tiphareth: "Чтобы убивать русских"

Настроение:	sick
Музыка:	Divid - Дом, который построил Джек
Entry tags:	anti-russia, internet, music, punk, youtube

"Чтобы убивать русских"
Алексея Солдатова, в 1980-е бывшего директором ВЦ Института
Курчатова, и основавшего там Релком и РосНИИРОС, убивают в тюрьме
https://meduza.io/news/2024/09/26/on-umiraet-v-tyurme-syn-soosnovatelya-runeta-alekseya-soldatova-rasskazal-chto-sostoyanie-zdorovya-ego-ottsa-uhudshilos-v-sizo
https://zona.media/news/2024/09/26/soldatov
https://theins.ru/news/274879
https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A1%D0%BE%D0%BB%D0%B4%D0%B0%D1%82%D0%BE%D0%B2,_%D0%90%D0%BB%D0%B5%D0%BA%D1%81%D0%B5%D0%B9_%D0%90%D0%BD%D0%B0%D1%82%D0%BE%D0%BB%D1%8C%D0%B5%D0%B2%D0%B8%D1%87
https://www.currenttime.tv/a/syn-odnogo-iz-osnovateley-runeta-alekseya-soldatova-soobschil-ob-uhudshenii-zdorovya-ottsa/33136430.html
https://www.svoboda.org/a/odnogo-iz-sozdateley-runeta-prigovorili-k-dvum-godam/33046208.html
https://www.forbes.ru/tehnologii/390515-delo-otca-runeta-za-chto-presleduyut-byvshego-zamministra-svyazi-i-pri-chem-tut
Дело завели по просьбе Андрея Липова, активиста "Лиги безопасного
Интернета", ныне возглавляющего Роскомнадзор. Его биография:
https://meduza.io/feature/2020/03/31/pravoslavnyy-svyazist-pridumavshiy-suverennyy-runet

В принципе, Солдатову могли бы памятник поставить, как основателю
отрасли, а его вместо этого пытают. Мораль, не надо ничего делать в России,
по-любому все сгорит, скоро даже и русского языка не останется.
Причем для уничтожения русских работают более-менее все, включая
следственные органы, администрацию президента, и лично главгитлер
все делает, что может, чтобы эту заразу уничтожить.

Благодарности к ним совершенно никакой не испытываю,
все-таки геноцид миллионов это очень некрасиво. Но, подозреваю,
потомки скажут спасибо, примерно как сейчас говорят
спасибо Гайдару и Чубайсу за уничтожение 30 миллионов
быдляков, "не вписавшихся в рынок". Объективно, эти
30 миллионов, если б не погибли, рвались бы воевать
на Украину, что ретроактивно оправдывает геноцид.
Хотя если бы сраной правили не полные идиоты (а
гайдарочубайсы - кроворукие неучи и придурки
высочайшего градуса дебильности), никакого путлера
с украинской войной не было бы, может быть.

Но, если вдуматься, придурки и упыри
в руководстве это фундаментальная часть русской
культуры, из-за которой русских и уничтожают
(заслуженно тащемта).

Апропос, заинтересовался, кто такой Вадим Лукьянов,
автор гениальной песни "Чтобы убивать русских",
вот его бэндкэмп с ютюбом
https://dividproject.bandcamp.com/
https://www.youtube.com/@dividualism/videos
начал слушать, по первому впечатлению оно
неописуемо гениальное.

Лукьянов описывает свой жанр как "дворовый синтипоп",
довольно метко:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8In_aN_mq9w
"Мы превратились в черных журавлей"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OpV2BsyEeRg
"Медведь упал на снег"

Вот еще пост Лукьянова
https://ru-tape.livejournal.com/1796339.html
(ссылка мертвая, но есть список песен)
и собрание сочинений на рутрекере (поставил на закачку)
https://rutracker.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=2599210
и еще тут
https://muzplace.org/tracks/%D0%92%D0%B0%D0%B4%D0%B8%D0%BC%20%D0%9B%D1%83%D0%BA%D1%8C%D1%8F%D0%BD%D0%BE%D0%B2

Привет

(Читать комментарии) - (Добавить комментарий)

absolute
2024-10-05 17:59 (ссылка)

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

The Preamble serves solely as an introduction and does not assign powers to the federal government, nor does it provide specific limitations on government action. Due to the Preamble's limited nature, no court has ever used it as a decisive factor in case adjudication, except as regards frivolous litigation.

See Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11, 22 (1905) ("Although th[e] preamble indicates the general purposes for which the people ordained and established the Constitution, it has never been regarded as the source of any substantive power conferred on the government of the United States, or on any of its departments."); see also United States v. Boyer, 85 F. 425, 430–31 (W.D. Mo. 1898) ("The preamble never can be resorted to, to enlarge the powers confided to the general government, or any of its departments. It cannot confer any power per se. It can never amount, by implication, to an enlargement of any power expressly given. It can never be the legitimate source of any implied power, when otherwise withdrawn from the constitution. Its true office is to expound the nature and extent and application of the powers actually conferred by the constitution, and not substantively to create them." (quoting 1 JOSEPH STORY, COMMENTARIES ON THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES § 462 (1833)) (internal quotation marks omitted)).

It is difficult to prove a negative, but courts have at times acknowledged this apparent truism. See, e.g., Boyer, 85 F. at 430 ("I venture the opinion that no adjudicated case can be cited which traces to the preamble the power to enact any statute.").

In Jacobs v. Pataki, 68 F. App'x 222, 224 (2d Cir. 2003), the plaintiff made the bizarre argument that "the 'United States of America' that was granted Article III power in the Constitution is distinct from the 'United States' that currently exercises that power"; the court dismissed this contention with 3 words ("it is not") and cited a comparison of the Preamble's reference to the "United States of America" with Article III's vesting of the "judicial Power of the United States."

Chae Chan Ping v. United States, 130 U.S. 581, 604, 606 (1889) ("[T]he United States, in their relation to foreign countries and their subjects or citizens, are one nation, invested with powers which belong to independent nations, the exercise of which can be invoked for the maintenance of its absolute independence and security throughout its entire territory. The powers to declare war, make treaties, suppress insurrection, repel invasion, regulate foreign commerce, secure republican governments to the states, and admit subjects of other nations to citizenship are all sovereign powers, restricted in their exercise only by the Constitution itself and considerations of public policy and justice which control, more or less, the conduct of all civilized nations .... For local interests, the several states of the union exist, but for national purposes, embracing our relations with foreign nations, we are but one people, one nation, one power.").

United States v. Curtiss-Wright Export Corp., 299 U.S. 304, 318 (1936) ("[T]he investment of the federal government with the powers of external sovereignty did not depend upon the affirmative grants of the Constitution. The powers to declare and wage war, to conclude peace, to make treaties, to maintain diplomatic relations with other sovereignties, if they had never been mentioned in the Constitution, would have vested in the federal government as necessary concomitants of nationality .... As a member of the family of nations, the right and power of the United States in that field are equal to the right and power of the other members of the international family. Otherwise, the United States is not completely sovereign.").

The Preamble's reference to the "United States of America" has been interpreted over the years to explain the nature of the governmental entity that the Constitution created (i.e., the federal government). In contemporary international law, the world consists of sovereign states (or "sovereign nations" in modern equivalent). A state is said to be "sovereign" if any of its ruling inhabitants are the supreme authority over it; the concept is distinct from mere land-title or "ownership." While each state was originally recognized as sovereign unto itself, the Supreme Court held that the "United States of America" consists of only one sovereign nation with respect to foreign affairs and international relations; the individual states may not conduct foreign relations. Although the Constitution expressly delegates to the federal government only some of the usual powers of sovereign governments (such as the powers to declare war and make treaties), all such powers inherently belong to the federal government as the country's representative in the international community.

Domestically, the federal government's sovereignty means that it may perform acts such as entering into contracts or accepting bonds, which are typical of governmental entities but not expressly provided for in the Constitution or laws. Similarly, the federal government, as an attribute of sovereignty, has the power to enforce those powers that are granted to it (e.g., the power to "establish Post Offices and Post Roads" includes the power to punish those who interfere with the postal system so established). The Court has recognized the federal government's supreme power over those limited matters entrusted to it. Thus, no state may interfere with the federal government's operations as though its sovereignty is superior to the federal government's (discussed more below); for example, states may not interfere with the federal government's near absolute discretion to sell its own real property, even when that real property is located in one or another state. The federal government exercises its supreme power not as a unitary entity, but instead via the three coordinate branches of the government (legislative, executive, and judicial), each of which has its own prescribed powers and limitations under the Constitution. In addition, the doctrine of separation of powers functions as a limitation on each branch of the federal government's exercise of sovereign power.

One aspect of the American system of government is that, while the rest of the world now views the United States as one country, domestically American constitutional law recognizes a federation of state governments separate from (and not subdivisions of) the federal government, each of which is sovereign over its own affairs. Sometimes, the Supreme Court has even analogized the States to being foreign countries to each other to explain the American system of State sovereignty. However, each state's sovereignty is limited by the U.S. Constitution, which is the supreme law of both the United States as a nation and each state; in the event of a conflict, a valid federal law controls. As a result, although the federal government is (as discussed above) recognized as sovereign and has supreme power over those matters within its control, the American constitutional system also recognizes the concept of "State sovereignty", where certain matters are susceptible to government regulation, but only at the State and not the federal level. For example, although the federal government prosecutes crimes against the United States (such as treason, or interference with the postal system), the general administration of criminal justice is reserved to the States. Notwithstanding sometimes broad statements by the Supreme Court regarding the "supreme" and "exclusive" powers the State and Federal governments exercise, the Supreme Court and State courts have also recognized that much of their power is held and exercised concurrently.

(Ответить) (Уровень выше)

(Читать комментарии) -