The democrats undoing in NH will be thinking they have a mandate in the state. Big mistake democrats, a very big mistake.

Dear Mr. Kenney,

Texas has no legal right to secede.

In 1869, the United States Supreme Court decided in White v. Texas that, because the Articles of Confederation declared in their title the perpetual union of the former colonies, and the Constitution of the United States was created in part "to form a more perfect union," the bonds united the states into one nation perpetually because an indissoluble union is more perfect than one which can be torn apart.

More...

Continued:

Chief Justice Salmon Chase, in the majority opinion: "The Union of the States never was a purely artificial and arbitrary relation. It began among the Colonies, and grew out of common origin, mutual sympathies, kindred principles, similar interests, and geographical relations. It was confirmed and strengthened by the necessities of war, and received definite form and character and sanction from the Articles of Confederation. By these, the Union was solemnly declared to 'be perpetual.' And when these Articles were found to be inadequate to the exigencies of the country, the Constitution was ordained 'to form a more perfect Union.' It is difficult to convey the idea of indissoluble unity more clearly than by these words. What can be indissoluble if a perpetual Union, made more perfect, is not?"

Texas, upon agreeing to become one of the states, first had to consent to be bound by the United States Constitution. Texas v. White found that it was indeed so bound and had never achieved independence during the Great Rebellion because the declared secessions of the states in rebellion were constitutionally and therefore legally void.

More....

Continued:

Chase again in Texas v. White: "When, therefore, Texas became one of the United States, she entered into an indissoluble relation. All the obligations of perpetual union, and all the guaranties of republican government in the Union, attached at once to the State. The act which consummated her admission into the Union was something more than a compact; it was the incorporation of a new member into the political body. And it was final. The union between Texas and the other States was as complete, as perpetual, and as indissoluble as the union between the original States. There was no place for reconsideration or revocation, except through revolution or through consent of the States."

Texas, having agreed to be bound by the United States Constitution, cannot legally disunite itself unilaterally. There is no constitutional mechanism for secession. The very least it could do if it wanted independence, being bound by the Constitution as it is, would be to sue for independence in the Supreme Court. Chase said it would take an act of Congress, and I do believe he's right. The court, presented with such a petition, would pass it on to Congress anyway.

More....

Continued:

Article VI, Clause 2: "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding."

Article III, Section 1: "The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and ... (Section 2) ... shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority ... to controversies to which the United States shall be a party."

The only way Texas could secede would be to start a shooting war. The last time I heard about it, the Pentagon is still in Washington, D.C.

Yours truly,

Fact or fiction: Texas is permitted to divide itself into five states.

FACT.
The 1845 Joint Resolution for Annexing Texas affirms Texas’ right to divide itself into five states if it chooses. Here’s the relevant passage, written in 19th century legalese:
“New States, of convenient size, not exceeding four in number, in addition to said State of Texas, and having sufficient population, may hereafter, by the consent of the said State, be formed out of the territory thereof, which shall be entitled to admission under the provisions of the federal constitution.”
Texas has never tested the treaty of annexation. But it is possible that ten senators could, at some point, represent the current territory of Texas. How ’bout East Texas, West Texas, Central Texas, South Texas and North Texas?
Source: Houston Chronicle

Here’s a thought: If Texas ever morphed into five states, the complexion of the Senate would change drastically. Any political party would need 55 votes to have a majority since there would be 108 senators. I think such a change would result in a net gain for conservatives. Texas definitely has the room to expand. I wonder what a flag with 54 stars would look like?

Mike Kenney

Typical right-wing response - I don't like the result so I'm taking my ball and going home. Mitt Romney is now on a 'not my fault he cheated' tour, unable to accept the blame for being a horrible candidate surrounded by less competent people. We are very lucky that he is not and never will be "President-Elect Romney".
And BTW, these Republican states - BY FAR - take more in federal money than they give, and would be in even worse shape when they lose military installations and other U.S. "gifts" to their economies. So, as usual, these folks are thinking with their trigger fingers.

Children stamping their feet because they didn't get what they wanted. That's all we're hearing about, a few very loud and obnoxious jokers who think their bad behavior will get then the attention they want.

Texas as a state is a receiver of our taxes, in pork and in emergency aid. We send help when the hurricane wipes out the entire coastline and when the drought burns whole communities and they've defund even the volunteer firefighters. Their air is polluted, their children go uneducated and hungry, their elders suffer cuts to maintain their frugal budget.

The real question should be...
Do we really want this huge embarrassment as a state?

"During the conflict Lincoln signed the Emancipation Proclamation in 1863 and freed the slaves.""Wouldn’t it be ironic that 150 years later, the first African-American president destroyed the union by serial secessions? That’s gratitude for y’all!"

Think about what Kenny is suggesting here...........
And he gets paid to influence our students............

It was not Lincoln's intent to free slaves, or 'save' the union. There are a lot of manipulated tales of Lincoln- who, in fact, had slaves and was of the opinion that the slaves needed to be deported, save for those he and his friends used. He tore the 'union' apart, killing many who protested (rightfully) to being over-taxed in order to support his railroad agenda and his northern industrial buddies who were pushing for a monopolistic control of the independent sovereign states. He incarcerated, and even deported, those who objected to his agenda. The Civil War was NOT about 'freeing slaves; it was about several states choosing to secede rather than be over-burdened with an unjust tax. He basically 'outlawed' their secession by waging a war against them. 'Freeing slaves' was a ruse used to prevent foreign nations from knowing what was actually occurring in order to gain their financial support.
Rather than allow for secession, Lincoln waged war against those wishing to secede. (why do you think Confederate money was printed? They were in process of secession & the currency was made to support & carry on commerce for their Independent States).
If one actually researches what Lincoln did, they will find a well-heeled tyrant with an agenda 180 from what has presented in the manipulated 'truths' taught in school.

The united States of America has always been a Republic form of government(Article!V,Section 4). James Madison, the author of many of the essays included in The Federalist Papers (1787–88), gave a detailed sophisticated concept of republican government. In Number 10, Madison states, with explanation, that a republic must be contrasted with a democracy. Madison reasoned that a republic meant a system in which representatives are chosen by the citizens to exercise the powers of government. In Number 39 of The Federalist Papers, Madison again states that a republic "is a government which derives all its powers directly or indirectly from the great body of the people; and is administered by persons holding their offices during pleasure, for a limited period, or during good behavior."The republican form of government has remained a constant in U.S. politics.
Our right to secede is integral to our founding document (The Declaration of Independence). It also states repeatedly that We are Free and Independent States, and We are "the united States of America". We maintain the right to alter, abolish, separate from, "and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do".
One Justices 'finding' does not negate our unalienable Rights set forth in our Declaration of Independence. We are, first and foremost, Free and Independent States of the united States of America, and therefore, maintain our right to secede- even from our own form of government.

And since We have 30 of our united Independent States whose citizens are filing for secession, We clearly hold a majority upholding the Right to secede, and thus correct our form of government which has become increasingly corrupt.
"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, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."(Declaration of Independence)
It is only through the consent of the governed that governments exist. With a majority of Free and Independent States whose citizenry has been filing for secession, it is apparent that alteration will occur as 'the governed' withdraw their support of the current system of government.

The majority mentioned does not refer to individuals, but rather the majority of States who have filings. So, no, it is not fantasy, Jan. 30 out of 50 IS a majority on the count of States (unless you have learned a new mathematics that proves that otherwise).
And, this being only a bit more than a week after Nov. 6, no telling how many more citizen will sign for, support or not support secession - in any of the States. Time will tell how much support secession will garner in the long run.
It may be that Obama winning was the straw that instigated the petitions; on the other hand, it may just be that people are fed up with a dysfunctional system that is not serving them in the best manner, and therefore people feel it needs some adjusting and they may be supporting secession as a means to correct our form of government to a better fit.

Tammy,
There are a lot of historic records that one can track down and read to find out the facts of what has occurred over our history (unfortunately, it is not what many were spoon-fed by the educational system). If tracking down the original documents seems daunting, one can read DiLorenzo's books regarding Lincoln and Hamilton, which have many references listed as to what documents to search out and read.
As a born and bred 'yankee', I found the unveiling revealed in the original documents disturbing, however, it sheds light on how we arrived at this point- and why. Well worth researching, as it gives us the knowledge of how to correct the ship, as it were.

Steve,
My, how good you are at misconstruing! What I said was 'We have 30 of our united Independent States whose citizens are filing for secession',meaning they are petitioning their respective States.
It is rather assuming to claim that those persons doing so are "A bunch of sore losers are acting like idiots", unless, of course, you personally Know these individuals, and Know, by expressing your subjective view, that that somehow puts you in such a self-ordained position of righteousness to judge these individuals as such.
I do not anywhere state that I am attempting to "take My country back", not that I have ever been in a personal position to give it in order to take it back. I did not state anywhere that it was My country, either. To the best of my knowledge, the untied States of America belongs to the 'WE' spoken of by our founders, meaning to the people of each respective Free and Independent State which comprises the united States of America.
Further, I do not make any statement regarding whom I thought might have been a preferred candidate in the recent election, nor any statement as to any political affiliation- or whether I even had a political affiliation - or whether I even voted or not.
For someone who clearly desires respect for your own opinions, perhaps you need to offer the same courtesy to others -"even the people you don't agree with". Unless, of course, you think by making such assumptions and allegations somehow benefits you.

Tammy, you are free to do your own research on Lincoln and Jefferson. Then you can make up your own mind as to whether I confused the two. It was Lincoln who was heavily involved with the railroads and the had strong ties with the northern industrialists, and was a wealthy lawyer who also married into further wealth. He owed his career to such alliances, and did their bidding. Jefferson, on the other hand, was all for limiting government, and pro liberty and personal freedom. Please do the research, and then you will know the facts for yourself.

Typically, in a post-election aftermath, partisans supporting the losing candidate threaten all sorts of unlikely things (e.g., moving to Canada, seceding from the United States). It helps them deal with the frustration. But the cold light of reality starts highlighting manifold problems (such as the people who hatch them are a distinct minority) with these cockeyed plans. So, go ahead. Do your darndest. But the odds are a million to one that nothing will come of these unlikely ideas. But go for it. Try your hardest. And in 2050, we will still be the United States of America consisting of at least 50 states.

Gary,
Wouldn't know, as I don't spend a lot of time following post-election aftermaths nor give any time looking into views of people whose chosen candidate won or lost. I'm not filing any petition one way or the other, but rather was simply stating that the people of the respective States have the right to do so, and who knows where, or if it will lead to anything. What I stated was 'With a majority of Free and Independent States whose citizenry has been filing for secession, it is apparent that alteration will occur as 'the governed' withdraw their support of the current system of government.' The key being AS support is withdrawn, alteration will occur. I am certainly in no position to ascertain whether the petitions will increase or decrease in support of secession from people. I was simply stating that the people have the right to decide what is best for them, and to act on that decision, including secession. So your comment of "So, go ahead. Do your darndest. But the odds are a million to one that nothing will come of these unlikely ideas. But go for it. Try your hardest.", you'd be well to remember that the British thought the exact same thing. And, incidentally, I made no reference that I had signed or created a petition for secession, thus, it appears you have made an assumption regarding that.

Mr. Clark,
The respective colonies/states were in existence prior to our adoption of a form of government as the 'united' States of America. Therefore, We are not 'sub-units' of a whole, but rather the whole is made up/created from the unity of purpose formed by the Free and Independent States. Yes, the States are prohibited from entering into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a Foreign Power, or engage in War, UNLESS actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay (so States actually reserve the right under particular circumstances- see Article I,Sec.10,last paragraph of Constitution).
Continued next post...

Continuation to Mr. Clark-
You state 'Any unpatriotic people are free to leave the country, but their land will forever remain United States soil unless Congress approves otherwise.' if an individual owns land in any respective State, that land is theirs whether they leave the country or not, and they are free to dispose of it as they wish, unless the land is purchased for fair value via eminent domain procedure.it does not automatically become federally owned land, nor State owned land. Physically, it remains on the continent, however the individual owns it, be they 'unpatriotic' or otherwise. In fact, the central body set up by the people to handle such affairs as land acquisition have to purchase land from the the States, and with Consent of the respective Legislature of the State, only then can the 'feds' exercise authority in such place, as was purchased for the purpose of erecting forts, magazines, arsenals, dock-yards and other needful buildings (see Article I, Section 8 of Constitution).
Amendment 4 addresses the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, houses, papers, and effects (property being an 'effect' as legally defined).
Continued next post...

Article 2,Section 2 clearly states Civilian power over Military, Cabinet, etc. It's through the people that the government is granted the power to govern, and it's through our representatives (in Congress,etc.) that We do this. The 'United States of America' does not own us; We created the united States of America & agreed on a commonly accepted form of Self government. No one (in our republic) need take anything by force that we are already in charge of; we simply need to utilize & maintain our self-governing powers, & alter whatever may not be working for us. The Constitution was written 'IN ORDER TO' (form a more perfect union); no where is it stated that We have ACHIEVED that goal. However, the tools are in place to keep adjusting whenever needed, & those tools are for Us to utilize. It's up to the people to adjust, expand, dissolve as needed. We are not subject to the government;the government is subject to the People of the respective States, who joined hands with a common purpose, & formed a government body to perform certain duties assigned by the people. Our ancestors found that joining together gave the Free & Independent States more clout, as it were, than if each State had to deal with certain aspects single-handedly. Flexible, mutual agreement worked better for the people collectively, but We did not hand over our persons or States to a federal body to control the people. Instead, we created a federal body of government controlled by the people. The People steer.

Steve,
You quote 'anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding', yet you read/comprehend it backwards from it's meaning. It means that should a State have or put something in their State Constitution or 'laws', the justices are not bound to 'fed' law, but rather they are free to uphold their own State's law. For example, there have been legislative mandates put into place to allow people the freedom to buy,sell, produce,use foods of their choice, rather than have to be forced to succumb to fed regulations regarding the same. There was recently passed amendments in a few States regarding recreational use of marijuana, which the feds may fight, but the State retains the right (of the people) to decide what they want regarding these issues(and any other). ALL rights not specifically delegated by the people (to the feds) are reserved for the States and the people. We decide. We make the laws- We decide what the Law of the Land will be at any given moment. If we don't like what gets adopted by our representatives, we have the right, and the process in place to change it. We are, in fact, a group of Free and Independent States, governed by the People, and we have set up common laws(federal laws) for the benefit of ourselves. When we find they are not working, we can change them. If we find the system itself is not working for us, we have reserved the right to change it, as well.

We are mutually bound by agreement to each other Free and Independent State, and the People thereof, for as long as it works for the People. When it doesn't work to the benefit of those 'united', we can change that in any way we see fit (via processes set in place).

Lincoln gave the right that trumps the 10th Amendment, which is the federal government's duty to guarantee the states a republican form of government: "The United States shall guarantee to every state in this union a republican form of government."

"[T]o prevent [a state's] going out [of the union] is an indispensable means to the end of maintaining the guaranty mentioned; and when an end is lawful and obligatory the indispensable means to it are also lawful and obligatory."

That obligation is the constitutional power the federal government has to overrule a state's will to secede.

"When you 'own' property, you are merely securing your rights against other citizens, not against the government itself."

Nice observation, FTP. True up to a point. Arlington, for instance, however, was awarded back to traitor Robert E. Lee's traitorous son, George Washington Custis Lee, in a Supreme Court decision after the Civil War, but he sold it right back to the government because it was already a cemetery, and it wouldn't in any sense be expedient to do anything else with it. The court found it had been wrongfully taken in war. Forget the practical costs (which would have been considerable), I imagine that there would have been a tremendous public outcry if he planned to disinter our heroes and restore it as a Lee family plantation.

Frank Szabo, free-state candidate for Sheriff-Emperor of Hillsborough County has left the country and taken up residence in Chile. Like Mitt suggested, he "self deported". Maybe he has some extra land, and you free-staters that are left can schlep down there with a tent and camp out and read each other the Constitution every night, with whatever interpretation your imaginations can come up with (like Frank, who thinks that Sheriff is the highest constitutional power in the land).
I feel very comfortable suggesting this to Laura and her friends in the Tyrant Party. We just did the American thing and voted, according to the Constitution (not your version, the real one). Republican policies, which have been dragged closer to the free-state/tea party way of thinking, got hammered - your ideas lost, badly. The Tea Party and you free staters - especially here in NH - have been rejected completely. Just in case you can't take a hint, after careful consideration and a vote, we decided that we don't want your ideas, at all.

I see that I hit a nerve - good! I finally woke some people up. Stephen D. Clark to his credit did his research and vetted me appropriately. I wasn't aware of the Supreme Court decision about secession. Now I am - so kudos to him and others!.

But isn't this the same SCOTUS that gave us the infamous Dred Scott decision of 1857? Yes wonderful court that it is.

While secession may not be in the cards, one thing surely is. And that there is a slow, smoldering anti-government sentiment spreading that I fear will sometime in the not so distant future come to a flashpoint. The government cannot continue to shove laws and regulations down the throats of people that compromises their conservative values and expect them to sit idly by. And that is half of this country! It will be an interesting next four years. Don't you think?

Mike Kenney

Even if one wants to argue that the Emancipation Proclamation did free the slaves, one can say only that it did so in the Confederacy, not in the Union. I wonder, then, why there is so much respect for a man who declared that some slaves were magically free, while others were allowed to be kept slaving.

http://www.economicpolicyjournal.com/2012/11/plan-on-seeing-movie-lincoln-keep-this.html

Tammy,
There are a number of historians & writers & researchers that have uncovered evidence that Lincoln did, indeed, own slaves ('domestic help', when owned and not free, is still a slave). Here's a quote from PBS - WGBH American Experience. Abraham and Mary Lincoln - A House Divided. The Political Economy of Slavery - PBS
In much earlier time, it was on this institution of domestic slavery that was erected the admirable and beneficent mastership and government of the patriarch Abraham, who owned so many domestic slaves that he could suddenly call out and lead three hundred and eighteen of them, able to bear arms, to repel and punish the invasion of foreign hostile tribes. [excerpt from:Edmund Ruffin, The Political Economy of Slavery. ] Magness and Page also assert from their research that Lincoln owned slaves. I never claimed DiLorenzo was a 'historian';I simply offered you to look at the resources/documents referred to in the reference section of his books. Your opinion of him is irrelevant;evidence is evidence, regardless of 'popular opinion'. Look at the actual documents.
Jefferson also owned slaves.
'Historians' & 'scientists' & other such 'experts' often are offended when their opinions get dis-proved. The world isn't flat, & the universe doesn't revolve around the earth;those two positions brought tons of criticism, & even imprisonment as those who chose to believe otherwise defended their positions. Do your own unbiased research.Read original documents.

Steve,
It is only 'perpetual' for as long as the people say it is. I have a perpetual corporation;it stays perpetual until I decide otherwise. Same holds for the 'union' of the States. We are free to change it anytime We chose by using the processes put in place.
You state 'but their land will forever remain United States soil'- perhaps you meant North American soil; the United States does not own the soil, as the 'United States' is simply a governmental system, not an entity.The people 'own' the soil (thru purchase) on the continent, within a 'nation' governed by the people, known as the United States. Linguistics. And Congress cannot give away their property; it is transfered via the owner(s) or by due process with compensation.

Steve,
No one is claiming any joining was an 'artificial and arbitrary relation'. You seem to overlook that Chase's 'finding' is just his opinion, by which he utilized to rule on a particular case. That ruling can, at any time (maybe even 100 yrs. from now) be changed/overturned by another justice who disagrees with his assessment. It is not an opinion set in stone. There is myriad of findings changed throughout our history, and that will continue to happen for as long as we have the system in place to do so.
Laws are subject to change;Statutes are subject to change- the entire system is subject to change. The People can change any and all aspect anytime, through processes in place, by utilizing the powers the People give to their representatives. And those powers can be rescinded at any time. Voting and elections are a Part of the processes We have put in place, and even the rules/procedures We have put in place governing those have been changed from time to time. Change is constant. So what if you don't like change;most people don't- doesn't mean it doesn't keep happening.
It must be really important to you to be 'proved' right.

Steve,
I don't recall anyone stating they were going to claim their home/land a different country. By living in this country, we all have, more or less, agreed to pay taxes on our property(and a bunch of other stuff), and landowners agreed to 'consequences' if they fail to do so. What has that got to do with the unalienable right to change things?

Steve,
I did not claim secession was 'in the Constitution'. It is, however, in the Declaration- it is an unalienable right. And no matter what the political climate at any time, people maintain the right to change things to their liking- regardless of what political/governmental system is in place- anywhere.

Steve,
I have not stated nor suggested that any State secede "willy-nilly". Lincoln's speech July 1861 was just that- a speech. He gave the speech so that he could FORCE the unjust tax. If the States left the union, he could not collect the tax, now could he? That was his 'reason' for 'saving' the 'union'. Perhaps you need to research out the documentation that sheds light on what exactly was going on at the time, instead of relying on speeches and opinions, offered up by those whose political careers were precariously hanging on what they said to whom, and instead, find out why they said what they did. After all, a great talker could sell swamp land to the right person if they can speak eloquently enough. Even P.T. Barnum knew there was "A sucker born every minute".
If you are curious as to why the public was hoodwinked educationally on 'history', John Taylor Gatto has some excellently researched books ie. The Underground History of American Education, etc.)
Media,news,education etc. is not beyond manipulation

Steve,
You ask 'How did Abraham Lincoln suppress the Great Rebellion of 1861-65 but yet it wasn't declared unconstitutional after the fact?' I suggest you do the research, look up the actual documentation from that period, and find out for yourself. You may surprised to find out what you uncover.

Steve, you state 'Nobody even tried. The closest we come is Texas v. White, and the court found that Texas had no right to secede and that its attempt in the Great Rebellion did not constitute legal secession and was constitutionally void'
As I have repeatedly stated, secession is not a 'constitutional' issue- it is an unalienable right, as outlined in our Declaration. We all, regardless of where we live, or under what government oppresses us or serves us, have the right to alter the situation by a myriad of choices (secession being one of them).
I have Not proposed any State, or person, do so; just stated that people have the right to change whatever they don't like- and even what they do like. Good thing that there are some people who recognize this.

Steve,
Article 4, Section 4 of the Constitution guarantees the States Republican form of government. Amendment 10 is another thing altogether(addresses powers of the States and the People). Kindly read the Constitution so as to not be confusing yourself. You are confusing a speech(Lincoln's) with a Constitutional right. Lincoln's speech was given to persuade, and he was a very smooth talker. Specifically, what right do you think Lincoln gave that 'trumps the 10th Amendment, by merely giving a speech? I think, with a little reading, you might find the 10th Amendment still part of our Constitution; whereas Lincoln's speech was just a speech recorded as a matter of record (standard procedure with speeches, generally).

To whomever posted "I can hear the shrill cry of a Free State Project meltdown. ..."
Thank you for your 'enlightening' opinion.I'm not clinging to any 'idealism'- just stating facts. Near as I can tell, no one's proposing to take away any territory,or resources owned by the United States of America. The US of A owns particular parcels(ie.US Forestry land is owned by US of A,etc.),which was purchased from States, with the consent of the People.That's a whole different thing than people petitioning their respective States for secession. And Technically, if one 'owns' property, even the government has to give compensation in order to take it.
There is no 'steam coming from out of my ears'; I never stated this was a democracy, & me '& my ilk' assisted in founding (& keeping) this country, so people like you are free to spew nonsense & criticize those who you think may hold a different view. I doubt that We'll be going to any far-off land, unless it's on a vacation of our choosing. And no offense taken...

Steve,
It amazes me how quick you are to spew insulting nametags on people you never knew (Lee, for example), and make assumptions- especially when you do not go to the trouble of researching out facts. But then, you probably also don't know that 'yankee' was an insult name, as well. [I, myself, was a bit surprised regarding it's origins, having been born in the north]. Hopefully, you will take the time to learn facts, instead of passing down biased and ill-informed information to others.

SwampFox,
It appears extremist views are quite popular these days...

To The Shill,
Lincoln being dubbed as 'our greatest President' shows how well the manipulated media and educational system have 'succeeded' in their goal...
Who knows? Those responsible might succeed as well with Obama.
But, then again, there are still some people who are skilled in the art of discernment in the world...

To: The Shill

England would not have joined the Confederacy to support slavery because they abolished slavery in 1701!

Mike Kenney

Steve,
Sorry- no plans to 'schlep' of to anywhere, and, in my opinion, you would be well to inform yourself of what the Constitution has in it. I see no need to "read each other the Constitution every night"(btw, you do not define who 'each other' comprise of, or why doing such would be something of interest to me to do in the first place),as I am already familiar with what it says. I also do not intend to, nor need to, state "whatever interpretation (your) imaginations can come up"; the language used in the document is clear enough for the masses to understand- IF one would take the time to read the document. Also, I don't state anywhere anything about Republican policies/free-state/tea party ideas, so I'm not sure where you derive that from. Neither do I express anything referring to any political or idealogical preference- and who, exactly, are the 'we' to whom you are referring, whom allegedly reject the 'ideas' you erroneously think I presented?
It may behoove you to arm yourself with facts before entering into discussion, as you are currently attempting to argue a position which is apparently based on personal prejudice, rather than fact. And you have apparently garnered 'support' from others who also are ignorant of fact. All are entitled to opinion, and many opinions may differ from your own, and from mine. It doesn't alter the fact that opinion is just opinion.

Mike-
Who is 'they'?
By the way, 'there' in the context you have used the word is spelled t-h-e-i-r, for future reference...

Mr. Kenney,
Apparently, you have, indeed, hit a nerve. Too bad the responders 'research' is presented out of context- A speech does not make a law. A finding is simply an opinion made by a justice (and those change and have been over-ruled from time to time). It may well be the same SCOTUS...The whole point is that people do retain the right to change their government, or any part of it- and it is done via process (not 'willy-nilly'). An unalienable Right does not have to be written in the Constitution to make it so. Whether secession is 'Constitutional' or 'unConstitutional' is irrelevant, as it is an unalienable Right. If a State was invaded by the US government (or any other), or the State deemed they were in imminent danger, that State can decide what course of action to take, as guaranteed in Article I, Section 10; that includes an Agreement or Compact. Case's finding has no effect on the Articles of the Constitution; it simply was used for him to rule on a particular case. Yes, it may have set precedence for future ruling on similar cases, however, only until another Justice over-rides it, or an amendment is passed regarding secession (which it is doubtful will happen, as that right is an unalienable right).
Yes, it appears the future will be interesting. Apparently, now all 50 States have had petitions filed for secession since Nov. 6....
Change seem to be afoot, indeed...

NewsFlash-
Such an enlightened comment....(I'm being sarcastic, in case you didn't realize that...)

Jan,
Apparently, you, too, only hold to 'one side'...
Whenever anyone offers up opinion or thought- be it based on fact or lack thereof, that differs from what is acceptable to you and your beliefs, you are quick to criticize.
Compassion, understanding, and acceptance of people's viewpoint unlike your own seems to be lacking...
perhaps a little 'self-reflection' would be useful to those pointing fingers for others to do the same may be a good thing...

Seamus,
Do you find the little boxes convenient? I'm speaking about the ones that define a person and what their 'position' may be, such as your comment about 'liberals' and some 'position' they may, or may not take.
Justices often state they have 'interpreted' some line in the Constitution, and the very processes set up in the Constitution allow for change.
Perhaps all of Life is "an evolving paradigm"...?
But, I'm sure you may be in a position to know such things as fact, or fiction...

Tammy-
There's an old saying: People believe what they choose to believe, and disregard the rest". It appears you may be exhibiting this,as you clearly seem to be refusing to do your own in-depth unbiased research into the matter, and read the documentation of the time.

The Shill-
I was simply answering Mr.Kenney comment("But isn't this the same SCOTUS that gave us the infamous Dred Scott decision of 1857? Yes wonderful court that it is.") when I stated "It may well be the same SCOTUS..."
I did not state anything regarding decisions after the fact.
It was Steve who claims secession is 'unconstitutional'- I have not made such a claim- the word secession, per se, is not mentioned in the Constitution. I am not arguing your point- the court case Steve refers to involved Texas, not the war.

I'm wondering about the reverence for a constitution that is amended 27 times. Instead of "getting back to the Constitution," how about the progressive idea of improving upon it? It's not a bible or holy document. It can be changed. Well, the bible was changed also, but I digress…

Progress for you, FTP, means death for millions of pre-born infants. What will progress, lead by sub-humans like you, mean for the old, the infirm, the politcal minority?

Do States Have a Right of Secession?

Walter Williams (2002.04.19 ) Politics

Do states have a right of secession? That question was settled through the costly War of 1861. In his recently published book, “The Real Lincoln,” Thomas DiLorenzo marshals abundant unambiguous evidence that virtually every political leader of the time and earlier believed that states had a right of secession.

Let’s look at a few quotations. Thomas Jefferson in his First Inaugural Address said, “If there be any among us who would wish to dissolve this Union, or to change its republican form, let them stand undisturbed as monuments of the safety with which error of opinion may be tolerated where reason is left to combat it.” Fifteen years later, after the New England Federalists attempted to secede, Jefferson said, “If any state in the Union will declare that it prefers separation … to a continuance in the union …. I have no hesitation in saying, ‘Let us separate.’”

At Virginia’s ratification convention, the delegates said, “The powers granted under the Constitution being derived from the People of the United States may be resumed by them whensoever the same shall be perverted to their injury or oppression.” In Federalist Paper 39, James Madison, the father of the Constitution, cleared up what “the people” meant, saying the proposed Constitution would be subject to ratification by the people, “not as individuals composing one entire nation, but as composing the distinct and independent States to which they respectively belong.” In a word, states were sovereign; the federal government was a creation, an agent, a servant of the states.

On the eve of the War of 1861, even unionist politicians saw secession as a right of states. Maryland Rep. Jacob M. Kunkel said, “Any attempt to preserve the Union between the States of this Confederacy by force would be impractical, and destructive of republican liberty.” The northern Democratic and Republican parties favored allowing the South to secede in peace.

Just about every major Northern newspaper editorialized in favor of the South’s right to secede. New York Tribune (Feb. 5, 1860): “If tyranny and despotism justified the Revolution of 1776, then we do not see why it would not justify the secession of Five Millions of Southrons from the Federal Union in 1861.” Detroit Free Press (Feb. 19, 1861): “An attempt to subjugate the seceded States, even if successful could produce nothing but evil — evil unmitigated in character and appalling in content.” The New York Times (March 21, 1861): “There is growing sentiment throughout the North in favor of letting the Gulf States go.” DiLorenzo cites other editorials expressing identical sentiments.

Americans celebrate Abraham Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address, but H.L. Mencken correctly evaluated the speech, “It is poetry not logic; beauty, not sense.” Lincoln said that the soldiers sacrificed their lives “to the cause of self-determination — government of the people, by the people, for the people should not perish from the earth.” Mencken says: “It is difficult to imagine anything more untrue. The Union soldiers in the battle actually fought against self-determination; it was the Confederates who fought for the right of people to govern themselves.”

In Federalist Paper 45, Madison guaranteed: “The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite.” The South seceded because of Washington’s encroachment on that vision. Today, it’s worse. Turn Madison’s vision on its head, and you have today’s America.

DiLorenzo does a yeoman’s job in documenting Lincoln’s ruthlessness and hypocrisy, and how historians have covered it up. The Framers had a deathly fear of federal government abuse. They saw state sovereignty as a protection. That’s why they gave us the Ninth and 10th Amendments. They saw secession as the ultimate protection against Washington tyranny.

The above is from:
http://capitalismmagazine.com/2002/04/do-states-have-a-right-of-secession/

You'll never prove hypocrisy on the part of Lincoln. And what you call his ruthlessness is something of which I wholeheartedly approve because it held the nation together, which is precisely what paved the way for the United States to become the richest and mightiest nation on the planet.

If secession had been allowed to stand, the United States would have been splintered. It would not have been able to go on and outmatch all international rivals. And the principle of secession would have destroyed the United States Constitution because the Constitution works on the democratic principle voting in elections.

Elections are controversies. They're automatically subject to dispute. If the losers of elections are allowed to dodge the outcomes, then elections are meaningless and the Constitution is void.

Any American who preaches secession is a domestic enemy of the United States Constitution.

It's unfortunate that it has come down to Americans dividing between two highly flawed political parties and further divided by deep-seeded racism. These types of absurd assertions so common recently from the thinly veiled racists embedded on the right are continuing to push reasonable people to the left, reinforcing the GOP's precipitious fall.

It is disgusting and revolting that democrats have to resort to name calling. Phony charges of racism and bigotry. Democrats cannot accept the FACTS that their ideas and policies are all FAILURES. DemocRATS are the racists and bigots.

To For The People.
The reverence, as you call it, for the Constitution is most likely due to the fact that it can be changed when appropriate to do so.

Seamus,
Sorry about that (and yes, you may buy a vowel ha, ha). I had rec'd the comment in email, and had not looked on the comment section of the article- my mistake.

To Dennis Taylor,
Thanks for the quotes on secession. (Altho those who want to argue the point will probably keep their opinions...unfortunately). However, it is good to show historically secession has always been an accepted unalienable Right.

Stephen,
People do not just 'willy-nilly' decide they want out. Even out Declaration states:"Prudence indeed will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light & transient Causes; and accordingly all Experience hath shown that Mankind are more disposed to suffer, while Evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the Forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long Train of Abuses & 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, & to provide new Guards for their future Security." Your claim that people just petition due to the outcome of an election is an assumption- and your example of splitting, and re-splitting , and re-splitting is absurd, at best.
As far as Lincoln 'hypocricy', the records(official documents) speak for themselves.

And, Stephen, if your 'reputable sources' are not original documents, the information contained therein can certainly be questioned.

News Fish finally reappears from his/her week+ bender. Given that you have built up such capital on Patch with your astute predictions about the election (har har har), I can't wait to here what the world looks like through your prism after the blue wave. Nothing like hearing from somebody who is proven grossly incorrect over and over again.

BTW, how is Rasmussen doing for you lately?

The idea of succession is disgusting. When will people understand that we are in this together and need to work toward compromise rather than endorse hatred as a means to an end?

Stephen,
No one said the Declaration was a doc. for deciding constitutionality. Where do you get these things? And the independence was through a grant from the king.Yes, there was a lot of fighting due to Britain not talking us seriously, and because they used force, and we fought back. However, without the grant being issued, this land would still belong to Britain. It is unclear what you are attempting to say: ("So if you want to cite the Declaration as justification and authority, go ahead, but it will do nothing for you if you don't use force to make it.") I merely pointed to the Declaration so you would see that We have 'certain unalienable Rights'- secession being one of those...I don't need force to back anything up here- It is clear to any thinking person that people retain the right to decide what is best for them at all times.

Stephen,
Do you own a dictionary? If so, please look up 'unalienable Right'-
Clue:It has nothing to do with man-made law

Mr. Clark,
There is a difference between a law, and a finding. Findings do not become law. Law (called Statute) is created via a process. A finding is utilized as a reference point for other justices to go by (or not go by) in deciding cases similar in nature.

Stephen,
Chase's opinion is just an opinion. Just because it has not been abandoned by another justice, does not mean it could not. How many cases for secession has the court heard? That's be relevant as to why it has yet to be changed...
Cases have to be similar in nature in order for a finding to be changed. if Texas v. White was the last case heard(on secession), that would explain why the finding has yet to be changed.

And, Stephen, Chase's finding is not law....it is his finding (opinion on a specific matter).
Please become informed if you wish people to find you 'right' about a matter.

Oh, and the 'union' is perpetual for as long as the People decide it is- not any 'political majority' nor 'plurality'. Politics, and whomever may or may not be the majority, do not decide independence or union- People do. The People created the 'union', and are free to dissolve it if they so choose to do so.

Stephen-
Secession will not be decided to be constituional OR unconstitutional because it is Not a Constitutional matter- it is an unalienable Right.

Tammy-
You are free to believe what you want regarding Lincoln. However, you speak of discernment requiring getting the facts from both sides of an issue- so until you actually do that (from original documentation), I suppose you will not be exercising the skill of discernment. (Btw, I, too, once believed the same things about Lincoln you do, until I actually researched the original documents; then, I discovered much that shed an entirely different light on my view). You, of course, are free to continue believing whatever you choose. It won't alter the facts proven by original documents.

Oh, and Tammy, I really could care less about gaining your 'benefit of the doubt'. Do your own research of the original documents- I'm not here to 'prove' anything to you or anyone else regarding Lincoln. Find your own original documents, read them, and then make up your own mind- if you have an inclination to do so.

Yes, Tammy, by all means, listen to Stephen- he's quite the authority in so many areas...(I Am being sacrastic...)

Stephen,
I do not see anyone 'preach(ing)' secession- Just because the unalienable Right exists does not mean the persons pointing that out are preaching. And those who are aware of the right, and point it out, is not grounds for making them a domestic enemy of the Constitution.
One does begin to wonder, however, if you are suffering from 'foot n' mouth' disease; it seems every time you open your mouth, you tend to stick your foot in it...

The Brown's, a New Hampshire story on libertarian lunacy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_and_Elaine_Brown#Involvement_in_militia_movement

"Ed Brown was the spokesman for an organization called the Constitution Defense Militia and had become involved in the militia movement in late 1993. The newspaper reported that Brown designated various individuals and organizations as being part of a conspiracy to deprive Americans of life and liberty. "

Believe me, you are not going to escape the government. You cannot secede, you cannot claim you don't have to participate; your only choice is to renounce your citizenship and change countries.

Here are two Jeffersonian quotes to either ponder or choke on:
Quote: “The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not.”

Isn’t this what Jefferson was warning us about – the redistribution of wealth, the welfare state and over reliance on and perpetuity of entitlement programs?
Quote: “Periodic revolution, “at least once every 20 years,” was “a medicine necessary for the sound health of government.”

Now be careful how you interpret this. If you say yes to revolution, you run the risk of seditious sentiments; if you believe he meant revolution and overthrow of the government by violent means.

My interpretation is that of generational perspectives with a generation defined as twenty years – emphasizing a non-violent revolution of thought, logic and reason for the “common good”.

And for my liberal friends, WE ARE A REPUBLIC and not a democracy. Recite the Pledge of Allegiance which I do every month to find out if you don’t believe me.

Or you might want to refer to Ben Franklin? The story goes that as Benjamin Franklin emerged from Independence Hall at the close of the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia on September 18, 1787, a woman asked him, “Well doctor, what have we got, a republic or a monarchy?” Mr. Franklin replied, “A republic, madam – if you can keep it.”

Not the way it’s going now Ben!
Mike Kenney

Okay you skeptics, debunkers and naysayers; you want sources. Here they are:
1. Papers of Thomas Jefferson Digital Edition
2. Monticello website
3. Ford's Works of Thomas Jefferson
4. UVA EText Jefferson Digital Archive: Jeffersonian Cyclopedia, Thomas Jefferson on Politics and Government, Texts by or to Thomas Jefferson from the Modern English Collection
5. Thomas Jefferson Retirement Papers
6. Quotable Jefferson, ed. Kaminski (searching under "tyranny")
7. Bartleby.com
And while you're add it try this one on for size: "“When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.” Libertarians quote this extensively and they are definitely not Republicans!

To dennis Taylor,

I recite the pledge of allegiance with pride with hand over my heart. I also took the oath of allegiance to defend our Constitution several times over my life span. I wonder how many of you did. If you did, then you should remember these words:

“I, (name), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign or domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.”

What does one do however when it is one’s own government that becomes tyrannous, the enemy of free rights or when politicians circumvent the Constitution? Such is the case of Executive branch fiats!

Mike Kenney

Mr. Kenney,
Unfortunately, you are simply facing cases of 'You can lead a horse to water...'. They Will Not do the actual research of original documentation, nor budge an inch simply because they Cannot be dispelled from their adopted beliefs- it would put them too far out of their 'comfort zone'. Clearly, they are too used to being spoon-fed their 'education', therefore, they will keep up regurgitating it until their dying breath. To attempt to further debate with such non-thinking entities would be to no avail, as they clearly do not know how to debate, nor what is necessary for debate to occur.
Throw them a fact, they'll call it an opinion; throw them the truth, they'll call it a lie; when all else fails, they'll resort to ridicule and name-calling, and bring other issues into the discussion that have no bearing whatsoever on the original article, and throw more criticism and baseless accusation on the fire. They have a Need to be Right at all costs. Even Time and Life may not cure the S. O. S. (Stuck On St....). Kind of like trying to fix a radio when the circuitry is missing. On the Light side, they presented exactly Why we are where we are today...

To all those S.O.S. darlings,
Why, Yes! of COURSE you were right all along, deary! Don't worry, sweeties. No one is going to take away your illusions.
Now, don't you feel better?
Oh, and don't forget your pacifiers... Nighty, night!

Dear Mr. Kenney,

It's highly premature to start talking about secession. It's actually foolish because some moronic online petition doesn't represent a particular geographic region of the United States.

We don't have a state legislature making motions to begin an attempt. We just have a tiny minority of dispersed individuals scattered around the country who don't represent concentrated opinion and who are not empowered through the electoral process to represent their neighbors.

You know we won't have New Hampshire leading the way on that. The statehouse majority just switched parties to become more satisfied with the White House and Congress, not less so.

Texas won't be leading the way. Rick Perry now says he thinks it's a stupid idea, and that's saying a lot, considering the source. If Perry thinks it's stupid, then it must be REALLY stupid.

There isn't going to be any significant motion to secede made by any American state when even Texas says it isn't interested.

Yours truly,

If petitions are the way to go, then there are other petitions to sign. Here's another one:

"Strip the Citizenship from Everyone who Signed a Petition to Secede and Exile Them"

https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/strip-citizenship-everyone-who-signed-petition-secede-and-exile-them/ZbMjcwPf

We have the right to free speech, or have you comrade Clark, decided that we do not? Why not simply call for the immediate execution by vigilante mob of all who disagree with you? It would be a far more honest and consistent proposal.

like Larry answered I am in shock that any one can make $6459 in 1 month on the computer. did you read this web page Cloud65.com

Comrade Clark:

You stated above that "if secessionism were a right, the former slave states could have sued for their independence and won it without a shot. They didn't do that because your claim is wrong, and the fact that they didn't even try proves it." I assume that you are adult enough to understand that the Supreme Court, as an arm of the federal government, each member appointed to office by another branch of said government, could hardly be considered unbiased in a case whose outcome involved the great diminishment and/or destruction of the SC's power? If you are so niave, let us both enter into a legal dispute over the sum of 100,000 dollars, provided that I am appointed the judge in that dispute. Would you really expect to win such a dispute, even with the law on your side?

Comrade Clark:

According to Webster, an inalienable rights are ones that cannot be surrendered or transfered. Thus my state's inalienable right to seceed has not been lost as it cannot ever be transfered away. Similarly, I have an inalienable right to possess arms, to free speech, to publically worship God, and so forth. You, like a hyena in human form, actually laugh with glee at the elimination of my right to seceed by force. I take it that you are one of the uneducated masses who, having the big bully of the federal government on your side this time, actually believe that the federal government is in business to break your enemies, when, in fact, it is in business soley to keep itself in business. Your pleasure or displeasure with it is irrelevant. You see the cancer and beam that it attacks me to a greater extent than it attacks you. However, we are both its victims.

Comrade Clark:

An inalienable right is one that cannot be transferred or given up. I understand that you, like all the great thugs of history such as Stalin, Hitler, and Mao, would base your rule solely on the premise that your ability to kill me makes you rightfully my leader. I suggest that you are a traitor both to your nation and to humanity in this belief. Moreover, you are clearly not on the side of history. If the contract between the states is to be based solely on relative military strength, what need have we for any court, any legislature, or any executive branch? Our system is a sham and a fraud and we already are enslaved to an aristocracy supported by thugs like you.

Thank you for your kind words, Prof. K.
Unfortunately, under the current educational 'system', I fear we'll be facing many more ill-informed 'educated, well-read' opinions such as has been exhibited here,- you know, those who refuse to do their own research of original documentation, and, of course, Have to be Right, and will always put in the last word. They do have a point, of course, but if they comb their hair jjjjust right, it won't be seen :)

And, Mr. Taylor, kudos to you. The Comrade touch was very apropo. :)

Steve from NH:

I argued against the sanity of electing either thug. However, I continue to be concerned about the dishonesty of his majesty, his use of signing statements, and his willingness to arrest and jail American citizens without trial. Our federal government is overreaching in many areas of our lives. If America is run by a globalist anti-colonial man out for revenge and unconcerned about my constitutional rights, I have a real problem with that. One solution is the process of secession. The congress needs to keep America united by conciliation, not by threat of annihilation. I also do not recognize the authority of one arm of the federal government to declare that no state may leave the federal union. This is the equivalent of the thief handing out his own sentence.

Mr. Kenney:

Your pledge is not the one pledged in our schools. I would be pleased to pledge the one above as I believe our Constitution provides for the right of the states to secede. I object to the idea that we are "indivisible." By having our school children repeat it endlessly, we are reinforcing the idea that only bloodshed can break the contract among the states. Surely, none of you out there would reject the peaceful concept of secession? It is only the tyrant who attacks those who will not continually submit.

Tammy:

We were colonies of GB, and therefore, if the state cannot ever leave the mother country without violence, we should not have rebelled. King George had every legal right to send troops to put us down. Jefferson, that whack-job believer in limited government--actually broadcast to the world the nonsense that the colonies in fact did not have to put up with whatever King George wanted. Thus, in rebelling against King George, we are nothing but hypocritical to say that all rebellion henceforth is wrong in the current day. I do not believe that Jefferson would have been swayed by any language in the British law that made the colonies perpetually bound to England. Would you lefty thugs and prison-masters really prefer to keep any American beneath your jackboot if they did not want to be there? What if such persons, keeping a republican form of government, wished to separate from the union? Would you, Tammy, personally be willing to kill me, Dennis Taylor if I wanted to live in a society more of my own choosing, among men and women who did not want the tyranny of the federal government to rule us any longer? Yes or no?

Comrade Clark:

I will remain, a thorn in your side and an advocate for liberty. My allegiance is to God and then to my family. I have no allegiance to a federal government that runs amok. Spotting tyranny and declaiming it publically are part of what each citizen should do. You may wish to reconsider why you so easily turn to violence to silence your enemies and why you rejoice to see the rights of others smashed.

Comrade Clark:

When his majesty signed the NDAA and took away your right to a trial, did you do anything about that?

Comrades Clark and Tammy:

The right of secession actually serves to reduce the power of the federal government. Less government equals more liberty. Our government has grown exponentially and into areas never wanted by the writers. With NDAA, do we all have more or less freedom? If you are a thug, I guess you have more freedom to threaten others. As far as being a theocrat, as a Christian, should I answer any differently? I do not beleive that a Christian president would lead to forced conversions, executions for non-believers, or the payment of extra taxes for non-Christians. The believers in islam, however, understand that there are only three choices for unbelievers. These are death, conversion, or the payment of the Jizrah tax. For this reason, among others, it does matter whether one's president is a muslim, a mormon, or some other religion. If God exists, then one's relationship to that god has to have an effect on their actions. It would be impossible for me to vote for a man who worships satan and profits from the deaths of burnt aborted fetuses in the name of doing the will of God. These are some of the reasons why I did not vote for Romney.

Tammy:

Bush was one of the worst presidents we have ever known. How could the commander in chief of the armed forces have left our east coast so defenseless? How could our military not have foreseen and planned for several highjacked airplanes at one time? His lies about Iraq should have earned him an impeachment and imprisonment. He also shoud have let the banks fail and not have increased our promises to seniors. He broke our country financially. Republicans who are not true conservatives are also a bane of our nation.

Steve and Tammy:

As advocates for the killing of those who do not beleive as you do, I thought the moniker "comrade" was a compliment. After all, when in Red China, do as the Maoists do. I understand that you were not ready to reveal yourselves to the world just yet, and so, I apologize for outing you.

Mr. Kenney:

You continue to live in a country whose founders broke the very rules you scold me with. Please clarify this for us.
I believe that we are to render unto Caesar, but yet, we also have rights from God and from man. Clearly, secession, nullifcation, or other peaceful methods of public redress for tyranny are better than violence. The colonists attempted to peacefully negotiate with the King, as did the southernors prior to the Civil War. Unless all leaders are appointed by God, we have to assume that some are not. Was Hitler put in power by God, and if so, did we do wrong to fight his armies? I believe that our citizens will not yet revolt, as the federal crimes against them have not risen high enough for most to be affected. The federal government's current need for 40,000 drones in our skies in the next few years should be a wake up call for all who think the federal government rules by consent and not by force. I am still waiting, comrades, for some explanation as to why it is fine for his majesty to take away your right to a trial, but incendiary for me to suggest that the peaceful means of secession remains one of your shields against tyranny.

Comrade Steve:

If I have signed a petition for secession, I remain a US citizen until such time as secession is effected. Given your insult to me with regard to this, I take it you really do not have any idea of the legality of the matter. Go read up and get back to us.

Thank you for your kind words, Prof. K. :)

And Mr.Taylor, kudos to you! The interjection of 'Comrade' was very apropo :)

It is unfortunate, indeed, that there are those who are not willing to even so much as thoroughly research the original documentation (without the aid of someone to assist them in locating said documentation), yet are so adamant that their view is 'correct'. They seem to be of the opinion that those offering other information are somehow a threat to their own beliefs (and, therefore, any who may hold a perceived different view are to be ridiculed, berated, or better yet, exiled). But, then, one cannot expect those who assert baseless and/or senseless contributions, as well as those making claim of being 'well-read' in this day and age, to necessarily have functional, working brains... All the more is the pity

It is, at least, refreshing to see that there are those, such as Mr. Taylor, who have not surrendered their intellectual capacity and refused to merely accept the dolled out dribble that apparently is becoming far too common.

Steve:

When the fascists muslims kicked out, then I will have a higher opinion of our country. As far as signing the petition, doing so is an act of freedom protected by our constitution. If Jefferson Davis, president of the Confederate states, was not killed or exiled, why would I be? You have stated that I should be exiled and stripped of citizenship for stating my views. This would require you to hire a stranger to remove me--forcibly.

Steve:

I said I bear allegiance to the nation, as long as my constitutional rights are not eliminated. You have said absolutely nothing about how his majesty has taken away your right to a trial. Are you such a spineless man that you have no problem with that right being smashed? A nation that maintains the rights of the states to secede is one that does not have to fear tyranny. What tyrant would act so rashly as to risk losing his territory and part of his people? Actually, many of them did act in this way. However, the real threat of it is a shield for the people. But, as you likely applauded other's--including your own--loss of the right to a trial, you doubtless cannot wait to be deputized as an armed thug of our increasingly fascist state. You do recall that Hitler, Stalin, and Mao were all leftists? Hitler preached crony capitalism and strong state control. Stalin and Mao just went further. Do you by your words to give his majesty any confidence that you will stand behind his unconstitutional actions. By my words and deed, I will never intentionally do so.

1) Secession is not "making war" on the US. It's wanting to be left alone. For example, Jefferson Davis explicitly stated “We seek no conquest, no aggrandizement, no concession of any kind…all we ask is to be let alone.”

2) The American Civil War, therefore, is a misnomer. A civil war is when to factions want to control the same government monopoly. The Confederacy just wanted to be left alone.

3) There no constitutional restriction on secession. The argument is simple. The act of secession is mentioned nowhere in the constitution. The tenth amendment reserves such unenumerated powers for the states. Hence, secession is a state decision.

4) Contrary to popular myth, 5 out of 9 supremes do not have the final say of what is and what is not constitutional.

5) Contrary to another popular myth, the supremacy clause does not grant the US government the power to make any old law. It states, "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding." _in pursuance thereof_ In other words, the states agree in this compact binds states to abide by laws that are in pursuance of the constitution, not any old statute. Unconstitutional laws need not be followed.

Also, fascism is just a form of socialism (which, by definition, is the collective ownership of the means of production), in which property, while owned privately in name, is controlled by the government in the form of regulations, price controls, legal tender laws, interventions, etc. It is just as logically unworkable is Soviet style socialism. Nobody has every refuted the economic calculation argument, made in 1920, against all forms of socialism. In short, because there is no private property, cost calculation becomes logically impossible, meaning gross shortages and surpluses everywhere and, therefore, severely reduced total social wealth.

Re NDAA, you're conflating constitutional restrictions (many) on the fed. govt with what the federal government _says_ are constitutional restrictions (none, they argue). The executive branch (Obama, Bush, Clinton, etc) has claimed essentially unilateral authority regarding war, torture, arresting us citizens, assassinating them w/o trial (which Obama has already done), and many other things. Hypothetical: Congress passed a law saying all redheads must be imprisoned. The president agreed, and sets up the Department of Redhead Arrests. The supreme court upholds it. Would you argue that this law is constitutional (let alone moral)? If your answer is yes, then you believe that the federal government can do whatever it pleases provided they agree with each other. If not, then you must admit that sometimes (often) do things that they are not supposed to do. If _that's_ the case, then the next question is: what should people do about it?

Yes, NH has socialized the liquor industry (so is the police, the fire, military, etc.). Of course the bureaucrats benefit. Anyone who has claims the power to force people to do things will benefit. Problem is, it comes only at the expense of the exploited. The resources wasted on NH state liquor would be more beneficially used in the hands of individuals. Maybe better liquor would be produced. Maybe less liquor but better (private) parks. We can't know.

I won't waste more time here. Nobody online admits they're wrong.

The NDAA does not jeopardize our constitutional rights. Remember, habeas corpus can be suspended in times of rebellion or invasion. 911 constituted invasion, and we have yet to cease responding to it.

As far as the "assassinating" without trial: Not true. Enemy combatants are not due the rights of trial for the American military to declare them lawful targets in very much the same was that police are not required to obtain a conviction before a SWAT team sniper targets a hostage-taker.

Now if you presume a failure of the Supreme Court to uphold the Constitution, then we will be screwed. No doubt about it.

But it's not unconstitutional to pass or sign an unconstitutional law. What would be unconstitutional would be to contravene a Supreme Court ruling regarding the law.

As far as your last statement, it's a pout. What you're really saying is that you find any online discussion in which the "superiority" of your views isn't acknowledged frustrating.

FTP-
So very sorry...you will have to find someone else to look up the documents for you, or, of course, actually do so yourself, which apparently you are not willing to do. The information mentioned is readily available for any to read, albeit comprehension is another matter.
Contrary to popular supposition, there is no necessity to 'defend' factual record. Clearly, you are far more interested in maintaining your belief, thus it is moot for others with 'offending' information to continue with this diatribe.
Gosh! Now, where did those 3 Gold Stars go...hmmm
Perhaps, Prof. K or Mr. Taylor have some they can pass out... :)

This is my last reply (I swear).

It's not a pout--I simply have a job, which I have so that I can eat, and I simply can't spend time engaging in fruitless discussions when I have more important things to do. Time is a scarce good.

In fact, it was an empirical observation. (Note, by the way, that I didn't exclude myself from my own statement.) You are convinced that you are right and I am wrong. I am convinced that I am right and you are wrong. And, I suspect, nothing we type into these machines will change our minds. Fortunately, online, we each can live and let live. (Unfortunately, in physical reality, most choose not to adhere to that lifestyle.)

No one is going to do your homework for you. Sorry.

You'll have to try your baiting tactics on someone else.
I simply can't spend further time engaging in fruitless discussions - Ciao

Comrade Clark:

Thank you for stating the obvious about the position I took about two books the Bedford High School thought appropriate to buy with taxpayer funds. If you wish to debate the merits of their decision, I am prepared to do so.(If you would like me to write in the style of the first author, who slams Jesus in an aside, I would be happy to state that I am glad that mohammed, a noted pedophile, is no longer with us to argue the merits of secession.) With regards to the NDAA, you are stating that Obama's signature on a document allowing for the imprisonment of Americans without trial is constitutional. Who will determine what is or is not an emergency? It is my opinion that we are setting ourselves up for a commander in chief to decide that the time has come for another coup--the latest being the bailouts of the banks under threat of martial law if we did not. As far as Hitler being a socialist, consider the following quote:

"We are socialists, we are enemies of today's capitalistic economic system for the exploitation of the economically weak, with its unfair salaries, with its unseemly evaluation of a human being according to wealth and property instead of responsibility and performance, and we are all determined to destroy this system under all conditions." --Adolf Hitler

(Speech of May 1, 1927. Quoted by Toland, 1976, p. 306)
Comrade Clark: tell us this, have you ever publically stood up for what you believe is right, even if fools mock you for it?

FTP:

Bedford removed the two books from use in the classes they were assigned for. Nickel and Dimed would be great in a class about dodging the law and how to spread religious bigotry. The book is in use in the school library and can be ordered twenty-four hours a day on the internet. No student was denied their right to read that book. Porn for Elephants contained a scene in which a prostitute--probaby a forced sex worker--twirled her titties in an attempt to get customers. I asked Cindy Chagnon to read one of the sex scenes, and she refused. I must have wrongly assumed that what is good enough for my children to read is good enough for a school board member to read for the BCTV. Shockingly, she refused to read what she had placed in use for my kids. Any other questions for me, FTP? And, before you start yapping, did you read either book?

Comrade Clark:

I take it that you know little of the history of communist countries. I understand how quickly the wind changes direction. What you say today, as a member of intelligensia, may well be used against you tomorrow. When the secessionists have left the union, I will then consider whether to renounce my citizenship. Until that time, I will continue to preach peaceful seccession, nullification, and constitutional government. The war of northern agression did not resolve the legal issue of whether the states had the right to seceed. Lincoln, in 1848, stated that those who can revolt have the right to revolt. Ironically, by foreclosing the right to peacefully leave the union, you make a revolution more and more likely. I know that you would like to exile me, regardless of the effect on my family. You can have war with others who want to live as freemen, if you seek it.

The oath of office requires all officials to defend America against all enemies, foreign and domestic. Should the secessionists be termed domestic enemies?

These people are not just that same old right wing blowhards, they have actually signed their names to an actual petition. Should they lose their passports? Their ability to hold public office? Should they be charged with treason?

As a public service to idiot comrade Clark:

Qur'an (9:29) - "Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued." Suras 9 and 5 are the last "revelations" that Muhammad handed down - hence abrogating what came before, which includes the oft-quoted verse 2:256 -"Let there be no compulsion in religion...".

Christians and Jews are the peoples of the book mentioned above. Unlike Hindus, who may be slaughtered if they do not convert, we peoples of the book are "allowed" to pay the Jizrah tax. There are a great number of restrictions also placed upon us such as the inability to rebuild our churches and synagogues, the requirement that we provide food and shelter to traveling muslims, and the illegality of speaking about Jesus to a muslim. You two clowns need to read the manual of the muslim for his conquest of Europe and then America. Better yet, google "Dearborn Michigan, muslims, and stoning" to watch a video of tolerant muslims stoning Christians who want to,gasp, use their right of free speech to talk to them about Jesus. Get back to us after you watch the video. Tell us why the cops are hauling off the Christians and not tear gassing the stone throwers.

The above is from this website:

http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/Quran/013-forced-conversion.htm

If any of you have any interest in protecting your children from islamofascism, please do your own research on muslims in the US and muslim-majority countries abroad. mohammed, for example married and raped his child wife, Aisha, of nine, and so he is a pedophile. He also stole the wife of one of his sons. What god would possibly give his permission for such depravity, and yet, surprise, mohammed said that allah approved of these acts. If muslims simply wanted to worship said pedophile and their koran called for peaceful evangelism, we who have daughters would be fools to live near mosques, but their threat to our republic would be tolerable. I don't know of any Christians calling today for the death of unbelievers or the payment of special taxes for non-Christians. (By the way, I am also against special tax treatment for churches, other than for those aspects of the church that represent charity to the general public.)

While I have not shouted down any of you or sought to get another, such as a paid soldier of the federal government, to hunt you down, deport you, ect., you lefties think it is fine to have others do your dirty work. A large federal government is great, you think, when it does your fighting for you. I have always done my own fighting. I understand that nature produces abominations: FTP is an unrepentant baby killer and comrade Clark laughs when others lose their freedoms. Clark is also too thick to see that when others lose, he loses as well. However, you both have your right to free speech. I await the trials--unless you want to also do away with that right-- that the federal government must hold in order to strip the secessionists of their rights to citizenship. Our inalienable right to free speech will be supported, and if not, this is yet another example of why our constitution must be protected from encroachment by the federal government. Should a state secede from the union, I will seriously consider moving to that state. Until that time, I will preach peaceful secession, nullification of federal law where unconstitutional, smaller government, sound money, ending our foreign wars of aggression, and the closing of our borders to nearly all of our current immigrants. A nation can have a safety net or open borders, but it cannot maintain both. Study our nation's bankruptcy and get on the side of fixing this nation. You will reap what you now sow.
...

Mike:

And your point about islam is? Have you heard me calling for the abuse of any concubine?

Mike:

As an intelligent man, I will review these quotes from the Bible you have presented. I note already that these words do not state to do these things in the current time. I will check the context and try to be objective about it. You might want to do the same before you accuse me of hating Judaism, of which I see myself a supporter

By the rivers of Babylon we sat and wept
when we remembered Zion.
2 There on the poplars
we hung our harps,
3 for there our captors asked us for songs,
our tormentors demanded songs of joy;
they said, “Sing us one of the songs of Zion!”
4 How can we sing the songs of the Lord
while in a foreign land?
5 If I forget you, Jerusalem,
may my right hand forget its skill.
6 May my tongue cling to the roof of my mouth
if I do not remember you,
if I do not consider Jerusalem
my highest joy.

7 Remember, Lord, what the Edomites did
on the day Jerusalem fell.
“Tear it down,” they cried,
“tear it down to its foundations!”
8 Daughter Babylon, doomed to destruction,
happy is the one who repays you
according to what you have done to us.
9 Happy is the one who seizes your infants
and dashes them against the rocks.

Here is the psalm. Clearly the Jews were angry at their treatment by the Edomites. Have you never heard of the concept of killing children in war? Bombs dropped in WWII from above do exactly the same thing as smashing a child's head. For the dead child or wailing mother, there is no significance difference, is there?

Mike: I am wiling to answer you on the three quotes that you thought worthwhile to bring up. Fair enough? I have answered you on the first and I will now look into the other two.

18 He answered, “We are on our way from Bethlehem in Judah to a remote area in the hill country of Ephraim where I live. I have been to Bethlehem in Judah and now I am going to the house of the Lord.[a] No one has taken me in for the night. 19 We have both straw and fodder for our donkeys and bread and wine for ourselves your servants—me, the woman and the young man with us. We don’t need anything.”

20 “You are welcome at my house,” the old man said. “Let me supply whatever you need. Only don’t spend the night in the square.” 21 So he took him into his house and fed his donkeys. After they had washed their feet, they had something to eat and drink.

22 While they were enjoying themselves, some of the wicked men of the city surrounded the house. Pounding on the door, they shouted to the old man who owned the house, “Bring out the man who came to your house so we can have sex with him.”

23 The owner of the house went outside and said to them, “No, my friends, don’t be so vile. Since this man is my guest, don’t do this outrageous thing. 24 Look, here is my virgin daughter, and his concubine. I will bring them out to you now, and you can use them and do to them whatever you wish. But as for this man, don’t do such an outrageous thing.”

25 But the men would not listen to him. So the man took his concubine and sent her outside to them, and they raped her and abused her throughout the night, and at dawn they let her go. 26 At daybreak the woman went back to the house where her master was staying, fell down at the door and lay there until daylight.

27 When her master got up in the morning and opened the door of the house and stepped out to continue on his way, there lay his concubine, fallen in the doorway of the house, with her hands on the threshold. 28 He said to her, “Get up; let’s go.” But there was no answer. Then the man put her on his donkey and set out for home.

29 When he reached home, he took a knife and cut up his concubine, limb by limb, into twelve parts and sent them into all the areas of Israel. 30 Everyone who saw it was saying to one another, “Such a thing has never been seen or done, not since the day the Israelites came up out of Egypt. Just imagine! We must do something! So speak up!!

The master of the concubine, in my opinion, should not have forced out the concubine to be raped. i infer from the language that that is what he did, but I do know this as a certainty. Her master then cut her up and sent her pieces into all the areas of Israel, I believe, to rally the people against the men who had initially raped her. I would not have done the same regardless of whether the concubine wished for me to do so. If one wanted to use this story as support for the theme that women in the old testament, at times, were treated brutally by friend and foe alike, one could. We also need to understand that no man would offer up any of his family member for rape if the rape of all other members of the family could not be thereby avoided. Surrounded by overwhelming force, this man attempted to make the only deal possible. In the end the concubine's owner allowed or forced his concubine to go out in order to minimize the damage done by a crowd that would have raped her in any event. His decision to do so cannot therefore be termed automatically wrong. It was a choice that he made that saved others from rape. I would have seen all of us in that house as equally worthy of protection. Anyone not volunteering to go out to save the rest would not be sent out unwillingly.

In all events, this is an Old Testament story and speaks to me of the sin of lust and the need for people to treat each other fairly. If the owner forced his concubine, then I object to that. If I view this story in my modern life, I understand a number of lessons. Women need to be empowered, living as wives or free singles and not concubines. Men need to control their sexual lusts and their desire to dominate others, be they men by rape or women by violence.

Mike:

Your first quote is rather simple to explain. God told Saul to wage total war, which meant killing all the prisoners of war and destroying all of their belongings. We modern folk like to think we have advanced from this type of warfare, but as Sherman's orders to allow his soldiers to rape Southern women prove--among the many other heinous and illegal deeds he permitted his troops--we have not. As the atom bomb shattered the Japanese cities and slaughtered all, even to the point of poisoning generations to come, so we modern Americans practice this ancient concept of total war. As a proud American who is pleased that my grandfather did not have to die on the beaches of Japan, I understand such realities.

For far too long priests and preachers have completely ignored the vicious criminal acts that the Bible promotes. The so called “God” of the Bible makes Osama Bin Laden look like a Boy Scout. This God, according to the Bible, is directly responsible for many mass-murders, rapes, pillage, plunder, slavery, child abuse and killing, not to mention the killing of unborn children.
It always amazes me how many times this God orders the killing of innocent people even after the Ten Commandments said “Thou shall not kill”. For example, God kills 70,000 innocent people because David ordered a census of the people (1 Chronicles 21). God also orders the destruction of 60 cities so that the Israelites can live there. He orders the killing of all the men, women, and children of each city, and the looting of all of value (Deuteronomy 3).

As a "Socratic" style teacher, I started this blog posting with the sole intent of establishing a dialogue about a contemporary and very controversial subject concerning our secular form of government.. So why are you people so far off topic that you're now discussing the Bible and Islam?

Mike Kenney

Actually, I pointed out the obvious current risk to our republic that is found in the fascist words of the koran to its followers. If not fascism, then the koran calls for its current believers to kill, convert, or tax its enemies. Please do your own research. The Shill errs when he states that "most people want to do good things." This is in direct contrast to the Biblical description of all men and women as sinners and unrighteous. I have no problem returning to the topic, and in any event, do not have the time to answer all of the Shill's remarks, and so, for the moment, leave them unchallenged and unexamined.

I hope you read my words that Buddhists are called to be slaughtered or converted by the koran, while people of the book are to be offered the opportunity to be the payers of a special tax and subject to crushing regulation. I also affirmed my support for Judaism. I have stated what the koran states about unbelievers. We Americans need to understand this truth before deciding that islam is deserving of the same right to religious freedom as other actual religions. But, if we all want to believe the nonsense of the peaceful, multicultural muslim, just look up "Dearborn Michigan and stoning Christians."

Tammy:

Can you please give us a list of all the synagogues in the tolerant nation of Saudi Arabia? Surely, such westernized muslims recognize the basic right of others to believe as they wish, provided they do not call for the overthrow of the monarchy and the imposition by force of their religion. Oh wait, I just checked and learned that Sunni islam is the official religion of that nation, and there are no synagogues that are not on foreign military bases and the like. Good muslims throw bombs and worship the pedophile mohammed. The others are either westernized or living as minorities who do not yet dare to behave as their prophet and their god demand. I would think that all of you would object to even the casual worship of a man who, if living, could be a mentor to Jerry Sandusky, but perhaps you did not know.

According to the FBI, there were more Jewish acts of terrorism within the United States than Islamic (7% vs 6%). These radical Jews committed acts of terrorism in the name of their religion. These were not terrorists who happened to be Jews; rather, they were extremist Jews who committed acts of terrorism based on their religious passions, just like Al-Qaeda and company.

Shill:

Isn't there a big difference between interpreting one's holy book to come up with support for terrrorism and actually reading passages, as in the koran, that actually command the muslim to go and convert others, with the only two options for the non-converted being death or the payment of a humiliating tax and submission to brutal restrictions? I am not excusing the actions of these Jews in any way, but, as far as I know, the Old Testament (as God's revealed word) does not specifically call upon Jews to kill unbelievers in our current time period.

Shill:

As the Vatican City is only about 110 acres and is surrounded by Rome, a city that contains places of worship for other religions, I do not see how one can equate its exclusivity with the exclusivity of Saudi Arabia, a county of some 870,000 square miles that is exclusively muslim. The nation of Israel, on the other hand, tolerates the muslim mosque (al-aqsa mosque) built on the site of the Jewish Temple Mount, one of the holiest Jewish sites. It would appear that Jews are tolerant beyond human comprehension.

I wish our patch community had some Muslims participating. It appears to me that we have some great misunderstandings about their holy book, stereotypes about their people, and their religious motivations floating around this board.

I went to school with a lot of Muslims, and I had a good experience.

Mr. Kenny says that Texas has no sales tax as his first point. He is full of baloney.
Here is the list of the fire states without an income tax. Texas is not one of them.

http://www.kiplinger.com/tools/retiree_map/index.html?map=2

65 Million Americans voted for America, and 600 thousand want to kill America.....

FIRST MUSLIM DEFENSE: Aisha was older than nine years old.

Faced with the arguments of Western critics, Muslim apologists sometimes piece together information from various accounts in an attempt to deny that Aisha was as young as critics often claim:

The popular misconception as to Aishah’s age may be removed here. . . . Isabah, speaking of the Holy Prophet’s daughter Fatimah, says that she was about five years older than Aishah. It is a well-established fact that Fatimah was born when the Ka’bah was being rebuilt, i.e., five years before the Call. Aishah was therefore born in the year of the Call or a little before it, and she could not have been less than ten years at the time of her marriage with the Holy Prophet in the tenth year of the Call. . . . And as the period between her marriage and its consummation was not less than five years, because the consummation took place in the second year of the Flight, it follows that she could not have been less than fifteen at that time. The popular account that she was six years at marriage and nine years at the time of consummation is decidedly not correct because it supposes the period between the marriage and its consummation to be only three years, and this is historically wrong.[1]

RESPONSE: The evidence for Muhammad’s marriage to the nine-year-old Aisha is too strong to be ignored.

The problem with the selective and carefully edited defense just given (other than the complete lack of references) is that it ignores the numerous accounts we now possess which record Aisha’s age when Muhammad consummated his marriage to her. Many of these accounts are from Aisha herself. Indeed, the evidence for Muhammad’s marriage to the young Aisha is as strong as the evidence for just about any other fact in Islam. We have copious traditions relating Muhammad’s marriage proposal when Aisha was six or seven years old, as well as his consummation of that marriage when she was nine:

Aisha (may Allah be pleased with her) narrated that the Prophet (may the blessing and peace of Allah be upon him) married her when she was six years old, and he consummated her in marriage when she was nine years old. Then she remained with him for nine years (i.e. till his death).[2]

Khadijah died three years before the Prophet (the blessing and peace of Allah be upon him) departed to Madina. He stayed there for two years or so and then he married Aisha when she was a girl of six years of age, and he consummated that marriage when she was nine years old.[3]

Urwa narrated: The Prophet (may the blessing and peace of Allah be upon him) wrote the (marriage contract) with Aisha while she was six years old and consummated his marriage with her while she was nine years.[4]

Aisha (Allah be pleased with her) reported: Allah’s Apostle (may peace be upon him) married me when I was six years old, and I was admitted to his house when I was nine years old.[5]

Aisha (Allah be pleased with her) reported that Allah’s Apostle (may peace be upon him) married her when she was seven years old, and she was taken to his house as a bride when she was nine, and her dolls were with her; and when he (the Holy Prophet) died she was eighteen years old.[6]

FTP:

Here is a link for your tolerant muslims interacting with nonmuslims on a street in what is still America:

http://frontpagemag.com/2012/adelman/stoned-dearborn-christian-speaks/

The Dearborn, Michigan police arrested four Christians in 2010 for handing out religious literature, and then, the city of Dearborn had to pay these Christians over a hundred grand in damages for false arrest. In the summer of 2012, these same muslims--from all over the country--threw stones, concrete, bottles, ect, at the peaceful Christian evangelists. FTP, finding muslims who will not burn my house down for stating the obvious about the pedophile mohammed will likely be quite a task for you, but, if you can find some, please have them respond to the facts of the case at hand.

Muslims, shmuslims. Who cares?

If you think they're bad, look in the mirror. You're nuts. You're going on and on with your hatred and fear of Muslims. Just reading you makes me want to go into town looking for a Muslim so I can stand beside her and tell her that we're going to protect her rights from people like you.

Enough with the Muslim hate, Mr. Taylor. You're embarrassing your family.

Here is another website discussing the waiting period for pre-pubescent girls before they may get a divorce. Since the koran does not call for a waiting period if a marriage has not been consumated, it is obvious that these rape/wives are no longer virgins. Do we actually have slugs "marrying" these children and the divorcing them? Good muslim men at work in the world folks--fathers who surrender their daughters to the sick lust of older, often much older men like mohammed (55 years old and rapes 9 year old Aisha). Remember folks--no minimum legal age needed in Saudi Arabia for rape, excuse me, marriage to a child. To raise the age would, of course, put mohammed's pedophilia up for examination, would it not??? Better that little Saudi girls be raped than to have any examination of the official state religion.

http://quotingislam.blogspot.com/2011/06/islamic-scholars-explanations-of-quran.html

Tammy:

Can you explain to me how importing muslims, for the many reasons I have suggested, in any way improves your measure of liberty? Would you be pleased to live in a muslim-majority state within the US? If not, what can you possibly do about it? Right now, not much. Well, no that's not quite true, you can convert to islam. Alternatively, you can read about islam, make up your mind, watch videos of muslims in action, and by word and deed, try to end the threat by eliminating the immigration of muslims into the US, removing the tax breaks for muslims, and seeking to dialogue with the ones already here

@TheShill - your last comment has been deleted for being inappropriate on this forum or on this discussion.

The Shill is a classic NH Democrat,

A delusion is "a false belief based on incorrect inference about external reality that is firmly sustained despite what almost everyone else believes and despite what constitutes incontrovertible and obvious proof or evidence to the contrary".

FTP and Stephen: I only saw Shill's comment, which caught my eye between turkey prep and pie cutting. These 320-comment threads are difficult to wade through. I try to be even-handed and light-handed with moderation. I will try to go through tomorrow and reread these.

What, no actual, factual defense of mohammed as NOT a pedophile? Attack me, if that makes for an easier time, but do not, under any circumstances, try to explain mohammed's rape of his 9 year old wife??? FTP, why would you need muslims to explain this--unless you yourself are intellectually inadequate???

Comrade Clark:

I guess, for you, outing Jerry Sandusky would also be inappropriate? I am fine with the Shill making accusations. I would think one of you could defend mohammed, or is his crime so vile to you that you do not want to risk any association with it?

While you are at it delete all the charges of racism and bigotry that FTP throws out all the time.

Listen not to the unbelievers, but strive (Jihad) against them with the utmost strenuousness. (25:52)

Read the Koran. You won't be rolling out any red carpet for Muslims.

Why are Christians always so full of hate?

The bible is one of the most violent holy books ever written, depicting a jealous, petty god. Christianity itself has been used to harbor all kinds of demons, sometimes on a grand scale like the Catholic scandal 10 years ago. Multiple wars, racism and bigotry; you want to point the finger at Muslims? Really? I seem to recall that Jesus said not to throw stones. Here's the truth: every religion has issues.

FTP: Again, no defense of mohammned's pedophilia. If you do not believe in the divinity of Jesus Chirst, as he himself claimed, why even bring your interpretation of his words into the issue? I am glad that you agree that mohammed's pedophilia is an issue. As the foundational person of the belief system, mohammed's behavior is obviously open and begging for scrunity from all. By the way, in suggesting that I should not judge others, you are yourself judging--an act we all do everyday. I would assume that you, FTP, have used whatever intellect you may possess to research and rule out all of the other religions possible before choosing atheism? God has intentionally given us all minds and hearts that we may judge good from evil. He has also given us his law. Thus, we must, and really cannot escape, judging between one thing or another, between one idea or another as we progress through life. Would you really want there to be no debate about the merits of islam? Are you that narrow minded?

Comrade Clark:

Proud Conservative quotes an original source, and you accuse him of intellectual deficiency?

Tammy:

Are you actually arguing as to whether mohammed, the so-called prophet, existed? What sources are you citing as to mohammed's non-existence?

For all of your mythological needs:
http://pantheon.org/

Pick one.

To: The Shill

If you took the time to check there is plenty of evidence that Jesus of Nazareth existed during the time frame that he was supposed to have lived. Your bias concerning Jesus is obvious.

Do you have a self designed vacuum over your head that sucks out truth or do you just prefer to ignore truth, in which case that would make you ignorant!

A close examination of the evidence shows that the best explanation for the story of "Jesus Christ" is what we call "mythology". The case that I will be outlining here is that there never was any "Jesus Christ" nor any meaningful real life basis for the story of "Jesus Christ". Like many other religious figures, "Jesus Christ" began as a theological concept, was later used as a character in allegorical stories, and was then historicized as someone whom people believed really existed. The belief in a literal "human" Jesus most likely emerged as eucharist rituals and theology developed around the concept of the "flesh" and "blood" of Christ and these concepts merged with allegorical narratives about the figure.
Of primary importance, however, are the Gospels. Though the Gospels only cover a short time-span, there are a few claims which are made that can be checked against the known historical record. It must be noted that the Gospels do, of course, get some history correct. Herod was a real king, Pontius Pilate was a real governor of Judea, and Galilee was a real place, but beyond the basics several of the details that are part of the Gospel stories are either completely without evidence or are contradicted by the evidence that we do have. Here are a few examples of claims that are made in the Gospels which are either contradicted by the historical record or are unconfirmed outside of the Gospels.

If you think Phillip`s story is flabbergasting..., last pay-check my sister basically also earnt $9347 working thirteen hours a week an their house and their buddy's step-mother`s neighbour has done this for 9-months and earned over $9347 part time on their pc. apply the instructions from this site, Cloud65.com

TO ALL:

If you want to determine whether or not Jesus of Nazareth ever existed just check the government at the time. Rome ruled the known world at the time of Christ. The following list of people provided references and evidence of Jesus’ existence.
Source: http://beginningandend.com/jesus-exist-historical-evidence-jesus-christ/

Titus Flavius Josephus (37 – c. 100) was a 1st-century Romano-Jewish historian and hagiographer of priestly and royal ancestry who recorded Jewish history…

Cornelius Tacitus was a Roman Historian who lived from 55-120AD.

Gaius Plinius Caecilius Secundus, (61 AD – ca. 112 AD) better known as Pliny the Younger, was a lawyer, author, and magistrate of Ancient Rome.

Sextus Julius Africanus (c.160 – c.240) was a Christian traveler and historian of the late 2nd and early 3rd century AD.

Lucian of Samosate (Born 115 AD) was a well-known Greek satirist and traveling lecturer. More than eighty works bear his name. He mocked Christians in his writing, but at the same time provided evidence that Jesus really did exist:

Gaius Suetonius Tranquillus commonly known as Suetonius (ca. 69/75 – after 130).

The fact that Josephus mentions a "so-called Christ" is evidence in favor of Jesus's existence; as SD Clark notes, "No priest would add information like that."

Nothing we know of the Roman period is "admissible in court as evidence." The question is whether the amount of historical evidence we do have is more compatible with his existence or with his nonexistence. What sort of historical record would one expect of a marginal preacher who lived 2,000 years ago and died almost friendless? Unless someone can point me to trial and crucifixion records for other people of the period and location, the relative absence of such records on Jesus is what one would expect.

The truth is that Christianity grew from neither a god nor a man but out of what had gone before; a human Jesus was no more necessary than was a human Horus, Dionysos, Mithras, or Attis. Can we explain the emergence of Christianity without its humanoid superstar? Of course we can.

Stephen,
If courts of law are in the habit of looking into 2,000-year-old controversies, then they necessarily would accept such documents, as they are all we have from that long ago. But under the normal operation of courts, they do not accept documents whose authorship and provenance are anywhere near as tenuous as are all those from 30AD. For example sometimes criminals get off because the evidence bag wasn't properly signed and dated and turned in promptly to prove the chain of custody from the crime scene to the lab. (I'm not claiming that historians need such a scrupulous level of provenance; it was you who brought in the "admissible in court as evidence" standard.)

I stopped looking for evidence of Christ long ago. There are too many charlitans out there looking to make a quick dollar selling "relics".

Religions are faith based.

If you have no faith, you have no religion. The faith is not simply in the existence of Christ but in the message of Christ. (Do unto others...does that ring a bell?) To be a Christian is to follow or to mimic Christ. No one really does that with perfection, so the idea is that we strive to be better Christians everyday.

We could start by not selling phony relics to our fellow Christians to make a quick dollar.

To the Shill, All my sources for Shakespeare living are dead as well.

The problem with you religion haters is that you will accept absolutely nothing in defense of ones religious conviction. I'm absolutely amazed at how you people can discredit the concept of a God or supreme entity that is fair and just; but totally accept the arrogant idea of man being the captain of his/her destiny and the capacity to govern each other with true fairness and justice for all. Tell me, how is that working out?

What a great legacy you folks will have knowing your final destination is nothing but worm food.

to: for the people

It's not the challenge that bothers me. I encourage all my students to challenge me and assumptions overall (especially politicians). I draw the line though when someone is so set in their opinion that no evidence to the contrary will be accepted or even considered. One can debate issues but when one side becomes etched in stone the debate ceases.

to Ray,

I wasn't talking specifically about "Jesus" but the concept of God in general.

All I can say is that any talk of sucession from the union is blasphamy!!!!! It is literally pissing on the graves of all who have fought and died for this great nation. Go to Syria or the Congo and see if you would love to have the same thing here. You change this country at the ballot box not by warring and dividing!!!!!

http://www.coachoutletonlinegg.com Coach Outlet Online
http://www.coachoutletonlineaol.net Coach Outlet Online
http://www.coachfactoryoutletwy.com Coach Factory Outlet
http://www.coachoutletstorefc.com Coach Outlet Store
http://www.coachoutletaol.org Coach Outlet
http://www.coachfactoryonlineest.net Coach Factory Online
http://www.coachfactoryoutletpst.com Coach Factory Outlet
http://www.coachfactoryoutlettx.com Coach Factory Outlet
http://www.coachfactoryonlinefc.org Coach Factory Online
http://www.coachoutletwy.com Coach Outlet
http://www.coachoutletonlineybw.com Coach Outlet Online