Dozens Reportedly Arrested in Nigeria Amid Antigay Crackdown

By artappraiser on Tue, 01/14/2014 - 7:57pm |

By Liam Stack, The Lede @ nytimes.com, Jan. 14, 2014

Homosexual sex is illegal in Nigeria, where in some states ruled by Islamic law gay people can be legally stoned to death. Still, the government in recent weeks has decided to crack down on gay Nigerians both harshly and in secret, arresting dozens of suspected gay men in the country’s north and signing into law a sweeping measure that punishes gay marriage and even the formation of gay associations or clubs with as many as 14 years in prison.

News of the country’s strict new antigay law, called the Same Sex Marriage Prohibition Act, was reported on Monday by The Associated Press, which said that its passage had been “shrouded in secrecy.” A copy of the law obtained by The A.P. was signed and dated by President Goodluck Jonathan on Jan. 7 and had been signed and dated by lawmakers nearly a month earlier, on Dec. 17. Neither the president’s office nor the National Assembly was known to be considering the measure, and neither made an announcement to mark its passage. On Tuesday, The Associated Press reported that the police in the northern state of Bauchi had arrested 38 suspected gay men since Dec. 25 [....]

URL:

http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/01/14/dozens-reportedly-arrested-in-nigeria-amid-antigay-crackdown/

Add new comment
7837 reads

Comments

Countries where Homosexual Acts are punishable by Death: #Iraq #Mauritania #SaudiArabia #Sudan #Yemen & parts of Nigeria, Somalia
— ian bremmer (@ianbremmer) January 12, 2014

Homosexual acts are criminalized in over 80 countries of the world today.
— ian bremmer (@ianbremmer) January 12, 2014

by artappraiser on Tue, 01/14/2014 - 8:02pm

Not just an Eastern Hemisphere thing...Jamaica is supposed to be the most dangerous place in the world to be LBGT. (Dunno 'bout the superlative, the competition is "brutal")

How to parse the racial thing? (aside from the Muslim thing)

Edit to add: on re-reading, I note that AA her own self was the origin of the tidbit re:Jamaica. A late H/T....

by jollyroger on Wed, 01/15/2014 - 4:47pm

A quick search for theorizing on the matter turned up this interesting "curiosity" as the author puts it:

One curiosity about this area is that there is quite a close match between countries intolerant about homosexuality and former colonies of Britain. It was under the British Empire that many of the laws relating to same-sex relationships were imposed. France, in contrast, did not seem to mind what people got up to. Was that due to the country’s Catholic heritage or was it just a more specifically French casualness about sex? It’s not my area of expertise, but I’d be interested to know.

From Shouldn’t Catholics be protesting loudly against anti-gay persecution? by Ed West @ CatholicHerald.co.uk, Jan. 15, 2014

Don't know how much store to put in pursuing that angle, but the linked map is certainly a great tool for pondering the whole issue.

by artappraiser on Wed, 01/15/2014 - 5:58pm

Are the persecuted in these countries, banned from having guns for self protection? Or are they like sheep, being led to the slaughter?

by Resistance on Thu, 01/16/2014 - 6:08am

To a man with a hammer, every problem is a nail...

by jollyroger on Thu, 01/16/2014 - 3:43pm

desperately searching everywhere for nails....

by artappraiser on Thu, 01/16/2014 - 5:32pm

I cannot pretend deep acquaintance with the problems afflicting the country originally the subject of your link, but I'm pretty sure that a shortage of firearms in private hands is not among them.,

Moreover, (and more to the point of your remark), it is past satire and now verging on parody, that for our learned interlocutor (from the bible caucus )every discussion of any societal issue should be almost instantly an occasion to lament that anyone over the age of 3 is not packing heat 24/7.

by jollyroger on Thu, 01/16/2014 - 8:56pm

Another unreasonable claim, another tactic being employed made by gun control advocates?

I saw nothing in the report to tell us how to stop the persecution?

The report of persecution, of folks who are different; is a prime example of why our forefathers included the Second Amendment.

but I'm pretty sure that a shortage of firearms in private hands is not among them.,

How sure and what is your supporting evidence?

Many gun control advocates don't want to read or hear how the persecution of others, became a reason for support, of the Right to Bear arms.

http://www.constitution.org/2ll/2ndschol/89vand.pdf

"First they came for the homosexuals "

What group is next?

Bible caucus members, for ?

by Resistance on Thu, 01/16/2014 - 9:55pm

Some of us see a big threat from fearful angry men who shoot people carrying Skittles and popcorn. We see a big threat from armed people who decide that the government is not doing what they want and are willing to kill government officials as well as citizens who do not agree with the position taken by the fearful, armed men.

The choice becomes one between a government with laws that can work to alter government surveillance and other ills, or to trust an armed rabble with often irrational positions. Many of us opt for the devil we know.

by AnonymousRm (not verified) on Thu, 01/16/2014 - 10:06pm

Greeting police at the door with a firing weapon has been pretty well proven to be a recipe for immediate slaughter, perfectly legal too. It doesn't even have to be fired, you only have to refuse to put it down and put your hands up.

by artappraiser on Thu, 01/16/2014 - 5:31pm

When they come for you; to throw you into the arena for spectator entertainment;

Hmm!!!! To be or not to be; Torn apart by beasts or because you dared defend yourself, taking a few of them with you?

While your neighbors might have intervened to help save you; but alas or (alack) they too are unarmed.

PS Being unarmed is no guarantee you still wont be slaughtered on some door steps.

"Pulling the pin" or trigger, might be the answer?

"Forgive me Lord, for I am weak, I trust you'll sort it all out later"

If I should find, that I wasn't one of your sheep after all; I suggest the rest of you heathens stay away; find someone else for ~~sport~~ dinner.

by Resistance on Thu, 01/16/2014 - 8:51pm

But the meek shall inherit the Earth and the Lord takes care of his flock.

by Verified Atheist on Fri, 01/17/2014 - 2:50pm

Standing by for some totally unique and weird reinterpretation of the Beatitudes. I love when people post stuff like this to resistance since the response is always so hilariously funny.

by ocean-kat on Fri, 01/17/2014 - 3:36pm

Hey! Resistance ain't nobody's cheek-turner!

by jollyroger on Fri, 01/17/2014 - 4:41pm

That reminds me of the Billy Jack interpretation of that bible passage.

Bad dude hits Billy on the cheek and asks what his bible says about that. Billy says "Turn the other cheek." Bad dude hits him on the other cheek. Billy says, "The bible doesn't say anything about what I should do after that." Then he proceeds to beat the crap out of bad dude with all his cool karate moves. WWJD? Now you know.

by ocean-kat on Fri, 01/17/2014 - 5:01pm

Good illustration, but I am sure you must have heard or read, Jesus never would have responded in that way.

Jesus was perfect and we are glad he knows of our weaknesses

by Resistance on Fri, 01/17/2014 - 7:08pm

I have to wonder; when Peter denied the Lord 3 times, what he would have done had they grabbed a hold of him?

Nothing funny, when the Christian haters look to impale or kill Jesus' followers.

In the days of Noah; when the water was neck high and rising, I suspect many tried to get into the ark and when they realized it was too late, they sought higher ground. One could imagine the fight that ensued and those with weapons, prevailed a little longer, than those without?

I am reminded, of the many who will be overconfident and not realize; they really are not saved YET

Philippians 1:1 Paul and Timothy, servants1 of Christ Jesus, To all the asaints in Christ Jesus who are at Philippi, with theboverseers2 and cdeacons:3………..Philippians 2:12 12 Therefore, my beloved, fas you have always gobeyed, so now, not only as in my presence but much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling,

If the Anointed Holy ones are told to work out their salvation with fear and trembling because they CAN LOSE the hope of salvation

Hebrews 10:26-27 26 For dif we go on sinning deliberately eafter receiving the knowledge of the truth, fthere no longer remains a sacrifice for sins,27 gbut a fearful expectation of judgment, Hebrews 6:4-6 4 For it is impossible, in the case of those qwho have once been enlightened, who have tasted rthe heavenly gift, and shave shared in the Holy Spirit, 5 and thave tasted the goodness of the word of God and the powers of the age to come, 6 and uthen have fallen away, to restore them again to repentance, since vthey are crucifying once again the Son of God to their own harm and holding him up to contempt. 1 Corinthians 10:12 12 Therefore vlet anyone who thinks that he stands take heed lest he fall. Jude 1:5 5 Now I want mto remind you, although you once fully knew it, that nJesus, who saved1 a people out of the land of Egypt, oafterward destroyed those who did not believe. Matthew 24:13 13 rBut the one who endures to the end will be saved.

Those perishing, are in for a rough time, at the hands of their fellow perishers. (Not Gods hands) Would you rather be armed or unarmed?

But if the Gun control advocates have their way, only the criminals will have the guns and they once again, will control the high ground.

Think Somalian warlords, only on a grander scale.

That's just during the Great Tribulation, that no one has ever seen on a large scale.

You'll be praying for a deliverer, just as those on the edge of the Red Sea; when pharaohs army was on their heels.

Is your faith strong enough, because I'm not so sure? I'll just keep working on strengthening mine,........ but just in case.

by Resistance on Fri, 01/17/2014 - 6:29pm

If the question is if my faith s strong enough that I don't feel fearful enough to be armed at all times in the current situation, the answer is yes my faith is strong enough to fear no evil.

by AnonymousRm (not verified) on Fri, 01/17/2014 - 9:38pm

Ask Mayor Bloomberg about his faith and why he has multiple bodyguards, while he tries to disarm the peasant class.

The elites want protection

Elite mentality: To bad for the "others"

It not only shows in the economic system they have created and set up for themselves, but also in denying the "others" the right to self defense.

Evidently; were not worthy.

by Resistance on Fri, 01/17/2014 - 11:16pm

by Resistance on Sat, 01/18/2014 - 12:35am

Not sure of myself, just faith in God. I refuse to live in constant fear.

"Of whom shall I be afraid? "

by rmrd0000 on Sat, 01/18/2014 - 12:36am

As long as we are doing God's will..... Nobody; not even God .

by Resistance on Sat, 01/18/2014 - 12:56am

Then the question is why do you need a gun?

by rmrd0000 on Sat, 01/18/2014 - 8:53am

Generally I don't need one, as long as I stay on the right course. but it's not "Once saved always saved" besides; why should my beliefs interfere or stop others from making their own choices. I try to convince them, to come into the protection of the proverbial? Ark

I know folks very close to me; who according to the scriptures, will not inherit the kingdom, because they don't want to live their lives, to the high standards required. So they've chosen to live outside the protection, Whole souled devotion, recipients receive

I believe they have a right to defend themselves. What other protection do THEY have?

Living safely outside the ark; in critical and perilous times, is very difficult.

On their own, with no promises or guarantees of protection, no police protection around when the victims need them. I'm not going to be a part of disarming them, and tell them it's for their own good.

Sound advice for both the righteous and the unrighteous.

Proverbs 22:3

3 sThe prudent sees danger and hides himself,

but the simple go on and suffer for it.

by Resistance on Sat, 01/18/2014 - 11:39am

I see. So, are you saying that only those who have strayed from the Lord's path need guns?

by Anonymous positer (not verified) on Sat, 01/18/2014 - 5:56pm

Excuse me? How did you come to that conclusion? That ONLY

Never, Its strictly an individuals conscience.

29 ………….. For swhy should my liberty be determined by someone else's conscience?

1 Corinthians 10:29

Each individual will answer for their own works.

by Resistance on Sat, 01/18/2014 - 6:49pm

Lord takes care of his flock

Forever bringing to mind Samuel L Jackson, now that Q has wormed his evil trope into our innocent minds...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P0ZvgRJz6Bo

by jollyroger on Fri, 01/17/2014 - 4:48pm

Greeting police at the door with a firing weapon

A cast iron frying pan will get you killed in the ~~ghetto~~ right neighborhood

by jollyroger on Thu, 01/16/2014 - 8:55pm

Diallo was unarmed at the time of the shooting

plain-clothed officers: Sean Carroll, Richard Murphy, Edward McMellon and Kenneth Boss, who fired a combined total of 41 shots, 19 of which struck Diallo, outside his apartment at 1157 Wheeler Avenue in the Soundview section of The Bronx. The four were part of the now-defunctStreet Crimes Unit. All four officers were acquitted at trial in Albany, New York

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting_of_Amadou_Diallo

by Resistance on Thu, 01/16/2014 - 10:01pm

You just provide more proof that unarmed people have reason to fear frightened, armed people.

by rmrd0000 on Thu, 01/16/2014 - 10:21pm

I believe you misconstrue the thrust of R's citation. Consistent with his demonstrated devotion to the preservation of "second amendment remedies" against an oppressive state, he must be arguing that if only Amadou Diallo had been armed with sufficient firepower, he could have successfully defended himself from the assembled cops.

In that vein, he obviously supports personal mini-tanks for each citizen, each with 4" armor plating and .50 cal. machine guns (think Breaking Bad, the finale) front and back, cuz that's about the only second amendment remedy that would have saved Diallou.

And that only until the Afghan war surplus MRAP rolled up

by jollyroger on Fri, 01/17/2014 - 12:29am

I currently live in a section of a state that is oppressive. Three miles from the Mexican border in a high immigrant traffic area. Which of course means highly militarized with border patrol. I've had numerous confrontations with the border patrol and the result is they rarely come onto the land I live on any more.

They are armed with assault rifles. I have guns but I never carry a gun when I confront them. I considered that counter productive. I'm doubtful that offing border patrol agents or even firing warning shots when they were oppressive would have been as successful as the unarmed strategy I used.

by ocean-kat on Fri, 01/17/2014 - 1:14am

Living to fight another day; isn't a bad decision.

by Resistance on Fri, 01/17/2014 - 11:05pm

I suppose you also believe, slavery is better than defending oneself?

Maybe if the Africans would have had better weapons than the slave traders, they wouldn't have had to become chattel for 100's of years.

If John Brown had been successful in arming the slaves in the South; I believe another 100 years of oppression and persecution, might have been avoided.

As it was, someone had to pick up a weapon to free them, because they couldn't free themselves from bondage.

personal mini-tanks for each ~~citizen~~, TRIBESMAN each with 4" armor plating and .50 cal. machine guns (that's about the only second amendment remedy that would have saved ~~Diallou~~

The Indians

Too bad the US Indians had inferior weaponry or they might have sent the Europeans back to where they came from and could have preserved their way of life. Freedom rather than reservations.

Until that day comes, when "they will beat their swords into plowshares" assume better swords keeps you safer.

As some fools and cowards would have us believe; it's better to live in a world; a police state, than to resist those in power who would take whoever or whatever they desire.

You tell the persecuted Gays, in the countries that ban them; you'll join them in a chorus of Kumbaya; they'll be so relieved to know you support them? NOT

by Resistance on Fri, 01/17/2014 - 4:28am

R points out that the police were acquitted. If Diallo had opened fire out of fear prior to the police shooting him, Diallo would have been convicted of murder.

I tend to believe that if a shooting occurred with an armed R inside, that the first instinct would have been to seek cover and hide out until the police came to take control of the situation.

In the recent NM school shooting, an unarmed teacher gained control of the weapon. A similar thing happened with an unarmed librarian in GA.

Unarmed citizens subdued the armed man who shot Gabby Giffords in Arizona. The record for unarmed people taking control of the chaos of shootings appears better than that of "good guys with guns" in acute situations.

by rmrd0000 on Fri, 01/17/2014 - 8:15am

You just provide more proof that unarmed people have reason to fear frightened, armed people.

Finally; you get it,..... it sunk in? Unarmed citizens should fear, armed government agents, just as our forefathers warned.

The officers didn't need a warrant or a judge , they could just ignore the Rights of an unarmed citizen and shoot to kill.

He was unarmed and they were armed ....... He's dead and they're alive.

No wonder you and I don't agree on many points, evidently you don't mind a Police State.

by Resistance on Fri, 01/17/2014 - 7:48pm

Diallo was caught unaware with armed men with guns drawn. The officers shot because they thought he was armed. Diallo dead unarmed. Diallo dead with a gun. I see the solution as not encouraging a police unit to act like cowboys. The murderous unit was disbanded. A gun would nt have helped. Diallo was hit 19 times because they thought he was going for a gun.

by AnonymousRm (not verified) on Fri, 01/17/2014 - 8:34pm

You believe the murderous cops report?

That's their story and they're sticking to it. Because "Dead men tell no tales"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_Serpico

I wouldn't put it past, an overzealous hit squad, made up of government agents, cleaning up the streets.

a period of state terrorism in Argentina against political dissidents, with military and security forces conducting urban and rural guerrilla warfare against left-wing guerrillas, political dissidents, and anyone believed to be associated with socialism. Victims of the violence included an estimated 15,000 to 30,000 left-wing activists and militants, including trade unionists, students, journalists, Marxists, Peronist guerrillas and alleged sympathizers.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dirty_War

Of course, for it to be easier for the State Terrorism Unit to succeed; they need to make it illegal, for the intended victims to have guns.

by Resistance on Fri, 01/17/2014 - 11:23pm

Department of sailed ships.

1789 State fire power: Muskets, smooth bore cannon

Citizen fire power: Muskets, smooth bore canon, pitchforks

2014 State fire power: Helicopter gun ships, tanks, B-1 bombers,

Citizen fire power: Bushmaster rifles, glocks,

This ain't your great-great-great-great-great...grandfather's fight.

by jollyroger on Fri, 01/17/2014 - 8:52pm

To those who insist on proper training, before one can own; would it surprise you to learn, our government has trained 100's in the use of these 2014 weapons.

Now what's the excuse?

by Resistance on Fri, 01/17/2014 - 11:34pm

Now what's the excuse?

Hueys are really hard to buy, let alone steal. If I can find a connect, will you front the $? I'm half a million short at the moment.

by jollyroger on Sat, 01/18/2014 - 5:04pm

NO PROBLEMO.

Idea: Maybe G Soros and other friends; will help contribute, in case all three branches goes Republican and they and the Court declare war on the left?

First things first though; don't make it illegal to own.

If a Saudi Prince can own one, why not us?

Are these the same helicopters dumped in the sea after the evacuation of Saigon? Find one real cheap, slightly rusted?

Or forget the Huey. buy one of the 250 mi-24's going on the market.

http://www.military.com/video/aircraft/helicopters/mi-24-helicopter-guns...

by Resistance on Sat, 01/18/2014 - 5:56pm

Its expensive but necessary to protect the second amendment from our tyrannical government. I think we patriots should skip the hueys and tomahawk missiles and go straight for the nuclear deterrent. Do you think the oppressive government forces could have repressed the folks at Waco if Koresh had a nuclear bomb?

by ocean-kat on Sun, 01/19/2014 - 2:00am

If Saddam had the nuclear bomb, he's still be around. We don't mess with countries that have them. Think North Korea.

Citizen message to Congress,........ Don't even think about screwing the peasants over.

I think it might force them to realize...... better not; the people do have ~~a card up their sleeve~~

the nuclear deterrent

MAD has worked for years in our foreign affairs arena, maybe it would work in other areas of negotiations.

Citizens: "What do you mean your taking away our Social Security, but keeping Congress' pensions?"

"What do you mean, your ~~drafting~~ forcing us to go fight and die in a war, the majority of people don't want, but the war profiteers do"?

Citizens asking: what do you mean our government isn't going to do anything about chemicals dumped into our watershed, and woman's reproductive systems compromised. Only to hear Congress tell the people Shite happens, until its election time and they'll talk and talk. Unless they can rig the voting machines, then they won't care at all, unless they are personally affected.

Without deterrents, why would those in power give a crap about anyone but themselves?

If the lower class had a real deterrent, maybe the elites would have an Epiphany?

by Resistance on Sun, 01/19/2014 - 4:03am

Do you think the oppressive government forces could have

~~repressed~~ burned all the folks; including children, alive

at Waco if Koresh had a nuclear bomb?

Wasn’t there another US city; where the authorities set ablaze an entire block, to get a few miscreants?

Had it not been, for an acceleration of the more extreme resistance, in the US to the Vietnam War; we'd probably still be there, sacrificing our kids; but the war profiteers kids would be exempt?

The politicians weren't paying attention or they just didn't care, until some folks forced them to.

As evident by when the people forced the resignation of Nixon, the establishment came to his aid and pardoned him.

Screwed the people and what they wanted; because there is no deterrent or punishment.

Bankers rob us and the punishment is minimal.

by Resistance on Sun, 01/19/2014 - 2:00pm

Here we see the basic problem with armed resistance to an "oppressive" government, who gets to choose?

Imo both the Waco and the MOVE disaster began as legitimate police actions. It was proper that both groups be arrested and charged with crimes. They chose to resist arrest with force of arms. They decided resisting arrest and continuing their criminal behavior was worth dying for. Let's stop pretending these people were patriots resisting a tyrannical government. They were criminals resisting arrest.

As is usual in these cases, while the criminals were willing to die, the police didn't want to die to arrest these folks. They responded with overwhelming force and it spun out of control. As deplorable as that is it will always be the case when criminals hold up in buildings and resist arrest with force of arms. Children and innocent adults were in effect willing human shields and willing hostages to the criminals.

If criminals use guns to resist arrest should the government withdraw and allow them to continue to commit crimes? Should the police not use overwhelming force and send men to die with weapons equal to those the criminals have? Perhaps they should simply surround the building and attempt to starve the criminals out?

How should the government handle criminals that use guns to resist arrest when there are children used as human shields is a difficult question and I really don't want to get into the details of how it spun out of control. But our difference is you see patriots resisting a tyrannical government and I see criminals resisting arrest.

Who gets to decide when the hypothetical right to insurrection supposedly granted by the second amendment is appropriate or criminal?

by ocean-kat on Sun, 01/19/2014 - 5:35pm

The ready justification for overwhelming force in the face of armed resistance is one of the central arguments Martin Luther King Jr. used for practicing non-violent dissent in the face of unjust laws.

The need for a deterrence in the face of authoritarian excess is poorly answered by the call to fill everybody's hand.

by moat on Sun, 01/19/2014 - 6:18pm

Yes, that's what the gun nuts just don't understand. They seem to think a gun is like some magic wand that they can wave around or kill someone and, abracadabra, change the world.

If there are sufficient protesters on the ground, and sufficient support people backing them up, and sufficient public opinion in our favor we can win and make changes. It doesn't have to be a majority. If we have that we don't need guns. In fact guns are counter productive as violence invites an overwhelming response that some will see as justified and we will lose some popular support. On the other hand violence against unarmed non violent protesters tends to increase public support.

MLK's leadership of the civil rights movement is one of the clearest most powerful examples of this.

If we don't have sufficient protesters, supporters, or public support all the guns in the world will not help us win. In fact it will be an exercise in futility ending in many of us getting killed.

But the people at Waco and MOVE didn't even have the justification of resisting unjust or evil laws imo. That's the reason they got almost no public support, even when the government was condemned for the disastrous out come.

by ocean-kat on Mon, 01/20/2014 - 1:28am

The search warrant was justified not on the basis of there being proof that the Davidians had purchased anything illegal, but on the basis that they could be modifying legal arms to illegal arms, and that automatic weapon fire had been reported from the compound.^[29] The affidavit of Aguilera for the search warrant claimed that there were over 150 weapons in the compound. The paperwork on the AR-15 components cited in the affidavit showed that they were in fact legal semi-automatics; however, Aguilera told the judge: "I have been involved in many cases where defendants, following a relatively simple process, convert AR-15 semi-automatic rifles to fully automatic rifles of the nature of the M-16."^[30]Aguilera stated in the affidavit and later testified at trial that a neighbor had heard machine gun fire; however, Aguilera failed to tell the magistrate that the same neighbor had previously reported the noise to the local Waco sheriff, who investigated the neighbor's complaint. Paul Fatta, who was also involved in the failed takeover of the group in 1987, told The New York Times that Koresh and he had visited the sheriff after the surveillance had been spotted and claimed that the sheriff's office told them their guns were legal.^[31

^{seems significant difference between MOVE and Waco. Koresh got no support because of People magazine and tales of child brides. Not that taking a child bride is necessarily worse than burning one up in a fire.}

by PeraclesPlease on Mon, 01/20/2014 - 7:15am

You wrote; I really don't want to get into the details of how it spun out of control

The group was suspected of weapons violations

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waco_siege

So burn the building down with woman and children inside?

Here's another in a long line of abuses by government

Causes Randy Weaver refused offer to become an informant in exchange for dismissal of charge of possession of illegal weapons
Result Randy Weaver and Kevin Harris arrested; Vicki Weaver, Sammy Weaver and U.S. Marshal Bill Degan killed
Public outcry over Ruby Ridge and the subsequent Waco siege involving many of the same agencies and even the same personnel fueled the widening of the militia movement

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ruby_Ridge

Causes	Randy Weaver refused offer to become an informant in exchange for dismissal of charge of possession of illegal weapons
Result	Randy Weaver and Kevin Harris arrested; Vicki Weaver, Sammy Weaver and U.S. Marshal Bill Degan killed

Like so many, you don't see that our government has become just like the one WE originally replaced.

I suspect, if you had lived back in those days, you'd have said the families at Concord Bridge had it coming?

by Resistance on Sun, 01/19/2014 - 6:42pm

Blatant government abuse, and what are we going to do it about it

NOT A DAMN THING.

http://www.upworthy.com/meet-the-17-year-old-who-blew-the-lid-off-racial...

by Resistance on Sun, 01/19/2014 - 10:01pm

Perhaps you haven't noticed but citizens have protested Stop and Frisk. There was a Progressive elected in NYC in part because in part because they were fed up with Stop and Frisk.

by rmrd0000 on Sun, 01/19/2014 - 10:22pm

Perhaps you haven't noticed; in mayoral races Gun control advocates are losing.

Lets hope the gun control advocates, don't cause the loss of Democratic control of the Senate?

With Stop and Frisk, I could see where 2nd Amendment supporters would oppose police abuse and would agree to help stop this tyranny.

by Resistance on Mon, 01/20/2014 - 6:34am

I was addressing your statement that no one was doing anything about government abuse. People are not fearful of the government and are protesting multiple issues. Gun control advocates are exercising their right to protest, some pro-gun activists see the need to show up even at small gatherings of gun control advocates. The pro- gun activists show up armed to intimidate the gun control activists. The fear is not of the government.

by rmrd0000 on Mon, 01/20/2014 - 8:09am

There has always been blatant government abuse. There is significantly less government abuse now than 100 years ago. That change to a freer more just society didn't come about from violently resisting the government with force of arms. It came about from education, political activism, unions, protests, voting, non violent resistance.

What are we going to do? I've been doing things all my life. Depending on my circumstances sometimes a little, sometimes a lot. I've fund raised, canvassed, and protested. A few times I've put my body on the line and walked with others toward cops with assault rifles. That's always a scary thing to do since there's always a small risk that some nervous foolish cop will get trigger happy. It never happened but I'll confess every time I was in one of those situations I was scared. I can't think of a single time in over 35 years of political activism when I thought bringing my guns would have increased our chance of success.

As rmrd pointed out people in NYC are doing something and having some success. I'm 2,500 miles away from NYC so I can't do anything about stop and frisk, but I'm active in border control issues in southern Arizona. I have always been active in some way on what ever issues most directly affect the area I lived in.

What are you doing or have you ever done to help make the world a freer more just place?

by ocean-kat on Mon, 01/20/2014 - 1:21am

Answer below

PS The folks at Waco died because those folks stood up to a government trying to violate their Second Amendment rights. Before the Waco incident, did the folks at Waco kill someone outside the compound or rob a bank? and for this they are fried? BTW The authorities could have arrested Koresh anytime he went into town?

At Ruby Ridge: Weaver reportedly had a sawed off shotgun. His family is murdered for this?

WHERE WERE YOU?

Nice to be among many witnesses, just in case the authorities go nuts?

As reported Ben Franklin said " Three men can keep a secret, as long as two of them are dead"

Each of these tragic incidents, could have been avoided, had the gun control advocates honored the Second Amendment.

You talk of the great causes you've been involved with and that's Great. Maybe you got a Purple Heart ?

23 Thus says the Lord: y“Let not the wise man boast in his wisdom, let not the mighty man boast in his might, let not the rich man boast in his riches, 24 but zlet him who boasts boast in this, that he understands and knows me, that I am the Lord who practices steadfast love, justice, and righteousness in the earth. aFor in these things I delight, declares the Lord.”

Jeremiah 9:23-24

PSS Authorities realized MLK had protection from the multitudes that surrounded him, but they finally got him with a snipers bullet.

I wish King was still here today, but maybe he should have had more protection, not less.

by Resistance on Mon, 01/20/2014 - 6:17am

What in the.....

You wrote:

PSS Authorities realized MLK had protection from the multitudes that surrounded him, but they finally got him with a snipers bullet.

James Earl Ray wasn't "the authorities". Why do you always do that, why do you always insert some epic obvious lie in everything you have ever written? Is that so everyone will have one more clue that you are just a lying troll attempting to get a rise out of people, and then you head back to redstate or the blaze to tell tale of your BS? Or is this what you believe, you somehow believe James Earl Ray was a GMan?

Damn, it is so easy to debunk your crazy theories that you literally pull from your back end and yet you continue. SMH...

by tmccarthy0 on Mon, 01/20/2014 - 10:02am

Find reply at bottom of page

by Resistance on Mon, 01/20/2014 - 12:14pm

Props due to this conservative Christian for his op-ed:

http://www.theamericanconservative.com/dreher/the-evil-in-nigeria/

by artappraiser on Wed, 01/15/2014 - 6:04pm

From the article

Is this really how you witness to orthodox Christian truth? Really?

They don't care to hear the witness, they'll start by mocking the messenger and when they don't shut up, they'll persecute the Christians too, because everyone is powerless to stop it.

by Resistance on Thu, 01/16/2014 - 10:09pm

by Resistance on Mon, 01/20/2014 - 5:22am

TMC wrote Damn, it is so easy to debunk your crazy theories that you literally pull from your back end and yet you continue

http://www.dagblog.com/link/dozens-reportedly-arrested-nigeria-amid-anti...

I believe the authorities, knew more than you'll ever know.

Later developments

In 1997, King's son Dexter met with Ray, and publicly supported his efforts to obtain a retrial. Loyd Jowers, a restaurant owner in Memphis, was brought to civil court and sued as being part of a conspiracy to murder Martin Luther King. Jowers was found legally liable, ………

Dr. William Pepper, a friend of King in the last year of his life, represented Ray in a televised mock trial in an attempt to get him the trial he never had. ………. The King family has since concluded that Ray did not have anything to do with the murder of Martin Luther King, Jr.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Earl_Ray

It's been a long time since you've responded. I wish you'd go back into retirement; go back to the darkness you came from and their you can keep your venom and nastiness.

by Resistance on Mon, 01/20/2014 - 12:23pm

Perhaps, but the theory that the staties, feds, and mafia conspired to kill King is FAR from proven based on Wiki entries (your own), Jowers, etc. This is true whether or not Ray killed King.

by Peter Schwartz on Mon, 01/20/2014 - 12:36pm

Now don't you get sidetracked. I might not have dotted the I's or crossed the T's and giving some the opportunity to find fault with the main point. I believe King would have been alive today if he'd have surrounded himself with armed guards. Peaceful protests are one thing but protecting oneself in order to staying alive, is better.

Maybe you believe everyone loved MLK?

We now know the FBI spied upon him; it wouldn't surprise me, to find, our domestic covert operatives may have worked a little overtime, concerning this individual.just as they did all Vietnam protestors.

His message was not accepted, by many who considered him an enemy of the United States.

Maybe I don't have the proof. just as the King family couldn't prove it, because the cleaners made sure of that; but I'm not that naive not to know; if our government assassinates folks in foreign countries, what makes you think they give a crap about a minister in this country who agitate folks, contrary to the wishes of those in power; if the opportunity availed itself?

by Resistance on Mon, 01/20/2014 - 3:18pm

JFK was surrounded by armed Secret Service agents and was not protected. Malcolm X's guards were distracted by loud noises. James Earl Ray was hidden. Like an termed Diallo. King would still have died.

by rmrd0000 on Mon, 01/20/2014 - 5:14pm

I might be getting sidetracked. Then again, you might be tip-toeing over the tracks as though they weren't there.

It is possible that had King had a contingent of sharpshooters on the roof of his motel and on the balcony aiming their guns out at all points from which King could have been vulnerable...they would've noticed the barrel of a gun parting the curtains in a room across the way.

But otherwise...

If there had been armed guards on the balcony with him, he still would have been shot and they, too, perhaps.

There are all kinds of possibilities, but possibilities are still a long way from the truth. I don't have to think naively to think that you haven't laid a solid foundation for what you assert to be true--and that's NOT just a matter crossing the eyes and dotting the tees. It's a matter of what ACTUALLY happened and what did not happen. That's not a trivial distinction.

With respect, what you're doing here is dumping a whole bunch of possibilities, some more possible or likely than others, into a pot, swirling it around, and portraying the product as the truth, or suggesting strongly that it is or could be or might be the truth and is more the truth than anything else. But you haven't made the case, IMO, and would accuse your critics of being nitpickers.

by Peter Schwartz on Mon, 01/20/2014 - 5:20pm

With respect, what you're doing here is dumping a whole bunch of possibilities, some more possible or likely than others, into a pot, swirling it around, and portraying the product as the truth, or suggesting strongly that it is or could be or might be the truth and is more the truth than anything else.,

Bingo Sherlock

Draw your own conclusions; bury your head in the sand if it makes you happy.

I don't trust the government and I am not alone and particularly, now with the Snowden revelations; Proving once again, the government cant be trusted. Of course everything they do is for our own good. because WE the People, "cant handle the truth" We have to sift through all the lies.

Cant even get the Government people in charge of the Departments, to tell Congress the truth.

We have to catch them in their lies. Prove they lied.

No disrespect intended; Prove it or it's not true?

It's hard to prove anything, if the liars and crooks hide or shred the evidence

Who was it that was requested to bring forth Tapes and lo and behold several minutes are erased, Imagine that.

by Resistance on Mon, 01/20/2014 - 6:04pm

Yes, but the fact that the "government lies" doesn't mean the government ALWAYS lies. It doesn't mean that any assertion anyone ever makes about any and all purported government malfeasance is true.

All this does is make you a sheep of a different color, drawn this way and that by anyone who says anything about any alleged government skullduggery. But the form of these allegations in which the government is always pulling the wool over our eyes to harm us turns in on itself.

I'm drawing my conclusions (in any case) but you haven't shown anything. Forget about proving. You haven't given us any reason to believe anything you've written here. You're just dealing in rumor and innuendo. This is about as good as saying that because many Christians were anti-Semitic for 1000 years and killed many Jews as a result any allegation of anti-Semitism against a Christian, particularly one who believes in the literal truth of the NT as those old time Christians did, must be true, or has a good chance of being true, or is probably true, regardless of the merits of the evidence presented or not presented.

And if I choose not to believe the allegation because the evidence is poor and the argument is weak, I'm simply sticking my head in the sand. But I wouldn't be "in sand" if I disbelieved or questioned these allegations, I'd be "insane" to believe them.

by Peter Schwartz on Mon, 01/20/2014 - 7:38pm

Who told you; you weren't already

When the rumors become facts, you'll be just like those, who couldn't put the dots together.

Despite many telling you, " look, another dot"

"What dots"; you'll say

"But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object, evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism

http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/declare.asp

Many suspected the government was spying on us, but there was no proof; and the government kept denying and being oh so righteous on protecting our 4th Amendment rights.

"It's illegal" they would say...but that never stopped them.

It has been reported that government agents infiltrated meetings, they even placed moles to stir up members to act, so that their fellow agents could bust the assembling of others together. At first it was rumors, but some groups found the Government did scheme and promote lawlessness to bust up antiwar groups.

"It's illegal" they would say...but that never stopped them.

by Resistance on Mon, 01/20/2014 - 9:30pm

And when the rumors don't become facts, no one will remember (or care) that you asserted they were facts or could've been facts or would've been facts if only they were facts and time and news and discussion will have moved on.

Yet, it will still be a fact that the rumors weren't facts and that won't change no matter how much you insisted that they coulda, woulda, shoulda been facts.

This is what FOX and demagogues do: They put some suggestive, plausible-sounding chum out into the waters. If they get a big bite, they feel vindicated; if they don't, they're on to the next hot fishing spot, and no one remembers because the whole thing, often, is too ridiculous to dwell on.

Neither you nor they are showing a basic respect for the factual or evidentiary basis of your arguments. A weak argument, if it meets a few criteria, is just as good as a good argument. You're just throwing out a bunch of chum hoping something bites. And hey, if it doesn't, it sure sounded good for a while. Next!

But...

IF it turns out that the government in cahoots with the mob did rub out MLK that will be big news, and I'll be the first to say you were right. Nonetheless, to circle back, it STILL won't mean that having armed guards would've necessarily saved MLK for all the obvious reasons.

by Peter Schwartz on Mon, 01/20/2014 - 9:48pm

I'll also lose my bowels if it increases your satisfaction at having been right.

More seriously...

There are many things any of us can say that might be right without our having any good reason for knowing they're right. This isn't what I'd call knowledge.

For example, it's possible that one early caveman jumped out of a New Yorker cartoon and told his fellows: "You know, I do believe the earth revolves around the sun."

Some millennia later, scientists prove that this unknown caveman was, in fact, right. But was he really right--did he really know? Was there any real reason for his fellows to be convinced he was right and knew what he was talking about?

Not at all.

And stacked against this one right statement, his methods, such as they were, led him astray many times. For example, he believed that hitting a woman over the head with a club was the right way to nab a girlfriend. Even if it worked some of the time, it wasn't the right thing for him to do.

Plus, he believed that a new person would begin to grow spontaneously inside a woman's belly after she had eaten an apple and serpent had slithered by. He had seen it happen that way many times. Why not? Sounded logical.

by Peter Schwartz on Mon, 01/20/2014 - 10:00pm

Please no more bowel movements, theres enough shite to wade through.

by Resistance on Mon, 01/20/2014 - 10:25pm

There you can keep your venom and nastiness

Did you reflect on your own responses to people when you wrote that?

by rmrd0000 on Mon, 01/20/2014 - 5:20pm

You really want to go there again? Have I ever wrote about you or anyone else as she wrote to me you literally pull from your back end

Should I say that to you?

by Resistance on Mon, 01/20/2014 - 5:38pm

You had no problems talking about my gastrointestinal function.

by rmrd0000 on Mon, 01/20/2014 - 7:16pm

Hey McFlyyyyy, I just asked you upstream and if you really wanted to go back and discuss that some more. Evidently you want too? I was definitely chastised for my comment, but not a word when others become abusive towards me or others? Where were you when the level of rudeness, in the last few weeks were leveled at other contributors. Didn't see you speaking up then. Crickets chirping.

You had no problems talking about my gastrointestinal function.

I realize now, I really don't want to be near enough to see your eyes, when it does weaken.

by Resistance on Mon, 01/20/2014 - 9:33pm

I admit that I don't see you as a victim. There seem to be posts of yours that have been removed. This does not appear to be isolated. Are you removing these on your own or are others removing them?

I am not the only one that has come under attack. You have labeled a great number of people as so-called Christians. Do you not think many would find that offensive? Did you even care?

Perhaps others would find empathy for you if you show empathy for the feelings of others.

by rmrd0000 on Mon, 01/20/2014 - 9:43pm

I find it offensive when folks condemn Christians, never separating out the differences between the many sects.

Some atheists or agnostics can say; "SEE there; Christians have caused the most wars in the 20th century" NO, not Christians only So - called Christians have caused the wars.

Christians don't murder in the name of Christ, Christians don't go around beating on homosexuals. So- called Christians do that.

When the Wars were going on, So - called Christian ministers, would bless the troops. On both sides in some instances. Dragging God into carnal warfare against another human?

When it is written God is impartial.

There are many other examples of So called Christians, being in direct conflict of what the scriptures actually say (and I'm not speaking of imperfect flesh, because we all sin ), but religious rituals, actually condemned by GOD, yet so -called Christians have made a a condemned ritual a part of their Faith. but Jesus himself as a representative of the Most High, condemns their actions and service. saying "It is in vain they worship me"

Would Jesus call them So called Christians or CINO's?

by Resistance on Mon, 01/20/2014 - 11:35pm

You are not the final word on the meaning of the Bible.

You are not the accepted interpreter of God's word

You are a fallible human being prone to error.

Why should you be accepted as an authority?

You talk about carrying arms to fight against an oppressive government

Then you talk about Christians not murdering in the name of Christ

You condemn ministers who praise warriors.

If you consider battle and war murder, why are you arming to murder government officials?

by rmrd0000 on Mon, 01/20/2014 - 11:38pm

Amazing, We've already discussed many of these questions upstream yet you find a way to twist the words, to fit your smear.

Again; Mine or anyone else liberty, is not to be determined by YOUR conscience. You are not our keeper. You have no right to deprive law abiding citizens, their Second Amendment rights

You are acting like the other so- called Christians who actively seek to deny same sex marriage to others. You should mind your own business. Everyone will have to answer for themselves. As I see it, if YOU don't agree with another persons choice, you will determine everyone else's liberty?

arrogant (ˈærəɡənt)

adj

1. having or showing an exaggerated opinion of one's own importance, merit, ability, etc; conceited;

You are not the final word on the meaning of the Bible.

GOD is the final word. He can Speak for himself, through his written word, that is why I include his words many times

You are not the accepted interpreter of God's word

I don't need to be, God is able to speak for himself, through his written word

You are a fallible human being prone to error.

Aren't we all, unless your thinking, you are without sin and are not prone to error?

But from the way you are asking your questions I sense you're trying to trap me?

Not a kind gesture, but it's a usual tactic of yours.

Why should you be accepted as an authority?

I know of many scriptures in the Bible Book, does that make me an authority? Should someone accept you as the authority, is that your problem? . I use the scriptures as the authority.When I use the scriptures, they're not my words. but his, who had them recorded .

You talk about carrying arms to fight against an oppressive government

You are one piece of work, with your twisting of words We were talking of the use of Deterrents by others as a means of preventing oppressive government.

Are you foolish? NO one wants another Revolutionary war.

Our forefathers did all they could to avoid the war.

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

I am content; on waiting for the deliverer, but that doesn't give me the right, to stop others who are not looking for a deliverer, but instead look to the Constitution as the keeper of the solemn promises.

I am not going to overthrow the government or would I tell others to do so.

That's an individuals conscience matter, as it was our forefathers before us .Why do you insist on determining other peoples liberty?

When you talk about Christians not murdering in the name of Christ

What" You didn't know Jesus told Peter to put away the sword?

But I'll ask; Who said; those without God shouldn't have protection YOU?

I have only presented some of the reasons, why some want the protection, the forefathers carefully considered, when the Second Amendment was adopted. Why do you have such a hard time understanding? Evidently your lack of empathy has blinded you to historic facts?

You condemn ministers who praise warriors.

Christian ministers who praise Christian warriors? Shouldn't Christian ministers be reminding Christians, about the lesson learned in the garden by Peter?

If you consider battle and war murder, why are you arming to murder government official

I AM NOT ARMING, nor disarming. You on the other hand want to meddle in the Law. Limit what some consider a Right

You have this idea, that deterrents lead to an overthrow, when in fact deterrents are supposed to prevent conflict.

Maybe this would help you understand?

de·ter·rent (d-tûrnt, -tr-)

adj.

Tending to deter: deterrent weapons.

1. Something that deters: a deterrent to theft.

2. A retaliatory means of discouraging enemy attack: a nuclear deterrent.

If other citizens want to protect themselves; Don't you deprive them of their liberty, just because of your conscience.

by Resistance on Tue, 01/21/2014 - 7:33am

Let's define smear. You repeatedly label others so-called Christians. That is a smear.

There is disagreement on the interpretation of the Scriptures. You are not the final arbiter.

The tale of the Good Samaritan to many is a message that Christians are called to aid those in need. The modern interpretation of this is that Christians should offer aid to Catholics, Muslims, Gays, and very ethnic group and gender when those individuals are in need.

Many Christians find the message of Paul to include of hope, faith and charity, charity is the most important. That charity includes non-Christians. The message of Sodom is that a powerful land can be destroyed when, as the prophet Ezekiel notes, it becomes arrogant and deals harshly with the poor and strangers (immigrants).

There are disagreements on Interpretation of Scripture. Is it a smear to point out those differences?

Is not labeling others so-called Christians a smear?

by rmrd0000 on Tue, 01/21/2014 - 8:07am

You really like to boast about your works, don’t you?

I always thought I was being kind, when I used the term “So-called Christians” , I should have been using the apostles own words, to describe so- called as IMPOSTERS False Apostles

12 And what I am doing I will continue to do, kin order to undermine the claim of those who would like to claim that in their boasted mission they work on the same terms as we do. 13 For such men are lfalse apostles, mdeceitful workmen, ndisguising themselves as apostles of Christ. 14 And no wonder, for even Satan disguises himself as oan angel of light. 15 So it is no surprise if his servants, also, disguise themselves as pservants of righteousness. qTheir end will correspond to their deeds.

2 Corinthians 11:12-15

12 Indeed, all who desire to vlive a godly life in Christ Jesus wwill be persecuted, 13 while xevil people and impostors will go on from bad to worse, deceiving and ybeing deceived.

2 Timothy 3:12-13

The term Imposter didn’t bother the apostles, who did everything they could to expose them. .Are you angry, because the apostles helped Christians identify them? Yet you're angry at me; falsely accusing me of being uncaring, because I use the term "So-Called"

Boasting again; that you would sugar coat the message, the apostles warned about and that makes you a better ? You then attack me, because I tell it like it is?

So that you won’t get tripped over the meaning

im·pos·tor

noun: imposter

1.a person who pretends to be someone else in order to deceive others, esp. for fraudulent gain.

Fraudulent gain? Sounds like many of the Churches today. Congregants, can pay the clergy class, to tell them only what they want to hear; to tickle their ears; because the Truth hurts. Imposters don’t care if in the end, you suffer for the lack of accurate knowledge.

3 mFor the time is coming when people will not endure nsound1teaching, but having itching ears they will accumulate for themselves teachers to suit their own passions, 4 and owill turn away from listening to the truth and pwander off into myths.

2 Timothy 4:3-4

You asked "Is not labeling others so-called Christians a smear?"

NO, it's a warning, so that others might not be misled by IMPOSTERS

by Resistance on Tue, 01/21/2014 - 12:21pm

You would be considered the impostor by many.

by rmrd0000 on Tue, 01/21/2014 - 12:34pm

I have to agree. Its not any of my business to make character judgments about people based on how well they follow the precepts of their religion. But since resistance doesn't think its at all insulting nor does he think its a smear there should be no problem what so ever for me to say that based on my reading of the bible I consider him a "so called Christian."

That's not something I'd say to anyone else here because I wouldn't want to smear them. But since resistance has made it clear he believes its not a smear I'm sure there won't be any hard feelings for me calling him a so called christian. In fact he'll probably want to thank me for offering this warning and being so kind to him as he has so often been kind to others by calling them "so called christians.".

by ocean-kat on Tue, 01/21/2014 - 1:37pm

Agreed, I find it sad that a joyless, believe what I believe or die religion is what is being offered. Much of what I see is a hatred of those who have a different view. I see very little true Christianity in what R proposes. As I said before it is all fire and brimstone and no Good News.

by rmrd0000 on Tue, 01/21/2014 - 1:49pm

Do you think I am surprised that those who like their ears tickled would find fault with the messenger?

18 d“If the world hates you, know that it has hated me before it hated you. 19 eIf you were of the world, the world would love you as its own; but because fyou are not of the world, but I chose you out of the world, therefore the world hates you. 20 Remember the word that I said to you: g‘A servant is not greater than his master.’ If they persecuted me, hthey will also persecute you. iIf they kept my word, they will also keep yours. 21 But jall these things they will do to youkon account of my name, lbecause they do not know him who sent me.

John 15:18-21

Have I not told you, or are you unaware of the reward for those who do the will of God as opposed to those he has said, they will not enter the kingdom.

believe what I believe or die religion

It was the message Jesus spoke of, as he warned a wayward nation. His message: Believe and put faith in him, or perish.

Imagine that; Christians must obey God or receive the judgment for disobedience (perish).

Proving once again, you don't know the WAY.

Imposters

Luke 6:39

39 He also told them a parable: n“Can a blind man lead a blind man? Will they not both fall into a pit? Also Matthew 15:14

you wrote "As I said before it is all fire and brimstone and no Good News"

It's obvious, you want to hear about the reward, but you don't want to follow in Jesus; footsteps; receiving what he and the apostles endured, to get the prize. You want a message of joy, nothing but happy talk.

21 pFrom that time Jesus began to show his disciples that qhe must go to Jerusalem and rsuffer many things from the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and on sthe third day be raised.22 And Peter took him aside and began to rebuke him, saying, “Far be it from you, Lord!1 This shall never happen to you.” 23 But he turned and said to Peter, t“Get behind me, Satan! You are ua hindrance2 to me. For you vare not setting your mind on the things of God, but on the things of man.”

Matthew 16:21-23

You keep giving them the message of Imposters.

by Resistance on Tue, 01/21/2014 - 3:15pm

Do you think I am surprised that those who like their ears tickled would find fault with the messenger?

But, but, you posted, "I always thought I was being kind, when I used the term “So-called Christians” " I wasn't trying to find fault. I was just trying to be kind, like you.

by ocean-kat on Tue, 01/21/2014 - 3:20pm

I disagree with your interpretation of Scripture, I agree with the true message of Jesus. You quote Scripture out of context.

We are having a discussion. I am not persecuting you. You quote Scripture out of context to place yourself as a victim. I think that your view of Christianity strips it of the true freedom found in focusing on others, rather than insisting, as you do, that you are in possession of Biblical truth. I reject your interpretation as that of a flawed view of a human being.

Do I believe that I possess total Biblical truth? No. I also know that your interpretation is not the truth.

I wish you well on your path to God. I think that you are currently on the wrong path. This is not a slur against you. This is not persecution of you. These words are what my faith guides me to say. We disagree on the message in the Bible.

by rmrd0000 on Tue, 01/21/2014 - 3:46pm

I disagree with your interpretation of Scripture, ....... You quote Scripture out of context.

Oh please, I would like for you to interpret Matthew 16:21-23 Show us the gift you have. Prove to me, that Jesus really wanted for Peter to give him a pep talk. You keep saying the gospel should always talk of the Good news. Jesus aptly applied this lack of understanding back to the originator of this type of happy talk.... SATAN . So again give us your interpretation since you disagree with mine.

by Resistance on Tue, 01/21/2014 - 5:00pm

See below

by rmrd0000 on Tue, 01/21/2014 - 5:07pm

Was listening to MLK's speech in Memphis the day before he was shot. He had a long discursus on the Good Samaritan story. The point: why "we" should do things that don't help us and even involve sacrifice on our part--for example, staying home from work to march with the sanitation workers--to help others.

He talked a lot about the road from Jerusalem to Jericho, and how it was a dangerous road filled with twists and turns and ready spots for bandits to hide. And perhaps it was the danger of the road that kept the Levite from getting out and helping the man in need. But the Samaritan got out to help in spite of the potential danger to himself.

by Peter Schwartz on Tue, 01/21/2014 - 2:28pm

The easiest thing to do is say that someone is poor or came to harm because they were not Christian or a good enough Christian. That only requires someone to sit in judgment. The harder thing is to actually is to take action. Christians who do harm to Gays, or encourage other Christians to do harm to Gays are no different than the people in Sodom who were ready to commit rape and sodomy.

by rmrd0000 on Tue, 01/21/2014 - 4:24pm

I notice you failed to provide us your interpretation, but you challenged mine?

I guess I'll take your silence as an admission that mine was correct?

All the good works you speak of is good Christian conduct. Yet you and many others fail to understand, the primary purpose of Christianity, was to warn others.

When God chose a Nation, because they vowed to obey, he also sent his many prophets to warn the Nation, that they were in violation of the arrangement

You want good news

Good news: A King is born (elementary stuff) and the good news is, the King is returning with a sword, to remove those who disobey.

Something you don't want to hear, and want to reject. Your rejection means you would not perform your Christian obligation, to warn others; just as Jesus warned people in his day as did Noah, Moses, Jeremiah Ezekiel, and many more; who said in affect "Send me, I'll give the message that some don't want to hear, I'll take the abuse and the ridicule"

How much abuse do you endure, because you tell the Nations, feed the poor?

Those who pronounce an impending doom to the Nations, are the ones abused.

That is God's arrangement, for saving mankind and just because you don't like the message or don't care to obey his command to deliver it, Anyone who listens to you, rather than God; loses out.

by Resistance on Tue, 01/21/2014 - 5:55pm

I highly recommend Garry Wills's Under God. It's about the role of religion in America and especially American politics. Very wide-ranging, including over the black religious experience, and probably subject to all sorts of caveats.

However, he talked about some distinct differences between the black evangelical and white evangelical churches. I'm sure I'd mess it up if I tried to capture all the nuance he puts into it, but here's a taste.

In the black church, there has been a much greater emphasis, relatively speaking, on community--everyone getting "there" together--and on forgiveness for those who fall by the wayside.

All stemming, I think he would say, from the slave experience. When people are under such harsh and hopeless conditions, it's more important to forgive and include and reach to pick back up than to judge harshly and exclude.

So less a focus on individual salvation than on group deliverance. So, again relatively speaking, the Children of Israel feature more prominently and Jesus as one's individual savior less prominently than in the white evangelical churches.

by Peter Schwartz on Tue, 01/21/2014 - 6:35pm

Thanks

It was a good read.

I really don't recognize the type of Christian Church Resistance is describing. Perhaps is it what Rev. Hagee is about although, I thought that the Scriptural basis for the Conservatism was a little more sound then I get from Resistance.

by rmrd0000 on Tue, 01/21/2014 - 6:53pm

Resistance seems to be an outlier. It is hard to follow a direct line in his thought process

by rmrd0000 on Tue, 01/21/2014 - 8:47pm

Maybe theology from Thieme or Frank Schaeffer...perhaps with some political antecedents with William Jennings Bryan.

by Peter Schwartz on Tue, 01/21/2014 - 10:04pm

Thieme is pro-military, not a Resistance position. Schaefer was attempting to work within the system to achieve political goals, again not a Resistance position. I just think he is a one off.

by rmrd0000 on Tue, 01/21/2014 - 11:18pm

I tried to make that distinction by noting "theology."

They clearly part ways on a number of political stances--though Resistance does like his 2nd Amendment. In this, he may be a bit like LULU.

Bryan might be a more apposite antecedent--but I don't know enough about him to be sure. He was a literalist, but drew from that many positions we would call liberal.

In fact, the evangelical contribution to today's liberalism would be an interesting study, based on what I read in Under God.

Resistance appears to be most extreme (to me) when he delves into theological and biblical matters.

He likes to fire up the brimstone, for sure.

by Peter Schwartz on Wed, 01/22/2014 - 1:00pm

Resistance does like his 2nd Amendment.

As do many others, who respect and appreciate the Constitution and the laws set forth to restrict the government from diluting or infringing on our Rights. Such as Freedom of Religion.

All of the Rights need to be protected, guarded against encroachment. Weakening one, gives the foes encouragement, to attack the others.

I wish others would understand; Other peoples Liberty, should not be determined by some peoples conscience.

BTW I have been meditating on why the forefathers placed a priority on which was more important and should be listed first.

AMENDMENT I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

To be followed by

AMENDMENT II

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

Could it be, those who believed in god prevailed at the assembly and those who did not have a belief in God, looked to their own salvation through self protection?

by Resistance on Wed, 01/22/2014 - 3:10pm

I don't think so. But who knows?

by Peter Schwartz on Wed, 01/22/2014 - 4:05pm

Reply is below.

by A Guy Called LULU on Wed, 01/22/2014 - 4:21pm

No. I am correcting settled facts Resistance, first and foremost, Dr. King was not killed by the United States Government, whether or not you've read some fascist-right wing infowars website, nope, sorry. You wrote down an obvious lie. The facts are Dr. King was killed by James Earl Ray; southern cracker, angry white man, criminal, a man who wanted KKK bounty money.

And yes, I did muse about your motives, I still think you are trolling hard, and I can't believe others continue to engage in with the seriousness that they do. Sorry, that is what I think.

by tmccarthy0 on Wed, 01/22/2014 - 10:36am

LOL

You may correct about the trolling part. It is hard to believe that he holds to positions that cannot be defended.

by rmrd0000 on Wed, 01/22/2014 - 12:20pm

Thank you, I appreciate and look forward any civil discussion of this issue.

I don't believe you have all the facts of the case, to determine whether MLK, wasn't murdered as a result of a conspiracy.

Do you really believe, well organized conspirators, just leave information behind?

Why should anyone trust your opinion over those who were there and provided information ?

The King family and others believe that the assassination was carried out by a conspiracy involving the US government, and that James Earl Ray was a scapegoat. This conclusion was affirmed by a jury in a 1999 civil trial (CORETTA SCOTT KING vs. LOYD JOWERS).^{[note 1][48]}

In 2004, Jesse Jackson, who was with King at the time of his death, noted:

The fact is there were saboteurs to disrupt the march. [And] within our own organization, we found a very key person who was on the government payroll. So infiltration within, saboteurs from without and the press attacks. …I will never believe that James Earl Ray had the motive, the money and the mobility to have done it himself. Our government was very involved in setting the stage for and I think the escape route for James Earl Ray.^[49]

According to biographer Taylor Branch, King's friend and colleague James Bevel put it more bluntly: "[T]here is no way a ten-cent white boy could develop a plan to kill a million-dollar black man."^[50]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assassination_of_Martin_Luther_King,_Jr.

^[49]http://www.democracynow.org/2004/1/15/rev_jesse_jackson_on_mad_dean

Author, activist, and Christian theologian Jim Douglass who attended the trial commented in The Fellowship of Reconciliation magazine:

This historic trial was so ignored by the media

that, apart from the courtroom participants, I was the only person who attended it from beginning to end. What I experienced in that courtroom ranged from inspiration at the courage of the Kings, their lawyer-investigator William F. Pepper, and the witnesses,

to amazement at the government's carefully interwoven plot to kill Dr. King. The seriousness with which US intelligence agencies planned the murder of Martin Luther King, Jr. speaks eloquently of the threat King and nonviolence represented to the powers that be in the spring of 1968.^[8]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loyd_Jowers

But all of this, is besides the point, if the government did have an involvement in the assassination, what deterrents do the people have to keep the government in line even IF it was proven they were involved ?

We know our government, had an American Citizen, assassinated in a foreign country. What makes you think they wouldn't do so in America.

Why do you think Snowden fled? You think he trusted the government.A government who now attempts to smear Snowden as some commie? The same as our government thought Martin Luther King was a commie? Do you think some of the people in power have renounced McCarthyism?

Should we believe you, just because you might say "they wouldn't dare" or they wouldn't do such a thing and if they did, we'd find the evidence"?

Say we found the evidence, because of an error on the part of the conspirators; What are you going to do about it? NOTHING, because the government would put fear in the hearts of those who would want to stand up, and to insure the people couldn't do anything, other than cry out; they would disarm them, as all tyrants and authoritarian governments have always done in the past.

by Resistance on Wed, 01/22/2014 - 3:24pm

But let's say your theory is entirely correct.

The government did it, however it did it.

Did all or any of the guns in America stop it?

Did all the guns in TX stop the JFK assassination?

How about RFK's assassination?

Let's say the government pulled off 911.

Did any of the guns in the hands of Americans stop it?

Could they have stopped it?

What would that scenario have looked like?

This is a bit like saying the Japanese never invaded mainland America because they knew millions of Americans were armed. Really? I don't think so.

I find the claim that the 2nd Amendment is somehow enabling Americans to protect themselves against government encroachment to be nonsensical. Look at all the encroachment we have. Look at all the guns we have. How's it working out for us?

Not very well. And that's NOT because we have too few guns. We have plenty.

by Peter Schwartz on Wed, 01/22/2014 - 4:14pm

TMac, ever worshipping at the altar of orthodoxy.

No, James Earl Ray wasn't a "southern cracker", despite your monopoly on "the facts"- he was born & grew up in Illinois, went into the military including time in Germany, went to jail in California and again in Illinois, then 3 years in Leavenworth, then Missouri State Pen, then escaped to Puerto Vallerta, Mexico before getting bored and returning to LA. Note: no "South" in that southern cracker.

Suddenly in LA, this 39-year-old serial convict southern cracker gets born-again interested in George Wallace and politics, has his face reconstructed and starts driving around the south with a gun looking for civil rights figures. Yep, a guy who's been holding up Krogers for $120 and forging mail orders suddenly finds religion and gets himself a real gun, a 30-odd-6. A guy who couldn't even manage the Mexican porn business returns to LA Nov 19, and by December he's writing letters intending to immigrate to Rhodesia, and by March he's changed his face and instead of going to Rhodesia, he's in Atlanta looking for MLK. A lot happens in 4 months. Just by luck, he picks up a paper and realizes MLK's gone to Memphis...

Sure, he may have done it alone. And he may have had help. It's pretty audacious to categorically state something or other when the "facts" are so murky, and there were so many shady figures in the background pulling the strings. But have it.

By the way, he was buried in Ireland, home of his ancestors - you're welcome to him.

by Anonymous PP (not verified) on Wed, 01/22/2014 - 4:24pm

How murky are the facts? I've paid almost no attention to this controversy. Same thing with the JFK controversy. I was surprised, when I read Case Closed by Posner, that a lot of the facts were not murky, but had been made murky by being overlooked, twisted, or flat out denied.

by Peter Schwartz on Wed, 01/22/2014 - 7:48pm

Well, I just outlined the timeline - feel comfortable that this petty hood who spent most of his adult 39 years in jail, breaks out of prison to Mexico where fails at porn, & then within a month of return to the US - LA - becomes a political/racist revenge animal, by month 5 is tracking MLK on the other side of the country despite being a prison escapee, so engaged that he's in Atlanta, reads that MLK is actually in Memphis, so drives 400 miles there? Where's he getting his money?

Is there anywhere in that scenario where a guy in sunglasses and a suitcase of cash wouldn't have sped things along? Is it conspiracy theory to say the FBI was tracking MLK with COINTELPRO and might have done something more than just send MLK anonymous letters asking him to kill himself, since they pretty effectively assassinated Fred Hampton and Mark Clark 1 year later.

There are plenty of sites with questions & conflicting details and testimony, at the time and later, MLK's family's court case for damages and whatever - you're welcome to believe any of it or not - but I'm hard pressed to believe it's easy to conclude James Earl Ray acted alone, open and shut.

by Anonymous PP (not verified) on Thu, 01/23/2014 - 1:39am

So is it murky that the FBI/ COINTELPRO killed Fred Hampton & Mark Clark, if you want analogous cases? Since you've paid no attention, does it make sense that a guy who spent most of his adult 39 years in jail returns to LA from his prison escape to Mexico, to suddenly become such an avid racist & political junkie he's driving across the country 5 months later with a reconstructed face, sits in Atlanta and notices MLK's not there but 400 miles away, drives there and kills him?

Yeah, might be true - I haven't spent a lot of time on this either, but a little digging says it's quite murky. Maybe he did act alone among all the bizarre details, but it's foolish to conclude it's an open-and-shut case considering how much the FBI & others wanted him out of the way, and the conflicting & changing testimony.

The "Official" Story

The scenario released by Memphis police and the FBI and later used by the House Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA) was that in late March of 1968, James Earl Ray had purchased a Remington 30.06 rifle from the Aeromarine Supply Store in Birmingham and had traveled with it to Memphis in a white Mustang. Here he checked into Bessie Brewer's boarding house in the 400 block of South Main Street on the afternoon of April 4th. Directly behind it was the Lorraine Motel on Mulberry Street.

At 6:00 p.m. Martin L. King stepped out of room 306 and was joined by a group of followers with whom he had been in a meeting all afternoon. He was gunned down only a minute later by a single shot from the rear bathroom window across the street.

Not one witness saw the actual firing of the shot or claimed it had come from the window. Most believed it had come from the bushes on the slope, fifty feet closer.

Still according to the official story, Ray allegedly ran out of the bathroom and down the hall to his room. Here he stuffed the rifle back into its box and included it with a bundle containing his clothes, binoculars, ammunition, a beer can with his fingerprints; and perhaps the most incriminating of all, a portable radio with his inmate number from the Missouri State Penitentiary engraved in the back side.

He ran down the stairs and out onto the street where he then dumped the bundle in the doorway of Canipe's Amusement Company next door to the rooming house. He then zoomed away in the soon-to-be-infamous white Mustang. He stayed a few days in Atlanta before moving on to Canada.

by PeraclesPlease on Thu, 01/23/2014 - 1:55am

You seem a bit loaded for bear...

I don't know enough about the details of the case to argue the facts.

I'm merely saying this: No case has involved "murkier" facts and spawned more "logical" theories and drawn more people to "poke holes" in the "official story" and find clarifying significance in apparently strange or random chains of events than the JFK assassination.

And truly, none of us know anything about this or most things except what we read and whom we choose to believe for this or that reason.

That said...

When I read Posner's book, Case Closed, I was astonished at how many "impossibilities" were clarified and "murky" facts unmurked by someone who did ACTUAL digging...meaning shoe leather reporting, interviewing, looking at original sources, and so on.

FWIW, I found the book credible. He's also written a book on this event, Killing The Dream, and come to a similar conclusion (from what I read). I haven't read it and can't vouch for it except to say that I think he's a serious investigator.

by Peter Schwartz on Thu, 01/23/2014 - 10:45am

Why exactly am I supposed to argue the JFK case with you? I'm fairly positive that Lee Harvey Oswald didn't kill MLK.

Note: I didn't say James Earl Ray didn't kill MLK - I said the facts were murky enough to make that not an easy 100% to conclude Ray killed MLK alone. Even your source, Poser, notes as much:

"Posner reports that a segregationist lawyer in St. Louis, John Sutherland, offered a bounty of $50,000 for King's murder -- and that Ray may well have known about the offer. Posner does not exclude the possibility that someone as yet unknown financed Ray."

James Earl Ray never pled guilty to killing MLK, he never went on trial (because he pleaded guilty but innocent of the act). We know the FBI's COINTELPRO organized by Frank Holloman tracked and harassed him. "legendary Civil Rights photographer Ernest Withers–turns out he was secretly working for the FBI as a paid informant all those years, snitching on Martin Luther King Jr. and his entourage."

Even the House committee on assassinations declares: "B. The Committee Believes, on the Basis of the Circumstantial Evidence Available to it, that there is a Likelihood that James Earl Ray Assassinated Dr. Martin Luther King, JR., as a Result of a Conspiracy"

But TMac, in her infinite wisdom, declares

No. I am correcting settled facts Resistance, first and foremost, Dr. King was not killed by the United States Government...The facts are Dr. King was killed by James Earl Ray; southern cracker, angry white man, criminal, a man who wanted KKK bounty money.

Case closed, the TMac has spoken. Forget lack of ballistics confirmation, forget lack of identification of the character running from the hotel, forget the strangeness of having a Ray-tagged prison radio dumped at the scene after all his time in Canada, Mexico, LA- Ray & Ray alone was responsible.

by PeraclesPlease on Thu, 01/23/2014 - 1:28pm

The fact that Ray was a pathetic loser doesn't mean anything. There's been numerous pathetic kooks attempting to assassinate presidents or planning other violent public actions. Even Squeaky Fromme got within inches of assassinating Ford. Hinckley shot Reagan and three others. If they fail people generally believe its just a lone crazy. Usually no conspiracy theories are generated. When they succeed people wonder how such a kook could have killed the president, the most protected man on the planet. They must have had help! All sorts of conspiracy theories are generated.

There's a huge market for conspiracy theories and they make big bucks for those who write the books. Therefore no matter how often they're debunked they'll continue to be spread and new ones will be generated.

by ocean-kat on Thu, 01/23/2014 - 3:01pm

The "pathetic loser" argument is also used against the thesis that LHO had the brains and wherewithal to have masterminded the assassination of the leader of the free world.

In his recent, The Third Bullet, Stephen Hunter takes this up and dramatizes another scenario in which pathetic loser LHO is made a patsy to the masterminds. Not good reading as a thriller nor well written, etc., but an interesting alternate take on the whole thing from a ballistics point of view.

The linchpins seem to be two or maybe three:

1) The third bullet that broke apart JFK's skull left no traces; it appears to have exploded (true or not, I'm not sure). Why has no one focused on that?

2) How could the real assassin have managed to shoot the third bullet and leave no ballistic traces which would have contraindicated LHO's gun?

3) LHO's scope was so poorly mounted to his gun, it could never have provided him with enough accuracy to hit his target.

Another interesting point: Apparently LHO's very best shot was when the motorcade slowed way down to take that wide turn and JFK would have been closest and his chest would have been facing Oswald. Why didn't he take THAT shot?

by Peter Schwartz on Thu, 01/23/2014 - 3:43pm

Squeaky Fromme tried to kill Ford in Sacramento - she got to stay in good ole CA.

She was politically motivated from the time of the Tate killings to shooting Gerry.

I.e. there was nothing out of character.

Hinckley was a weirdo obsessed with Jodie Foster from Taxi Driver. Killing the president was just more step in his stalker fantasy. He was also the son of rich parents, which allowed him to easily move around the country.

Getting a shot at MLK didn't require great skill (except the angle from the sloped bathtub and the window in the hotel as seen above. But MLK didn't have a lot of protection, especially after his bodyguards & police protection were pulled back that day - oops, conspiracy alert...)

Heading cross-country while a prison escapee to suddenly engage in political assassination instead of his MO of fraud, holdups, petty theft, porn is what's curious about Ray. Sure, it can happen - but it might be more likely to happen if someone were paying him, as money seems to be the reason for everything he did.

Of course since we know COINTELPRO & Project Minaret was messing with MLK, that by definition was a conspiracy against him. The question remains did COINTELPRO or another conspiracy involve Ray to kill MLK, or did Ray act alone. Draw your own conclusions, but it's not nutty to doubt government sources that continually lied and covered up involvement with MLK and other constitutional violations.

by PeraclesPlease on Thu, 01/23/2014 - 4:42pm

"James Earl Ray murdered the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. There is no evidence to support Ray's 30-year-old contention that he was a patsy drawn into an assassination conspiracy, or that a mysterious figure named Raoul was actually the killer, or that the FBI and the CIA have worked to cover up the truth about King's murder.

"Posner's new book covers all the questions that have been raised about Ray as King's killer. The author systematically examines each of the claims and theories that have sprung up around the King assassination and subjects each of them to logical scrutiny. In the end, the only one to survive Posner's careful examination is the official version of the event, that Ray was the lone assassin."

http://www.nytimes.com/books/98/04/19/daily/posner-book-review.html

by Peter Schwartz on Thu, 01/23/2014 - 3:28pm

from that, this is an interesting sentence, in pointing out a very successful sort of "conspiracy" as it were, as least in the number affected by it; my emphasis:

Along the way, Posner demonstrates how the great American pageant, in which grandstanding lawyers, gullible or sensation-seeking journalists and courtroom procedure helped to plant early suspicions that the murder involved something larger and more mysterious than could be accounted for by the lone-gunman theory

I like to think about how if all the minds that have worked on JFK conspiracy theories could instead have been harnassed to do something like work on the energy crisis....or reforming Congress...or whirled peas...

by artappraiser on Thu, 01/23/2014 - 4:04pm

We know the NSA's Operation Minaret spied on MLK, that COINTELPRO tried to get MLK to commit suicide, that MLK's photographer was an FBI informant.

In short, we've discovered a number of conspiracies against MLK.

If all the minds that had worked on JFK conspiracy theories had reformed the FBI & NSA, then maybe we wouldn't have needed Eric Snowden. But instead we have a knee-jerk reaction against conspiracy as if no conspiracies ever exist.

I pissed off a whole party one time by asking if people thought 9/11 was a conspiracy. Everyone said no. I pointed out that 19 people planning together was by definition a conspiracy. They were pissed, supposedly I implied "government conspiracy". Of course I have no idea who helped these 19 people, whether low-level government, high-level government or no government. I'm more amazed how we shun the idea of conspiracy so much it's trivial to conspire against us. It's like the gorilla walking unnoticed through the crowd.

by PeraclesPlease on Thu, 01/23/2014 - 4:53pm

Words have both definitions and connotations. If you chose a word with a connotation that has such a high emotional indice most will immediately understand it thusly To than "prove" them "wrong" by using the "official" definition, of course people are going to be pissed off.

One can try to communicate using words in the way they are most likely to be understood or play the "official" definition game. Connotations are just a real, true and correct as official definitions and often over time language changes enough the the connotation becomes the official definition. Its just an elitist game to show you're "smarter" than other people but all it really shows it that you're a pedant.

by ocean-kat on Thu, 01/23/2014 - 5:59pm

Well, when exactly did "conspiracy" get raised to equal "high level government conspiracy"? That's so "pedantic"?

What do you call a c_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ y that may just be a group of regular joes working behind the scenes? Why can we accept a conspiracy with Christie's aides using a lane closing for political purposes (whether that's exactly what happened), and not accept the idea that some conspiracy in government (e.g. airport workers?) might have taken place for an event as huge as 9/11?

My point was exactly that we'd eliminated the word for conspiracies, and without a word for it, people no longer identify with it and are more likely not to recognize one in front of their face.

Not that I'm "smarter", but simply it's like people have to accept an equation like "cutting taxes raises revenue" before you can talk to them, and then of course the outcome is already sunk. "Conspiracies are just made up hysteria by people with too much time or a political agenda" was the real definition these guys had.

But go ahead, get snippy with me - it's your groove, groove on it.

by PeraclesPlease on Thu, 01/23/2014 - 6:23pm

Bravo

by Resistance on Thu, 01/23/2014 - 6:50pm

What do you call a c_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ y that may just be a group of regular joes working behind the scenes?

We generally call that a conspiracy. Just a week ago a bunch of regular joes claimed to have long term health problems from working as first responders on 9/11 when they weren't even there. The news reports called it conspiracy to defraud.

Why can we accept a conspiracy with Christie's aides...and not accept the idea that some conspiracy in government (e.g. airport workers?) might have taken place for an event as huge as 9/11?

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. At the very least they require strong evidence.

My point was exactly that we'd eliminated the word for conspiracies, and without a word for it, people no longer identify with it and are more likely not to recognize one in front of their face.

No we haven't. News reports and average people talk about conspiracies involving regular joes, doctors, lawyers, government officials all the time. If you said "The 19 9/11 hijackers that conspired to blow up..." no one would have batted and eye. If you said "Forget Al Quaida. The hijackers were from Saudi Arabia and Bin Laden was a member of a rich Saudi family. 9/11 was a conspiracy financed by Saudi wealth." Many might consider that plausible.

But you asked if "people thought 9/11 was a conspiracy" knowing full well that virtually everyone's mind would jump to the most popular, extreme, and emotionally ridden conspiracy theory. That the Bush WH planned it and then planted bombs to blow up the building. When people said no you played "Gotcha, ha ha I win" with your 19 hijackers is a conspiracy trick.

People got pissed by your pedantic little trick. Wow, what a surprise. You haven't shown anything about people's views or uses of the word conspiracy. All you've shown is people don't like pedantic little tricks.

by ocean-kat on Thu, 01/23/2014 - 10:05pm

...and not accept the idea that some conspiracy in government (e.g. airport workers?) might have taken place for an event as huge as 9/11?

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. At the very least they require strong evidence.

Uh right, 19 guys plan on hijacking 4 planes, but its an "extraordinary claim" to think they might have thought to have a shill working inside the airport. Over-and-out, enough pedanticism with you..

by PeraclesPlease on Fri, 01/24/2014 - 5:47am

There is a difference, as you pointed out in an earlier comment, between any conspiracy, which of course could involve a shill employed by an airport or carrier, and a conspiracy involving the United States government and the assasination of Dr. King, which is what Resistance asserted, Tmac countered, you jumped all over her, she properly ignored you notwithstanding your blogger-experienced reference to crickets, and gave some of us here a teachable moment--with humility and sans school principal condescension.

Let me take it one step further and perhaps the conversation can shift back to ground level. I'm going to go out on a limb and posit that most people, dictionaries aside, would recognize a material distinction between a conspiracy involving one or two inside shills and a conspiracy involving the United States government. One could argue, with blogospheric panache and quick reference to Google finds, that as a matter of semantics there is no difference between an airport shill who works for TSA, and conspiracy involving the United States government.

You see, sans semantical quibbles, words matter, as do the context within which "words" are used. That's all I've ever said here, but I do thank you for elaborating and buttressing my fundamental point through this rather peculiar colloquy you have been pursuing here to the point where your argument looks like a pretzel.

by Bruce Levine on Fri, 01/24/2014 - 8:11am

Most sane people know there's a difference between one of some 5 million government workers, vs. the president's inner circle vs CIA/NSA/FBI.

We also know from historical revelations of both the FBI's COINTELPRO and NSA's Operation Minaret that the federal government conspired against MLK in at least 2 ways. Whether this was known by the president's cabinet, I don't remember - google it.

Of course we know that in the good ol' South that conspiracies don't have to be federal - I believe those 3 civil rights workers who were killed by a conspiracy of the county police and the KKK 4 years earlier, and it appears that some conspiracy was going on with Memphis police, because units assigned to protect MLK were withdrawn based on supposedly a preacher friend calling - did James Earl Ray make that call too, or was someone else involved?

So similar to my question about 9/11 being a conspiracy, we know there were multiple conspiracies against MLK - we don't know whether James Earl Ray was part of any, and if so, which one.

This is different from the JFK case, because there I don't believe we can say definitively that there was any conspiracy.

Additionally, what I'm saying isn't even controversial - it's the accepted wisdom at the US National Archives. I know it's important to argue with anything PP says, but at some point looks ridiculous:

Speculation that the FBI--or, more probably, members of that organization, including highly placed Bureau officials--might have had a role in the assassination originated in the early 1970's when the public became aware of COINTELPRO, the Bureau's counterintelligence program that had Dr. King as one of its targets. When, in 1976, the report on the investigation of the Senate Select Committee to Study Governmental Operations with Respect to Intelligence Activities was published and the full scope of the attempt by the FBI to discredit Dr. King became recognized, suspicions were widely rekindled.¹⁹

.... The question of FBI complicity lingered, nonetheless, and alleged deficiencies in the FBI assassination investigation raised the possibility of a coverup after the fact. Because of these persistent doubts and because the committee questioned both the method and the reasoning behind the Justice Department's report, a decision was made to reexamine the question of involvement by the FBI in the assassination.

The official testimony noted a Detective Redditt not only responsible for surveillance (not security) of MLK at the Lorraine, hewas also responsible for having 2 black firemen removed from their posts - ostensibly because they would interfere with his surveillance. (Redditt's testimony was notably inconsistent and he had a past of misrepresenting his role). Thus conspiracy #3 towards MLK, a local one - though not necessarily tied to the assassination.

The official report also notes the incompetence/neglect of the Memphis Police Department, including not notifying neighboring states to be on the lookout for a white Mustang, very slow to put out an APB after the shooting, the 10 members of the protection unit who were on break together during the shooting, etc. We don't know whether there was any conspiracy here, a general malaise, or just Keystone Kops behavior - the image of the 10 cops coming off break to leap off a 10 ft wall all running towards the Lorraine while the killer gets away running down the street is almost comical. Almost.

by PeraclesPlease on Fri, 01/24/2014 - 11:00am

Right, so I thought about this a bit more...

It's not just "government conspiracy," but it's all kinds of conspiracies in which shadowy puppet masters are asserted to be controlling, despite appearances, vast domains, or big events like 911, of public life.

So you have...The Masons...The Illuminati...Jewish Bankers...The Trilateral Commission...The Communists...and so on.

These are the kinds of things that come to mind when people say there was a conspiracy to do XYZ. Not that Joe and Shmoe connived to put a bomb in a plane.

In some cases, there ARE ambitious conspirators. KSM's plans seem to have been quite ambitious, and some notable ones he pulled off.

People readily accept these kinds of conspiracies, even the ambitious ones. They roll their eyes when talk comes to things like The Illuminati. Even when aspiring puppet masters attempt large-scale manipulation, they tend not to be very effective.

Personally, I think it's possible some rogue elements in the government could've conspired to kill MLK or even JFK. But where is the evidence? Calling into question certain elements of the official story does not make alternative stories more credible.

And many of the objections to the "official stories" seem to fall apart when they are examined more closely, piece by piece. At least in the JFK case.

For example, as I recall, it used to be asserted by conspiracy theorists or "buffs" that LHO could not possibly have killed JFK because it was IMPOSSIBLE for him to have to fired three shots in the time in which the three shots were fired.

This was accepted as a fact, a datum, an unmovable stumbling block for the "official story." Even if the buff couldn't prove his case, he didn't have to. All he had to do was poke a sufficient number of holes in the official story to make it crumble--and somehow, thereby, make almost any other story more credible than it had been two seconds before.

Well, it turned out that when experts attempted to fire three shots in the allotted number of seconds with the same gun some years later, it was more than possible. So all those edifices of ink and argument that had been built upon this one data point suddenly lost three quarters of their foundational strength.

But paying a bit more attention to these small points earlier would've saved a whole lotta heart ache later on.

by Peter Schwartz on Fri, 01/24/2014 - 10:51am

I've given 3 documented conspiracies re: MLK: COINTELPRO, the Minaret Project, and Detective Redditt's surveillance/removal of 2 black firemen. There may be more, there might not be, but there are at least 3. They may not be tied to the assassination aside from time & place - Hoover even put out a memorandum on "why's MLK staying in a white hotel when everyone else is boycotting white establishments?", while his office inspector of 10 years Frank Holloman was head of Memphis Fire & Police at the time of the killing - they make it clear why reasonable suspicion on much of the case remains.

by PeraclesPlease on Fri, 01/24/2014 - 11:12am

My original point to you was this: Do you know which "facts" surrounding the assassination are REALLY murky and which ones may have been "made" murky by various theorists and people repeating things they don't know to be true and which may not be true.

I brought up JFK ONLY to show how murky making can take over the discussion and send it off in false directions. That's it. Murky making distorts a lot of discussions about big tragic events. See 911 truth. This is NOT the same as saying all those truthers are crackpots. Or folks who think the government assassinated...anyone... is nuts. But it does point out how things can pretty easily go off track.

Now...I said I hadn't paid much attention to the assassination, so my comment was sort of a heuristic or procedural one.

by Peter Schwartz on Sat, 01/25/2014 - 9:45pm

There is nothing murky about the picture I'll place at the bottom.

by Resistance on Sun, 01/26/2014 - 5:23pm

Right, "conspiracy" has become a shorthand (generally) for "government conspiracy."

There are conspiracies, and most people, in fact, "believe" in them. Most people believe those 19 people conspired (with others) to conduct the 911 attacks. Most people believe that organized crime (an implied conspiracy right there) conspires to do all kinds of things.

The question is, which conspiracies do you think are true and what is the evidence for it? It's hardly out of the question that the government could have conspired to have MLK killed...but what is the evidence for it?

COINTELPRO isn't evidence. Fred Hampton isn't evidence. The Mafia hated JFK as did Castro, as did a bunch of other people.They all had reason to want him dead, theoretically, but that isn't evidence they actually conspired to get it done.

But beyond all this...

As I recall...

This whole discussion began when Resistance said or implied that it was "likely" or "probable" or something that the government killed MLK, or had him killed, and it was precisely to guard against this kind of tyranny that the framers wrote in the 2nd Amendment, and had MLK had armed guards, then...he might not have gotten killed.

But, of course, it wasn't just the government that hated MLK. A lot of private individuals did, too, and armed guards might have protected him against private aggressors, too.

by Peter Schwartz on Thu, 01/23/2014 - 6:50pm

but what is the evidence for it?

My question exactly; government agents who conspire, are not fools, Their well thought out plans, provide for getting rid of the evidence and escape Sometimes criminals slip up and We the People get a glimpse of the darker side.

Watergate?

Now the governments conspirators or conspiracies? are done under the guise of Security. You cant even look for the evidence, because it's labeled essentially as Top Secret or what ever. Only certain members are allowed access.

Recently before a Government panel a NSA Director Lied to Congress.htm

Did Clapper Lie?

Reminds me of the movie with Bourne;, I think it might have been where the Treadstone spokesperson lies before the the oversight committee, members who don't have enough information to ask the right questions and one of the lead Government conspirators, misdirects the panel saying after a few moments of silence saying "Moving on"

No way, was this agent going to be forthcoming, with evidence. How do you find the evidence or ..........to address your question

what is the evidence for it?

by Resistance on Thu, 01/23/2014 - 10:06pm

My question exactly; government agents who conspire, are not fools, Their well thought out plans, provide for getting rid of the evidence and escape.

True, but using this argument, you could assert anything you wanted about the government doing this or that nasty thing.

But then, the problem is this: You are forced to accept any and all arguments like this that come your way, and they start to pile up pretty quickly. And many contradict each other.

You can't simply say that there is no evidence because government agents got rid of it, without any evidence or evidence of its disposal.

You need some way of brokering the claims--and evidence, or evidence that evidence has been destroyed, is a pretty good way.

Without this, your argument becomes like the night in which all cows are black.

by Peter Schwartz on Fri, 01/24/2014 - 11:13am

Shortly after midnight on June 17, 1972, Frank Wills, a security guard at the Watergate Complex, noticed tape covering the latches.... Eventually leading to an indictment, trial, conviction, and incarceration of 43 people, dozens of whom were Nixon's top administration officials and ......Resignation of a President....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watergate_scandal

Had it not been for a guard noticing the tape; the burglars would have removed all the evidence after the crime in which case you could have said “There is no evidence to the accusation, that the Nixon administration had any part in a conspiracy and cover up”?

But you would be wrong, to say the Nixon administration had nothing to do with any criminal activity.

Our forefathers knew of the intrigue of government officials, that is why they gave us, The Bill of Rights.

by Resistance on Fri, 01/24/2014 - 2:21pm

True, but the lack of tape would not have been evidence that the Plumbers had removed the tape.

Some criminals get away with it, but that doesn't mean that anyone who could be a criminal is a criminal.

And once again, the Plumbers were NOT stopped by gun-toting, freedom-loving Americans. They were actually stopped by the government.

The range of situations in which guns wielded by individuals are the right solution is relatively small, IMO. This has nothing to do with rights, but with reality.

by Peter Schwartz on Fri, 01/24/2014 - 2:29pm

Nice careen back to guns instead of responding his last 5 statements. When in doubt, dazzle 'em with footwork. [hint: he was talking about government malfeasance at this point, not guns]

by PeraclesPlease on Fri, 01/24/2014 - 2:45pm

Nice careen back to guns instead of responding

They don't want to respond, maybe they just want to ignore the reasons why some people distrust authority and why distrustful people support the Second Amendment.

To respond to my point, they might have to answer "What to do about Government malfeasance and what do you do, when those in power ignore the laws and the governed? The authorities keep on wrongdoing?

I suspect they change the topic, and would rather discuss guns, as a non- alternative, rather than as a deterrent. So the debate about what to do about malfeasance is sidetracked. Once they get the conversation sidetracked onto guns, they still continually avoid the question What they would do, to stop the malfeasance. Apparently they believe the very same malfeasant government will take care of things. These side trackers TRUST them and the Second Amendment folks don't; and why should they?

by Resistance on Fri, 01/24/2014 - 8:22pm

To illustrate/ Imagine: Livestock who don’t want to be bothered either, they've been eating great, for months and getting fat. Then one day the shepherd drives up to the gates of the feed lot/slaughter house.

Once in the pen, some are taken and led down a shoot. The livestock never asking where does this shoot lead and by the time they realize; they look around and see their protector, with lots of money in his hands, because he sold them out.

by Resistance on Fri, 01/24/2014 - 8:33pm

I suspect they change the topic, and would rather discuss guns, as a non- alternative, rather than as a deterrent. So the debate about what to do about malfeasance is sidetracked.

I haven't changed the topic at all. Your point has been all along--and it appears in your first sentence above--that SOMEHOW the 2nd Amendment protects us against government malfeasance. You've pounded home this point about the 2nd Amendment over and over again.

So how is it that EYE am changing the subject when I mention guns? What is the 2nd Amendment about OTHER than guns? And now, in the sentence I quote, you are saying that, somehow, guns are a "deterrent" against government malfeasance.

My point has been...they are not. Not IMHO.

You brought up MLK as someone who might have benefited from having a gun or having armed body guards. Had been guarded with arms, he might not have been assassinated. I find that extremely doubtful. Standing out on the balcony, he would have been vulnerable to a sniper's bullet no matter how many guns were on him or around him. Had his colleagues been huddled around him, he might have stood a chance--having nothing to do with guns.

If you want to argue the contrary, then game it out.

by Peter Schwartz on Sat, 01/25/2014 - 9:35pm

WHAT IS THE DETERRENT, YOU WOULD LET OTHERS HAVE ?

"deterrent" against government malfeasance.....My point has been...they are not. Not IMHO.

AGAIN AND AGAIN you and others, including gun control nuts don't want to answer the MAIN question.

In your own opinion; If guns are not the "deterrent" against "a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism" .....Or as we have shortened it to "repeated government malfeasance".

WHAT IS THE DETERRENT, YOU WOULD LET OTHERS HAVE; THAT IS BETTER THAN THE ONE OUR FOREFATHERS GAVE AS A RIGHT AND PLACED UPON US AS A DUTY ?

Rest of the reply at bottom of page

by Resistance on Sun, 01/26/2014 - 1:33am

There is no footwork except to keep the two feet from walking off in different directions. The discussion is running along two tracks at the same time. Did the government conspire to kill MLK? And, would guns have protected him?

Resistance's principal point is that our founders knew government couldn't be trusted THEREFORE they guaranteed our right to bear arms and this right is STILL important in helping us to keep ourselves free.

Most of what Resistance has been saying, if not here, then elsewhere revolves around the importance of the 2nd Amendment BECAUSE the government can't be trusted. The MLK assassination was brought in as an EXAMPLE.

by Peter Schwartz on Sat, 01/25/2014 - 9:22pm

But then, the problem is this: You are forced to accept any and all arguments like this that come your way, and they start to pile up pretty quickly. And many contradict each other.

I face a similar problem with friends that are new age prophetic theorists. Like conspiracy theorists that believe in a slew of contradictory conspiracies those who believe in new age prophecy will go from Mayan to Navaho to Apache to new age writers like David Spangler to extraterrestrial prophecies like the 11-11 movement to old timers like Jean Dixon without ever considering the problem that each prophecy contradicts the others.

by ocean-kat on Fri, 01/24/2014 - 4:58pm

No, COINTELPRO isn't direct "evidence" nor is it nearly the same as "the Mafia hated JFK". COINTELPRO actively tracked MLK, actively sent out smear letters, sent him letters trying to get him to commit suicide. This conspiracy isn't what I think is true - it's historically documented, and it required some years for the truth to come out. So the government (plus Memphis police) were greatly "conspiring" against MLK - we just don't know if that included the assassination part. While Resistance's "likely" may be a bit strong, it's not cuckoo.

But you leap to lump in MLK/Memphis with the granddaddy of conspiracy nuthood, JFK/LHO.

As for your "Most people believe those 19 people conspired (with others) to conduct the 911 attacks", my point is that most people have reflexively trained themselves to limit who your "others" might have been - so much so that they typically focus on the 19 without any consideration of external support, and even forget that that was a conspiracy, and get upset when caught with a "gotcha". While I don't know, I would think that someone in the US was helping them with different parts of this scheme - but to bring that up gets rolls of eyes & invocation of JFK/Oliver Stone, as if by saying, "hey, maybe an airport worker let them in a side door" you're implying that Bush himself did it and it all gets shut down. 12 years later, we only have the same bunch of dead guys, no collaborators except OBL now deceased, & shoes off at the airport. In short, we don't know much more than we did 9/12, except that Hussein didn't do it but probably wishes he had.

It's strange that this orthodox protection of government involvement occurs as we're seeing unprecedented government encroachment on privacy (along with issues like irresponsible tasering). A few months back, the word around here was that the hype over Snowden was exaggerated - since May, every month the revelations have gotten worth, so the latest is the gov has this huge stash of info supposedly limited & protected, but then thrown open to everyone with the phrase "relevant to an authorized investigation". What me worry?

As for protecting MLK, aside from someone standing in front of him, I don't see what anyone else armed or unarmed would have changed. Ray or any other assassin would have shot with a clean line of sight, whoever else was there.

by PeraclesPlease on Sat, 01/25/2014 - 1:14am

Thanks for the link, If every American citizen knew, what our secretive government was up to, many would be angry. That's why it's so secretive.

by Resistance on Sat, 01/25/2014 - 2:18am

PP: No, COINTELPRO isn't direct "evidence"

PS: Actually, it isn't evidence at all. And that ought to give you pause IF you're arguing about whether the government killed MLK.

PP: nor is it nearly the same as "the Mafia hated JFK".

PS: I would agree. But using Resistance's approach, we could easily make it the same.

PP: COINTELPRO actively tracked MLK, actively sent out smear letters, sent him letters trying to get him to commit suicide.

PS: COINTELPRO actively tracked many other people. Why weren't they killed? Of course, you don't know the answer to that, but that's just one reason why C "actively tracking" MLK doesn't mean they killed him. And if killing was their game, why go through the rigamarole of trying to induce him to kill himself? Fewer fingerprints, I grant you--but then, where are the fingerprints pointing to the assassination? Assuming they were there, they weren't that hard to wipe clean.

PP: This conspiracy isn't what I think is true - it's historically documented, and it required some years for the truth to come out. So the government (plus Memphis police) were greatly "conspiring" against MLK - we just don't know if that included the assassination part. While Resistance's "likely" may be a bit strong, it's not cuckoo.

PS: That is essentially what I'm arguing: It's a bit strong, maybe more than a bit. There is no evidence for it that I have seen. I fully grant the conspiracies you mention (as far as I know); there IS evidence for those things. Who are you arguing with here?

PP: But you leap to lump in MLK/Memphis with the granddaddy of conspiracy nuthood, JFK/LHO.

PS: It was sort of a heuristic point, which I explain above. Of course, the nuttiness of many of the JFK conspiracies was not obvious at first. The left, in particular, was all over it. Read the old Ramparts on it.

PP: As for your "Most people believe those 19 people conspired (with others) to conduct the 911 attacks", my point is that most people have reflexively trained themselves to limit who your "others" might have been - so much so that they typically focus on the 19 without any consideration of external support, and even forget that that was a conspiracy, and get upset when caught with a "gotcha".

PS: I don't have the heart to get back into the "what is a conspiracy?" discussion. But yes, most people do limit the number of people they think, or are willing to consider, were part of a conspiracy, based on the evidence they've seen such as it is. In fact, most conspiracies do have a limited number of people involved. So the argument is over where that line should be drawn. What's wrong with that? How willing are you to consider that the Mafia "might" have conspired to kill JFK? They conspire all the time. They had the means to kill him. They surely hated him for various reasons. I'm not trying to argue the merits of this claim, just to say that we all put limitations on what we think is credible.

PP: While I don't know, I would think that someone in the US was helping them with different parts of this scheme - but to bring that up gets rolls of eyes & invocation of JFK/Oliver Stone, as if by saying, "hey, maybe an airport worker let them in a side door" you're implying that Bush himself did it and it all gets shut down. 12 years later, we only have the same bunch of dead guys, no collaborators except OBL now deceased, & shoes off at the airport. In short, we don't know much more than we did 9/12, except that Hussein didn't do it but probably wishes he had.

PS: Probably because the most vocal skeptics DO say that Bush or the government did it. Not all, and I'm sure there are variations of "truth," but that's the big theme we hear about. Almost all the hijackers, as I recall, were in the US, and they were getting help with money and instructions.

PP: It's strange that this orthodox protection of government involvement occurs as we're seeing unprecedented government encroachment on privacy (along with issues like irresponsible tasering). A few months back, the word around here was that the hype over Snowden was exaggerated - since May, every month the revelations have gotten worth, so the latest is the gov has this huge stash of info supposedly limited & protected, but then thrown open to everyone with the phrase "relevant to an authorized investigation". What me worry?

PS: I don't know how to respond to all these points, except to ask, given what you say, why don't you think 911 was/could've been/probably was an inside job by the government?

(Apparently, Mohammad Atta's passport was found, miraculously in pristine condition, amidst the rubble. What are the chances of that happening? Then again, this could be a "murky" fact. I honestly don't know. Stranger things have happened than a passport dropping out of the sky unharmed.)

PP: As for protecting MLK, aside from someone standing in front of him, I don't see what anyone else armed or unarmed would have changed. Ray or any other assassin would have shot with a clean line of sight, whoever else was there.

PS: Correcto. And this was my point about guns and why Resistance's apparent faith in the 2nd Amendment (and the gun rights it protects) as a layer of protection against tyranny is misguided. And why his example of MLK didn't make this point, IMO. It was NOT to say there is no government tyranny. It was NOT to say the government wasn't spying on MLK.

by Peter Schwartz on Sat, 01/25/2014 - 10:23pm

Reply at the bottom

by Resistance on Sat, 01/25/2014 - 11:19pm

COINTELPRO appears to be behind the murder of Fred Hampton. Read it. Deal with it. COINTELPRO wanted Hampton out of the way and helped do it. They wanted MLK out of the way - and showed it in several ways. Whether they actively colluded with Ray, they did collude with the city of Memphis and other regional offices, and did what the House investigation called "felonious" acts in harrassment of MLK. Sorry if I can't say where COINTELPRO ended and Ray started - as the link above notes, it was just an accident that all the docs on Hampton were revealed.

PS: Probably because the most vocal skeptics DO say that Bush or the government did it. Not all, and I'm sure there are variations of "truth," but that's the big theme we hear about. Almost all the hijackers, as I recall, were in the US, and they were getting help with money and instructions.

PS: I don't know how to respond to all these points, except to ask, given what you say, why don't you think 911 was/could've been/probably was an inside job by the government?

PP: so who helped these hijackers in the US? or it was all foreign transfer of money & instructions from abroad? with the 19 all dead? so no witnesses - how useless. no wonder we're spending $60 billion a year on Homeland Security - we haven't much of a clue what happened. 19 transfer students go to Ft. Lauderdale for holiday & then bring down the Trade Center. So we invade Iraq. Yes, could have been an inside job high up, or an Al Qaeda job with lower inside help or just an independent band that got lucky. We'll likely never know. We're lucky to even have answers on Snowden's & Manning's leaks coming out.

PS - Apparently, Mohammad Atta's passport was found, miraculously in pristine condition, amidst the rubble. What are the chances of that happening?

It's a no-win anecdote - as you note, stranger things have happened, such as not finding 2 fire-hardened black box flight recorders, but to even mention it brings one in on the "conspiracy theorist" side. [or were the recorders found?]

by PeraclesPlease on Sun, 01/26/2014 - 7:04am

None of those things is as much fun.

by Peter Schwartz on Thu, 01/23/2014 - 5:13pm

An alternate interpretation:

https://twitter.com/KarlreMarks/statuses/426651414535106560

by artappraiser on Fri, 01/24/2014 - 4:08pm

and perhaps the most incriminating of all, a portable radio with his inmate number from the Missouri State Penitentiary engraved in the back side

According to the Wikipedia Ray “escaped from the Missouri State Penitentiary in 1967 by hiding in a truck transporting bread from the prison bakery.

But he wouldn't leave his radio behind?

But now were supposed to believe he left this same radio, behind at a murder scene?.

by Resistance on Thu, 01/23/2014 - 1:39pm

I look forward to your reply to Peracles.

Do you like to eat crow, with crackers?

by Resistance on Thu, 01/23/2014 - 2:16am

Crickets O'Gratin.

by PeraclesPlease on Thu, 01/23/2014 - 1:41pm

Paula Dean might have a good recipe for her

by Resistance on Thu, 01/23/2014 - 1:54pm

Response to resistance from above

John 3:16

King James Version (KJV)

16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

Matthew 12:31-32

28Verily I say unto you, All sins shall be forgiven unto the sons of men, and blasphemies wherewith soever they shall blaspheme: 29But he that shall blaspheme against the Holy Ghost hath never forgiveness, but is in danger of eternal damnation: 30Because they said, He hath an unclean spirit.

Are you saying that your example of a temporary disappointment with a disciple negates the words of forgiveness of sins spoken by Jesus?

In your taken out of context example, was the disciple banished, or forgiven? Was not Peter a church leader after Jesus' death? Forgiveness of sins is the only reason that we can have salvation. In your version of Christianity it is "one and done". Blasphemy against God is the only unforgivable sin. Homosexuals are not singled out as unredeemable. They are lumped in with the rest of us.

by rmrd0000 on Tue, 01/21/2014 - 5:38pm

Are you saying that your example of a temporary disappointment with a disciple negates the words of forgiveness of sins spoken by Jesus?,

What? You say my interpretation was wrong; then you ask if I am saying?

Clearly, Gods Holy Spirit doesn't work for you

BTW Dont ask me what I was saying, I asked you for YOUR interpretation, since you claimed mine was wrong, Show us your godly informed insight,

Is this another of your lack of understanding or interpretation?

16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

Reallyyyyyy; Satan and the demons believe Jesus is real, does that mean Satan and his wicked spirit forces, escape judgment? Where do you get this insight?

by Resistance on Tue, 01/21/2014 - 6:19pm

Come back when you translate your response to English.

by rmrd0000 on Tue, 01/21/2014 - 6:22pm

You gave an example where Jesus was disappointed in Peter as an example of anger. Jesus obviously forgave Peter. Peter was not banished. Peter was a leader of the church after Jesus' death. God is awesome. God is forgiving. God is loving.

Christians have to speak out when other Christians encourage harming/killing homosexuals. Harming homosexuals is dong the work of Satan.

Peter was FORGIVEN

The Good News is a message aimed at humans. There is already a plan for Satan. Putting Satan into the discussion about the Good News is another example of you taking things out of context.

by rmrd0000 on Tue, 01/21/2014 - 6:33pm

It's always the same thing: a preference for ethos of the Old Testament and Revelations as the real truth and the real guide, and treating everything inbetween those two almost as apochyrpha that have to be intepreted and revised according to the Old Testament and Revelations.

It actually interests me on an intellectual level because, as someone raised Catholic (and as an art historian who has studied art produced by that church and other Christian churches,) I look back now on the Catholic church's tradition of thinking the Old Testament should be reserved for scholars only as quite wise and not as condescending toward the flock as it initially seems. Whereas with many Protestant sects, where each individual is encouraged to read the whole bible and interpret it for themselves. Which can get some into giving the Old Testament equal weight or more weight that the "Good News" that is supposed to be the new religion that became Christianity, superseding the Old Testament religion.

by artappraiser on Wed, 01/22/2014 - 4:36pm

I look back now on the Catholic church's tradition of thinking the Old Testament should be reserved for scholars only as quite wise and not as condescending toward the flock as it initially seems.

How so?

Now that I think about it, it is a bit odd that a Christian, or a group of religions that takes Jesus as its main event, should continue to lug around the OT.

Back when most Christians were Jews that may have made a lot of sense. But once the faith spread to people who had never been part of that tradition, what was the point?

by Peter Schwartz on Wed, 01/22/2014 - 7:56pm

What sacred writings was Timothy acquainted with which were able to make him wise?

14 But as for you, zcontinue in what you have learned and have firmly believed, knowing from whom1 you learned it 15 and how afrom childhood you have been acquainted with bthe sacred writings,cwhich are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. 16 dAll Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, 17 that ethe man of God2 may be complete, fequippedgfor every good work.

2 Timothy 3:14-17

Christ Came to Fulfill the Law

17 p“Do not think that I have come to abolish qthe Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but rto fulfill them. 18 For truly, I say to you, suntil heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished. 19 tTherefore whoever relaxes uone of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least vin the kingdom of heaven, but whoever does them and teaches them will be called great vin the kingdom of heaven. 20 For I tell you, unless your righteousness exceeds wthat of the scribes and Pharisees, you xwill never enter the kingdom of heaven.

Matthew 5:17-20

by Resistance on Wed, 01/22/2014 - 8:21pm

Wait, are you actually questioning the veracity of John 3:16?

by Atheist (not verified) on Wed, 01/22/2014 - 3:32pm

No, the fact is, the Scriptures do speak for themselves when considered as a whole.

This is a perfect example of how imposters have diluted Christianity.

For God So Loved the World

16 “For hGod so loved ithe world,1 jthat he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not kperish but have eternal life.

17 For lGod did not send his Son into the world mto condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him.18 nWhoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is condemned already, because he has not obelieved in the name of the only Son of God. 19 pAnd this is the judgment: qthe light has come into the world, and rpeople loved the darkness rather than the light because stheir works were evil. 20 tFor everyone who does wicked things hates the light and does not come to the light, ulest his works should be exposed. 21 But whoever vdoes what is true wcomes to the light, so that it may be clearly seen that his works have been carried out in God.”

John 3:16-21

Footnotes

[1] 3:16 Or For this is how God loved the world

Let God speak for himself through his Holy Spirit inspired Book

Faith Without Works Is Dead

14 What good is it, my brothers, if someone says he has faithobut does not have works? Can that faith save him? ………17 So also faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead.

18 But someone will say, “You have faith and I have works.” Show me your faith rapart from your works, and I will show you my faith sby my works.

19 tYou believe that God is one; you do well. Even uthe demons believe—and shudder!

20 Do you want to be shown, you foolish person, that faith apart from works is useless?.......... 22 You see that wfaith was active along with his works, and faith was completed xby his works; 23 and the Scripture was fulfilled that says, y“Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him as righteousness”—and he was called a zfriend of God. 24 You see that a person is justified by works and not by faith alone. 25 And in the same way was not also aRahab the prostitute justified by works bwhen she received the messengers and sent them out by another way? 26 For as the body apart from the spirit is dead, so also faith apart from works is dead.

James 2:14-26

Need more proof; Imposters have selectively left out the part about Acceptable WORK? Or is it, that those who want to have their ears tickled, don't want to hear about work So they find for themselves teachers who'll tell them anything they like.

by Resistance on Wed, 01/22/2014 - 7:50pm

Agreeing with you, I think...

If God's word isn't comprehensible to the individual, then what good is his word and what sort of God would he be?

If Adam and Eve, Noah, Abraham and Sarah, and Moses didn't need any metaphysical intermediaries to speak with God, then why should we?

A plus...Protestantism's direct approach is fundamentally democratic at least as regards man's relationship to man.

by Peter Schwartz on Wed, 01/22/2014 - 8:00pm

If Adam and Eve, Noah, Abraham and Sarah, and Moses didn't need any metaphysical intermediaries to speak with God, then why should we?

I know you must have heard or read; when Moses led the Hebrews though the desert, a new arrangement, including a contract, was established.

by Resistance on Wed, 01/22/2014 - 8:31pm

You neglect the Good News message to the Gentiles in Acts 15. It specially addresses Gentiles not needing to be circumcised and the laws of Moses and the Gentiles. God extended grace to Gentiles. God purified the hearts of Gentiles by faith. Acts says that you test God when you try to place yokes on the Gentiles.

by rmrd0000 on Wed, 01/22/2014 - 10:01pm

So what's your point?

by Resistance on Thu, 01/23/2014 - 12:41am

That you neglect the message of the Good a News in the New Testament. Martin Luther King Jr was closer to the message than you will ever be.

by rmrd0000 on Thu, 01/23/2014 - 8:13am

In my reply to Peter I made mention of the CONTRACT, the one where God swore an oath to ALL of mankind. You so conveniently overlooked; blinded by your desire to insult and misrepresent my position.

I confined my reply, to ONE of Peters musings.

A musing that didn't need your answer "The Good News"?

It's clear you don't understand the CONTRACT, or the blessing Abraham received. The NEW arrangement, I mentioned above, that eventually would lead people to the Messiah

Instead of attacking my neglect or inferiority; you could have offered your own reply to any one of Peters musings, instead of whipping on me,...... fellow slave?.

I am now convinced by some of your remarks; either you don't understand the deeper things of God or you are a part of the Imposter class;

You challenging me, as did the Imposters challenged the Apostles

by Resistance on Thu, 01/23/2014 - 10:11am

If I'm part of your "impostor" class, it means that I am a true Christian since the hate-filled selfish cult positions you promote have nothing to do with Christianity. The reason Than you find so many Christians " impostors" is that you are an evangelist for a false religion.

by rmrd0000 on Thu, 01/23/2014 - 9:10pm

I'm surprised you didn't respond with "I'm rubber, you're glue"

Bye

by Resistance on Thu, 01/23/2014 - 10:04pm

Bye

But on your way out, know that many of have seen trus Christians in action. Martin Luther King had the faith to take on the armed state and he broke them. King had Bayard Rustin, a Gay man who left the Communist Party because the Communists weren't doing enough to fight for the right's of Black people and workers. King did not reject the homosexual.

Martin Luther King did not blame the poor for being poor. He put the country on notice that the poor should be cared for. King's actions led to legislation that aided the poor. The poverty rate has fallen dramatically among the elderly. The poverty rate among the masses has not gone up to the levels predicted if no action had been taken against poverty.

Christian love worked. Rev.Wiliam Barber in North Carolina is leading the fight against the state in suppressing votes. Barber fights for relief for the poor.

we have seen true Christians in action showing love to the down-trodden. We have read your hate-filed words and know that there is nothing Christian in your offerings.

I don't blame you for running away. It must hurt to see real Christians at work.

by rmrd0000 on Thu, 01/23/2014 - 10:59pm

Yes, so perhaps the point is this, then: If God is really God of the universe and all of humankind, then it must be possible for his children to understand his word without recourse to all kinds of mediation by others.

That said, all the great spiritual traditions lay out the need--or advisability--of having a guide along the way to help one avoid dead ends, bad ends, and so on. The tricky part is finding a knowledgeable and reliable guide with correct intentions.

I'm not sure the Bible is sufficient in this because surely it's possible to misread and misunderstand the Bible in ALL kinds of ways. But, at the same time, this doesn't mean that individuals should be dissuaded or prevented from encountering the Bible on their own. In the end, God can only speak to the individual through the individual in ways the individual can understand.

So I teach tai chi. There's a huge body of teaching on the art. All of it's "true." But still, the individual has to find tai chi within himself in order to manifest it. It doesn't exist apart from the people who manifest it. IOW, it doesn't exist in the books or the words. A person can stand next to and even study with the greatest master and still acquire nothing. It's not contagious like a germ, though there is some of that in there.

by Peter Schwartz on Thu, 01/23/2014 - 10:56am

then it must be possible for his children to understand his word without recourse to all kinds of mediation by others.,

? If I understand your question ?????, I would answer this way, No we don't need a mediator other than the High Priest Jesus. who fulfilled the law, when he offered up his sacrifice once and for all times.The Nation of Israel no longer needed to support the Levitical Preisthood, after the the death Jesus' who then ascended to his Father, to present his sacrifice as the now everlasting High Priest Eliminating the need for a Priest Hood.

Nor do Christians need to support the clergy class of the IMPOSTERS today; who fleece the people, by giving them diluted and polluted Truths.

It should be obvious, why the Imposter clergy class, wont tell their fellow slaves, the scripture below?

.8 eHeal the sick, raise the dead, cleanse lepers,1 cast out demons. fYou received without paying; give without pay. 9 gAcquire no gold or silver or copper for your belts,

Matthew 10:8-9

Tai Chi , I believe I have seen it on television and have often thought, what a great way to get the blood and oxygen flowing though our body, without hurting ourselves.

Are the moves the same as the martial arts; but only slower?

by Resistance on Thu, 01/23/2014 - 1:21pm

Very similar in many cases.

However, slowness isn't the real difference.

The difference is often expressed as hard v soft art or external v internal.

(But keep in mind these distinctions are relative and on a continuum.)

Legend has it that the foundational insight came when Chang San-feng observed a snake and a cock fighting.

The conclusion was that the soft overcomes the hard, sort of the opposite of what most people assume and how most people act and react instinctively.

The defensive part of the insight is relatively easy to grasp: When a hard or aggressive force is coming toward you, get out of the way. Don't resist. The incoming force expends itself into nothingness. A boxer can't knock out another person unless the person presents a solid mass to hit.

("Get out of the way" seems easy and obvious, but if you've ever been shoved, you immediately see that our natural tendency is to resist or push back. It takes a LOT of work to reverse this tendency. But resisting and pushing back HELPS your opponent especially if he or she is stronger and faster than you.)

But "don't resist" isn't the same as "run away" (though running away isn't bad tai chi). There is a response in which the aggressor's energy is effectively turned against him, though this doesn't really capture it.

It's more like this: You get out of the way AND you follow the aggressor at the same time. It's sort of two parts of one move.

Aggression is itself a symptom of being out of balance. So the tai chi player gets out of the way of unbalanced aggression and simultaneously helps the aggressor go where his lack of balance is taking him without his knowledge.

Or put another way: water is utterly pliant and non-resistant when you try to grab it in its still state, but it packs a wallop when its energy is integrated as a wave and you try to resist it.

Aggression is a sign of a lack of awareness of where one is and where one's opponent is. So the skilled tai chi player always knows where you are (better than you do) but you never know where he or she is. The key is internal awareness rather than speed or strength. Very small tai chi players defeat very large, muscular opponents. Strength is not tai chi's strength. Nor is speed. The more skilled the player, the less you will see of what he does, which is also why it's called an internal art.

So the hard artist finds that his speed and strength diminish over time while the tai chi artist is constantly improving. Or rather, the hard, external artist has to become more internal as he ages physically or else his skill diminishes.

Anway, I know all this sounds very David Carradine-ish, but I can vouch for its truth. I have experienced and seen it in action.

The great thing is that tai chi can be practiced at any age and regardless of your physical condition. It does help the breathing and blood flow.

by Peter Schwartz on Thu, 01/23/2014 - 1:38pm

Thanks.

I had a friend who was kind and generally meek, who studied under the Gracie's??? Every time someone got out of hand in his establishment, he could get the aggressors, who were looking to hurt him, hurt themselves instead. It was amazing, the skill he used in disarming aggressors.

Grasshopper

by Resistance on Thu, 01/23/2014 - 1:50pm

resistance posted, "Could it be, those who believed in god prevailed at the assembly and those who did not have a belief in God, looked to their own salvation through self protection?"

No, it could not be. There is no evidence to support this argument and much evidence that contradicts it. This isn't a rational discussion of history, its historical fiction to push an ideological point. Its not any different than you imagining.Jefferson writing the constitution and the bill of rights, with Jefferson leading a meeting where everyone agrees the second amendment is needed to protect the first. When in reality Jefferson never wrote the constitution or the bill of rights because he was in France at the time.

Having a historical discussion with you is like talking to a 5 year old who suggests superman should be sent to stop Hitler and WWII. I once read a sci-fi novel about the Cuban missile crisis ending in nuclear war with time travelers being sent back to stop it. After many failed attempts, all eventually ending in a nuclear conflagration, they had to go back in time to 1600 Russia to send colonists to the Pacific coast of the US at the same time England was sending colonists to the Atlantic coast. Thereby forcing Russians and Americans to get along when they met in the middle of the country.

Interesting sci-fi novel but its not history. This crap you make up in your mind isn't history either and its not even worth serious discussion except on a fantasy/sci-fi historical fiction site.

by ocean-kat on Wed, 01/22/2014 - 4:17pm

What is it about you that you can't be civil in your disagreements?

You want to use an error I have already admitted too, to continue your personal attack?

Would I have been more accurate; if I had said; those in the Assembly were influenced by Jefferson's writings.

Do you have a disorder and everyone better have a perfect recall of history, to keep you from attacking?

by Resistance on Wed, 01/22/2014 - 8:03pm

Its not about a perfect recall of history. Its about you, and the right wing in general, simply making up history often complete with fabricated quotes.

I've read that there was quite a bit of drinking among the delegates at the constitutional convention.Some gun control advocate could theoretically speculate that they were so happy they passed the first amendment that they went out to celebrate. Then some gun nuts passed the second amendment before the rational delegates sobered up. Its rubbish but then, so are your speculations.

There is no evidence that those believed in god looked to the first amendment and "those who did not have a belief in God, looked to their own salvation through self protection" Its not history, you just totally made that up in your own mind. In addition anyone who's read even a bit of history knows its ridiculous.

-----

I attach no value to a lecture on civility from perhaps the most uncivil person here. I can get angry and I have a tendency to biting sarcasm. I try to tone it down, I'm not proud of it but its a part of who I am. Given my tendency if the moderators decided I've crossed their line I'd understand and accept their decision. But they have never removed one of my comments. Can you say the same?

by ocean-kat on Thu, 01/23/2014 - 3:39pm

But they have never removed one of my comments. Can you say the same?

You should know, you and your mutual admiration society, have and are the friends in high places. If no one complains, why would the moderators act?

In addition anyone who's read even a bit of history knows its ridiculous.

Take the rafter from your own eyes.

I could say; "In addition anyone who's read even a bit of history knows" only the foolish ignore the events leading up to why our forefathers rebelled and took up arms. How ridiculous would anyone be, to listen to the gun control advocates, who dispute the volumes written, in the time period about the events that took place. I imagine, if given the chance, the gun control extremists would rewrite the History, to fit their needs.

Convincing themselves and others that what was taught in the schools was wrong.

So now please; give us your thought on the reason for the Battles of Lexington and Concord

Here's what I was taught in school

About 700 British Army regulars, under Lieutenant Colonel Francis Smith, were given secret orders to capture and destroy military supplies that were reportedly stored by the Massachusetts militia at Concord. Through effective intelligence gathering, Patriot colonials had received word weeks before the expedition that their supplies might be at risk and had moved most of them to other locations.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battles_of_Lexington_and_Concord

Why would our forefathers be so concerned, about protecting their military supplies, and many dying to do so, when they knew the government was there to protect them anyway?

My read on you, especially after your insulting rant against Lulu.... I am used to your bullying, You are an hard-ass just as you wrote and continued being one.

No, it's not just the right wing making up history; you do quite a bit yourself.

Go back and reread, if I ever said "This is what happened" as opposed "to the implied "I wonder"

I'd go back and find the exact wording, but why? To prove you lie? I already know that.

by Resistance on Thu, 01/23/2014 - 6:45pm

only the foolish ignore the events leading up to why our forefathers rebelled and took up arms.

I agree, but who is actually ignoring history or just making it up to fit their ideology? I'll repeat the example I've given before of Jefferson's "Tree of liberty" quote since I believe it to be one of the best examples. Its the most famous quote bandied around on right wing gun sites. Its all over T-shirts and posters. You've used it here several times. I've actually searched for the original document many years ago. I've read the complete letter. I've spent the time to research what Jefferson was talking about.

Have you ever read the complete document for the quote you use so often?

by ocean-kat on Thu, 01/23/2014 - 9:28pm

First off … I don't ever recall using the quote, unless it was with a link that may have used many others. But I believe LULU has already addressed this point. So please, don’t bring your bullying around again

Could have used the quote in reporting the militia’s favorite quotes, I have no recollection

It appears your deceptive words "for the quote you use so often?" is intended to mislead others.

Why don't you provide the link to the complete document, I've better things to research and do, han to constantly protect myself from yours and others mischaracterizations.

By the way, do you still beat your dog ?

by Resistance on Thu, 01/23/2014 - 10:12pm

It's not bullying to challenge what you are saying and not bullying to challenge your thinking.

And you are never forced to answer when someone replies.

But if you feel you own points don't stand well for other readers and lurkers after being challenged, and you find that you feel you have to continually support them and add more and more to make your pseudonym look good, maybe they aren't thought out enough (or researched enough) before you post them? Just a suggestion.

by artappraiser on Thu, 01/23/2014 - 10:25pm

It's not bullying to challenge what you are saying

What would call the constant attributing of words, I never said?

Challenge me for what I said; but don't replace my words with lies, just to be confrontational.

Which of these words, is better if not bullying.

synonyms:

persecute, oppress, tyrannize, browbeat, harass, torment, intimidate,strong-arm, dominate; More

Maybe bedevil?

by Resistance on Thu, 01/23/2014 - 11:13pm

First off … I don't ever recall using the quote

http://dagblog.com/link/banished-questioning-gospel-guns-18031

"What country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance. Let them take arms."

– Thomas Jefferson

by Resistance 1/5/2014

This is the first sentence of what is often called Jefferson's tree of liberty quote. Sometimes the quote is used in full, other times just parts of it. You don't know the whole quote nor do you have any idea what it means in context. Yet you happily repeat it. Is there any quote, even one, from any of our country's founders that you have ever read in context?

Yet you chastise me for ignoring our history. I'm certainly no professor of American history but I try to educate myself. Imo that requires more than pulling two sentence unsourced quotes from right wing blogs. It requires more than imagining what the founders of our country thought.

So I ask again, who exactly is ignoring history?

by ocean-kat on Thu, 01/23/2014 - 11:29pm

You've used it here several times.

by ocean-kat 1/23/2014 - 6:28 pm (re: Resistance)

Provide another if I’ve used it SEVERAL times.

Of course, you didn't provide, the link to the full document you spoke of, so that anyone who might want to see; how close the attributed words you challenged, might be to the very message he gave?

My suspicions are, you're looking for a trivial/petty flaw.

So I ask again, who exactly is ignoring history?

So again I ask, provide the link to the document you mentioned above and as long as you want to discuss my history of using the quote SEVERAL TIMES; provide more information to support your SEVERAL times claim.

So I ask again, who exactly is ignoring history?

I think it is you. ...... It was only days ago, LULU soundly whipped you over this very same issue.

No one would blame you, if you wanted to ignore/forget. But then you come to harass me over basically the same issue, because you sense, I lack the writing skills to match your superiority.So you found a weak opponent to retry the issue. Looking for the weak as a salve for your ego?

by Resistance on Fri, 01/24/2014 - 1:13am

lol Not yet. I'm finding it far to amusing wondering how long you will resist doing a simple search to read the for first time in your life an original document by a founder for one of the two sentence quotes you use.

Any way it seems to me you should answer my question before I answer your's. One shouldn't answer a question with a question. One answers the question then asks a question.

Have you ever looked at even one of the quotes of the founding fathers that you use in the context of the full letter or document? Or do you just pull unsourced quotes off right wing blogs and spread them around?

Answer that, remember as a Christian you're not supposed to lie, and I'll put ---jefferson "tree of liberty"--- into google for you.

by ocean-kat on Fri, 01/24/2014 - 1:31am

You shouldn't edit your posts without noting it. Its rude and it makes it appear as if the reply ignored or was unable to respond to something that in reality wasn't even there at the time.

The issue was always between us. It started when you imagined a conversation between Jefferson and the other delegates that was historically impossible. Your rewriting of history through imagination irked me. Lulu joined in afterward. Its still between us because you're still imagining history. This time believers in god supporting the first amendment and those who did not have a belief in God, looked to their own salvation through self protection of the second. Making up history using your imagination is not history, its historical fiction.

by ocean-kat on Fri, 01/24/2014 - 1:56am

"... though Resistance does like his 2nd Amendment. In this, he may be a bit like LULU.

I assume that conclusion comes from my recent contentious debate with oceankat regarding the Second Amendment. Apparently you still do not understand what my issue was and you apparently think that I was saying more than I actually did. In that argument I contended that there was/is evidence that indicates/proves what were some of the reasons that [some of] the Founding Fathers gave for including the Second Amendment among the first ten. I did not argue that those reasons were still sensible reasons.
I did not offer my own opinion on the Second Amendment and I haven't for quite a long time. I only argued as to what is and what is not an historical fact. At a bit of a stretch, a possible exception where I did offer an opinion which included the Second Amendment is where I agreed that the Constitution, including the 2nd, is a living document. Another is where, in a quote I offered in support of my position, I added emphasis to a statement regarding intent that that I will emphasize again in a repeat of that quote.

"I will not argue that original intent is controlling".

by A Guy Called LULU on Wed, 01/22/2014 - 4:39pm

Fess up - you're already geared out for a super cool survivalist convention in the Rockies - in February.

by Anonymous PP (not verified) on Wed, 01/22/2014 - 6:26pm

It's quiet around the hood right now, no bad vibes happening, so the only gear I actually have on is my camoes made out of rattlesnake hide. Cool don't half say it.

My role-model hero starred in one of those macho-man survivalist reality shows. What a guy. He said one time he really thought he might die, lost and all alone, in a remote jungle. It got so bad he almost asked the camera crew to help him. That's the life I prepare for, living on the edge.

by A Guy Called LULU on Wed, 01/22/2014 - 10:14pm

Yes, that could be. I remember finding it difficult to understand what you were saying, which is probably where I should have left it. Somehow, it didn't feel as though you were making a purely historical argument ("what some of the Founder gave as reasons for including the 2nd Amendment"), but that could've been because I was struggling to figure out what you were saying. Sorry.

by Peter Schwartz on Wed, 01/22/2014 - 7:45pm

No problemo. I recall that you said you came to the conversation late. In that case, the actual sequence of comments is not always obvious and that, I think, can cause confusion. And, just possibly, theoretically, I might have done a poor job of presenting my position.

by A Guy Called LULU on Wed, 01/22/2014 - 10:30pm

One thing that did surprise me was that it seemed you wanted to question the credibility of Cornell on the issue by suggesting, I think, that he was merely "a partisan." I think it was a guilt by association argument, and there was a long discursus about a panel where he appeared or which he organized to which no "individual rights" folks had been invited. He responded that "individual rights" folks, at least one, had appeared and others had been invited, if I remember correctly.

I didn't get the point of it all except to dismiss what he had to say...

Just to shift gears a bit, in my reading of the history of the Constitution and how it was formulated, amended and passed...the process was messy. There were the famous compromises on big and small state representation and on slavery, but there were also lots of little compromises, too. The old adage about legislation being like sausage making applies to the Constitution as well.

Though it's important to try to figure out what the founders meant by XYZ, I'm not sure there's one true answer to it--or that the answer always matters in the way we think it matters--which would accord with your living document theory. As I read him, Jefferson would have been happy to hold a new constitutional convention every generation and simply wipe out the debts of a generation rather than pass them on. He would've been unhappy with someone in 2014 living his life according to the precepts of someone living in 18-19-century America. Then again, Henry Adams felt that Jefferson's weakness was that the vividness of his language often led astray.

by Peter Schwartz on Thu, 01/23/2014 - 11:17am

One thing that did surprise me was that it seemed you wanted to question the credibility of Cornell on the issue by suggesting, I think, that he was merely "a partisan."

You suggested a "good book" by Cornell and so I looked up Cornell. After I read a few things I opened a comment about him saying, "Saul Cornel has stirred much controversy as have everybody with a platform who advocates on one side or the other, or in the middle, about gun control." I supplied a link to that controversy but also to a link to a site where he defends himself against those charges.

I did not mean to suggest that Cornell was being academically dishonest. I didn't offer any conclusion of my own but instead offered criticism by others and a defense by Cornell himself that I ran across when I looked him up. That seems to me to be a pretty fair treatment of the guy, not a dismissal. In this case it would not, to my mind, be that someone had paid him to defend a position he might not have otherwise taken but that they had found a person with that position and promoted him so as to promote their own partisan position.

I can see where you are coming from though. If Cornell had been a scientist denying climate change who was funded by Exxon or a genetic scientist funded by Monsanto or a foreign policy analyst funded by the American Heritage Foundation or a pundit who had ever worked for Bill Kristol's rag, then knowing those connections would affect my judgment of their conclusions, and probably yours. Pointing out those connections would be reason enough for me to be very skeptical of their conclusions or prescriptions but in the case of Cornell I was just passing on what I had seen after following up on what you has said.

by A Guy Called LULU on Thu, 01/23/2014 - 2:41pm

Kenyan author Binyavanga Wainaina: "I am homosexual"
BBC News, 21 Jan., 2014

Leading Kenyan author Binyavanga Wainaina has come out to say he is gay, making him one of the most high-profile Africans to do so.

He made the disclosure in an article entitled: I am a homosexual, mum, coinciding with his 43rd birthday on 18 January. Homosexual acts are illegal in Kenya and many other African states.

His statement comes amid a fierce debate about gay rights in several African countries [....] Mr Wainaina has strongly criticised Nigeria's anti-gay law, saying it "shames us all".

His decision has drawn mixed reaction among Kenyans on social media.

Some people have praised him for being courageous while others have warned that he could face a backlash, says the BBC's Caroline Karobia in the capital, Nairobi.

"Nobody, nobody, ever in my life has heard this," Mr Wainaina wrote in the article published first on the Africa is a Country and the Chimurenga Chronic websites [....]

"Of course my friends knew, but I had been toying with how useful it would be to make a public statement for close to eight months," he told the GlobalPost news website on Monday [....]

Amid increasing persecution of gays in Africa, author Binyavanga Wainaina comes out

By Tristan McConnell, Global Post, Jan. 21, 2014

Kenya: Social Media Reacts to Author Binyavanga Wainaina's 'Coming Out'
By Khikami Obbayi, The Star (Nairobi,) 22 Jan. 2014

Kenya: Reactions to Kenyan Author Binyavanga Coming Out
By Grace Kerongo, The Star (Nairobi,) 21 Jan. 2014

His Twitter feed:

https://twitter.com/BinyavangaW

by artappraiser on Thu, 01/23/2014 - 3:34am

Nigeria Arrests Gays Under Controversial New Law
By Heather Murdock, Voice of America, Jan. 21, 2014

ABUJA —[....] About half of Nigerians are Muslim and half are Christian. Recently, the two religions have come together in support of a new law that criminalizes gay organizations and punishes gay marriage with up to 14 years in prison.

At a shimmering church in the capital city, Pastor Simon A.S. Dolly, the president of the Youth Wing of the Christian Association of Nigeria, says the law will protect Nigeria from the wrath of God.

"Nigeria is a religious country and we are religious people," he said. "We agree with the president on this issue. I think this is one of the best things the president has done this year for us. Because we are a cultured people as Africans and to us, man marrying man, woman marrying woman - it’s uncultured.” [....]

Human rights defender Ifeanyi Orazulike says it has always been illegal and dangerous to be gay in Nigeria, but the law has lead to a surge of hostility.

“People are being arrested in different states," he said. "There has also been lots of hate-speeches coming from religious leaders and the general population.”

Eleven men are on trial in northern Nigeria under the law and Amnesty International says arrests have been made in four other states, with police working off long lists of names.

Orazulike says a small network of activists in Nigeria are trying to keep each other safe and gain support through awareness campaigns on Twitter and Facebook.

“We are always on the alert," he said. "We are talking here and there, making phone calls, confirming to be sure that people are okay wherever they are and following up situations.”

Activists say that because the law criminalizes anyone who provides services for gays or supports gay groups, the list of people who could be arrested under the law is long and varied. [....]

Protesters Throw Stones, Disrupt Nigeria Gay Trial
By Shehu Saulawa in Bauchi, Nigeria, Associated Press, Jan. 22, 2014

Thousands of protesters threw stones into the Shariah court in a north Nigerian city Wednesday, urging the speedy convictions and executions of 11 men arrested for belonging to gay organizations.

Security officials fired into the air to disperse protesters in Bauchi city so the accused men could be safely returned to the prison. Judge El-Yakubu Aliyu closed the court abruptly.

"No one can be sentenced to death until confirmed without a reasonable doubt," Aliyu said in response to calls for the men's execution.

The court was arraigning seven of 11 accused men on Wednesday. Only three had given testimony when the mayhem began.

The defense counsel was unable to submit an application for bail, and the rest of the defendants were unable to give testimony. It was unclear when the arraignments would resume.

The same court last week convicted a young man of sodomy and had him publicly whipped with 20 lashes [....]

by artappraiser on Thu, 01/23/2014 - 3:46am

So this is how a witch hunt gets started.

by moat on Thu, 01/23/2014 - 10:15pm

Americans like Pat Robertson played this one too:

says the law will protect Nigeria from the wrath of God.

but we didn't end up with hysterical witch hunts. Just the same old pitiful homophobe male mobs (often in denial about latent homosexuality themselves) with their beatings and murders for which they end up in prison.

Rule of law may have just died in Nigeria by its own hand, with a single law?

by artappraiser on Thu, 01/23/2014 - 10:46pm

With no law to protect them, how will they protect themselves?

You want to know?

by Resistance on Thu, 01/23/2014 - 10:53pm

About half of Nigerians are Muslim and half are Christian. Recently, the two religions have come together in support of a new law

Too even claim they are is so disgusting. No wonder the Nations will turn on them.

by Resistance on Thu, 01/23/2014 - 10:26pm

Response to Peter from upstream comment. #1

Response to Peter #2

WHAT IS THE DETERRENT, YOU WOULD LET OTHERS HAVE ?

"That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it,

But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security…… The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Declaration_of_Independence

www.thefreedictionary.com/secure

by Resistance on Sun, 01/26/2014 - 1:32am

The Chicago Seven Conspiracy Trial ?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicago_Seven

http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/Chicago7/Account.html

In the end

“seven Chicago police officers charged with violating the civil rights of demonstrators were acquitted. Charges against an eighth officer were dismissed…….

All because they wanted an end to the war? as did many others; but the government didn't care or give a damn; The Democrats were about to screw the people over at the convention, so many more of our friends and family members; young Americans were killed in Vietnam. Till minds were changed? Was it fear?

To the many victims, we didn't forget their sacrifice delivered up by the powerful.

Eventually the government convinced folks to move on and many of the younger generation, has forgotten the armed forces; the government, can bring down upon the war protestors. ( look at the new surveillance laws...... that is, if you can)

Welcome to the New Order, where protestors are spied upon, and the assembly of those opposed, can be restricted, even incarcerated or God forbid..... All because a new generation forgets;... but not the government now more readily equipped, who'll be ready to knock down any and all protestors better than before. The intelligence apparatus enhanced.

No leaders to screw up the plans, for maintaining the malfeasant?

Maybe I should just forget trying to help others see and remember? It appears to be useless trying to convince the foolish and ignorant, who only care about staying comfortable; crying about the problems the government never seems to address and bemoaning what ever should we do, when our government serves the Corporate masters Electronic voting fraud, voter disenfranchisement, Government leaders lying before congress.

While the government say's they hear us ...what the heck does that mean? Poverty goes un- addressed, Good jobs leave the country, people losing/lost their shelter, people lost/ losing their retirement income while the Fat cats of the Health industry get richer and the government tell us; they hear us? "Go sparkle someone else's eyes"

by Resistance on Sun, 01/26/2014 - 3:08am

A word of advice, Resistance. When you're working so hard to try to educate others and bring them around to your way of thinking, it's probably not a good idea to call them "foolish and ignorant."

A sure way to lose your audience.

Especially a Dagblog audience.

by Ramona on Sun, 01/26/2014 - 8:38am

I will always accept your kind advice and reminders Ramona,

To Peter this was not directed at you.

by Resistance on Sun, 01/26/2014 - 5:05pm

I believe if the authorities are willing to use police dogs, to attack the Civil rights marchers, it would not be a stretch of the imagination, to consider they would use means, to silence the leader of the marchers. Especially during those days of fear, by those in power.

http://cdn.aarp.net/content/dam/aarp/politics/events-and-history/2013-01/620-civil-rights-leaders-information-anniversary-events-1963-demonstrator-dog.imgcache.rev1357671423859.jpg

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2012/03/05/learning/Mar07LN/Mar07LN-blog480.jpg

Jimmie Lee Jackson (December 1938 – February 26, 1965) was a civil rights protestor who was shot and killed by Alabama State Trooper James Bonard Fowler in 1965.[1] Jackson was unarmed. His death inspired the Selma to Montgomery marches, an important event in the American Civil Rights movement.[1] He was 26 years old.

Criminal charges against killer A grand jury declined to indict Fowler in September 1965, identifying him only by his surname: Fowler

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jimmie_Lee_Jackson

by Resistance on Sun, 01/26/2014 - 5:42pm

With this observation of what happened to Jimmie Lee Jackson, you return to a critical point of departure in this discussion; The place where the topic of the political method brought forward by Martin Luther King Jr. was changed by you into a topic about how he was killed.

One of the elements in the "non-violent" philosophies of social change as carried out in real time by Gandhi and King that should never be misconstrued or incorrectly described is how much they asked of the people carrying their strategy out. King and Gandhi led people to their deaths.

Jackson was one of them.

I am not saying it is unimportant to ask who was behind killing King. But to have that question occlude why he and his followers were a target to their enemies is not to offer proper respect for what they did under the conditions they did them in.

The U.S. government was only one of the fronts in their fight. And not all of it either.

by moat on Mon, 01/27/2014 - 7:09pm

Mob Attacks More Than a Dozen Gay Men in Nigeria’s Capital
By Adam Nossiter, New York Times, Feb. 15, 2014

DAKAR, Senegal — A mob attacked gay people in a neighborhood in Abuja, the capital of Nigeria, dragging young men from their homes, beating them with nail-studded clubs and whips, and shouting that they were “cleansing the community” of gays, several Nigerian activists and a witness said Saturday.

The attack took place late Wednesday night in the Gishiri neighborhood, and one victim was beaten nearly to death, the witness said. Afterward, the mob of about 50 young men dragged four of the victims to a nearby police station, where the police further beat and insulted them, said the witness, who gave his name as John. His last name is being withheld for his safety.

The attack came in the wake of a new law signed by President Goodluck Jonathan prescribing prison sentences of up to 14 years for gay people. There have been recent episodes of similar mob violence in the Muslim-dominated north of Nigeria.

In Abuja, the witness and the activists said, some in the mob were shouting, “We are working for Jonathan!”

About 14 young men were assaulted, the activists said, and no members of the mob were arrested.

“They all had weapons,” John said [....]

by artappraiser on Sun, 02/16/2014 - 12:00am

In the News

Russia plays weak hand in Palestine
Russia plays weak hand in Palestine

submitted by PeraclesPlease 10 months ago

The intra-Palestinian meeting in Moscow has precedent

Russia's hosted such meetings in the past, most recently Feb 2019

Russia has long lamented the US' "monopolization" of the peace process & tried to carve out a niche for itself: mediating among the disunited Palestinians/2
— Hanna Notte (@HannaNotte) February 29, 2024

Read the article at https://twitter.com/HannaNotte/status/1763116222256701787

Add new comment
Mother Jones is Reaching out to Alternative Party Voters
Mother Jones is Reaching out to Alternative Party Voters

submitted by HSG 11 months ago

Here's what I told them: https://halginsberg.com/vote-for-jill-stein-again/

Read the article at https://halginsberg.com/vote-for-jill-stein-again/

2 comments

Add new comment
Controversial Brazil law curbing Indigenous rights comes...
Controversial Brazil law curbing Indigenous rights comes into force

submitted by artappraiser 1 year ago

Controversial Brazil law curbing Indigenous rights comes into force https://t.co/pCoDg05irX
— Gareth Harris (@garethharr) December 28, 2023

Read the article at https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/dec/28/brazil-law-indigenous-land-rights-claim-time-marker?CMP=share_btn_tw

1 comment

Add new comment
Security Alert: U.S. Embassy Port-au-Prince, Haiti (...
Security Alert: U.S. Embassy Port-au-Prince, Haiti (December 25, 2023)

submitted by artappraiser 1 year ago

Location: U.S. Embassy and residential compounds

Events: Heavy gunfire is occuring around the area of the U.S. Embassy and residential compounds adjacent to the Trutier area of Tabarre. All Embassy personnel have been instructed to remain indoors and shelter-in-place until further notice. All others should avoid the area.

Actions to take:

Avoid the area;

Avoid demonstrations and any large gatherings of people;

Do not attempt to drive through roadblocks; and

If you encounter a roadblock, turn around and get to a safe area.

Read the article at https://ht.usembassy.gov/security-alert-u-s-embassy-port-au-prince-haiti-december-25-2023/

3 comments

Add new comment
Pakistan Is Creating the World’s Next Refugee Crisis
Pakistan Is Creating the World’s Next Refugee Crisis

submitted by artappraiser 1 year ago

By The Editorial Board @ Bloomberg.com, December 8, 2023

A mass expulsion of Afghan migrants could destabilize the region and fuel radicalization. The West should pressure Islamabad to change course.

Read the article at https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2023-12-08/pakistan-s-expulsion-of-afghan-refugees-risks-another-crisis

6 comments

Add new comment
Internet shut down in Chad
Internet shut down in Chad

submitted by artappraiser 1 year ago

All eyes on #Chad right now
Chad has two internet trunks coming into the country: One from the Red Sea via Sudan; the other from Cameroon. Not possible for the totality of the country's internet network to be shut unless done centrally. A lot of rumors swirling; few facts. https://t.co/N6bDJZ2ixO

Read the article at https://x.com/_hudsonc/status/1732891968709992511?s=20

2 comments

Add new comment
[Economy] where Joe's success falls short
[Economy] where Joe's success falls short

submitted by PeraclesPlease 1 year ago

Read the article at

3 comments

Add new comment
[CRIME News] 3 loss-prevention employees in Macy’s across...
[CRIME News] 3 loss-prevention employees in Macy’s across the street from Philadelphia City Hall stabbed

submitted by artappraiser 1 year ago

BREAKING: Three loss prevention employees in Macy’s across the street from Philadelphia City Hall stabbed, one of them has died from stab wounds, @PhillyPolice sources tell me. Police converged on the store as the three workers were rushed to Jefferson Hospital. pic.twitter.com/4U1eKycL4W

Read the article at https://x.com/KeeleyFox29/status/1731713272942940365?s=20

38 comments

Add new comment
Former U.S. Ambassador Arrested, Charged With Working As...
Former U.S. Ambassador Arrested, Charged With Working As Secret Agent For Cuba

submitted by artappraiser 1 year ago

Former US Ambassador Arrested, Charged With Working As Secret Agent For Cuba https://t.co/LDwo4ZJI1K
— HuffPost (@HuffPost) December 4, 2023

Read the article at https://www.huffpost.com/entry/manuel-rocha-ambassador-arrested-cuba_n_656d1e2ae4b028b0f3d07478

Add new comment
[War in Israel, Chapter II] UNRWA under scrutiny
[War in Israel, Chapter II] UNRWA under scrutiny

submitted by artappraiser 1 year ago

[Chapter I news is HERE, Oct. 7 til today]

You don’t get it.
It’s not about an UNRWA teacher who held an Israeli kid hostage in his house.
It’s all about how for 75 years you have destroyed the future of generations of Palestinians, including my family.
My cousins in Arab countries are still not citizens - not even the… https://t.co/nv6anubGhc
— George Deek (@GeorgeDeek) December 2, 2023

Note 'Community Notes' attached to UNWRA's statement.

Read the article at https://x.com/GeorgeDeek/status/1731020551328579863?s=20

58 comments

Add new comment
Maduro, Under Pressure, Holds Vote to Annex Territory From...
Maduro, Under Pressure, Holds Vote to Annex Territory From a Neighbor

submitted by artappraiser 1 year ago

Imperialism for me but not for thee?

It's wild that Venezuela is now holding a vote on whether 2/3 of Guyana actually belongs to them! Analysts suggest that Modoru may want military action to pump up his sinking popularity.

Could we have a war in South America?!?

"The people who live in Essequibo are largely… pic.twitter.com/QvMEjkkgwy

Read the article at https://www.nytimes.com/2023/12/03/world/americas/maduro-vote-essequibo-guyana.html

6 comments

Add new comment
[Where is the GOP headed?] Divisions leave Florida’s House...
[Where is the GOP headed?] Divisions leave Florida’s House Republicans powerless

submitted by artappraiser 1 year ago

The lack of a cohesive delegation has allowed attention-seeking lawmakers to act on their own.

McCarthy: “You have [Rep. Matt] Gaetz, who belongs in jail…”

Gaetz: “Tough words from a guy who sucker punches people in the back. The only assault I committed was against Kevin’s fragile ego.”https://t.co/LctPuz6Pcf

Read the article at https://www.politico.com/news/2023/11/29/divisions-leave-floridas-house-republicans-powerless-00129200

10 comments

Add new comment
‘She got so mad at me’: book on the ‘Squad’ details AOC-...
‘She got so mad at me’: book on the ‘Squad’ details AOC-Pelosi clashes

submitted by artappraiser 1 year ago

By Martinn Pengelly in Washington DC for TheGuardian.com, Nov. 30

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez tells Ryan Grim life in Congress ‘completely transformed’ after Democratic leader stepped down

Read the article at https://www.theguardian.com/books/2023/nov/30/squad-book-aoc-nancy-pelosi?CMP=share_btn_tw

15 comments

Add new comment
US health insurers Humana, Cigna in talks to merge -source
US health insurers Humana, Cigna in talks to merge -source

submitted by artappraiser 1 year ago

@ Reuters, Nov. 29

Read the article at https://www.reuters.com/markets/deals/us-health-insurers-humana-cigna-talks-merge-wsj-2023-11-29/

3 comments

Add new comment
Central Africa’s dinosaur regimes and the art of coup-...
Central Africa’s dinosaur regimes and the art of coup-proofing

submitted by artappraiser 1 year ago

"Both the AU and the intl community place more weight on whether elections are held than whether they are free and fair. Sanctions/expulsions occur when there is a coup but not necessarily when elections are rigged or if an “institutional coup” occurs." https://t.co/m9dNimJP0D
— Cameron Hudson (@_hudsonc) November 28, 2023

Read the article at https://africanarguments.org/2023/11/central-africas-dinosaur-regimes-and-the-art-of-coup-proofing/

Add new comment

From the Readers

Creative corner

From the Dagbloggers

Hits of the Day