It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by equistar
reply to post by ziggystrange
Originally posted by Southern Guardian
Originally posted by yenko13
Stick to the constitution
Yes, and yet we have these "tea party patriots" advocating for mandatory religious celebration in public schools. We have advocating for an "official christian america" and some calling for more support of Israel. These are the tea patriots and this is what some of them want. The dont wish to uphold the constitution, they only wish to install one of their own. The constitution is just a cover.
Originally posted by dereks
Originally posted by Gregarious
[I am somehow a racist for being against a black criminal.
So what crime has he been found guilty of? (apart from being black, of course) Here we see what sort or revolution they actually want, no need for courts to decide someone is a criminal, just lynch them!
Also he is not a muslim nor a Kenyan, but do not let the facts stop your racist rant!
[edit on 1/1/10 by dereks]
Originally posted by Gregarious
Originally posted by dereks
Originally posted by Gregarious
[I am somehow a racist for being against a black criminal.
So what crime has he been found guilty of? (apart from being black, of course) Here we see what sort or revolution they actually want, no need for courts to decide someone is a criminal, just lynch them!
Also he is not a muslim nor a Kenyan, but do not let the facts stop your racist rant!
[edit on 1/1/10 by dereks]
MY racist rant? I would thoroughly enjoy a president who looks and speaks like Baraq, if he was actually an American, and was not systematically disassembling the Bill of Rights and Constitution. I was just as adamantly against previous presidents who were doing the same agenda. And if you think he is not Muslim, do just a teeny bit of research. Same with his birthplace; Hawaii NOT. If you tell a lie loud and long enough, eventually people like you will believe it. In spite of the overwhelming EVIDENCE against it. Crime? Do you expect the 'Justice' system to prosecute or convict a fellow liar/attorney? To actually follow the law? I would say his fraud about his citizenship, fraud about his being the president, his MURDER of, well actually his accessories carried them out, of the many people in his 'church', the anti-American anti-Whitey one in Chicago, since his election. Happened when Hillary was president, too. People that knew them well enough to cause problems started turning up dead. Even his lawyer, Vince Foster, who was forced to commit suicide on govt land, without a weapon. I would also say his appointing of unconstitutional, unaccountable, 'czars', his ploy at finding out who has all the weapons, his takeover of much of the economy, his bribes to unions and congressmen, his bowing to foreign despots or leaders, his apologizing for America, his trying war criminals as civilians in US courts. Shall I go on?
I agree that we need courts to handle justice, it is just that the current brood of vipers pretending to be judges need to all be eliminated. Have you EVER been in a court and seen the madness that passes for 'justice' today? If you have, and still maintain their support, then you, sir, deserve the history you will get.
Originally posted by equistar
reply to post by ziggystrange
E - I did not say you had the right to oust him from the neighborhood but as you said due to people around him not tolerating him he had to change.
Z - Not in so many words, but you infer that inherently he had the right to act that way, just not in my community. While he has the right to think that way, anywhere in a free country, he does not have the right to act that way anywhere in a free country.
Z - One doesn't. I agree if it's mandatory, there is no choice for the whole US. By special laws I mean ones crafted to impose unconstitutional mandates by a plurality of complicit component ordinances. The whole is greater than the sum of it's parts. Some are forcibly segregated if we revert to the "old" ways. In the realm of reason, the method is only evidential of the crime, not exculpatory of it. The specialties you mention are not plural, liberty is singular. Unfortunately it is special, but it should be the rule, not the exception.
E - I have already stated that I am against unconstitutional mandates. 'The powers not delegated to the US by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.' Subdivision covenants are much the same are organizations, will you rid the US of all organizations? NAACP, NOW, PETA, MADD, LA RAZA, WNBA, Boy Scouts, country clubs....the list goes on. If it is to be as you say all and any groups would be outlawed because they would in some way exclude someone, they would inevitably be 'hurting' their poor feelings, last time I checked we are still free to do that in this country without jail time.
Z - Tyranny is transparent, what you profess is not, it's not tyranny. When the law of the land is suplanted by rouge state and local legislation, according to the Constitution it's an abrogation of the 10th amendment.
E- In my above response I stated the 10th Amendment. There is not one word that I have said that tramples on that Amendment. Our founder's wanted State's to have sovereignty you apparently do not want that. Will I agree with what every state agrees upon, probably not but unless I am part of that particular states voting population I have no say unless it infringes upon another state's right to rule as the people of that state see fit.
Z-She married an Irish/Armenian guy and they both support Ron Paul. My Eldest has a half Polish half Hispanic girlfriend, another Son has a Thai/Chinese girlfriend. They both plan to marry the girl friends and have kids.
It might sound terrible to you, but not to me. It's the direction I want. It's the way of the future. There is inequity here, and malcontent, but not in the majority. Very few voice complaints, and thing are generally improving.
It's sustainable and natural. It's not a Police State, when there is crime, we see the police.
The changes you want to make would freak out most New Yorkers. Most don't have a clue about the ideology we are discussing.
Originally posted by equistar
reply to post by ziggystrange
biggovernment.com...
www.nytimes.com...
The second link is an article about the SC decision.
My husband has written about this elsewhere and stated it well so I will quote him:
'I have seen several posts alluding to this decision unfairly allowing Corporate free reign in election campaigns. After studying the actual case, I believe the Supreme Court ruled correctly. This article explains the case and the ruling. You either favor the First Amendment rights for all citizens and groups of citizens, or you favor selective ... See Moregovernment suppression of free speech expression in political campaigns. The case involved not a corporate giant, but a small conservative film crew who were banned from airing a documentary about Hillary Clinton during the 2008 Presidential campaign in a lawsuit brought by the Federal Election Commmision. The government cannot assume that people are not intelligent enough to hear endorsements to candidates by corporations and unions, and make there own mind up....The ruling had nothing to do with voting. Corporations are groups of people, are they not? And do groups of people, as well as individuals, not have the right to free speech? As Justice Stevens correctly pointed out, the court has long held that corporations do indeed enjoy the same first amendment rights as individuals. This case involved not "100... See More years of established law", but the 2002 McCain-Feingold decision that put restrictions an political advertising by corporations and unions within 30 days of an election.'
As he said Corporations do not vote, neither do Organizatios like ACLU, Green Peace, PETA, The Sierra Club, all have the right to free speech and only individuals have the right to vote and only once unless you were registered to vote by ACORN.
The second link show where the media, citizens and lawyers should be focused when it comes to campaign finances:
'...The Obama campaign received a substantial amount of money from countries that have an interest in seeing a weak American President: $366,708.22 from China; $25,259.00 from the United Arab Emirates; $7,062.60 from Russia; and $6,716.28 from Saudi Arabia. Obama also took in $6,350.00 from Indonesia; $5,000.00 from Kenya; and $1,750.00 from Egypt.
The FEC alleges that Obama also illegally took donations from Tamil Tiger leaders. The Tamil Tigers are, according to the FBI, the most successful terrorist group in the world. While the Hillary Clinton returned contributions from the Tamil Tigers, Obama kept them.
There are many other questions and mysteries regarding Obama’s campaign finances. The Puma P.A.C. blog notes: “Obama spent a record $744 million on his campaign but has disclosed donors for only $485 million of his windfall...'
The rest is in the article above. Gregarious, you are on to something about
questioning Mr. Obama's criminal activities.
atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com...