Free Republic 3rd Quarter Fundraising Target: $85,000 Receipts & Pledges to-date: $80,755
95%  
Woo hoo!! And we're now over 95%!! Less than $4.3k to go!! We can do this!! Thank you all very much!!

Posts by StonyMan451

Brevity: Headers | « Text »
  • What makes our NDAA lawsuit a struggle to save the US constitution

    08/12/2012 8:42:48 AM PDT · 6 of 21
    StonyMan451 to R. Scott
    You say "I have no problem with detaining American citizens caught in a foreign country fighting American forces. In my view they forfeited their citizenship."

    Article III Section 3 of the Constitution reads:

    Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

    The problem with your comment is that the government only has to accuse a citizen of fighting American forces. They don't have to prove it to anyone in any court or even in any document. The accused person has no rights at all under this law. In fact, they only have to say you were fighting American forces if they get caught holding you in detention.

    It makes no difference if you're on American soil or not. You don't give up your rights as an American just by leaving American territory. Fighting American forces is treason, and the requirements for proving treason are clearly spelled out in the Constitution: testimony in OPEN COURT by two witnesses to the same overt act. Period.

  • Proof in a Single Sentence That Guns Don't Kill People, Gun Control Kills People

    08/08/2012 2:13:24 PM PDT · 12 of 14
    StonyMan451 to ansel12
  • Condoleezza Rice: 'Perhaps We Will Decide There Needs to Be' Same-Sex Civil Unions

    07/13/2012 4:38:50 PM PDT · 23 of 41
    StonyMan451 to Cringing Negativism Network

    You write “Palin is getting (lots) of opposition from some.”

    As much as I would like to see her as president, running as someone’s VP twice seems kind of weak to me and would diminish her street cred, IMO. We need her to keep as much credibility as possible. Whatever possible role she can play, I think her time for VP is over.

  • GLOBE Magazine: The Man Who Forged President Obama’s Birth Certificate Caught! (Photo)

    06/28/2012 12:18:35 PM PDT · 40 of 49
    StonyMan451 to Safrguns

    Thanks, Safrguns. Another Freeper already sent it to me.

  • GLOBE Magazine: The Man Who Forged President Obama’s Birth Certificate Caught! (Photo)

    06/27/2012 2:25:03 PM PDT · 16 of 49
    StonyMan451 to GregNH

    Does anyone have a copy of the original PDF posted on the White House web site? The one they have up there now doesn’t have the layers. I’m looking for the one that has the layers. I don’t know what happened to the copy I had saved. I want to show some people what was wrong with it, and why it is such a forgery.

  • Married man becomes Maine's newest Catholic priest {Ecumenical}

    06/27/2012 7:25:07 AM PDT · 60 of 61
    StonyMan451 to Cronos

    Yes, I am aware priestly celibacy in the Latin rite is not a dogma or doctrine in any way. It is, however, more than a discipline. It is also a long-standing tradition (with a lower case “t”), and is a matter of canon law. As such, it can be changed according to the prudential judgment of the Holy Father, who may, at any particular point in history, decide that mandatory priestly celibacy should or should not continue.

    Perhaps my use of the term “theological perspective” was less than ideal. There is a different way of looking at things, theologically, in the various rites of the Roman Catholic Church. There are different emphases, too. This is one of the reasons there are different codes of canon law, traditions, ways of celebrating the liturgy, and disciplines. They did not arise from nowhere. Nor did they arise only from historical circumstances. History develops partly from circumstances, but also from the perspectives, values, emphases, and personalities of those who make it. The eastern rite liturgies, laws, disciplines, and traditions are equally valid to those of the Latin rite. Yet they reveal (or emphasize) in many cases different aspects of the one infinite God.

    By using the term “theological perspective” I did not mean to imply that the eastern rites have different beliefs. There is one faith, and the members of all the various rites of the Roman Catholic Church share that faith.

  • Married man becomes Maine's newest Catholic priest {Ecumenical}

    06/26/2012 9:02:04 AM PDT · 40 of 61
    StonyMan451 to A.A. Cunningham
    Celibacy for priests in the Latin rite is, in fact, a law. It is promulgated in the Code of Canon Law. See Canon 277 § 1: Clerics are obliged to observe perfect and perpetual continence for the sake of the kingdom of heaven and therefore are bound to celibacy which is a special gift of God by which sacred ministers can adhere more easily to Christ with an undivided heart and are able to dedicate themselves more freely to the service of God and humanity.

    So it is both a law and a discipline.

    And Barry Soetoro is, in fact a Kenyan communist! ;-)

  • Married man becomes Maine's newest Catholic priest {Ecumenical}

    06/26/2012 8:54:08 AM PDT · 39 of 61
    StonyMan451 to A.A. Cunningham
    From Dictionary.com: chaste
    chaste   /tʃeɪst/ Show Spelled[cheyst]adjective, chast·er, chast·est.  
    1. refraining from sexual intercourse that is regarded as contrary to morality or religion; virtuous. 
    

    From Dictionary.com: cel·i·ba·cy   /ˈsɛləbəsi/ [sel-uh-buh-see] noun

    1. abstention from sexual relations. 
    

    All people, especially Christians, are called to chastity. Within the married state, sexual intercourse is chaste. Outside marriage, all people are called to celibacy.

  • Married man becomes Maine's newest Catholic priest {Ecumenical}

    06/26/2012 8:22:51 AM PDT · 31 of 61
    StonyMan451 to libdestroyer

    You ask “Regarding the “hierarchical Church,” why is it that Eastern RCC allows for married Priests? I’m not being snarky... I’m really just curious :)”

    Frankly, I don’t know. I certainly have no issue with it. I suspect it has a lot to do with their culture and different theological perspective, but I couldnt say with any degree of certainty.

  • Married man becomes Maine's newest Catholic priest {Ecumenical}

    06/26/2012 5:38:43 AM PDT · 10 of 61
    StonyMan451 to libdestroyer
    The RCC should accept change.

    That's a pretty broad statement. What kind of change? Why? Change for change's sake? It's just a silly statement.

    There's nothing wrong with a man taking a wife and serving God at the same time.

    No one ever said there was. The Church's law regarding priestly celibacy is just that... a changeable law. Even the most right-wing Catholic recognizes that. However, it is a law that has proven to bear much fruit, and it would be unwise to change it based on the experiences of a few years, as compared to the many centuries of experience of fruitfulness. There are many sound and profound theological and practical reasons for it. Read the post just before yours.

    If anything it removes a sexual stumbling block from his life.

    One fact that people usually ignore when they talk about priestly celibacy is that everyone who is not married is required by Jesus Christ to be celibate. So it is not only priests, but also single people, widows, and widowers, too, who must be celibate. So if you're going to do away with priestly celibacy simply as a way to remove a "sexual stumbling block", then you're on very shaky ground, from a moral theology point of view.

    Whether priestly celibacy should continue is a prudential decision of the Church, in the person of the Pope, whoever he may be at any given time in history. We, as Catholics, are part of a hierarchical Church, which means that some people get to make decisions and others must follow them. This is one of those decisions, and I'm comfortable with the fact that I have neither the right nor the responsibility to make that decision. I'll just follow it.

  • LITERARY AGENT RESPONDS TO ‘BORN IN KENYA’ OBAMA BIO: ‘NOTHING MORE THAN A FACT CHECKING ERROR’

    05/17/2012 3:12:18 PM PDT · 27 of 175
    StonyMan451 to barmag25
    "NOTHING MORE THAN A FACT CHECKING ERROR THAT OBAMA LEFT UNCORRECTED FOR 16 YEARS" - Fixed

    "NOTHING MORE THAN A FACT CHECKING ERROR THAT OBAMA KNOWINGLY LEFT UNCORRECTED FOR 16 YEARS" - Fixed again

    "NOTHING MORE THAN A FACT CHECKING ERROR LIE THAT OBAMA LEFT UNCORRECTED TOLD FOR 16 YEARS" - Fixed yet again.

    "NOTHING MORE THAN A LIE THE TRUTH THAT OBAMA TOLD FOR 16 YEARS" - Finally nailed it!

  • Eddie Bernice Johnson's Chief of Staff on Leave After Sending an Email About a Gay Colleague to him

    05/15/2012 3:37:13 PM PDT · 4 of 9
    StonyMan451 to Dysart

    From what I can gather from the article, if you use the phrase “if you know what I mean” about a gay person, then that’s bad. It doesn’t matter if “if you know what I mean” means “because you know that all left handers stick together” or some other characteristic that has nothing to do with sexual orientation. Simply using the phrase “if you know what I mean” must, simply must, mean “because they’re all gay, you know.” Because, you know, everyone will use whatever excuse they can to persecute gays, if you know what I mean.

  • White House clears staff in Colombia scandal

    04/23/2012 11:08:34 AM PDT · 8 of 46
    StonyMan451 to ColdOne

    Whew! I’m so relieved!

  • Secret Service Agents Took 20 Women To Colombian Hotel, Says Senator

    04/17/2012 7:36:50 PM PDT · 20 of 65
    StonyMan451 to Steelfish

    Leaving the current resident of the White House out of the equation, I wouldn’t trust any man who would betray his vows to his wife. Certainly not to lay down his life to protect the president. He simply is not a man of his word. One can try to justify it all he wants, but the fact remains that a man who would step out on his wife is a man who cannot be trusted with anything of value.

  • TV Network Started by Cloistered Nun Sues Sebelius

    02/09/2012 5:30:22 PM PST · 7 of 54
    StonyMan451 to Sub-Driver

    The whole issue is being mis-framed as a violation only of the freedom of religion of religious employers. The fact of the matter is that it is a violation of the freedom of religion of anyone who opposes abortion and contraception and is an employer. My brother is a partner in a law firm he co-founded. He has an agreement with his partners not to include abortion, abortion-inducing drugs, or contraceptives in their employee Heath plan. He did this over 20 years ago because he accepts the Catholic Church’s teachings on these issues. If this mandate stands, then his freedom of religion not to cooperate in abortion and contraception are also being violated. In fact, the FREEDOM of EVERYONE not to do so is being violated, whether or not they choose to use that freedom.

  • The Pope Told You So

    02/01/2012 9:04:14 AM PST · 2 of 4
    StonyMan451 to marshmallow
    Anyone who has not read Lord of the World by Robert Hugh Benson, should absolutely read it to understand what's going on in the world. It is a novel written at the end of 19th century or the beginning of the 20th, that is uncanny in its predictions of where we are as a society. Technically, socially, politically, spiritually, and philosophically. It does have a distinctly Catholic perspective, but I believe evangelicals would connect with it, too.
  • Debate Thoughts

    01/26/2012 7:13:46 PM PST · 12 of 18
    StonyMan451 to vmivol00

    There are only two candidates left I would vote for in the general election: Santorum and Gingrich, in that order. If Romney or Paul get the nomination, then I will write in Sarah Palin.

    Romney strongly supports the unlimited detention provision in the NDAA. He is effectively indistinguishable from Obama. Paul is nuts. He thinks it’s OK if Iran gets nukes. There are plenty of other reasons to oppose Romney and Paul, but those two alone disqualify them from the presidency, IMHO.

  • OBAMA ELIGIBILITY HEARING TO BE STREAMED LIVE STARTING AT 0900 EST

    01/26/2012 7:52:19 AM PST · 266 of 1,473
    StonyMan451 to Tennessee Nana

    The fact that the layers in the PDF disappeared after several days proves that they tampered with it. That’s really a very important point supporting the fact that they knew the PDF was a forgery.

    I also downloaded the original PDF from the White House and verified the layers. There were all sorts of anomalies. It was really a very poorly done forgery. And then several weeks later I downloaded the PDF again, and all the layers were gone!

  • OBAMA ELIGIBILITY HEARING TO BE STREAMED LIVE STARTING AT 0900 EST

    01/26/2012 7:20:55 AM PST · 170 of 1,473
    StonyMan451 to StonyMan451

    Taking a short break.

  • OBAMA ELIGIBILITY HEARING TO BE STREAMED LIVE STARTING AT 0900 EST

    01/26/2012 7:16:42 AM PST · 148 of 1,473
    StonyMan451 to StonyMan451

    They’re establishing that the certification the DNC sent to the Georgia Secretary of State, officially notifying them of Obama’s nomination to the presidency, does NOT claim that he is eligible for the office as it is supposed to do.

  • OBAMA ELIGIBILITY HEARING TO BE STREAMED LIVE STARTING AT 0900 EST

    01/26/2012 6:55:07 AM PST · 94 of 1,473
    StonyMan451 to StonyMan451

    Discussing 3 paths to citizenship. Natural born, naturalization, and what? I couldn’t hear.

  • OBAMA ELIGIBILITY HEARING TO BE STREAMED LIVE STARTING AT 0900 EST

    01/26/2012 6:50:35 AM PST · 84 of 1,473
    StonyMan451 to StonyMan451

    They’re discussing with a witness Obama’s book ‘Dreams from my Father’, with certain portions highlighted for the purpose of illustrating some history of his father. Page 216. Evidence Obama said some government had revoked his father’s passport.

    They’re trying to re-establish some phone connection.

  • OBAMA ELIGIBILITY HEARING TO BE STREAMED LIVE STARTING AT 0900 EST

    01/26/2012 6:47:05 AM PST · 76 of 1,473
    StonyMan451 to StonyMan451

    They are putting the birth certificate published by the white house into evidence.

  • OBAMA ELIGIBILITY HEARING TO BE STREAMED LIVE STARTING AT 0900 EST

    01/26/2012 6:45:33 AM PST · 71 of 1,473
    StonyMan451 to StonyMan451

    Bad audio. Someone is reading something into the record.

  • OBAMA ELIGIBILITY HEARING TO BE STREAMED LIVE STARTING AT 0900 EST

    01/26/2012 6:44:23 AM PST · 62 of 1,473
    StonyMan451 to StonyMan451

    All rise! Court is now in session.

  • OBAMA ELIGIBILITY HEARING TO BE STREAMED LIVE STARTING AT 0900 EST

    01/26/2012 6:40:03 AM PST · 55 of 1,473
    StonyMan451 to StonyMan451

    They’re establishing some sort of audio/conference call connection. The clerk is at the bench. Still no judge yet.

  • OBAMA ELIGIBILITY HEARING TO BE STREAMED LIVE STARTING AT 0900 EST

    01/26/2012 6:37:10 AM PST · 49 of 1,473
    StonyMan451 to StonyMan451

    The lawyers have come back into the courtroom. No judge yet.

  • OBAMA ELIGIBILITY HEARING TO BE STREAMED LIVE STARTING AT 0900 EST

    01/26/2012 6:34:42 AM PST · 44 of 1,473
    StonyMan451 to GraceG

    The stream cut out for the second time. It is now back up. They’re still in the judge’s chambers.

  • OBAMA ELIGIBILITY HEARING TO BE STREAMED LIVE STARTING AT 0900 EST

    01/26/2012 6:21:22 AM PST · 19 of 1,473
    StonyMan451 to butterdezillion

    The lawyers from both sides are still in the judge’s chambers.

  • OBAMA ELIGIBILITY HEARING TO BE STREAMED LIVE STARTING AT 0900 EST

    01/26/2012 6:16:14 AM PST · 15 of 1,473
    StonyMan451 to ASA Vet

    Same thing happened to me, but it’s working on one of the alternate sites now.

    The clerk just told the plaintiff’s and defendant’s attorneys that he would like to have a conversation with them in his chamber for a few minutes. They’ve left the courtroom and entered his chambers. Nothing more yet.

  • Fidelity: Should It Matter? (Should marital fidelity matter in a political candidate?)

    01/24/2012 1:32:59 PM PST · 55 of 55
    StonyMan451 to kalee

    Really?! Then that does change everything. I don’t know why I thought she had died. I should have checked. It was easy enough to find out, once you called me out on it. Thank you for making me get my facts on the case straight.

    Nevertheless the principles I stated remain true. I should have checked to see if Jackie is still alive before I applied the principles to his situation, since it changes in some pretty important ways.

    When an adult is received into the Catholic church, any purported marriages need to be clarified. If Jackie had died, my original analysis would have been the way to go. However, since she is still alive, Newt’s marriage to her would be presumed to be valid. And since he did not get an annulment before he married Marianne, his civil marriages to Marianne and Callista would clearly not be sacramentally valid.

    Since Newt and Callista had no intention of separating when he converted to Catholicism, he would have to demonstrate to the Church that his marriage to Jackie was not sacramentally valid and that he was free to enter a sacramental marriage with Callista. I don’t know on what basis that annulment was granted, but from the public evidence, I can easily think of two possible reasons:

    1. At the time he married Jackie, he may not have ever had the intention to remain sexually faithful to her. He may have presented other evidence, not publicly known, to support that claim.

    2. His relationship with Jackie was unusual, to say the least, in ways that might have had a profound effect on his ability to have the necessary understanding of matrimony to enter into a sacramentally valid marriage with her. Newt and Jackie had started a sexual relationship when he was only 16 years old, and while she was his high school math teacher. There are all sorts of potential psychological impediments that could interfere with a 19 year old man’s ability to freely commit to marriage with woman seven years older than him, who happened to be in a position of authority over him, and with whom he had been sexually active for 3 years.

    Whether these are the reasons the annulment was granted are mere speculation on my part. What is not speculation is that to enter the Catholic Church and continue living with Callista, Newt’s marriage to Jackie would have had to be declared invalid, and he would have had to enter a sacramental marriage with Callista. Anything less would be a lack of a sincere intention to live according to the teachings of Christ.

  • Fidelity: Should It Matter? (Should marital fidelity matter in a political candidate?)

    01/24/2012 12:23:25 PM PST · 38 of 55
    StonyMan451 to elpadre
    I am not a Roman Catholic, however I know many who have left the RC church. Divorce and adultery are biggies for them and have always been curious how the Gingrich's managed to get their marriage blessed. Have they ever said?

    It's kind of long, but interesting, I think, so I'll give it a shot. With regard to marriage, the Catholic Church teaches the following:

    1. For a Christian, marriage is a sacrament. It cannot be undone except by death. While it is possible to get a legal divorce, the Church still views the couple as sacramentally married until one of the spouses dies.
    2. Civil marriage has no bearing whatsoever on whether or not a sacramental marriage has been validly entered.
    3. The marriages of non-Catholic Christians are presumed to be valid sacramental marriages.
    4. You can be sacramentally married to only one person at a time. And since a sacramental marriage lasts until death, that means you can only enter a second sacramental marriage after the death of your spouse.
    5. There are certain conditions that are required for a marriage to be considered sacramentally valid. Those conditions include (but are not limited to) the following: 1) the firm intention to be sexually faithful to your spouse as long as you both live; 2) the willingness (but not necessarily the positive intention) to have children, should God send them to you; and 3) the mature understanding that marriage is a lifelong commitment. If any of these conditions is missing (and there are others, but these are the relevant ones for this discussion), then the marriage is not valid.
    6. A marriage is presumed to be valid unless it is convincingly demonstrated otherwise in a Church court. An example of a case where it could be demonstrated to be invalid would be if one spouse engaged in sexual intercourse with another party within a very short time after the marriage ceremony. There can be other very convincing evidence that the conditions for a valid marriage were not met.
    7. A Catholic can appeal to the Church for a declaration of nullity, which is an official declaration that the marriage they had presumed to be valid was, in fact, not valid at all, and had never been valid. This is commonly called an annulment. If the Church is convinced by the evidence submitted that one or more of the essential elements of a valid sacramental marriage was missing AT THE TIME OF THE WEDDING CEREMONY, then the annulment can be granted and both parties are free to enter a valid sacramental marriage with someone else.
    8. If you commit adultery, that does not end a sacramental marriage just as it does not end a civil marriage. If, at the time of the ceremony, both parties intended to be sexually faithful for life, then a later choice to commit adultery does not invalidate the marriage.
    9. If, while validly married in the eyes of the Church, you enter a civil marriage with someone else, the Church does not recognize the civil marriage as valid. You are still married to your first spouse until one of you dies.
    10. If, while living in a second civil marriage while still sacramentally married to someone else, and your sacramental spouse dies, your new civil marriage does not automatically become a valid sacramental marriage. You are still living in sin until you enter a new sacramental marriage.

    Applying these considerations to the Gingrich case, we see that his second civil marriage was never a valid sacramental marriage. There are many reasons this is true, including both the fact that he was still sacramentally married to his first wife, Jackie. His adulterous relationship Marianne did not invalidate that marriage. When Jackie died, he was considered not to be sacramentally married anymore, since his new civil marriage to Marianne has no sacramental effect. When he started his affair with Callista, he was still legally married to Marianne (but not sacramentally). He later civilly divorced Marianne and entered his third civil marriage to Callista.

    When Newt converted to Catholicism, the whole issue of his marital relationships had to be cleared up in the eyes of the Church. Since Jackie had died, there was no question that he was not married to her anymore. However, he had entered a civil marriage with Marianne. While the existence of a civil marriage has no sacramental effect, there is, nevertheless, an obligation to clarify one's marital status when entering the Church. There would have had to be an official declaration that his purported marriage to Marianne was not sacramental, and that therefore, he was free to enter into a sacramental marriage with Callista. Newt would not have been received into the Catholic Church if he was not willing to either stop living with Callista, or to enter a sacramental marriage with her. So when he converted, he also sacramentally married Callista.

    Thus, it's not that his civil marriage was blessed. Rather, it is that he entered a sacramental marriage with her either before or immediately after he was received into the Church.

    I need to make clear that the Church is not "looking the other way" with regard to Newt's repeated infidelities. And this is not some sort of loophole. On the contrary, the Church simply presumes the sincerity of all those who repent of their sins and wish to convert. And since sexual activity outside a sacramental marriage is prohibited by Christ, a sincere person in Newt's position who wants to enter the Church would have to sacramentally marry the person with whom they are living, or to separate from them. Newt and Callista chose to marry.

    Another point is that the Church condemns Callista's behavior before their sacramental marriage, too. But presumably they both have had a conversion of heart. Let's hope so, anyway.

  • Senator Rand Paul Has Been Detained By The TSA At Nashville Airport

    01/23/2012 12:00:50 PM PST · 7 of 12
    StonyMan451 to bushwon

    Given that Obama’s people are siding with the TSA, it seems that perhaps they’ve stepped in it, too.

  • Senator Rand Paul Has Been Detained By The TSA At Nashville Airport

    01/23/2012 11:52:23 AM PST · 5 of 12
    StonyMan451 to opentalk

    Good to see that I’m not the only one who knows about this! Too bad the TSA doesn’t! I suppose they could argue that he hasn’t been “arrested”, but merely “detained.” I would argue that that is a distinction without a difference, and would never hold up in court.

  • Senator Rand Paul Has Been Detained By The TSA At Nashville Airport

    01/23/2012 11:47:27 AM PST · 3 of 12
    StonyMan451 to bushwon
    Article I Section 6 of the U.S. Constitution reads:

    The Senators and Representatives shall ... in all Cases, except Treason, Felony and Breach of the Peace, be privileged from Arrest during their Attendance at the Session of their respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the same; and for any Speech or Debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other Place.

  • Rand Paul in Pat-Down Standoff With TSA in Nashville

    01/23/2012 8:22:28 AM PST · 5 of 103
    StonyMan451 to Kartographer
    Article 1 Section 6 of the U.S. Constitution:

    "The Senators and Representatives shall receive a Compensation for their Services, to be ascertained by Law, and paid out of the Treasury of the United States. They shall in all Cases, except Treason, Felony and Breach of the Peace, be privileged from Arrest during their Attendance at the Session of their respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the same; and for any Speech or Debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other Place."

  • Romney’s Coronation: Just Delayed, or Gone Awry?

    01/22/2012 7:09:58 AM PST · 38 of 47
    StonyMan451 to HerrBlucher

    You say “The vast majority of santorum fans will go to Newt.”

    I agree completely. If Santorum is still in the race when Maryland votes, I’ll be voting for him because of all the remaining candidates, he’s the one I want to be president. But if he drops out before then, I’ll vote for Gingrich.

    Last week I was wavering on my vow NEVER to vote for Romney, even if he gets the nomination. I had been planning to write in Palin. But then I started to fall for the “anybody but Obama” meme. And then in the debate, when they asked Romney if he would have signed the NDAA as is, with the provision for the unlimited detention of suspected terrorists, including American citizens, I realized for certain that if he is willing to trash the constitution to give us a false sense of security, then he’ll trash it whenever he thinks it’s in his political best interest to do so.

    An American being an “enemy combatant”, as defined in the NDAA, is treason. And treason is the only crime explicitly defined in the constitution, along with the criteria for proving it. It consists of two witnesses testifying in open court to the same overt act.

    Here’s Article 3 Section 3 of the Constitution:

    “Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.”

    Indefinite detention of an American for being a suspected terrorist, without trial, without Habeas Corpus, and without even any evidence, violates the constitution. Period. If you think such detention is a good idea, then work to change the constitution, don’t just ignore it. And I’ll work my ass off to prevent it.

    This provision of the NDAA is so blatantly unconstitutional that only an idiot or a liar cannot see it, and I won’t vote for either.

    Being “suspected” of being a terrorist is not the same thing as being a terrorist.

  • Obama "Jobs Commission" Endorses Corporate Income Tax Rate Cut

    01/17/2012 2:44:54 PM PST · 5 of 5
    StonyMan451 to 92nina

    There should be no corporate income tax. It all comes out of our pockets in the end. Corporate income taxes only make us think we’re not being taxed as much as we are. After all, it’s IBM, or Ford, or Coca-Cola that’s being taxed, not us, right? Pay no mind to the fact that they just turn around and pass it on to us in the form of higher prices.

    I think all Republicans should support the elimination of corporate income taxes. It could be the start of a “Truth in Taxation” movement that could take us all sorts of good places.

  • Why Is Newt So Angry?? [must see - JimRob]

    01/05/2012 2:24:57 PM PST · 57 of 363
    StonyMan451 to musicman

    ping

  • We’ve Crossed the Rubicon

    12/20/2011 10:24:35 AM PST · 5 of 29
    StonyMan451 to crosshairs

    It’s even worse than stated. They don’t even have to define the Tea Party as being terrorist because they don’t have to answer to anyone. All they have to do is arrest you because they want to, and if anyone objects, say that you were plotting to blow something up. They don’t have to tell the world anything more than that. And they only have to do that if someone is able to make a public issue out of your disappearance. They don’t have to produce any evidence whatsoever. All they have to do is say that you were planning to do it. Period.

  • A Silent Night For Middle East Christians

    12/19/2011 11:44:21 AM PST · 10 of 13
    StonyMan451 to Venturer
    Nothing wrong with Prayer, but when people are trying to kill you it helps to pray you can kill them first.

    Perhaps it's just emphasis, but I'd rather pray that I don't have to kill them first. And if my prayer isn't answered in the affirmative, then, that I'm successful in defending myself, my family, and my country, even by killing them if that's what's necessary.

  • A Silent Night For Middle East Christians

    12/19/2011 9:09:14 AM PST · 8 of 13
    StonyMan451 to Venturer

    If that’s the criterion for successful prayer then why bother?!

  • A Silent Night For Middle East Christians

    12/19/2011 5:58:23 AM PST · 3 of 13
    StonyMan451 to Venturer
    We can pray against it of course, but prayer won’t stop fanatical Islam.

    Read up on the role of prayer in the Battle of Lepanto. You might change your mind about that.

  • VPS Advice (Vanity/Question)

    12/12/2011 8:21:30 PM PST · 6 of 14
    StonyMan451 to Vermont Lt

    You ask “Why not just get a web site that allow unlimited storage and bandwidth.”

    Because I want to run Windows based programs such as Troopmaster and other stuff in a native Windows environment.

  • VPS Advice (Vanity/Question)

    12/12/2011 7:54:05 PM PST · 1 of 14
    StonyMan451
  • Dealing with gay family member situation (vanity)

    12/08/2011 1:18:08 PM PST · 72 of 302
    StonyMan451 to stuartcr
    Why not accept the fact that not everyone will be the way you want them to be?

    Did you even read the original post?

  • Dangerous Executive Orders Still on the Books

    12/03/2011 8:59:55 PM PST · 21 of 31
    StonyMan451 to Tolerance Sucks Rocks

    You say “Congress has 30 days to object to an Executive Order (EO) before it becomes law.”

    Do you have a reference for that? I’m going to need it when I discuss the problem with executive orders with some friends who don’t yet see how badly the constitution is being ignored.

  • Anybody else sick of this "cross the plane" NFL rule?

    11/20/2011 3:03:59 PM PST · 42 of 63
    StonyMan451 to djf

    It’s a hard line to find, living with the human failure of the officials, and having a touchdown overturned because of something the officials could never see in real time.

  • Anybody else sick of this "cross the plane" NFL rule?

    11/20/2011 2:13:52 PM PST · 27 of 63
    StonyMan451 to djf

    I’m a Ravens fan, and I have to agree with you that that should have been ruled a touchdown. I’ll take it, though, because we’ve been robbed by bad calls, too. I guess it all comes out in the wash.

  • Pelosi Statement on CA Supreme Court’s Prop 8 Ruling

    11/17/2011 1:44:16 PM PST · 13 of 17
    StonyMan451 to GrandJediMasterYoda

    I am convinced that Pelosi has truly gone insane. I don’t mean that metaphorically, as one might mean it when they say all Democrats are nuts. I mean it literally. She makes absolutely no sense when she talks. She has lost all connection to reality. She is completely irrational. Her statements make no sense. When she stands in front of a microphone she looks like she’s in a drug-induced crazy spell. All politics aside, her family needs to get that woman some professional help.