Bush law would convert America into a theocracy'
bucke...@nospam.net
In my email this morning
----- Original Message -----
From: attis
To: dlRobert E. Nordlander ; Cana...@aol.com
Sent: Friday, March 12, 2004 11:06 PM
Subject: Fw: forward
Important message. George Bush and his allies in congress, the
Republicans, are set to change the legal basis of our government from: "The
right to govern comes from the consent of the governed." to "God is the
sovereign source of law in the United States." The bill is now in
Congress. Forward to everyone you know. John
P.S. The Moscow Times is an English language newspaper published in
Moscow, Russia. Isn't it ironic that we have to get news about this grave
danger to our democracy from the capital of the old Soviet Empire?
--------------------------------------------------------
Bush law would convert America into a theocracy'
By Chris Floyd
(This is an expanded version of the column which ran in today's Moscow
Times)
One of the sticking points in finalizing the "interim constitution" of the
Pentagon cash cow formerly known as Iraq was the question of acknowledging
Islam as the fundamental source of law in the puppet state. Secularists
objected, moderates were uneasy, extremists insisted. In the end, a fudge
was worked out that cites the Koran as a fundamental source of legal
authority, with the proviso that no law can be passed that openly conflicts
with Islam.
We in the enlightened West smile at such theocratic quibbling, of course:
imagine, national leaders insisting that a modern state be governed solely
by divine authority! Governments guaranteeing the right of religious
extremists to impose their views on society! What next - televised debates
about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin? Oh, those poor,
ignorant barbarians in Babylon!
Well, wipe that smile off your face. For even as we speak, the ignorant
barbarians in Washington are pushing a law through Congress that would
"acknowledge God as the sovereign source of law, liberty [and] government"
in the United States.
What's more, it would forbid all legal challenges to government officials
who use the power of the state to enforce their own view of "God's
sovereign authority." Any judge who dared even hear such a challenge could
be removed from office.
The "Constitution Restoration Act of 2004" is no joke, no rhetorical
flourish by obscure fringe elements; it was introduced by some of the Bush
Regime's most reliable - and powerful - Congressional sycophants, including
the renegade Democrat, Bush-backing Senator Zell Miller of Georgia. If
enacted, it will effectively transform the constitutional republic of the
United States into a theocracy, where the abitrary dictates of a "higher
power" - as personally interpreted by a judge, policeman, bureaucrat or
president - can override the rule of law.
If you think this is an exaggeration - typical liberal paranoia - think
again. Although the very little mainstream comment on the bill has
described it merely as a sop to those who want to post the Ten Commandments
in courtrooms and the like, the Religious Right knows full well what the
true impact of the bill will be. That's why they've mobilized their forces
to give all-out support to the measure, even at the expense of other
high-profile battles against abortion and gay marriage. Indeed, some
hardright commentators are calling the bill "the most important item on the
conservative agenda this year - more important than the presidential
election," as investigator Karen Yurica reports.
The Act - drafted by a former minion of TV evangelist Pat Robertson - is
the fruit of decades of work by a group of extremists known broadly as
"Dominionists." Their openly expressed aim is to establish "biblical rule"
over every aspect of society - placing "the state, the school, the arts and
sciences, law, economics, and every other sphere under Christ the King." Or
as Attorney General John Ashcroft - the nation's chief law enforcement
officer - likes to say: "America has no king but Jesus!"
According to Dominionist literature, "biblical rule" means execution -
preferably by stoning - of homosexuals and other "revelers in
licentiousness;" massive tax cuts for the rich (because "wealth is a mark
of God's favor"); the elimination of government programs to allieviate
poverty and sickness (because these depend on "confiscation of wealth");
and the re-institution of slavery, based not on race but debt. No legal
challenges to "God's rule" will be allowed. And since this order is
divinely ordained, the "elect" can use any means necessary to establish it,
including deception, subversion, even violence. As Robertson himself
adjures the faithful: "Zealous men force their way in."
Again, this is no tiny band of cranks meeting in some basement in Alabama
or a cabin in Utah, as a series of chilling reports by Karen Yurica, David
Niewert and other investigators make clear. The Dominionists are bankrolled
and directed by deep-pocketed, well-connected business moguls and political
operatives who have engineered a takeover of the Republican Party and are
now at the heart of the U.S. government. They have made common cause with
the "American Empire" faction - Cheney, Rumsfeld, the neo-conservatives -
who seek "full spectrum dominance" over the globe.
In addition to the lust for controlling the earth, the two groups share a
belief in the divinity of wealth, of course. And the Bushist Dominators
know well that a religious herd under the cracking whip of approved clerics
will be far more malleable to corporate predation than a bunch of secular
citizens demanding their rights, questioning authority and reveling in
licentiousness. (Which is why they approved the Islamic character of the
Iraqi "constitution" - and why they're so fiercely opposed to such things
as gay marriage.) Thus, the Dominionists provide money and domestic
political muscle for the Dominators' geopolitical goals; in turn, the
Dominators provide a practical vehicle - overwhelming military might and
state power - for making the Dominionists' dreams a reality.
The Dominionist movement was founded by the late R.J. Rushdoony, a busy
beaver who also co-founded the Council for National Policy. The CNP is the
politburo of the American conservative movement, filled with top-rank
political and business leaders who set the national agenda for the vast
echo chamber of rightwing foundations, publishers, media networks and
universities that have schooled a whole generation in obscurantist bile -
just like the extremist Wahabbi religious schools funded by Saudi
billionaires have poisoned the Islamic world with hatred and ignorance.
Candidate George W. Bush humbly paid his ritual obesiance to the CNP
Wahabbis in 1999, in a speech that has remained a fiercely guarded secret.
One of the chief moneybags behind the rise of Dominionism was tycoon Harold
Ahmanson, Rushdoony's protégé and fellow CNP member. In addition to
establishing theocracy in America, Ahmanson had another abiding interest:
computerized voting machines. As reported here last year, Ahmanson, a
fervent Bush backer, was instrumental in establishing two of the
Republican-controlled companies now rushing to install their highly
hackable machines - with untraceable, unrecountable electronic ballots -
across the country in time for the November election. Whatever it takes, O
Lord: "Zealous men force their way in."
The Dominionists also have strong backing on the Supreme Court, Yurica
notes. Justice Antonin Scalia, who wrote the ludicrous and illegal ruling
that appointed Bush to the presidency, declared in the theological journal
First Things that the state derives its moral authority from God, not the
"consent of the governed," as the Declaration of Independence would have
it.
Rejecting that old reveler in licentiousness, Thomas Jefferson, Scalia
proclaims that government "is the 'minister of God' with powers to
'revenge,' to 'execute wrath,' including even wrath by the sword." He rails
against the "tendency of democracy to obscure the divine authority behind
government" and "foster civil disobedience." Approvingly, he cites the
Apostle Paul: "Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there
is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God. Whosoever
therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they
that resist shall receive to themselves damnation." (Unless, of course, the
Dominators need a "regime change" somewhere. Then the "powers that be"
suddenly lose their divine ordination.)
Meanwhile, the potential arsenal of dominion keep expanding. Just days
after the Congressional Bushists fired their theocratic missile, General
Ralph Eberhart, head of America's first domestic military command, declared
that the Regime must now bring the experience learned on foreign
battlefields to the "Homeland" itself, including the integration of police,
military and intelligence forces, "wide-area surveillance of the United
States" and "urban warfare tactics," GovExec.com reports. Since there has
never been a terrorist cell uncovered in the United States larger than the
mere 19 men who carried out the September 11 attacks, one wonders just who
this "urban warfare" will be aimed at? Licentious Jeffersonians, perhaps?
Put this juggernaut at the service of democracy-hating extremists with no
legal restraints on their enforcement of "God's sovereign authority" - plus
a proven track record of subverting the law to gain political power - and
what would you have? A mullah state? A military theocracy?
Or should we just call it "a second term"?
***
For more information, see
Karen Yurica's "The Despoiling of America"
Yurica's "New Dominionist Bill Limits the Supreme Court"
David Neiwert's "Divine Transmissions"
Arne Langsetmo
> In my email this morning
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: attis
> To: dlRobert E. Nordlander ; Cana...@aol.com
> Sent: Friday, March 12, 2004 11:06 PM
> Subject: Fw: forward
. . .
> By Chris Floyd
> (This is an expanded version of the column which ran in today's Moscow
> Times)
[snip]
> The Act - drafted by a former minion of TV evangelist Pat Robertson - is
> the fruit of decades of work by a group of extremists known broadly as
> "Dominionists." Their openly expressed aim is to establish "biblical rule"
> over every aspect of society - placing "the state, the school, the arts and
> sciences, law, economics, and every other sphere under Christ the King." Or
> as Attorney General John Ashcroft - the nation's chief law enforcement
> officer - likes to say: "America has no king but Jesus!"
Also look up "Christian Reconstructionism", the Chalcedon Foundation,
and its founder, R.J. Rushdoony.
There's a bunch of such "Christian Reconstructionists" in the
current maladministration, and within the high ranks of the
Republican party, IIRC.
In the fundie world, there's two major camps, post-millenialists
and pre-millenialists (both bad news, but the post-millenialists
are probably the scarier of the two) and the CR folks are firmly in
the post-millenialist camp.
> According to Dominionist literature, "biblical rule" means execution -
> preferably by stoning - of homosexuals and other "revelers in
> licentiousness;" massive tax cuts for the rich (because "wealth is a mark
> of God's favor"); the elimination of government programs to allieviate
> poverty and sickness (because these depend on "confiscation of wealth");
> and the re-institution of slavery, based not on race but debt. No legal
> challenges to "God's rule" will be allowed. . . .
The "Christian Reconstructionists" people firmly reject _any_ law that
does not come from the Holey Babble (and AFAIK, that means any
natural laws too, like, e.g., quantum mechanics...).
Cheers,
-- Arne Langsetmo
> . . . And since this order is
Dana
news:s1b650thnfstg0722...@4ax.com...
> Important message. George Bush and his allies in congress, the
> Republicans, are set to change the legal basis of our government from:
"The
> right to govern comes from the consent of the governed." to "God is the
> sovereign source of law in the United States."
Look, jailson or whatever he is calling himself these days is reduced to
fabricating false stories.
--
Atheism teaches that there is no God, hence no God-given rights. That
ideology coupled with a system that believed in the superiority of the state
at the expense of the individual was murderously synergistic.
--
"To give certain dysgenic groups in our population their choice of
segregation [concentration camps] or sterilization", advocated the founder
of Planned Parenthood, Margaret Sanger in April 1932 ("A Plan For Peace")
Carol Lee Smith
"original thought:"
> <bucke...@nospam.net> wrote in message
> news:s1b650thnfstg0722...@4ax.com...
> > Important message. George Bush and his allies in congress, the
> > Republicans, are set to change the legal basis of our government
> > from: "The right to govern comes from the consent of the governed."
> > to "God is the sovereign source of law in the United States."
> Look, jailson or whatever he is calling himself these days is reduced to
> fabricating false stories.
Ah. Unable to address ideas, Dana Raffaniello attacks the messager.
No false story was posted. Does this Constitution Restoration Ace of 2004
sound as though it is compatible with our Constitution? Perhaps you might
want to comment on the content rather than attacking individuals.
The article referenced is here:
http://www.moscowtimes.ru/stories/2004/03/12/120.html
-----excerpt------
Well, wipe that smile off your face. For even now, the ignorant barbarians
in Washington are pushing a law through Congress that would "acknowledge
God as the sovereign source of law, liberty [and] government" in the
United States. What's more, it would forbid all legal challenges to
government officials who use the power of the state to enforce their own
view of "God's sovereign authority." Any judge who dared even hear such a
challenge could be removed from office.
The "Constitution Restoration Act of 2004" is no joke; it was introduced
last month by some of the Bush Regime's most powerful Congressional
sycophants. If enacted, it will effectively transform the American
republic into a theocracy, where the arbitrary dictates of a "higher
power" -- as interpreted by a judge, policeman, bureaucrat or president --
can override the rule of law.
The Act -- drafted by a minion of television evangelist Pat Robertson --
is the fruit of decades of work by a group of extremists known broadly as
"Dominionists." Their openly expressed aim is to establish "biblical rule"
over every aspect of society -- placing "the state, the school, the arts
and sciences, law, economics, and every other sphere under Christ the
King." Or as Attorney General John Ashcroft -- the nation's chief law
enforcement officer -- has often proclaimed: "America has no king but
Jesus!"
-------end of excerpt-------
Moscow Times gives you this opportunity--be sure to cc here any response
you make to them!
<< To Our Readers
Has something you've read here startled you? Are you angry, excited,
puzzled or pleased? Do you have ideas to improve our coverage?
Then please write to us.
All we ask is that you include your full name, the name of the city from
which you are writing and a contact telephone number in case we need to
get in touch. We look forward to hearing from you.>>
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
And once again, Dana tacks his favorite stolen tagline to his spam
posting:
> Atheism teaches that there is no God, hence no God-given rights. That
> ideology coupled with a system that believed in the superiority of the
> state at the expense of the individual was murderously synergistic.
The real source of that passage which Dana Raffaniello likes to pass
off as his own, AND ATTRIBUTE TO OTHER POSTERS HERE, is
http://snipurl.com/3qrw
But the dear readers knew that already.
Dana, you once again are gently reminded you need to do your homework
so you have some understanding of plagiarism, appropriate citing and
intellectual integrity.
So long as you don't give credit to another author, posting his/her
work as your own is theft--intellectual theft.
But you are unfamiliar with the word intellectual, much the same as
you are unfamiliar with:
ad hominem argument
harassment
plagiarize
citation
evidence
forming possessive
> "To give certain dysgenic groups in our population their choice of
> segregation [concentration camps] or sterilization", advocated the
founder
> of Planned Parenthood, Margaret Sanger in April 1932 ("A Plan For
Peace")
----begin excerpt----
Although Sanger uniformly repudiated the racist exploitation of eugenics
principles, she agreed with the "progressives" of her day who favored
incentives for the voluntary hospitalization and/or sterilization of
people with untreatable, disabling, hereditary conditions
the adoption and enforcement of stringent regulations to prevent the
immigration of the diseased and "feebleminded" into the U.S.
placing so-called illiterates, paupers, unemployables, criminals,
prostitutes, and dope-fiends on farms and open spaces as long as necessary
for the strengthening and development of moral conduct
Planned Parenthood Federation of America finds these views objectionable
and outmoded. Nevertheless, anti-family planning activists continue to
attack Sanger, who has been dead for over 30 years, because she is an
easier target than the unassailable reputation of PPFA and the
contemporary family planning movement. However, attempts to discredit the
family planning movement because its early 20th-century founder was not a
perfect model of early 21st-century values is like disavowing the
Declaration of Independence because its author, Thomas Jefferson, bought
and sold slaves.
-----end of excerpt-----
http://www.plannedparenthood.org/about/thisispp/sanger.html
"Without faith we might relapse into scientific or rational thinking,
which leads by a slippery slope toward constitutional democracy."
-- Robert Anton Wilson
bucke...@nospam.net
>:|
And there is no better chance than the present to try and get as far,
accomplish as much as they can.
The inmates are running the asylum (White House, Congress, Perhaps the
USSC, many state legislatures. There is also a growing movement made up of
judges lawyers, etc, they have a name, can't offhand recall it, but that
are very right wing, very religious right friendly.
Pat Robertson's CBN and Regent U has a fair number of
Reconstrustrictionsist and a fair number of Regent School of Law graduates
are employed in the State Department and Justice
It is amazing how Pat Robertson's Regent U graduate school contains all the
schools necessary to run a nation. Accident, yea right LOL
Dana
news:Pine.OSF.3.96.104031...@alpha1.csd.uwm.edu...
> On Sat, 13 Mar 2004, it was written by Dana Raffaniello, not known for
> "original thought:"
>
> > <bucke...@nospam.net> wrote in message
> > news:s1b650thnfstg0722...@4ax.com...
>
> > > Important message. George Bush and his allies in congress, the
> > > Republicans, are set to change the legal basis of our government
> > > from: "The right to govern comes from the consent of the governed."
> > > to "God is the sovereign source of law in the United States."
>
> > Look, jailson or whatever he is calling himself these days is reduced to
> > fabricating false stories.
--
neptune3
>
>Important message. George Bush and his allies in congress, the
>Republicans, are set to change the legal basis of our government from: "The
>right to govern comes from the consent of the governed." to "God is the
>sovereign source of law in the United States." The bill is now in
>Congress. Forward to everyone you know. John
>
If Bush is for God and against the homosexual perverts, why does he
fight for the leftist Jews rather than the rightist Muslims?
from The Boston Globe
http://www.boston.com/dailyglobe2/197/metro/Jews_see_US_as_secular_survey_sa
ys+.shtml
July 15th 2000
By Michael Paulsen, Globe Staff, 7/15/2000
Despite what appears to be a growing inclination among many religious
groups, politicians, and judges to chip away at the wall that
separates
church and state, American Jews remain staunchly opposed to any mixing
of
religion and public life.
A new survey of the Jewish community finds that, although some factors
that
have historically contributed to Jewish support of strict separation
between
church and state have waned, Jews are far more reluctant than non-Jews
to
accept references to religion in the public schools or other public
arenas.
''Jews are more secure when society is more overtly secular,'' said
Alan
Mittleman, director of the ''Jews and the Public Square'' project, one
of
seven surveys funded by the Pew Charitable Trusts examining the
contemporary
role of religious groups in the United States.
The study also found that on a variety of issues involving sexual
morality
that have roiled other religious groups, Jews are much more liberal
than
other Americans. ''Jews take a less critical view of homosexuality,
abortion, birth control and pornography than do Gentiles,'' the study
found.
''In each case, Jewish leaders are even more tolerant than the Jewish
public.''
For example, 48 percent of non-Jews say homosexuality is wrong,
compared to
23 percent of Jews and 7 percent of Jewish leaders. And while 56
percent of
non-Jews support abortion rights, 88 percent of Jews and 96 percent of
Jewish leaders do.
The findings on church-state separation could have important bearing
on the
Jewish role in the debate over school vouchers. As the number of
children in
Jewish day schools has skyrocketed, some Jewish policy makers have
suggested
that the community supports the use of vouchers, but the survey
suggests
that Jewish reluctance to support such a step runs deep.
Orthodox Jews have been more sympathetic to the use of public funds to
assist children attending religious schools and to the display of
religious
symbols on public property.
Jewish support for church-state separation traces back to the 1940s,
and is
driven by concerns that a greater presence of religion in the public
sphere
means a greater presence of Christianity.
''Absent the protections afforded by church-state separation, many
Jews
feared that Christian church leaders, in the context of a large
Christian
majority in the American population, would promote an explicitly
Christian
character to the American state and its institutions,'' the study
declared.
''Jews, in particular, were concerned that the schools not be used to
indoctrinate their children in the culture and tenets of
Christianity.''
Jewish attitudes were intensified by the community's fear of
anti-Semitism
associated with some Christian groups, and by the community's
liberalism and
secularity, the study said. In recent years, the study said, Jews have
become more accepted in the United States, Jews have become less
liberal,
and a significant fraction of the community has become less secular,
but the
attitudes have remained.
Only 38 percent of Jews support allowing the Ten Commandments to be
displayed in public schools, compared to 65 percent of non-Jews; 39
percent
of Jews would allow the teaching of creationism, compared with 63
percent of
non-Jews; and 22 percent of Jews would support vouchers that could be
used
at religious schools, compared with 43 percent of non-Jews.
The data come from a survey of a 1,002 Jews around the United States.
Because of the relatively small number of Jews in the United States,
the
pollsters used a somewhat unorthodox method for assembling a sample -
they
queried a sample of 600,000 Americans who have agreed to be surveyed
by mail
on various matters.
The Pew Charitable Trusts is also funding studies of African-American,
Catholic, evangelical, Hispanic, mainline Protestant, and Muslim
religious
populations in the United States. Each study will include a poll,
scholarly
papers, and conferences over a three-year period.
www.spearhead-uk.com http://www.natvan.com
http://www.altermedia.info/ www.nsm88.com
http://www.nationalism.org/rnsp/display_ENG.htm
Carol Lee Smith
Absolutely no new original thought.
Why are we not surprised?
> "Carol Lee Smith" <hu...@csd.uwm.edu> wrote in message
> news:Pine.OSF.3.96.104031...@alpha1.csd.uwm.edu...
Absolutely nothing contained in this message except this line:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > On Sat, 13 Mar 2004, it was written by Dana Raffaniello, not known for
> > "original thought:"
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > > <bucke...@nospam.net> wrote in message
> > > news:s1b650thnfstg0722...@4ax.com...
> > > > Important message. George Bush and his allies in congress, the
> > > > Republicans, are set to change the legal basis of our government
> > > > from: "The right to govern comes from the consent of the governed."
> > > > to "God is the sovereign source of law in the United States."
> > > Look, jailson or whatever he is calling himself these days is reduced to
> > > fabricating false stories.
> --
> Atheism teaches that there is no God, hence no God-given rights. That
> ideology coupled with a system that believed in the superiority of the state
> at the expense of the individual was murderously synergistic.
Dana
news:Pine.OSF.3.96.104031...@alpha1.csd.uwm.edu...
> > news:Pine.OSF.3.96.104031...@alpha1.csd.uwm.edu...
> > > > news:s1b650thnfstg0722...@4ax.com...
>
> > > > > Important message. George Bush and his allies in congress, the
> > > > > Republicans, are set to change the legal basis of our government
> > > > > from: "The right to govern comes from the consent of the
governed."
> > > > > to "God is the sovereign source of law in the United States."
>
> > > > Look, jailson or whatever he is calling himself these days is
reduced to
> > > > fabricating false stories.
>
> > --
> > Atheism teaches that there is no God, hence no God-given rights. That
> > ideology coupled with a system that believed in the superiority of the
state
> > at the expense of the individual was murderously synergistic.
--
It [charity] encourages the healthier and more normal sections of the world
to shoulder the burden of unthinking and indiscriminate fecundity of others;
which brings with it, as I think the reader must agree, a dead weight of
human waste. Instead of decreasing and aiming to eliminate the stocks that
are most detrimental to the future of the race and the world, it tends to
render them to a menacing degree dominant [emphasis added].11
Margaret Sanger
Carol Lee Smith
> "Carol Lee Smith" <hu...@csd.uwm.edu> wrote in message
> news:Pine.OSF.3.96.104031...@alpha1.csd.uwm.edu...
Nothing in Dana's post
> > On Sat, 13 Mar 2004, it was written by Dana Raffaniello:
> > > "Carol Lee Smith" <hu...@csd.uwm.edu> wrote in message
Nothing in that post, either.
> > > news:Pine.OSF.3.96.104031...@alpha1.csd.uwm.edu...
> > > > On Sat, 13 Mar 2004, it was written by Dana > > > >
> <bucke...@nospam.net> wrote in message
> > > > > news:s1b650thnfstg0722...@4ax.com...
> > > > > > Important message. George Bush and his allies in congress, the
> > > > > > Republicans, are set to change the legal basis of our government
> > > > > > from: "The right to govern comes from the consent of the
> governed."
> > > > > > to "God is the sovereign source of law in the United States."
> > > > > Look, jailson or whatever he is calling himself these days is
> > > > > reduced to fabricating false stories.
> > > --
> > > Atheism teaches that there is no God, hence no God-given rights. That
> > > ideology coupled with a system that believed in the superiority of the
> state
> > > at the expense of the individual was murderously synergistic.
> --
> It [charity] encourages the healthier and more normal sections of the world
> to shoulder the burden of unthinking and indiscriminate fecundity of others;
> which brings with it, as I think the reader must agree, a dead weight of
> human waste. Instead of decreasing and aiming to eliminate the stocks that
> are most detrimental to the future of the race and the world, it tends to
> render them to a menacing degree dominant [emphasis added].11
> Margaret Sanger
Notice that the source your quotation is inappropriately cited.
Two of the sources who use that quotation are:
The Negro Project and Margaret Sanger
www.citizenreviewonline.org/special_issues/population/the_negro_project.htm
The Truth about Planned Parenthood The real planned parenthood
www.abortionismurder.org/pp.shtml
Do you suppose Margaret Sanger was responsible for the Supreme Court's
ruling that it was constitutional to involuntarily sterilize the
developmentally disabled, the insane, or the uncontrollably epileptic?
The decision was written by Oliver Wendell Holmes and was subscribed to by
Brandeis and six other justices.
-----begin excerpt-----
Eugenics is the science of improving hereditary qualities by socially
controlling human reproduction. Unable to foment popular opposition to
Margaret Sanger's accomplishments and the organization she founded,
Sanger's critics attempt to discredit them by intentionally confusing her
views on "fitness" with eugenics, racism, and anti-Semitism. Margaret
Sanger was not a racist, an anti-Semite, or a eugenicist. Eugenicists,
like the Nazis, were opposed to the use of abortion and contraception by
healthy and "fit" women (Grossmann, 1995). In fact, Sanger's books were
among the very first burned by the Nazis in their campaign against family
planning ("Sanger on Exhibit," 1999/2000). Sanger actually helped several
Jewish women and men and others escape the Nazi regime in Germany
("Margaret Sanger and the 'Refugee Department'," 1993). Sanger's
disagreement with the eugenicists of her day is clear from her remarks in
The Birth Control Review of February 1919:
Eugenists imply or insist that a woman's first duty is to the state; we
contend that her duty to herself is her first duty to the state. We
maintain that a woman possessing an adequate knowledge of her reproductive
functions is the best judge of the time and conditions under which her
child should be brought into the world. We further maintain that it is her
right, regardless of all other considerations, to determine whether she
shall bear children or not, and how many children she shall bear if she
chooses to become a mother (1919a).
Margaret Sanger clearly identified with the issues of health and fitness
that concerned the early 20th-century eugenics movement, which was
enormously popular and well-respected during the 1920s and '30s, when
treatments for many hereditary and disabling conditions were unknown.
However, Sanger always believed that reproductive decisions should be made
on an individual and not a social or cultural basis, and she consistently
repudiated any racial application of eugenics principles. For example,
Sanger vocally opposed the racial stereotyping that effected passage of
the Immigration Act of 1924, on the grounds that intelligence and other
inherited traits vary by individual and not by group.
Although Sanger uniformly repudiated the racist exploitation of eugenics
principles, she agreed with the "progressives" of her day who favored
incentives for the voluntary hospitalization and/or sterilization of
people with untreatable, disabling, hereditary conditions
the adoption and enforcement of stringent regulations to prevent the
immigration of the diseased and "feebleminded" into the U.S.
placing so-called illiterates, paupers, unemployables, criminals,
prostitutes, and dope-fiends on farms and open spaces as long as necessary
for the strengthening and development of moral conduct
Planned Parenthood Federation of America finds these views objectionable
and outmoded. Nevertheless, anti-family planning activists continue to
attack Sanger, who has been dead for over 30 years, because she is an
easier target than the unassailable reputation of PPFA and the
contemporary family planning movement.
-----end of excerpt------
Dana
> On Sat, 13 Mar 2004, it was alleged by Dana Raffaniello:
>
> > "Carol Lee Smith" <hu...@csd.uwm.edu> wrote in message
> > news:Pine.OSF.3.96.104031...@alpha1.csd.uwm.edu...
> > > > "Carol Lee Smith" <hu...@csd.uwm.edu> wrote in message
Bob LeChevalier
There seems to be some disagreement about the Act and its authorship.
A variety of sources identify the "Constitution Restoration Act of
2004", not with Pat Robertson or "Dominionists", but with Roy Moore:
http://www.gopusa.com/news/2004/march/0302_constitution_restoration_act.shtml
http://atheism.about.com/b/a/065553.htm
Other sources, mostly foreign, seem to have the Robertson/Dominionist
association and do not mention Moore at all, but most of them appear
to be derived from one or two articles/essays, and there is a dearth
of evidence to support the claim
http://www.scoop.co.nz/mason/stories/HL0402/S00172.htm
There are 2400 hits for "Constitution Restoration Act" as a phrase.
There are only 71 linking that phrase with "dominionists", 48 linking
it with Robertson, 15 linking it with Reconstructionists, but 479
linking it with Moore
http://www.magnificentfreedom.us/blog/_archives/2004/3/9/25836.html
is the text of the bill. Section 1260 would appear to run afoul of
the original jurisdiction clause of Article III Section 2 of the
Constitution. Congress has no say in regulating original
jurisdiction, only in regulating appellate jurisdiction, as I read the
constitution.
lojbab
--
lojbab loj...@lojban.org
Bob LeChevalier, Founder, The Logical Language Group
(Opinions are my own; I do not speak for the organization.)
Artificial language Loglan/Lojban: http://www.lojban.org
Carol Lee Smith
> "Carol Lee Smith" <hu...@csd.uwm.edu> wrote in message
> news:Pine.OSF.3.96.10403...@alpha1.csd.uwm.edu...
What?
> > On Sat, 13 Mar 2004, it was alleged by Dana Raffaniello:
> > > "Carol Lee Smith" <hu...@csd.uwm.edu> wrote in message
> > > news:Pine.OSF.3.96.104031...@alpha1.csd.uwm.edu...
What?
> > > > On Sat, 13 Mar 2004, it was written by Dana Raffaniello:
> > > > > "Carol Lee Smith" <hu...@csd.uwm.edu> wrote in message
> > > > > news:Pine.OSF.3.96.104031...@alpha1.csd.uwm.edu...
What?
> > > > > > On Sat, 13 Mar 2004, it was written by Dana
> > > > > > > <bucke...@nospam.net> wrote in message
> > > > > > > news:s1b650thnfstg0722...@4ax.com...
>>>>>>>> Important message. George Bush and his allies in congress, the
Republicans, are set to change the legal basis of our government
from: "The right to govern comes from the consent of the governed."
to "God is the sovereign source of law in the United States."<<<<<<<<
>>>>>>> Look, jailson or whatever he is calling himself these days is
>>>>>>> reduced to fabricating false stories.
What's with the "Carol Lee Smith" wrote?
Shootin' blanks again, Dana?
Dana
news:td7750hvd885nlu98...@4ax.com...
> Carol Lee Smith <hu...@csd.uwm.edu> wrote:
> >On Sat, 13 Mar 2004, it was written by Dana Raffaniello, not known for
> >"original thought:"
> >> <bucke...@nospam.net> wrote in message
> >> news:s1b650thnfstg0722...@4ax.com...
> >
> >> > Important message. George Bush and his allies in congress, the
> >> > Republicans, are set to change the legal basis of our government
> >> > from: "The right to govern comes from the consent of the governed."
> >> > to "God is the sovereign source of law in the United States."
> >
> >> Look, jailson or whatever he is calling himself these days is reduced
to
> >> fabricating false stories.
>
> A variety of sources identify the "Constitution Restoration Act of
> 2004", not with Pat Robertson or "Dominionists", but with Roy Moore:
Actually his lawyer.
But you intolerant atheist bigots never were one for honesty.
Dana
"Carol Lee Smith" <hu...@csd.uwm.edu> wrote in message
news:Pine.OSF.3.96.104031...@alpha1.csd.uwm.edu...
>
> > "Carol Lee Smith" <hu...@csd.uwm.edu> wrote in message
> > news:Pine.OSF.3.96.10403...@alpha1.csd.uwm.edu...
>
> > > > "Carol Lee Smith" <hu...@csd.uwm.edu> wrote in message
> > > > news:Pine.OSF.3.96.104031...@alpha1.csd.uwm.edu...
> > > > > > "Carol Lee Smith" <hu...@csd.uwm.edu> wrote in message
> > > > > >
news:Pine.OSF.3.96.104031...@alpha1.csd.uwm.edu...
> > > > > > > > <bucke...@nospam.net> wrote in message
> > > > > > > > news:s1b650thnfstg0722...@4ax.com...
>
> >>>>>>>> Important message. George Bush and his allies in congress, the
> Republicans, are set to change the legal basis of our government
> from: "The right to govern comes from the consent of the governed."
> to "God is the sovereign source of law in the United States."<<<<<<<<
>
> >>>>>>> Look, jailson or whatever he is calling himself these days is
> >>>>>>> reduced to fabricating false stories.
Atheism teaches that there is no God, hence no God-given rights. That
ideology coupled with a system that believed in the superiority of the state
at the expense of the individual was murderously synergistic.
--
"To give certain dysgenic groups in our population their choice of
segregation [concentration camps] or sterilization", advocated the founder
of Planned Parenthood, Margaret Sanger in April 1932 ("A Plan For Peace")
Carol Lee Smith
> Carol Lee Smith <hu...@csd.uwm.edu> wrote:
> >On Sat, 13 Mar 2004, it was written by Dana Raffaniello, not known for
> >"original thought:"
> >> <bucke...@nospam.net> wrote in message
> >> news:s1b650thnfstg0722...@4ax.com...
> >> > Important message. George Bush and his allies in congress, the
> >> > Republicans, are set to change the legal basis of our government
> >> > from: "The right to govern comes from the consent of the governed."
> >> > to "God is the sovereign source of law in the United States."
> >> Look, jailson or whatever he is calling himself these days is reduced to
> >> fabricating false stories.
> >Ah. Unable to address ideas, Dana Raffaniello attacks the messager.
> >No false story was posted. Does this Constitution Restoration Ace of 2004
> >sound as though it is compatible with our Constitution? Perhaps you might
> >want to comment on the content rather than attacking individuals.
> >The article referenced is here:
> >http://www.moscowtimes.ru/stories/2004/03/12/120.html
> >-----excerpt------
> >The "Constitution Restoration Act of 2004" is no joke; it was introduced
> >last month by some of the Bush Regime's most powerful Congressional
> >sycophants. ...
> >The Act--drafted by a minion of television evangelist Pat Robertson ...
> There seems to be some disagreement about the Act and its authorship.
> A variety of sources identify the "Constitution Restoration Act of
> 2004", not with Pat Robertson or "Dominionists", but with Roy Moore:
The article did not give an identity to whomever it was referred to as "a
minion of television evangelist Pat Robertson." I do not know who this
minion is.
> http://www.gopusa.com/news/2004/march/0302_constitution_restoration_act.shtml
> http://atheism.about.com/b/a/065553.htm
> Other sources, mostly foreign, seem to have the Robertson/Dominionist
> association and do not mention Moore at all, but most of them appear
> to be derived from one or two articles/essays, and there is a dearth
> of evidence to support the claim
> http://www.scoop.co.nz/mason/stories/HL0402/S00172.htm
> There are 2400 hits for "Constitution Restoration Act" as a phrase.
> There are only 71 linking that phrase with "dominionists", 48 linking
> it with Robertson, 15 linking it with Reconstructionists, but 479
> linking it with Moore
> http://www.magnificentfreedom.us/blog/_archives/2004/3/9/25836.html
> is the text of the bill. Section 1260 would appear to run afoul of
> the original jurisdiction clause of Article III Section 2 of the
> Constitution. Congress has no say in regulating original
> jurisdiction, only in regulating appellate jurisdiction, as I read the
> constitution.
I think that anything like a Constitutional Restoration Act
would be declared unConstitutional.
Carol Lee Smith
Just how honest do you suggest it is to call Bob an atheist.
You have been advised over an over by Bob that he is not an atheist.
I have no reason to doubt his word.
Your record, on the other hand, would be a solid basis for doubting most
of what you have to say.
Carol Lee Smith
> "Carol Lee Smith" <hu...@csd.uwm.edu> wrote in message
> news:Pine.OSF.3.96.104031...@alpha1.csd.uwm.edu...
What?
> > On Sat, 13 Mar 2004, it was alleged by Dana Raffaniello:
> > > "Carol Lee Smith" <hu...@csd.uwm.edu> wrote in message
> > > news:Pine.OSF.3.96.10403...@alpha1.csd.uwm.edu...
What? The refence line which follows:
?????
> > > > On Sat, 13 Mar 2004, it was alleged by Dana Raffaniello:
> > > > > "Carol Lee Smith" <hu...@csd.uwm.edu> wrote in message
> > > > > news:Pine.OSF.3.96.104031...@alpha1.csd.uwm.edu...
What?
> > > > > > On Sat, 13 Mar 2004, it was written by Dana Raffaniello:
> > > > > > > "Carol Lee Smith" <hu...@csd.uwm.edu> wrote in message
> news:Pine.OSF.3.96.104031...@alpha1.csd.uwm.edu...
What? The reference which follows?
?????
> > > > > > > > On Sat, 13 Mar 2004, it was written by Dana
> > > > > > > > > <bucke...@nospam.net> wrote in message
> > > > > > > > > news:s1b650thnfstg0722...@4ax.com...
> > >>>>>>>> Important message. George Bush and his allies in congress, the
> > Republicans, are set to change the legal basis of our government
> > from: "The right to govern comes from the consent of the governed."
> > to "God is the sovereign source of law in the United States."<<<<<<<<
> > >>>>>>> Look, jailson or whatever he is calling himself these days is
> > >>>>>>> reduced to fabricating false stories.
> --
> Atheism teaches that there is no God, hence no God-given rights. That
> ideology coupled with a system that believed in the superiority of the state
> at the expense of the individual was murderously synergistic.
> --
Now who contributed that? Not Carol Lee Smith, as Dana's referent line
would have the dear reader believe.
Carol Lee Smith doesn't plagiarize the personal intellectual property of
others.
The real source of that passage which Dana Raffaniello likes to pass
off as his own is http://snipurl.com/3qrw
But the dear readers knew that already.
Dana, you once again are gently reminded you need to do your homework
so you have some understanding of plagiarism, appropriate citing and
intellectual integrity.
So long as you don't give credit to another author, posting his/her
work as your own is theft--intellectual theft.
But you are unfamiliar with the word intellectual, much the same as
you are unfamiliar with:
attribution
copyright law
harassment
plagiarize
citation
evidence
forming possessive
> ...
> render them to a menacing degree dominant [emphasis added].11
> Margaret Sanger
The truth about Margaret Sanger is here:
http://www.plannedparenthood.org/about/thisispp/sanger.html
and here
http://www.msu.edu/course/mc/112/1920s/Sanger/Information.html
Dana
news:Pine.OSF.3.96.104031...@alpha1.csd.uwm.edu...
> On Sun, 14 Mar 2004, it was written:
>
> > "Bob LeChevalier" <loj...@lojban.org> wrote in message
> > news:td7750hvd885nlu98...@4ax.com...
>
> > > Carol Lee Smith <hu...@csd.uwm.edu> wrote:
> > > >On Sat, 13 Mar 2004, it was written by Dana Raffaniello, not known
for
> > > >"original thought:"
>
> > > >> <bucke...@nospam.net> wrote in message
> > > >> news:s1b650thnfstg0722...@4ax.com...
>
> > > >> > Important message. George Bush and his allies in congress, the
> > > >> > Republicans, are set to change the legal basis of our government
> > > >> > from: "The right to govern comes from the consent of the
governed."
> > > >> > to "God is the sovereign source of law in the United States."
>
> > > >> Look, jailson or whatever he is calling himself these days is
reduced
> > > >> to fabricating false stories.
> > > There seems to be some disagreement about the Act and its authorship.
>
> > > A variety of sources identify the "Constitution Restoration Act of
> > > 2004", not with Pat Robertson or "Dominionists", but with Roy Moore:
>
> > Actually his lawyer.
> > But you intolerant atheist bigots never were one for honesty.
>
> Just how honest do you suggest it is to call Bob an atheist.
Very honest, as that is what he is.
--
Dana
news:Pine.OSF.3.96.104031...@alpha1.csd.uwm.edu...
> I think that anything like a Constitutional Restoration Act
> would be declared unConstitutional.
And you would be wrong.
Article III
Section 1. The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one
Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to
time ordain and establish.
Arne Langsetmo
> And there is no better chance than the present to try and get as far,
> accomplish as much as they can.
>
> The inmates are running the asylum (White House, Congress, Perhaps the
> USSC, many state legislatures. There is also a growing movement made up of
> judges lawyers, etc, they have a name, can't offhand recall it, but that
> are very right wing, very religious right friendly.
Would that be the Federalist Society? I used to be a student member
when at Berkeley, so I could keep and eye on them and get their
publications. But they're not overtly CRW (although there's a
fair about of overlap and mutual butt-patting; Meese, e.g., seems
to be a bit in both camps, as does Starr).
> Pat Robertson's CBN and Regent U has a fair number of
> Reconstrustrictionsist and a fair number of Regent School of Law graduates
> are employed in the State Department and Justice
>
> It is amazing how Pat Robertson's Regent U graduate school contains all the
> schools necessary to run a nation. Accident, yea right LOL
Planning ahead. For the _real_ new millennium. ;-)
Cheers,
-- Arne Langsetmo
Arne Langsetmo
> "Bob LeChevalier" <loj...@lojban.org> wrote in message
> news:td7750hvd885nlu98...@4ax.com...
[snip]
>>There seems to be some disagreement about the Act and its authorship.
>>
>>A variety of sources identify the "Constitution Restoration Act of
>>2004", not with Pat Robertson or "Dominionists", but with Roy Moore:
>
> Actually his lawyer.
I find it amusing that the (thankfully) former Chief Justice of
the Alabama Supreme Court _needs_ a lawyer.
Cheers,
-- Arne Langsetmo
Carol Lee Smith
It is repeated Sunday afternoon. Catch it if you can.
Also, you might want to check out www.newdomocracy.org and
www.truemajority.org
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
3:15 PM CST Sunday CSPAN 2 Book TV (4:15 EST)
http://www.booktv.org/General/index.asp?segID=4391&schedID=264
On Sunday, March 14 at and at 3:15 pm CST
--------------------------------------------
"Books on Bush" Discussion
Eric Alterman, Joe Conason, David Corn, Mark Green, and William Hartung
Description: From St. Peter's Church in New York City, a panel discussion
featuring five authors discussing President George Bush and his
administration. The panel consists of Eric Alterman and Mark Green,
co-authors of "The Book on Bush: How George W. Bush (Mis)leads America";
Joe Conason, author of "Big Lies: The Right Wing Propaganda Machine and
How it Distorts the Truth"; and David Corn, author of "The Lies of George
W. Bush." The authors are all critical of President Bush and talk about
their reasons for being so. The discussion is moderated by William Hartung
of the World Policy Institute, author of "How Much Are You Making on the
War, Daddy?: A Quick and Dirty Guide to War Profiteering in the Bush
Administration." The event closes with remarks from Andrew Greenblatt of
Truemajority.org.
Author Bio: William Hartung is director of the Arms Trade Project for the
World Policy Institute and the author of "How Much Are You Making on the
War, Daddy?: A Quick and Dirty Guide to War Profiteering in the Bush
Administration." David Corn is the Washington Editor of the Nation
magazine and the author of "The Lies of George W. Bush." Mark Green is a
former New York City public advocate, mayoral candidate, and the author of
numerous books including "Who's Running Congress?" and his newest " The
Book on Bush: How George W. (Mis)leads America," which he co-authored with
Eric Alterman. Mr. Alterman is a media critic, a columnist for the Nation
magazine, and the author of several books including "What Liberal Media"
and "Sound & Fury: The Making of the Punditocracy." Joe Conason writes for
the New York Observer and Salon.com; he is the author of "Big Lies" and
the co-author, along with Gene Lyons, of "The Hunting of the President."
Carol Lee Smith
> "Carol Lee Smith" <hu...@csd.uwm.edu> wrote in message
> news:Pine.OSF.3.96.104031...@alpha1.csd.uwm.edu...
> > On Sun, 14 Mar 2004, it was written by Dana Raffaniello:
> > > "Bob LeChevalier" <loj...@lojban.org> wrote in message
> > > news:td7750hvd885nlu98...@4ax.com...
>>>> There seems to be some disagreement about the Act and its authorship.
>>>> A variety of sources identify the "Constitution Restoration Act of
>>>> 2004", not with Pat Robertson or "Dominionists", but with Roy Moore:
> > > Actually his lawyer.
> > > But you intolerant atheist bigots never were one for honesty.
> > Just how honest do you suggest it is to call Bob an atheist.
> Very honest, as that is what he is.
Bob is as much an atheist as you are, Dana Raffaniello.
I guess we can just call you an atheist from now on, in addition to being
a liar and a plagiarist.
And once again, Dana tacks his favorite stolen tagline:
> Atheism teaches that there is no God, hence no God-given rights. That
> ideology coupled with a system that believed in the superiority of the
> state at the expense of the individual was murderously synergistic.
The real source of that passage which Dana Raffaniello likes to pass
off as his own is http://snipurl.com/3qrw
But the dear readers knew that already.
Dana, you once again are gently reminded you need to do your homework
so you have some understanding of plagiarism, appropriate citing and
intellectual integrity.
So long as you don't give credit to another author, posting his/her
work as your own is theft--intellectual theft.
But you are unfamiliar with the word intellectual, much the same as
you are unfamiliar with:
atheism
humanism
harassment
plagiarism
copyright law
citation
evidence
bucke...@nospam.net
>:|
>:|There seems to be some disagreement about the Act and its authorship.
>:|
>:|A variety of sources identify the "Constitution Restoration Act of
>:|2004", not with Pat Robertson or "Dominionists", but with Roy Moore:
>:|
>:|http://www.gopusa.com/news/2004/march/0302_constitution_restoration_act.shtml
>:|http://atheism.about.com/b/a/065553.htm
>:|
>:|Other sources, mostly foreign, seem to have the Robertson/Dominionist
>:|association and do not mention Moore at all, but most of them appear
>:|to be derived from one or two articles/essays, and there is a dearth
>:|of evidence to support the claim
>:|http://www.scoop.co.nz/mason/stories/HL0402/S00172.htm
>:|
>:|There are 2400 hits for "Constitution Restoration Act" as a phrase.
>:|There are only 71 linking that phrase with "dominionists", 48 linking
>:|it with Robertson, 15 linking it with Reconstructionists, but 479
>:|linking it with Moore
>:|
>:|http://www.magnificentfreedom.us/blog/_archives/2004/3/9/25836.html
>:|is the text of the bill. Section 1260 would appear to run afoul of
>:|the original jurisdiction clause of Article III Section 2 of the
>:|Constitution. Congress has no say in regulating original
>:|jurisdiction, only in regulating appellate jurisdiction, as I read the
>:|constitution.
>:|
>:|lojbab
New Dominionist Bill Limits the Supreme Court's Jurisdiction
http://www.yuricareport.com/Dominionism/ConstitutionRestorationAct.htm
[excerpt]
The Constitution Restoration Act of 2004
[Editor's Note: February 28, 2004 Update: This article omits one fact that
should have been included: the bill was drafted by former Judge Roy Moore's
lawyer, Herb Titus. Those who have read The Despoiling of America will know
that Titus was the first Dean of Pat Robertson's School of Public Policy
and is a known Dominionist who has advocated the abolition of the
government's licensing powers. He has argued that government oversteps when
it licenses lawyers, doctors, teachers, etc. Also, an earlier bill titled
"Religious Liberties Restoration Act," S. 1558 dated July 21, 2003,
specifically authorizes the display of the ten commandments and other
religious references and exempts such items from judicial review by the
U.S. Federal Courts. Our question is: What is actually intended by the
Constitution Restoration Act of 2004?]
[end excerpt]
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wacko Titus
Herbert W. Titus
http://www.lawandfreedom.com/site/aboutus/hwt.html
http://www.namebase.org/xtho/Herbert-W-Titus.html
http://www.ocms.ac.uk/transformation/results_authors.asp?mm_aut=366
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.lfod.com/PILit.htm
"The Constitution of the United States: A Christian Document"
by Herbert W. Titus
Herbert W. Titus is a CP member from Virginia and was the party's 1996
Vice-Presidential candidate
"The Declaration of Independence: The Christian Legacy"
by Herbert W. Titus
God, Man and Law, The Biblical Principles, by Herbert W. Titus.
[This particular book we bought in 1994 at the book store at Regent U at
CBN here in Va Beach. It was a textbook used in the School of Law at Regent
U. In fact, it was this book that set S. Batte and myself on the path that
led us to become involved with Prof. Tom Peters in creating the
"Separation of Church and State Home Page" and ultimately led to S. Batte
and myself creating the current web site we currently maintain, updater and
run: THE CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLE:
SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
So I guess we owe dear ole Herby a pat on the back]
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Herbert W. Titus
http://www.spirit-filled.org/titus.htm
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Research Articles - The Council for National Policy (CNP)
http://www.seekgod.ca/topiccnp.htm
Herbert W. Titus- CNP 1984, 1988, 1996, 1998; served as dean, School of
Public Policy and College of Law and Government, CBN University; taught
constitutional law at Oral Roberts University for 18 years before joining
CBN University.
Dr. "M.G." Pat Robertson - CNP Board of Governors 1982, President
Executive Committee 1985-86, member, 1984, 1988, 1998; President of the
Christian Broadcasting Network (CBN), host of the famous "The 700 Club",
and founder of CBN University; founder the Christian Coalition; chancellor
and founder CBN University.
Robertson writes that his family's aristocratic lineage, linking it to the
British Churchill family, gave his mother, Gladys Churchill Robertson,
confidence that Pat would succeed. His father, Sen. A. Willis Robertson,
was London's and Wall Street's chairman of the Senate Finance Committee.
"Hunt, whose Birch Society background is documented by Conway and Siegelman
in Holy Terror, also made a contribution of $1 million to the Moral
Majority in 1981, according to Perry Dean Young." 36 Donated $10 million
to Pat Robertson's Christian Broadcasters Network in 1970. 37
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Politics1: Presidency 2000 - Howard Phillips (Constitution Party ...
... Herbert W. "Herb" Titus (Virginia ... Constitution Party activist Titus
-- a Harvard educated
attorney, radio talk ... a period as the Dean of Pat Robertson’s Regent ...
http://www.politics1.com/constitution.htm
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Coalition On Revival
... FREE CONGRESS FOUNDATION 2 LAHAYE TIM 2 MARSHNER WILLIAM 2 ROBERTSON
PAT (EVANGELIST)
2 ... 1 SIMONDS ROBERT L 1 SUNDSETH CHRISTOPHER C 1 TITUS HERBERT W 1
TOMCZAK ...
http://www.namebase.org/main1/Coalition-On-Revival.html
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rousas John Rushdoony
... 1 ROBERTSON PAT (EVANGELIST) 1 SCHUMAN TOMAS D 1 SCOTT RALPH 1 SILEVEN
EVERETT
1 SILJANDER MARK D 1 SILLS DONALD 1 SIMONDS ROBERT L 1 TITUS HERBERT W 1 ..
www.namebase.org/main4/Rousas-John-Rushdoony.html -
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A few years back Titus sued Pat Robertson in Court in Chesapeake Va for
firing him from Regent U when Titus claimed he had a valid contract and had
tenure.
Titus claimed that Robertson was dumping him and a couple other profs. at
the las school for being too radical. That Pat was tryingly to get
accreditation from the ABA and the ABA told him to dump the ultra radicals
from the staff of the school.
Odd that I can't find anything about the lawsuit or rift on line.
********************************************************
http://www.rfcnet.org/news/default.asp?action=print&article=197
Constitution Restoration Act of 2004
Congress of the United States
February 11, 2004 1:07PM EST
108th CONGRESS
2d Session
H. R. 3799
To limit the jurisdiction of Federal courts in certain cases and promote
federalism.
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
February 11, 2004
Mr. ADERHOLT (for himself and Mr. PENCE) introduced the following bill;
which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary
A BILL
To limit the jurisdiction of Federal courts in certain cases and promote
federalism.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the
United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the `Constitution Restoration Act of 2004'.
TITLE I--JURISDICTION
SEC. 101. APPELLATE JURISDICTION.
(a) IN GENERAL-
(1) AMENDMENT TO TITLE 28- Chapter 81 of title 28, United
States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:
`Sec. 1260. Matters not reviewable
`Notwithstanding any other provision of this chapter, the Supreme
Court shall not have jurisdiction to review, by appeal, writ of certiorari,
or otherwise, any matter to the extent that relief is sought against an
element of Federal, State, or local government, or against an officer of
Federal, State, or local government (whether or not acting in official
personal capacity), by reason of that element's or officer's
acknowledgement of God as the sovereign source of law, liberty, or
government.'.
(2) TABLE OF SECTIONS- The table of sections at the beginning
of chapter 81 of title 28, United States Code, is amended by adding at the
end the following:
`1260. Matters not reviewable.'.
(b) APPLICABILITY- Section 1260 of title 28, United States Code, as
added by subsection (a), shall not apply to an action pending on the date
of enactment of this Act, except to the extent that a party or claim is
sought to be included in that action after the date of enactment of this
Act.
SEC. 102. LIMITATIONS ON JURISDICTION.
(a) IN GENERAL-
(1) AMENDMENT TO TITLE 28- Chapter 85 of title 28, United
States Code, is amended by adding at the end of the following:
`Sec. 1370. Matters that the Supreme Court lacks jurisdiction to review
`Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the district court shall
not have jurisdiction of a matter if the Supreme Court does not have
jurisdiction to review that matter by reason of section 1260 of this
title.'.
(2) TABLE OF SECTIONS- The table of sections at the beginning of
chapter 85 of title 28, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end
the following:
`1370. Matters that the Supreme Court lacks jurisdiction to
review.'.
(b) APPLICABILITY- Section 1370 of title 28, United States Code, as
added by subsection (a), shall not apply to an action pending on the date
of enactment of this Act, except to the extent that a party or claim is
sought to be included in that action after the date of enactment of this
Act.
TITLE II--INTERPRETATION
SEC. 201. INTERPRETATION OF THE CONSTITUTION.
In interpreting and applying the Constitution of the United States, a
court of the United States may not rely upon any constitution, law,
administrative rule, Executive order, directive, policy, judicial decision,
or any other action of any foreign state or international organization or
agency, other than the constitutional law and English common law.
TITLE III--ENFORCEMENT
SEC. 301. EXTRAJURISDICTIONAL CASES NOT BINDING ON STATES.
Any decision of a Federal court which has been made prior to or after
the effective date of this Act, to the extent that the decision relates to
an issue removed from Federal jurisdiction under section 1260 or 1370 of
title 28, United States Code, as added by this Act, is not binding
precedent on any State court.
SEC. 302. IMPEACHMENT, CONVICTION, AND REMOVAL OF JUDGES FOR CERTAIN
EXTRAJURISDICTIONAL ACTIVITIES.
To the extent that a justice of the Supreme Court of the United
States or any judge of any Federal court engages in any activity that
exceeds the jurisdiction of the court of that justice or judge, as the case
may be, by reason of section 1260 or 1370 of title 28, United States Code,
as added by this Act, engaging in that activity shall be deemed to
constitute the commission of--
(1) an offense for which the judge may be removed upon
impeachment and conviction; and
(2) a breach of the standard of good behavior required by
article III, section 1 of the Constitution.
***********************************************************
~
bucke...@nospam.net
>:|There seems to be some disagreement about the Act and its authorship.
>:|
>:|A variety of sources identify the "Constitution Restoration Act of
>:|2004", not with Pat Robertson or "Dominionists", but with Roy Moore:
Herbert W. Titus is suppose to have been the author.
ahhh friend found it for me;
*********************************************************************
God, Man and Law, The Biblical Principles, by Herbert W. Titus.
[This particular book we bought in 1994 at the book store at Regent U at
CBN here in Va Beach. It was a textbook used in the School of Law at Regent
U. In fact, it was this book that set S. Batte and myself on the path that
led us to become involved with Prof. Tom Peters in creating the
"Separation of Church and State Home Page" and ultimately led to S. Batte
and myself creating the current web site we currently maintain, updater and
run: THE CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLE:
SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
So I guess we owe dear ole Herby a pat on the back]
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
A few years back Titus sued Pat Robertson in Court in Chesapeake Va for
firing him from Regent U when Titus claimed he had a valid contract and had
tenure.
Titus claimed that Robertson was dumping him and a couple other profs. at
the las school for being too radical. That Pat was tryingly to get
accreditation from the ABA and the ABA told him to dump the ultra radicals
from the staff of the school.
Odd that I can't find anything about the lawsuit or rift on line.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
http://www.cwnews.com/news/viewstory.cfm?recnum=5722
(From "NewStandard" 9/2/97)
http://www.s-t.com/daily/09-97/09-02-97/zzzwnppl.htm
(Extract)
A judge in Virginia, Va., has ordered Pat Robertson to reveal the
name of the U.S. Supreme Court justice who allegedly referred to lawyers
suing the televangelist as a "bunch of screwballs."
36cb571.jpg The justice allegedly made the remark to Robertson last year.
Since revealing the conversation in court in October, Robertson has refused
to name the justice.
36cb580.jpg Circuit Judge Edward Hanson Jr. Friday ordered Robertson to
reveal the name, the date of the conversation and what was said. The name
would be kept under seal pending a hearing on how to proceed.
36cb597.jpg The controversy began in 1993 when Robertson, who founded
Regent University, fired Law School Dean Herbert Titus. With faculty and
students rallying behind Titus, Robertson wrote a letter in which he
accused law professors of trying to cripple or shut down the law school.
36cb5a6.jpg He compared them to suicide cult leader Jim Jones and the
Branch Davidians, saying they were "second-rate legal minds," "inept as
lawyers" and "extremist fanatics."
36cb5b9.jpg Three professors filed the defamation lawsuit against Robertson
in 1994. Titus settled a separate case last year for undisclosed terms.
End extract)
http://www.spirit-filled.org/titus.htm
[The friend added]
Something very traumatic incident must have happened in his life
to bring about such a dramatic epiphany. This is not an ignorant man.
However, he does not appear to be a man very knowledgeable about the
natural sciences. My mind is saddened to see him become a captive of the
supernatural. His is a somewhat academic existence accept for those first
two years after law school.
***********************************************************
New Dominionist Bill Limits the Supreme Court's Jurisdiction
http://www.yuricareport.com/Dominionism/ConstitutionRestorationAct.htm
[excerpt]
The Constitution Restoration Act of 2004
Dana
news:Pine.OSF.3.96.104031...@alpha1.csd.uwm.edu...
> On Sun, 14 Mar 2004, it was written by Dana Raffaniello the atheist:
>
> > "Carol Lee Smith" <hu...@csd.uwm.edu> wrote in message
> > news:Pine.OSF.3.96.104031...@alpha1.csd.uwm.edu...
>
> > > On Sun, 14 Mar 2004, it was written by Dana Raffaniello:
>
> > > > "Bob LeChevalier" <loj...@lojban.org> wrote in message
> > > > news:td7750hvd885nlu98...@4ax.com...
>
> >>>> There seems to be some disagreement about the Act and its authorship.
>
> >>>> A variety of sources identify the "Constitution Restoration Act of
> >>>> 2004", not with Pat Robertson or "Dominionists", but with Roy Moore:
>
> > > > Actually his lawyer.
> > > > But you intolerant atheist bigots never were one for honesty.
>
> > > Just how honest do you suggest it is to call Bob an atheist.
>
> > Very honest, as that is what he is.
>
> Bob is as much an atheist as you are, Dana Raffaniello.
Yes Bob is an atheist as his viewpoints prove.
And again you are lying.
> > Atheism teaches that there is no God, hence no God-given rights. That
> > ideology coupled with a system that believed in the superiority of the
> > state at the expense of the individual was murderously synergistic.
>
> The real source of that passage which Dana Raffaniello likes to pass
> off as his own
I have never claimed it was mine, why do you lie.
bucke...@nospam.net
>:|I think that anything like a Constitutional Restoration Act
>:|would be declared unConstitutional.
Edwin L. Meese III
How Congress Can Rein in the Courts
Judges have assumed vast powers the founders never intended. The
solution? Congress should assert a few powers the founders did intend. An
analysis by Meese.
http://www-hoover.stanford.edu/publications/digest/974/meese.html
******************************************************************
Federal Courts
... courts can possess whatever jurisdiction Congress deems appropriate.
http://216.239.41.104/search?q=cache:KLnFE8QzqHYJ:www.wld.com/conbus/statelaw/usfed.htm+can+congress+regulate+federal+courts&hl=en&ie=UTF-8
http://makeashorterlink.com/?F297327B7
***************************************************************
Constitutional Law - Chapter 1
... Can Congress reduce federal jurisdiction in a way which denies remedies
for some
rights? ... 2) Congress can make exceptions to and regulate the appellate .
http://www.lexisnexis.com/lawschool/resource/summaries/html/conlaw/conlaw01.htm
§1.06 Court Organization [12-14]
The Constitution provides for the existence of a Supreme Court in Art. III
sec. 1 but Congress can control its composition, when it meets and its
rules.
Under the Exceptions Clause (Art. III, sec.2 cl. 2) Congress can make
exceptions to and regulate the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court.
Does this clause confer broad power to restrict the Court’s appellate
jurisdiction or simply to make limited exceptions?
Ex Parte McCardle, 74 U.S. (7 Wall.) 506 (1868), held that Congress had
power to remove the Court’s appellate jurisdiction regarding habeas appeals
conferred by an 1867 Act. Still, appellate jurisdiction remained as
conferred by the Judiciary Act of 1789 so all routes to the Court were not
eliminated. United States v. Klein, 80 U.S. (13 Wall.) 128 (1871),
recognized some limits to Congress’ power to restrict appellate
jurisdiction of the Court.
The Ordain and Establish Clause of Art. III sec. 1 empowers Congress to
decide whether to create lower federal courts. Cases suggest it has broad
power in this respect although some, including Justice Story, have
suggested that power is not unlimited. Sheldon v. Sill, 49 U.S. (8 How.)
441 (1850), confirms that Congress need not confer on lower federal courts
the full jurisdiction the Constitution would allow.
It is not clear that Congress could eliminate all jurisdiction regarding a
federal right without violating the Marbury principle.
§1.07. Jurisdiction: Lower Courts and Legislative Control [14-18]
§1.08. Supreme Court Jurisdiction [18-22]
§1.09 Non-Article III Adjudication [22-24]
Congress can also restrict the importance of the federal courts by creating
federal tribunals which do not have the Art. III characteristics of life
tenure and salary protection and accordingly may not be as independent of
Congress. Congress has typically been allowed to create such tribunals
dealing with military justice, the territories, the District of Columbia
and disputes involving public rights (e.g. the Tax Court, social security
benefits, etc.). The Court has policed the expansion of such tribunals by
using a balancing test.
***************************************************************
THE ENUMERATED POWERS AND DUTIES OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT
http://www.users.voicenet.com/~wbacon/Enumerated.html
Thus Congress possesses the power to abolish all Federal Courts except the
Supreme Court. Congress can also limit the appellate jurisdiction of the
Supreme Court itself (see Article II Section II). And, of course, Congress
can also impeach Feder al judges, who are to serve only during times of
good behavior. The limited powers of the Federal Judiciary and the checks
that Congress has over it the weakest of the three branches of government.
******************************************************************
Judge Roy Moore Introduces Constitution Restoration Act 2004
http://www.waff.com/Global/story.asp?S=1644862
[EXCERPT]
Q. What is the purpose of this bill?
A. The purpose of the CRA is to restrict the appellate jurisdiction of the
United States Supreme Court and all lower federal courts to that
jurisdiction permitted them by the Constitution of the United States. The
acknowledgment of God as the sovereign source of law, liberty, and
government is contained within the Declaration of Independence which is
cited as the “organic law” of our Country by United States Code Annotated.
The constitution of every state of the Union acknowledges God and His
sovereignty, as do three branches of the federal government. The
acknowledgment of God is not a legitimate subject of review by federal
courts. The CRA also protects and preserves the Constitution of the United
States by restricting federal courts from recognizing the laws of foreign
jurisdictions and international law as the supreme law of our land.
Q. Does this bill reverse Supreme Court precedent?
A. To the extent that any decision of the United States Supreme Court or
that of any federal district court made prior to or after the effective
date of the Act prohibits the acknowledgment of God as the sovereign source
of law, liberty, or government, such precedent would not be binding on
state courts.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
[This would be the first major official step in trying to cancel
application of the religious clauses of the BORs against the states.
A U S District Court judge was the firs to try and accomplish this in
recent times in Wallace v Jaffree
Back in the 50s and 60s during the bulk of the civil rights movement I am
sure there were southern state and resident southern judges who probably
said the same things, that is the BORs do not apply to the states.
However it was Judge Hand in the 80s that stated the Establishment Clause
did not apply to the states, to Alabama, etc. The USSC when it decided
Wallace v Jaffree didn't even bother to give that element of the lower
court light of day by even referring to it.
I recently ran across something which I posted at the time, that gives
strong indication that Justice Thomas would not have a problem in
supporting the idea that the BORs, i.e. in particular the religious clauses
do not apply to the states. It appears from some of the stuff I have rad
yesterday and today, Rehnquist while a conservative, is not to be counted
among the dominion leaning types but the same cannot be said for sure about
Scalia.
Rehnquist has already complained about Congress trying to limit the high
Court. One of the things I posted yesterday covers that as I recall. ]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q. Does this bill intrude into the constitutional powers of the federal
judiciary?
A. No. Use by Congress of Article III regulation of the appellate
jurisdiction of the United States Supreme Court and other federal courts is
provided by the Constitution as a check on the Judicial Branch when it
exceeds its jurisdiction. When federal courts prohibit the acknowledgment
of God they deny the very source of life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness
which our founding fathers specifically recognized in the Declaration of
Independence as unalienable rights given by God. To prohibit a state
official from recognizing God is a violation of the Tenth Amendment as well
as the First Amendment of the United States Constitution. If Congress
cannot make a law restricting states from the acknowledgment of God under
the First Amendment, how can the Supreme Court enforce a law which Congress
cannot make? The CRA would restore the balance of power among the various
branches of government and restore the fundamental precepts upon which our
Constitution and government is based.
[END EXCERPT]
****************************************************************
Now one would think that this only being a law and not a constitutional
amendment that if ever passed it could be challenged and could be struck
down by the USSC.
However, to quote a famous ex coach on ESPN, not so fast my friend.
What if the dominions have enough voting jusitces on the USSC?
While overall, in the past the dominions have not been shy about stating
their plans, intents and purposes, and many haven't been shy about letting
it be known they are involvd with the movement, many of the new ones are
adopting the Christian Coalition, Ralph Reed stealth approach with regards
to being identified with that movement.
Just a few years ago these people, (Christian reconstructionists,
dominions, etc,) were viewed as crackpots, jokes, etc.
(But then so was the Moral Majority, Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson,
Christian Coalition, etc in the beginning)
However, right now after after 20 or 30 or more years of quietly going
about their business they are in a position to get maybe the last laugh.
I am sure that they have planned for the fact of this law or sinilar ones
they will be propossing in the future can be checked by the USSC and I am
equally sure they have plans on how to counter that as well.
Will they take over the government, probably not, however, one should never
say never. This seems to be a tiem of the radicals worldwuide
accomplishign amazing things in many instances.
What they can do is alter this nation and its laws, sometimes in drastic
ways.
They can chage things and make a differecne and I don't think that
difference will be for the better.
In time things will swing back the other way, but between now and then it
could become messy.
bucke...@nospam.net
>:|bucke...@nospam.net wrote:
>:|
Yes, I think it was.
>:|I used to be a student member
>:|when at Berkeley, so I could keep and eye on them and get their
>:|publications. But they're not overtly CRW (although there's a
>:|fair about of overlap and mutual butt-patting; Meese, e.g., seems
>:|to be a bit in both camps, as does Starr).
and they have connections with the Family Research Council
Carol Lee Smith
> "Carol Lee Smith" <hu...@csd.uwm.edu> wrote in message
> news:Pine.OSF.3.96.104031...@alpha1.csd.uwm.edu...
> > On Sun, 14 Mar 2004, it was written by Dana Raffaniello the atheist:
> > > "Carol Lee Smith" <hu...@csd.uwm.edu> wrote in message
> > > news:Pine.OSF.3.96.104031...@alpha1.csd.uwm.edu...
What? The following referent line?
> > > > On Sun, 14 Mar 2004, it was written by Dana Raffaniello:
What? The following referent line?
> > > > > "Bob LeChevalier" <loj...@lojban.org> wrote in message
> > > > > news:td7750hvd885nlu98...@4ax.com...
~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Bob:
>>>>>> There seems to be some disagreement about the Act and its
authorship.
>>>>>> A variety of sources identify the "Constitution Restoration Act of
>>>>>> 2004", not with Pat Robertson or "Dominionists", but with Roy Moore:
~ ~ ~ ~ ~
> > > > > Actually his lawyer.
> > > > > But you intolerant atheist bigots never were one for honesty.
> > > > Just how honest do you suggest it is to call Bob an atheist.
> > > Very honest, as that is what he is.
Your characterization of Bob as an atheist, in light of his disavowal, is
nothing but a lie.
> > Bob is as much an atheist as you are, Dana Raffaniello.
> Yes
Glad to hear you don't deny your atheism, Dana.
> Bob is an atheist as his viewpoints prove.
I have never seen Bob express anything resembling an atheist viewpoint.
Your false allegation about Bob only serves to confirm you know nothing
about atheism.
Bob has defended separation. Why do you equate that with atheism? Many
religious people defend the concept of separation because they know it is
beneficial to their secular government and to their religious
institution(s) of choice.
> And again you are lying.
Specific examples?
Put them here ----->
> > > Atheism teaches that there is no God, hence no God-given rights. That
> > > ideology coupled with a system that believed in the superiority of the
> > > state at the expense of the individual was murderously synergistic.
> > The real source of that passage which Dana Raffaniello likes to pass
> > off as his own
> I have never claimed it was mine, why do you lie.
By including it in your posts without attribution is de facto claiming it
as your own.
The real source of that passage which you, Dana Raffaniello, like to pass
off as your own is http://snipurl.com/3qrw
But the dear readers knew that already.
Dana, you once again are gently reminded you need to do your homework
so you have some understanding of plagiarism, appropriate citing and
intellectual integrity.
So long as you don't give credit to another author, posting his/her
work as your own is theft--intellectual theft.
But you are unfamiliar with the word intellectual, much the same as
you are unfamiliar with:
harassment
copyright
plagiarism
atheism
humanism
citation
evidence
forming possessive
Dana
news:Pine.OSF.3.96.104031...@alpha1.csd.uwm.edu...
> On Sun, 14 Mar 2004, it was alleged by Dana Raffaniello:
>
> > "Carol Lee Smith" <hu...@csd.uwm.edu> wrote in message
> > news:Pine.OSF.3.96.104031...@alpha1.csd.uwm.edu...
>
> > > On Sun, 14 Mar 2004, it was written by Dana Raffaniello the atheist:
>
> > > > "Carol Lee Smith" <hu...@csd.uwm.edu> wrote in message
> > > > news:Pine.OSF.3.96.104031...@alpha1.csd.uwm.edu...
> > > > > > "Bob LeChevalier" <loj...@lojban.org> wrote in message
> > > > > > news:td7750hvd885nlu98...@4ax.com...
> ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
> Bob:
> >>>>>> There seems to be some disagreement about the Act and its
> authorship.
>
> >>>>>> A variety of sources identify the "Constitution Restoration Act of
> >>>>>> 2004", not with Pat Robertson or "Dominionists", but with Roy
Moore:
> ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
> > > > > > Actually his lawyer.
> > > > > > But you intolerant atheist bigots never were one for honesty.
>
> > > > > Just how honest do you suggest it is to call Bob an atheist.
>
> > > > Very honest, as that is what he is.
>
> Your characterization of Bob as an atheist, in light of his disavowal, is
> nothing but a lie.
Nope, Bobs attack on Christianity and Christians in these newsgroups is
proof of his atheist beliefs.
> Glad to hear you don't deny your atheism, Dana.
I am not an atheist. I am tolerant of other beliefs, atheists are not.
>
> > Bob is an atheist as his viewpoints prove.
>
> I have never seen Bob express anything resembling an atheist viewpoint.
You keep your head where the sun does not shine quite often.
> > And again you are lying.
>
> Specific examples?
Sweden has no homeless.
Margagret Sanger was not a racist.
You claimed I said you posted something you did not post.
Carol Lee Smith
about Bob:
> > > > > Very honest, as that is what he is.
> > Your characterization of Bob as an atheist, in light of his disavowal, is
> > nothing but a lie.
> Nope, Bobs attack on Christianity and Christians in these newsgroups is
> proof of his atheist beliefs.
I have seen no attack on Christianity or Christians. There aren't any.
If you can disprove this by providing evidence, consider this an
invitation.
Put the evidence here ----->
> > Glad to hear you don't deny your atheism, Dana.
> I am not an atheist. I am tolerant of other beliefs, atheists are not.
Examples of your intolerance are abundant.
If you were tolerant, you would not spam usenet constantly with
mis-information and dis-information about atheists.
> > > Bob is an atheist as his viewpoints prove.
> > I have never seen Bob express anything resembling an atheist viewpoint.
> You keep your head where the sun does not shine quite often.
Rather than attempts at cuteness, why don't you provide some evidence.
Give examples of Bob's atheist viewpoint.
Put them here----->
I am not holding by breath. Many people ask you for the goods, and you
don't deliver.
> > > And again you are lying.
> > Specific examples?
> Sweden has no homeless.
Acknowledged, much to your consternation, because it invalidates your
argument that I am lying.
> Margagret Sanger was not a racist.
That is correct. She was not.
> You claimed I said you posted something you did not post.
The evidence is on every post which says "Carol Lee Smith wrote ..."
When I did not.
That is proof postitive.
> > > > > Atheism teaches that there is no God, hence no God-given rights.
> That
> > > > > ideology coupled with a system that believed in the superiority of
> the
> > > > > state at the expense of the individual was murderously synergistic.
> > > > The real source of that passage which Dana Raffaniello likes to pass
> > > > off as his own
> > > I have never claimed it was mine, why do you lie.
Every time you post your tag line without attribution, it is intellectual
theft.
Dana
news:Pine.OSF.3.96.104031...@alpha1.csd.uwm.edu...
>
> about Bob:
> > > > > > Very honest, as that is what he is.
>
> > > Your characterization of Bob as an atheist, in light of his disavowal,
is
> > > nothing but a lie.
>
> > Nope, Bobs attack on Christianity and Christians in these newsgroups is
> > proof of his atheist beliefs.
>
> > I am not an atheist. I am tolerant of other beliefs, atheists are not.
>
> > > I have never seen Bob express anything resembling an atheist
viewpoint.
>
> > You keep your head where the sun does not shine quite often.
>
> > > Specific examples?
>
> > Sweden has no homeless.
>
> Acknowledged
That you were caught lying.
>
> > Margagret Sanger was not a racist.
>
> > You claimed I said you posted something you did not post.
> When I did not.
> > > > > > Atheism teaches that there is no God, hence no God-given rights.
> > That
> > > > > > ideology coupled with a system that believed in the superiority
of
> > the
> > > > > > state at the expense of the individual was murderously
synergistic.
>
> > > > > The real source of that passage which Dana Raffaniello likes to
pass
> > > > > off as his own
>
> > > > I have never claimed it was mine, why do you lie.
--
Carol Lee Smith
> "Carol Lee Smith" <hu...@csd.uwm.edu> wrote in message
> news:Pine.OSF.3.96.104031...@alpha1.csd.uwm.edu...
> > On Sun, 14 Mar 2004, it was written by Dana Raffaniello:
> > about Bob:
> > > > > > > Very honest, as that is what he is.
> > > > Your characterization of Bob as an atheist, in light of his disavowal,
> > > > is nothing but a lie.
> > > Nope, Bobs attack on Christianity and Christians in these newsgroups is
> > > proof of his atheist beliefs.
> > > > Glad to hear you don't deny your atheism, Dana.
> > > I am not an atheist. I am tolerant of other beliefs, atheists are not.
You are not tolerant, as is evidenced by your posting of intolerance.
> > > > > Bob is an atheist as his viewpoints prove.
>>>> I have never seen Bob express anything resembling an atheist viewpoint.
And you haven't provided any evidence to support your allegations, which
is par for the course for you.
> > > You keep your head where the sun does not shine quite often.
I see you have snipped my previous responses. You behave like an ostrich
with its head in a hole.
> > > > > And again you are lying.
> > > > Specific examples?
> > > Sweden has no homeless.
> > Acknowledged
> That you were caught lying.
No, Dana. That what I based my opinion upon ws not current or correct.
It is the mark of rationality and integrity to acknowledge a mistaken
opinion. That I have done.
Have you?
I leave it for the dear readers to judge.
> > Margagret Sanger was not a racist.
> > You claimed I said you posted something you did not post. When I did not.
Every time you open a post with "XXXX said YYY" and XXX did not say YYY,
that is an example of a lie, Dana.
>>>>>> Atheism teaches that there is no God, hence no God-given rights.
>>>>>> That ideology coupled with a system that believed in the superiority of the
>>>>>> state at the expense of the individual was murderously synergistic.
> > > > > > The real source of that passage which Dana Raffaniello likes to pass > > > >
> > off as his own
> > > > > I have never claimed it was mine, why do you lie.
Thank you for providing the opportunity to again point out that you commit
intellectual theft every time you including the following, uncited:
> Atheism teaches that there is no God, hence no God-given rights. That
> ideology coupled with a system that believed in the superiority of the
> state at the expense of the individual was murderously synergistic.
The real source of that passage which Dana Raffaniello likes to pass
off as his own is http://snipurl.com/3qrw
But the dear readers knew that already.
Dana, you once again are gently reminded you need to do your homework
so you have some understanding of plagiarism, appropriate citing and
intellectual integrity.
So long as you don't give credit to another author, posting his/her
work as your own is theft--intellectual theft.
But you are unfamiliar with the word intellectual.
Gray Shockley
(in message <jCG4c.36382$aT1....@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>):
> Also look up "Christian Reconstructionism", the Chalcedon Foundation,
> and its founder, R.J. Rushdoony.
>
> There's a bunch of such "Christian Reconstructionists" in the
> current maladministration, and within the high ranks of the
> Republican party, IIRC.
>
> In the fundie world, there's two major camps, post-millenialists
> and pre-millenialists (both bad news, but the post-millenialists
> are probably the scarier of the two) and the CR folks are firmly in
> the post-millenialist camp.
There are quite a few of the Rushdoonetes still missing as they sit in their
bunkers and outwait the horrible tragedies and worldwide turmoil that
happened because of the Y2K fiasco.
Gray Shockley
-------------------------------------------------
Pain is inevitable but suffering is optional.
bucke...@nospam.net
>:|bucke...@nospam.net wrote:
>:|> In my email this morning
>:|>
>:|>
>:|> ----- Original Message -----
>:|> From: attis
>:|> To: dlRobert E. Nordlander ; Cana...@aol.com
>:|> Sent: Friday, March 12, 2004 11:06 PM
>:|> Subject: Fw: forward
>:|
>:|. . .
>:|
>:|> By Chris Floyd
>:|> (This is an expanded version of the column which ran in today's Moscow
>:|> Times)
>:|
>:|[snip]
>:|
>:|> The Act - drafted by a former minion of TV evangelist Pat Robertson - is
>:|> the fruit of decades of work by a group of extremists known broadly as
>:|> "Dominionists." Their openly expressed aim is to establish "biblical rule"
>:|> over every aspect of society - placing "the state, the school, the arts and
>:|> sciences, law, economics, and every other sphere under Christ the King." Or
>:|> as Attorney General John Ashcroft - the nation's chief law enforcement
>:|> officer - likes to say: "America has no king but Jesus!"
>:|
>:|Also look up "Christian Reconstructionism", the Chalcedon Foundation,
>:|and its founder, R.J. Rushdoony.
>:|
>:|There's a bunch of such "Christian Reconstructionists" in the
>:|current maladministration, and within the high ranks of the
>:|Republican party, IIRC.
>:|
>:|In the fundie world, there's two major camps, post-millenialists
>:|and pre-millenialists (both bad news, but the post-millenialists
>:|are probably the scarier of the two) and the CR folks are firmly in
>:|the post-millenialist camp.
Yeppers, here is a good article on it
http://myweb.tiscali.co.uk/praeternatural/pre%20mid%20post.htm
Postmillenialism
According to Loraine Boettner in his book The Millennium (he also wrote the
seriously-defective anti-Catholic book Roman Catholicism),
postmillennialism is "that view of last things which holds that the kingdom
of God is now being extended in the world through the preaching of the
Gospel and the saving work of the Holy Spirit, that the world eventually is
to be Christianized, and that the return of Christ will occur at the close
of a long period of righteousness and peace, commonly called the
millennium."
This view was popular with Protestants in the nineteenth century, when
Progress was expected even in religion and before the horrors of the
twentieth century were tasted. Today few hold to it, except such groups as
Christian Reconstructionists, who consciously work for a "Christian
America" in a sense that even the early Puritans hardly dreamed about.