Re: Muslim judge, sworn in on Koran in Brooklyn

[Beam Me Up Scotty]

> On 1/11/2016 3:31 PM, wy wrote:
>> On Monday, January 11, 2016 at 5:08:03 PM UTC-5, David Hartung wrote:
>>> On 01/11/2016 11:47 AM, coo...@loon.com wrote:
>>>> On Mon, 11 Jan 2016 08:51:05 -0600, David Hartung
>>>> <d_ha...@h0tmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> She can be sworn in using any religious book or
>>>>>> no book at all. Much ado about nothing.
>>>>>
>>>>> Isn't that what I said?
>>>>
>>>> No---it's the "not happy about it" that's troubling
>>>
>>> If the First Amendment means anything at all, this lady has every right
>>> to swear in on the Quran, my like or dislike is immaterial, that was my
>>> point. Tell me what is wrong with that position?
>>
>> What's wrong with that position is that if the Constitution is a
>> sacred document to you, then you shouldn't question what it stands
>> for, so there should be nothing to dislike.


Why would they have inserted Article 5 to create amendments if the
Document was perfect and why would the Preamble say that it was "to form
a *more* perfect union"? It seems the founders were not as delusional
as Liberals that presume to interpret the constitution rather than to
amend the constitution as it was originally created. They even allow
for the interpretation of the constitution to allow for interpretation
rather than following "the Amendment process" that was in the
constitution which is circular logic and violated the constitutions
article 5 that is the only way to change the constitutions meaning.


--
That's Karma





*Rumination*
#3.0.4 - "I am obligated by the Constitution not to do business with
people who stand against the Constitution and are fighting to subvert it."

[tesla sTinker]

8 Circular Logic it is.... runs around and bites itself.
its not my fault they are stupid. Why do you think it is the whole
article? Today you have computers, they can doctor and clone any image
there is at all, including text, and no one will ever know when they do
look at it. It was a long time ago, that those documents were really
written. Now, I have a copy, but it came from the net. So I am like,
uk on it too, not to say that I can help with that. But I do know, you
can use these machines for any kind of deception possible that you can
think of to do, and it does so work yes... I clone images myself of
products. To make them look better for the web ebay. But the real
problem is what they think they are really doing. (fools) None of them
are in a proper order of understanding the true religion of Catholicism,
i do mean, the real catholic, canon law, for none of them believe to
follow the true catholic faith at all, God Himself said, it was not
that they say they follow , but that they do follow to Him... He meant,
many who claim to be are not really that at all of what they claim.
Even the Scripture says, there will be traitors in the last days, guilty
of high treason, and its not just talking about religion here, but also
cesar and his so called books of corrupt laws.... And you said it
above, its a circle. To them it is yes, and to you, but not to Jesus,
it is not that way. He gave the proper way and order to follow the laws,
the very first commandment which states, to follow the true God. Now,
that is why, you cannot claim, freedom of religion.
Real true Catholicism never does this. First Commandment. And its also
the commandment that is broken the most of today yes.... What really
gets me is, protestants always pick up the new testament to preach with.
Jesus said, he did not come to delete the old law, but to enforce it.
Which means, the new law, is just about the same as the old one, lacking
a thing or two but to enhance what those old laws meant... But then
again, the old testament itself says, by the words of God Himself, that
its not all in this book... So - Now, if you are to believe that this
meant of just of the old testament, meaning the new one has not come
yet, you could still be wrong yes, because it could of to mean to both.
There is no specific on it. And in that case, it means, no one knows it
all... PERIOD. Which to me, if you look up in the sky at night, and you
see all those stars, well, how could just one simple little book,
contain all of what God, really wants? The circle of logic you
mentioned, continues to be that, because, of
those kinds of people who are extremist. Congress... They have this in
their head $... And Witchcraft. They want to be able to make a buck off
it if someone is not adhering to the law exactly correctly. And that,
is against the commandments in religion, and the reason why, Church and
State always remain separate of, by order of Jesus Himself... The US
Constitution has its problems and they are the kind that no, you must
contain the education of catholicism to be able to understand why it
means, you have to use the other books as well, and I am speaking of
Christianity not something else, for that is how the law system in this
nation was made and what it was made from, and how it is supposed to
work. CIRCUMSTANCE. Yes, back when they did not have computers to cheat
with. Thats right... I said it before, and its been up on our website
for many years about the law of spam. Communism. And how it is
dissobeying to the true US Constitution. The real fix behind that, is
to be rid of spam cops, as well as the gov cesar, being on the internet
at all, at the cost of the taxpayer. The circle of those documents,
will continue, and that is because of the disobedience to the true
Scripture. No one will get around that fact. Same as God told us, not
one is perfect... On these issues, my own opinion, I have to say,
they must change gears as in shifting a vehicle from forward to reverse
in differ circumstances, because, that is what Jesus was about... He
came to give the rest of the law, not delete the other one. For it was
true, they were not following it the right way. But then again, that
book says, 2/3rds go to hell, 1/3rd goes to heaven, no exceptions. That
is what happens when it all ends....

In truth, the true Holy Bible Scripture belongs in the courts. Same as,
gays cannot ask for marriage tickets. Same as if they want, they can
let someone sware in on the other books, in a partial citizen ship, as
long as the one true book is there also that they do swear on with
it....Mandatory... That in itself, would prevent conscience of the
judge, to falter on truth, as long as they are Christian. The rest,
those that want to do evil, well, partial citizen can extend them a
throw out of the nation if they are caught in falter of the real book.
then they will find out they cannot because of the way the USA laws were
made of and written up & from true religion,
meaning, thou cannot steal, kill, bear false witness, etc etc etc,and
there are many precepts that go along with all this that is less pay
attention too in the courts, depending on circumstance, of how, this
nation was built and works. So you see, when they took out the book,
they took all of that out too as well, before man, meaning, you can go
into the courtroom and lie if u want. For you swore in on nothing by
even a little g god, in the air itself, not on any book, which is the
father of all lies that book that is not a book... Not the true God
Himself HIS BOOK, that is truth. And what can they do about it... It is
the same as to say to God, well, we don't need you anymore. I be judge
without u today....

This book will never go away. Anyone who thinks so , is off their
marbles. To many true catholic monks, protect it without change...
How many years???????? 1000s so do think about it...

http://www.truecarpentry.org/tccwww/cathwww/dogma/catholicbooks/HolyBible/Baruch.htm

of course, the Koran is not this same book at all...
Nor do true Catholic monks protect it....

--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: ne...@netfront.net ---

[Beam Me Up Scotty]

> On 1/11/2016 3:31 PM, wy wrote:
>> On Monday, January 11, 2016 at 5:08:03 PM UTC-5, David Hartung wrote:
>>> On 01/11/2016 11:47 AM, coo...@loon.com wrote:
>>>> On Mon, 11 Jan 2016 08:51:05 -0600, David Hartung
>>>> <d_ha...@h0tmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> She can be sworn in using any religious book or
>>>>>> no book at all. Much ado about nothing.
>>>>>
>>>>> Isn't that what I said?
>>>>
>>>> No---it's the "not happy about it" that's troubling
>>>
>>> If the First Amendment means anything at all, this lady has every right
>>> to swear in on the Quran, my like or dislike is immaterial, that was my
>>> point. Tell me what is wrong with that position?
>>
>> What's wrong with that position is that if the Constitution is a
>> sacred document to you, then you shouldn't question what it stands
>> for, so there should be nothing to dislike.


Why would they have inserted Article 5 to create amendments if the
Document was perfect and why would the Preamble say that it was "to form
a *more* perfect union"? It seems the founders were not as delusional
as Liberals that presume to interpret the constitution rather than to

amend the constitution as it was originally created. The Liberals even
allow for the interpretation of the constitution to allow for more

interpretation rather than following "the Amendment process" that was in

the constitution, which is circular logic and violated the constitutions
article 5 that is the only real way to change the constitutions meaning.

--
That's Karma





*Rumination*

https://youtu.be/afGz0dzVSIU?t=145
Obama says you will have to change your traditions.
Are you still American if he forces you to change who "you are"?