Wednesday October 7, 2015
Jump to content
I find it amazing how willingly liberals use what they claim the opinion of others will be whenever someone they oppose does the right thing.
I think Rep. Gosar was exactly right in boycotting the Pontiff's speech. I have nothing against Catholics and nothing against the Pope, but his job is to deal in religious matters; he has no business and certainly no expertise sufficient to justify telling our Congress how to do their job. Indeed, until he started spouting off about subjects of which he clearly knows nothing, I didn't realize his fundamental philosophy is one of communism.
I, for one, am enormously grateful we have an excellent, hands-on, Constitutionally-grounded Congressman to represent our district regardless of where he lives and in spite of the incredible hash the adam henries in the redistricting commission made of our district. They should be imprisoned for fraud, everyone of them.
Here's a newsflash to the liberals: We are taking our nation back, and you might as well get used to the idea.
I has been suggested that we are at war, whether we recognize it or not, and that citizens are now soldiers in that war, whether we recognize it or not. It has been suggested that this is why we have the right to be armed, and that we had better take that right seriously now regardless of government "color of law" violating that right..
I think it is ironic that it now takes armed civilians to protect our servicemen. OTOH, it is important to realize that one of the reasons they are not armed is because the founders of our nation feared a standing army -- and our military is a standing army. It is good our military is the only military on the planet sworn to uphold and defend the U.S. Constitution and the Rule of Law, and not the government. Still ... best they be kept disarmed while on U.S. soil dealing with U.S. citizens.
Indeed. It is the document asserting the principles that sovereign individual rights trump the arbitrary whim of kings and princes and neighborhood warlords every time, no exceptions, no excuses. The war for Independence etched those principles in historical stone. And the United States Constitution established those principles in the supreme Law of the Land. And the forces of illicit power, those who believe Kings have a Divine Right to Govern, and who intend to be Kings, have been doing their level best to sucker us into waiving our rights in exchange for the "tranquility of servitude" mentioned by Samuel Adams ever since. They have very nearly succeeded: The assault on our right to keep and bear arms, and the 4th, 5th, and 10th Amendments violated by having to undergo a background check and get government permission before exercising the right is the latest, most virulent, effort.
The Paiutes and other native American tribes did not "own" the land; "owning" land was a concept foreign to them. A more accurate statement would be they -- the Paiutes and other native American tribes -- belonged to the land. And the Bundy family did graze their cattle on that land for over a hundred years, and the modern conflict never raised or involved any issue of any Indian tribes having a prior claim. If they did have such a claim they never prosecuted it.
Oh, Marilyn! Do you do any research or investigation before you go shooting off your statist mouth -- er -- keyboard? For your information, the Cliven Bundy family grazed cattle on that land for a hundred years before you were a twinkle in your daddy's eye. Furthermore, the only excuse the federal government had for ripping off the Bundy family was the federal government's refusal to give Nevada's land back to Nevada that it kept possession of -- temporarily, it said -- in the Enabling Act of Nevada's statehood. That land has ALWAYS been free range cattle grazing land, and while the Enabling Act and the illegal rental fees were the excuse, the specific reason for THIS effort to evict the Bundy's was then Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid's Foundation trying to make a sizeable profit from land he wanted to zone for a nearby housing development. No, Marilyn; that land was NOT "yours" or mine; it rightfully belonged to the State of Nevada and was wrongly in the possession of the federal government in the first place, and Bundy tried to pay the rental fees to the State of Nevada, but the suck-ups to the federal goons in Nevada administrative offices refused to accept the money.
Now, do you feel like a statist apparatchik, or what? BTW, Arizona has the same problem with the feds refusing to return 70% of our State to us, and because of that we derive no tax benefit from that land and can't support our own State education budget. Maybe you should get off your statist high horse and start harassing the federal government to give us our land back.
He would probably be happier living in Soviet Russia -- oh, wait; they already tried the Socialism (Marxism-Lite) desired by Mr. Spatti ... until they got enough idiots to fall for the freebies and the giving up of arms until they were able to hold their October revolution and turn it into Marxism-Heavy, and shoot most of the "useful idiots" that, like Mr. Spatti, worked so hard for the Party.
You'd think people with a heck of a lot more education than the Russian peasants had would have better sense, but it must be the Socialist control of education that is shrinking their brain; we don't have enough pollution to cause it.
Newsflash, Mr. Spatti: You want to pay to educate Dreamers who have no right to be here, you do it. Or go to Mexico and pay them to do it, Dreamers have gotten more education here than they would ever get in Mexico, so they should do well there. They don't need to be here contributing to the Socialist poison you are spouting.
Not to put too fine a point on it, but if you think the annual Fourth of July fireworks event at Green Valley Park causes pollution of any consequence, it would appear -- based on the cause-and-effect you postulate -- that you have been living in a high pollution environment for quite a while.
You have too short an attention span for a list that long, Ted. It runs to many pages, over 20,000 State and federal laws, not one of which is authorized to the federal government to enforce, and every one of which is prohibited to the States to enforce. You can start with the current abomination of background checks in violation of your 4th, 5th, and 10th Amendment rights and an a priori restraint on your 2nd Amendment right. Then you have many States requiring government permission to exercise the right (and then only if you first waive your 4th, 5th, and 10th Amendment rights). You have the federal government telling you where, when, and under what circumstances you may and may not keep and/or bear arms, whether you may do so openly or concealed, or that it MUST be openly or concealed, depending on the State. And now you have subversive insurrectionists like Michael Bloomberg taking the next step of requiring private transactions to violate their 4th, 5th, and 10th Amendment rights. Tell me, Ted: What other right do you have that requires an interrogation under threat of criminal prosecution, and a search of your otherwise private records, as a precondition to receiving (or being denied) permission to exercise it when government has no authority at any level to issue or deny permission to exercise a right in the first place?
I think you used the wrong word, there, Jeffrey. You said the current events have less to do with "religious freedom" than they do with "tolerance." Well, not really. The response by the unprincipled, at least, has less to do with "religious freedom" than with "political correctness." That's how leftists, and totalitarians in general, restrict principled behavior: They call it "intolerant." In actual fact, the fundamental principles of liberty says business owners can choose to conduct business, or refuse to conduct business, with whomever they wish who will conduct business with them, for any reason or no reason. Similarly, shoppers can choose to conduct business with whomever is willing to conduct business with them, and their choice may be for any reason or no reason. I hate to break it to the anti-liberty types on this forum, but intolerance is a right, just as is tolerance. One person's principles is another person's intolerance. Deal with it. Unless you would rather live in a lockdown dictatorship in which no one has any right to choose for any reason or no reason.
Exactly the problem, Meria: The churches ARE being taxed, or if not, it is because they have gone hat-in-hand to the IRS and requested non-profit status, which the IRS will allow only so long as the church does not engage in political free speech against government policies. Government noted how effective the churches were in advocating and prosecuting the American Revolution; they don't want a repeat of that fundamental liberty.
Last login: yesterday