Monday February 8, 2016
Jump to content
Mr. Horne, I recommend you do a little research on the waves upon waves of assaults, murders, rapes -- on young girls as young as seven (so far) -- that are occurring in Germany, Sweden, and other European countries by these Moslim refugees.
Islam is not a religion. It is a totalitarian political system designed dominate all others who are not Moslim and even all women who are. It masquerades as a religion to claim a right to commit the murders, rapes, and other atrocities in the name of Allah and in the name of freedom of religion.
Their Qu'ran compels them to murder apostates, either murder or enslave and heavily tax infidels, and gives them the authority, as a commandment from allah, to rape women and children of both sexes. The Qu'ran gives them the authority to lie, to cheat, to steal, to torture, to do absolutely anything conceivable and INconceivable in the name of advancing their "religion." If there can possibly be a formal (quasi-) religion the head of which is the Anti-Christ, this is it. The Satanic Cults are timid and harmless by comparison (but only by comparison). A recent announcement by an Islamic Imam called to followers of Islam to pretend to convert to Christianity, to lie, to swear on the Bible, to engage in all the trappings and appearances of Christianity as a means of obtaining access to circumstances that enables them to murder as many Christians and/or Jews as humanly possible. Their commandment to dominate all others as viciously as possible supersedes all secular law.
Lastly, the "Give Me Your Huddled Masses" meme is appropriate for people who desire to BECOME AMERICANS AND BE FREE. Moslims are doing the same thing they did during the Crusades; they are invading other nations like a swarm of mad dogs.
When I see secular Muslims (not "Moslims"* massing and demonstrating and putting their lives on the line to stop what we call "radical" Muslims, I will consider their acts to see if they measure up to the requirements of civilization. There is no such thing as "radical" Muslims: What we call "radical" Muslims are doing no more and no less than the Qu'ran commands.
*I am informed that "Muslim" is Arabic for "One who gives himself to God." "Moslim" is Arabic for "one who is evil and unjust." By their actions, ye shall know them.
Do some research and find out what this pack of savages are doing to Europe. You won't be so willing to expose your family and your community to such viciousness.
Good job, Dale. Better than mine: Mine was too long (not quite as bad as his) and too specific. I didn't say so in the letter for publication, but people like him is why Ph.D. stands for "Piled higher and Deeper."
That's cute, Christensen, but hardly responsive to the issue.
Lost in the above discussion is the underlying facts involved in both the Cliven Bundy confrontation in Nevada and the Ammon Bundy-led confrontation in Oregon. I'm providing this information without offering a whole lot of support to the Oregon occupiers because I feel they overplayed their hand. Their hearts were in the right place, however.
The dustup between the BLM and the Hammonds occurred because the BLM was illegally driving everyone off the mountain there to establish yet another United Nations Agenda 21-inspired "wildlife refuge" for the purpose of restricting more and more land from occupation by human beings. The Hammonds were the last holdouts, and the BLM has proven several times they are not above mafia-like strongarm tactics -- and there is some testimony indicating the BLM set their own fires, not the Hammonds. I don't say yes or no; but I think it very strange the Hammonds meekly accepted the court rulings without argument or appeal.
The protest in Oregon morphed from support for the Hammonds, who indicated they didn't want it and who dutifully marched off to jail, to the same argument against the feds we are having in Arizona, supported by most of the other western States: The federal government owns 'way too much of our State land and is not taking care of it properly, and is depriving the State of the revenue the land could generate for education. The American Lands Council, headed by Ken ivory (Utah Legislator) is doing yeoman work in correcting that situation, and the feds are digging in their heels. Yet we have not reached the point of civil disobedience being necessary, and that's why I think Ammon Bundy's group overplayed their hand. That being said, while the video shows Finicum reaching for his pocket before he was shot, technically making that a 'righteous killing' by the feds, the feds shouldn't have been there, shouldn't have set up that roadblock, shouldn't be depriving the people of Oregon of their land under a foreign agenda, and shouldn't be depriving the people of their right to peacefully redress grievances against government. I do not support ad hoc violence, but I predict things are going to get a lot worse in this area if the federal government doesn't back off and start restricting its activities to those authorized by the U.S. Constitution.
So prove it. Show me where the Constitution obligates the federal government to protect members of the public. Unable? Okay, I will show you:
"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
Which is the liberty teeth the founders recognized and guaranteed as a protection for all the others. Which side of the rights issue are you on, Richard? Do you believe we have, and should have, rights? Or do you believe we should be herded like cattle?
I invite you to offer a rational argument, Richard. "B.S." is not a rational argument. If it is B.S., prove it or admit that it isn't. (Failure to prove it is an admission it isn't.)
Apparently you know as little about firearms as you do about government and the principles of liberty it was founded to preserve and protect: Firearm manufacturers have spent tons of money in research and development of technology making guns safer for those who use them with a modicum of common sense: The old single action revolvers had to have an empty chamber under the hammer to keep them from firing when dropped on the hammer -- so manufacturers introduced the transfer-bar technology preventing the hammer from touching the firing pin unless the trigger was pulled. Double-action revolvers are likewise prevented with a different technology. Semi-auto pistols, both single- and double-action used to have several external safeties that had to be operated to make the gun fire, and now striker-fired pistols need no external safety at all because their safeties are internal and automatic.
But nothing will ever make a firearm incapable of firing unless it is pointed at the right target. And so-called "Smart Gun" technology cannot be made both reliable and non-hackable -- and the only time it doesn't work is when you need the weapon to fire to save your life. No police officers or military officers will bet their lives on it, and neither will anyone else who uses a firearm for its intended purpose: Saving lives.
I think you should turn your "Piled higher and Deeper" in for a refund, "Doctor:" You have no clue what you are talking about.
It's strange to me how often Robert Heinlein's observation that "Ph.D" stands for "Piled higher and Deeper" is vindicated by people who just can't stand for other people to have rights and the means to defend them. I have never understood why they don't go back to whoever they sold them the bill of goods labeled "Ph.D" and demand a refund.
Here's a beginning to your learning process, "Doctor:" It is a fundamental rule of logic, and one that you would have learned in school if you actually earned a doctorate: A faulty premise leads to a false argument every time, no exceptions.
I quote: "It is Congress’ responsibility and that of the president to protect the citizenry from all enemies foreign and domestic."
Since you are holding forth as some kind of learned scholar with letters after your name, perhaps you could explain to the assembled multitudes where, in the United States Constitution that conveys to the federal government the only, singular, exclusive, limited power that it has, it is written that Congress or the federal government has the authority or obligation to protect the citizenry from all enemies, foreign and domestic?
The Constitution says no such thing. It says Congress shall support the Constitution, and it says that the President shall preserve, protect and defend the Constitution. It says each are, respectively, bound by oath or affirmation to do so. It also says all the executive, legislative, and judicial officers of the federal and State governments are bound by oath or affirmation of office to do so.
The federal government is not your mommy or daddy, "Doctor." And for your information, since you seem to be devoid of any related to what you are spouting off about, even police agencies and officers are under no obligation to protect you from anything, and cannot be sued for failing to do so. The Supreme Court has so ruled at least 12 times.
Continued in next post.
Absolutely 100% spot on, Peter. And women have the right of self-defense when men are deaf, blind, or don't care.
In the first place, Ted, it was not ZeroBama's "idea." It was now DOA-communist apparatchik and UN thug Maurice Strong's idea, may he dance in hell. Zerobama is nothing but a puppet doing what he is told. And our fate as a nation certainly does not depend on marching in lockstep with First Enemy Agent ZeroBama to national destruction or going extinct. Americans don't Sit! Heel! Stay! to the commands of a dork like Obama like you do, Ted.
Your Fact #8: Gosar is a Congressman, and his job is to protect the rights and liberties of the people of his district, not bail them out of their bad lifestyle decisions or the natural calamities that befall us all. The purpose of the U.S. Constitution was and is to protect the right of the people to do as best as they can and reap the rewards of their own efforts -- not bail them out when they fail. And while Bill Cosby deserves a trial before a jury of his peers, circumstantial evidence indicates the actions he is accused of taking sure as hell demand attacking -- why aren't you standing up for women's right to withhold consent? Your Fact #9: I'm sure you are blessed. #10. Ibid. 11. Well, apparently you already support the party of enemy agents against our Constitution already, so that's no great loss. It appears the Republican leadership, at least, is no better.
Like most liberals, John, you misperceive me. As I point out fairly often to the Tea Party, of which I am a member, I am not a Conservative. I am a Constitutionalist. That puts me about fifteen klicks to the right of the Marxist Mafia masquerading as Democrats, about ten klicks to the right of the Democrats masquerading as the Republican leadership, and about five klicks to the right of the Tea Party Republican Caucus, though in some cases I am only one or two klicks to their right.
Now, then: You figure it was only a matter of time before I attacked you? What, you decided to avoid the suspense by making a pre-emptive attack against me? Not that I mind; before today I didn't know you from Adam, and I appreciate the opportunity to defend the U.S. Constitution from you and your obvious lack of understanding of what our nation is all about. Tell you what, John: You've made a lot of claims that don't hold water, but at the same time you have indicated some serious lack of understanding of the issues involved. If you would like to carry on this discussion, debate, whatever, you can get all the information you need about me and my point of view by visiting www.frdmftr.net. My email address is there if you can reconfigure it. After you find out who you are dealing with, let me know what, specifically, you disagree with there, and let's discuss it like rational human beings. Have a good day, and thanks for the exercise.
Last login: Tuesday, January 26, 2016