U.S. Constitution
See other U.S. Constitution Articles
Title: Superior Court ... asked to boot Obama --- from ballot
Source:
wnd.com
URL Source: http://www.wnd.com/2012/02/superior ... ked-to-boot-obama-from-ballot/
Published: Feb 17, 2012
Author: Bob Unruh
Post Date: 2012-02-17 12:44:59 by BorisY
Keywords: antichrist, antichrist, antichist
Views: 3692
Comments: 12
Superior Court asked to boot Obama from ballot 'At issue is nothing less than the enforcement or loss of constitutional rule of law' By Bob Unruh Bob Unruh joined WND in 2006 after spending nearly three decades writing on a wide range of issues for several Upper Midwest newspapers and the Associated Press. Sports, tornadoes, homicidal survivalists, and legislative battles all fell within his bailiwick. His scenic photography has been used commercially, and he sometimes plays in a church worship band.e A state Superior Court in Georgia is being asked to review and overturn Secretary of State Brian Kemp’s decision, based on a recommendation from an administrative law judge, that Barack Obama’s name be on the state’s 2012 primary ballot. The appeal to the higher court says the recommendation from the administrative law judge, Michael Malihi, was faulty and that he allegedly to this date has refused to follow the state’s requirements regarding the case. The appeal has been filed with the Superior Court of Georgia for the County of Fulton by Van Irion, one of several attorneys who presented evidence at a hearing held by Malihi in January. The plaintiffs argued several points before Malihi, including Obama’s alleged failure to qualify as a “natural born citizen” as required by the U.S. Constitution for presidents. Obama has admitted in his writings his father never was a U.S. citizen, and attorneys argued that the understanding of the Founders, and a subsequent Supreme Court ruling, defines natural-born citizen as the offspring of two citizens of the country at the time of the birth. Citizens raising concerns include David Farrar, Leah Lax, Thomas Malaren and Laurie Roth, represented by Orly Taitz; David Weldon represented by attorney Van R. Irion of Liberty Legal Foundation; and Carl Swensson and Kevin Richard Powell, represented by J. Mark Hatfield. Cody Judy is raising a challenge because he also wants to be on the ballot. Discover what the Constitution’s reference to “natural born citizen” means and whether Barack Obama qualifies, in the ebook version of “Where’s the REAL Birth Certificate?” Malihi’s decision came without any evidence being presented by Obama or his lawyer after they refused to participate in the required hearing under a state law that mandates all candidates qualify for the office they seek. The law also allows any voter to raise a challenge, and several did. A hearing was held on their evidence Jan. 26. Malihi essentially tossed all of the information the plaintiffs and their attorneys presented. “The court finds the testimony of the witnesses, as well as the exhibits tendered, to be of little, if any, probative value, and thus wholly insufficient to support plaintiffs’ allegations,” he said. The complaints were raised under a state law that allows voters to challenge the eligibility of candidates on the state’s ballot. It is the states that run elections in the U.S., and national elections are just a compilation of the results of the 50 state elections. The state law requires “every candidate for federal” office who is certified by the state executive committees of a political party or who files a notice of candidacy “shall meet the constitutional and statutory qualifications for holding the office being sought.” State law also grants the secretary of state and any “elector who is eligible to vote for a candidate” in the state the authority to raise a challenge to a candidate’s qualifications, the judge determined. Irion told WND today that he’s asked Malihi why he declined to follow the Georgia Administrative Rules of Procedure 616-1-2-.39, which state, “Upon application by a party, the administrative law judge shall certify the facts to the superior court … for a determination of the appropriate action, including a finding of contempt.” The attorney had sought that determination, but Malihi apparently ignored the request and the requirements. He told WND that Malihi never had the authority to decide the contempt issue, but the court rules require him to certify facts to the Superior Court. “We made our application for him to do that several days before his ruling … Malihi should have certified the facts alleged to the other court immediately. … Yet he sat on our request for days, then continued to sit on it after his ruling. When we inquired, the silence was deafening. We didn’t hear back at all. This is from a court that had previously responded to e-mails within hours, or even minutes, on every other occasion. Four days later we e-mailed again.” He called the Malihi court’s explanation that it no longer had jurisdiction because the case had been advanced to a higher level unbelievable. Irion’s motion for a finding of contempt explains Obama and his attorney “willfully defied” the order of the court to appear and testify during the Jan. 26 hearing. “On the eve of the hearing, defendant’s attorney sent a letter directly to the Secretary of State of Georgia, with copies sent to this court and attorneys for the plaintiff. Defendant’s letter requested that the Secretary of State halt the proceedings of this court. The letter ended with a statement that the defendant and his attorney would suspend all further participation in the proceedings of this court pending a response from the Secretary of State. Later the same day, during the evening of January 25, the Secretary of State responded to the defendant via a letter with copies to this court and counsel for the plaintiff. The Secretary of State’s letter informed the defendant that the Secretary of State lacked authority under Georgia law to suspend this court’s proceedings. The letter concluded by warning the defendant that any failure to participate in further proceedings of this Court would be at the Defendant’s peril,” the motion explains. Still, Obama and his attorney refused to participate, creating “a direct threat to the rule of law,” the attorney said. “The defendant’s action represents a public denial of the authority of this court, the laws of this state, and the judicial branch of government as a whole. Such open denial of a separate branch of government by a sitting president amounts to no less than a declaration of total dictatorial authority,” he said. Filed just yesterday with the Superior Court was a motion for emergency stay of Kemp’s rubber-stamp approval of Malihi’s decision. “At issue is nothing less than the enforcement or loss of constitutional rule of law,” he submitted to the court. “The petitioner’s right to live in a constitutional republic will be lost if the clearest terms of the U.S. Constitution will not be enforced by the judicial branch of government.” He said if the judiciary does not take the appropriate action, “it would confirm that the judicial branch is now unwilling to enforce the clearest and most basic requirements of the U.S. Constitution.” His appeal explains that Malihi’s opinion defies logic. “[His] conclusion runs contrary to common sense, violates venerable rules of constitutional construction followed by the U.S. Supreme Court since its inception, and violates the explicit holding of the Supreme Court case relied upon. Had the drafters of the Constitution intended all people born in the U.S. to be considered natural born citizens, the 14th Amendment would not have been necessary. Had the drafters of the 14th Amendment intended that amendment to alter the Article II definition of natural born citizen, they would have clearly stated so. Yet the term ‘natural born citizen’ is not found anywhere within the 14th Amendment. The amendment also makes no reference to Article II. The [Malihi] ruling, therefore, violates rules of construction that the OSAH had itself relied upon just days earlier in the same litigation,” the brief explains. It explains Malihi also ignored a Supreme Court precedent in favor of a non-binding opinion from Indiana. Irion also argues that his client’s rights to live in a constitutional republic are being compromised when provisions of the Constitution are ignored. He noted the argument from Obama earlier in the case that he won the 2008 election. “Contrary to popular opinion, voters are not the final arbiters of whether an individual is qualified to hold office. In a constitutional republic the power of the majority is limited and cannot infringe upon constitutionally protected rights of a minority,” the brief argues. “The Constitution is an anti-majoritarian document; meaning that it protects individuals from invasions and usurpations by the majority.” Top constitutional expert Herb Titus contends that a “natural-born citizen” is born of parents who were U.S. citizens at the time of the birth. The argument also is supported by a 19th-century U.S. Supreme Court decision, Minor vs. Happersett in 1875. The case includes one of very few references in the nation’s archives that addresses the definition of “natural-born citizen.” That case states: “The Constitution does not in words say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.” An extensive analysis of the issue was conducted by Titus, who has taught constitutional law, common law and other subjects for 30 years at five different American Bar Association-approved law schools. He also was the founding dean of the College of Law at Regent University, a trial attorney and special assistant U.S. attorney in the Department of Justice. “‘Natural born citizen’ in relation to the office of president, and whether someone is eligible, was in the Constitution from the very beginning,” he said. “Another way of putting it; there is a law of the nature of citizenship. If you are a natural born citizen, you are a citizen according to the law of nature, not according to any positive statement in a Constitution or in a statute, but because of the very nature of your birth and the very nature of nations.” If you “go back and look at what the law of nature would be or would require … that’s precisely what a natural born citizen is …. is one who is born to a father and mother each of whom is a citizen of the U.S. or whatever other country,” he said. “Now what we’ve learned from the Hawaii birth certificate is that Mr. Obama’s father was not a citizen of the United States. His mother was, but he doesn’t qualify as a natural born citizen for the office of president.”
Poster Comment: A mob - aristocracy of 666 czars - dictators - devils - overlords !
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: All (#0)
He said if the judiciary does not take the appropriate action, “it would confirm that the judicial branch is now unwilling to enforce the clearest and most basic requirements of the U.S. Constitution.” His appeal explains that Malihi’s opinion defies logic. “[His] conclusion runs contrary to common sense, violates venerable rules of constitutional construction followed by the U.S. Supreme Court since its inception, and violates the explicit holding of the Supreme Court case relied upon. Had the drafters of the Constitution intended all people born in the U.S. to be considered natural born citizens, the 14th Amendment would not have been necessary. Had the drafters of the 14th Amendment intended that amendment to alter the Article II definition of natural born citizen, they would have clearly stated so. Yet the term ‘natural born citizen’ is not found anywhere within the 14th Amendment. The amendment also makes no reference to Article II. The [Malihi] ruling, therefore, violates rules of construction that the OSAH had itself relied upon just days earlier in the same litigation,” the brief explains. It explains Malihi also ignored a Supreme Court precedent in favor of a non-binding opinion from Indiana. Irion also argues that his client’s rights to live in a constitutional republic are being compromised when provisions of the Constitution are ignored. He noted the argument from Obama earlier in the case that he won the 2008 election. “Contrary to popular opinion, voters are not the final arbiters of whether an individual is qualified to hold office. In a constitutional republic the power of the majority is limited and cannot infringe upon constitutionally protected rights of a minority,” the brief argues. “The Constitution is an anti-majoritarian document; meaning that it protects individuals from invasions and usurpations by the majority.” Now we are forced to buy car insurance even though we don't drive - own cars ! This is mulatto - marxist law - logic ! What does the Christian Scientist - Jehovah's witness - Amish say about all this !
If you ... don't use exclamation points --- you should't be typeing ! Commas - semicolons - question marks are for girlie boys !
The GOP wants four more years of the bushclone Oilbomber. That's why they're pushing losers like Mitts, Santini, and Newtie. The GOP elites are silent on O'bunglers eligilibity, why? They love him, he's their dream neocon!
Obama's watch stopped on 24 May 2008, but he's been too busy smoking crack to notice.
Had southern bigots not found ways to deprive freed slaves of their rights as citizens (black codes) then the 14th amendment would not have been necessary. We can see that same mentality alive today in the bigots striving to prove that Obama is not a full citizen under the law, and thus ineligible to sit in the oval office.
Anyone claiming to be an expert is selling something. I brandish my ignorance like a crucifix at vampires. Aaron Bady
After all these decades, with all the cyber knowledge you'd ever want at your fingers tips, to finally be able to research and find the truth, and you are still just as g-damn dumb, or stupid, as those who had no access to the truth. The South fought that war for States rights, just as you see states today STILL fighting for their right to keep the federal government out of their business. Research it, the South did not 'deprive freed slaves' of their rights as citizens, it was Northern Carpet Baggers and the Democrats who deprived slaves of their rights. The war of aggression was not fought to free the slaves, if Texas and other states had agreed to NOT expand slavery to other states, there would Still be slaves, but they refused, but still Lincoln DID NOT move to free them until he had no other choice. As much as I despise Lincoln for waging that evil war against the South, It too a Southerner to free them, even though they would have eventually all been free by the South itself. Another thing, if you want to blame anyone for oppressing the black man, depriving him of his rights as a citizen (voting..etc), look to the KKK, they were Northern/Souther Democrats.
(Ferret Mike: "The best way to lead is by example. If we got rid of nuclear weapons, it would be profoundly easier to justify acting against other nations should they act to develop them.")
I must correct you, at this point. ALL of our rights are being ground into dust, with the tacit approval of morons like LoonyBitch. Indeed, she LOVES the state, and will do absolutely anything to further their agenda... for the price of getting her "retirement" money, of course. She's just another statist whore, and doesn't give a crap about anything except the hollow shell that is her life. Words offer the means to meaning, and for those who will listen, the enunciation of truth. And the truth is, there is something terribly wrong with this country, isn't there? Cruelty and injustice, intolerance and oppression. And where once you had the freedom to object, to think and speak as you saw fit, you now have censors and systems of surveillance coercing your conformity and soliciting your submission. How did this happen? Who's to blame? Well certainly there are those more responsible than others, and they will be held accountable, but again truth be told, if you're looking for the guilty, you need only look into a mirror. --V.
To: mcToejam, rat-boy, drippy, Alzheimer Fred, whitesands, t-bird, loonymom/ming, e-type jackoff, goober56, wreck, cal-CON, rabid dog, dummy DwarF, biff, harrowup the communist, and meguro. You're on the "a waste of human flesh" list. Piss off.
The Truth About Democrats and Civil Rights By Robert Rohlfing, on September 1st, 2011 "I do not care if you are Black or White, please stop falling for revisionist history and learn the real facts." "Let's do a little recap of actual history in regards to Democrats and Civil Rights along with treatment of Black Americans. I do not care if you are Black or White, please stop falling for revisionist history and learn the real facts. Do not allow yourself to be led to civil unrest by those who are not telling you the truth and be bold enough to speak out against these bold lies that have been taught over the years to push an agenda." October 13, 1858 During Lincoln-Douglas debates, U.S. Senator Stephen Douglas (D-IL) states: "I do not regard the Negro as my equal, and positively deny that he is my brother, or any kin to me whatever"; Douglas became Democratic Party's 1860 presidential nominee April 16, 1862 President Lincoln signs bill abolishing slavery in District of Columbia; in Congress, 99% of Republicans vote yes, 83% of Democrats vote no July 17, 1862 Over unanimous Democrat opposition, Republican Congress passes Confiscation Act stating that slaves of the Confederacy "shall be forever free" January 31, 1865 13th Amendment banning slavery passed by U.S. House with unanimous Republican support, intense Democrat opposition April 8, 1865 13th Amendment banning slavery passed by U.S. Senate with 100% Republican support, 63% Democrat opposition November 22, 1865 Republicans denounce Democrat legislature of Mississippi for enacting "black codes," which institutionalized racial discrimination February 5, 1866 U.S. Rep. Thaddeus Stevens (R-PA) introduces legislation, successfully opposed by Democrat President Andrew Johnson, to implement "40 acres and a mule" relief by distributing land to former slaves April 9, 1866 Republican Congress overrides Democrat President Johnson's veto; Civil Rights Act of 1866, conferring rights of citizenship on African-Americans, becomes law May 10, 1866 U.S. House passes Republicans' 14th Amendment guaranteeing due process and equal protection of the laws to all citizens; 100% of Democrats vote no June 8, 1866 U.S. Senate passes Republicans' 14th Amendment guaranteeing due process and equal protection of the law to all citizens; 94% of Republicans vote yes and 100% of Democrats vote no January 8, 1867 Republicans override Democrat President Andrew Johnson's veto of law granting voting rights to African-Americans in D.C. July 19, 1867 Republican Congress overrides Democrat President Andrew Johnson's veto of legislation protecting voting rights of African-Americans March 30, 1868 Republicans begin impeachment trial of Democrat President Andrew Johnson, who declared: "This is a country for white men, and by God, as long as I am President, it shall be a government of white men" September 12, 1868 Civil rights activist Tunis Campbell and 24 other African-Americans in Georgia Senate, every one a Republican, expelled by Democrat majority; would later be reinstated by Republican Congress October 7, 1868 Republicans denounce Democratic Party's national campaign theme: "This is a white man's country: Let white men rule" October 22, 1868 While campaigning for re-election, Republican U.S. Rep. James Hinds (R-AR) is assassinated by Democrat terrorists who organized as the Ku Klux Klan December 10, 1869 Republican Gov. John Campbell of Wyoming Territory signs FIRST-in-nation law granting women right to vote and to hold public office February 3, 1870 After passing House with 98% Republican support and 97% Democrat opposition, Republicans' 15th Amendment is ratified, granting vote to all Americans regardless of race May 31, 1870 President U.S. Grant signs Republicans' Enforcement Act, providing stiff penalties for depriving any American's civil rights June 22, 1870 Republican Congress creates U.S. Department of Justice, to safeguard the civil rights of African-Americans against Democrats in the South September 6, 1870 Women vote in Wyoming, in FIRST election after women's suffrage signed into law by Republican Gov. John Campbell February 28, 1871 Republican Congress passes Enforcement Act providing federal protection for African-American voters April 20, 1871 Republican Congress enacts the Ku Klux Klan Act, outlawing Democratic Party- affiliated terrorist groups which oppressed African-Americans October 10, 1871 Following warnings by Philadelphia Democrats against black voting, African- American Republican civil rights activist Octavius Catto murdered by Democratic Party operative; his military funeral was attended by thousands October 18, 1871 After violence against Republicans in South Carolina, President Ulysses Grant deploys U.S. troops to combat Democrat terrorists who formed the Ku Klux Klan November 18, 1872 Susan B. Anthony arrested for voting, after boasting to Elizabeth Cady Stanton that she voted for "the Republican ticket, straight" January 17, 1874 Armed Democrats seize Texas state government, ending Republican efforts to racially integrate government September 14, 1874 Democrat white supremacists seize Louisiana statehouse in attempt to overthrow racially-integrated administration of Republican Governor William Kellogg; 27 killed March 1, 1875 Civil Rights Act of 1875, guaranteeing access to public accommodations without regard to race, signed by Republican President U.S. Grant; passed with 92% Republican support over 100% Democrat opposition January 10, 1878 U.S. Senator Aaron Sargent (R-CA) introduces Susan B. Anthony amendment for women's suffrage; Democrat-controlled Senate defeated it 4 times before election of Republican House and Senate guaranteed its approval in 1919. Republicans foil Democratic efforts to keep women in the kitchen, where they belong February 8, 1894 Democrat Congress and Democrat President Grover Cleveland join to repeal Republicans' Enforcement Act, which had enabled African-Americans to vote January 15, 1901 Republican Booker T. Washington protests Alabama Democratic Party's refusal to permit voting by African-Americans May 29, 1902 Virginia Democrats implement new state constitution, condemned by Republicans as illegal, reducing African-American voter registration by 86% February 12, 1909 On 100th anniversary of Abraham Lincoln's birth, African-American Republicans and women's suffragists Ida Wells and Mary Terrell co-found the NAACP May 21, 1919 Republican House passes constitutional amendment granting women the vote with 85% of Republicans in favor, but only 54% of Democrats; in Senate, 80% of Republicans would vote yes, but almost half of Democrats no August 18, 1920 Republican-authored 19th Amendment, giving women the vote, becomes part of Constitution; 26 of the 36 states to ratify had Republican-controlled legislatures January 26, 1922 House passes bill authored by U.S. Rep. Leonidas Dyer (R-MO) making lynching a federal crime; Senate Democrats block it with filibuster June 2, 1924 Republican President Calvin Coolidge signs bill passed by Republican Congress granting U.S. citizenship to all Native Americans October 3, 1924 Republicans denounce three-time Democrat presidential nominee William Jennings Bryan for defending the Ku Klux Klan at 1924 Democratic National Convention June 12, 1929 First Lady Lou Hoover invites wife of U.S. Rep. Oscar De Priest (R-IL), an African-American, to tea at the White House, sparking protests by Democrats across the country August 17, 1937 Republicans organize opposition to former Ku Klux Klansman and Democrat U.S. Senator Hugo Black, appointed to U.S. Supreme Court by FDR; his Klan background was hidden until after confirmation June 24, 1940 Republican Party platform calls for integration of the armed forces; for the balance of his terms in office, FDR refuses to order it August 8, 1945 Republicans condemn Harry Truman's surprise use of the atomic bomb in Japan. The whining and criticism goes on for years. It begins two days after the Hiroshima bombing, when former Republican President Herbert Hoover writes to a friend that "The use of the atomic bomb, with its indiscriminate killing of women and children, revolts my soul." September 30, 1953 Earl Warren, California's three-term Republican Governor and 1948 Republican vice presidential nominee, nominated to be Chief Justice; wrote landmark decision in Brown v. Board of Education November 25, 1955 Eisenhower administration bans racial segregation of interstate bus travel March 12, 1956 Ninety-seven Democrats in Congress condemn Supreme Court's decision in Brown v. Board of Education, and pledge to continue segregation June 5, 1956 Republican federal judge Frank Johnson rules in favor of Rosa Parks in decision striking down "blacks in the back of the bus" law November 6, 1956 African-American civil rights leaders Martin Luther King and Ralph Abernathy vote for Republican Dwight Eisenhower for President September 9, 1957 President Dwight Eisenhower signs Republican Party's 1957 Civil Rights Act September 24, 1957 Sparking criticism from Democrats such as Senators John Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson, President Dwight Eisenhower deploys the 82nd Airborne Division to Little Rock, AR to force Democrat Governor Orval Faubus to integrate public schools May 6, 1960 President Dwight Eisenhower signs Republicans' Civil Rights Act of 1960, overcoming 125-hour, around-the-clock filibuster by 18 Senate Democrats May 2, 1963 Republicans condemn Democrat sheriff of Birmingham, AL for arresting over 2,000 African-American schoolchildren marching for their civil rights September 29, 1963 Gov. George Wallace (D-AL) defies order by U.S. District Judge Frank Johnson, appointed by President Dwight Eisenhower, to integrate Tuskegee High School June 9, 1964 Republicans condemn 14-hour filibuster against 1964 Civil Rights Act by U.S. Senator and former Ku Klux Klansman Robert Byrd (D-WV), who still serves in the Senate June 10, 1964 Senate Minority Leader Everett Dirksen (R-IL) criticizes Democrat filibuster against 1964 Civil Rights Act, calls on Democrats to stop opposing racial equality. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 was introduced and approved by a staggering majority of Republicans in the Senate. The Act was opposed by most southern Democrat senators, several of whom were proud segregationists-one of them being Al Gore Sr. Democrat President Lyndon B. Johnson relied on Illinois Senator Everett Dirksen, the Republican leader from Illinois, to get the Act passed. August 4, 1965 Senate Republican Leader Everett Dirksen (R-IL) overcomes Democrat attempts to block 1965 Voting Rights Act; 94% of Senate Republicans vote for landmark civil right legislation, while 27% of Democrats oppose. Voting Rights Act of 1965, abolishing literacy tests and other measures devised by Democrats to prevent African-Americans from voting, signed into law; higher percentage of Republicans than Democrats vote in favor February 19, 1976 President Gerald Ford formally rescinds President Franklin Roosevelt's notorious Executive Order authorizing internment of over 120,000 Japanese- Americans during WWII September 15, 1981 President Ronald Reagan establishes the White House Initiative on Historically Black Colleges and Universities, to increase African-American participation in federal education programs June 29, 1982 President Ronald Reagan signs 25-year extension of 1965 Voting Rights Act August 10, 1988 President Ronald Reagan signs Civil Liberties Act of 1988, compensating Japanese-Americans for deprivation of civil rights and property during World War II internment ordered by FDR November 21, 1991 President George H. W. Bush signs Civil Rights Act of 1991 to strengthen federal civil rights legislation August 20, 1996 Bill authored by U.S. Rep. Susan Molinari (R-NY) to prohibit racial discrimination in adoptions, part of Republicans' Contract With America, becomes law "With a little time and effort you to could find this information on the vast expanse of the internet. Most would just like to follow the mantra and talking points that the left have put out for years.. Please empower yourself and learn the real truth!" (Ferret Mike: "The best way to lead is by example. If we got rid of nuclear weapons, it would be profoundly easier to justify acting against other nations should they act to develop them.")
She's just another statist whore, and doesn't give a crap about anything except the hollow shell that is her life. She's a lying, liberal, dis-information whore, who will do ANYTHING to keep her hands in the pockets of the working man/woman. Her Lie: dis-information whore aka lucysmom: "Had southern bigots not found ways to deprive freed slaves of their rights as citizens (black codes) then the 14th amendment would not have been necessary." The Truth: November 22, 1865 "Republicans denounce Democrat legislature of Mississippi for enacting "black codes," which institutionalized racial discrimination"
(Ferret Mike: "The best way to lead is by example. If we got rid of nuclear weapons, it would be profoundly easier to justify acting against other nations should they act to develop them.")
I'll bet you know exactly what is wrong with that statement, though I would never expect you to own up to it.
Anyone claiming to be an expert is selling something. I brandish my ignorance like a crucifix at vampires. Aaron Bady
dis-information whore aka lucysmom: "Had southern bigots not found ways to deprive freed slaves of their rights as citizens (black codes) then the 14th amendment would not have been necessary." The Truth: November 22, 1865 "Republicans denounce Democrat legislature of Mississippi for enacting "black codes," which institutionalized racial discrimination" Is the above how you glorify God? Personally I wouldn't talk like that in public and call myself a Christian - but hey, that's just me. As for the rest - if you weren't so blinded by stereotypes, you might beable to read the words actually written.
Anyone claiming to be an expert is selling something. I brandish my ignorance like a crucifix at vampires. Aaron Bady
It seemed that indeed the truth would be 'forever on the scaffold, and wrong forever on the throne'. With great eagerness he listened to the query, 'How long shall be the vision?'(Daniel 8:13)." Daniel and the Coming King Chapter 16 The Gospel In Daniel 9:24 By Dr.Desmond Ford "It would be tragic if we contented ourselves with an analytical examination of this passage of Scripture. It is not merely a scintillating gem to be admired, but the bread of life to be eaten. It consists of 'the everlasting gospel' in minature." "That which should concern us all the more than the issues of hermeneutics is the issue of life---our life. Not minutiae of prophetic interpretation, but sin, sorrow, and death constitute our problems. Daniel 9:24 assures us that the world is a ship and not an iceberg, that God is intensely interested in our dilemma, and, best of all, that He has done something to extricate us from the apparent cul-de-sac of existence. In Christ, the Melchizedekan King-Priest, He has brought in everlasting righteousness, freely offered to all who believe." Chapter 14 Daniel and the Coming King---Daniel 9 By Dr.Desmond Ford "Sir Isaac Newton, the greatest of scientists prior to the modern period, wrote a commentary upon the prohecies of Daniel and Revelations. He desribed Daniel 9:24-27 as "the foudation-stone of the Christian religion" because centuries in advance it gave the time of appearance of the Messiah and His death, as well as a comprehensive description of His saving work in heaven and earth. The prophecy likewise tells what would be the fate of the Jews consequent upon their rejection of the One whose coming they had long anticpated. The destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70, foretold in Daniel 9:24-27, was history's testimony that the offerings and services of the sanctuary had met their fulfillment in the advent of the promised Messiah." Newton, Isaac. Observsations Upon the Prophecies of Daniel and the Apocalpse of St. John. London: J. Darby and T. Browne, 1733 (Isaac Newton) Chapter 14 Daniel and the Coming King---Daniel 9 by Dr.Desmond Ford Seal Up the Vision "The expression 'to seal up the vision' (v.24) should be considered. This expression, 'the vision', occurs eleven times in Daniel 8:1 to 10:1, and in all these cases it refers to the vision described in the eighth chapter of Daniel. The reader is advised to read again the entire passage. In pictorial, symbolic form the prophet was shown the unfolding of all future centuries till the second advent of Christ. The famous empires, Medo-Persia, Greece, and Rome, which long oppressed the people of God, are described; but particular emphasis is given to the persecution of the church during the Christian era and also to the supremacy of the couterfeit, apostate religion over most of that period. Christ's mediatorial ministry in heaven is alluded to, but its eclipse from men's mind through a counterfeit system is fortold. The sanctuary mentioned refers both to the church temple indwelt by the Holy Spirit on earth, as well as Israel's typical sanctuary. No doubt Daniel was dazed by this revelation of the apparent triumph of evil. In his lifetime he had witnessed the destruction of Jerusalem's temple, the center of true religion, and the carrying into captivity of the people of God by an idolatrous and desolating nation. Now in vision he is informed that this state of affairs is to continue on a much greater scale throughout most of the earth's history. It seemed that indeed the truth would be 'forever on the scaffold, and wrong forever on the throne'. With great eagerness he listened to the query, 'How long shall be the vision?'(Daniel 8:13)." "Now in the revelation of 9:24-27 the mourning seer is told that there is a greater Prince of the house of Judah, a greater atonement, a greater sanctuary, and a greater redemption than any ever before experienced by Israel. The long- awaited Messiah, the Prince, a Priest-King, will take away the sin of the world and end earth's dark night. Thus 9:24 and 8:14 point to the same reality---the kingdom of God ignaugurated at the first advent and consummated at the second." The little word game - charade you're playing is over !
If you ... don't use exclamation points --- you should't be typeing ! Commas - semicolons - question marks are for girlie boys !
Boris, I can see that you believe strongly in the rightness of your cause; it would be pointless and mean to attempt to dissuade you from something that gives your life meaning.
Anyone claiming to be an expert is selling something. I brandish my ignorance like a crucifix at vampires. Aaron Bady
Some of the half dead road kill I've seen makes me sick ! Some people may very well deserve what happens to them ! I don't have too much feeling for them ! I really don't know what you believe it might help if you would reconsider - reality double check ! Flash in the pan ... musquet misfire --- no bullet - no target - faulure !
If you ... don't use exclamation points --- you should't be typeing ! Commas - semicolons - question marks are for girlie boys !
#2. To: BorisY, *Ron Paul for President* (#0)
(Edited)
"We (government) need to do a lot less, a lot sooner" ~Ron Paul
#3. To: BorisY (#1)
Had the drafters of the Constitution intended all people born in the U.S. to be considered natural born citizens, the 14th Amendment would not have been necessary.
#4. To: lucysmom (#3)
Had southern bigots not found ways to deprive freed slaves of their rights as citizens (black codes) then the 14th amendment would not have been necessary.
#5. To: Murron (#4)
Another thing, if you want to blame anyone for oppressing the black man, depriving him of his rights as a citizen (voting..etc), look to the KKK, they were Northern/Souther Democrats.
#6. To: lucysmom, Capitalist Eric, ALL (#3)
#7. To: Capitalist Eric, lucysmom, ALL (#5)
ALL of our rights are being ground into dust, with the tacit approval of morons like LoonyBitch. Indeed, she LOVES the state, and will do absolutely anything to further their agenda... for the price of getting her "retirement" money, of course.
#8. To: Murron (#4)
Another thing, if you want to blame anyone for oppressing the black man, depriving him of his rights as a citizen (voting..etc), look to the KKK, they were Northern/Souther Democrats.
#9. To: Murron (#7)
Her Lie:
#10. To: lucysmom (#9)
#11. To: BorisY (#10)
#12. To: lucysmom (#11)
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]