from master debaters FB
- Soup McGee ---btw--: http://soupsauntieoxymoron.blogspot.com/2012/12/the-anti-government-attitude-espoused.html
An intentional misreading of the intent of the treaty as well as the power and enforcement ability of the United Nations on multiple levels is hereby uncovered. Understanding the why behind the fear mongering seen in Lee’s speech exposes the how. This is from an expose in The Baffler on the money-making schemes used by the religious Right in America to fund their theocratic coup:
“The typical ploy ran a little something like this, from Heritage Foundation founder Paul Weyrich’s Free Congress Research and Education Foundation:
Do you believe that children should have the right to sue their parents for being “forced” to
Should children be eligible for minimum wage if they are being asked to do household
Do you believe that children should have the right to choose their own family?
As incredible as they might sound, these are just a few of the new “children’s rights laws” that could become a reality under a new United Nations program if fully implemented by the Carter administration.
If radical anti-family forces have their way, this UN sponsored program is likely to become an all-out assault on our traditional family structure.
Following the standard scare-mongering playbook of the fundraising Right, Weyrich launched his appeal with some horrifying eventuality that sounded both entirely specific and hair-raisingly imminent--Closer inspection reveals the looming horror to be built on a non-falsifiable foundation (“could become”; “is likely to become”). This conditional prospect, which might prove discouraging to a skeptically minded mark, is all the more useful to reach those inclined to divide the moral universe in two—between the realm of the wicked, populated by secretive, conspiratorial elites, and the realm of the normal, orderly, safe, and sane.”
Since the problem isn’t the United Nations but in fact, man being governed by man’s law, how can this group remove a common enemy, the US government? Easy, says Grover Norquist, gleefully holding the American Checkbook in his vault, easy. End taxation. Limit severely the federal government’s ability to tax its citizens. From the Americans for Tax Reform Website, the following is from a letter Grover wrote to the conservative movement as a whole:
“The deficit was the difference between two more important numbers—how much the federal government took from the American people by force in taxes and how much the federal government spent each year. By the 1980s liberals discovered they could use concern over the deficit to oppose tax cuts and to push for tax hikes.
Now that the federal budget is in balance—indeed in substantial surplus—it is the right time for the conservative movement to establish a new goal. We said we wanted to balance the federal budget—we did. Now what? What is the measure of our success or failure in the years and decades to come?
I recommend that we set the goal of reducing the cost and size of government by half over the next twenty-five years—one generation. Why half? Because it is a large enough challenge to be worth the candle. Because it is eminently doable. Why a twenty-five year time horizon? Because it will take time to turn the nation around. Because we have to expect to have setbacks, lost opportunities, bad election years, wars and recessions. Certainly, we would welcome achieving our goal of "In Half" in a shorter time frame.
There are four measures of the size and scope of government. We should look to cut each in half over the next twenty-five years.”
Here is Grover’s description of those four measures:
“#1 – Total government spending as a percentage of the economy.
#2 – The cost of all government regulations as a percentage of the economy.
#3 – Total government employment: How many Americans work for the government at all levels.
#4 – Total assets controlled by government.”
Please note that Grover mentions a ‘substantial surplus’ in this letter. America is certainly not holding a current ‘substantial surplus,’ thus the reasoning here is easily questioned. Further, this disrespect and disconnect from what is empirical is suggestive of Senator Lee’s steadfast refusal to accept Constitutional precedent as legal precedent. See, that’s man’s law, not God’s law. Find and read a list of signatories to this contract; by and large, the signatory holds these views and acts upon them as a member representative of the American people. Grover, as evinced by Lee’s speech on behalf of the noxious Norquist coalition, is the fulcrum modern American society wobbles upon. ---
- Soup McGee -- the UN is an exercise in democratic theory...chances are you hate the UN because you don't trust Government at all and cannot recognize the American Fundamentalist Nativist Christian Coup lead by a Randian subculture and a military ravaged y 'the Holy Spirit' first at the Federal Level than at the state followed by the local sheriffs we keep hearing about-- you watch they finna try--- You on their side or America's? Everyone? Anyone?
- Soup McGee http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/74/700/case.html :
"4. The Union of the States never was a purely artificial and arbitrary relation. It began among the Colonies, and grew out of common origin, mutual sympathies, kindred principles, similar interests, and geographical relations. It was confirmed and strengthened by the necessities of war, and received definite form and character and sanction from the Articles of Confederation. By these, the Union was solemnly declared to "be perpetual." And, when these Articles were found to be inadequate to the exigencies of the country, the Constitution was ordained "to form a more perfect Union."
5. But the perpetuity and indissolubility of the Union by no means implies the loss of distinct and individual existence, or of the right of self-government by the States. On the contrary, it may be not unreasonably said that the preservation of the States and the maintenance of their governments are as much within the design and care of the Constitution as the preservation of the Union and the maintenance of the National government. The Constitution, in all its provisions, looks to an indestructible Union composed of indestructible States.
- Soup McGee -- do you deny Sovereign Citizens are Terrorists? http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/12/nd_sheriff_used_predator_drone_to_arrest_sovereign.php
- Johnny Ganjaseed "Janet Farrell Johnson Logic has never been the Right wing's strong suit!"
oh, as if you're an intellectual heavyweight, how about this from one of my other posts?
"Janet Farrell Johnson people have to be delusional if they can't admit that gun ownership has to be more closely regulated to cut down on accidental deaths in homes due to careless gun owners."
accidents due to carelessness will not be stopped or even phased in the slightest by mandating universal gun registration or by banning the manufacture/sale of high capacity mags/"assault" weapons
"Janet Farrell Johnson Also, remember the number of deaths due to "friendly fire"--lots of mistakes are made oversized when you're dealing with semiautomatic weapons."
military uses fully automatic weapons, derp...and that's not due to the rifle being used, but the chaos of war
"Janet Farrell Johnson Also, semiautomatic firearms and large magazines have no place in civilian hands."
just from the prior two statements I copied, you have no idea what you're talking about...semi-automatic firearms covers everything from a .22 Ruger 10/22 (used for squirrels etc) to a .22 semi-auto pistol or most any other pistol for that matter....
- Alex Asaro http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/crime-scene/post/suspect-in-shooting-at-family-research-council-indicted-on-terrorism-charge/2012/10/24/ab195792-1e09-11e2-b647-bb1668e64058_blog.html
Was this guy a terrorists too?
- Jason McAleese Once in 238 years Blake, so even more rare than a meteor strike. Arguably there was legal cause and it didn't just come out of the blue, as a matter of libertarian philosophy the rebels were the initiators of force. But then if rebels had won, they would've written the history books.
- Soup McGee -- Alex Asaro Do I think sovereign citizens are terrorists? No, I do think they have legitimate reasons to be angry, just like the Tea Party and OWS.
I do feel gangbangers In Chicago and other major cities to be the biggest threats
a few seconds ago · Like -- really? http://www.fbi.gov/news/podcasts/thisweek/extremism.mp3/view http://www.ctc.usma.edu/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/ChallengersFromtheSidelines.pdf "Another development that may be responsible for the growing concerns and awareness of a revival of the militia movement is the growing popularity of the Sovereign Citizens (SC). Simply put, the SC opposes formal governmental regulation of their “rights” which they define in highly expansive terms. For example, SC members refuse to apply for a driver’s license and car registration— because they believe the Federal government should not regulate their right to drive. SC members also refuse to pay income tax because they view this as an infringement on their right to work for a living." Are you saying here and now on a pulic phone line that you support the activities of known domestic terrorists? 'cos-- that is what - Alex Asaro Do I think sovereign citizens are terrorists? No, I do think they have legitimate reasons to be angry, just like the Tea Party and OWS.
I do feel gangbangers In Chicago and other major cities to be the biggest threats looks like ---
- Ty TheMan http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/19/bill-maher-gun-rights-privacy_n_2511378.html?ncid=edlinkusaolp00000009
- Soup McGee - really? http://www.fbi.gov/news/podcasts/thisweek/extremism.mp3/view http://www.ctc.usma.edu/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/ChallengersFromtheSidelines.pdf "Another development that may be responsible for the growing concerns and awareness of a revival of the militia movement is the growing popularity of the Sovereign Citizens (SC). Simply put, the SC opposes formal governmental regulation of their “rights” which they define in highly expansive terms. For example, SC members refuse to apply for a driver’s license and car registration— because they believe the Federal government should not regulate their right to drive. SC members also refuse to pay income tax because they view this as an infringement on their right to work for a living." Are you saying here and now on a pulic phone line that you support the activities of known domestic terrorists? 'cos-- that is what - Alex Asaro Do I think sovereign citizens are terrorists? No, I do think they have legitimate reasons to be angry, just like the Tea Party and OWS.
I do feel gangbangers In Chicago and other major cities to be the biggest threats looks like ---
- Alex Asaro http://www.fbi.gov/stats-services/publications/terror/terrorism-2000-2001
- Soup McGee ---While many still tend to ignore the fact that the American far right is an accumulation of different actors, and place most of its components in the same analytical category, the current study has illustrated that these different components are not merely driven by competing ideological tenets, but are also significantly idiosyncratic in the ways they manifest their ideology in the operational, often violent, realm. This illustrates that ideology and behavior are linked and nurture each other in the organizational frameworks of the American violent far right. From a theoretical perspective, this constitutes a further indication of the perception among some parts of the academic community that terrorism is an instrument of symbolic discourse which is shared by violent groups and their adversaries. Target selection is thus not based just on operational considerations, but is one component, among others, which allows violent groups to shape their message using violent practices—timing, weapons used and target locations, are only a small measure of the other components which contribute to the shape of the symbolic message conveyed via the attack. In this context, policy implications are clear. If the numerous far right groups are driven by different ideological sentiments, and are thus also engaged in distinguishing tactics, then the response in terms of counterterrorism policies must be flexible and group/movement oriented.---www.fbi.gov/news/podcasts/thisweek/extremism.mp3/view
- Alex Asaro http://health.usnews.com/health-news/managing-your-healthcare/articles/2012/01/26/gang-murders-taking-toll-on-young-males-cdc
- Alex Asaro http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/intelligence-report/browse-all-issues/2006/winter/la-blackout