« CONSTITUTION Home | Email msg. | Reply to msg. | Post new | Board info. Previous | Home | Next

In Murr V. Wisconsin, SCOTUS deals another blow to the Fifth Amendment

By: Beldin in CONSTITUTION | Recommend this post (0)
Sun, 25 Jun 17 11:51 PM | 1 view(s)
Boardmark this board | Constitutional Corner
Msg. 21622 of 21622
Jump:
Jump to board:
Jump to msg. #

http://hotair.com/archives/2017/06/24/murr-v-wisconsin-scotus-deals-another-blow-fifth-amendment/

A number of sane people around the commentariat have been up in arms over the recent decision handed down by the Supreme Court in Murr v. Wisconsin. And with very, very good reason. We've dealt with this case here before as it's played out through the lower courts, but as a refresher it deals with the situation encountered by Donna Murr and her siblings in Wisconsin. The family owned two small parcels of land along the St. Croix River. They had a cabin on one of the lots and the adjoining property was left vacant as an investment. But when they attempted to finally sell the vacant lot in 2004 they learned that the state had changed the rules on them, making it impossible to sell the land to anyone other than the county unless they combined the properties and relinquished the entire package.

The property in question had been valued at $400K. The county - the only entity legally entitled to buy it - offered them $40K.

Because the state, through changes in laws which did not apply when the family acquired the land, had completely gutted its worth, the Murr family sued to be properly compensated under the Takings Clause. With this week's decision, those hopes are dashed. Eric Boehm at Reason explains what this is doing to the rights of property owners.

When governments issue regulations that undermine the value of property, bureaucrats don't necessarily have to compensate property holders, the Supreme Court ruled Friday ...

The ruling could have implications that go well beyond the 2.5 acres of land in Wisconsin.

Several western states filed amicus briefs in the case on behalf of the Murr family (as did the Reason Foundation, which publishes this blog). Though states like Nevada and Arizona did not have a direct interest in the Murrs' ability to sell their vacant land, they saw the case as having important implications for conflicts over federal lands.

Many state governments own contiguous lots and large bodies of water near areas owned by the federal government (military bases, national parks, etc). If those government bodies are allowed to merge contiguous lots for regulatory purposes, the federal government could impose severe restrictions on state land and wouldn't have to pay consequences, warned Ilya Somin, a professor of law at George Mason University who authored the amicus brief on behalf of those western states.

What we are seeing here is a continuation of what I still maintain is possible the worst ruling from the Supreme Court in the history of the nation, Kelo v. City of New London. That was the dark day when the Supremes ruled that the idea of "public use" in the Takings Clause could be reinterpreted into a Reverse Robin Hood scenario by defining it as the far more ambiguous "public benefit." When that case was decided in 2005 the principal dissent was written by O'Connor, but in a separate dissent, Associate Justice Clarence Thomas wrote the following:

Something has gone seriously awry with this Court's interpretation of the Constitution. Though citizens are safe from the government in their homes, the homes themselves are not.

...




Avatar

The essential American soul is hard, isolate, stoic, and a killer. It has never yet melted. D.H. Lawrence


« CONSTITUTION Home | Email msg. | Reply to msg. | Post new | Board info. Previous | Home | Next

« CONSTITUTION Home | Email msg. | Reply to msg. | Post new | Board info. Previous | Home | Next

MT,,,,,,,,, pay no never mind to me. I'm deranged ..... LOL 

By: capt_nemo in CONSTITUTION | Recommend this post (7)
Thu, 22 Jun 17 6:07 AM | 49 view(s)
Boardmark this board | Constitutional Corner
Msg. 21621 of 21622
Jump:
Jump to board:
Jump to msg. #

MT,,,,,,,,, pay no never mind to me. I'm deranged ..... LOL




Avatar

Realist - Everybody in America is soft, and hates conflict. The cure for this, both in politics and social life, is the same -- hardihood. Give them raw truth.


« CONSTITUTION Home | Email msg. | Reply to msg. | Post new | Board info. Previous | Home | Next

« CONSTITUTION Home | Email msg. | Reply to msg. | Post new | Board info. Previous | Home | Next

Re: U.S. Trying to Criminalize Free Speech - Again 

By: capt_nemo in CONSTITUTION | Recommend this post (6)
Thu, 22 Jun 17 5:59 AM | 44 view(s)
Boardmark this board | Constitutional Corner
Msg. 21620 of 21622
(This msg. is a reply to 21617 by lkorrow)

Jump:
Jump to board:
Jump to msg. #

YUP!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!




Avatar

Realist - Everybody in America is soft, and hates conflict. The cure for this, both in politics and social life, is the same -- hardihood. Give them raw truth.


- - - - -
The above is a reply to the following message:
U.S. Trying to Criminalize Free Speech - Again
By: lkorrow
in CONSTITUTION
Tue, 20 Jun 17 3:18 PM
Msg. 21617 of 21622

U.S. Trying to Criminalize Free Speech - Again

- The law already prohibits violence and threats of violence, and law enforcement authorities are supposed to prosecute those -- intimidation, destruction, damage, vandalism, simple and aggravated assault. What "hate crimes" are not already covered by the law?

- Why would the House of Representatives find it necessary to make such redundant statements, if not in order to redefine the concept of a hate crime? Perhaps by including "hate speech"? The current resolution includes most of the major ethnic and religious minorities in the United States, so it will have a far better chance of passing, as it will more easily fool Representatives into thinking that the contents of the resolution are harmless.

- Would it not be appropriate for the politicians sponsoring and voting for these resolutions first of all to find out what drives the organizations responsible for drafting them? The Investigative Project on Terrorism has authored a damning 88-page report about the Muslim Public Affairs Council. American politicians do not seem to have taken much interest in it.

On April 4, 2017, the US Senate passed Senate Resolution 118, "Condemning hate crime and any other form of racism, religious or ethnic bias, discrimination, incitement to violence, or animus targeting a minority in the United States". The resolution was drafted by a Muslim organization, EmgageUSA (formerly EmergeUSA) and the Muslim Public Affairs Council (MPAC). On April 6, 2017, EmgageUSA wrote the following on their Facebook page:

"Thanks to the hard work of Senator Marco Rubio, Senator Dianne Feinstein, Senator Susan Collins and Senator Kamala Harris we have achieved the approval of Senate Resolution 118, an anti-hate crimes bill drafted by Emerge-USA. It is days like this that Americans are reminded of this country's founding principles: equal opportunity, freedom, justice. We are proud to help support the protection of these rights #amoreperfectunion #theamericandream".

More: https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/10544/criminalize-free-speech


« CONSTITUTION Home | Email msg. | Reply to msg. | Post new | Board info. Previous | Home | Next

« CONSTITUTION Home | Email msg. | Reply to msg. | Post new | Board info. Previous | Home | Next

Re: U.S. Trying to Criminalize Free Speech - Again

By: lkorrow in CONSTITUTION | Recommend this post (0)
Tue, 20 Jun 17 3:57 PM | 90 view(s)
Boardmark this board | Constitutional Corner
Msg. 21619 of 21622
(This msg. is a reply to 21618 by monkeytrots)

Jump:
Jump to board:
Jump to msg. #

mt, and,

"Thanks to the hard work of Senator Marco Rubio, Senator Dianne Feinstein, Senator Susan Collins and Senator Kamala Harris we have achieved the approval of Senate Resolution 118, an anti-hate crimes bill drafted by Emerge-USA. It is days like this that Americans are reminded of this country's founding principles: equal opportunity, freedom, justice. We are proud to help support the protection of these rights #amoreperfectunion #theamericandream".


Sen Marco Rubio, presidential candidate, 2016.




Avatar


- - - - -
The above is a reply to the following message:
Re: U.S. Trying to Criminalize Free Speech - Again
By: monkeytrots
in CONSTITUTION
Tue, 20 Jun 17 3:50 PM
Msg. 21618 of 21622

>> targeting a minority in the United States.

Wow- Racist/bigotted resolution to boot.

How about 'targeting any PERSON in the United States.

We know why. Logic and true equality under the law are now meaningless, and everything must appeal emotionally and to the politically correct.

So falleth the Fourteenth Ammendment.


« CONSTITUTION Home | Email msg. | Reply to msg. | Post new | Board info. Previous | Home | Next

« CONSTITUTION Home | Email msg. | Reply to msg. | Post new | Board info. Previous | Home | Next

Re: U.S. Trying to Criminalize Free Speech - Again 

By: monkeytrots in CONSTITUTION | Recommend this post (7)
Tue, 20 Jun 17 3:50 PM | 60 view(s)
Boardmark this board | Constitutional Corner
Msg. 21618 of 21622
(This msg. is a reply to 21617 by lkorrow)

Jump:
Jump to board:
Jump to msg. #

>> targeting a minority in the United States.

Wow- Racist/bigotted resolution to boot.

How about 'targeting any PERSON in the United States.

We know why. Logic and true equality under the law are now meaningless, and everything must appeal emotionally and to the politically correct.

So falleth the Fourteenth Ammendment.




Avatar

Finally, brethren, whatsoever things are true, whatsoever things are honest, whatsoever things are just, whatsoever things are pure, whatsoever things are lovely, whatsoever things are of good ...


- - - - -
View Replies (1) »

- - - - -
The above is a reply to the following message:
U.S. Trying to Criminalize Free Speech - Again
By: lkorrow
in CONSTITUTION
Tue, 20 Jun 17 3:18 PM
Msg. 21617 of 21622

U.S. Trying to Criminalize Free Speech - Again

- The law already prohibits violence and threats of violence, and law enforcement authorities are supposed to prosecute those -- intimidation, destruction, damage, vandalism, simple and aggravated assault. What "hate crimes" are not already covered by the law?

- Why would the House of Representatives find it necessary to make such redundant statements, if not in order to redefine the concept of a hate crime? Perhaps by including "hate speech"? The current resolution includes most of the major ethnic and religious minorities in the United States, so it will have a far better chance of passing, as it will more easily fool Representatives into thinking that the contents of the resolution are harmless.

- Would it not be appropriate for the politicians sponsoring and voting for these resolutions first of all to find out what drives the organizations responsible for drafting them? The Investigative Project on Terrorism has authored a damning 88-page report about the Muslim Public Affairs Council. American politicians do not seem to have taken much interest in it.

On April 4, 2017, the US Senate passed Senate Resolution 118, "Condemning hate crime and any other form of racism, religious or ethnic bias, discrimination, incitement to violence, or animus targeting a minority in the United States". The resolution was drafted by a Muslim organization, EmgageUSA (formerly EmergeUSA) and the Muslim Public Affairs Council (MPAC). On April 6, 2017, EmgageUSA wrote the following on their Facebook page:

"Thanks to the hard work of Senator Marco Rubio, Senator Dianne Feinstein, Senator Susan Collins and Senator Kamala Harris we have achieved the approval of Senate Resolution 118, an anti-hate crimes bill drafted by Emerge-USA. It is days like this that Americans are reminded of this country's founding principles: equal opportunity, freedom, justice. We are proud to help support the protection of these rights #amoreperfectunion #theamericandream".

More: https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/10544/criminalize-free-speech


« CONSTITUTION Home | Email msg. | Reply to msg. | Post new | Board info. Previous | Home | Next

« CONSTITUTION Home | Email msg. | Reply to msg. | Post new | Board info. Previous | Home | Next

U.S. Trying to Criminalize Free Speech - Again 

By: lkorrow in CONSTITUTION | Recommend this post (6)
Tue, 20 Jun 17 3:18 PM | 82 view(s)
Boardmark this board | Constitutional Corner
Msg. 21617 of 21622
Jump:
Jump to board:
Jump to msg. #

U.S. Trying to Criminalize Free Speech - Again

- The law already prohibits violence and threats of violence, and law enforcement authorities are supposed to prosecute those -- intimidation, destruction, damage, vandalism, simple and aggravated assault. What "hate crimes" are not already covered by the law?

- Why would the House of Representatives find it necessary to make such redundant statements, if not in order to redefine the concept of a hate crime? Perhaps by including "hate speech"? The current resolution includes most of the major ethnic and religious minorities in the United States, so it will have a far better chance of passing, as it will more easily fool Representatives into thinking that the contents of the resolution are harmless.

- Would it not be appropriate for the politicians sponsoring and voting for these resolutions first of all to find out what drives the organizations responsible for drafting them? The Investigative Project on Terrorism has authored a damning 88-page report about the Muslim Public Affairs Council. American politicians do not seem to have taken much interest in it.

On April 4, 2017, the US Senate passed Senate Resolution 118, "Condemning hate crime and any other form of racism, religious or ethnic bias, discrimination, incitement to violence, or animus targeting a minority in the United States". The resolution was drafted by a Muslim organization, EmgageUSA (formerly EmergeUSA) and the Muslim Public Affairs Council (MPAC). On April 6, 2017, EmgageUSA wrote the following on their Facebook page:

"Thanks to the hard work of Senator Marco Rubio, Senator Dianne Feinstein, Senator Susan Collins and Senator Kamala Harris we have achieved the approval of Senate Resolution 118, an anti-hate crimes bill drafted by Emerge-USA. It is days like this that Americans are reminded of this country's founding principles: equal opportunity, freedom, justice. We are proud to help support the protection of these rights #amoreperfectunion #theamericandream".

More: https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/10544/criminalize-free-speech




Avatar


- - - - -
View Replies (2) »

« CONSTITUTION Home | Email msg. | Reply to msg. | Post new | Board info. Previous | Home | Next

« CONSTITUTION Home | Email msg. | Reply to msg. | Post new | Board info. Previous | Home | Next

The Department of Justice is Privileging Mosques 

By: lkorrow in CONSTITUTION | Recommend this post (5)
Mon, 19 Jun 17 5:40 AM | 99 view(s)
Boardmark this board | Constitutional Corner
Msg. 21616 of 21622
Jump:
Jump to board:
Jump to msg. #

The Department of Justice is Privileging Mosques
https://creepingsharia.wordpress.com/2017/06/17/us-doj-privileging-mosques/

Groan. They are buying up commercial property on LI.




Avatar


« CONSTITUTION Home | Email msg. | Reply to msg. | Post new | Board info. Previous | Home | Next

« CONSTITUTION Home | Email msg. | Reply to msg. | Post new | Board info. Previous | Home | Next

Update Convention of the States ... 

By: monkeytrots in CONSTITUTION | Recommend this post (5)
Sun, 18 Jun 17 10:07 PM | 58 view(s)
Boardmark this board | Constitutional Corner
Msg. 21615 of 21622
Jump:
Jump to board:
Jump to msg. #

http://conventionofthestates.com

Rick Roberts, now a talk show host on WBAP-AM in DFW, and a former (international) oil and gas attourney, has now given his endorsement to a Constitutional Convention, and will be educating and promoting it in his show. His guest Friday, 16 June, 2017 was former Senator of South Carolina Jim Demint(two terms) who also supports it. Jim was also a US House Representatives, was President of Heritage Foundation for many years, a leader in the 'Tea Party' movement, and supported Donald Trump for President. Jim was replaced as President of Heritage Foundation, in March of this year. He now heads up promoting a Constitutional Convention.

Takeaways:
1.) Basic Overview of process
2.) Not possible to have a 'runaway Convention'
3.) Current proposals being passed are for term limits, and balanced budget ammendment
4.) This is the only way to correct the current course of government, and in any way limit our government. Congress is not going to do it.

No written transcript available, or mp3/audio download - only 'boombox' audio podcast replay. Don't know how to 'store' that.

WBAP: http://www.wbap.com/rick-roberts/
Podcast of Rick-Demint: http://embeds.audioboom.com/publishing/playlist/v4?bg_fill_col=%23ecefef&boo_content_type=channel&data_for_content_type=4630333&image_option=small&link_color=%2358d1eb&player_theme=light&src=https%3A%2F%2Fapi.audioboom.com%2Fchannels%2F4630333%2Faudio_clips%3Finclude_child_channels%3D1#Senator%20Jim%20DeMint%20convention%20of%20states%20interview

On Jim and the Heritage Foundation: http://www.politico.com/story/2017/05/02/why-jim-demint-was-ousted-from-heritage-237876

My notes: I am not at all hopeful that even a Constitutional Convention can correct a damn thing.

Am still burned out from my examination of real fundamental changes that would be effective.

Other than 'term limits' (which is a very small fundamental, damn near trivial), don't feel that the current Convention of the States proposal(s) will accomplish diddly-squat.




Avatar

Finally, brethren, whatsoever things are true, whatsoever things are honest, whatsoever things are just, whatsoever things are pure, whatsoever things are lovely, whatsoever things are of good ...


« CONSTITUTION Home | Email msg. | Reply to msg. | Post new | Board info. Previous | Home | Next

« CONSTITUTION Home | Email msg. | Reply to msg. | Post new | Board info. Previous | Home | Next

Update on Constitutional Convention coverage coming. 

By: monkeytrots in CONSTITUTION | Recommend this post (5)
Fri, 16 Jun 17 8:10 PM | 82 view(s)
Boardmark this board | Constitutional Corner
Msg. 21614 of 21622
Jump:
Jump to board:
Jump to msg. #

Local radio - will have link, summary, and comments at a later time.

Specifically addressing Zim's opposition based on 'run away convention' concern (which really was covered in posts preceding my list of needed changes.)




Avatar

Finally, brethren, whatsoever things are true, whatsoever things are honest, whatsoever things are just, whatsoever things are pure, whatsoever things are lovely, whatsoever things are of good ...


« CONSTITUTION Home | Email msg. | Reply to msg. | Post new | Board info. Previous | Home | Next

« CONSTITUTION Home | Email msg. | Reply to msg. | Post new | Board info. Previous | Home | Next

Daniel Greenfield: The Plot Against Democracy 

By: monkeytrots in CONSTITUTION | Recommend this post (5)
Mon, 12 Jun 17 4:31 AM | 109 view(s)
Boardmark this board | Constitutional Corner
Msg. 21613 of 21622
Jump:
Jump to board:
Jump to msg. #

The leftist faction lecturing Republicans about decency, national security and the rule of laws punches political opponents in the face, creates back channels to Islamic terrorists in Iran, smuggles billions to fund their terror, and sends the IRS after political opponents. Is their moral authority worth anything?

http://sultanknish.blogspot.com/

The Plot Against Democracy
Posted by Daniel Greenfield Friday, June 09, 2017

Here’s the good news.

It’s 2017 and Republicans control the White House, the Senate, the House and more statewide offices than you can shake a big bundle of fake news papers at. And, potentially soon, a Supreme Court that takes its guidelines from the Constitution not Das Kapital and the National Social Justice Party.

Here’s the bad news, Republicans are still Republicans.

The media throws some chum in the water and sits back and watches the bloody fun as Republicans go after Republicans for the entertainment of their enemies. Scandals are manufactured and then strategically aimed to divide and conquer Republicans. But the real target is the conservative agenda.

At the heart of the controversy over all these manufactured fake news scandals are two vital questions.

1. Was the last presidential election legitimate?

2. Should anyone to the right of the left be able to govern?

The left has answered “No” to both questions. The first question was answered in the negative because the second answer was “Never”.

Republicans have varied reactions to Trump. Leftists have only one reaction to anyone to the right of them. It’s the same reaction you get if you send an ISIS member into Temple Beth Shalom. If President Kasich were in the White House, you would be reading in the Washington Post how he singlehandedly brought back the Klan, causes Bursitis and is secretly doing the bidding of the Brazilians.

It’s a swamp of innuendo based on anonymous sources, investigations fed by illegal eavesdropping, scandals in which the outrage comes before the evidence whose purpose is to overturn an election. These aren’t investigations. They’re a coup by the losing side that refuses to admit it lost a presidential election. The coup isn’t just aimed at President Trump or any single member of his administration.

It’s aimed at America, at democracy and at any policy to the right of free entitlements and no freedoms.

If you believe in free speech, the right to keep what you earn, freedom of conscience, free elections, a free press, rule of the people by the people, Plymouth Rock, a little piece of paper out of Independence Hall, emancipation, reason, art, literature, history and civil rights, the coup is aimed at you.

The three things that Republicans don’t get, in order of descending importance, are that the left hates anyone to the right, that it wants absolute power and that it will do anything to destroy its enemies.

Yes, the left really hates you. It doesn’t care that you’re socially liberal and fiscally conservative or the other way around. It doesn’t care if you agree with it on 99.9% of the issues. It will still hang you from a lamppost in Portland or Berkeley because of that 0.1%. If you doubt that, look at how many Communists survived Stalin and Mao. Or how Joe Lieberman went from the vice presidential nominee to a right-wing extremist because he believed that terrorism was a bad thing or how Joe Manchin is an honorary Republican because he does controversial things like vote to approve a president’s cabinet nominees.

There’s no room in the Democrat Party for democrats. There sure as hell isn’t any for Republicans.

The left is obsessed with political purity. It wants absolute power. There is no room in there for compromise. Either you are with them or you are the enemy. And fair game for anything.

There are two things at stake here. A conservative political agenda and free elections. Any complicity with the coup undermines both. If the results of a presidential election can be retroactively annulled by powerful political interests in the establishment and the media, we lose free elections. People stop voting. Many of those people will be conservatives, independents or otherwise to the right of the left.

No conservative agenda will ever be passed without conservative solidarity. Until the left gets the message that it will never overturn the results of this last election, it will keep trying. Conservatives can squash this fascist fantasy only by making it clear that there will never be an impeachment and that they will respond to investigations the way that Rep. Elijah Cummings did to the investigation of Benghazi.

The leftist faction lecturing Republicans about decency, national security and the rule of laws punches political opponents in the face, creates back channels to Islamic terrorists in Iran, smuggles billions to fund their terror, and sends the IRS after political opponents. Is their moral authority worth anything?

Republicans can follow the rules and eat their own. And then maybe when they’ve hung each other to show what noble souls they are, the media will recognize their goodness. It’s never worked before. But there’s always a last time. Just ask the last man through the gulag gates.

Two best comments (many were VERY disappointing )

2nd best: Anonymous said...

Amen and amen. The Founders were trying to get away from all of this and to live their lives as they saw fit in a free country enjoying their God-given liberty.

Choice is antithetical to these evil people. You didn't vote for them, so they will make you pay just like another individual who spreading chaos throughout the land.

This isn't about right and left, it's about right and wrong. God set up this country through inspired individuals and it's up to us to keep that freedom for others.

Keep fighting the good fight, Daniel!
9/6/17

BEST COMMENT; Y. Ben-David said...

I am afraid that people don't understand that the problem in the US (and democratic Europe, too, for that matter) is NOT political, i.e. the Democrats are bad and the Republicans are immature. No. The problem is there is a MORAL ROT that affects the whole system, R's and D's together. I would attribute this to an aggressive secularism that makes people forget that character and a belief in moral accountability are vital to having a healthy society. It has been stated that Bill Clinton was the first President to have the belief that "what's right is what you can get away with". Actually, JFK was really a true believer in that, but in his era, indiscretions were still hidden from the public based on the view that "hypocrisy is the homage that vice pays to virtue". Today, everyone is quite open about their libertine lifestyles. Even the traditional religions in the US are falling all over themselves to be "open-minded" and "non-judgmental" (the Pope is a good example). The political rot across the board is simply a manifestation of this disease. Therefore, it is not enough to preach to the Republican leadership to get their act together. There has to be a fundamental reassessment of the moral values that the society has. Frankly, I don't see ANYONE talking about this.
11/6/17





Avatar

Finally, brethren, whatsoever things are true, whatsoever things are honest, whatsoever things are just, whatsoever things are pure, whatsoever things are lovely, whatsoever things are of good ...


« CONSTITUTION Home | Email msg. | Reply to msg. | Post new | Board info. Previous | Home | Next

« CONSTITUTION Home | Email msg. | Reply to msg. | Post new | Board info. Previous | Home | Next

Re: Bookmark Post: The Riyadh Speeches 

By: lkorrow in CONSTITUTION | Recommend this post (6)
Wed, 07 Jun 17 5:32 AM | 253 view(s)
Boardmark this board | Constitutional Corner
Msg. 21612 of 21622
(This msg. is a reply to 21610 by monkeytrots)

Jump:
Jump to board:
Jump to msg. #

Thanks, mt, a superlative piece of work.

New:

John Guandolo Moment: The Jihadist-Leftist Matrix Unveiled
https://www.jihadwatch.org/2017/06/john-guandolo-moment-the-jihadist-leftist-matrix-unveiled




Avatar


- - - - -
The above is a reply to the following message:
Bookmark Post: The Riyadh Speeches
By: monkeytrots
in CONSTITUTION
Mon, 05 Jun 17 8:48 PM
Msg. 21610 of 21622

Linda posted this on PopeIV. It is important enough to cross post here - so that it is easier to find.

#msg-1001769

Post of the Day, Week, Month- would be mere hype distracting from the importance of this analysis.

It is a clear and unequivocating exposition of the abhorent nature of the muslim religion and how they abuse the English language to call all muslims to world subjugation while appearing to be 'reasonabe'.

FOR NON MUSLIMS - Islam is NOT a religion of peace, nor is there any such thing as moderate, non-extremist muslim.

Repeat that - for NON-MUSLIMS - there is no peace - there is only complete and total subjugation.

FOR MUSLIMS - THAT is ummah - their peace.

Hat tip, Linda - that is one of the clearest expositions I have ever read.

Thank you.
~mt

btw: Read it all, after you have scrolled down for the quick overview.

The Riyadh Speeches
By: lkorrow in POPE IV
Mon, 05 Jun 17 5:00 AM Msg. 26403 of 26424

If you want an appreciation of Western vs. Arab interpretations of words, read John Guandolo's commentary on Saudi King Salman's speech. You'll see how seemingly honest statements are anything but.

Scroll down to, Remarks by King Salman ibn Adb al-Aziz al Saud May 21, 2017 in Saudi Arabia
http://www.understandingthethreat.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/UTT_SaudiReport-new.pdf
 



« CONSTITUTION Home | Email msg. | Reply to msg. | Post new | Board info. Previous | Home | Next

« CONSTITUTION Home | Email msg. | Reply to msg. | Post new | Board info. Previous | Home | Next

Re: BLOCKBUSTER REVELATIONS, LINDA - Re: Russia Special Counsel Mueller Worked with Radical Islamic Groups to Purge Anti-Terrorism Training Material Offensive to Muslims 

By: lkorrow in CONSTITUTION | Recommend this post (5)
Wed, 07 Jun 17 5:29 AM | 145 view(s)
Boardmark this board | Constitutional Corner
Msg. 21611 of 21622
(This msg. is a reply to 21609 by monkeytrots)

Jump:
Jump to board:
Jump to msg. #

He looked a little shaken, it did bother him. It's like he was trying to bond with the group or something. There was probably a certain expectation, given the left is in bed with them.

I have heard all the Iranians at the Embassy are spies. He is probably the highest level to be ambassador, not to mention having his son wed the Sec of State's daughter. How do they even get proximity in the first place? Sheesh.




Avatar


- - - - -
The above is a reply to the following message:
Re: BLOCKBUSTER REVELATIONS, LINDA - Re: Russia Special Counsel Mueller Worked with Radical Islamic Groups to Purge Anti-Terrorism Training Material Offensive to Muslims
By: monkeytrots
in CONSTITUTION
Mon, 05 Jun 17 8:38 AM
Msg. 21609 of 21622

Good for you !!

Kudos - done non-aggressively, yet unmistakably.

I wish more Americans had the guts to stand up to evil - and let those types know we not only disagree with them, but also will not tolerate nor accept their bs.

I am sure that is what confounded him.


« CONSTITUTION Home | Email msg. | Reply to msg. | Post new | Board info. Previous | Home | Next

« CONSTITUTION Home | Email msg. | Reply to msg. | Post new | Board info. Previous | Home | Next

Bookmark Post: The Riyadh Speeches 

By: monkeytrots in CONSTITUTION | Recommend this post (3)
Mon, 05 Jun 17 8:48 PM | 235 view(s)
Boardmark this board | Constitutional Corner
Msg. 21610 of 21622
Jump:
Jump to board:
Jump to msg. #

Linda posted this on PopeIV. It is important enough to cross post here - so that it is easier to find.

#msg-1001769

Post of the Day, Week, Month- would be mere hype distracting from the importance of this analysis.

It is a clear and unequivocating exposition of the abhorent nature of the muslim religion and how they abuse the English language to call all muslims to world subjugation while appearing to be 'reasonabe'.

FOR NON MUSLIMS - Islam is NOT a religion of peace, nor is there any such thing as moderate, non-extremist muslim.

Repeat that - for NON-MUSLIMS - there is no peace - there is only complete and total subjugation.

FOR MUSLIMS - THAT is ummah - their peace.

Hat tip, Linda - that is one of the clearest expositions I have ever read.

Thank you.
~mt

btw: Read it all, after you have scrolled down for the quick overview.

The Riyadh Speeches
By: lkorrow in POPE IV
Mon, 05 Jun 17 5:00 AM Msg. 26403 of 26424

If you want an appreciation of Western vs. Arab interpretations of words, read John Guandolo's commentary on Saudi King Salman's speech. You'll see how seemingly honest statements are anything but.

Scroll down to, Remarks by King Salman ibn Adb al-Aziz al Saud May 21, 2017 in Saudi Arabia
http://www.understandingthethreat.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/UTT_SaudiReport-new.pdf
 





Avatar

Finally, brethren, whatsoever things are true, whatsoever things are honest, whatsoever things are just, whatsoever things are pure, whatsoever things are lovely, whatsoever things are of good ...


- - - - -
View Replies (1) »

« CONSTITUTION Home | Email msg. | Reply to msg. | Post new | Board info. Previous | Home | Next

« CONSTITUTION Home | Email msg. | Reply to msg. | Post new | Board info. Previous | Home | Next

Re: BLOCKBUSTER REVELATIONS, LINDA - Re: Russia Special Counsel Mueller Worked with Radical Islamic Groups to Purge Anti-Terrorism Training Material Offensive to Muslims 

By: monkeytrots in CONSTITUTION | Recommend this post (3)
Mon, 05 Jun 17 8:38 AM | 134 view(s)
Boardmark this board | Constitutional Corner
Msg. 21609 of 21622
(This msg. is a reply to 21608 by lkorrow)

Jump:
Jump to board:
Jump to msg. #

Good for you !!

Kudos - done non-aggressively, yet unmistakably.

I wish more Americans had the guts to stand up to evil - and let those types know we not only disagree with them, but also will not tolerate nor accept their bs.

I am sure that is what confounded him.




Avatar

Finally, brethren, whatsoever things are true, whatsoever things are honest, whatsoever things are just, whatsoever things are pure, whatsoever things are lovely, whatsoever things are of good ...


- - - - -
View Replies (1) »

- - - - -
The above is a reply to the following message:
Re: BLOCKBUSTER REVELATIONS, LINDA - Re: Russia Special Counsel Mueller Worked with Radical Islamic Groups to Purge Anti-Terrorism Training Material Offensive to Muslims
By: lkorrow
in CONSTITUTION
Mon, 05 Jun 17 5:42 AM
Msg. 21608 of 21622

Thought you'd never ask. Smile

I was in a meeting where he spoke. I'm trying to remember where, maybe it was the Asia Society (yes, left, Richard Holbrook used to be Chairman). I was sitting with a guy who came up from DC for the meeting and we were up front, second row, if I recall correctly.

What I noticed was Zarif seemed to have picked me as a person to watch to judge how the audience was receiving his line. At one point, he was looking away from the audience, towards the wall, but I could tell he was looking straight at me. Apparently that's an intel technique, looking forward, but seeing sideways. Wonder what they call that. Anyway, I gave him a nod now and then. At the end, I didn't clap and spoke a few quiet words to the chap from DC. Glancing towards the stage, I saw he registered shock that I wasn't clapping.

I know that was strange and one might say I was imagining it, but I know it to be true, as it was obvious to me what he was doing. That was my snub. Not delivered personally, lol.

I was in another meeting with Zarif, which was actually fascinating. Oddly, it was a non-proliferation meeting. Over lunch, Richard Haass, the head of the CFR, 'interrogated' him. He had him sitting in a lone chair and he walked around him asking questions. That was when he was Amb., too, pretty early on in his tenure.


« CONSTITUTION Home | Email msg. | Reply to msg. | Post new | Board info. Previous | Home | Next

« CONSTITUTION Home | Email msg. | Reply to msg. | Post new | Board info. Previous | Home | Next

Re: BLOCKBUSTER REVELATIONS, LINDA - Re: Russia Special Counsel Mueller Worked with Radical Islamic Groups to Purge Anti-Terrorism Training Material Offensive to Muslims 

By: lkorrow in CONSTITUTION | Recommend this post (5)
Mon, 05 Jun 17 5:42 AM | 145 view(s)
Boardmark this board | Constitutional Corner
Msg. 21608 of 21622
(This msg. is a reply to 21607 by monkeytrots)

Jump:
Jump to board:
Jump to msg. #

Thought you'd never ask. Smile

I was in a meeting where he spoke. I'm trying to remember where, maybe it was the Asia Society (yes, left, Richard Holbrook used to be Chairman). I was sitting with a guy who came up from DC for the meeting and we were up front, second row, if I recall correctly.

What I noticed was Zarif seemed to have picked me as a person to watch to judge how the audience was receiving his line. At one point, he was looking away from the audience, towards the wall, but I could tell he was looking straight at me. Apparently that's an intel technique, looking forward, but seeing sideways. Wonder what they call that. Anyway, I gave him a nod now and then. At the end, I didn't clap and spoke a few quiet words to the chap from DC. Glancing towards the stage, I saw he registered shock that I wasn't clapping.

I know that was strange and one might say I was imagining it, but I know it to be true, as it was obvious to me what he was doing. That was my snub. Not delivered personally, lol.

I was in another meeting with Zarif, which was actually fascinating. Oddly, it was a non-proliferation meeting. Over lunch, Richard Haass, the head of the CFR, 'interrogated' him. He had him sitting in a lone chair and he walked around him asking questions. That was when he was Amb., too, pretty early on in his tenure.




Avatar


- - - - -
View Replies (1) »

- - - - -
The above is a reply to the following message:
BLOCKBUSTER REVELATIONS, LINDA - Re: Russia Special Counsel Mueller Worked with Radical Islamic Groups to Purge Anti-Terrorism Training Material Offensive to Muslims
By: monkeytrots
in CONSTITUTION
Sun, 04 Jun 17 7:06 AM
Msg. 21607 of 21622

Thank you for posting that.

Care to share how you managed to snub that jihaadi ?


« CONSTITUTION Home | Email msg. | Reply to msg. | Post new | Board info. Previous | Home | Next