Christians ran the colonies from roughly the 1550s when the Spanish colonized Mexico and the Southwest to about 1785 on the East Coast when the Constitution, guaranteeing that the government could not endorse religion (e.g., "Congress shall make no law regarding an endorsement of religion") to bit less than a hundred years later when the Spanish/Russian governance of the west coast ended.

Partially true, the first amendment and it's prohibition at the time only applied to the federal government, state religions went on for a good bit longer, the last one ending in 1833 if I am not mistaken: https://digital.library.txstat...

Really? So the mentality of the left and radical Islam is no different then as well I guess... as from the left I hear that Climate Change is true, unquestionable and those who disagree must be hounded out of public life or forced to comply with certain beliefs... and from the radical Muslims we hear that if you do not subscribe to their particular interpretation you should be stoned, beheaded or set fire to.

As you said "There is a difference in the end result, but the mindset is the same"

Actually our constitution was written to give both the people and state governments a say in how the national government was running things (making bribery a lot harder)... alas the 17th amendment threw much of that out the window, largely removing the need for a Senate.

More so the framers were also quite clear as to the importance of rotation in & out of office, the idea of a career politician was apocryphal to them, so much so that they didn't end up writing term limits (of any kind) in as they thought that elected officials would continue to have virtue.

They created a grand government which has lasted quite longer than they probably expected, was able to end slavery thanks to a few poison pills, but alas virtue is a rare thing in DC today.

And advocating for such a thing should be taken lightly by the left as in my experience it is those on the right who tend to be a bit more armed.

The president doesn't have the power to repeal laws, only congress.

Legally you are correct, but that doesn't stop the current one from effectively doing so via 'executive actions'.

Correct, the more time you spend with a given character/group the more opportunities you have to show them in a more favorable/humanizing light with examination of their motivations & history without explicitly trying to keep them looking evil & unbeatable the whole time.

"ZOMG the Dominion is going to conquer us! Wait... it's founders faced discrimination because of their form and decided to bring order to their part of the galaxy... maybe they aren't so bad?"

"Species 8472 is the greatest threat we've ever faced, how can we stop them? They are only fighting back against the Borg who struck first? Ok, I guess I can understand their anger"

Pick a race on Star Trek which has had more than a few episodes of backstory/examination and you see the same pattern.

It's because while we have a long history of using the death penalty, just enough are squeamish about it that there are efforts to take it out of the public conscious & try to maintain an almost medical like image.

While there are countries today where you can attend a execution in a public square, in the US we have long relegated them to happen at midnight behind tall walls and in a confined room with a limited number of witnesses... including a alcohol swab on the condemns arm to prevent infection just in case they get a last minute reprieve from the needle to be put into their arm.

You're stating it wrong. When someone is dead you can say what you want about them.

No, you are over simplifying it.

The actionability of the utterance usually depends on when it was said... and as the Jesse Ventura vs Chris Kyle case so recently demonstrated, a dead man's estate can still be on the hook for damages. Had Ventura died first the case still could have proceeded provided the claim was made prior to death (and likely the suit as well).

Defamation aside, without a conviction or lengthy civil suit, the rights of the estate to the properties of the deceased/accused/etc does not end as it would with a conviction which goes to the heart of what I said above.

It is pretty clear what happens to the assets of criminals, especially with regard to crimes against humanity and especially when those assets have value derived from the commitment of those crimes.

Sorta... if you go on a killing spree, are convicted then try to sell your story you are going to have some legal problems & prohibitions.

If however while waiting for arrest/trial end up dead (either at the hands of the police or your own), anyone calling you a 'murder' would be at risk of suit a defamation suit from your estate as you were not actually convicted of that crime.

Perverse perhaps, but it follows from the whole concept of innocent until proven guilty. And while it is commonly accepted that Hitler, Goebbels and OJ Simpsons did some rather horrific things... I'm unaware of any criminal case where the Joseph Goebbels estate would have been denied the normal protections afforded to an unconvinced individual.

I'm not defending the practice, I'm just stating what is.

Your time would be better spent pushing for the repeal of the 17th amendment and ending direct election of senators.

And the damage caused by landing on water with parachutes has got to be less than the explosions from the landings on the barges.

Probably not when they figure out how to land on the barge without exploding... at that point the damage from hitting the water and amount of cleaning & service required to be read for launch will be much more.

I hate to break it to you... but we aren't a democracy, we are a republic.

Lets say we changed that ratio a bit... maybe 1 rep per 50k citizens... that would perhaps bump the number of reps to 4,350... do you think that would be any more workable?

TSA Pre Check allows members of both parties to skip on by quite easily: https://tsatoday.wordpress.com...

Of course, we do have one noted case of an elected official being illegally detained (per Article I Section 6) by the TSA: http://www.politico.com/news/s...

You'd think that... but it doesn't explain why I still get molested every time I fly.

More than you know: http://www.breitbart.com/londo...