# Just When You Thought It Can't Get Any Worse.



## Meangreen

President Obama is set to appoint Jeh Johnson to head DHS. Napolitano was a bumbling idiot but this guy is trouble and has already shown his colors working for the DOD. We need an experienced law enforcement officer who has a proven record that has risen thru the ranks or has lead a large law enforcement organization, not some Obama wild card. Quote: Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Ala., criticized Obama for nominating a "loyalist and fundraiser" to lead what he called a "mismanaged" department.
"This is deeply concerning," Sessions said. "This huge department must have a proven manager with strong relevant law enforcement experience, recognized independence and integrity, who can restore this department to its full capability."

Johnson, who left his Pentagon post in 2012, also provided legal guidance in the use of unmanned drones against terrorism suspects overseas, and in the use of military commissions - rather than civilian courts - to try suspects.

During a speech at Britain's Oxford University last year, Johnson said that the nation's war on terrorism should not be endless, and the focus should shift to law enforcement and intelligence operations.

Janet Napolitano?s Homeland Security Replacement Jeh Johnson Is A Constitution Killer

Obama to tap ex-Pentagon official for Homeland Security

Activist Post: Janet Napolitano's Homeland Security Replacement is a Constitution Killer


----------



## Boss Dog

After this past week with the rino's caving AGAIN! The only thing that can save this country is an act of God.
All one can really do is continue prepping, serve God and take care of family.


----------



## Piratesailor

Yeah, I agree. Another top notch Obama appointee. Not.


----------



## rickkyw1720pf

I tell you sometimes I just feel like just voting with the other side. Especially after the rinos turned on us again. You know the saying watch what you wish for you just may get it.

PS: I read where more people signed up for a one way ticket to Mars then signed up for Obamacare.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2465661/More-takers-way-trip-Mars-Obamacare-state-spending-12-000-far-attract-new-insurance-customer-Is-worst-launch-ever.html?ico=ushome^headlines


----------



## ekim

I'm not overly religious but to those of you that are waiting for God to come down and save us all just remember, he allowed us the "tools" to do what needs to be done when all else fails, now we just have to get some back bone and do what it takes. We will not vote ourselves out of this mess and those in government sure aren't going to give up their golden positions or do the right thing for the people or the country. If the shtf is coming and we are prepping for that outcome, shouldn't "we the people" be the ones to say when and at least have some control over the crap coming at us at light speed and not let the government ruin things anymore than they have. Does anyone here think the government isn't preparing for bad times, on our dime. How many here think there won't be another "war" / "police action" to keep our troops from coming back home for a reason, and it's not to save the world. Iraq and Afganistan<sp? are a loss in all but words and yet they still drag on and American soldiers die, for what? Hell, the government is trying to sell American military equipment rather than bring it back home, whom is buying it, could it be our enemies? The GOP just sold out the right again, so who are we to vote for anyhow. Oh well, maybe nobama will play nice after the big screwing the people just got!


----------



## Fuzzee

Another choice on OIlikadingdong's part to help bring the fall of America to me.


----------



## wesley762

The only time it can't get any worse is when you are pushing up dasies. Other than that it can always be worse.


----------



## roy

This is an excellent affirmative action pick. Try and find a photo of his wife. Her name is/was Susan M. DiMarco.


----------



## PaulS

Welcome to the third party - soon to be the first.

Libertarians for the USA!

(I'm Libertarian because it would be against the law to blow up DC - and I have neither the knowledge nor equipment it would take)




I see you peaking! you should know that this is a funny post and should not be considered a threat of any kind!


----------



## retired guard

Let's see pretend it's not a war so you can divert funding to subsidized sloth. Let's impute the rights of citizens to enemy combatants. Let's see how long it takes before Gays require affirmative action programs in the military(To overcome past discrimination) Did I miss anything?


----------



## rickkyw1720pf

rickfromillinois said:


> Today I joined the Libertarian Party. It many not win many if any elections but I have to vote for someone, and I can't stomach voting for these posers that are in office now.


Do you have a link if enough people join at least the Republican party will know we are tired of them turning on us.


----------



## PaulS

The thing about the Libertarian party is that it is composed of both ex-Democrats and ex-Republicans because it simply takes the federal government out of personal and local issues.
Those issues are for the voters to decide locally leaving the federal government to do what it was originally supposed to do - constitutionally.


----------



## roy

Not to mention open borders.


----------



## rickkyw1720pf

My preference would be to join the tea party if it was a true party it is more of an ideal and not very well organized at this time. I been to one of their meets and wouldn't mind going to more but I never hear where or when they are being held until after they are over. 
Tea Party Core Beliefs

According to the Tea Party here are their 15 non-negotiable Core Beliefs.

Illegal aliens are here illegally.
Pro-domestic employment is indispensable.
A strong military is essential.
Special interests must be eliminated.
Gun ownership is sacred.
Government must be downsized.
The national budget must be balanced.
Deficit spending must end.
Bailout and stimulus plans are illegal.
Reducing personal income taxes is a must.
Reducing business income taxes is mandatory.
Political offices must be available to average citizens.
Intrusive government must be stopped.
English as our core language is required.
Traditional family values are encouraged.

Anything else the media says the Tea Party believes is BS


----------



## rice paddy daddy

My first thought when I read about the appointment was "another communist just like the others." And I know nothing about the man, but given Obammy's track record and political philosophy that is exactly what I thought.
And it is a sad thing that thought would even enter my mind.


----------



## retired guard

rickkyw1720pf said:


> My preference would be to join the tea party if it was a true party it is more of an ideal and not very well organized at this time. I been to one of their meets and wouldn't mind going to more but I never hear where or when they are being held until after they are over.
> Tea Party Core Beliefs
> 
> According to the Tea Party here are their 15 non-negotiable Core Beliefs.
> 
> Illegal aliens are here illegally.
> Pro-domestic employment is indispensable.
> A strong military is essential.
> Special interests must be eliminated.
> Gun ownership is sacred.
> Government must be downsized.
> The national budget must be balanced.
> Deficit spending must end.
> Bailout and stimulus plans are illegal.
> Reducing personal income taxes is a must.
> Reducing business income taxes is mandatory.
> Political offices must be available to average citizens.
> Intrusive government must be stopped.
> English as our core language is required.
> Traditional family values are encouraged.
> 
> Anything else the media says the Tea Party believes is BS


I have heard other things espoused as Tea Party values by people claiming to be members this I could go for. But how does it relate to shutting down government theatrics we just saw?


----------



## rickkyw1720pf

retired guard said:


> I have heard other things espoused as Tea Party values by people claiming to be members this I could go for. But how does it relate to shutting down government theatrics we just saw?


Because they are the only republicans that tried to hold the line on spending and the debt ceiling were Tea Party republicans, the rest always just gives in and they will be the only ones that just wont give in to Obama's or the Democrats wishes when it comes to illegals and the open boarder.


----------



## Southern Dad

The Senate should not waste time fighting the confirmation of this or pretty much any other Obama Appointee. Let him have the cabinet that he wants, after all he has to live with them. No matter what he is a lame duck President. He is on his way out. The Republican Party needs to focus on winning elections. In 2014 our concentration needs to be on keeping the House and strengthening our position in the Senate. President Obama has proven that he cannot lead. His first two years in office, the Democrats had control of the House and Senate. They spent all their time shoving a health care bill up our butts. They never thought that they would lose control. In hindsight, do you think they wouldn't have done away with the Debt Ceiling, if they had any idea that they would lose the House?

Those of us prepared can ride this out.


----------



## PalmettoTree

PaulS said:


> Welcome to the third party - soon to be the first.
> 
> Libertarians for the USA!
> 
> (I'm Libertarian because it would be against the law to blow up DC - and I have neither the knowledge nor equipment it would take)
> 
> I see you peaking! you should know that this is a funny post and should not be considered a threat of any kind!


You do know the Libertarian Party does not practice true Libertarian philosophy, right? Any form of government requires some force against the will of someone. Libertarian philosophy is against all such force used against anyone. Therefor libertarians are against drug laws, immigration laws, abortion laws, and a standing military or police force. Libertarians are against prisons, fines and any rules except those by contract and willing compliance.


----------



## ekim

PalmettoTree said:


> You do know the Libertarian Party does not practice true Libertarian philosophy, right? Any form of government requires some force against the will of someone. Libertarian philosophy is against all such force used against anyone. Therefor libertarians are against drug laws, immigration laws, abortion laws, and a standing military or police force. Libertarians are against prisons, fines and any rules except those by contract and willing compliance.


This post sounds like the typical liberal response to anything they dis agree with!


----------



## Denton

A plug for the Constitution Party.

We stand for the constitution and the Christian values upon which our society was founded.


----------



## Arizona Infidel

retired guard said:


> I have heard other things espoused as Tea Party values by people claiming to be members this I could go for. But how does it relate to shutting down government theatrics we just saw?


The govt. Wasn't " shut down". "*NON ESSENTIAL*" parts of the govt. Was shut down, non essential people were told to go home. This is why you saw the govt. actually on duty closing down monuments. Personally, I have to disagree with the idea of what is considered "essential", but that's just me. All that being said, I have to ask you. Why should the federal govt. be doing anything, or employing any person that isn't "essential"?


----------



## Arizona Infidel

rickkyw1720pf said:


> My preference would be to join the tea party if it was a true party it is more of an ideal and not very well organized at this time. I been to one of their meets and wouldn't mind going to more but I never hear where or when they are being held until after they are over.
> Tea Party Core Beliefs
> 
> According to the Tea Party here are their 15 non-negotiable Core Beliefs.
> 
> Illegal aliens are here illegally.
> Pro-domestic employment is indispensable.
> A strong military is essential.
> Special interests must be eliminated.
> Gun ownership is sacred.
> Government must be downsized.
> The national budget must be balanced.
> Deficit spending must end.
> Bailout and stimulus plans are illegal.
> Reducing personal income taxes is a must.
> Reducing business income taxes is mandatory.
> Political offices must be available to average citizens.
> Intrusive government must be stopped.
> English as our core language is required.
> Traditional family values are encouraged.
> 
> Anything else the media says the Tea Party believes is BS


The only thing I disagree with is the part about a strong Military. Don't get me wrong, I agree with having a strong Military to defend our country, but I think we have allowed the Military Industrial Complex (and remember, that idea and phrase was coined by a Republican President who was an ex Army General who fought in WWII, not some anti war hippie) to grow far to large. I believe we can slim down the military a bit, and certainly we could trim the fat and waste. And before anyone starts flaming me let me say I served in the military, I support the military, but I'll give you an example. We currently have a Naval base down in the Bahamas somewhere( I can't remember the exact location). This Naval base supported an island our navy used as a bombing range. The inhabitants of the island the Navy base is on wanted us to stop using the other island for bombing range. So we stopped. Then we went to close the. Naval base because it wasn't needed any more, but the inhabitants cried about the money they would lose from their economy from losing the naval base. So we left the base. We are using the U.S. Navy as welfare. This happened under Bush jr. THATS the kind of waste I'm talking about getting rid of. We don't need that base, nor do we need the personnel stationed at that base. And I am sure there are plenty more examples just like that.


----------



## roy

Just because we spend as much on the military as the rest of the world combined?


----------



## dannydefense

Arizona Infidel said:


> Why should the federal govt. be doing anything, or employing any person that isn't "essential"?


I would like this twice if I could. The fact that there is a group of people considered "non-essential" is physical evidence that the behemoth has grown far beyond what it was ever meant to be. With so many non-essential personnel it's no wonder they've confused themselves into thinking we need them for anything other than keeping the states glued together.


----------



## retired guard

Arizona Infidel said:


> The govt. Wasn't " shut down". "*NON ESSENTIAL*" parts of the govt. Was shut down, non essential people were told to go home. This is why you saw the govt. actually on duty closing down monuments. Personally, I have to disagree with the idea of what is considered "essential", but that's just me. All that being said, I have to ask you. Why should the federal govt. be doing anything, or employing any person that isn't "essential"?


Are monuments essential? Is supporting the widows and children of those killed in battle essential? The answer is probably not but we would be so much less than we should be if we did not. Not saying Obama isn't working to make us both less and a bad more than we should be.


----------



## Smitty901

I will allow their own action to speak, it is already clear where I stand when it comes to DHS


----------



## Arizona Infidel

retired guard said:


> Are monuments essential? Is supporting the widows and children of those killed in battle essential? The answer is probably not but we would be so much less than we should be if we did not. Not saying Obama isn't working to make us both less and a bad more than we should be.


 Monuments? No. But why does the monument have to be a part of the federal govt.? The WWII memorial was paid for with private funds. What right does the govt. have using public funds, or funds borrowed from our enemies the chicoms, to close it down and keep it from the people it belongs to? The answer is they don't. All monuments and nat. parks could be privatized and run better. 
Supporting widows of soldiers killed in battle? The Constitution calls for raising and supporting Armies. So the widows fall under that. We support the families of those who gave all. Period.Non negotiable.


----------



## Smitty901

Government was never shut down.
Gop offer bills to fund every single program except Obama care and the Dems stopped every one
President gave his orders to make it hurt and they did. They went so far as to try and close non federal places in Wisconsin our Governor told him to take a hike.
People need to really start reading facts not hype.
The government was never shut down not one day, The only people laid off or payments that stopped did so because Obama wanted to "make it hurt"
Those were his words his orders. Put the blame where it belongs in his hands.
Funny he found 300 million for Detroit, he found 445 million for NPTV and radio, he could keep park land open so undocumented guest could protest .
6 years now with no budget and you still can not put the blame on him Mr. I will not negotiate . He is not a King yet.
Last it was the democrat's that would not fund death benefits ,that is in their lap alone


----------



## PaulS

The Libertarian Party are not "true" libertarians but they are true constitutionalists. They don't start their platform by throwing out the parts of the first amendment that they feel are "un-necessary" like freedom of religion and the right to freely practice what ever religion you choose to follow.

The "Constitution Party" violates the constitution at least four times in their list of ideals listed on their home page. The Libertarian Party upholds the constitution and its limits on the federal government. It simply refuses to address topics that are beyond the limits placed on the federal government by the constitution.


----------



## Denton

PaulS said:


> The Libertarian Party are not "true" libertarians but they are true constitutionalists. They don't start their platform by throwing out the parts of the first amendment that they feel are "un-necessary" like freedom of religion and the right to freely practice what ever religion you choose to follow.
> 
> The "Constitution Party" violates the constitution at least four times in their list of ideals listed on their home page. The Libertarian Party upholds the constitution and its limits on the federal government. It simply refuses to address topics that are beyond the limits placed on the federal government by the constitution.


What do you not like? Where is it that it violates the constitution in its stated positions or platform?


----------



## PaulS

Seven Principles Of The Constitution Party:

Life: For all human beings, from conception to natural death;*The federal government has no constitutional power to decide when life begins and should end.*
Liberty: Freedom of conscience and actions for the self-governed individual; *Who is "a self governed individual" and who decides that? It is beyond the scope of the federal powers.*
Family: One husband and one wife with their children as divinely instituted; *as divinely instituted - not only not in the constitution it is in violation of the powers of the federal government*
Property: Each individual's right to own and steward personal property without government burden;
Constitution And Bill Of Rights: interpreted according to the actual intent of the founding fathers;*This is in direct opposition to #1, #2 and #3 above.*
State's Rights: Everything not specifically delegated by the Constitution to the federal government, nor prohibited by the Constitution to the states, is reserved to the states or to the people. 
American Sovereignty: American government committed to the protection of the borders, trade, and common defense of Americans, and not entangled in foreign alliances. *All trade or just foreign trade? Are they suggesting that the federal government shout be in charge of inter and intra state trade?*

I am not saying that my personal views are different - playing the devil's advocate here - but why go with a party that wants to give the federal government powers that supersede those granted by the constitution? What happens when those powers are used against you?


----------



## Denton

PaulS said:


> Seven Principles Of The Constitution Party:
> 
> Life: For all human beings, from conception to natural death;*The federal government has no constitutional power to decide when life begins and should end.* Yes, just as it has the right to determine murder is wrong, theft, robbery, etc., is wrong. Abortion is not a health or reproductive right. Good virtues and morality should make that clear.
> Liberty: Freedom of conscience and actions for the self-governed individual; *Who is "a self governed individual" and who decides that? It is beyond the scope of the federal powers.* Another way of saying a free man. IF you are incarcerated, you give up such rights.
> Family: One husband and one wife with their children as divinely instituted; *as divinely instituted - not only not in the constitution it is in violation of the powers of the federal government* No, it is not. The notion that it is a violation is a recent interpretation.
> Property: Each individual's right to own and steward personal property without government burden;
> Constitution And Bill Of Rights: interpreted according to the actual intent of the founding fathers;*This is in direct opposition to #1, #2 and #3 above.* Really? How so? You are misinterpreting what the founding fathers were attempting to build. It was not societal chaos with no morality. On the contrary, it was understood the constitution was not fit to govern any body of people except for a moral, religious one. Religious, understood as being Christian in ethics, morals and principles.
> State's Rights: Everything not specifically delegated by the Constitution to the federal government, nor prohibited by the Constitution to the states, is reserved to the states or to the people.
> American Sovereignty: American government committed to the protection of the borders, trade, and common defense of Americans, and not entangled in foreign alliances. *All trade or just foreign trade? Are they suggesting that the federal government shout be in charge of inter and intra state trade?*
> What is it saying? I refer you to the constitution.
> 
> I am not saying that my personal views are different - playing the devil's advocate here - but why go with a party that wants to give the federal government powers that supersede those granted by the constitution? What happens when those powers are used against you?


They are not suggesting any powers other than that which is spelled out in the constitution.

You brought up two modern arguments, both arguments would not have held water in the days before the assault against the cultural pillar of our society, and that is the Christian heritage.

On the other hand, the Libertarian party does not replaces the notion of certain unalienable rights endowed us by our _Creator_ with the secular notion of _inherent_ rights. By removing God, they open the Pandora's Box of anything goes, even if it is known to be culturally damaging and a violation of the Laws of Nature and Nature's God, which is the foundation of our understanding of liberty. They believe liberty can be had without acknowledging the Author of liberty. That is not the only issue I have with the Libertarian party, but it is 0330hrs and the wife will expect me to get up and go shopping with her in the morning. :-(


----------



## Denton

It is a moot point, though. A nation that has fallen to the depraved depths as this one has will only fall farther. 
There is nowhere else for us to go, either. This nation, whose first battle cry was "No King but King Jesus!" now worships no one but the Self, and has no faith in anything but Hollyweird stars and the Almighty Government. We will not turn back, we will not repent, and we will realize the consequences. That is the way it is. History will be proved, yet again.


----------



## Smitty901

We can't keep a park open or bury a soldier but we can 1.6 billion. for the Muslims 
US quietly releasing $1.6B in Pakistan assistance | Fox News


----------



## Denton

Smitty901 said:


> We can't keep a park open or bury a soldier but we can 1.6 billion. for the Muslims
> US quietly releasing $1.6B in Pakistan assistance | Fox News


What a sad situation, Top. Our fallen brothers in arms are neglected while those who hold nothing but contempt for the constitution are given money that our children are expected to pay back.

We weren't forced to take such a leader, although I realize there was some voting fraud that helped him into office. That so many citizens preferred this abominable creature over the lesser of two evils certainly illuminates the true heart of modern America.


----------



## retired guard

Arizona Infidel said:


> Monuments? No. But why does the monument have to be a part of the federal govt.? The WWII memorial was paid for with private funds. What right does the govt. have using public funds, or funds borrowed from our enemies the chicoms, to close it down and keep it from the people it belongs to? The answer is they don't. All monuments and nat. parks could be privatized and run better.
> Supporting widows of soldiers killed in battle? The Constitution calls for raising and supporting Armies. So the widows fall under that. We support the families of those who gave all. Period.Non negotiable.


The privatization of some services can work. Just look at it carefully as lives have been lost when it was done improperly. I do not believe the Constitution covers caring for the dependents of our fallen servicemen. I do however agree that doing so is Non Negotiable. The closing of the parks was an act of political theater by the Obama administration. Impeachable? Probably won't happen(I wouldn't look forward to a Biden presidency anyway) I think however we can agree it was contemptible.


----------



## PaulS

Denton said:


> It is a moot point, though. A nation that has fallen to the depraved depths as this one has will only fall farther.
> There is nowhere else for us to go, either. This nation, whose first battle cry was "No King but King Jesus!" now worships no one but the Self, and has no faith in anything but Hollyweird stars and the Almighty Government. We will not turn back, we will not repent, and we will realize the consequences. That is the way it is. History will be proved, yet again.


Denton,
Would you post where the founding fathers said "No King but Jesus" please because our founding fathers were mostly Deists, Masons, and Quakers. We have never, as a country, ascribed to the notion that Jesus was in any way part of the founding theme of our country and even very early on in the history of the USA it was declared not to be a "Christian state". For reference refer to the treaty of Tripoli as one of the earliest declarations of the USA not being a "Christian Country" as signed by the entire congress and the sitting president.

England, on the other hand has always professed to be a Christian country and for a very long period of time the only religious marriage that was accepted by the kingdom was one within the Church of England.


----------



## inceptor

How about these:

On April 18, 1775 John Adams and John Hancock were at the home of Rev. Jonas Clarke, a Lexington pastor and militia leader. That same night Paul Revere arrived to warn them of the approaching Redcoats. The next morning British Major Pitcairn shouted to an assembled regiment of Minutemen; “Disperse, ye villains, lay down your arms in the name of George the Sovereign King of England.” The immediate response of Rev. Jonas Clarke or one of his company was: “We recognize no Sovereign but God and no King but Jesus.”

"Those people who will not be governed by God will be ruled by tyrants." William Penn

As the parchment copy of the Declaration of Independence was being signed by the members of the Continental Congress, August 2, 1776, Samuel Adams declared: “ We have this day restored the Sovereign to Whom all men ought to be obedient. He reigns in heaven and from the rising to the setting of the sun, let His kingdom come.”


----------



## Denton

Thanks, Inceptor. I am with my tablet in the sam's parking lot. Virtual keyboards suck.
If you could clarify the various sects point, too...


----------



## PaulS

inceptor said:


> How about these:
> 
> On April 18, 1775 John Adams and John Hancock were at the home of Rev. Jonas Clarke, a Lexington pastor and militia leader. That same night Paul Revere arrived to warn them of the approaching Redcoats. The next morning British Major Pitcairn shouted to an assembled regiment of Minutemen; "Disperse, ye villains, lay down your arms in the name of George the Sovereign King of England." The immediate response of Rev. *Jonas Clarke or one of his company was: "We recognize no Sovereign but God and no King but Jesus."*
> *This was not from a founding father*
> 
> *"Those people who will not be governed by God will be ruled by tyrants." William Penn**God, but not Jesus. Most of the founding fathers believed in God in one form or another*
> 
> As the parchment copy of the Declaration of Independence was being signed by the members of the Continental Congress, August 2, 1776, Samuel Adams declared: *" We have this day restored the Sovereign to Whom all men ought to be obedient. He reigns in heaven and from the rising to the setting of the sun, let His kingdom come."**Again a reference to God but not defined as Jesus - any "Christian" connotation is the readers.*


There are few references to Jesus Christ but many to God. That you and I believe they are the same makes little difference. The Constitutionalists reference to a family consisting of a husband, wife and their children as being "divinely" defined is in error. No where in the Bible does such a description exist. If it did then if a married couple had no children they would not be considered a family. It is hyperbole meant to appeal to Christian conservatives so that the restrictions on others can be made to look more acceptable.

The treaty of Tripoli said in no uncertain terms that the USA was NOT a christian country and was not, in any way, founded on Christian principles.


----------



## inceptor

Well, this kinda does it for me:

*The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America*,

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which* the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them*, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, *that they are endowed by their Creator* with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,

"It cannot be emphasized too strongly or too often that this great Nation was founded not by religionists, but by Christians; not on religious, but on the Gospel of Jesus Christ. For that reason alone, people of other faiths have been afforded freedom of worship here." Patrick Henry 1776

"The Congress of the United States recommends and approves the Holy Bible for use in all schools." The US Congress 1782

"Oh, eternal and everlasting God, direct my thoughts, words and work. Wash away my sins in the immaculate blood of the Lamb and purge my heart by thy Holy Spirit. Daily, frame me more and more in the likeness of thy son, Jesus Christ, that living in thy fear, and dying in thy favor, I may in thy appointed time obtain the resurrection of the justified unto eternal life. Bless, O Lord, the whole race of mankind and let the world be filled with the knowledge of thee and thy son, Jesus Christ." George Washington

"Without a humble imitation of the characteristics of the Divine Author of our blessed religion, we can never hope to be a happy nation." George Washington

"The highest glory of the American Revolution was this: it connected in one indissoluble bond the principles of civil government with the principles of Christianity." John Quincy Adams 6th US President and son of John Adams

"I am a real Christian, that is to say, a disciple of the doctrines of Jesus. I have little doubt that our whole country will soon be rallied to the unity of our Creator and, I hope, to the pure doctrine of Jesus also." Thomas Jefferson


----------



## inceptor

As to the other sects, I found this:
Among the U.S. founding fathers, John Quincy Adams, Ethan Allen, Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison Thomas Paine, and George Washington were all Deists.

I can't agree with this, I previously posted several quotes from Washington and Jefferson.

From Benjamin Franklin:
"Here is my Creed. I believe in one God, the Creator of the Universe. That He governs it by His Providence. That He ought to be worshipped.

"That the most acceptable service we render to him is in doing good to his other children. That the soul of man is immortal, and will be treated with justice in another life respecting its conduct in this. These I take to be the fundamental points in all sound religion, and I regard them as you do in whatever sect I meet with them.

"As to Jesus of Nazareth, my opinion of whom you particularly desire, I think the system of morals and his religion, as he left them to us, is the best the world ever saw, or is likely to see;

"But I apprehend it has received various corrupting changes, and I have, with most of the present dissenters in England, some doubts as to his divinity; though it is a question I do not dogmatize upon, having never studied it, and think it needless to busy myself with it now, when I expect soon an opportunity of knowing the truth with less trouble. I see no harm, however, in its being believed, if that belief has the good consequence, as probably it has, of making his doctrines more respected and more observed; especially as I do not perceive, that the Supreme takes it amiss, by distinguishing the unbelievers in his government of the world with any peculiar marks of his displeasure."
--Benjamin Franklin wrote this in a letter to Ezra Stiles, President of Yale University on March 9, 1790. 

I did find this on Quakers and found it interesting:
When the Quakers moved to America, they still were not treated very nicely. They were still put in jail and were even hung. When William Penn came to settle in Pennsylvania, the Quakers were very happy because William Penn was a Quaker. They thought that this would be a new and happier life for them. The Quakers did prosper. They worked hard, and soon controlled most of Pennsylvania.

When the Revolutionary war broke out, the Quakers were beaten because they wouldn't take sides. They did help raise relief funds to help the wounded from the war.


----------



## roy

PaulS said:


> There are few references to Jesus Christ but many to God. That you and I believe they are the same makes little difference. The Constitutionalists reference to a family consisting of a husband, wife and their children as being "divinely" defined is in error. No where in the Bible does such a description exist. If it did then if a married couple had no children they would not be considered a family. It is hyperbole meant to appeal to Christian conservatives so that the restrictions on others can be made to look more acceptable.
> 
> The treaty of Tripoli said in no uncertain terms that the USA was NOT a christian country and was not, in any way, founded on Christian principles.


Lotsa things the early Christians did aren't done today like polygamy and slavery.


----------



## inceptor

roy said:


> Lotsa things the early Christians did aren't done today like polygamy and slavery.


No where in the Bible does it say that polygamy is against Gods law. Near as I can tell it's man made. Now that doesn't mean I want to do it. Keeping one woman happy is a real chore. I'm not quite ready to try to keep multiple wives happy. And can you imagine having to step in when several of them quarrel? You'll be wrong no matter what.

Slavery was not a Christian thing, it was done everywhere and still goes on today.


----------



## BigCheeseStick

inceptor said:


> *No where in the Bible does it say that polygamy is against Gods law*. Near as I can tell it's man made. Now that doesn't mean I want to do it. Keeping one woman happy is a real chore. I'm not quite ready to try to keep multiple wives happy. And can you imagine having to step in when several of them quarrel? You'll be wrong no matter what.
> 
> Slavery was not a Christian thing, it was done everywhere and still goes on today.


"each man should have his own wife, and each woman her own husband"... As quoted from Paul, in "God's book".

Egh, when it comes to things like this, I'm more in mind of "live and let live". God will sort things out. If your comfortable doing whatever your doing, knowing that... More power to you. Maybe I'll see you on the other side, _maybe not_.


----------



## roy

BS. Paul said that in order to be an elder the man should be the husband of one wife.


----------



## inceptor

BigCheeseStick said:


> "each man should have his own wife, and each woman her own husband"... As quoted from Paul, in "God's book".
> 
> Egh, when it comes to things like this, I'm more in mind of "live and let live". God will sort things out. If your comfortable doing whatever your doing, knowing that... More power to you. Maybe I'll see you on the other side, _maybe not_.


That was Paul. The issue is never addressed by God nor Jesus.

I am also of the mind that God will sort it out.


----------



## Denton

PaulS said:


> ...The treaty of Tripoli said in no uncertain terms that the USA was NOT a christian country and was not, in any way, founded on Christian principles.


The Treaty of Tripoli is quite often dragged up in a superficial manner without a broader view of history or with consideration of the nation with which the treaty was being made. I suggest people take the time to do so. One will find that we were attempting to placate an Islamic state that was involved in piracy. One will also take note that the agreement to extortion was not the only thing that was delivered to Tripoli. The next administration had to deal with the same nation when it violated the treaty and demanded larger extortion payments. The copy of the Qur'an that was owned by Thomas Jefferson is an example of how little the early government knew about that religion. Jefferson read it so that he could learn about the people with which he had to deal. The rest is history, and is why every Marine knows about the shores of Tripoli.

With regard to what was meant by the establishment clause, Thomas Jefferson (the darling of the uneducated progressives attempting to rewrite history) as well as Benjamin Rush, a cosigner of the Declaration of Independence, clarified the meaning of it by explaining that it was to prevent the federal government from choosing a particular sect of Christianity over all others as the official sect of the nation. That it was a Christian nation was not subject to debate during the drafting of the founding documentation.

John Jay, our first chief justice of the United States Supreme Court, wrote to John Murray (English publisher of the time), "Providence has given to our people the choice of their rulers, and it is the duty as well as the privilege and interest of our _Christian nation_ to select and prefer _Christians_ for their rulers." (emphasis mine)

One would think that chief justice Jay would understand and carefully select the words he used.

What is also forgotten (or hidden by those who prefer to destroy our nation from within) is that we went to war against the Crown and not the British system of justice and its _common law_ which reaches back to the Magna Carta. When speaking of the _laws of nature and nature's God_, the founding fathers were confessing that law is based upon the Creator, who was understood to be the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, the Father of "King Jesus." From his spiritual laws come those rights and liberties endowed us. This means that our Creator has higher authority regarding those _unalienable rights_ and not the government. For this reason, even the most ardent of atheist ought not argue against our Christian heritage. Without the Creator, we are nothing more than evolved germs, and if that be the case, there is no such things as _inherent rights_, as they attempt to relabel the unalienable rights endowed us by our Creator.

John Adams, the same president in office at the time of the Barbary Pirates Extortion Agreement, also said, "...Our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." Moral and religious, being the morals found in the understanding of the Bible.

I could go on and drive this point into the ground, but I am afraid I would overspend my time without also covering their religious fear, and that fear was that of _Ecclesiastical tyranny_

It was understood that the foundation of the new country was Christianity, and that from that faith came our understanding of right and wrong. Put in words that my sociology professors would like, Christianity is where we developed our folkways, mores and taboos. But, this was as far as the federal government was to go with regard to religion. While the Christian faith was to govern our understanding of right and wrong, and even though the nation formed because of, among other things, persecution of various Christian sects in the Old Country, the government was to stay out of the business of religion. Government meddling in religion creates a situation Jon Adams referred to as _Ecclesiastical Tyranny_, and Europe was the poster child of such atrocity. Government in control of religion and the Roman Catholic church in control of government (the symbiosis was so complete that what was in control can be argued longer than I am willing to engage) brought about heinous incidents we would prefer to forget, but the founding fathers wanted to insure never happened again.

The same Christian founders who agreed on the notion of a _Christian nation_, and agreed our rights and liberties were endowed us by our _Creator_, also warned to guard against the intertwining of religion of government. The Christian faith runs contrary to the notion of a theocracy. Any Christian understands this, but it is because today, the Bible is written in all languages and its words are not perverted and meted out by those who control it. The founding fathers understood full well what could happen, though, when religion is used to control and subjugate the people. Furthermore, they understood that the God of Christianity, our Creator, endowed all men with certain unalienable rights; even those men who decided not to believe in God at all. Free will was given to all men, and while it is man's best eternal interest to make the right choice, it is man's right to make the wrong choice. That wrong choice is not confined to believing that God does not exist, but also includes the right to worship another god.

In a nutshell, was this founded as a Christian nation? Beyond a shadow of a doubt, to anyone who has spent time in dutiful research and study. Does that, however, mean that the country was intended to be a theocracy? Absolutely not! That does not preclude the fact that our (once) understood ethics, morals and principles were rooted in the fact that we were a Christian nation.

I'll end this lengthy writing with a quote from Patrick Henry....

*"It is when people forget GOD, that tyrants forge their chains." *


----------



## PaulS

Paul, whose name was given to me by my parents, was at odds with Peter from the day he converted. He was a zealot of the worst kind. He chose to build the church on monetary riches while Peter and the other apostles followed Christ's teachings and took His message to the common people. Those who follow the teachings of Paul instead of the teachings of Christ are "Paulists" and not Christians.(in my opinion) Unfortunately there are more Paulists than true Christians today.

When people forget god...... All religious people worship God - in one name or another. There are a lot of people who have different views who still have faith. (even though some of those religions try to exclude them)


----------



## Denton

PaulS said:


> Paul, whose name was given to me by my parents, was at odds with Peter from the day he converted. He was a zealot of the worst kind. He chose to build the church on monetary riches while Peter and the other apostles followed Christ's teachings and took His message to the common people. Those who follow the teachings of Paul instead of the teachings of Christ are "Paulists" and not Christians.(in my opinion) Unfortunately there are more Paulists than true Christians today.
> 
> When people forget god...... All religious people worship God - in one name or another. There are a lot of people who have different views who still have faith. (even though some of those religions try to exclude them)


What about those of us who bother with all of the authors of the Bible? I guess you can label me as you would like.

As far as the last paragraph, I am not sure of the point. Certainly, you do not think that all who worship a god worships the God. As if we aren't diverting really far from the original topic...:mrgreen:


----------



## MrsInor

I had to go back and see what the original topic was! My adopted mother's father was an Episcopal priest, my great grandfather a Mawee Mandan "medicine man". When I was nine or so, these two men met and had a wonderful talk about religion. One of the few things I remember about that discussion was this idea; God is so immense, so great that the human mind cannot comprehend Him totally, so who is to say that any one religion can explain Him totally. I think on that frequently.


----------



## rickkyw1720pf

Arizona Infidel said:


> The only thing I disagree with is the part about a strong Military. Don't get me wrong, I agree with having a strong Military to defend our country, but I think we have allowed the Military Industrial Complex (and remember, that idea and phrase was coined by a Republican President who was an ex Army General who fought in WWII, not some anti war hippie) to grow far to large. I believe we can slim down the military a bit, and certainly we could trim the fat and waste. And before anyone starts flaming me let me say I served in the military, I support the military, but I'll give you an example. We currently have a Naval base down in the Bahamas somewhere( I can't remember the exact location). This Naval base supported an island our navy used as a bombing range. The inhabitants of the island the Navy base is on wanted us to stop using the other island for bombing range. So we stopped. Then we went to close the. Naval base because it wasn't needed any more, but the inhabitants cried about the money they would lose from their economy from losing the naval base. So we left the base. We are using the U.S. Navy as welfare. This happened under Bush jr. THATS the kind of waste I'm talking about getting rid of. We don't need that base, nor do we need the personnel stationed at that base. And I am sure there are plenty more examples just like that.


I would say according to Tea Party beliefs this is something that would have to be stopped. This has nothing to do with a strong military but government waste. We spend as much on our military as the rest of the world combined so there is a lot of room for change. In fact there is a lot of military project that cost billions that the military wants to stop but special interest keep them going because it bring money into a senator"s state.


----------



## Denton

rickkyw1720pf said:


> I would say according to Tea Party beliefs this is something that would have to be stopped. This has nothing to do with a strong military but government waste. We spend as much on our military as the rest of the world combined so there is a lot of room for change. In fact there is a lot of military project that cost billions that the military wants to stop but special interest keep them going because it bring money into a senator"s state.


What if the military was no longer used for the benefit of the banks and the corporations? What if we had a military (primarily the navy) that was strong and advanced enough to protect the country and the constitution (assuming we ever dust off and use that document again) but not designed for offensive purposes?

That would save a lot of money and get it back into the scope of its intended purpose.

A vote for me is a vote for sanity.


----------



## inceptor

Denton said:


> What if the military was no longer used for the benefit of the banks and the corporations? What if we had a military (primarily the navy) that was strong and advanced enough to protect the country and the constitution (assuming we ever dust off and use that document again) but not designed for offensive purposes?
> 
> That would save a lot of money and get it back into the scope of its intended purpose.
> 
> *A vote for me is a vote for sanity*.


Move to Texas and I'll vote for ya.


----------



## Denton

inceptor said:


> Move to Texas and I'll vote for ya.


I've thought about that a few times, but I am at the age where I should just finish out this job to retirement.


----------



## Deebo

NOPE sorry Denton, I already have the petition signed by enough registered voters, you are in the running..


----------



## Denton

Deebo said:


> NOPE sorry Denton, I already have the petition signed by enough registered voters, you are in the running..


Got any Blackhawks for me to fix? I prefer the older models as they are more challenging, but I'll take the Mike models in a pinch. Oh, and I ain't moving to any big cities - too many people for my nerves. And, one more thing. I refuse to go to the capitol. Too many liars and thieves. If you make me go, I'm going armed. If I go armed, you're gonna have to follow me with a mop, a bucket and a lot of bleach.


----------



## ekim

Denton said:


> Got any Blackhawks for me to fix? I prefer the older models as they are more challenging, but I'll take the Mike models in a pinch. Oh, and I ain't moving to any big cities - too many people for my nerves. And, one more thing. I refuse to go to the capitol. Too many liars and thieves. If you make me go, I'm going armed. If I go armed, you're gonna have to follow me with a mop, a bucket and a lot of bleach.


I'll be the armed guy behind you watching your back and carrying extra ammo. Lets go get'em!


----------



## PaulS

Yep, the TSA, DHS, and NSA got all that and there will be copies to the FBI. Welcome to the lists.....


----------



## ekim

PaulS said:


> Yep, the TSA, DHS, and NSA got all that and there will be copies to the FBI. Welcome to the lists.....


No problem, I'll just tell them that we only shot known terrorist, since we don't have access to government drone to kill Americans like the president does!


----------



## Denton

PaulS said:


> Yep, the TSA, DHS, and NSA got all that and there will be copies to the FBI. Welcome to the lists.....


Pfft. The only list that concerns me is the S list my wife has. I try and stay off of that one. Emphasis on try.


----------



## inceptor

Denton said:


> Pfft. The only list that concerns me is the S list my wife has. *I try and stay off of that one. Emphasis on try*.


Ain't it the truth!


----------



## dannydefense

Denton said:


> Pfft. The only list that concerns me is the S list my wife has. I try and stay off of that one. Emphasis on try.


I'm pretty sure that's a reverse type of list. You're on it till you earn your way off of it.


----------



## BigCheeseStick

"Just when you think it can't get any worse."

You could live in Japan! The more you read, the funnier it is, and the more sad I am for these people!

"can't get sexually aroused unless he watches female robots on a game similar to Power Rangers"  

Why have young people in Japan stopped having sex? | World news | The Observer


----------

