Wednesday, February 15, 2012

In Defense of Censorship


In Defense of Censorship
by Laurence M. Vance, February 15, 2012

I was intrigued by the headline I saw in an evangelical magazine: "Google, iTunes, Facebook All Censor Christian Views."

The article turned out to be about the recent release at the National Press Club in Washington, D.C., of a report by the National Religious Broadcasters (NRB) on censorship by "new media" communications platforms.

The report is called True Liberty in a New Media Age: An Examination of the Threat of Anti-Christian Censorship and Other Viewpoint Discrimination on New Media Platforms. It was prepared after an 18-month analysis by The John Milton Project for Religious Free Speech, a project of the NRB under the direction of Sr. Vice President and General Counsel Craig L. Parshall.

The 47-page report contains a foreword by Frank Wright, president and CEO of the NRB, an executive summary by Craig Parshall, an introduction, five chapters, and eight brief appendices reproducing the pertinent content guidelines of the "new media" platforms under investigation.

According to the executive summary,
The policies and practices of several major Internet-interactive "new media" communications platforms and service providers were examined and evaluated in order to determine the risk of those entities committing anti-Christian viewpoint censorship. The companies reviewed were: Apple and its iTunes App Store; Facebook; MySpace; Google; Twitter; and Internet Service Providers (ISPs) Comcast, AT&T, and Verizon. Our conclusion is that Christian ideas and other religious content face a clear and present danger of censorship on web-based communication platforms.

The report maintains that anti-Christian censorship has already been practiced by Apple, Google, Facebook, and Comcast. The claim is made about Apple that "of the 425,000 apps available on Apple's iPhone, the only ones censored by Apple for expressing otherwise lawful viewpoints have been apps with Christian content." Google is criticized for denying certain ads and self-censoring certain words on the China-based version of its search engine that the Chinese government didn't like. Facebook isn't specifically charged with any anti-Christian censorship, but it is faulted for removing "anti-gay" content. Comcast supposedly blocked the downloading of the Bible but "it is unknown whether Comcast's suspected blockage of these Bible downloads was viewpoint targeted or was simply a response to a large download that threatened traffic."

The current written polices of the "new media" are condemned for being vague and prohibiting content that is "hate speech," controversial, inflammatory, inappropriate, any-gay, or misleading. Only Twitter is praised for policies that would "pass First Amendment muster if they are analyzed according to free speech principles articulated by the Supreme Court." All of the other companies studied "have written policies in place that violate fundamental rules of free expression, as applied to religious free speech."

The report urges Apple, Facebook, MySpace, Google, Comcast, AT&T, and Verizon to do three things: modify their policies, renounce past censorship practices, and "affirm an intent to abide by a healthy view of the free speech rights of their users and customers."

If that doesn't work, then the report suggests three courses of action: legislation, regulation, and litigation.

Now, whether Apple, Google, and the other "new media" platforms singled out by the report have practiced, are practicing, or might practice anti-Christian censorship is irrelevant to the real issue. True, if any of those take place, it is understandable that Christians would object. Just as it is understandable that a Buddhist would not be happy with anti-Buddhist censorship, a Republican would object to anti-Republican censorship, and a Black would not be pleased with anti-Black censorship. But, even as a Christian myself, it is my contention that censorship by "new media" platforms not only doesn't pose a threat to free speech, it has nothing to do with the First Amendment and freedom of speech.

It is actually disingenuous to bring up the First Amendment, as is done throughout the report, because, as the report even acknowledges, "The First Amendment, like the other provisions of our Bill of Rights, does not reach private actions but only the actions of 'state actors.'" The First Amendment reads,
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.

It is the government that is prohibited from abridging the freedom of speech, not any individual or private business. Historically, it is governments that have always been the enemies of free speech. It is governments that have sought to censor speech. It is governments around the world right now -- including the U.S. government -- that seek to censor the speech of their citizens.

Individuals and organizations censor speech everyday, and it is perfectly natural, reasonable, and accepted when they do so.

Christian churches censor anti-Christian viewpoints. Jewish synagogues censor anti-Jewish viewpoints. Muslim mosques censor anti-Muslim viewpoints. Atheist societies censor pro-God viewpoints. AA meetings censor calls to meet for drinks afterwards. Weight Watchers gatherings censor invitations to buffets. Pro-life groups censor pro-choice opinions. Tea Party get-togethers censor big-government rhetoric. A conservative conference censors the promotion of national health care in its lectures.

We all censor the speech of our children and visitors to our homes. And it has nothing to do with whether the censored speech is hateful, controversial, inflammatory, inappropriate, vulgar, or profane. A home of partisan Democrats might censor any visitor's praise of George W. Bush. Likewise, red-state conservatives might censor admiring opinions of President Obama expressed by visitors to their homes.

Even the NRB practices censorship. Does everyone have the freedom of speech to attend a board meeting of the NRB and express his views? Does anyone have the freedom of speech to utter obscenities in the lobby of the NRB headquarters?

If Apple prefers not to make available Christian apps, then Christians have several options. They can complain to Apple, boycott Apple, or start their own company to compete with Apple. If they don't like the terms of service of Facebook, MySpace, Google, Comcast, AT&T, or Verizon, then they can do likewise. They can do anything that's peaceful, which rules out legislation, regulation, and litigation.

Being able to censor what is said on one's property is a mark of a free and ordered society; not to be allowed to censor what is said on one's property is a mark of an authoritarian and lawless society.

The real issue is property. As economist George Reisman recently explained in writing about the Occupy Wall Street movement,
A major lesson to be learned from the occupation is that hardly anyone nowadays understands the meaning of freedom of speech. Contrary to the prevailing view, freedom of speech is not the ability to say anything, anywhere, at any time. Actual freedom of speech is consistent with respect for property rights. It presupposes that the speaker has the consent of the owners of any property he uses in speaking, such as the land, sound system, or lecture hall or radio or television studio that he uses.
By the logic of the prevailing view of freedom of speech, protesters in the future will be able to storm into lecture halls and/or seize radio and television stations in order to deliver their message and then claim that their freedom of speech is violated when the police come to eject them, even though the police in such cases would in fact be acting precisely in order to uphold the freedom of speech.
The prevailing view is totally incorrect. Actual freedom of speech, based on respect for property owners' rights to use their own property as they see fit, is the guarantor of rational communication.

As much as Christians may dislike what they see as anti-Christian censorship practiced by "new media" communications platforms, as much as they may dislike the "liberal bias" of social media companies, as much as they may dislike the "overbroad and vague" policies of Apple, as much as they may dislike the acceptable-use policies of Internet service providers, as much as they may dislike Google's advertising guidelines, and as much as they may dislike content restrictions imposed by MySpace, there is no "free speech obligation" that private entities must adhere to. In a free society, businesses of any type and companies large and small are free to cater to or not to cater to any group or cause they choose for any reason. That includes organizations such as the NRB, which would cry foul if it were not free to censor what was said on its property, posted on its website, or spoken at its meetings.

It doesn't matter whether "new media" platforms are censoring what is "right" and the NRB is censoring what is "wrong." Censorship, except when it is undertaken by government, is part and parcel of a free society.

http://www.fff.org/comment/com1202i.asp

Protecting the Buggy-Whip Industry!


Protecting the Buggy-Whip Industry!
Posted by Butler Shaffer on February 15, 2012 12:25 PM

Whenever I watch the ignoramuses at MSNBC pontificate their ignorance of basic economics, I am reminded of Rothbard's admonition for such persons not to propose economic policies.  Would someone suffering from a brain tumor seek out a phrenologist for advice and treatment?

On yesterday's "The Ed Show" on this channel, Mr. Ed and Rep. Gary Peters [D-Mich] were praising the Obama administration for having come to the financial rescue of the auto industry, saving this important industry and the jobs of those who work in it.  Analogies to the early 1900s with the emergence of that industry and the decline of the horse-drawn carriage industry have become such a cliche that I will not draw upon it again.  Instead, I will relate the personal experiences I had in law practice in the late 1960s. When copies of documents had to be submitted to courts/adminsitrative agencies, the means of the law firm doing so went like this: two or more members of the secretarial staff would take the document, place it on a piece of photographic film, and expose both to a bright light. The resulting film would then be exposed to a piece of copy paper which, it turn would be placed in a tray of chemicals so strong that those engaged in the process would have to wear rubber gloves. To get one  decent copy would often take three or four efforts.

The entire copying process was greatly advanced, a few years later, by the invention of xerography.  No more slow, d-r-a-w-n-o-u-t  methods of getting a single mediocre reproduction of a document; no more chemicals against which secretaries had to protect their hands, etc.  Ahhh, but what of the impending disaster awaiting the photo-copying industry that was being replaced by xerography?  What about all of the jobs to be lost, the investment in equipment, and the decline in demand for the chemicals used in this process?  I suspect that, if Mr. Ed and labor union representatives in Congress were to speak on the topic, they would have intoned on the importance of government intervention to save this dying industry, and to praise the politicians for their "foresight" and "vision" in bailing out firms that insisted upon their refusal to adapt themselves to the creative processes of the marketplace.

Cambodia: Stop Judicial harassment against Mr. Soum Chankea

February 16, 2012

Mr. Hun Sen,

Prime Minister,

Office of the Prime Minister,

Phnom Penh,

Kingdom of Cambodia,

Fax: +855 23 36 06 66 / 855 23 88 06 24 (c/o Council of Ministers),

Email: leewood_phu@nida.gov.kh

 

Re: Cambodia: Stop Judicial harassment against Mr. Soum Chankea

 

Dear Mr.Hun Sen,

 

I am writing to voice my deep concern regarding illegal judicial harassment against Mr. Soum Chankea.

 

I have been informed by the reliable sources of the judicial harassment faced by Mr. Soum Chankea, its Provincial Coordinator in Banteay Meanchey province.

 

According to the information received, on February 9, 2012, Mr. Soum Chankea was summoned by the Prosecutor's Office in Sisophon, capital of Banteay Meanchey province, following a complaint lodged by Mr. Oum Socheath, Head of the Banteay Meanchey branch of the Cambodia Mine Action Centre (CMAC) and Coordinator of the UNDP-CMAC mine clearance programme. The questioning is scheduled for February 20, 2012. The Prosecutor will then decide whether charges will be officially brought against Mr. Soum Chankea. These include "slanderous denunciation", an offence punishable by up to one year in prison and a up to two million riels (380 euros) fine under Article 311 of the Criminal Code.

 

The complaint against Mr. Soum Chankea follows ADHOC's intervention in a gender-based violence case. The victim filed complaints against Mr. Oum Socheath and Mr. Pong Piseth, also known as Mr. Veth, a business man in the area of real estate and construction, on November 4 and 9, 2011 respectively, accusing them of sexual harassment and assault. Following the victim's complaints, the authorities allegedly took no action to investigate the allegations. Mr. Soum Chankea intervened several times in her favour to urge the police and the Prosecutor to investigate the case. According to information gathered by ADHOC, Messrs. Oum Socheath and Pong Piseth would be benefiting from the protection of a businessman whose brother is a high-ranking government official.

 

I express my deepest concern about Mr. Soum Chankea's summons for questioning, which seems to merely aim at sanctioning his human rights activities, and accordingly calls upon the Cambodian authorities to put an end to all acts of harassment – including at the judicial level – against him.

 

The approach of judiciary against Mr. Soum Chankea reflects that the judiciary in Cambodia is not independent .There is visible and notable problem in the criminal justice system and there is absence of Rule of law in the country.

 

 

I request you please  guarantee in all circumstances the physical and psychological integrity of Mr. Soum Chankea.Put an end to acts of harassment – including at the judicial level – against him as well as against all human rights defenders in Cambodia;

 

I urge you please conform in any circumstances with the provisions of the Declaration on Human Rights Defenders, adopted on December 9, 1998 by the United Nations General Assembly, and in particular :

 

-       Article 1, which states that "everyone has the right, individually or in association with others, to promote the protection and realization of human rights and fundamental freedoms at the national and international levels",

 

-     and Article 12.2 which provides that "the State shall take all necessary measures to ensure the protection by the competent authorities of everyone, individually and in association with others, against any violence, threats, retaliation, de facto or de jure adverse discrimination, pressure or any other arbitrary action as a consequence of his or her legitimate exercise of the rights referred to in the present Declaration".

Ensure in all circumstances respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms in accordance with international human rights standards and international instruments ratified by Cambodia.

 

Sincerely

William Nicholas Gomes

William's Desk

www.williamgomes.org

 

Download: Cambodia-Stop Judicial harassment against Mr. Soum Chankea



--
William Nicholas Gomes
Journalist & Human Rights Activist
80/ B Bramon Chiron, Saydabad,
Dhaka-1203, Bangladesh.
Cell: +88 019 7 444 0 666
E-mail:
William [at] williamgomes.org,editorbd[at]gmail.com
Skype: William.gomes9
Face book:
www.facebook.com/williamnicholasgomes
Twitter:
twitter.com/williamgomes
Web site :www.williamgomes.org


--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
 
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

Re: CPAC: Thanks to Anti-gay Mitt Romney, There's No “Vegas of Gay Marriage” in Massachusetts

In fact, this is nothing but
a ploy to try and force the gay lifestyle upon Americans as being
"normal"
---
seeing the gay lifestyle as abnormal is where you are mistaken

The Homosexual Lifestyle / Gay Lifestyle is:

Get up in the morning, moaning at the alarm clock.
Shower, dress, eat breakfast.
Go to work.
Complain about traffic.
Work. Worry about the job getting outsourced to India.
Go home. Worry about gas prices.
Stop for groceries on the way once or twice a week.
Cook dinner. Realize there's no butter.
Eat dinner. Worry about blood pressure and cholesterol.
Do laundry. Try to figure out how to get that tomato stain out of
that t-shirt.
Clean the house. Realize that a sock didn't make it into the
laundry.
Pay bills. Worry about saving for retirement.
Watch a little TV, spend time with any family members in the
house, talk with friends on the Internet.
Go to sleep.
Repeat.

Decadent, isn't it?

Practically every concievable type of "marriage" has been practiced by
one group or another: societies have been observed in which women are
"married" off before even being concieved and may be bartered by their
"husbands" as currency; societies have been observed in which all men
practice ritual homosexuality and only visit their wives for
reproductive purposes. As gay Americans, we find such societies to be
bizarre and distasteful, but their existence demonstrates that the
contemporary idea of the heterosexual nuclear family has not been an
unchanged standard for all of human history. Marriage as we know it
today came about in the 20th century, with women obtaining equal
rights and the Supreme Court ordering that interracial couples must be
permitted to marry. Marriage has withstood countless changes over the
hundreds of thousands of years of human history, and will continue
long after gay people have joined the ranks of married couples.

On Feb 14, 4:49 pm, Keith In Tampa <keithinta...@gmail.com> wrote:
> PlainOl,
>
> I will put my record of defending equal rights,  be it based on racial
> discrimination, or sexual discrimination, against yours, any day of the
> week.
>
> That dog won't hunt.  There's no bias, misinformation, or prejudice here.
> I am just a regular, "plain ol' "  American, concerned about secularists
> such as yourself and the damage that you are attempting to inflict upon our
> Nation.   I, along with other concerned Americans like myself,  won't allow
> this revision to do down, and EVERYWHERE that there has been a public
> referendum, the measure(s)  have been defeated.   Count on it.
>
> Just as an example,  "If"  this was about equal rights,  then Gays would
> accept the term, "Civil Union",  which in California is the current law:
>
> http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=fam&group=00001...
>
> With purposeful , extensive, methodical propaganda, planning, massive
> amounts of funding by the likes of George Soros and others, and  with
> controlled, extensive media manipulation, you, and many Americans have been
> intentionally misled and mislead.  There has been a concerted effort by a
> select hard core group of secularists, who want to destroy the traditional
> values of this Nation, the very core values that made this Nation
> great.
>
>  As stated, most conservatives are not objectionable to civil unions for
> homosexuals, albeit the gay militant movement tries to frame this as being
> some kind of "separate but equal" token of inequality.  As I just
> demonstrated, California has a "domestic partner" law, which allows for
> civil unions between homosexuals.   Ironically, we have  surely  not seen
> any of the mainstream news media focusing on this issue, as a matter of
> fact, most people, including homosexuals, are unaware that California has a
> "Civil Union" statute.
>
> To date, IN ANY STATE, there is no discrimination against homosexuals
> living as a couple, that a few legal documents, such as a living will, a
> last will, and documents allowing for the sharing of of financial
> portfolios and accounts would remedy.   This fact in and of itself,
> establishes my point, that there is a secular movement in an attempt to
> force mainstream America to accept "gay marriage" as being the only
> recourse to allow homosexuals to be "equal".  In fact, this is nothing but
> a ploy to try and force the gay lifestyle upon Americans as being "normal";
> and anyone who opposes such a radical change in the definition of
> "Marriage" are homophobic.
>
> On Tue, Feb 14, 2012 at 4:40 PM, plainolamerican
> <plainolameri...@gmail.com>wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > We're whipping a dead horse here.
> > ---
> > I don't have an interest in the gay marriage issue and rarely speak on
> > it .... but I do see the anti-gay crowd as bigots - defending a word
> > because they're biased against homosexuals.
> > They are citizens just like you and me ... with all the rights that go
> > with be an American.
>
> >  "I/We" have provided ample examples and
> > proof that disproves any bigotry or ignorance.
> > ----
> > try again ... defending the word marriage to veil your bias doesn't
> > work
>
> >  You PlainOl, are a
> > secularist,  and apparently are intent on rewriting American history.
> > ---
> > the word marriage has nothing to do with American history ... now
> > you're a word-nazi?
>
> > It won't work.
> > ---
> > it already is working.
> > Gays are going to marry nationwide and the word marriage will still
> > exist.
>
> > On Feb 14, 2:09 pm, Keith In Tampa <keithinta...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > We're whipping a dead horse here.  "I/We" have provided ample examples
> > and
> > > proof that disproves any bigotry or ignorance.  You PlainOl, are a
> > > secularist,  and apparently are intent on rewriting American history.
>
> > > It won't work.
>
> > > On Tue, Feb 14, 2012 at 2:19 PM, plainolamerican
> > > <plainolameri...@gmail.com>wrote:
>
> > > > I found nothing about religion in the etymology.
>
> > > > regardless ... bigotry against homosexuals is never justified
>
> > > > On Feb 14, 1:12 pm, Mark <markmka...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > Already did earlier in the string. Posted the entire etymology of the
> > > > word.
>
> > > > > On Tue, Feb 14, 2012 at 11:47 AM, plainolamerican <
> > > > plainolameri...@gmail.com
>
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > cite source
>
> > > > > > On Feb 14, 10:57 am, Mark <markmka...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > The very word "marry" is gender and religiously based.
>
> > > > > > > On Tue, Feb 14, 2012 at 10:56 AM, plainolamerican <
> > > > > > plainolameri...@gmail.com
>
> > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > But marriage is "religious".
> > > > > > > > ---
> > > > > > > > only to the religious
> > > > > > > > People marry for many reasons, including one or more of the
> > > > following:
> > > > > > > > legal, social, libidinal, emotional, economic, spiritual, and
> > > > > > > > religious.
>
> > > > > > > >  Whether you like it, or don't like it, our
> > > > > > > > Nation is founded on Christian principles and beliefs.
> > > > > > > > ---
> > > > > > > > with specific instructions to keep religion and the state
> > separate
>
> > > > > > > >  No getting around
> > > > > > > > that PlainOl.  That is where secularists like you will
> > continue to
> > > > > > > > fail,
> > > > > > > > and miserably, as you continue to attempt to redefine our
> > history.
> > > > > > > > ---
> > > > > > > > our history includes xianity, judaism, mormonism, islam and
> > many
> > > > other
> > > > > > > > myth believers
>
> > > > > > > > On Feb 14, 10:33 am, Keith In Tampa <keithinta...@gmail.com>
> > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > But marriage is "religious".  Whether you like it, or don't
> > like
> > > > it,
> > > > > > our
> > > > > > > > > Nation is founded on Christian principles and beliefs.  No
> > > > getting
> > > > > > around
> > > > > > > > > that PlainOl.  That is where secularists like you will
> > continue
> > > > to
> > > > > > fail,
> > > > > > > > > and miserably, as you continue to attempt to redefine our
> > > > history.
>
> > > > > > > > > On Tue, Feb 14, 2012 at 11:31 AM, plainolamerican <
> > > > > > > > plainolameri...@gmail.com
>
> > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > there are no "rights" involved
> > > > > > > > > > ---
> > > > > > > > > > the right to marry
>
> > > > > > > > > > personally, I don't think the state should be involved in
> > the
> > > > > > process,
> > > > > > > > > > but if they are allowed to regulate marriage then they must
> > > > treat
> > > > > > all
> > > > > > > > > > people fairly.
>
> > > > > > > > > > yes ... gays should have the right to marry and the
> > religious
> > > > need
> > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > butt out
>
> > > > > > > > > > On Feb 14, 8:51 am, Mark <markmka...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > militant gay agenda pushing for
> > > > > > > > > > > additional, and I might add, unequal rights.
> > > > > > > > > > > ---
> > > > > > > > > > > no additional or unequal rights are being requested
>
> > > > > > > > > > > Plainol... there are no "rights" involved. Why do you
> > keep
> > > > saying
> > > > > > > > that??
>
> > > > > > > > > > > Let's look at this. I go to the county or city to get a
> > > > permit.
> > > > > > That
> > > > > > > > > > permit
> > > > > > > > > > > does not EVER include shingles made from dragon skin. I
> > want
> > > > > > shingles
> > > > > > > > > > made
> > > > > > > > > > > from dragon skin. I say but other people have shingles
> > that
> > > > they
> > > > > > > > like and
> > > > > > > > > > > that suit them why can't I???
>
> > > > > > > > > > > Gay marriage is exactly the same. It is asking for
> > something
> > > > that
> > > > > > > > never
> > > > > > > > > > > existed, was never considered as reasonable and that most
> > > > people
> > > > > > do
> > > > > > > > not
> > > > > > > > > > > agree with.
>
> > > > > > > > > > > It is indeed asking for a variance that was never
> > imagined
> > > > when
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > permit
> > > > > > > > > > > process was discussed and passed as law.
>
> > > > > > > > > > > Marriage, like dragon skin shingles, is NOT a "right".
> >  It
> > > > is an
> > > > > > > > item or
> > > > > > > > > > > activity that requires a permit just like many other
> > items or
> > > > > > > > activities.
>
> > > > > > > > > > > To make the "special change" to a permit or zoning
> > > > restriction
> > > > > > > > requires
> > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > advice AND consent of a majority of my neighbors (SIGNED
> > > > > > consent).
> > > > > > > > Why
> > > > > > > > > > > should this permit variance be ANY different? Let's let
> > > > America
> > > > > > vote,
> > > > > > > > > > State
> > > > > > > > > > > by State to decide what is a HUGE issue to some? Fear of
> > > > failure,
> > > > > > > > that's
> > > > > > > > > > > why.
>
> > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Feb 14, 2012 at 5:55 AM, plainolamerican
> > > > > > > > > > > <plainolameri...@gmail.com>wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > militant gay agenda pushing for
> > > > > > > > > > > > additional, and I might add, unequal rights.
> > > > > > > > > > > > ---
> > > > > > > > > > > > no additional or unequal rights are being requested
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > Marriage has never been, and will never be anything
> > other
> > > > than
> > > > > > > > between
> > > > > > > > > > > > a
> > > > > > > > > > > > man and a woman.
> > > > > > > > > > > > ---
> > > > > > > > > > > > take off your blinders
> > > > > > > > > > > >http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/marriage
>
> > > > > > > > > > > >   All this is, is an attempt by secularists, in this
> > case
> > > > > > > > > > > > militant Gay secularists, to try and redefine American
> > > > history,
> > > > > > > > > > > > ---
> > > > > > > > > > > > it has nothing to do with American history ... other
> > than
> > > > > > become a
> > > > > > > > > > > > lesson like witch burning for the religious
>
> > > > > > > > > > > >  and to
> > > > > > > > > > > > shove down Americans' proverbial throats a homosexual
> > > > > > lifestyle as
> > > > > > > > > > > > being
> > > > > > > > > > > > normal.  I don't accept that.
> > > > > > > > > > > > ---
> > > > > > > > > > > > you choose not to accept it .. and you would be
> > kicking and
> > > > > > > > screaming
> > > > > > > > > > > > if it was
>
> ...
>
> read more »

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum

* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

Re: SRI LANKA: Abduction of a torture victim seeking judicial remedies from the Supreme Court

I quite like, "juridical".

On Feb 15, 1:19 am, William Gomes <williamgomes....@gmail.com> wrote:
> February 15, 2012
>
> Ms. Eva Wanasundara
> Attorney General
> Attorney General's Department
> Colombo 12
> SRI LANKA
> Fax: +94 11 2 436421
> E-mail: a...@attorneygeneral.gov.lk
>
> Re: SRI LANKA: Abduction of a torture victim seeking judicial remedies from
> Supreme Court
>
> Dear Ms. Eva Wanasundara,
>
> *Name of victim:* Mr. Ramasamy Prabakaran, 42 year old, a Tamil businessman
> of Indian descent; owns Panama Traders, an electronics store at Majestic
> City Complex in Bambalapitiya
>
> *Alleged perpetrators:* Seven armed men armed with assault rifles onboard a
> 'white van'.
>
> *Date and place of incident: *At 3:30pm on February 11, 2012 close to his
> home in Canal Bank Road, Wellawatte
> *Prior to his abduction:* On February 13, the Supreme Court (SC) was to
> hear his fundamental rights application in seeking judicial remedies due to
> torture and illegal detention of his person. In September 2011, he was
> released after 28 months in police custody where he was illegally arrested,
> tortured and detained since May 2009.
>
> I would like to bring to your notice the abduction of Ramasamay
> Prabhakaran, 42, who was bundled into a white van by seven men armed with
> assault rifles and hand guns. This was two days before a fundamental rights
> case filed by him was to be taken up.
>
> I am aware that prior to his abduction, there had been similar targeted
> attacks on torture victims in the past; firstly, Gerald Perera, who was
> killed a few days before he was to give evidence before the Negambo High
> Court; secondly, Sugath Nishantha Fernando, who also murdered as he was
> pursuing a fundamental rights application relating to torture of himself
> and his family by 11 police officers working in the Negambo area. To date,
> no credible inquiry has been carried out into this murder.
>
> I am deeply concerned by these targeted attacks on torture victims who had
> been pursuing redress before courts for violations of their fundamental
> rights were assassinated, allegedly by the persons against whom they were
> pursuing their complaints.
>
> Recently, in the case of Fernando, the UN Human Rights Committee has
> already expressed in their views on the 17 October 2011 categorically
> stating that Sri Lanka has failed to provide redress for the violations of
> his rights.
>
> I am of the opinion that the abduction of Prabhakaran is a direct affront
> to the Supreme Court of Sri Lanka. He was abducted to prevent him from
> obtaining possibilities of remedies from court, in the similar way it has
> been done in the murders of Perera and Fernando. They were torture victims
> who resorted to the courts for protection in their pursuit of justice.
>
> What happened to Prabhakaran, Perera and Fernando, is a clear message to
> threatening all those victims or any persons who wish to come before the
> Supreme Court and other courts, to petition for court remedies; to place
> their grievances about the violations of their rights; to seek the
> intervention of the judiciary for their protection and for redress. This
> abduction and murders had a chilling effect on the administration of
> justice in Sri Lanka.
>
> It is the duty of the judiciary itself to protect those who come before
> them seeking protection and justice. If the victims of violations desist
> from seeking justice due to the reprisals for doing so, the entire
> administration of justice relating to human rights will hardly be of any
> use. In the circumstances, it is not surprising that the number of
> applications filed before the Supreme Court on fundamental rights have
> declined.
> The defeat of judicial intervention is always an objective of the executive
> who fails to protect the rights of the citizens. The objective of the
> executive is to defeat judicial interventions and attempt to reduce the
> judiciary to administrative functions. The attack on the juridical function
> has taken many forms, including far reaching constitutional changes, and
> the intimidation of witnesses is part of this strategy.
>
> The foundation of law is the recognition of the juridical. If the
> recognition of the juridical is displaced by the administrative, then the
> very foundation of the law is undermined.
>
> Yours sincerely,
> William Nicholas Gomes
> William's Desk
>
> www.williamgomes.org
>
> Download: SRI LANKA-Abduction of a torture victim seeking judicial remedies
> from the Supreme
> Court<http://www.williamgomes.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/SRI-LANKA-Abdu...>http://www.williamgomes.org/?p=467
>
> --
> *William Nicholas Gomes*
> *Journalist & Human Rights Activist *
> *80/ B Bramon Chiron, Saydabad,
> Dhaka-1203, Bangladesh.
> Cell: +88 019 7 444 0 666
> E-mail:**William [at] williamgomes.org* <Will...@williamgomes.org>*,
> editorbd[at]gmail.com <edito...@gmail.com>
> Skype: William.gomes9
> Face book: **www.facebook.com/williamnicholasgomes*<http://www.facebook.com/williamnicholasgomes>
> *
> Twitter: **twitter.com/williamgomes* <http://www.twitter.com/persecutionbd>*
> **Web site :www.williamgomes.org*<http://www.williamgomes.org/>
>
>  SRI LANKA-Abduction of a torture victim seeking judicial remedies from the Supreme Court.pdf
> 233KViewDownload

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum

* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

Re: Howard Stern on Sarah Palin and the Gabrielle Giffords shooting... she makes me want to vomit

The good thing about Sarah Palin, is
that she drives Secularists, Communists, Moonbats and Crackpots
totally
crazy!
---
she's insignificant .. just another zionist myth believer

On Feb 15, 10:13 am, Keith In Tampa <keithinta...@gmail.com> wrote:
> As Stern's side kick WhuzHerName pointed out,  Stern has no point, other
> than he dislikes Palin.   Again, to the best of my knowledge, Palin isn't
> running for any office this week.......The good thing about Sarah Palin, is
> that she drives Secularists,  Communists,  Moonbats and Crackpots totally
> crazy!
>
> On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 10:39 AM, plainolamerican <plainolameri...@gmail.com
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > wrote:
> > funny ... a jew blasting a zionist who wants to protect israel
>
> >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VT_Di4Ao3bQ
>
> > On Feb 14, 11:18 pm, studio <tl...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > Of course the humorless Republitards won't get this because their
> > > brand of humor is dark, dank and an abomination to civil society.
>
> > > Let's put a gun sight target on Sarah Palins kids whereabouts and see
> > > how she likes it.
>
> > >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NJNBctddBSM
>
> > --
> > Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
> > For options & help seehttp://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
>
> > * Visit our other community athttp://www.PoliticalForum.com/
> > * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
> > * Read the latest breaking news, and more.

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum

* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

Re: Howard Stern on Sarah Palin and the Gabrielle Giffords shooting... she makes me want to vomit

Me either Greg!
 
<Grin>!


 
On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 11:15 AM, GregfromBoston <greg.vincent@yahoo.com> wrote:
This is the same "republitard" that mercilessly tore into Bush for 8
years right?


God what a riot!

And I don't pay for radio.

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum

* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
 
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

Re: Howard Stern on Sarah Palin and the Gabrielle Giffords shooting... she makes me want to vomit

This is the same "republitard" that mercilessly tore into Bush for 8
years right?


God what a riot!

And I don't pay for radio.

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum

* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

Re: Howard Stern on Sarah Palin and the Gabrielle Giffords shooting... she makes me want to vomit

As Stern's side kick WhuzHerName pointed out,  Stern has no point, other than he dislikes Palin.   Again, to the best of my knowledge, Palin isn't running for any office this week.......The good thing about Sarah Palin, is that she drives Secularists,  Communists,  Moonbats and Crackpots totally crazy!
 


 
On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 10:39 AM, plainolamerican <plainolamerican@gmail.com> wrote:
funny ... a jew blasting a zionist who wants to protect israel

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VT_Di4Ao3bQ

On Feb 14, 11:18 pm, studio <tl...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Of course the humorless Republitards won't get this because their
> brand of humor is dark, dank and an abomination to civil society.
>
> Let's put a gun sight target on Sarah Palins kids whereabouts and see
> how she likes it.
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NJNBctddBSM

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum

* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
 
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

Re: So you thought the universe was infinitely big... how about a multiverse that makes our universe look like the size of an atom?

they
can put one through a bathroom window in Chicago
---
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-501708_162-57378072/visit-offers-little-insight-into-next-china-leader/

On Feb 15, 9:34 am, GregfromBoston <greg.vinc...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Very Clinton-esque,
>
> Before Bill, China could reach Hawaii, but likely miss.  Since, they
> can put one through a bathroom window in Chicago.
>
> On Feb 15, 10:24 am, plainolamerican <plainolameri...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > and like a good socialist, Obama gives away the technology
>
> >http://www.examiner.com/political-buzz-in-houston/congressman-culbers...
>
> > many of those who work for NASA are 'given' the technology for
> > personal gain ... shouldn't the technology be given to all Americans
> > who fund the program?
>
> > On Feb 15, 9:14 am, GregfromBoston <greg.vinc...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > And NASA was created by a republican.
>
> > > On Feb 15, 9:30 am, GregfromBoston <greg.vinc...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > the concept of multiverse has been around for millenia- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum

* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

Re: Howard Stern on Sarah Palin and the Gabrielle Giffords shooting... she makes me want to vomit

funny ... a jew blasting a zionist who wants to protect israel

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VT_Di4Ao3bQ

On Feb 14, 11:18 pm, studio <tl...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Of course the humorless Republitards won't get this because their
> brand of humor is dark, dank and an abomination to civil society.
>
> Let's put a gun sight target on Sarah Palins kids whereabouts and see
> how she likes it.
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NJNBctddBSM

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum

* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

Re: So you thought the universe was infinitely big... how about a multiverse that makes our universe look like the size of an atom?

Very Clinton-esque,

Before Bill, China could reach Hawaii, but likely miss. Since, they
can put one through a bathroom window in Chicago.

On Feb 15, 10:24 am, plainolamerican <plainolameri...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> and like a good socialist, Obama gives away the technology
>
> http://www.examiner.com/political-buzz-in-houston/congressman-culbers...
>
> many of those who work for NASA are 'given' the technology for
> personal gain ... shouldn't the technology be given to all Americans
> who fund the program?
>
> On Feb 15, 9:14 am, GregfromBoston <greg.vinc...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > And NASA was created by a republican.
>
> > On Feb 15, 9:30 am, GregfromBoston <greg.vinc...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > the concept of multiverse has been around for millenia- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum

* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

Re: Communist Party USA Endorses Obama & Democrats for 2012

You can stop using the roads, medicines and countless other things
socialism put in place
---
a republic made the roads, medicine and countless other things

On Feb 14, 10:35 am, studio <tl...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Feb 14, 11:25 am, plainolamerican <plainolameri...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > You know what my opinion is on all these issues.
>
> No I'm afraid I don't know what your stance is on all these issues,
> though I could easily guess some of them.
>
> > the issue at hand is that the dems and socialists hold similar
> > positions on these issues.
>
> On some issues they may well hold similar beliefs.
> But on some issues Dems a Reps hold similar beliefs also...
> And fundamental conservatives may hold similar beliefs with Islamic
> terrorists also... so what?
>
> Why I bet you and I even hold some similar beliefs.
>
> You can stop using the roads, medicines and countless other things
> socialism put in place any time you'd really like to protest the evils
> of socialism.
> But somehow I don't think you will because it benefits you and has in
> fact already saved your life numerous times without you ever realizing
> it.

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum

* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

Re: CPAC: Thanks to Anti-gay Mitt Romney, There's No “Vegas of Gay Marriage” in Massachusetts

No. I'm Catholic.

On Feb 15, 10:28 am, plainolamerican <plainolameri...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> My church only tells people whom they can't marry IN THEIR CHURCH
> ---
> do they marry homosexuals?
>
> On Feb 15, 9:10 am, GregfromBoston <greg.vinc...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > My church only tells people whom they can't marry IN THEIR CHURCH.
>
> > On Feb 15, 10:05 am, plainolamerican <plainolameri...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
>
> > > You are suggesting that marriage is a Government bestowed privilege?
> > > ----
> > > they control the permits ... but should be stripped of the power as
> > > neither the state or the church should be able to tell anybody who
> > > they can marry
>
> > > On Feb 15, 7:38 am, Mark <markmka...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > You are suggesting that marriage is a Government bestowed privilege? A
> > > > permission? Huh?
>
> > > > I am not saying it.... the laws in every jurisdiction under US control are
> > > > saying it...without exception. It is a "permitted" function. One where
> > > > EVERYONE has the same limited options.
>
> > > > On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 6:58 AM, MJ <micha...@america.net> wrote:
> > > > >  At 09:17 PM 2/14/2012, you wrote:
>
> > > > > IT IS A PERMIT. IT IS NOT A RIGHT.
> > > > > ---
>
> > > > > Individuals have a right to life; his own life; self-ownership.
> > > > > Corollary to that right to life is the right to associate and contract.
> > > > > Legitimate Government SECURES the Individual's right to life and its
> > > > > corollaries.
>
> > > > > You are suggesting that marriage is a Government bestowed privilege? A
> > > > > permission? Huh?
> > > > > It is only in RECENT times that Government stuck its nose where it did not
> > > > > belong.
>
> > > > > Regard$,
> > > > > --MJ
>
> > > > > A right is the sanction of independent action. A right is that which can
> > > > > be exercised without anyone's permission. If you exist only because society
> > > > > permits you to exist, you have no right to your own life. A permission can
> > > > > be revoked at any time. If, before undertaking some action, you must obtain
> > > > > the permission of society - you are not free, whether such permission is
> > > > > granted to you or not. Only a slave acts on permission. A permission is not
> > > > > a right. -- Alyssa Rosenbaum
>
> > > > > --
> > > > > Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
> > > > > For options & help seehttp://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
>
> > > > > * Visit our other community athttp://www.PoliticalForum.com/
> > > > > * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
> > > > > * Read the latest breaking news, and more.
>
> > > > --
> > > > *Mark M. Kahle H.*
> > > > *
> > > > *
> > > > *
> > > > *- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum

* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

Re: CPAC: Thanks to Anti-gay Mitt Romney, There's No “Vegas of Gay Marriage” in Massachusetts

My church only tells people whom they can't marry IN THEIR CHURCH
---
do they marry homosexuals?

On Feb 15, 9:10 am, GregfromBoston <greg.vinc...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> My church only tells people whom they can't marry IN THEIR CHURCH.
>
> On Feb 15, 10:05 am, plainolamerican <plainolameri...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > You are suggesting that marriage is a Government bestowed privilege?
> > ----
> > they control the permits ... but should be stripped of the power as
> > neither the state or the church should be able to tell anybody who
> > they can marry
>
> > On Feb 15, 7:38 am, Mark <markmka...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > You are suggesting that marriage is a Government bestowed privilege? A
> > > permission? Huh?
>
> > > I am not saying it.... the laws in every jurisdiction under US control are
> > > saying it...without exception. It is a "permitted" function. One where
> > > EVERYONE has the same limited options.
>
> > > On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 6:58 AM, MJ <micha...@america.net> wrote:
> > > >  At 09:17 PM 2/14/2012, you wrote:
>
> > > > IT IS A PERMIT. IT IS NOT A RIGHT.
> > > > ---
>
> > > > Individuals have a right to life; his own life; self-ownership.
> > > > Corollary to that right to life is the right to associate and contract.
> > > > Legitimate Government SECURES the Individual's right to life and its
> > > > corollaries.
>
> > > > You are suggesting that marriage is a Government bestowed privilege? A
> > > > permission? Huh?
> > > > It is only in RECENT times that Government stuck its nose where it did not
> > > > belong.
>
> > > > Regard$,
> > > > --MJ
>
> > > > A right is the sanction of independent action. A right is that which can
> > > > be exercised without anyone's permission. If you exist only because society
> > > > permits you to exist, you have no right to your own life. A permission can
> > > > be revoked at any time. If, before undertaking some action, you must obtain
> > > > the permission of society - you are not free, whether such permission is
> > > > granted to you or not. Only a slave acts on permission. A permission is not
> > > > a right. -- Alyssa Rosenbaum
>
> > > > --
> > > > Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
> > > > For options & help seehttp://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
>
> > > > * Visit our other community athttp://www.PoliticalForum.com/
> > > > * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
> > > > * Read the latest breaking news, and more.
>
> > > --
> > > *Mark M. Kahle H.*
> > > *
> > > *
> > > *
> > > *- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum

* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

Re: So you thought the universe was infinitely big... how about a multiverse that makes our universe look like the size of an atom?

and like a good socialist, Obama gives away the technology

http://www.examiner.com/political-buzz-in-houston/congressman-culberson-objects-to-obama-directive-that-nasa-give-secrets-to-china

many of those who work for NASA are 'given' the technology for
personal gain ... shouldn't the technology be given to all Americans
who fund the program?

On Feb 15, 9:14 am, GregfromBoston <greg.vinc...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> And NASA was created by a republican.
>
> On Feb 15, 9:30 am, GregfromBoston <greg.vinc...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > the concept of multiverse has been around for millenia

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum

* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

Re: SHARIA (Islamic) LAW FOR DUMMIES (WARNING: Graphic footage)

these idiots need to learn to use the right tools

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=a6e_1316873330

On Feb 15, 5:35 am, Travis <baconl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> **
>            New post on *Bare Naked Islam*
> <http://www.endtimestoday.com/?author=1>  SHARIA (Islamic) LAW FOR DUMMIES
> (WARNING: Graphic
> footage)<http://barenakedislam.com/2012/02/15/sharia-islamic-law-for-dummies-w...>by
> barenakedislam <http://www.endtimestoday.com/?author=1>
> Beheadings. Stonings. Burnings. Trying to explain the finer points of
> sharia law to all your liberal friends can be tiring. So, why not just pull
> up this video on your i-Phone and in less than three minutes, your pals
> will know everything they always wanted to know about sharia law, but were
> afraid to ask. *Be sure to send it to your state legislators who are trying
> to pass bills banning the use of sharia in the courts, but are being
> harassed and sued by terrorist front groups like CAIR.*
>
> http://widgets.vodpod.com/w/video_embed/Video.16085141
>
>  *barenakedislam <http://www.endtimestoday.com/?author=1>* | February 15,
> 2012 at 1:20 am | Categories: Beheadings
> (GRAPHIC)<http://www.endtimestoday.com/?cat=10843681>| URL:http://wp.me/p276zM-FA5
>
>   Comment<http://barenakedislam.com/2012/02/15/sharia-islamic-law-for-dummies-w...>
>    See all comments<http://barenakedislam.com/2012/02/15/sharia-islamic-law-for-dummies-w...>
>
>   Unsubscribe or change your email settings at Manage
> Subscriptions<https://subscribe.wordpress.com/?key=7f89380f46003915c34c2cdd2b126a38...>.
>
> *Trouble clicking?* Copy and paste this URL into your browser:http://barenakedislam.com/2012/02/15/sharia-islamic-law-for-dummies-w...

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum

* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

Re: So you thought the universe was infinitely big... how about a multiverse that makes our universe look like the size of an atom?

And NASA was created by a republican.

On Feb 15, 9:30 am, GregfromBoston <greg.vinc...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> the concept of multiverse has been around for millenia

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum

* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

Re: CPAC: Thanks to Anti-gay Mitt Romney, There's No “Vegas of Gay Marriage” in Massachusetts

My church only tells people whom they can't marry IN THEIR CHURCH.

On Feb 15, 10:05 am, plainolamerican <plainolameri...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> You are suggesting that marriage is a Government bestowed privilege?
> ----
> they control the permits ... but should be stripped of the power as
> neither the state or the church should be able to tell anybody who
> they can marry
>
> On Feb 15, 7:38 am, Mark <markmka...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > You are suggesting that marriage is a Government bestowed privilege? A
> > permission? Huh?
>
> > I am not saying it.... the laws in every jurisdiction under US control are
> > saying it...without exception. It is a "permitted" function. One where
> > EVERYONE has the same limited options.
>
> > On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 6:58 AM, MJ <micha...@america.net> wrote:
> > >  At 09:17 PM 2/14/2012, you wrote:
>
> > > IT IS A PERMIT. IT IS NOT A RIGHT.
> > > ---
>
> > > Individuals have a right to life; his own life; self-ownership.
> > > Corollary to that right to life is the right to associate and contract.
> > > Legitimate Government SECURES the Individual's right to life and its
> > > corollaries.
>
> > > You are suggesting that marriage is a Government bestowed privilege? A
> > > permission? Huh?
> > > It is only in RECENT times that Government stuck its nose where it did not
> > > belong.
>
> > > Regard$,
> > > --MJ
>
> > > A right is the sanction of independent action. A right is that which can
> > > be exercised without anyone's permission. If you exist only because society
> > > permits you to exist, you have no right to your own life. A permission can
> > > be revoked at any time. If, before undertaking some action, you must obtain
> > > the permission of society - you are not free, whether such permission is
> > > granted to you or not. Only a slave acts on permission. A permission is not
> > > a right. -- Alyssa Rosenbaum
>
> > > --
> > > Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
> > > For options & help seehttp://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
>
> > > * Visit our other community athttp://www.PoliticalForum.com/
> > > * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
> > > * Read the latest breaking news, and more.
>
> > --
> > *Mark M. Kahle H.*
> > *
> > *
> > *
> > *- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum

* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

Re: CPAC: Thanks to Anti-gay Mitt Romney, There's No “Vegas of Gay Marriage” in Massachusetts

You are suggesting that marriage is a Government bestowed privilege?
----
they control the permits ... but should be stripped of the power as
neither the state or the church should be able to tell anybody who
they can marry

On Feb 15, 7:38 am, Mark <markmka...@gmail.com> wrote:
> You are suggesting that marriage is a Government bestowed privilege? A
> permission? Huh?
>
> I am not saying it.... the laws in every jurisdiction under US control are
> saying it...without exception. It is a "permitted" function. One where
> EVERYONE has the same limited options.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 6:58 AM, MJ <micha...@america.net> wrote:
> >  At 09:17 PM 2/14/2012, you wrote:
>
> > IT IS A PERMIT. IT IS NOT A RIGHT.
> > ---
>
> > Individuals have a right to life; his own life; self-ownership.
> > Corollary to that right to life is the right to associate and contract.
> > Legitimate Government SECURES the Individual's right to life and its
> > corollaries.
>
> > You are suggesting that marriage is a Government bestowed privilege? A
> > permission? Huh?
> > It is only in RECENT times that Government stuck its nose where it did not
> > belong.
>
> > Regard$,
> > --MJ
>
> > A right is the sanction of independent action. A right is that which can
> > be exercised without anyone's permission. If you exist only because society
> > permits you to exist, you have no right to your own life. A permission can
> > be revoked at any time. If, before undertaking some action, you must obtain
> > the permission of society - you are not free, whether such permission is
> > granted to you or not. Only a slave acts on permission. A permission is not
> > a right. -- Alyssa Rosenbaum
>
> > --
> > Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
> > For options & help seehttp://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
>
> > * Visit our other community athttp://www.PoliticalForum.com/
> > * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
> > * Read the latest breaking news, and more.
>
> --
> *Mark M. Kahle H.*
> *
> *
> *
> *

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum

* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

Re: So you thought the universe was infinitely big... how about a multiverse that makes our universe look like the size of an atom?

you have no business
using because it goes against your anti-socialism beliefs.
---
socialism is for those who need a nanny

Be the hermit you always wanted to be and stop invading my social
space!
---
gfy again

On Feb 14, 11:53 pm, studio <tl...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Feb 14, 11:34 pm, studio <tl...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Feb 14, 1:21 pm, plainolamerican <plainolameri...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > you completely missed the larger point that it will be
> > > because of socialism that this knowledge is attained
> > > ---
> > > speculation noted
>
> > > what knowledge?
> > > knowledge about the universe that will eventually be disproven?
> > > scientists have about as much of a clue to the big picture as do the
> > > religious
>
> It's not just that a multiverse would be proven, it's the
> understanding of poorly understood fundamental nuclear forces at work.
>
> i.e.
> 1. the higgs boson... a theoretical particle that pops in and out of
> existence... possibly traveling between multiverse dimensions.
> 2. CERN or the LHC creating minature black holes... remember, a black
> hole is a theory, no one has ever seen one
> 3. CERN or LHC creating and containing anti-matter particles
> 4. CERN being able to produce fusion energy
> 5. faster than light physics
> 6. etc etc etcetera
>
> Any of these advanced high energy physics research could have profound
> effects on life as we know it.
>
> And what are doing?
> Designing web sites?
> Which btw, wouldn't have been possible without CERN... that's where
> the worlds first Web server was created and used by Tim Berners-Lee.
>
> You're free to protest Web servers now and stop using them because
> they were social created machines.... of which you have no business
> using because it goes against your anti-socialism beliefs.
>
> Be the hermit you always wanted to be and stop invading my social
> space!
> It really should be that hard for you to do.

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum

* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

Re: So you thought the universe was infinitely big... how about a multiverse that makes our universe look like the size of an atom?

the concept of multiverse has been around for millenia

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum

* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

Re: How To Get Fired From FOX In Under 5 Minutes

And NPR fired Juan Williams for saying what Jesse Jackson said of
blacks, but has no problem with one of their own wishing AIDS on a
politicians grandchildren.

Pick 'em

On Feb 15, 9:16 am, Keith In Tampa <keithinta...@gmail.com> wrote:
> What poll is it that you have seen which states FOX News viewers are the
> least informed?  Please produce such a poll or study.  I think what you
> will find, is that FOX News is the most viewed network, bar none, because
> Americans have realized the misinformation and one sidedness of ALL other
> cable news networks and the network news.
>
> You have probably subscribed to Media Matters, which has now been proven to
> have violated its 501(c)(4) status by declaring all out war on FOX News,
> attempting to literally discredit FOX News in any shape form or fashion
> that it could, using illicit means to do so.  Mark Media Matters in the
> ACORN  cabinet;  another far left extremist liberal hate group who  has now
> been exposed and will be forced to disband, once their government subsidies
> have been cut off.
>
>
>
> On Tue, Feb 14, 2012 at 11:47 PM, studio <tl...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > On Feb 14, 1:33 pm, Keith In Tampa <keithinta...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >    FOX News is currently the only fair and balanced news
> > > network in the United States, bar none.
>
> > rotflol... studies have already been done that prove Fox News has the
> > least informed viewers of any news outlet.
> > Fair and balanced my ass... they feed you pablum and tell you it's
> > steak, and you believe them!
>
> > Fox News = rich people paying other rich people to tell the middle-
> > class the poor are to blame for the economic crisis.
>
> > The Brits get it, they arrested some of Fox people over there for
> > illegalities and drug Rupert Murdoch and his criminal son in front of
> > a Parliamentary hearing.
> > I guess you can't say the same thing about other news outlets can you?
>
> > --
> > Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
> > For options & help seehttp://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
>
> > * Visit our other community athttp://www.PoliticalForum.com/
> > * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
> > * Read the latest breaking news, and more.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum

* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

Re: How To Get Fired From FOX In Under 5 Minutes

What poll is it that you have seen which states FOX News viewers are the least informed?  Please produce such a poll or study.  I think what you will find, is that FOX News is the most viewed network, bar none, because Americans have realized the misinformation and one sidedness of ALL other cable news networks and the network news. 
 
You have probably subscribed to Media Matters, which has now been proven to have violated its 501(c)(4) status by declaring all out war on FOX News, attempting to literally discredit FOX News in any shape form or fashion that it could, using illicit means to do so.  Mark Media Matters in the ACORN  cabinet;  another far left extremist liberal hate group who  has now been exposed and will be forced to disband, once their government subsidies have been cut off.
 


 
On Tue, Feb 14, 2012 at 11:47 PM, studio <tlack@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Feb 14, 1:33 pm, Keith In Tampa <keithinta...@gmail.com> wrote:
>    FOX News is currently the only fair and balanced news
> network in the United States, bar none.

rotflol... studies have already been done that prove Fox News has the
least informed viewers of any news outlet.
Fair and balanced my ass... they feed you pablum and tell you it's
steak, and you believe them!

Fox News = rich people paying other rich people to tell the middle-
class the poor are to blame for the economic crisis.

The Brits get it, they arrested some of Fox people over there for
illegalities and drug Rupert Murdoch and his criminal son in front of
a Parliamentary hearing.
I guess you can't say the same thing about other news outlets can you?


--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum

* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
 
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

Re: CPAC: Thanks to Anti-gay Mitt Romney, There's No “Vegas of Gay Marriage” in Massachusetts

Uhm.....Michael?  Are you married?  If not, then you too do not have, (and I quote)  "ADVANTAGES bestowed on SOME covenants";  as Mark has been stressing and pointing out, marriage is not any right;  marriage is an ecclesiastical function, of which local governments administer and "permit".
 
Here's another dilemma for you to chew on:  South Carolina, Georgia, Texas and other States allow for "Common Law Marriages".  They are accepted, and one needs to "divorce" if in fact they have been acknowledged in a common law marriage.   Florida does not accept "Common Law" marriages,  and if you have been declared to be in a "Common Law Marriage";  no matter what State,  Florida does not accept this as a marriage.....There is no divorce within the Florida Court system for those who have been declared "married"  in "Common Law".   

On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 7:55 AM, MJ <michaelj@america.net> wrote:
 
To date, IN ANY STATE, there is no discrimination against homosexuals living as a couple, that a few legal documents, such as a living will, a last will, and documents allowing for the sharing of of financial portfolios and accounts would remedy.   This fact in and of itself, establishes my point, that there is a secular movement in an attempt to force mainstream America to accept "gay marriage" as being the only recourse to allow homosexuals to be "equal".  In fact, this is nothing but a ploy to try and force the gay lifestyle upon Americans as being "normal"; and anyone who opposes such a radical change in the definition of "Marriage" are homophobic. 
 

What you have are ADVANTAGES bestowed on SOME covenants while others are not provided them.
If history is a guide, this will be a LOSER to those wanting to 'protect' marriage (whatever that means).
The problem with DOMA is that it circumvents AIVS1C1 (among other problems of lacking constitutional authority/power).

Those wanting to 'protect' marriage (whatever that means) would be more prudent in their efforts were they seeking to REMOVE Government from the equation rather than seeking to use it as the club.

Regard$,
--MJ

No man has a natural right to commit aggression on the equal rights of another, and this is all from which the laws ought to restrain him.  -- Thomas Jefferson to Francis Gilmer, 1816.

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
 
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
 
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

**JP** Fw: ! Yaad Rekhna



--- On Wed, 15/2/12, Farhan Safeer Qureshi <farhan.safeer@zil.com.pk> wrote:

From: Farhan Safeer Qureshi <farhan.safeer@zil.com.pk>
Subject: ! Yaad Rekhna
To: "Farhan Safeer Qureshi" <farhan.safeer@zil.com.pk>
Date: Wednesday, 15 February, 2012, 9:29 AM



http://a8.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc7/s720x720/429994_384706101544618_100000156937854_1679536_1649085074_n.jpg 

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "JoinPakistan" group.
You all are invited to come and share your information with other group members.
To post to this group, send email to joinpakistan@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com.pk/group/joinpakistan?hl=en?hl=en
You can also visit our blog site : www.joinpakistan.blogspot.com &
on facebook http://www.facebook.com/pages/Join-Pakistan/125610937483197