Dear Keith: People immigrated to this country to get away from the
tyrannical governments they had known. They were determined to live
as un oppressed as possible, and to be in control of their own
destinies, rather than have governments controlling them. In any but
small groups, democracy was impossible. But a Representative Republic
would allow known and population-apportioned surrogates to act in
behalf of the various electorates. That crucial idea got thrown by
the wayside when small states said that they would not sign any
constitution not having at least one governing body controlled by
surrogates from each state, with total disregard for the relative
population of the states. Most of you will realize that the US Senate
is an oligarchy, And since the Senate has more power per person than
the House, suddenly, the USA is predominantly an oligarchy! The
Senate was in violation of the SPIRIT of the Constitution intended to
give 'power', equally, to the People.
Political parties are in direct violation of the Constitution that was
primarily written to allow the People to control their government.
Political parties are pseudo-governmental bodies, primarily,
representing biased groups, and motivated to giving those biased
groups power, rather than having the power be in the hands of the
voters, with parity, on election days. What the voters get to choose
between is two candidates (for President) who have already sold-their-
souls to the party bosses in order to get nominated. AND... though
not sanctioned in substance nor in spirit, once the elections are
over, the most powerful party gets to have the controlling influence
over what can be done. WHERE is the voice of the individual voters in
all of this? They are being lied to that the people are controlling
things. The party-against-party battles have long since become
accepted as the 'political' norm. But having GROUP DOMINATED
GOVERNMENT is not within the SPIRIT of the Constitution! — John A.
Armistead —
On Sep 10, 12:18 pm, Keith In Tampa <keithinta...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hello John,
>
> Although it was difficult to get through that long winded disortation,
> (reminds me of someone who graduated from Clemson!) and I agree that the
> Obama Administration has by executive order installed unconstitutional,
> communistic mandates upon "We, The People"; I am at a loss as to how you
> believe that our two party system is unconstitutional.
>
> Far from it.
>
> There is nothing in the Constitution, (or maybe you can point out the
> Article and paragraph for us?) that restricts the association of like
> minded politically thinking individuals from forming associations or groups
> to further their political cause.
>
> I also take exception to your notion that the "weak govern the strong".
> Examples please. With regard to bias within the law.....Yes. It's true,
> and has been since the beginning of recorded history. The United States is
> no exception, and I can cite numerous instances within our 235 year
> history, beginning with the "Shea's Rebellion" of bias contained within
> the law. To some degree, it is these "biases" that you refer to, that
> shape and form our "culture" and our "morals".
>
> All unalienable rights are from God, not government and they cannot be
> stripped by government, unless one "volunteers" to waive his God given
> unalienable right.
>
> On Mon, Sep 10, 2012 at 1:46 PM, NoEinstein <noeinst...@bellsouth.net>wrote:
>
>
>
> > Yes, Studio, but "the two major political parties" are 100%
> > UNCONSTITUTIONAL under our present Constitution! The USA isn't a
> > democracy, but is supposed to be (but never has been) a Representative
> > Republic. The Founding Fathers were totally committed to the
> > principle that the PEOPLE control government. Nowhere in the
> > Constitution is it sanctioned to allow political parties to substitute
> > biased group power for the "close to a Democracy" power of the voters
> > on election day. Yes, there were Whigs and Tories in the 18th
> > century. But those were mechanisms for government control far
> > different from a Representative Republic! Note: That treasonous
> > BASTARD in the White House, Barack H. Obama, still supposes that the
> > USA is "our great Democracy", while he acts as our communist-socialist
> > dictator. As numbers of you have pointed out a year or two ago,
> > Democracies—if that's the only stipulated 'control' of government—will
> > allow the weak to control the strong. And that isn't just if it is
> > like: two wolves and a sheep deciding what is for supper. Having
> > controls in the Constitution that mandate justice and fairness will
> > allow the voters to decide controversial issues WITHIN the bounds of
> > justice and fairness. No biased group gets to define justice and
> > fairness so as to allow them to exploit others for their own selfish
> > gain. The best route to saving the USA, as well as our entire
> > socioeconomic system, is to strip all biased groups of power over the
> > course of government. Once that happens, there won't be any more
> > pressure to have governments become all things for all people, which
> > as we should know by now ( but Obama doesn't), doesn't work! — John
> > A. Armistead —
>
> > On Sep 6, 11:48 am, studio <tl...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Sep 5, 5:39 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> > > > Dear Studio:
> > > > Since both of those are issues of
> > > > high controversy, the American People should be allowed to decide once
> > > > and for all in direct referenda.
>
> > > I'm in TOTAL agreement with that!
> > > However, Republitards will remind you we live in a Republic, not a
> > > Democracy.
> > > And neither of the 2 major parties actually want people to decide by
> > > referendum.
>
> > --
> > 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.
Thursday, September 13, 2012
Re: Paying taxes doesn’t allow Atheists, nor any g roup , to dictate to others.
Dear MJ and other thoughtful Readers: As I have mentioned in many
contexts, the media is stepping-over-its-bounds to be swaying voters—
left, right or middle—via their 24/7, 365 day a year, running-
commentary on political events relative to pending elections and
referenda items. But the media is tremendously beneficial when it
shows live or recorded news events, without commentary, within a day
or so after such events. Ubiquitous cell phone cameras now allow
instantaneous airing of 'breaking' news stories just about anywhere in
the world.
One such news event is the attack on the US Embassy in Cairo. It is
easy for us in the USA to see just an angry mob doing immoral things.
When inner-city youths in some of our own major cities do similar
'immoral' things, how many of you can see the group-psychology
connection? I am convinced that religious separatism, with bias
toward none, is the dominant and most threatening influence in the
world. But such need not destroy the human race, nor threaten any of
its disparate groups, if the people of the world will realize simple
truths and see common solutions to the problems facing us.
Though I have not studied Islam as a religion, I have reached several
conclusions using a combination of 'osmosis' and reason. First,
Muhammad was an exceptional and highly motivated man. His Koran was a
race-unifying document, perfect for the 7th century in which it was
written. It was an instruction book on how to live a successful life
in an era dominated by world barbarism. It used such things as prayer
rituals to help unify the faithful against their common enemies. And
it protected women from becoming the spoils of conflicts, by dressing
them in 'non-provocative' ways. That was fourteen centuries ago.
Today, Muhammad probably wouldn't put so much emphasis on rituals that
are now causing much of the world to be riled. When over a billion
people start acting the same way, the 'group' identity becomes
stronger than normal moral judgment.
Typically, the larger the group, the more insignificant a member
feels. Feeling insignificant as individuals is what motivates Black
youths to form 'rule-the-night' gangs, complete with well defined
"turf" that they will defend with violence. A youth's status in the
group depends on their having near total adherence to the accepted
code of conduct of that group.
Throughout the ages, people have rallied around the strongest and most
committed leaders who emerge. In becoming a follower, there was
little discussion of morals nor of ideology. It was: Take sides under
the leader of the group most likely to WIN. That same almost-primal
desire to side with a strong, and even immoral leader, accounts for
Obama's recent 'bounce' in the poles following the DNC. When people
are "stressed"—as by the present economy and political fisticuffs—they
want a leader who looks and sounds like someone who will fight and
win. They couldn't care less that morals favor Romney and Ryan.
What they did notice is that Romney deliberately avoided having any
emotional attacks be leveled at Obama. The suggested rationale for
pulling his punches was that it wasn't desired to 'offend' any of the
on-the-fence undecided voters who might switch to Romney. But by
seeming to be too calm and passive, Romney and Ryan may be shooting
themselves in the feet.
A Democrat is someone who will lie and cheat, without apparent
remorse, if doing so will improve the chances of winning. The voters,
even those on the left, probably know lies are being said, but they
see any person willing to lie and cheat as being a stronger person
than someone who is moral and straight. Apparently, Paul Ryan jogs
and works out, and is a darling with some of the women. But on a
stage, he looks like a wimp rather than a strong leader. My well-
considered recommendation to the Republicans is to start showing
yourselves as being FIGHTING mad, rather than trying to convince the
voters how "nice" and well-intended you are. Nothing about Barack
Obama, the anti-Christ, is well-intended. Yet, the poles show his
following is far higher than any such rascal like him should be.
The group psychology for Islamic youths places the 'power' in the
hands those who are the most militant and adamant supporters of Islam
and of Sharia Law. The resulting acts of violence stem from the group-
wide feeling of insignificance among the poorer Islamic youths.
Capitalism is attacked because capitalism represents success, and the
USA represents success. Amazingly, learning how to succeed in a
Capitalist world will help to defuse the colossal anger that seems to
be pent-up in Islamic communities. Israel, in particular, should take
a major role in teaching capitalism to Muslims, because they took land
not their own by military force.
If Muhammad could see two different worlds, which of these do you
suppose he would prefer for his followers: 1. A world ruled by
violence and wars being carried out in his name. Or… 2. A world in
which his followers are successful and happy, and are being accepted
as equals without having divisive rituals and dress, and without
violating the human rights of any of the members. I know which one
Muhammad would choose. Do you?
Respectfully submitted,
John A. Armistead
Author and Patriot
__________
On Sep 10, 12:53 pm, MJ <micha...@america.net> wrote:
> Some people attribute man's life as 'given' by God. This does NOT change the fact that man exists. Similarly, some people attribute man's right to life as 'given' by God.
> Rights -- natural rights -- are inherent in man's being. This is not unlike his having opposable thumbs, for instance. If you wish to claim that God gave you opposable thumbs OR that a rock gave them to you ... it simply does not change the reality that man has opposable thumbs.
> The CENTRAL premise is that every man has a right to life; his own life; self-ownership. I man had no right to his life, he would be a slave.
> Legitimate Government, then, SECURES that right to life (and its legitimate corollaries) <period>.
> Regard$,
> --MJ
> From all which it is evident, that though the things of Nature are given in common, man (by being master of himself, and proprietor of his own person, and the actions or labour of it) had still in himself the great foundation of property; and that which made up the great part of what he applied to the support or comfort of his being, when invention and arts had improved the conveniences of life, was perfectly his own, and did not belong in common to others. -- John LockeAt 08:28 AM 9/10/2012, you wrote:MJ: There has been a lot of discussion, lately, about "rights" coming
> from God, not from government. It seems to me that the Founding
> Fathers' mention of God as being the fountainhead of our rights is a
> short synonym for "the moral consensus'. Moral consensus certainly
> trumps government power, including the treasonous dictatorial power of
> Obama and his unconstitutional czars. There is a very neurotic
> tendency of a large percentage of the population (but not the
> majority) to see "God" as the giver of all good things. Those same
> people all too willingly excuse God for the bad things that happen,
> like killer storms. They feel "highly connected" by supposing they
> are being "favored" by God, because of their ritualistic devotion. My
> own definition of God is: "The personification of all of the Natural
> Laws in the Universe, which have always existed and which will always
> exist."
> It is a very bad thing, indeed, when neurotic people like Mike
> Huckabee, lambaste those Democrats who had desired that their platform
> be secular. The "mentioning" of God in any political context is a
> movement to allow (a) religion, with all of its head-buried-in-the-
> sand blindness, to ultimately control our government in much the way
> that Muslims want religion to control theirs. There is this not too
> flattering attitude among the Bible Thumpers that they are better than
> others because they "worship" the law of probability that allows them
> to have (thus far) gotten good things from the "laws of nature".
> Being 'addicted' to one's religion doesn't bode too well for such
> people being very deep and self-determining thinkers. But those who
> are so addicted aren't necessarily bad people, just naïve ones. — J.
> A. Armistead —
> On Sep 4, 10:52 pm, MJ <micha...@america.net> wrote:
> > EVERY Individual has a (natural) right to life; their own life; self-ownership. EVERY other (natural) right is a corollary of this ideal. EVERY other (natural) right is NEGATIVE -- it requires no one to provide for it.
> > Government -- LEGITIMATE Government -- secures (natural) rights <period>.
> > EVERY action a Government does CONTRARY to securing (natural) rights NECESSARILY provides advantage to some at the expense of everyone else. Said government NECESSARILY violates (natural) rights.
> > What is a 'logical, agreed-upon' amount of theft?
> > I say it is ZERO and do not agree upon *ANY* amount greater. Therefore, it is not 'agree-upon'. No what?
> > You want a Government that does MORE? Fund it VOLUNTARILY rather than by theft. What better measure of 'want'? What better application of 'democracy'?
> > Regard$,
> > --MJ
> > "If the government can take a man's money without his consent, there is no limit to the additional tyranny it may practise upon him; for, with his money, it can hire soldiers to stand over him, keep him in subjection, plunder him at discretion, and kill him if he resists." -- Lysander SpoonerAt 05:38 AM 9/3/2012, you wrote:MJ: Many of the 'natural rights' regard what one does with their own
> > time and money, not what gets done by governments after some logical,
> > agreed-upon portion of one's taxes get allocated to be spent by
> > governments. Most of these philosophical issues are ballooning out of
> > control, lately, because too many people see governments as the cure
> > for every ailment. You and I don't think that way, do we.
> > Personally, I'm unhappy with having so much of our money being spent
> > to fight largely un winnable wars. I'm with Ron Paul on what the
> > scope of governments need to be: smaller!
> > It offends my logic, greatly, that so many of the right-to-lifers
> > value the "innocent" blue-print-only early dividing cells following
> > conception more than they value the lives of grown men and women with
> > families who are getting killed and maimed in wars. I believe the
> > unborn have rights, but not beginning at conception. An aircraft
> > taking off on a runway will pass what is known as the point-of-no-
> > return—meaning that its ground speed is too great to allow slamming-on-
> > the-brakes and returning to the terminal. For me, I would place the
> > "pro-choice" time limit at 2.5 to 3 months. After that time, the
> > rights of the unborn should begin to take precedence. I'm offended,
> > even more so, by those people, including many say-anything-to-win
> > politicians, who think they are being pious-next-to-God for putting
> > diapers on a speck of cells too small to be seen without a magnifying
> > glass. Those same pious, mental lightweights think they are being
> > 'closer to God' to suppose that the Universe was constructed in just
> > six days, and that any scientist who thinks otherwise is an
> > underling. Religions, taken as a whole, are divisive and hurtful
> > institutions offering little assurance that the various members will
> > be getting a favored route to heaven. When the Founding Fathers
> > wanted our government to be secular, they surely knew what they were
> > doing! Those who get mad at symbols, like the 9/11 cross in the
> > debris, simply need to be minding their own business, NOT trying to
> > tell others how to mind theirs. — J. A. Armistead —
> > On Aug 19, 5:37 pm, MJ <micha...@america.net> wrote:
> > > I truly do not know WHY ....At 01:23 AM 8/19/2012, you wrote:The pending lawsuit is unconstitutional, because having no belief
> > > isn t a protected religion. Even if it were, the mere paying of some
> > > of one s taxes to construct the 9/11 museum would not empower Atheists
> > > to dictate anything to anyone. Yes, every right can have a
> > > corresponding opposing right so long as the latter isn t a crime or
> > > isn t disallowed by the present Constitution.Natural rights are negative -- they require nothing on the part of others.
> > > Rights have NOTHING to do with what some group decides is a 'crime' NOR what the Constitution allows/disallows.
> > > All legitimate (natural) rights are derived from an Individual's right to life; his own life; self-ownership.
> > > It is certainly IMMORAL as well as a violation of one's rights to have their money forcibly taken.
> > > Legitimate Government SECURES (natural) rights <period>. A Government that does *anything* beyond such necessarily violates rights and is immoral -- no different from any other gang.
> > > Regard$,
> > > --MJ
> > > There is no worse tyranny than to force a man to pay for what he does not want merely because you think it would be good for him. -- Robert Heinlein
> > --
> > 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 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.
contexts, the media is stepping-over-its-bounds to be swaying voters—
left, right or middle—via their 24/7, 365 day a year, running-
commentary on political events relative to pending elections and
referenda items. But the media is tremendously beneficial when it
shows live or recorded news events, without commentary, within a day
or so after such events. Ubiquitous cell phone cameras now allow
instantaneous airing of 'breaking' news stories just about anywhere in
the world.
One such news event is the attack on the US Embassy in Cairo. It is
easy for us in the USA to see just an angry mob doing immoral things.
When inner-city youths in some of our own major cities do similar
'immoral' things, how many of you can see the group-psychology
connection? I am convinced that religious separatism, with bias
toward none, is the dominant and most threatening influence in the
world. But such need not destroy the human race, nor threaten any of
its disparate groups, if the people of the world will realize simple
truths and see common solutions to the problems facing us.
Though I have not studied Islam as a religion, I have reached several
conclusions using a combination of 'osmosis' and reason. First,
Muhammad was an exceptional and highly motivated man. His Koran was a
race-unifying document, perfect for the 7th century in which it was
written. It was an instruction book on how to live a successful life
in an era dominated by world barbarism. It used such things as prayer
rituals to help unify the faithful against their common enemies. And
it protected women from becoming the spoils of conflicts, by dressing
them in 'non-provocative' ways. That was fourteen centuries ago.
Today, Muhammad probably wouldn't put so much emphasis on rituals that
are now causing much of the world to be riled. When over a billion
people start acting the same way, the 'group' identity becomes
stronger than normal moral judgment.
Typically, the larger the group, the more insignificant a member
feels. Feeling insignificant as individuals is what motivates Black
youths to form 'rule-the-night' gangs, complete with well defined
"turf" that they will defend with violence. A youth's status in the
group depends on their having near total adherence to the accepted
code of conduct of that group.
Throughout the ages, people have rallied around the strongest and most
committed leaders who emerge. In becoming a follower, there was
little discussion of morals nor of ideology. It was: Take sides under
the leader of the group most likely to WIN. That same almost-primal
desire to side with a strong, and even immoral leader, accounts for
Obama's recent 'bounce' in the poles following the DNC. When people
are "stressed"—as by the present economy and political fisticuffs—they
want a leader who looks and sounds like someone who will fight and
win. They couldn't care less that morals favor Romney and Ryan.
What they did notice is that Romney deliberately avoided having any
emotional attacks be leveled at Obama. The suggested rationale for
pulling his punches was that it wasn't desired to 'offend' any of the
on-the-fence undecided voters who might switch to Romney. But by
seeming to be too calm and passive, Romney and Ryan may be shooting
themselves in the feet.
A Democrat is someone who will lie and cheat, without apparent
remorse, if doing so will improve the chances of winning. The voters,
even those on the left, probably know lies are being said, but they
see any person willing to lie and cheat as being a stronger person
than someone who is moral and straight. Apparently, Paul Ryan jogs
and works out, and is a darling with some of the women. But on a
stage, he looks like a wimp rather than a strong leader. My well-
considered recommendation to the Republicans is to start showing
yourselves as being FIGHTING mad, rather than trying to convince the
voters how "nice" and well-intended you are. Nothing about Barack
Obama, the anti-Christ, is well-intended. Yet, the poles show his
following is far higher than any such rascal like him should be.
The group psychology for Islamic youths places the 'power' in the
hands those who are the most militant and adamant supporters of Islam
and of Sharia Law. The resulting acts of violence stem from the group-
wide feeling of insignificance among the poorer Islamic youths.
Capitalism is attacked because capitalism represents success, and the
USA represents success. Amazingly, learning how to succeed in a
Capitalist world will help to defuse the colossal anger that seems to
be pent-up in Islamic communities. Israel, in particular, should take
a major role in teaching capitalism to Muslims, because they took land
not their own by military force.
If Muhammad could see two different worlds, which of these do you
suppose he would prefer for his followers: 1. A world ruled by
violence and wars being carried out in his name. Or… 2. A world in
which his followers are successful and happy, and are being accepted
as equals without having divisive rituals and dress, and without
violating the human rights of any of the members. I know which one
Muhammad would choose. Do you?
Respectfully submitted,
John A. Armistead
Author and Patriot
__________
On Sep 10, 12:53 pm, MJ <micha...@america.net> wrote:
> Some people attribute man's life as 'given' by God. This does NOT change the fact that man exists. Similarly, some people attribute man's right to life as 'given' by God.
> Rights -- natural rights -- are inherent in man's being. This is not unlike his having opposable thumbs, for instance. If you wish to claim that God gave you opposable thumbs OR that a rock gave them to you ... it simply does not change the reality that man has opposable thumbs.
> The CENTRAL premise is that every man has a right to life; his own life; self-ownership. I man had no right to his life, he would be a slave.
> Legitimate Government, then, SECURES that right to life (and its legitimate corollaries) <period>.
> Regard$,
> --MJ
> From all which it is evident, that though the things of Nature are given in common, man (by being master of himself, and proprietor of his own person, and the actions or labour of it) had still in himself the great foundation of property; and that which made up the great part of what he applied to the support or comfort of his being, when invention and arts had improved the conveniences of life, was perfectly his own, and did not belong in common to others. -- John LockeAt 08:28 AM 9/10/2012, you wrote:MJ: There has been a lot of discussion, lately, about "rights" coming
> from God, not from government. It seems to me that the Founding
> Fathers' mention of God as being the fountainhead of our rights is a
> short synonym for "the moral consensus'. Moral consensus certainly
> trumps government power, including the treasonous dictatorial power of
> Obama and his unconstitutional czars. There is a very neurotic
> tendency of a large percentage of the population (but not the
> majority) to see "God" as the giver of all good things. Those same
> people all too willingly excuse God for the bad things that happen,
> like killer storms. They feel "highly connected" by supposing they
> are being "favored" by God, because of their ritualistic devotion. My
> own definition of God is: "The personification of all of the Natural
> Laws in the Universe, which have always existed and which will always
> exist."
> It is a very bad thing, indeed, when neurotic people like Mike
> Huckabee, lambaste those Democrats who had desired that their platform
> be secular. The "mentioning" of God in any political context is a
> movement to allow (a) religion, with all of its head-buried-in-the-
> sand blindness, to ultimately control our government in much the way
> that Muslims want religion to control theirs. There is this not too
> flattering attitude among the Bible Thumpers that they are better than
> others because they "worship" the law of probability that allows them
> to have (thus far) gotten good things from the "laws of nature".
> Being 'addicted' to one's religion doesn't bode too well for such
> people being very deep and self-determining thinkers. But those who
> are so addicted aren't necessarily bad people, just naïve ones. — J.
> A. Armistead —
> On Sep 4, 10:52 pm, MJ <micha...@america.net> wrote:
> > EVERY Individual has a (natural) right to life; their own life; self-ownership. EVERY other (natural) right is a corollary of this ideal. EVERY other (natural) right is NEGATIVE -- it requires no one to provide for it.
> > Government -- LEGITIMATE Government -- secures (natural) rights <period>.
> > EVERY action a Government does CONTRARY to securing (natural) rights NECESSARILY provides advantage to some at the expense of everyone else. Said government NECESSARILY violates (natural) rights.
> > What is a 'logical, agreed-upon' amount of theft?
> > I say it is ZERO and do not agree upon *ANY* amount greater. Therefore, it is not 'agree-upon'. No what?
> > You want a Government that does MORE? Fund it VOLUNTARILY rather than by theft. What better measure of 'want'? What better application of 'democracy'?
> > Regard$,
> > --MJ
> > "If the government can take a man's money without his consent, there is no limit to the additional tyranny it may practise upon him; for, with his money, it can hire soldiers to stand over him, keep him in subjection, plunder him at discretion, and kill him if he resists." -- Lysander SpoonerAt 05:38 AM 9/3/2012, you wrote:MJ: Many of the 'natural rights' regard what one does with their own
> > time and money, not what gets done by governments after some logical,
> > agreed-upon portion of one's taxes get allocated to be spent by
> > governments. Most of these philosophical issues are ballooning out of
> > control, lately, because too many people see governments as the cure
> > for every ailment. You and I don't think that way, do we.
> > Personally, I'm unhappy with having so much of our money being spent
> > to fight largely un winnable wars. I'm with Ron Paul on what the
> > scope of governments need to be: smaller!
> > It offends my logic, greatly, that so many of the right-to-lifers
> > value the "innocent" blue-print-only early dividing cells following
> > conception more than they value the lives of grown men and women with
> > families who are getting killed and maimed in wars. I believe the
> > unborn have rights, but not beginning at conception. An aircraft
> > taking off on a runway will pass what is known as the point-of-no-
> > return—meaning that its ground speed is too great to allow slamming-on-
> > the-brakes and returning to the terminal. For me, I would place the
> > "pro-choice" time limit at 2.5 to 3 months. After that time, the
> > rights of the unborn should begin to take precedence. I'm offended,
> > even more so, by those people, including many say-anything-to-win
> > politicians, who think they are being pious-next-to-God for putting
> > diapers on a speck of cells too small to be seen without a magnifying
> > glass. Those same pious, mental lightweights think they are being
> > 'closer to God' to suppose that the Universe was constructed in just
> > six days, and that any scientist who thinks otherwise is an
> > underling. Religions, taken as a whole, are divisive and hurtful
> > institutions offering little assurance that the various members will
> > be getting a favored route to heaven. When the Founding Fathers
> > wanted our government to be secular, they surely knew what they were
> > doing! Those who get mad at symbols, like the 9/11 cross in the
> > debris, simply need to be minding their own business, NOT trying to
> > tell others how to mind theirs. — J. A. Armistead —
> > On Aug 19, 5:37 pm, MJ <micha...@america.net> wrote:
> > > I truly do not know WHY ....At 01:23 AM 8/19/2012, you wrote:The pending lawsuit is unconstitutional, because having no belief
> > > isn t a protected religion. Even if it were, the mere paying of some
> > > of one s taxes to construct the 9/11 museum would not empower Atheists
> > > to dictate anything to anyone. Yes, every right can have a
> > > corresponding opposing right so long as the latter isn t a crime or
> > > isn t disallowed by the present Constitution.Natural rights are negative -- they require nothing on the part of others.
> > > Rights have NOTHING to do with what some group decides is a 'crime' NOR what the Constitution allows/disallows.
> > > All legitimate (natural) rights are derived from an Individual's right to life; his own life; self-ownership.
> > > It is certainly IMMORAL as well as a violation of one's rights to have their money forcibly taken.
> > > Legitimate Government SECURES (natural) rights <period>. A Government that does *anything* beyond such necessarily violates rights and is immoral -- no different from any other gang.
> > > Regard$,
> > > --MJ
> > > There is no worse tyranny than to force a man to pay for what he does not want merely because you think it would be good for him. -- Robert Heinlein
> > --
> > 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 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: The Video That is Causing Muslims to Kill (Video)
Ayah 60:8
Allah does not forbid you from those who do not fight you because
of religion and do not expel you from your homes - from being
righteous toward them and acting justly toward them. Indeed, Allah
loves those who act justly.
This verse makes it clear that Muslims are obliged to treat non-
believers who do not fight Muslims but to be righteous and just
towards them.
-----
Deuteronomy 13:6-10
6 If your very own brother, or your son or daughter, or the wife you
love, or your closest friend secretly entices you, saying, "Let us go
and worship other gods" (gods that neither you nor your ancestors have
known, 7 gods of the peoples around you, whether near or far, from one
end of the land to the other), 8 do not yield to them or listen to
them. Show them no pity. Do not spare them or shield them. 9 You must
certainly put them to death.
On Sep 12, 3:38 pm, Travis <baconl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I have an excellent caption for this pic.
>
> **
> Scotty Starnes posted: "[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qmodVun16Q4&feature=player_embedded] This is
> the video that a bunch of backwards religious zealots are using for an
> excuse to kill. Such a peaceful religion." Respond to this post by
> replying above this line
> New post on *Scotty Starnes's Blog*
> <http://scottystarnes.wordpress.com/author/scottystarnes/> The Video That
> is Causing Muslims to Kill
> (Video)<http://scottystarnes.wordpress.com/2012/09/12/the-video-that-is-causi...>by
> Scotty Starnes <http://scottystarnes.wordpress.com/author/scottystarnes/>
>
> This is the video that a bunch of backwards religious zealots are using for
> an excuse to kill.<http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/09/11/obscure-film-mocking-musl...>Such
> a peaceful religion.
> *Scotty Starnes
> <http://scottystarnes.wordpress.com/author/scottystarnes/>*| September
> 12, 2012 at 2:57 PM | Tags:
> Islam <http://scottystarnes.wordpress.com/?tag=islam>,
> Mohammed<http://scottystarnes.wordpress.com/?tag=mohammed>,
> Muslims <http://scottystarnes.wordpress.com/?tag=muslims> |
> Categories: Political
> Issues <http://scottystarnes.wordpress.com/?cat=35145> | URL:http://wp.me/pvnFC-891
>
> Comment<http://scottystarnes.wordpress.com/2012/09/12/the-video-that-is-causi...>
> See all comments<http://scottystarnes.wordpress.com/2012/09/12/the-video-that-is-causi...>
>
> Unsubscribe or change your email settings at Manage
> Subscriptions<https://subscribe.wordpress.com/?key=80d8873ee52adffe4e178d01c25562cf...>.
>
> *Trouble clicking?* Copy and paste this URL into your browser:http://scottystarnes.wordpress.com/2012/09/12/the-video-that-is-causi...
> Thanks for flying with WordPress.com <http://wordpress.com/>
--
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.
Allah does not forbid you from those who do not fight you because
of religion and do not expel you from your homes - from being
righteous toward them and acting justly toward them. Indeed, Allah
loves those who act justly.
This verse makes it clear that Muslims are obliged to treat non-
believers who do not fight Muslims but to be righteous and just
towards them.
-----
Deuteronomy 13:6-10
6 If your very own brother, or your son or daughter, or the wife you
love, or your closest friend secretly entices you, saying, "Let us go
and worship other gods" (gods that neither you nor your ancestors have
known, 7 gods of the peoples around you, whether near or far, from one
end of the land to the other), 8 do not yield to them or listen to
them. Show them no pity. Do not spare them or shield them. 9 You must
certainly put them to death.
On Sep 12, 3:38 pm, Travis <baconl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I have an excellent caption for this pic.
>
> **
> Scotty Starnes posted: "[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qmodVun16Q4&feature=player_embedded] This is
> the video that a bunch of backwards religious zealots are using for an
> excuse to kill. Such a peaceful religion." Respond to this post by
> replying above this line
> New post on *Scotty Starnes's Blog*
> <http://scottystarnes.wordpress.com/author/scottystarnes/> The Video That
> is Causing Muslims to Kill
> (Video)<http://scottystarnes.wordpress.com/2012/09/12/the-video-that-is-causi...>by
> Scotty Starnes <http://scottystarnes.wordpress.com/author/scottystarnes/>
>
> This is the video that a bunch of backwards religious zealots are using for
> an excuse to kill.<http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/09/11/obscure-film-mocking-musl...>Such
> a peaceful religion.
> *Scotty Starnes
> <http://scottystarnes.wordpress.com/author/scottystarnes/>*| September
> 12, 2012 at 2:57 PM | Tags:
> Islam <http://scottystarnes.wordpress.com/?tag=islam>,
> Mohammed<http://scottystarnes.wordpress.com/?tag=mohammed>,
> Muslims <http://scottystarnes.wordpress.com/?tag=muslims> |
> Categories: Political
> Issues <http://scottystarnes.wordpress.com/?cat=35145> | URL:http://wp.me/pvnFC-891
>
> Comment<http://scottystarnes.wordpress.com/2012/09/12/the-video-that-is-causi...>
> See all comments<http://scottystarnes.wordpress.com/2012/09/12/the-video-that-is-causi...>
>
> Unsubscribe or change your email settings at Manage
> Subscriptions<https://subscribe.wordpress.com/?key=80d8873ee52adffe4e178d01c25562cf...>.
>
> *Trouble clicking?* Copy and paste this URL into your browser:http://scottystarnes.wordpress.com/2012/09/12/the-video-that-is-causi...
> Thanks for flying with WordPress.com <http://wordpress.com/>
--
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: Man Investigated By Police For Buying Ammunition
Loftus said the police told him someone who was in the gun store while
he made the purchase who works for the Chief of Police reported Loftus
to make sure he "wasn't going to do something crazy."
---
a cop doing his job ... and a federal government using it for a reason
to keep punching the clock on the American taxpayers.
it's way past time to cut the government by half it's current size. We
will become a more productive nation with these people in the private
sector.
On Sep 11, 11:18 pm, Travis <baconl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> **
> Harold posted: "Prison Planet.com9/10/2012A commercial fisherman was
> investigated by police for purchasing a few boxes of ammunition at his
> local gun store, a shocking example of how Americans are being intimidated
> out of exercising their second amendment rights even as " Respond to
> this post by replying above this line
> New post on *ACGR's "News with Attitude"*
> <http://a4cgr.wordpress.com/author/amcogore/> Man Investigated By Police
> For Buying Ammunition <http://a4cgr.wordpress.com/2012/09/11/03-1065/>by
> Harold <http://a4cgr.wordpress.com/author/amcogore/>
>
> Prison Planet.com 9/10/2012 A commercial fisherman was investigated by
> police for purchasing a few boxes of ammunition at his local gun store, a
> shocking example of how Americans are being intimidated out of exercising
> their second amendment rights even as the federal government buys up
> bullets in vast quantities. In a You Tube clip, Brian [...]
>
> Read more of this post <http://a4cgr.wordpress.com/2012/09/11/03-1065/>
> *Harold <http://a4cgr.wordpress.com/author/amcogore/>* | September 11,
> 2012 at 6:43 am | Categories:
> Corruption<http://a4cgr.wordpress.com/?cat=22388>,
> Criminal Activity <http://a4cgr.wordpress.com/?cat=398859>,
> Executive<http://a4cgr.wordpress.com/?cat=53796>,
> FBI <http://a4cgr.wordpress.com/?cat=68079>,
> Government<http://a4cgr.wordpress.com/?cat=2311>,
> Gun Rights <http://a4cgr.wordpress.com/?cat=203449>, Local Law
> Enforcement<http://a4cgr.wordpress.com/?cat=5832636>,
> Police State <http://a4cgr.wordpress.com/?cat=1955>,
> Politics<http://a4cgr.wordpress.com/?cat=398>,
> Privacy Rights <http://a4cgr.wordpress.com/?cat=162861>,
> Progressives<http://a4cgr.wordpress.com/?cat=182563>,
> Propaganda <http://a4cgr.wordpress.com/?cat=13722>, Property
> Rights<http://a4cgr.wordpress.com/?cat=6928>,
> Sovereignty <http://a4cgr.wordpress.com/?cat=69462>, States
> Rights<http://a4cgr.wordpress.com/?cat=280753>,
> U.S. Constitution <http://a4cgr.wordpress.com/?cat=51155> | URL:http://wp.me/pmtmV-8ui
>
> Comment <http://a4cgr.wordpress.com/2012/09/11/03-1065/#respond> See
> all comments <http://a4cgr.wordpress.com/2012/09/11/03-1065/#comments>
>
> Unsubscribe or change your email settings at Manage
> Subscriptions<https://subscribe.wordpress.com/?key=80d8873ee52adffe4e178d01c25562cf...>.
>
> *Trouble clicking?* Copy and paste this URL into your browser:http://a4cgr.wordpress.com/2012/09/11/03-1065/
> Thanks for flying with WordPress.com <http://wordpress.com/>
--
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.
he made the purchase who works for the Chief of Police reported Loftus
to make sure he "wasn't going to do something crazy."
---
a cop doing his job ... and a federal government using it for a reason
to keep punching the clock on the American taxpayers.
it's way past time to cut the government by half it's current size. We
will become a more productive nation with these people in the private
sector.
On Sep 11, 11:18 pm, Travis <baconl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> **
> Harold posted: "Prison Planet.com9/10/2012A commercial fisherman was
> investigated by police for purchasing a few boxes of ammunition at his
> local gun store, a shocking example of how Americans are being intimidated
> out of exercising their second amendment rights even as " Respond to
> this post by replying above this line
> New post on *ACGR's "News with Attitude"*
> <http://a4cgr.wordpress.com/author/amcogore/> Man Investigated By Police
> For Buying Ammunition <http://a4cgr.wordpress.com/2012/09/11/03-1065/>by
> Harold <http://a4cgr.wordpress.com/author/amcogore/>
>
> Prison Planet.com 9/10/2012 A commercial fisherman was investigated by
> police for purchasing a few boxes of ammunition at his local gun store, a
> shocking example of how Americans are being intimidated out of exercising
> their second amendment rights even as the federal government buys up
> bullets in vast quantities. In a You Tube clip, Brian [...]
>
> Read more of this post <http://a4cgr.wordpress.com/2012/09/11/03-1065/>
> *Harold <http://a4cgr.wordpress.com/author/amcogore/>* | September 11,
> 2012 at 6:43 am | Categories:
> Corruption<http://a4cgr.wordpress.com/?cat=22388>,
> Criminal Activity <http://a4cgr.wordpress.com/?cat=398859>,
> Executive<http://a4cgr.wordpress.com/?cat=53796>,
> FBI <http://a4cgr.wordpress.com/?cat=68079>,
> Government<http://a4cgr.wordpress.com/?cat=2311>,
> Gun Rights <http://a4cgr.wordpress.com/?cat=203449>, Local Law
> Enforcement<http://a4cgr.wordpress.com/?cat=5832636>,
> Police State <http://a4cgr.wordpress.com/?cat=1955>,
> Politics<http://a4cgr.wordpress.com/?cat=398>,
> Privacy Rights <http://a4cgr.wordpress.com/?cat=162861>,
> Progressives<http://a4cgr.wordpress.com/?cat=182563>,
> Propaganda <http://a4cgr.wordpress.com/?cat=13722>, Property
> Rights<http://a4cgr.wordpress.com/?cat=6928>,
> Sovereignty <http://a4cgr.wordpress.com/?cat=69462>, States
> Rights<http://a4cgr.wordpress.com/?cat=280753>,
> U.S. Constitution <http://a4cgr.wordpress.com/?cat=51155> | URL:http://wp.me/pmtmV-8ui
>
> Comment <http://a4cgr.wordpress.com/2012/09/11/03-1065/#respond> See
> all comments <http://a4cgr.wordpress.com/2012/09/11/03-1065/#comments>
>
> Unsubscribe or change your email settings at Manage
> Subscriptions<https://subscribe.wordpress.com/?key=80d8873ee52adffe4e178d01c25562cf...>.
>
> *Trouble clicking?* Copy and paste this URL into your browser:http://a4cgr.wordpress.com/2012/09/11/03-1065/
> Thanks for flying with WordPress.com <http://wordpress.com/>
--
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.
What to do about Islam
September 11, 2012
What to do about Islam
By Bryan Fischer
On this, the 11th anniversary of the worst attack in history on American soil, carried out in the name of Allah against infidel Americans, it is appropriate to pause and reflect on what America should do to respond to the ongoing threat of Islam to the West.
While we are not at war with Islam, we must note that Islam is at war with us, a reality which we ignore or dismiss to our peril.
First, we must understand that the threat to our freedoms comes not from radical Islam but from Islam itself. While there may be moderate Muslims in America, there is no such thing as moderate Islam. It is the prophet himself, speaking under the inspiration of the god of Islam, who instructed his followers, "Slay the idolaters wherever you find them. Arrest them, besiege them, and lie in ambush everywhere for them" (Sura 9:5). This command of Allah has never been rescinded and remains in effect today.
While we can be grateful that most Muslims do not intend to obey this command of their god and his prophet, this should not blind us to the disturbing reality that many, many Muslims do. In fact, the more devout a Muslim becomes, the more of a threat he becomes.
The Muslim Brotherhood, the largest and by far most influential expression of Islam in America, has as its stated goal in North America "a kind of grand Jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and 'sabotaging' its miserable house...so that it is eliminated and Allah's religion is made victorious over all other religions." (Emphasis mine.) Let us be clear: the goal of Islam is to destroy America. We don't have to infer it; they are declaring it in no uncertain terms.
What can and should be done? First, it makes sense, as Andy McCarthy has suggested, to stop immigration altogether from Muslim majority nations. While many would-be Muslim immigrants to our shores surely would not have evil designs against us, we have yet to discover a way to distinguish the Muslims we must worry about from those we don't. If our priority concern is the safety and security of the American people, the risk of unfettered Muslim immigration is simply too great.
Second, it makes sense to prevent Muslims from serving in the United States military. I would suggest it is folly of an extraordinary magnitude to allow men to wear the uniform who have a sworn, sacred and solemn duty to kill American infidels. There is simply no rational world in which that makes sense.
Surely this will prevent Muslims from serving who represent no threat to our interests. But the fault in that case lies not with us but with the Muslims' prophet, their holy book, their god, and those Muslims who take seriously his grisly commands.
Again, until we are given a foolproof means of detecting dangerous Muslims and distinguishing them from the rest, simple prudence dictates this course of action. The Muslim doctrine of taqiyya, which commends the practice of lying to advance the cause of Islam, means that even the oath of service taken by a Muslim recruit cannot be trusted. Major Nidal Hasan took that oath, and yet 13 of his fellow soldiers lie dead today at his hand.
Third, sound, rational, clear-headed public policy would dictate that we stop the practice of building mosques in America, as Dutch parliamentarian Geert Wilders has suggested.
Religious liberty and First Amendment issues will naturally be raised, but such challenges are answerable if we apply the Constitution as given to us by the Founders rather than the one which has been distorted beyond recognition by activist judges.
(Some have suggested that Muslims have no First Amendment right to build mosques because Islam is a totalitarian ideology rather than a religion. This view, which would evade prickly constitutional questions, is unpersuasive to me. Islam has a god, a holy book, a prophet, places of worship, and prescribed religious practices. In other words, it's a religion.)
So how can the building of mosques be stopped without violating the Constitution? The answer is quite simple: The Founders intended to leave to the individual states the authority to regulate religious expression within their own borders. While the federal government is restrained from interfering with the "free exercise" of religion by the First Amendment ("CONGRESS shall make no law..."), no such restraint is imposed upon the states.
As Associate Justice Joseph Story wrote in his monumental work on the Constitution, "The real object of the First Amendment was not to countenance, much less to advance Mohammedanism, or Judaism, or infidelity, by prostrating Christianity, but to exclude all rivalry among Christian sects and to prevent any national ecclesiastical establishment." In other words, the First Amendment was not written to establish policy for any faith tradition other than Christianity. The Founders were simply not dealing with Islam or Hinduism or Buddhism or any other religion. This is why the Supreme Court in the 19th century could deny Mormon claims to polygamy, even though they argued for it on First Amendment grounds.
The purpose of the First Amendment then, is clear, according to Story. Its purpose is to prevent Congress from picking one Christian denomination and making it the official church of the United States, and to prevent the federal government from interfering in any way with the right of states to regulate religious expression as they see fit.
Thus, writes Story, "The whole power over the subject of religion is left exclusively to the State governments, to be acted upon according to their own sense of justice and the State constitutions." In other words, according to Story, if we apply the Constitution as given by the Founders and not as mangled by the courts, states may prohibit the building of mosques if they choose to do so.
While this clearly does not represent the current understanding of the courts, according to the longest service associate justice in Supreme Court history, it is the correct one. And of course it is far from the only issue on which the courts have strayed far from the meaning of the Constitution as given by the Founders.
And while we may be years away from returning to an originalist standard of applying the First Amendment, the longest journey still begins with the smallest step and Story's words may be that first step.
It's worth noting in summary that, while I am speaking just for myself, these ideas are not my own. They come from noted prosecutor Andy McCarthy, prominent lawmaker Geert Wilders and eminent constitutional historian Joseph Story. While of course there are many who disagree vigorously with these thoughts, perhaps it's time for a vigorous debate since so much is at stake.
While these steps will not protect us from the Muslims already among us who wish to do us harm in the name of Allah, these practical steps would stem the tide and create two large moats — the Atlantic and Pacific oceans — to protect the castle of American freedom from the very real threat of Islam. There is no time to lose.
--
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)