, and weren’t even in the room. Only Democrat attorneys general were heard, ensuring a predetermined outcome. Engelmayer’s order is legally indefensible. He cites no statutory basis because none exists. He offers no constitutional rationale because the Constitution directly contradicts him. Instead, he fabricates a fiction: that the duly appointed Treasury Secretary is nothing more than a ceremonial figurehead, akin to a powerless monarch, while unelected bureaucrats—who answer to no voters—control the nation’s finances. This is judicial tyranny masquerading as jurisprudence. The implications are staggering. By stripping the executive branch of access to its own financial data, this ruling effectively transfers control of the federal purse to the permanent bureaucracy—the so-called “deep state.” That is a direct assault on the Constitution’s separation of powers, which vests executive authority in the elected President and his appointees, not in career government employees. This is lawfare at its most brazen: a raw, partisan power grab dressed up in legalese. If allowed to stand, this decision sets the precedent that any left-wing judge can unilaterally strip the President of his authority and hand it to the administrative state. That is not democracy. It is not law. It is judicial dictatorship. While the order is currently set to last only a week, no serious person believes this won’t be extended if the courts think they can get away with it. The Trump Administration should treat this for what it is—an unconstitutional usurpation—and consider defying it outright. No judge has the authority to cripple the executive branch and hand power to unelected bureaucrats. Beyond that, the Supreme Court must intervene and overturn this blatant violation of constitutional governance. Judge Engelmayer should be barred from hearing any future cases related to executive authority, and every Democrat lawyer who enabled this attack on the Constitution should be sanctioned. This is not a legal dispute—it is a coup by the judiciary against the elected government. And it cannot be allowed to stand.
1
0
0