Thursday, February 9, 2012

Soup McGee Wishes You "Fun Reading."

will point out this guy wrote the column for a mainstream Tea Party online page, making it an issue the Good Speaker is Gracing with his Silence. This is the Tea Party Nation people! This is the Group Boehner allows to control the House and the purse strings...wake up, Americans, if the GVT shuts down we may see King Jesus installed!!!! De facto bloodless coup-that would be the Tea Party style...not white? fuck you. vote dem? fuck you too. listen to secular music? fuuuuck you. Won't walk backwards on Tuesday? Ah shit. Now you've reeeeeally done it.
2 seconds ago · Like

Soup McGeeJohn Boehner
20 minutes ago · Like ·
Soup McGee knows all of us can be caught congratulating ourselves. WTG!!!
19 minutes ago · Like
Sylvia Garza Rivera what a fool. He should then go out and impregnate as many WASP women as possible. Do your part Mr. Swier.
17 minutes ago · Unlike · 1 person
Sylvia Garza Rivera Thought the reason for the decrease is due to men wearing jeans and briefs that are too tight, heating the testicles and destroying sperm.
15 minutes ago · Unlike · 1 person
Diane Nevins An anit-Muslim group? That's all America needs, another hate group.
14 minutes ago · Like
Kris Henningsen Eww.
13 minutes ago · Like
Sue Baldassarre Tea Party racism. And they say they are not Fascist? Remember Lebensborn when Hitler locked up White women and impregnated by his soldiers to create the Master Race.l
11 minutes ago · Unlike · 1 person
will point out this guy wrote the column for a mainstream Tea Party online page, making it an issue the Good Speaker is Gracing with his Silence. This is the Tea Party Nation people! This is the Group Boehner allows to control the House and...See More
10 minutes ago · Like
Richard Garbrandt Sue , I hope we get locked up together ...LOL
8 minutes ago · Unlike · 1 person
6 minutes ago · Like
Sue Baldassarre Illiterati-Something you don't understand. These people do not consider an Italian Catholic Boy like you a WASP. You are part of the minority they are referring to. You need to get real.
2 minutes ago · Unlike · 1 person
Soup McGee laughs, finally. FRANK! BUDDY! DUMBASS! I am so glad to have you on the record about this! You have no idea. No, cirrusly. You have no idea.
5 seconds ago · Like
Soup McGee
reccd reading? Habeus corpus is part of due process...can't just deport someone, assmunch.
·         Clarence Neeley
Soak your head insideher! get a life I have one !!
on Sunday · Report
Diana Albright
Get an education. I have one.
on Sunday · Report
Clarence Neeley
Hey kevin how is your day? I Don't walk with Stupid nor do I talk with Stupid so i will talk with you!! We can not give up the fight until we get Obama impeached for his destruction of these United States of America and get a legal work force back!!! Thanks for imput!!:)
on Sunday · Report
Diana Albright
Back to Soup's question... Clarence, were you saying that you DO believe the original documents were abandoned? And that most others here, by your knowledge, are in agreement?
on Sunday · Report
Soup McGee
guesses you've never heard of the um, wassit called, Constitution?!
on Sunday · Delete Post
Soup McGee
can never quite believe what I am reading, except the policies espoused here by Jan Brewer's supporters are not just hateful, but treasonous in nature. Those who support a de facto coup/installation during GVT shutdown of a Christian Leader a la Sarah Palin type...the horse and buggy left for the church an hour ago for meetin'! Yer late!
"" 118 U.S. 356 (1886)

Supreme Court of United States.
Submitted April 14, 1886.
Decided May 10, 1886.

363*363 Mr. Hall McAllister, Mr. L.H. Van Schaick, and Mr. D.L. Smoot for plaintiffs in error.

Mr. Alfred Clarke and Mr. H.G. Sieberst for defendant in error.

365*365 Mr. JUSTICE MATTHEWS delivered the opinion of the court.

In the case of the petitioner, brought here by writ of error to the Supreme Court of California, our jurisdiction is limited to the question, whether the plaintiff in error has been denied a right in violation of the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States. The question whether his imprisonment is illegal, under the constitution and laws of the State, is not open to us. And although that question might have been considered 366*366 in the Circuit Court in the application made to it, and by this court on appeal from its order, yet judicial propriety is best consulted by accepting the judgment of the State court upon the points involved in that inquiry.

That, however, does not preclude this court from putting upon the ordinances of the supervisors of the county and city of San Francisco an independent construction; for the determination of the question whether the proceedings under these ordinances and in enforcement of them are in conflict with the Constitution and laws of the United States, necessarily involves the meaning of the ordinances, which, for that purpose, we are required to ascertain and adjudge.

We are consequently constrained, at the outset, to differ from the Supreme Court of California upon the real meaning of the ordinances in question. That court considered these ordinances as vesting in the board of supervisors a not unusual discretion in granting or withholding their assent to the use of wooden buildings as laundries, to be exercised in reference to the circumstances of each case, with a view to the protection of the public against the dangers of fire. We are not able to concur in that interpretation of the power conferred upon the supervisors. There is nothing in the ordinances which points to such a regulation of the business of keeping and conducting laundries. They seem intended to confer, and actually do confer, not a discretion to be exercised upon a consideration of the circumstances of each case, but a naked and arbitrary power to give or withhold consent, not only as to places, but as to persons. So that, if an applicant for such consent, being in every way a competent and qualified person, and having complied with every reasonable condition demanded by any public interest, should, failing to obtain the requisite consent of the supervisors to the prosecution of his business, apply for redress by the judicial process of mandamus, to require the supervisors to consider and act upon his case, it would be a sufficient answer for them to say that the law had conferred upon them authority to withhold their assent, without reason and without responsibility. The power given to them is not confided to their discretion in the legal sense of that term, but is granted 367*367 to their mere will. It is purely arbitrary, and acknowledges neither guidance nor restraint.

This erroneous view of the ordinances in question led the Supreme Court of California into the further error of holding that they were justified by the decisions of this court in the cases of Barbier v. Connolly, 113 U.S. 27, and Soon Hing v. Crowley, 113 U.S. 703. In both of these cases the ordinance involved was simply a prohibition to carry on the washing and ironing of clothes in public laundries and washhouses, within certain prescribed limits of the city and county of San Francisco, from ten o'clock at night until six o'clock in the morning of the following day. This provision was held to be purely a police regulation, within the competency of any municipality possessed of the ordinary powers belonging to such bodies; a necessary measure of precaution in a city composed largely of wooden buildings like San Francisco, in the application of which there was no invidious discrimination against any one within the prescribed limits, all persons engaged in the same business being treated alike, and subject to the same restrictions, and entitled to the same privileges, under similar conditions.

For these reasons, that ordinance was adjudged not to be within the prohibitions of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which, it was said, in the first case cited, "undoubtedly intended not only that there should be no arbitrary deprivation of life or liberty, or arbitrary spoliation of property, but that equal protection and security should be given to all under like circumstances in the enjoyment of their personal and civil rights; that all persons should be equally entitled to pursue their happiness and acquire and enjoy property; that they should have like access to the courts of the country for the protection of their persons and property, the prevention and redress of wrongs, and the enforcement of contracts; that no impediment should be interposed to the pursuits of any one, except as applied to the same pursuits by others under like circumstances; that no greater burdens should be laid upon one than are laid upon others in the same calling and condition; and that in the administration of criminal justice no different or higher punishment should be imposed upon 368*368 one than such as is prescribed to all for like offences." "Class legislation, discriminating against some and favoring others, is prohibited, but legislation which, in carrying out a public purpose, is limited in its application, if within the sphere of its operation it affects alike all persons similarly situated, is not within the amendment."

The ordinance drawn in question in the present case is of a very different character. It does not prescribe a rule and conditions for the regulation of the use of property for laundry purposes, to which all similarly situated may conform. It allows without restriction the use for such purposes of buildings of brick or stone; but, as to wooden buildings, constituting nearly all those in previous use, it divides the owners or occupiers into two classes, not having respect to their personal character and qualifications for the business, nor the situation and nature and adaptation of the buildings themselves, but merely by an arbitrary line, on one side of which are those who are permitted to pursue their industry by the mere will and consent of the supervisors, and on the other those from whom that consent is withheld, at their mere will and pleasure. And both classes are alike only in this, that they are tenants at will, under the supervisors, of their means of living. The ordinance, therefore, also differs from the not unusual case, where discretion is lodged by law in public officers or bodies to grant or withhold licenses to keep taverns, or places for the sale of spirituous liquors, and the like, when one of the conditions is that the applicant shall be a fit person for the exercise of the privilege, because in such cases the fact of fitness is submitted to the judgment of the officer, and calls for the exercise of a discretion of a judicial nature.

The rights of the petitioners, as affected by the proceedings of which they complain, are not less, because they are aliens and subjects of the Emperor of China. By the third article of the treaty between this Government and that of China, concluded November 17, 1880, 22 Stat. 827, it is stipulated: "If Chinese laborers, or Chinese of any other class, now either permanently or temporarily residing in the territory of the United States, meet with ill treatment at the hands of any other persons, 369*369 the Government of the United States will exert all its powers to devise measures for their protection, and to secure to them the same rights, privileges, immunities and exemptions as may be enjoyed by the citizens or subjects of the most favored nation, and to which they are entitled by treaty."

The Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution is not confined to the protection of citizens. It says: "Nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." These provisions are universal in their application, to all persons within the territorial jurisdiction, without regard to any differences of race, of color, or of nationality; and the equal protection of the laws is a pledge of the protection of equal laws. It is accordingly enacted by § 1977 of the Revised Statutes, that "all persons within the jurisdiction of the United States shall have the same right in every State and Territory to make and enforce contracts, to sue, be parties, give evidence, and to the full and equal benefit of all laws and proceedings for the security of persons and property as is enjoyed by white citizens and shall be subject to like punishment, pains, penalties, taxes, licenses, and exactions of every kind, and to no other." The questions we have to consider and decide in these cases, therefore, are to be treated as involving the rights of every citizen of the United States equally with those of the strangers and aliens who now invoke the jurisdiction of the court.

It is contended on the part of the petitioners, that the ordinances for violations of which they are severally sentenced to imprisonment, are void on their face, as being within the prohibitions of the Fourteenth Amendment; and, in the alternative, if not so, that they are void by reason of their administration, operating unequally, so as to punish in the present petitioners what is permitted to others as lawful, without any distinction of circumstances — an unjust and illegal discrimination, it is claimed, which, though not made expressly by the ordinances is made possible by them.

When we consider the nature and the theory of our institutions of government, the principles upon which they are supposed 370*370 to rest, and review the history of their development, we are constrained to conclude that they do not mean to leave room for the play and action of purely personal and arbitrary power. Sovereignty itself is, of course, not subject to law, for it is the author and source of law; but in our system, while sovereign powers are delegated to the agencies of government, sovereignty itself remains with the people, by whom and for whom all government exists and acts. And the law is the definition and limitation of power. It is, indeed, quite true, that there must always be lodged somewhere, and in some person or body, the authority of final decision; and in many cases of mere administration the responsibility is purely political, no appeal lying except to the ultimate tribunal of the public judgment, exercised either in the pressure of opinion or by means of the suffrage. But the fundamental rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, considered as individual possessions, are secured by those maxims of constitutional law which are the monuments showing the victorious progress of the race in securing to men the blessings of civilization under the reign of just and equal laws, so that, in the famous language of the Massachusetts Bill of Rights, the government of the commonwealth "may be a government of laws and not of men." For, the very idea that one man may be compelled to hold his life, or the means of living, or any material right essential to the enjoyment of life, at the mere will of another, seems to be intolerable in any country where freedom prevails, as being the essence of slavery itself.

There are many illustrations that might be given of this truth, which would make manifest that it was self-evident in the light of our system of jurisprudence. The case of the political franchise of voting is one. Though not regarded strictly as a natural right, but as a privilege merely conceded by society according to its will, under certain conditions, nevertheless it is regarded as a fundamental political right, because preservative of all rights.

In reference to that right, it was declared by the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, in Capen v. Foster, 12 Pick. 485, 489, in the words of Chief Justice Shaw, "that in all 371*371 cases where the constitution has conferred a political right or privilege, and where the constitution has not particularly designated the manner in which that right is to be exercised, it is clearly within the just and constitutional limits of the legislative power, to adopt any reasonable and uniform regulations, in regard to the time and mode of exercising that right, which are designed to secure and facilitate the exercise of such right, in a prompt, orderly, and convenient manner;" nevertheless, "such a construction would afford no warrant for such an exercise of legislative power, as, under the pretence and color of regulating, should subvert or injuriously restrain the right itself." It has accordingly been held generally in the States, that, whether the particular provisions of an act of legislation, establishing means for ascertaining the qualifications of those entitled to vote, and making previous registration in lists of such, a condition precedent to the exercise of the right, were or were not reasonable regulations, and accordingly valid or void, was always open to inquiry, as a judicial question. See Daggett v. Hudson, 1 Western Reporter, 789, decided by the Supreme Court of Ohio, where many of the cases are collected; Monroe v. Collins, 17 Ohio St. 665.

The same principle has been more freely extended to the quasi legislative acts of inferior municipal bodies, in respect to which it is an ancient jurisdiction of judicial tribunals to pronounce upon the reasonableness and consequent validity of their by-laws. In respect to these, it was the doctrine, that every by-law must be reasonable, not inconsistent with the charter of the corporation, nor with any statute of Parliament, nor with the general principles of the common law of the land, particularly those having relation to the liberty of the subject or the rights of private property. Dillon on Municipal Corporations, 3d ed., § 319, and cases cited in notes. Accordingly, in the case of The State of Ohio ex rel. &c. v. The Cincinnati Gas-Light and Coke Company, 18 Ohio St. 262, 300, an ordinance of the city council purporting to fix the price to be charged for gas, under an authority of law giving discretionary power to do so, was held to be bad, if passed in bad faith, fixing an unreasonable price, for the fraudulent purpose of compelling 372*372 the gas company to submit to an unfair appraisement of their works. And a similar question, very pertinent to the one in the present cases, was decided by the Court of Appeals of Maryland, in the case of the City of Baltimore v. Radecke, 49 Maryland, 217. In that case the defendant had erected and used a steam engine, in the prosecution of his business as a carpenter and box-maker in the city of Baltimore, under a permit from the mayor and city council, which contained a condition that the engine was "to be removed after six months' notice to that effect from the mayor." After such notice and refusal to conform to it, a suit was instituted to recover the penalty provided by the ordinance, to restrain the prosecution of which a bill in equity was filed. The court holding the opinion that "there may be a case in which an ordinance, passed under grants of power like those we have cited, is so clearly unreasonable, so arbitrary, oppressive, or partial, as to raise the presumption that the legislature never intended to confer the power to pass it, and to justify the courts in interfering and setting it aside as a plain abuse of authority," it proceeds to speak, with regard to the ordinance in question, in relation to the use of steam engines, as follows: "It does not profess to prescribe regulations for their construction, location, or use, nor require such precautions and safeguards to be provided by those who own and use them as are best calculated to render them less dangerous to life and property, nor does it restrain their use in box factories and other similar establishments within certain defined limits, nor in any other way attempt to promote their safety and security without destroying their usefulness. But it commits to the unrestrained will of a single public officer the power to notify every person who now employs a steam engine in the prosecution of any business in the city of Baltimore, to cease to do so, and, by providing compulsory fines for every day's disobedience of such notice and order of removal, renders his power over the use of steam in that city practically absolute, so that he may prohibit its use altogether. But if he should not choose to do this, but only to act in particular cases, there is nothing in the ordinance to guide or control his action. It lays down no 373*373 rules by which its impartial execution can be secured or partiality and oppression prevented. It is clear that giving and enforcing these notices may, and quite likely will, bring ruin to the business of those against whom they are directed, while others, from whom they are withheld, may be actually benefited by what is thus done to their neighbors; and, when we remember that this action or non-action may proceed from enmity or prejudice, from partisan zeal or animosity, from favoritism and other improper influences and motives easy of concealment and difficult to be detected and exposed, it becomes unnecessary to suggest or to comment upon the injustice capable of being brought under cover of such a power, for that becomes apparent to every one who gives to the subject a moment's consideration. In fact, an ordinance which clothes a single individual with such power hardly falls within the domain of law, and we are constrained to pronounce it inoperative and void."

This conclusion, and the reasoning on which it is based, are deductions from the face of the ordinance, as to its necessary tendency and ultimate actual operation. In the present cases we are not obliged to reason from the probable to the actual, and pass upon the validity of the ordinances complained of, as tried merely by the opportunities which their terms afford, of unequal and unjust discrimination in their administration. For the cases present the ordinances in actual operation, and the facts shown establish an administration directed so exclusively against a particular class of persons as to warrant and require the conclusion, that, whatever may have been the intent of the ordinances as adopted, they are applied by the public authorities charged with their administration, and thus representing the State itself, with a mind so unequal and oppressive as to amount to a practical denial by the State of that equal protection of the laws which is secured to the petitioners, as to all other persons, by the broad and benign provisions of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. Though the law itself be fair on its face and impartial in appearance, yet, if it is applied and administered by public authority with an evil eye and an unequal 374*374 hand, so as practically to make unjust and illegal discriminations between persons in similar circumstances, material to their rights, the denial of equal justice is still within the prohibition of the Constitution. This principle of interpretation has been sanctioned by this court in Henderson v. Mayor of New York, 92 U.S. 259; Chy Lung v. Freeman, 92 U.S. 275; Ex parte Virginia, 100 U.S. 339; Neal v. Delaware, 103 U.S. 370; and Soon Hing v. Crowley, 113 U.S. 703.

The present cases, as shown by the facts disclosed in the record, are within this class. It appears that both petitioners have complied with every requisite, deemed by the law or by the public officers charged with its administration, necessary for the protection of neighboring property from fire, or as a precaution against injury to the public health. No reason whatever, except the will of the supervisors, is assigned why they should not be permitted to carry on, in the accustomed manner, their harmless and useful occupation, on which they depend for a livelihood. And while this consent of the supervisors is withheld from them and from two hundred others who have also petitioned, all of whom happen to be Chinese subjects, eighty others, not Chinese subjects, are permitted to carry on the same business under similar conditions. The fact of this discrimination is admitted. No reason for it is shown, and the conclusion cannot be resisted, that no reason for it exists except hostility to the race and nationality to which the petitioners belong, and which in the eye of the law is not justified. The discrimination is, therefore, illegal, and the public administration which enforces it is a denial of the equal protection of the laws and a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution. The imprisonment of the petitioners is, therefore, illegal, and they must be discharged. To this end,

The judgment of the Supreme Court of California in the case of Yick Wo, and that of the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of California in the case of Wo Lee, are severally reversed, and the cases remanded, each to the proper court, with directions to discharge the petitioners from custody and imprisonment.
on Sunday · Delete Post
Soup McGee
wishes you "fun reading." It's called standing precedent, and in this case, we learn there is no such THING as a person without the natural rights our Constitution documents to exist absent government.
on Sunday · Delete Post
Kevin W. Golike
im sorry soup ,did i miss your explaination of what this case has to do with whats going on?
on Sunday · Report
Soup McGee
nods, yes, you apparently did.
on Sunday · Delete Post
Kevin W. Golike
ok explain it to me lucy
since i didnt see it in your past posts
on Sunday · Report
Soup McGee
does not know why I should bother...are you a Sovereign Citizen?
on Sunday · Delete Post
Soup McGee
wonders, do you think there is such a thing as an "illegal" person? Then read for yourself and figger it out.
on Sunday · Delete Post
Kevin W. Golike
I was born here ,6 generations,again what does that have tpo do with explaining your self?
on Sunday · Report
Kevin W. Golike
according to the federal government there is.
on Sunday · Report
Soup McGee
?!?!? Hey Kevin? Are the Sovereign Citizens a legal or illegal group? Is there such a thing under law in America as an Illegal Immigrant? You tell me, since I am unable to explain anything to you...
on Sunday · Delete Post
Soup McGee
sighs...dumbass-thats why you should read and not only post. I'm done with people who tell me that black is orange and down is sideways and our Nation is Christian and the federal government is different than the document I linked and posted and the original documents were abandoned and ah hell....just fuck off already.sighs
on Sunday · Delete Post
Kevin W. Golike
An illegal immigrant is a person who has entered the country without official authorization. Federal immigration law provides means by which certain aliens can become naturalized citizens with full rights of citizenship. Immigration law determines who may enter, how long they may stay and when they must leave.

The main legislation governing immigration is the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952, (INA). The act hads been amended numerous times, the most significant of which was the establishment of a new quota system in 1965. For INA purposes, an "alien" is any person who is not a citizen or a national of the United States. There are different categories of aliens: resident and nonresident, immigrant and nonimmigrant, documented and undocumented ("illegal").

Immigration law is under the control of Congress. Presidential power is limited to policies on refugees. Courts will not become involved in immigration issues unless constitutional rights are involved.

Several laws have been passed to strengthen regulation of illegal immigration practices, such as hiring of illegal aliens and sham marriages. Congress enacted the Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA) of 1986, which toughened criminal sanctions for employers who hire illegal aliens, denied illegal aliens federally funded welfare benefits, and legitimized some aliens through an amnesty program. The Immigration Marriage Fraud Amendments of 1986 attmepts to curb sham marriages for the sole purpose of obtaining citizenship.

Immigration policies are implemented by granting or denying visas. There are two types of visas: immigrant and nonimmigrant. Nonimmigrant visas are primary issued to tourists and temporary business visitors. Only a few categories of non-immigrant visas allow their holders work in the United States. Immigrant visas permit their holders to stay in the United States permanently and ultimately to apply for citizenship. An alien who has an immigrant visa is permitted to work in the United States. Congress limits the overall number of immigrant visas, and many immigrant visas are also subject to per-country caps.

on Sunday · Report
Soup McGee
knows there are only undocumented immigrants under Constitutional law, no such thing as an illegal...RACISM in your heart, Kevin! Love America or leave it assholes!
on Sunday · Delete Post
Kevin W. Golike
read the law and stop trying to write it!
on Sunday · Report
Soup McGee
does not see your source, may I see your source please, my source was yick wo v. hopkins, a supreme court decision, the decision being law of the land and more binding than your racist put forth only your opinion...go suck one, asshole Racist Nativist. Are you for or against America, are you a Citizen of these Sates and this Union, or are you, sir, a Sovereign citizen?
on Sunday · Delete Post
Soup McGee

Yick Wo v. Hopkins (1886)
In Yick Wo v. Hopkins, a case involving the rights of Chinese immigrants, the Court ruled that the 14th Amendment's statement, "Nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws," applied to all persons "without regard to any differences of race, of color, or of nationality," and to "an alien, who has entered the country, and has become subject in all respects to its jurisdiction, and a part of its population, although alleged to be illegally here." (Kaoru Yamataya v. Fisher, 189 U.S. 86 (1903) )

Wong Wing v. U.S. (1896)
Citing Yick Wo v. Hopkins, the Court, in the case of Wong Wing v. US, further applied the citizenship-blind nature of the Constitution to the 5th and 6th amendments, stating ". . . it must be concluded that all persons within the territory of the United States are entitled to the protection guaranteed by those amendments, and that even aliens shall not be held to answer for a capital or other infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law."

Plyler v. Doe (1982)
In Plyler v. Doe, the Supreme Court struck down a Texas law prohibiting enrollment of illegal aliens in public school. In its decision, the Court held, "The illegal aliens who are plaintiffs in these cases challenging the statute may claim the benefit of the Equal Protection Clause, which provides that no State shall 'deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.' Whatever his status under the immigration laws, an alien is a 'person' in any ordinary sense of that term… The undocumented status of these children vel non does not establish a sufficient rational basis for denying them benefits that the State affords other residents."

It's All About Equal Protection
When the Supreme Court decides cases dealing with First Amendment rights, it typically draws guidance from the 14th Amendment's principal of "equal protection under the law." In essence, the "equal protection" clause extends First Amendment protection to anyone and everyone covered by the 5th and 14th Amendments. Through its consistent rulings that the 5th and 14th Amendments apply equally to illegal aliens, they also enjoy First Amendment rights.

In rejecting the argument that the "equal" protections of the 14th Amendment are limited to U.S. citizens, the Supreme Court has referred to language used by the Congressional Committee that drafted the amendment:

"The last two clauses of the first section of the amendment disable a State from depriving not merely a citizen of the United States, but any person, whoever he may be, of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, or from denying to him the equal protection of the laws of the State. This abolishes all class legislation in the States and does away with the injustice of subjecting one caste of persons to a code not applicable to another. . . . It [the 14th Amendment] will, if adopted by the States, forever disable every one of them from passing laws trenching upon those fundamental rights and privileges which pertain to citizens of the United States, and to all persons who may happen to be within their jurisdiction."

While illegal aliens do not enjoy all of the rights granted to citizens by the Constitution, specifically the rights to vote or possess firearms, these rights can also be denied to U.S. citizens convicted of felonies. In final analysis, the courts have ruled that, while they are within the borders of the United States, illegal aliens are granted the same fundamental, undeniable constitutional rights granted to all Americans.
on Sunday · Delete Post
Soup McGee
reads aloud the law for you, dumbass.
on Sunday · Delete Post
Kevin W. Golike
that has been long over turned by more recent law.
on Sunday · Report
Kevin W. Golike
read it your self and get educated soup,stop trolling.
on Sunday · Report
Kevin W. Golike
i would say anyone giving education ,medical help,finacial aid to illegal aliens is aiding and abetting by law.
on Sunday · Report
Soup McGee
would say anyone on our globe is entitled to fourteenth amendment protection, or none of us are worth the blood shed to validate t.
23 hours ago · Delete Post
Soup McGee
adds, yes those are laws, Kevin, very good...but they neither "trump" nor "invalidate" due process and equal protection for the accused or the defendant...duh. You really are a boring sort of Nativist. You never answer questions, only hurl insults. I mean, I know it's in your breeding, but try at least. C'mon. Nativist Idiot.
23 hours ago · Delete Post
Soup McGee
likes to insult with empirical evidence. I know from experience how much it stings.
23 hours ago · Delete Post
Clarence Neeley
Kevin you can't talk sense with Stupid so i don't even answer or look ^^
23 hours ago · Report
Soup McGee
23 hours ago · Delete Post
·         Jedi Council Member

Posts: 521
« Reply #76 on: September 19, 2008, 05:03:16 AM »


·         Quote from: Laura
·         Ya'll please, please read everything on this topic you can and bring to the table everything you find. 
Posted on: Today at 05:26:48 AMPosted by: Patience 
One of the most frightening aspects of Dominionism is its infiltration of the military.  Here are a few links that came up of pages of google websites on this topic. This is just the first page of many. I have a hunch that Blackwater and Dominionism are intimately connected.  I'm going to look to see if I can find that specific connection.

Chris Hedges has done a lot of research on Dominionism in the military.

·         Quote from: google
·         More Sponsored Links For: Dominionists in the military, military lending, jobs after the military
Web ResultsInfiltrating the U.S. Military: Gen. Boykin's Kingdom Warrio...
This article will reveal how the military, as an institution, is being infiltrated with an eye at control by the dominionists. If the idea of a coup seems ... - 207k - Similar pages
The Despoiling Of America
Dominionists have gained extensive control of the Republican Party and the ..... [27] Like Robertson, Ledeen was an advocate for military intervention in ... - 172k - Similar pages

[ More results from ]
Backward Christian soldiers | New Humanist
He has said his inside military sources indicate 30 per cent of the US military are now fundamentalist Christians. He guesses the Dominionists in the ... - 19k - Similar pages
Dominionist taking over military? - The Prophecy Network
Dominionist taking over military? The Light Of The Word / Apostasy Watch. - 48k - Similar pages
Daily Kos: Racists and dominionists, part 1: A troubling his...
It also appears the Fellowship may have been instrumental in the infiltration of the military by dominionists:. The Fellowship also made inroads within the ... - 69k - Similar pages
Gog and Magog: North America's Dominionist Military Rulers b...
Read Tigana's latest blog entry titled Gog and Magog: North America's Dominionist Military Rulers on Gaia Community. - 56k - Similar pages - Outing Dominionism
Tattooed across his sternum are military dog tags that read "Joel's Army. .... This group is dedicated to bringing Dominionists and Dominionist activity ... - 77k - Similar pages
Talk To Action | Reclaiming Citizenship, History, and Faith
(1313 words in story), topic: Dominionism in US Military ..... Major Christian Organization Endorses the Military Religious Freedom Foundation ... - 190k - Similar pages
Chasing Evil: Coup Attempt of U.S. Military
Jul 11, 2008 ... is being pushed by the Dominionists (whom we have previously exposed.) This is a violation of military codes, of the US Constitution ... - 196k - Similar pages
Dominionism in the U.S. Military - Michael Weinstein - eBaum...
Dominionism in the US Military - Michael Weinstein Video Clips. - 24k - Similar pages[/quote}
·         AMY GOODMAN: We turn now to the Republican vice-presidential candidate, Sarah Palin, who has confirmed internet rumors that her teenage daughter is pregnant. Palin says the seventeen-year-old daughter, Bristol Palin, will have the baby and marry the father. Aides to Palin’s running mate, Senator John McCain, say they made the announcement to quell speculation that Palin had faked her own recent pregnancy. Rumors had spread this weekend that Palin had claimed the baby as her own to disguise the fact her daughter is actually the baby’s mother.
·         The announcement raised new questions about how thoroughly the McCain campaign vetted Palin before selecting her as his running mate. But it also appears likely to bolster McCain’s standing amongst anti-abortion Republicans.
·         The Nation magazine contributor Max Blumenthal has been extensively covering the right-wing movement. He went to the Republican National Convention Monday following Palin’s announcement.
·         MAX BLUMENTHAL: Max Blumenthal from The Nation. The official Republican Party plank rejects sex education and the distribution of condoms. Do you think Sarah Palin’s seventeen-year-old daughter could have benefited from sex education?
·         REP. ROY BLOUNT: I think what you have with that family issue, I think Senator Obama responded to that appropriately. More importantly, I think to most Americans, this is another welcome to everybody’s kitchen table. Everybody has challenges that are challenges to their family. Some challenges are exactly like this one. Generally, you don’t want this to be a challenge in your family. But I think moms and dads who have to deal with questions like this, who have to figure out how to pay their bills, who have to figure out how to make a small business work, I think that is something that the American people understand and appreciate. And I also think they appreciated the way Senator Obama responded to that.
·         MAX BLUMENTHAL: Do you think they should understand more about contraception in public schools, like the school that Sarah Palin’s daughter went to? And do you think the Republican Party is being helpful by opposing that sort of education?
·         REP. ROY BLOUNT: I was actually real happy with the answer I gave.
·         MAX BLUMENTHAL: I wasn’t.
·         Do you think Sarah Palin’s seventeen-year-old daughter could have benefited from more sex education, which the Republican Party plank rejects?
·         MEGHAN McCAIN: We’re just here to enjoy the convention, and we’re sitting in the box, so, you know.
·         MAX BLUMENTHAL: Do you think they should teach it in public schools?
·         MEGHAN McCAIN: You know what? We’re just here to enjoy the convention and to watch my mom speak. So I prefer not to do an interview. We’re just trying to enjoy the moment.
·         MAX BLUMENTHAL: Alright, thank you.
·         On the life issue?
·         ALASKA DELEGATE: Right to life. Right—
·         MAX BLUMENTHAL: Reject abortion in cases of rape and incest, even.
·         ALASKA DELEGATE: Yes, we do, because there’s a lot of families that don’t have children who would love to have children. And they could put those babies up for adoption, and those families can have a family.
·         RON WARNER: Most Alaskans have a strict interpretation of abortion: life begins at conception, and there is no reason to kill a baby, you know, whether you consider him unborn or born. You know, a baby happens whenever you conceive it, so...
·         GRACE VAN DIEST: I believe in the right to life from the moment of conception until natural death. And we, as a Alaskan Republican Party, voted for that, too, to be a part of our platform.
·         MAX BLUMENTHAL: And an abstinence-only education, do you think that should be the rule in public schools?
·         GRACE VAN DIEST: I think that it should be taught, yes. Yes, I think that abstinence should be a priority. We have taught our own daughters. We have three daughters and a son, and we home-school them, and we’ve taught them to not even date until they’re more ready to be married. They go out in groups from our—like our church youth group, but they don’t date individually. Each one of the daughters have gone out on a date with their dad and talked about keeping themselves pure until marriage. They each have had a little promise ring, a little tiny diamond that they wear constantly to remind them about their promise that they will keep pure, so...
·         AMY GOODMAN: That piece produced by Nation magazine’s Max Blumenthal. We’ll go to break now. When we come back, he joins us live here at SPNN, at Saint Paul Neighborhood Network, public access in the Twin Cities. We’re breaking with convention. Stay with us.
·         [break]
·         AMY GOODMAN: What you just listened to before the break was interviews by Nation magazine’s Max Blumenthal at the Republican National Convention. Max joins us here now in St. Paul at Saint Paul Neighborhood Network, SPNN, where Democracy Now! broadcasts in the area.
·         Welcome to Democracy Now!, Max.
·         MAX BLUMENTHAL: It’s great to be here.
·         AMY GOODMAN: Tell us about being on the convention floor, the people you talked to, the Republican platform.
·         MAX BLUMENTHAL: Well, I was on the floor at a really unusual time for the Republican Party. You know, the Republicans had cut short the convention program because of Hurricane Gustav battering New Orleans. And at the same time, there was a lot of buzz about this scandal, which has enveloped the party because of Sarah Palin’s daughter, Bristol, who has become pregnant at the age of seventeen and has decided to, to paraphrase Madonna, keep her baby.
·         And this is a really exceptional Republican scandal, partly because it doesn’t involve a closeted preacher, but also because it speaks to the larger issue of the Republican program, the Republican program on social issues.
·         And right now, a lot of bloggers and Democratic operatives are debating how to handle this. You know, should we just ignore it and let it play itself out?
·         And what I did with my video is frame it within the context of the Republican National Convention’s party platform, which explicitly endorses abstinence-only education and rejects the distribution of contraception. So you saw me asking Roy Blount, who is one of the most powerful Republicans in the House, about whether Bristol Palin, Sarah Palin’s daughter, could have benefited from the sex education that the Republican Party rejects in its platform and that the Alaska Republican Party, which is one of the most radical Republican parties in the country, rejects.
·         And I also spoke to members of the Alaska delegation to show, you know, the ideological tilt, how radical, you know, the Republican Party is in Alaska, because this is the soil from which Sarah Palin emerged and grew into an excessively socially conservative figure in Alaska, who, for instance, rejects—who would illegalize abortion in cases of rape and incest.
·         So, her daughter, in a sense—there’s no way anyone could say Sarah Palin is a bad mother or she doesn’t embrace family values, because, in a sense, she does practice what she preaches. But her daughter, at the same time, is a casualty of Republican policies. So the chickens are kind of coming home to roost here.
·         AMY GOODMAN: I mean, this was very odd, as this—and Democracy Now! doesn’t usually deal with these kind of issues—as all of this stuff was swirling around, all the photographs on the internet showing her daughter getting larger and saying she was pregnant, and so they were trying to prove that Sarah Palin’s youngest child, who is just a few months old, was actually her oldest daughter’s child. And this forced—according to the Palin campaign, this is why she released the information yesterday saying, in fact, her daughter is pregnant.
·         MAX BLUMENTHAL: And actually, when the McCain campaign vetted Sarah Palin, they knew about this in advance, which may seem unusual on the surface.
·         But if you go back to the video I produced, the third woman in the Alaska delegation, whose name slips my mind, who’s talking about how her daughters go on dates with their father and discuss staying pure. And it seems like an unusual phenomenon to a lot of secular people. In the Christian right, you know, it’s almost a—the Christian right is almost a counterculture. And they have what’s called purity balls, where daughters will go like a prom-style to a ball with their father, dressed up in a dress, and their fathers will put on purity rings that signify that they’re going to stay pure until marriage. And so, the culture is totally different.
·         And I asked this woman, you know, “Your daughters have pledged to stay pure until marriage, but what about Sarah Palin’s daughter?” And she said, “Well, this happens a lot, you know, in our communities. And Sarah Palin is at least practicing what she preaches by not having an abortion.” And so many of the people I speak—I talked to in the Christian right, they have a born-again experience, where they go through a personal crisis, and they use this evangelical religion to medicate their crisis. So, in a sense, this scandal could actually be an asset for Sarah Palin.
·         AMY GOODMAN: Talk about, Max, the Council for National Policy, the story that you broke.
·         MAX BLUMENTHAL: Well, this is the larger issue, which is, you know, what role Sarah Palin would play in a potential McCain administration? And last week in Minneapolis at the Radisson Hotel, without any media present, the most powerful power brokers of the Christian right met and essentially vetted Sarah Palin. They were there to watch her speech accepting her selection as the vice-presidential candidate. And they were delighted.
·         The only way I found out about this meeting is through a web video posted by the Christian right organization Focus on the Family, in which they discussed attending the meeting. One of James Dobson’s spokesmen discussed attending the meeting and being electrified by the selection of Sarah Palin. The Christian right absolutely loves this woman. And so—and what I wrote in my article is that the Council for National Policy is sort of the hidden hand behind the selection.
·         AMY GOODMAN: Explain who is in this council.
·         MAX BLUMENTHAL: Right. And it’s hard to know who is in this Council for National Policy. What it is is an umbrella group of the most powerful figures in the Christian right; the biggest donors of the right wing; the activists, like Grover Norquist, anti-tax activist; people like Erik Prince from Blackwater and his family; people—
·         AMY GOODMAN: He’s a part of the council.
·         MAX BLUMENTHAL: Yes. Paul Weyrich, the Catholic right organizer; Tim LaHaye, author of the best—"Left Behind" series; James Dobson and his entire family are in this. You know—
·         AMY GOODMAN: James Dobson, who said pray for rain during the Democratic convention.
·         MAX BLUMENTHAL: Exactly, exactly, and who thinks SpongeBob is gay, and who I consider the most powerful figure in the Christian right, by the way. And—but remember—
·         AMY GOODMAN: So they all met, as the Democrats were in Denver, in Minneapolis.
·         MAX BLUMENTHAL: Right. They all met—exactly. And the point of meeting while the media was focusing on the Democrats was so that the media wouldn’t, you know, detect this meeting, because they want to make—they want to plan for the long term without any—you know, outside of the spotlight. Their membership rolls are completely secret.
·         And so, that’s part of the reason why the selection of Sarah Palin caught people off guard, because John McCain had always been seen as a maverick who defied right-wing orthodoxy, and it was hard for the media to imagine that he would make such a radical selection for vice president, someone who would actually be the liaison to the Christian right in his administration. She wouldn’t play a role like Dick Cheney, where she, you know, has any influence over foreign policy. She would control the agencies like Health and Human Services and block condom distribution to Africa, block sex education in public schools, things like that.
·         AMY GOODMAN: So, are you saying that this whole questioning of, oh, is this really being done to attract Hillary delegates, is way off base, that this is about shoring up the evangelical base?
·         MAX BLUMENTHAL: Well, this never would have happened if Barack Obama had selected Hillary Clinton as his vice president, that’s for sure. He would have selected Romney or Pawlenty, the Minnesota governor. And if McCain is elected president, you’re going to have another radical administration, in part because Barack Obama was afraid of being overshadowed by the Clintons.
·         But this has nothing to do with attracting Hillary supporters. And the Hillary supporters I’ve spoken to are actually offended by this pick, because most of them are feminists who are pro-choice.
·         AMY GOODMAN: How did you learn of this secret gathering?
·         MAX BLUMENTHAL: Right. I saw a web video posted on Focus on the Family, where they mentioned in—where the spokesman for James Dobson, Tom Minnery, mentioned in passing that he had attended this gathering the week prior and that all of these power brokers—I don’t know who was there, because they kept it secret—had watched—you know, had met to watch Sarah Palin and discuss her and that they were electrified by her selection. And they feel now that they can support a McCain administration.
·         So James Dobson, the most powerful figure in the Christian right, who had said—who had earlier vowed that he could never vote for John McCain, I expect to endorse John McCain and to play an enormous role in this campaign. He has 3.5 million members. He has thirty-six policy councils in the States. His organization has a $150 million budget.
·         So, McCain is doing this in part to get the—to channel the grassroots muscle of the Christian right into an electoral victory over Barack Obama. And I think, you know, anyone who dismisses Sarah Palin’s lack of experience or her seeming shallowness on policy, you know, should not underestimate her, because this is—there’s a larger story here, and it’s about, you know, winning this election by pandering to the Christian right.
·         AMY GOODMAN: And finally, the Alaska delegation in the context of—in the political spectrum in comparison with all the Republican delegations that are here this week?
·         MAX BLUMENTHAL: Right. Well, I mean, you can clearly see how radical most of the members of this delegation are through my video. Those three people I spoke to were indicative of, you know, the—you know, all of the interviews I did. Many of them are Ron Paul supporters—excuse me—Buchananites, people who identify with the far fringes of the radical right.
·         And Sarah Palin, herself, is a member of a party called the Alaska Independence Party, which has endorsed seceding from the union and may have ties to other neosecessionist groups, like the Vermont—excuse me—Independence Party, which themselves have ties to neo-Confederate groups. So you’re talking about, you know, a state far off in the hinterlands, where people deeply mistrust government, where they—you know, where they have a, you know, very radical ideology on social policy. And we’ve never had a candidate from that state elevated to this position. So I think this is unique, and at the same time it’s typical, because the Republican Party, through John McCain, is intent on continuing the social policies of George W. Bush, which have been disastrous.
·         AMY GOODMAN: And now, James Dobson said he would never support John McCain—
·         MAX BLUMENTHAL: Right.
·         AMY GOODMAN: —has reversed his position.
·         MAX BLUMENTHAL: Well, he said he may support him. And now I expect him to actually support him and throw the full weight of his organization behind John McCain.
·         AMY GOODMAN: Max Blumenthal, I want to thank you very much for being with us. Of course, people can watch that video on our website, and we’ll link to yours. Max Blumenthal of The Nation magazine.--------------------------------------------

‎"I, "Anonymous", do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic...
· · · about an hour ago ·
 1. About Us | NE Tarrant Tea Party
The NE Tarrant Tea Party includes the following North Texas cities… ... Fred & Julie McCarty, Grapevine; Phil & Konni Burton, Colleyville; Bob and Donna Smith, ...
2. Julie McCarty from Grapevine, TX
Julie McCarty. Grapevine, TX Interests: Border Security Education Energy Free Enterprise Gun Rights Healthcare Liberty Spending Rule of Law Taxes ...
3. Julie McCarty's Groups
Results 1 - 10 of 13 – Julie McCarty. Grapevine, TX Interests: Border Security Education Energy Free Enterprise Gun Rights Healthcare Liberty Spending Rule of ...
4. Julie McCarty's Friends
Julie McCarty. Grapevine, TX Interests: Border Security Education Energy Free Enterprise Gun Rights Healthcare Liberty Spending Rule of Law Taxes ...
5. Julie McCarty's Page - Teabook
May 22, 2011 – Frequent Questions • Blogs, Discussions, Etc • Recommended Reading • Recommended Affiliates. Julie McCarty. Grapevine, TX; United States ...
6. Julie McCarty - Executive Profile › Texas › Grapevine
TX - Member - Vestige Properties, LLC
Mar 30, 2011 – Julie D McCarty is associated with Vestige Properties, LLC with the role ... has a relationship with Fred D McCarty and is located in Grapevine, TX.
7. Property valuation of Peach Court, Grapevine, TX: 701, 702, 703 ...
703 Peach Court Grapevine, TX Find on map >> Owner: JULIE MCCARTY Land value: $15000. Building value: $90000. Total value for property: $105000 ...
8. Open letter to Governor Rick Perry on Immigration
2 posts - 1 author - Jul 10, 2011
Coordinator, 75068 Dallas Tea Party Group Opak Point, Texas Julie Mccarty President, NE Tarrant Tea Party Grapevine, Texas Fred Mccarty ...
9. Audio: Rick Santorum's New Radio Ad, "Unite" | Rick Santorum for ...
Julie White McCarty • Grapevine, Texas. Love this! It's a great summary of good reasons to vote for Rick! Reply • 4 • Like • December 27, 2011 at 7:35pm. Mark as ...
10. : The Power of Coalition Building.: Julie McCarty
Julie McCarty. Zip Code*: 76051. Location: grapevine, tx. President of NE Tarrant Tea Party in Texas, covering Grapevine, Southlake, Colleyville, Keller, Hurst, ...
1 2

So you want to nullify violations of the Constitution
August 1, 2011 by Bob Livingston
Posted: 08-1-2011 at 12:01 am
Join the Discussion:
11 Responses to “So you want to nullify violations of the Constitution”
Comment Policy: We encourage an open discussion with a wide range of viewpoints, even extreme ones, but we will not tolerate racism, profanity or slanderous comments toward the author(s) or comment participants. Make your case passionately, but civilly. Please don't stoop to name calling. We use filters for spam protection. If your comment does not appear, it is likely because it violates the above policy or contains links or language typical of spam. We reserve the right to remove comments at our discretion.
1. Dave says:
August 1, 2011 at 8:30 am
This whole thing is obscene
2. Dave says:
August 1, 2011 at 8:31 am
This outlines such an extremely difficult process as to make the issues impossible…just the same something must be done and hopefully before it gets worse…HAH
3. JimH says:
August 1, 2011 at 10:24 am
The “lawmakers” made the laws to protects themselves from the law. How convenient for them.
4. Bruce says:
August 1, 2011 at 10:45 am
As I recall TIME has posted on these issues a while back. Something about removing all the laws passed over the last 100 some odd years.
But would that work? Are we really doomed to be the slaves of the Rothschilds? If this and what has been said by others who seem to understand all these laws then there really is little hope for the average American. I guess its also why all the cases filed on Obama have been tossed out by why of loop holes created by the politicians to protect themselfs from the American public. What a mess we are in.
5. BUCK CROSBY says:
August 1, 2011 at 12:35 pm
I am real happy I am 69 years old , I only have a few years of federal and state enslavement left .
6. Raggs says:
August 1, 2011 at 3:03 pm
Can ya spell Skrewed?
7. s c says:
August 1, 2011 at 5:10 pm
It was bound to happen, I guess. This is what must happen when generations of incompetent, useful idiots who gleefully sell themselves aren’t imprisoned or treated like the dirt they are.
At the current rate, I wouldn’t be surprised to see just how much the Bummer can get away with while people stand by and wait for ‘help’ that won’t come and a Supreme Court that’s too comfy to do its job.
Anybody take a serious look lately at how many provisions of the Constitution are considered irrelevant today?
8. Chance says:
August 2, 2011 at 8:57 am
It would help to get Civics classes reinstalled in our education systems along with American History and the teaching of our Constitution.
9. Always Right says:
August 2, 2011 at 5:46 pm
Chance, kaleeefornia kids don’t learn civics but they’re forced to learn “rump-riders, GOOD!. christian’s BAD” (SB48 and other such laws) with no parental notification and no opt-out. They’ve also got counselors standing by who can take kids off campus without parents permission and counsel them on homosexuality; in favor of, of course. Now bend over and let me give you your final.
10. BrotherPatriot says:
August 2, 2011 at 6:06 pm
Yes…”they” have infiltrated us at the Federal, State & city levels.
But what we must remember is that we are screwed only because we are letting them screw us. If the vast majority of Americans who still believe that the Constitution is the highest law in the land were to stand up and actively put our voices together in a peaceful & cordinated demonstration…I believe 20 million plus voices from the various states will be heard.
However, nothing will change unless these voices are all shouting the same historically backed information. Bring it all out into the open and let God’s light burn away the impure. It will hurt alittle, but in the end I firmly believe America will not just be ok…but better for it.
What am I talking about? I’m talking about that which is not talked about…I’m talking about the secret societies that JFK was talking about and one of the primary reasons he was murdered. (Others will argue he was speaking of communisim but where does he once say the word communisim in his speach? He does say the words “a secret society that has vast resources”…however.
These variously named, internally linked societies is why our world is the way that it is. They control our money, our media, our entertainment…virtually everything. Until the average America wisens up to these truths. Nothing will ever change.
Soros, Obama, Rothschilds, Rockerfellers, bankers, Skull & Bones, Illuminati, CFR, UN, Bilderbergs, Trilateral Commission…they are all the same.
Wake up my brothers & sisters.
God Bless.
o Isaac Davis says:
August 2, 2011 at 6:39 pm
They who remain asleep have no idea of the doom bearing down on them…as long as they can vicariously dance with idle amerkans and get a free download on their tune-box, they will accept the chains and shackles willfully. They will then be engrossed in designer chains and shackles…in fact, the first version of the encumbrances is already upon them, the advanced PDA they so passionately crave.


    Ok, lets try this again. If racism is sooooo bad why is it not illegal folks? Why is it so bad? I like to have friends of my own make and model. Is that wrong? If it is bad why is it not illegal?
    Like · · Share · 216 · 18 minutes ago · SMH...
    · ·

  2. · ·

    1. Air Force Cites New Testament, Ex-Nazi, to Train Officers ... - Truthout
      Jul 27, 2011 – Wernher Von Braun, a former member of the Nazi Party who used Jews ... St. Augustine's "Qualifications for Just War," according to the way it is ...
    2. Air Force Pulls Christian-Themed Ethics Training for ... - Truthout
      Jul 29, 2011 – St. Augustine's "Qualifications for Just War," according to the way the Air ... a former member of the Nazi Party and SS officer who is regarded as ...
    3. Truth-out
      Aug 3, 2011 – has just informed the public that the United States Air ... as Augustine from his “Christian Just War Theory,” and former Nazi and ...
    4. War and Religion: Air Force Cites New Testament, Ex-Nazi, to Train ...
      Jul 28, 2011 – Truthout. Werner Von Braun, a former member of the Nazi Party who used Jews ... The Christian Just War Theory has been touted [4] by Rep.
    5. A Gentleman's view. | Is There Another War In Our Future?
      Jul 27, 2011 – Why is The Military Using Nazi Rhetoric And Jesus In Its Nuclear Ethics Program? According to, newly released documents reveal that the ... Augustine's “Qualifications for Just War,” according to the way it is ...
    6. The Skeptics Society Forum • View topic - A JUST war?
      16 posts - 7 authors - Jul 30, 2011
      of "Hey, it's JUST a war! " ...
    7. AllGov - News - Air Force Halts “Jesus Loves Nuclear Weapons ...
      Aug 3, 2011 – Truthout wrote: “The documents' blatant use of religious imagery and ... he was a member of the Nazi Party and an SS officer during World War ...
    8. Air Force cites New Testament, ex-Nazi, to train ... - War in Context
      Aug 3, 2011 – Last week, Jason Leopold reported in Truthout: The United States Air ... St. Augustine's “Qualifications for Just War,” according to the way it is ...
    9. Air Force Withdraws Christian-Centric Ethics Training Module In ...
      Jul 31, 2011 – ... cites St. Augustine's Christian Just War Theory to teach missile officers about ... in response to an exclusive report published by Truthout earlier this ... and a quote from an ex-Nazi SS officer to teach missile officers about the ...
    10. Air Force yanks nuclear ethics course - Air Force News | News from ...
      Aug 4, 2011 – received the training materials from the Military Religious ... St. Augustine's qualifications for a just war and the Christian just-war theory. In the ... Another slide quotes German rocket scientist and former Nazi Party ...

  1. News for Peter Brimelow CPAC

    Daily Caller
    1. At CPAC, Hard Lines On Race And Immigration Could Be Awkward
      NPR (blog)‎ - 2 hours ago
      One of the panel's speakers was conservative author Peter Brimelow, whose book, Alien Nation, decried America's increasing racial diversity due to ...
      11 related articles
  2. CPAC Set to Host White Nationalist Leader | Right Wing Watch
    1 day ago – As we've previously reported, CPAC will play host to anti-gay groups ... Identity” with Peter Brimelow, the founder and head of
  3. Peter Brimelow, CPAC Speaker and Market Watch Columnist ...
    7 hours ago – The CPAC (Conservative Political Action Conference) is underway and Peter Brimelow, a white nationalist, who writes for Market Watch, ...
  4. Peter Brimelow at CPAC | Occidental Dissent
    1 hour ago – District of Corruption. I see that our friend Peter Brimelow is being denounced by Al Sharpton on MSNBC for speaking at the CPAC conference.
  5. CPAC Won't Renounce White Nationalist
    1 day ago – Peter Brimelow, whose organization is designated as a “hate group” by the Southern Poverty Law Center, is set to appear at CPAC this week.
  6. CPAC conference will include white nationalist Peter Brimelow of ...
    6 hours ago – Right Wing Watch reports that the CPAC 2012 conference will host Peter Brimelow, the self-avowed "white nationalist" publisher of the racist, ...
  7. GOP Presidential Candidates Should Denounce Bigotry of White ...
    1 day ago – ... this week at CPAC, the Conservative Political Action Conference. ... Rick Santorum and other GOP leaders— will be hosting Peter Brimelow, ...
  8. Little Green Footballs - Live Video: CPAC 2012, With Bonus White ...
    6 hours ago – ... noted yesterday, this year CPAC is hosting a panel discussion featuring an outright, unspinnable white nationalist race hater, Peter Brimelow.
  9. CPAC: In Search of the Fringe, a Bilingual 'Disease' - Esquire
    Examining the really dingy fringe elements of itself that the conservative movement likes to pretend it tucked away in the closet while it crusades for human ...
  10. CPAC Panel to Include White Nationalist
    7 hours ago – Peter Brimelow, whose group has been called a hate group, is set to speak at the Conservative Political Action Conference.
  11. Images for Peter Brimelow CPAC

     - Report images
    • 1 day ago
    • 9 hours ago
    • 7 hours ago
    • 7 hours ago
  12. White Supremacist Kicks Off Top Conservative Conference CPAC ...
    12 hours ago – A white supremacist will be part of a panel discussion at CPAC, the ... Identity” with Peter Brimelow, the founder and head of

No comments:

Post a Comment