Bio not provided
@MikeOakley protecting a flag is one thing, we'll leave that aside for the nonce. Apparently this perpetrator did not stop at "protecting" it. She STOLE it, refuing to return it to its rightful owner when requested to do so, and THEN refused the direct and lawful command of a LEO to return it. It was NOT HERS, never was. Didn't you even read the above notes which detailed a First Ammendment case heard by the SCOTUS? It declared the desecration of the flag to be protected speech.... and those charges disappeared, but someone went to jail for stealing the flag in question. There are TWO, perhaps THREE< parts to this situation.AND, the hypocrisy of the female in acting so self-righteouisly as she did given her past well documented conduct in desecrating the flag herself, even using it in a very indecent manner in a pornographic image. Sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. HOW can she get her knickers in such a twist for someone else doing something less offensive than what SHE has done in the past, publically, and for which she, HERSELF< refuses to apologise?
3 days, 19 hours ago on Michelle Manhart: the conservatives’ socialist, pornographer, outlaw, hypocrite hero
@Wife of Veteran to simply move away is one response. Perhaps the real response would be to work to fix it? Your claim that it is anyone's obligation to "rescue" a disrespected flag is specious at best.
You sound a lot like the mozzies who burn, rape, and kill because some clown drew a cartoon the mozzies thought vaguely resembled some venerated person long gone from this planet. Same value set. Sorry, it doesn't wash.
@Reid S. the entiry most often referred to today as "the state" is nothing like what the founders envisioned. That monstrosity we call "the state" today first arose under the dominion of Lincoln as he usurped to himself authority never allowed under the Constitution. By sending military force under the banner of "the Federal Government" to coerce and force some of the states (as originally intended, they were sovereign states which had freely joined the union, and then freely, as the sovereign states they are, left it, and for legitimate reasons (slavery being not amongst them). This action forcibly changed the effective structure of the federal (small "f") union and launched it on its path to becoming the leviathan it is today, where unelected and unaccountable bureaucrats make rules and enforce them at gunpoint, form their own tribunals with their own rules of evdence and proceedure, and invade/burden us with al manner or requirements, restrictions, financial burdens both direct and indirect (actual costs of compliance to EPA regulations alone in the US are above one trillion dollars annually.... most of this cost is never seen as a direct cost because of the regulations and requirements of EPA"s unelected and unaccountable poohbahs, yet we silently pay to comply...... THIS is what is now propery referred to as "the State", and is antithetical to the federal government established in the late eighteenth century.Thanks for the correct attibution of the quote... I remember the content not the source.
1 week, 1 day ago on Is there such thing as “legitimate taxation”?
@JoelMcDurmon @Tionico Cant find my copy just now, but David Hackett Fischer's amazing work Paul Revere's Ride has the background story in detail. I was astounded when I first read it. I seem to recall another source, but can't remember which one. This is perhaps the best work extant concerning the birth of our War for Independence. It is very carefully annotated and referenced, written in a very "accessible" style, gripping to read.... and should be required reading for every high school student as a condition of graduation. One absolutely can NOT read this book and not conclude we are in far greater peril and under far greater tyranny today than those great men and women were.
1 week, 1 day ago on Undoing this one war-time measure would cripple the whole tyranny
@Reid S. the terms "state" and "civil government/magistrate" are interchangeable. Remember, it was King Henry the Horny that established the strong connexion betixt the church officials and civil government, often they being one and the same, which is NOT according to God's laws. The Roman church also did a lot of that, and so Henery essentially followed suit, but took it further. This sort of conflation of civil and church is at the root of the abuses the Puritans/Pilgrims chose to reject, and what dorve them first to Holland then to the New World. One of the causes often cited for the rejection of the government of England here this side the Puddle was this... George Three was busy about establishing Church of England bishops in some of the cities here in the uSA.. New York and Philadelphia that I remember just now.... that bishop was tax supported by all in his "parish", and carried authoroty over every aspect of life.... and is presicely the sort of thing that gave causative rise to that First Article of Ammendment, the Framers desiring to assure spiritual and civil authority would never be vested in the same persons. It is also why they carefully EXCLUDED any moral or criminal issues from the national government.. excepting treason, the ONLY crime named and defined in the Constitution.
It is God'sWord that establishes the civil magistrate and assigns him one task: to bear the sword against those who do harm. One of the drafters of the Constitution declared, once they'd had done with their work, that this government is suited ONLY to a people who are self-governed according to the moral laws as established in the judeo-christian bible. It will suit no other. Jefferson, I believe, perhaps Monroe. God established the civil government because we NEED it, and it is a good thing. And the early founders of this nation never rejected it. They DID, however, reject the unlawful and ungodly tyranny of the British Crown.
By the tye, that tax upon the tea which was tossed overside and into Boston's harbour all those years ago was not a lawfully established tax anyway. That tea was owned by the British East India Company, a branch of the Crown government. It was also very old, junk tea which had been lying about on the wharves in Tilbury London for some years, and the entire charade was a plot to rid themselves of the wretched stuff at the expense of the Colonists. SO.. the tea taxing act was duly railroaded through Parliament, the tax imposed.... but, funny thing, that tax was ONLY imposed on the trash tea destined to the COLONIST's tea shoppes... the Loyalist/Tory teasellers never would get THAT tea.. oh, n o, they got the high quality fresh stocks, and no tax to be paid. Further, the government officials in Boston denied permission of the three ships draying that tea from the Thames docks to Boston Port were privately owned cargo vessels, and were now denied their ability to rid themselves of the cargo untl the tax was paid... meaning they could not take another cargo or leave for any other port. Their vessels were commandeered at gunpoint by Gage's men. Expenses of maintaining the vessels, crew, port demurrage, etc, all continued... and no income to offset those expenses. The goal of the Tea Riots was not to avoid paying the unlawful tax, per se, it was to free up the merchant vessels of their friends and fellow Bostonians so they could continue to earn their living. The government were, effectivelyu, stealing what was not theirs to steal by commandeering the three vessels at gunpoint for no action of their own. So, suffer no delusions that any tax "imposed" by government is just, moral, right, or proper. The Tea Tax certainly was not, nor is today's Income Tax.
@Wayne Peterkin when one considers there is no Constitutinal basis for the income tax whatever, and the way in which FedGov have managed to rape our productivity in so many ways, the moral high ground is certainly occupied by those desiring to abolish this tyrannical practice. Since some 90% of all tax monies collected at the point of a gun by FedGov are used to torment, rape, restrict, harrass, burden, limit, defeat, frustrate WE THE PEOPLE, the tax is morally wrong on its face, and in its execution. FedGov need to be trimmed back down to the limits originally imposed upon it by the Constitution, which was ratified by the original 13 colonies, and by every state since joining the Union. You want to talk about the moral rectitude of what Mr. Mc Durmon suggests here, talk about its roots in reality. Jesus said to render unto Caesar what is Caesar's. Have you ever considered the actual meaning of those words? He never said to render to Caesar whatever he asks or requries. He only said to render to Caesar WHAT IS HIS. And this tax nonsense is NOT his to require. Thus we are under NO moral obligation to render it.
@Dark Puritan How about "brood of vipers", or "sons of the devil" or "whitewashed tombs"? I seem to remeber Someone else using these very terms right to the faces of those needing to face reality. "Homos" is rather kind. I can think of a passel of far more pejorative terms these perverts (one such term) need to hear.
2 weeks, 2 days ago on CDC and WebMD downplay sodomite role in recent disease
Hmmm.. then I guess folk like Ruth, Rahab, that guy from Candace's court in Abyssinia, and all those people of Asia, Greece, and elsewhere in the world at that time who recived the gospel through Paul and those after him missed the boat......
2 weeks, 2 days ago on “The New Racism” by R. J. Rushdoony
@Bob those who might be offended by this (or should be, at any rate) will be no more or less so regardless of what terms are used. THEY know all the terms ,and plenty we don't. Sodomy is accurate and near-universally known. Words have meaning, that one certainly does, and meaings/ideas have consequences. Let the truth offend whom it will. Perhaps someone will see this and come under God's conviction as they realise God's pattern is safe and clean, and any perversion of that is neither, and participating in the unsafe and unclean acts these perverts prefer has serious consequences that are VERY dangerous.
2 weeks, 4 days ago on CDC and WebMD downplay sodomite role in recent disease
@BillLeague @DalasKnight @nightman weell, this is a bit of a different tune than yuor earlier post, all warting about Grannie suppling handguns to the gangbangers. Yes, the choice to arm falls to each individual. Yes, the exceptions yu mention are valid, and we none of us disagree. But whenever government begins to make such choices FOR us, things are going VERY wrong. And no one here that I've read is campaigning to disarm ALL cvops. They should have the choice to arm or not, just like yuo and I do. Paris andLondon in having most of theirs disarmed is, as we have seen in the pat year or so, nuts. Those guys need to have a reasonably high probability of going home to their families at the end of their shifts, just like the rest of us. I will take esception to your claim that the cops in places like NYC and Chicago are better trained than most....the record of New York's Only Ones is far from sterling..... two cops trying to apprehend a fleeing murder suspect hit and kill HIM just fine... but hit and injure NINE others in the process. In general, the statistics are private citizens capture or detain for arrest six times as many criminals as do cops, and cops hit with gunfire about four times as many innocents as do private citizens. Thus the private citizen is about 24 times as efficient at diong good, the cops, well, as a group, not so much. And that does NOT count the incidents like the Albuquerque police shooting and killing the homeless camper, the 13 year old kid in Santa Rosa walking down his own street carrying a busted up toy plastic gun, the 11 year old shot and killed on his own front porch when he was holding a Wii controller, the 7-something Grandpa asleep in his own bed, shot and killed in a no knock raid, or folks like Jose Guereña in New Mexico, ventilated with some seventy rounds of rifle fire while hunkered down in his own home's hall trying to protect his wife and children from some unknown, unidentified intruder at Oh Dark Hundred...... so, no, the cops do NOT have a very good record. Citizens have a FAR better one. And the record is replete with accounts of senior citizens, armed, defending themsselves and otehrs against armed or otherwise hostile intruders and assailants. You seem to think they oughtnt have guns. Well, there are plenty of folks who think otherise, including them and those who survived those assaults thanks to "grannie's cheap handgun".As long as you are fine with each individual having the choice, knowing their own situation, to arm or not, we have no quibble. I'd include folks like ALL employees who have to face the public in any business (the QwikMart attendant on duty at three AM, for example) or the night manager at the Walgreens who got fired for stopping an armed robbery and saving the lives of two of his co-workers and himself), or the adults who pour out their lives daily trying to do the best they can i educationg their students in public schools ike Sanmdy Hook, but are forcibly disarmed by stupid laws.... WHO decides for them, and on WHAT basis? THEY don't get to decide.... would Mrs. Clark, third grade teacher, lay down her life for her classroom full of kids, should it come down to that? Yes, she's proven that many times. Would she do a far betterjob of it when a crazed gunman enters her classroom if SHE were armed and skilled? Absolutely. No one byt she need know whether she is armed... not her students, not her principal, not the janirot.... until the perp busts into her classroom and tries to kill her and her twenty charges, and she can fire back and take out the perp.. or cower in the corner shielding her charges with her own body, only to be the first to die. THAT is my point.. EVERY ONE OF US has the fight to arms, (unless, as you point out, one is in a class of "prohibited persons", and there are plenty in that class who oughtn't be so categoriesed and stripped of their God-given right)). And DIFI, the kinyun, Pugliosi, Holder, Mikie BloomingIdiot, Gabber Gifford, have a thing to say about it.
3 months ago on Is it Time to Disarm the Police?
@BillLeague @DalasKnight @nightman what planet do YOU live on, anyway? If Granny wants her gun to protect herself, she should get one. Highly trained and skilled cops get shot by druggies, but we still "let" them go armed. Granny has to make HER decision. I've read a number of accounts of men and women in their 60's through 90's effectively defending themselves with guns.
2 there are people whoi should nit drive, either, yet in spite of the driver "training", drive tests, wrecks, etc, they do. No one wants to take away all the cars because a few careless/incompetents can't handle them.
3 most states have stand your ground, castle docrtine, and/or self-defense laws that preclude any civil action against anyone defending with lethal force when justified. Red herring, throw it back into the chuck where you got it
4 not all who carry are 75 lb antique weaklings who are incapable of holding onto their gun. Get real. Few crooks will try and get the victim's gun unless its their only option for survival. Again, straw man/red herring. Give it up.
5 on what basis do you think the Wild West wil return? Hollywood's depiction of those days? Get real. Look at Swiotzerland..... the highest rate of armed citizenry on the planet. Israel is a close second. Cities ilke Chicago, New York, Newark, Baltimore, DC, where plain folks are not allowed to be armed in public are far more like the "wild west" than cities like Billings, New Orleans, Cincinatti, other places with high rates of gun ownership.
6 you are reciting the Brady Brats, Blooming Idiots Against Legal Guns, Mad Mamas, and all the other gun grabbers, all crying about the blood running in the streets, shootouts at car parks, etc, when "everyone" is armed. This scenario has NEVER played out, anywhere.
Either you are a troll, or you've drunk the whole pithcer o fkoolade from the gun grabbers. Sorry, your fantasy world does not carry any frieght here.
@BillLeague these things are valid, but arise out of the structure of the system. As another pointed out below, security is the job OF THE PEOPLE. We have abdicated that resonsibility to government. that government no longer responds to we who hire them. When police incident review boards are no longer those with a vested interest in preserving the department's reputation and income, things will change. Presetny the "reviews" begin and end inside the very organisation perpetrating the corruption and abuse. Change that to reveiw by cafe owners, mechanics, school teachers, bus drivers, taxi drivers, sheetrock workers, roofers, body shop owners, common moms and daads with no dog in that fight.. and not the same "standing committee" reviewing them all. THEN police will know they will have to justify their decisions to the actual peers of the ones harmed by their wrong decisions. They will have to convince Bill and Suzy Homeowner that when they shot that unarmed punk their life WAS in danger, that when they popped the lights and the hotrod took off lie a bolt of lightening, they decided NOT to persue because it was likely to provoke the punk to be even more reckless.... and when the tased the grandmother or pregnant women four times, they'd better have some good video and an even better explaination as to WHY four shots were necesary, the public safety was up for grabs, not just their ego in "we got our mark, Captain". And when cops are caught planting false evidence (throwdown guns, bags of pot, etc) the cops need to be charged with perjury, and the same firearms or drug crime their intended victim WOULD have been had he been guilty as charged.. THEN the cop, once convicted, will be sentenced under the same standards you and I would be, lose ALL pension/retirment benefits, lose his gun rights, and forever be barred from serving in any law enforcement agency in any capacity. The same citizen review juries that review such cases will be the ones to return the indictment, just as does a Grand Jury now. In fact, citizen grand juries would be an excellent model to employ for ALL police review.
Until the control and acountability for al law enforcement is returned to the people whom they are to be policing, the present situation will continue t escalate. Returing direction and accountabilty to the people being policed will also ut an end to the federal push to militarise and nationalise poicing, too, another great benefit.
@TedRWeiland @Tionico @Matthew Hoover Ted, you completely miss my point in your rush to condemn. My point is not the underlying value of His Name and its proper use, which was the subject of this entire article. My "holy underwear nonsense" is aimed squarely at those who insist, with NO real evidence, that this or that nuanced pronunciation, spelling, or other rendering of that Name is THE ONE, and we all MUST use it that way or face... whatever. There are some things we can never know. It matters, say, when speaking Mandarin Chinese, precisely how certain sounds are spoken, as very similar and, to the untrained, identical sounds can have radically different meanings. In the case of the Lord's Name, however, there IS no "gold standard" to which anyone living can refer. YOU nor I were there when Moses, Abraham, David, smoke those words. And I'll wager everything I own they all three spoke it slightly differently.I teach rifle marksmanship, and one detail of which we make much is trigger finger control. Use just the pad on the end section of the trigger finger, and pull it steadily straight back. Many will insert the finger too far in. When we walk down to check our targets, I can tell you exactly WHO is doing this.... because the shots will "string" to the left. Most will be on point of aim, but there will be "strays" along a hoorizontal line out to the left. One time I was helping a shooter, his shots were strigning to the RIGHT.... Hmm.. I thought for a moment, then asked him "you are left handed, aren';t you?" Why yes, how did you know? (I ha dbeen working the opposite end of a long line, and had not directly observed him). Your trigger finger is too far into the guard, your shots are stringing right. Put just the pad on the trigger. Fixed his problem.Pronunciiation of GOd's name is not a mechanical operation. Takt en people, have them pronounce the name "Hahhan", and you will get eight nuanced variants, and at least two quite different, versions. Yet Mis Hannah will respond to all. The mormons have it easier than you would have it.. they is either got them blessed bloomers or they doesn't. You insist we get the precise pronunciation just so..... et have no reference of any certainty. Paul warned against getting caught up in meaningless arcana.
3 months, 1 week ago on Blasphemy and Freedom
@Elder Mike @116on911 @Tionico preaching things that concern the Lord..... remember when Jesus joined the disciples on the road after His resurrectio? What did HE DO to open their eyes, they who were bummed because their hope had been put to death long with Him on the cross? Beginning with Moses and all the prophets, He taught them of Himself. There has been a bit added since that conversation, but that builds off of Moses and all the prophets. If the whole bible is not the gospel then what is?
3 months, 1 week ago on Suppressed in our own ignorance
@TonyJiang @Tionico Sorry, I do NOT hold Wiki as a reliable source. I'd recommend raeding James Jordan's thoroughly researched work on the man. He spent years researching his life, and I've heard him lecture live on the topic more than once. Sacred Fire, I believe, is the title of his work.
@TedRWeiland @Matthew Hoover and yet, since we hold to the position that God's Spirit is directly responsible for generating the original manuscripts and, before that, the oral preservation of God's Word before it was committed to a visual record, why do we not also trust that that same Spirit has remained faithful to "lead yu into all truth" in the PRESERVATION and passing down through the ages that same Word for which existence He is responsible? This whoe business is smacking strongly of some protognostic ritualistic hooh hah. As someone above mentioned, if it were SO CRITICAL we presently maintain the use of some precise series of orally generated sounds, then the use of that precise series of sounds would be clearly defined and described... which it is not. Smells a lot like the mormon holy ubnderwear nonsense... WE know the deal, and YOU don't, and unless YOU let US tell you and you do it to, you are stuck on the outside looking in, through the frosted glass.
Not the work or MO of the God I know. Jesus commanded in plain language that we address this God as "Father in heaven". Yes, names are significant. But whether I refer to my progenitor as Dad, Papa, Papí, Vater, Pere, DaDa, Daddy, Pops, he remains the same man, and our relationship is unchanged. Let's get on about the weightier matters of the law and make HIS name great... whichever version of His name we happen to use.
@TonyJiang citation for this claim? I've seen solid evidence that he was both a follower of Christ and did in fact participate in the Lord's Table shortly after his inauguration as first President of the United States. Thus at least tow out of your three claims are false. Provide his membership credientials, verifiable, or the third falls as well.
@Jared Anthony Smith You make much of "the gospel", but I pose this question to you? what IS "the gospel"? Is it not the WHOLE counsel of God, what we now call "the bible" from the beginning of Genesis to the last word in the Revelation? If THAT is the case, what of the definition of "pure religion, and undefiled"? Is electing politicians that line their own, and others' pockets to take the place of individual charity, caring for others out of one's OWN pockets rather than government coming round with guns in their hands to steal our substance to FIRST line their own pockets with the "take" then to dole out some pittance to the lazy and irresponsible to perpetuate their "poverty" (replete with cars, TeeVee sets, air conditioning, cars, fine clothing, Monster Energy Drinks galore..... of how aobut stealing MORE of our substance to support at ridiculous excess) a system of government controlled "education", wherein the young of this nation are taught all manner of sezual perversion, to scorn and ridiculr the God who created the universe, to kill the unborn, the whiles FAILING utterly to truly educate these children (read just this morning that the average college freshman can barely read at 7th grade level, and that 7th grade "level" is far below what my generation learned in FIFTH grade). What is the bibilcally assigned function of the church leaders? Pastors are to "equip the saints for the work of the ministry". Elders are to devote themselves to teaching, the ministry of the Word, prayer and fasting", instead most devote themselves to programmes to assure the "butts on benches" equation will allow the ten million dollar mortgage to be paid off on time. Oh, and that all the "programmes' are duly operated to keep the "peasant" members in their "places". THIS is the typical model of today's churches. Sorry, a little reality check is in order. Pastors are NOT to "do the visitations", marriage counselling, confirmation classes, organise the progreammes, video ministry, sunday school.. no, those are the works of the members, IF they so choose once awakened.
3 months, 2 weeks ago on Suppressed in our own ignorance
@4gknights two things: first, of course Garner would be alive if he had grovelled. Trouble is, the cop was kaking an unnecessary arrest, then used excessive (and prohibited) force (chokehold) to enforce HIS will. This was a minor violation, certainly not worthy f an arrest, I don't care HOW many "priors" the guy has. The orcer to submit was unlawful and unnecessary.Further, the Word does not intend that we bow and grovel to every petty request of a tyrannical government. Jesus Himself took some rather forceful action in the Temple when He turned a few things upside down and drove out the scountdrels. Those moneychangers and thieves were "complying with the law" at the time. He also said "render unto Caesar what is Caesar's.... NOT "whatever Caesar asks for. Only what is rightfully his. This arrest was uncalled for. And THAT is the problem, Further, it was over some rather unjust laws that protect the businesses of certain ones and stomp on certain others. WHY cannot a man ilke Garner sell cigarettes as he pleases (with the requisite taxed PAID when he bought them from the retailer in the pack), But the smoke shop owners get a pass to seel to whomever they wish.. and not one penny more revenue gets collected when the smoke shop guys sell them as when Garner does. This is UNJURST law, which is no law at all.
4 months, 1 week ago on Russell Moore on Eric Garner is misguided and shameful
@Rick0110 @DrewJustice not a condemnation but a suggestion they are in need of some reforming. I'd have to agree. But don't think I'm throwing any rocks. I know a number of very great people who are involved in SBC. Far too many are just idling along, though, persuing worldly aims rather than seeking to move in society in a way that broadens the influence of God's Kingdom on this earth. Supporting the values Mr. McDuerman listed above IS a problem.
4 months, 2 weeks ago on Russell Moore on Eric Garner is misguided and shameful
@Rick0110 simle: he questions the authority of the state to make arrests such as was attempted with Mr. Garner. I'd agree, the state HAVE no moral authority in such cases. At most, if taxes are deemed "due and payable", law enforcement have the authority to cite or summon into court for the tribunal to deal with. Better would be first to call for an accounting of his sales, sources, tax status, and an accounting of the revenue alledgeldy due. I have yet to see any evidence indicating Mr. Garner had purchased that pack of cigarettes without paying the tax due the state. Thus if he resells that pack, singly or entire, the tax was indeed paid to the state, only upon his purchase. Perhaps he was selling cigarettes without the requisite Mother May I Paper to do so.. but that is NOT why he was accosted. His putative charge was selling untaxed cigarettes, not selling them, taxed or not, without the proper paperwork. This becomes more clear when one considers that some local smoke shop proprietors had complained about Mr. Garner's "unfair" competition, thus engaging the services of the government costumed and well armed enforcers to "deal with the troublemaker". What is fascism but government control of private means of production? The shop owners, and Mr. Garner, were both operating what amounts to "private means of production", the one more wholly submitted to the government control than the other.
So yea, Mr. McDurmon's premise that we, most of us, contributed to Mr. Garner's demise is accurate in that we perpetuate, support, and promote that government control of private means of production, thus we support and promote fascism. And most of us do so unawares, ir at least unthinkingly. SHOULD we stand on the sidelines and cheer as government exercises an ever-increasing level of control over our own private means of production, or ought we rather to rise up and work toward throwing off that yoke? WHY do government think they ave any concern over ANYTHING we choose to put into our bodies, or not? THAT is the root of this incident.. one man refused to submit to the increasing yoke of government control over his private means of production. Interesting thing is, the State of New York have lost a tiny bit of revenue (or have they? I hold that Mr/ Garner purchased the smokes in questiion at retail paying Caesar's requested bribe in the process (not that it really IS Casears, but only that he asks for it) in not having held out their hand for their supposed cut. Now, with the breadwinner in this family dead, my guess is that government will now end up earing the burden of providing for his survivors. Even though criminal charges will (most likely) not be brought, civil wrongful death action might be. In any case, their greed for a couple of small denomination federal reserve notes has resulted in considerable expense to the state.. far in excess of a lifetime of taxes this man may have generated had he been allowed to continue.
@ReinhardtSchweinmorder @Dark Puritan hw about dealing with the CONTENT of his poorly written post. He did not write in swahili, so 'm sure you could grasp his intent.
@DalasKnight @Tionico in our first War for Independence, about one third were consciously pro-independence from Britain, about a tenth actively worked toward it and some three percent put it all on the line and pressed the matter. A second third of the people here at the time were more or less neutral, the last third on the side of the Crown. Thousands of that last third, as they read the words written by the unseen hand upon the wall, either repatirated to England or moved to Canada, preferring to remain under the Crown they so loved. After the war, Canada granted free entrance to any Tories who wished to relocate and remain subject to Britain. But the war itself was pressed actively by some three percent, and actively supported by only another seven percent. Thus, one tenth of the population succeeded in securing our freedom from England's tyranny.
4 months, 2 weeks ago on Is it Time to Disarm the Police?
@Jaydubman @DalasKnight Jay and Dalas, excellent points. Yes, we have allowed our government to intrude into every aspect of our lives, particulary the FedGov, which have taken up all manner of business never granted them. Ron Paul's promise to disband nearly every federal alphabet soup agency was and remains brilliant. Feds have no business in ninety percent of what they meddle with. And most states have followed suit. The main difference is that, say, I live in New Jersey or New York or Maryland, and realise they are unlawfully restricing my right to arms in ways I can no longer tolerate, and with unacceptable consequences on many levels. There is nothing in law that proscribes my packing up my family and kit, and having myself off to some place where such insane disarmement laws do not exist.. Texas, Montana, Wyoming, Arizona. etc. On the other hand, whejn FedGov declares I do not have the right to own certain types of "arms" as defined within the context of our federal Constitution, I have no recourse except to own one anyway and risk life in prison if caught, or forgo owning one until that law is tossed out, as it should be.
I've read a fair bit of Gary North's writing, and I believe the concept underlying his entire proposal is the bibilcal reason given for the existence of civil (state) government: "to bear the sword against those who do harm". And Dalas, this is right in line with your piece above. For me to break into your house and take something away is morally wrong, AND a crime. For the moral aspect of it, I will answer toGod. For the criminal aspect, I MUST be held to answer by the state (civil). I break into your house and steal a bag of marijuana that is yours, I have harmed YOU by depriving you of the fruit of your labour/life. Thus, the cop accosting and arresting me for that theft does well.. and any citizen nearby would, and should, help the cop subdue me. On the other hand, if I am sitting in your livng room (as a guest, not a housebreaker) and smoke some of that bag of weed you have offered me, there may be a moral issue, for which we both will anser to God, but there is no HARM done, thus no CRIME. And that same cop coming to accost ME for "unlawful" possession/use of that weed is merely a revenue collector and is operating uncer "colour of law". I would, being a citizen passerby, not only refuse to assist this cop in the apprehension of such a code "violator" I would stand to the aid of the citizen being so abused and deny the cop his prize. The cop being unarmed in this situation is right. He cannot pull his .357 Trump Card and carry his will. In the New York case, the gent selling single cigarattes (mind you I despise the things, belive NO ONE should use them, etc but will never deny one's liberty to do so) being accosted by the partican revenue collectors, I'd have come to the aid of the industrious vendor and denied the cops their prize. His actions harm no one excepting perhaps the Korean shop owners who cannot compete against such in the sale of their own stocks of cigs. But the real issue is not the single cig vendor competing, but the state which have put such a financial burden on the Korean smoke shop owner he finds it impossible to compete with a vendor who has removed himself from that state burden. What would happen of the Korean tobacconist were to rebel and refuse to serve as the state's agent in collecting the tax? Much as did a hundred fifty Bostonians when, after three days of meetings to find a solution to the three merchant vessels lying Boston's Long wharf, al loaded with stale old tea from London and held captive by the government's tax imposition, found the salt water alongside that wharf to be the perfect solution for the theft by government of the free use of those three privately owned merchant vessels. Not one person was harmed, not one speck fo damage done, only the tea was destroyed along with the tax money government were unjustly and illegally demanding. Oh, one padlock was destroyed as the Deck Officer had not the key. That lock was replaced the following day by a citizen. HOW long will we allow ourselves to be taken captive by such tyranny? How many more will die at the nands of these armed revenue collectors ignoring their real reason for existance (the bearing of the sword against those who do harm) in favour of upholding the wishes of the moneyed elites?
@Jaydubman @Tionico Jay, you are looking at the half full cup. With about 140 Mn voters in this country these days, and somewhwere close to 110 Mn gun owners, they are strongly outgunned. Further, most of them are hirelings, in it only as long as their paycheck continues. Read up on the history of our first War for Independence. A bunch of "stupid farmers with squirrelguns" too on the planets best equipped, best trained, largest, most generously funded, and fearsome military force ever ammassed in history... and trounced them so soundly they ran, tail betwixt legs, back home. They returned some fourteen years later and we gave them the toss again. Read about a man named William Heath.... he played a key role in the battle of Lexington and COncord, when our forbears refused to lay down their mixed bag of arms and submit to the British Regulars, out that day for the specific purpose of taking what arms they had. He was a self-educated military historian and had concluded that the style of warfare best suited to the coming conflict is "asymetrical", or much like what we would call today "gueririlla" warfare. That piurecise pattern is how the Afghanis have endured nigh onto four decades of invasion and warfare conducted against them on their own soil, and NO ONE has defeated them. Many of their soldiers are still using ancient bolt action Mosin Nagants, a few are evenusing far more ancient Turkish Mausers, dating back into the 19th century. I can buy all the Mosins I want these days at Cabelas for about $125 each.
Or, read about a man Hezekiah WYman, also of Lexington/Concord renown....using his ancient relic from the French and Indian Wars of thirty years back, (a smoothbore musket, up against the rifled long guns of the Regulars) he acted solo.. kept out of range of the Redcoats, sought out opportunities through the afternoon, used his horse as a forepiece steady, and singlehandedly despatched somewhere between 15 and 18 of General Gage's best officers. No one ever got a round off in his direction. He had trained hiumself to fire accurately at two and three times the range the Brits were trained to use. He also "happened" to know the terrain intimately, having lived and worked in that area all his long life. All the hirelings of General Gage only knew the road in front of them.
Full automatic rifles give some advantage.... but one accurately placed round will do more damage than five hudnred rounds sprayed in panic.
One more thing to ponder: that pesky Second was NOT written to place government and the People on an equal footing. No, the local militia and sheriff are the supreme law of the land within their purview. Even up the firepower score and the People are above. It is ONLY when the People are denied the use of arms that government can even begin to rise up and dominate. Remember the principle on which this nation is founded: government can only rule by the consent of the government. As long as We the People remain armed, government are far more likely to remain subject to the consent of we the governed.
Minor quibble: nowhere does that pesky Second Article of Ammendment restrict the right to arms to citizens alone. ALL PRESENT have the right to arms, whether citizens or otherwise.
@David Smith true enough, except that any RIGHT to those people carried with it an inseparable responsibility. Contained within that pesky Second is the clear placing of the responsibility for "the security of a free state" squarely upon the shoulders of the people who comprise the militia, and thus who are the very ones needing unfettered right to arms. The right to arms is guaranteed those who need it to carry out their assigned responsibility to see to the "security of a free state".
@jkvmi but how many Brits would lift a finger to help, let alone protect, a bobby? Not many... and this is well deserved. During the moslem riots some time back, the bobs would as soon arrest a normal citizen who had the temerity to fight back when mugged by a gang of the mozzies than to arrest the mozzie tormentors. And a people abused so are supposed to take up the cause of the bobbies who so abuse them regularly? Not on THIS planet.
@dbwii you said this:
those of you who think "the
government" should stay out of it, I
remind you that the government is the body
which furnished the "right" in
the first place.
absolutely false. Our Founders knew well, and made it crystal clear, that ALL the rights "enumerated" (that is, named or listed) in the Bill of Rights are "natural rights", given by God our creator, predate the Constitution, are not dependent upon that document or anything else, and cannot be removed by any force. WHY is this important? The entity that has the authority to "give" something also has the authority to "take away" that same thing.
4 months, 3 weeks ago on A Navy SEAL Sniper’s Perspective on Firearms Ownership & The NRA in America
@Reid S. @Mark Maki the coppers have another two problems:
One: they all swear a solemn oath to uphold the constution. few do. ANY officer who has arrested anyone for simple drug possession, having in their possession a firearm that is (vaiously, depending on jurisdiction) not permited, registered, the wrong type, fitted with too large a magaxine, has too short a barrel, not state approved, carries the wrong ammunition, has certain features, is carried without the permiossion of the state, or in a place not approved by the state..... such a coop has violated his sworn oath, and made of himself a perjurer. How about a bnust for possessing, in one's home, a drug prescribed by his personal physician but the expiry date has passed.... operating a motor vehicle with the catalytic converter punched out after it became obstructed, and owner did not have the six hunderd bucks to have a new one installed.. or the guy who sold him a used one from a wreck that was running perfectly.... i could write a long book... and coops arrest on such things daily, ALL these "offenses" are contra out "supreme law of the land".....
and Two: how many cops become aware by one means or another, of blatant deliberate wrongdoing by their fellow cops.... ans say nothing, nor take any action?
5 months, 1 week ago on Police departments boast about civil forfeiture abuse
@TedRWeiland @Tionico Sorry, ted, yu'll have to enlighten me here. Except for blatant dishonesty (the place is not mine to sell, encumbered in a way not disclosed, bearing some hidden defect not disclosed, perhaps a stretch, but drawn up and executed on a Sabbath...... I connot think of any component that would be "biblically errant" that would not be well covered, and actionable at law, outside the contract itself. can you provide three examples of "biblically errant" cokponents I might include in such a contract? Bear n mine I have in view a simple contract to sell o Party B, not to finance it myself as part of the contract.
5 months, 1 week ago on We have returned to ground zero for liberty; fix this or else
@TedRWeiland @Tionico your fantastical conclusion proves the fallacy of your reasoning, as your conclusion is very wide of the mark. No, I ain't no follower of the goon with the golden spectacles.So, if I decide to sell my house to someone, is the contract between us, with all its caveats, recitals, requirements, provisions, consequences for failure, etc, morally neutral? If not, does it follow all the c, o, s, j of God? Or is it, by definition, hostile to His sovereignty and morality? You again build a house with only one wall, and demand I be on one side or the other. Yor contraints are a lgoiccal fallacy, and have no basis in reality.
@TedRWeiland @Tionico Ted you continue to draw a false dichotomy. As has been noted previously, the COnstitutionof the US was never intended a sa MORAL document. It names and codifies ONE crime, and one only. The balance is more like a cit charter than eny encoded law or moral standard: we'll establish this city, here are the boundaries. We'll have a city council comprising five members, elected for five year terms elected in alternate years, one term only. From those five we'll choose a mayor, we'll have a police department organised as follows....... this is NOT the sort of arrangement you continually try and force it to be. It never was intended to reflect God's "statues ordinances, cammands and judgements". It very carefully named only ONE crime (which crime is consistent with biblical standards) and leaves ALL other issues to the states respectively as sovereign entities.I have not studied the constitutons of the several colonies of that era, but no matter. You cannot fault the Constittuon, which abandons such areas of concern to those sovereign states, for what individual states have made of their sovereignty. There are some states in which I will absolutely not live, and scrupulously avoid even visiting, three of them to the point I refuse to even book a flight that lands in them. there are other states to which I am seriously considering moving. Much of this difference arises from a refusal of those state governments to uphold the federal Constitution.
You are also mistaken when you provide me with two alternatives: denounce the Constitution as a corrupt and satanic document, or hold it up as an idol. Again you raise a false dichotomy. I recognise many flaws in it particularly the later Articles of Ammendmen. It is not perfect. Yet my position remains that if we as a nation were to return to the terms, limits, mandates of that original document (including some modifications coming later but not all), we would not be IN the mess we're in today. If that is idolatry, then perhaps you and I have a different understanding of that term. Each state I will leave aside as separate matters. What is under discussion here is the Federal government. If Nebraska declares for islam and shariah law, that is Nebraska's doing, but they will need to secede from the other fifty six states to break from the constraints of the federal constitution.
Bear in mind, some ninety five percent of what today comprises FEDERAL government is outside the constraints of the Constituion, and should be dismantled. What would be left could be tried for some season then modified as needed to improve. I rather expect, though, that once we are down to a funcitonal five percent of the present burden we'd be so shriven of our government burden individuals would be sufficiently self-governed as to not require anything more. Wil that happen any time soon? I do not expect it in my lifetime, nor that of my children. And you want to make of me an idolater for this thinking? I do not favour civil government. I favour each man being accountable to the God who made us all and put us here with the charge to glorify and serve HIM. Since that, by definition, involves serving each other as well, there is little remaining but for each man to sort out the details before that same God. So whence cometh the idolatry you accuse?
I wonder, will the end of this perverted practice come only after a significant number of patriots decide it is time to end it? Military all took an oath to protect and defend the Constitutin from ALL threats, foreign OR DOMESTIC. And that oath has no expiry date. How long will it be before these gluttonous coppers take their little selfish game too far on the wrong folks, and it all comes back on them painfully? Or for masses (thousands) of citizens invade the corrupt courts and police stations demanding goods be returned and the practice ended? More stories are spreading about... more victims are having their say. More are becoming aware of this travesty of justice. A day WILL come when this ends. Will it be voluntarily curtailed by those perpetrating it upon their Masters (we the people)? Or will it be FORCED to end, either by some court or by citizen anullment and interposition?
@TedRWeiland Ted, you are VERY mistaken... the Founders did not REPLACE the God-based governments of the several colonies with the Federal government. No, they worked very carefully to leave all those matters in the hands of the various states, assigning very few and specifically named powers to FedGov. EACH STATE REMAINED SOVEREIGN, and you know this, or should. Those sovereign states had, and yet have, the option of continuing such God-based governments or straying. FedGov have NAUGHT to do with that. IF those soveriegn states were to be FORCED to work under the restrictions of that Fourth Article of Ammendment (just to mention one of that Bill of Rights) then civil forfeiture never would have begun. The issue is not one of a failure of the Constitution, but of FedGov refusing to restrain itself, and the out of control states in thiscivil forfeiture realm, for only one example/ READ that Fourth..... it clearly declares that this sort of injustice NOT HAPPEN. No property shall be seized by government without due process. Civil forfeiture, as I'm certain you know (or SHOULD....) is the simple taking, even if there is no crime or articulable suspicion there has been. And that property is immediatlh forfeit, not held in trust until after the legal criminal proceedings whcih never come in these cases). It is theft under colour of law, The Framers denied the pwoer to do this to all. Again the Constitutin is not the problem, it is corrupt men who refuse to be constrained by it. THEY have become the new Mafia...... bebadged, armed, and searing govenment issued costumes.
@Mark Maki I sort if did answer your question when I mentioned due process. Laws for a long time haveprovided that goods/money/assets derived from and traceable back to proceeds of crime can be forfeit as part of the punishment. Bad guy gains from crime, gets stuff, cash, bad guy gets caught, trried, convicted, stuff can be taken, particularly when things like embezzlement profit bad guy and converted to stuff....courts can liquidate and use proceeds for restoration to victims. Victimless crimes, (mostly controlled sobstance" "crimes") also povide that assets connected with the activity can be seized and liquidated as part of the proceedings. Note the difference between the above scenaria (closely connected with criminal activity that has been established in a court of law) and the sorts of situatioins described in the original post, where cops stop folks for whatever, snoop illegally until they find something they want, take it, no criminal charges even filed, no suspicion of a specific crime, no trial, no nothing but someone's stuff is stolen by the cops under colour of law. the burden of proof the money/car/stuff were gotten not related to any crime falls on the victim, the law abiding citizen. All the thieving cop needs to do is take the stuff/monmey/etc and claim "it MIGHT have been used in, related to, derived from, SOME crime SOMETIME SOMEwhere. This is NOT appropriate under our COnstitution...... inocent until proven guilty, right to examine witnesses used against you, right to present witnesses on your own behalf, right to legal representation, right to freedom from unlawful/unwarranted searches,
In your bad guy scenario, all of those rights were preserved, he was arrested, tried, convicted under due process. In the civil forfeiture scams going on across the nation, none are. This is NOT Communist China, Iraq, Cuba, North Korea.
@Mark Maki the laws already in place regarding handling of evidence and non-evidence personal property coming into control of law enforcement give clear rules for disposal. Evidence must be retained until no longer needed in legal proceedings, then must be returned to rightful owner. Collateral goods, such as items in a stolen car recovered, must also be returned to their rightful owner. Personal items found ina a car seized in the commission of a crime and not related to the crime itself also must be restored to the rightful owner. LE cannot simply retain any property they take.
and that is why "civil forfeiture" is such a racket, because goods are taken without due process (such as the rules regarding aabove situatins) and most often not in conexion with any crime, real or imagined. It is merely a quasi legal way for Law Enforcement to take wht thay want simply because they want to, and they can. ALL "civil forfeiture" laws need to be repealed. No one is safe from their greed, and there are no controls or due process involved.
Civil Forfeiture is a relatevly new thing, and all worked just fine before it was enaacted into law. It has only been seriously and systematically abused in the past decade or so, though it certainly had been abused somewhat before that. But these days, coppers lay in wait for late model out of state vehicles and "contact" then on some fimsy excuse, pressur the people into an ilegal and baseless search, and/or bring in dogs that will "alert" on cue from their handlers then take what they want. Threatening arrest will often place the innocent victim travellers in a no-win position. They are jailed if they don't go along they have their goods, money, car stolen if they don't. At times, coppers threaten to turn the children over to CPS and foster care. Not much wil gain the coerced assent of a Mother than the threat to steal her children away from her at the side of the road in rural Timbuktu. This entire system is a travesty of justice, and must end, NOW.
@Begneli you can always decline to respond at all. Worst case: he'll put the clams on you for not cooperating. BUT when prosecutor comes to file charges, he's got no evidence, and off you go. Open your mouth, a dirty copper will put something in it. Then hang you with it. Happens a thousand times a day.
@MelADavis @Tionico @JamesPatrickRiley correct she is not hands on herself. BUT... the record shows she pushed her council hard to foist this on the people against their clearly expressed will (sort of like a certain kinyun pushed congress for some illegal healthcare insurance scam) SHE is the one decided to refuse the petitions and certified signatures, and SHE is the one directing her crony underlings like the city's attorneys. SHE has the authority to tel them to not respond, and a lot of imput on HOW to respond. She will toss some folks under the bus, put on an innocent look, shrug her shulders, and say "who, MEEEE??!!??!!?? Not at ALL, sweetie pie".
6 months, 1 week ago on Is Houston demanding oversight of pastors’ sermons? No.
@Guest001112 @Tionico @KurtW no one want a religious oligarchy. Your argument hinges on ONE SMALL WORD: you begin your final paragpaph with the wird IF. Pastors cannot violate any valid federal law by their pulpit speech, blog communications, soapbox or neighbourly speech. REread that pesky FIRST ARtciel of Ammendment. It says there shall be no law abriding..... free speech, peaceably to assemble, or redress of grievance. WHERE in that complex and arcane language do you find the source for your argument? If you are referring to the 501c3 designation and its restrictions. you will first have to PROVE the muzzle so put on the muoths of preachers and other churchmen is constitutionally valid.. I say it is not, See above mention of that First. You will further have t PROVE these churches under the subpoenae are in fact 501c3 organisations. My guess, from what these few pastors hav asid, is they are not. Thus those illegal restrictions are not applicable. Finally, the "prosecution" you demand is limited to the IRS terminating their 501c3 status. Nothing more. Now, please note: the issue, the basis, of this lawsuit, to which none of these pastors under subpoenae are party has nothing to do with anything they may or may not have said anywhere. It has ONLY to do with whether this renegae mayoress has the authority to deny a duly presented and certified petition from the voting people of this city to place a measure on the city ballot. She does NOT have this authority. And she KNOWS it. which is WHY she is attempting to bury these men under the "discovery" demands. She opes that their refusal or failure to cmply will be cause for summary dismissal of the lawsuit. SO, sir, you have some homework to do: first, WHO are these pastors, the targets of this subpoena? Second, with what churches are they affiliated? Third, are those churches 501c# organisations, Fourth, WHAT speech, if any, is contrary to the alledged restrictioins placed on "official speech" of whch officeholders or functioinaries of 5-01c3 organiatioins? and fifth, I already said so, but YOU need to learn what the maximum possible sanctions against "violating" the restrictioins placed upon 501c3 organisations might be, and who or which agency can im[ose them.Now, assuming these pastors are all official spokesmen of their 501c3 organisations, and assuming they did in fact proclaim things contraty to the restrictiins imposed on such organisations, you will now have to explain WHY the Fifth Article of Ammendment is somehow effectively waived in this instance? They are under no obligation to reveal anything that might incriminate themselves or support any charges for "violation" of any law or statute.
You mght also consider the FACT that the petitions to place the repeal of this city ordinance returned some five times as many signatures as required to place the referendum on the ballot. The Electins Commission stopped examining the signatures after they certified the required minimum number plus about 25% more. And the mayoress STILL usurped authority not hers to demand it not be on the ballot. One more detail: you are on a whinge against a "religious oligarchy", yet you seem to support the religiousoligarchy this mayoress is clearly attempting to establish. Yes, she IS. Her god is herself, and her sacrament is the act of lesbian sex. Her doctrins is whatever I want is what will happen. She has ignored the clearly expressed objection of the Peole of Houston to her Pervert Protection Zone Ordinance. If that is not an oligarchy there never has existed one.
@KurtW the speech is protected as SPEECH, not as "religious" speech.. the Constitution recognises no such category. ALL speech is protected. Further, these men have a right to not incriminate themselves. SHE obviously wants to abuse what little power she has, and will likely turn anytning damning over to our "friends" at the Infernal Robing You Service...... thus, by surrendering this "speech" these pastors who happen to be allied with 501 c3 organisations might face sanctions..... thus, by surrendering their "speech" may well be incriminating themse;lves, thus the speech is protected under the Fifth. HOWEVER< none of the matters, as the basis of the lawsuit in question is the maypr's usurpation of authority she does not have in refusing to allow the duly conducted and officialy certified *by the Electioins Board) petition to put her Pervert Protection Zone Ordinance to a vote of the PEOPLE who oppose it. Thus, nothing these pastors said/did not say is germane to THAT lawsuit, the one from which this ridiculous "discovery" arises. NOTHING coming from these churches relates to the legal question of whether she has the authority to deny this lawfully conducted and duly certified petition being put on the ballot for the PEOPLE of Houston to decide. The lawsuit is not about the content or affect of her PPZ ordinance, but about her denying due process to the people she is charged to serve as mayor. THIS should be grounds for a recall petition, and I think it would be great fun to see the churches of Houston bind together to launch just that petition... and even better if both of these ballot measures were to land on the same ballot page this spring. Unless some sharp lawyer can come up with some criminal charge, malfeasance in iffice, misuse of public funds (city money paying lawyers to persecute pastors who oppose her?) and get rid of her s she gets no pension after her "service". Her inflated pride WILL go before her fall.
@JamesPatrickRiley You've got m ost of the waypoints for this journey wring. Your start point is accurate.. the lesbo mayor IS on a power trip as seem to be most of her ilk. But then you jump too far... the pastors DID object...... and did all they could to try and keep it from happening. Once it did happen, they worked, some of them, to bring about a repeal by supporting the petition drive. Remembe that right to redress we all have against government? Petitions were drafted, signatures gathered..... to repeal this by a citizen's referendum. Well above the required number were gathered, submitted to the elections folks to certify, they did so, declaring there are far more than the minimum required, the petition is certified and must be put on the ballot. Creepy mayoress )her royal highness Herself) with no authority to do so declares this is unacceptible and "stops" the progress of the now-legally initiated referendum. THIS is the grounds of the lawsuit, not the pervert protection zone city ordinaince she pushed through. It was not these targeted pastors who brought the suit. Thus, whether the pastors said anything for or against or nothing at all regarding the ORDINANCE is irrelevant. The PEOPLE have spoken and acted to secure their right to vote on the matter (after mayor and city concil refused to hear their opposition.. (sort of a lot like King George Three way back when, eh?) On this ground, this "discovery" now becomes quite clearly a persecution of any who see things differently than does this excuse of a mayor. This "body of evidence" she demands is not related at all to the grounds for the lawsuit.... which challenges her refusal to accept the duly collected and officially certified signatures on the petition to put this on the ballot. She is using discovery wrongly to overburden and cow her opposition. Why? Because she KNOWS once the people vote, her prize pervert protectiin act is gone.
Further, this "speech" of these targetted men (pastors) is, prima facie, protected under the First Article of Ammendment.. not as "religions" speech (as there really is no such "category" in the Constitution...) but simply as SPEECH. ALL speech is protected) Further, this body of "evidence" is protected as private by the Fifth Article of Ammendment. If this dingy female has specific evidence to support a claim that this speech somehow is germane to the question of her refusal to accept the petition to put the repeal to a vote of the peole, she has the burden of proof or "reasonable cause" to request specific "speech" to support her claim. SHE is the burdened one, she must substantiate her claim. Having her city paid lawyers build and launch a fishing expedition against some who are known to oppose her is not legal, nor right.
Based on all this, I have to conclude that Joel Mc Durmon is off base here. The people of Houston should be demonstrating in the streets for their being stripped of due process and their right to redress against their city government. Leave aside the issue of her Pervert Protection Zone for the moment... the quires can fling all manner of poo in the rhetorical battle that would commence. The first issue is denial of the rights of the citizens to redress and vote. Once the vote happens, THEN the moral arguments can begin.... unless the PEOPLE also launch a drive to recall this piece of work. I think it would be hilarious to launch a petition drive to recall this miscreant, and that both measures (repeal of the PPZ, and her recall) were to be on the same ballot. I can see the bumper stickers now: RECALL THE PERV and her PERV ORDINANCE.
MY understanding from what I've read is that the basis of this lawsuit
is to prevent the mayor, acting illegally on this matter, from
disqualifying the certified signatures to put the repeal of this bill on
the ballot. She has NO AUTHORITY to do so, the county official charged
with certifying the number and verity of the signatures has sworn under
oath the number and authenticity of the signatures are well beyond what
is required. Yet this jezebel huffs and puffs and refuses to allow it on
the ballot, as if its HER call. This is an abrogation of her authority
as the chief executive officer of the city. What these pastors may or
mayn't have said from their pulpits, blogs, etc, has NAUGHT to do with
whether the mayor can "uncertify" a legally compliant petition to put a
measure on the ballot. And THIS is why the subpoena is invalid and
capricious. These subpoenae are a hit piece to drag certain select pastors who are not party to that political action lawsuit to force the mayor to comply with THE LAWS relating to referendae initiated by the people. This move is pure harassment against her chosen target, unrelated to the lawsuit. SHE thinks its about her sexual perversion. She is mistaken. It is about her unlawful usurpation of power, a power never given to the executive, and for good reason. She is charged with applying the laws, not deciding which ideas get made into laws. NOr does she have any authority to siilence the will of the people. If she continues, she may well find herself out of a job, possibly facing charges for malfeasance, corruption, etc.
These subpoenae are illegal on their face. Misuse of the courts for personal or political gain is also illegal. She certainly seems to be doing that. But WHERE are the thousands of christians that should be surrounding her office, home, etc, leaving her no peace, popping up everywhere to remind her SHE is not a god and cannot usurp poewr not conveyed to her.
perhaps that could be one of two relevant questions, the other being "is there enough substance in my sermons to convict or enrage a lesbian politician to bring her face to face with Christ and His demands?". Many have been dragged, kicking and screaming, right to the trough... but refuse to drink. Consider Pharoah..... given many opportunities yet steadfastly refusing to acknowledge God...... it cost him everything.
@Guest777777 That is typical dirty but legal lawyer games. I hope they DO this. Cause the legal expenses of the opposition to inflate exponentially. I had a defendant in a lawsuit pull this thinking I'd have to pay my lawyer for a hundred hours or more AFTER I dug up the requested, redundant, and irrelevant information. I fooled them and wrote the "Rogs" myself.
@LiftHimUp As to the NBC issue, not as you claim. One American parent, and born here, makes one a CITIZEN, but the additional qualifier "natural born" is more limited. MUST be born here, and of TWO American citizen parents. Read Federalist Papers for background and context, and the discussiions on this issue. Further, a Supreme COurt case, about 1835 I think, the title being Minor vs Happersett, or something very close.... it was about another matter but dealt with the Natural Born Citizen issue as a key to the matter at hand. Find and read the decision yourself. It is blunt, plain, leaves no wriggle room.WHY bring this up? Cruz is quite obviously on the campaign trail, and needs to be headed off at the pass as ineligible. his is NOT sour grapes.. I like some of what the guy is saying, though during his recent stumping he's caused me to wonder a lot. He's certainly better than either of the last two we had in the final runoff. And Romney is being put forward again.... sheesh!!!
As to the whole "two kingdom" business... I'm not much up to seed on that whole schtick... but I do know two things that I think relate. First, there is not one cubic nanometer of creatio over which Jesus does not say "MINE". Second, anyone who is sitting about waiting for Jesus to come back and "fix it all" is most likely NOT one of His disciples, and will hear the "Depart from Me you workers of iniquity, I never knew you" speech.
7 months, 1 week ago on Cruzifiction
I've long considered Jesus' word to "render unto Caesar what is Caesar's, and unto God what is God's" to mean only give to either/both what is RIGHTFULLY theirs. What 'IS" the due to each. He emphatically did NOT say to give them what they want. How often does Caesar/Uncle Sam make demands that are utterly without warrant? Or directly opposed to what we know is God's command (paying to support abortion, for example, clearly counter to God's laws and the Constitution.. right to life, as guaranteed therein, and none of FedGov's business to demand).
It seems, upon reading this article, that the hooh hahs in charge of the temple and other related things had been scamming the people for some time, and that Jesus was brought up against this. Did He say to pay the tax? No. He said to give to God what IS God's.... and left it to the hearer to determine whether this two-drachma tax was legitmately God's. If it IS legitimately His, they you'd better pay up. If not, you can either pay it (to reduce chances of ensuing "unpleasantness") or not and risk those ensuing consequences.
Somewhat akin to our current administrations insistence we all buy into the OhBummerTax scam under risk of some financial penalties. The law is not legitimate, despite what a number of bought andpaid for courts have "decided", nor is it anything approaching a n acceptible "deal". Pay anyway, lose for certain, don't pay and risk..... well, whatever it might be and however further on doan the road those "chips" may fall and how big the pile will be when they do.
Render to him asking for the tax what is RIGHTLY his to demand.
7 months, 1 week ago on Taxing like a harlot
Cruz' stance on Israel, the middle east, the christians under persecution there, and other such things are merely trappings the man is manipulating on his hopeless quest to occupy the White House as our next president.
However those issues dice down, he has one insurmountable problem, which he conveniently fails to mention (and much of the media is in lockstep on this issue). That issue comprises two indisputable facts, and those facts are of his own testimony: he was born in Canada, and his Father was a Cuban citizen at the time of his birth. The requirement for president is he be a "natural born citizen", which means born in this country, of TWO parents who are also both citizens. Not residents, not visitors, not Britich Subjects (Obama Sr), not Cubans....... thus he cannot be president. I wish he'd end his grandstanding and get about pushing for what this country needs to climb out of our present deep rabbit hole economically, politically, and morally. The sort of blathering he's been up to of late helps none of the above.
@D2U on what basis do you assert that anyone who does not support the popular meme that Israel MUST be "supported" blindly and unquestioningly necessarily "hates" Israel and wills her arm? Who appointed YOU Factfinder, Judge, Jury, in determining that those who disagreed with Cruz' comments "are against Israel"? Pot, don't call kettle black until you have a good, honest look at kettle.