truthsayer's tags:
Originally inspired by my soulcast friend, secretlife, I did some research in one of our country's forefathers:  Patrick Henry.  I found his most famous speech and read it, again.  I cannot tell you how moving and timely it was for me to read it today.  It was providential. 
 
I was earlier discussing in ALIENated's blog, with bloc and others, the war on terrorism; most specifically, the Iraq War.  Reading this famous speech by Patrick Henry was appropriate to my position on this war.  I only wish that Americans today, had the commitment, passion and fortitude that our forefathers had when this great nation was birthed. 
 
Read the speech, which I will post here, and then, please, comment if it still rings true to you today.  The truth is timeless, as you will see in the reading of this statement of truth, by our American forefather, our patriot and Virginia congressman, Patrick Henry.
 
 
"Give Me Liberty Or Give Me Death"
 
by Patrick Henry

March 23, 1775.

No man thinks more highly than I do of the patriotism, as well as abilities, of the very worthy gentlemen who have just addressed the House. But different men often see the same subject in different lights; and, therefore, I hope it will not be thought disrespectful to those gentlemen if, entertaining as I do opinions of a character very opposite to theirs, I shall speak forth my sentiments freely and without reserve. This is no time for ceremony. The questing before the House is one of awful moment to this country. For my own part, I consider it as nothing less than a question of freedom or slavery; and in proportion to the magnitude of the subject ought to be the freedom of the debate. It is only in this way that we can hope to arrive at truth, and fulfill the great responsibility which we hold to God and our country. Should I keep back my opinions at such a time, through fear of giving offense, I should consider myself as guilty of treason towards my country, and of an act of disloyalty toward the Majesty of Heaven, which I revere above all earthly kings.

Mr. President, it is natural to man to indulge in the illusions of hope. We are apt to shut our eyes against a painful truth, and listen to the song of that siren till she transforms us into beasts. Is this the part of wise men, engaged in a great and arduous struggle for liberty? Are we disposed to be of the number of those who, having eyes, see not, and, having ears, hear not [Jer. 5:21], the things which so nearly concern their temporal salvation? For my part, whatever anguish of spirit it may cost, I am willing to know the whole truth; to know the worst, and to provide for it. I have but one lamp by which my feet are guided, and that is the lamp of experience. I know of no way of judging of the future but by the past. And judging by the past, I wish to know what there has been in the conduct of the British ministry for the last ten years to justify those hopes with which gentlemen have been pleased to solace themselves and the House. Is it that insidious smile with which our petition has been lately received? Trust it not, sir; it will prove a snare to your feet. Suffer not yourselves to be betrayed with a kiss [Matt. 26:48]. Ask yourselves how this gracious reception of our petition comports with those warlike preparations which cover our waters and darken our land. Are fleets and armies necessary to a work of love and reconciliation? Have we shown ourselves so unwilling to be reconciled that force must be called in to win back our love? Let us not deceive ourselves, sir. These are the implements of war and subjugation; the last arguments to which kings resort. I ask gentlemen, sir, what means this martial array, if its purpose be not to force us to submission? Can gentlemen assign any other possible motive for it? Has Great Britain any enemy, in this quarter of the world, to call for all this accumulation of navies and armies? No, sir, she has none. They are meant for us: they can be meant for no other. They are sent over to bind and rivet upon us those chains which the British ministry have been so long forging. And what have we to oppose to them? Shall we try argument? Sir, we have been trying that for the last ten years. Have we anything new to offer upon the subject? Nothing. We have held the subject up in every light of which it is capable; but it has been all in vain. Shall we resort to entreaty and humble supplication? What terms shall we find which have not been already exhausted? Let us not, I beseech you, sir, deceive ourselves. Sir, we have done everything that could be done to avert the storm which is now coming on. We have petitioned; we have remonstrated; we have supplicated; we have prostrated ourselves before the throne, and have implored its interposition to arrest the tyrannical hands of the ministry and Parliament. Our petitions have been slighted; our remonstrances have produced additional violence and insult; our supplications have been disregarded; and we have been spurned, with contempt, from the foot of the throne! In vain, after these things, may we indulge the fond hope of peace and reconciliation. There is no longer any room for hope. If we wish to be free-- if we mean to preserve inviolate those inestimable privileges for which we have been so long contending--if we mean not basely to abandon the noble struggle in which we have been so long engaged, and which we have pledged ourselves never to abandon until the glorious object of our contest shall be obtained--we must fight! I repeat it, sir, we must fight! An appeal to arms and to the God of hosts is all that is left us!

They tell us, sir, that we are weak; unable to cope with so formidable an adversary. But when shall we be stronger? Will it be the next week, or the next year? Will it be when we are totally disarmed, and when a British guard shall be stationed in every house? Shall we gather strength by irresolution and inaction? Shall we acquire the means of effectual resistance by lying supinely on our backs and hugging the delusive phantom of hope, until our enemies shall have bound us hand and foot? Sir, we are not weak if we make a proper use of those means which the God of nature hath placed in our power. The millions of people, armed in the holy cause of liberty, and in such a country as that which we possess, are invincible by any force which our enemy can send against us. Besides, sir, we shall not fight our battles alone. There is a just God who presides over the destinies of nations, and who will raise up friends to fight our battles for us [2Chron. 32:8]. The battle, sir, is not to the strong alone [Eccl. 9:11]; it is to the vigilant, the active, the brave. Besides, sir, we have no election. If we were base enough to desire it, it is now too late to retire from the contest. There is no retreat but in submission and slavery! Our chains are forged! Their clanking may be heard on the plains of Boston! The war is inevitable--and let it come! I repeat it, sir, let it come.

It is in vain, sir, to extenuate the matter. Gentlemen may cry, Peace, Peace-- but there is no peace [Jer. 6:14]. The war is actually begun! The next gale that sweeps from the north will bring to our ears the clash of resounding arms! Our brethren are already in the field! Why stand we here idle [Matt. 20:6]? What is it that gentlemen wish? What would they have? Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!

Scripture references added. This speech can be found in Sketches of the Life and Character of Patrick Henry by William Wirt (James Webster: 1818) pages 119-123. WallBuilders offers a beautiful parchment copy of Patrick Henry's speech, available through our online store.

 
Folks, please visit this Wall Builder's website to awaken more of your patriot spirit and your country's spirtual roots.   Remember the opportunities and responsibilities we all have as Americans; and then, do what you can do to seize the opportunity to fulfill your responsibility as an American.   To whom much is given, much is expected.  I have finally learned to speak up, and 'I refuse to go softly into that good night, I rage, rage against the dying of the light!' 
 
 
truthsayer


del.icio.us Digg reddit StumbleUpon

Comments

  • silverwhisper said on May 15, 2007....
    so how precisely does this, in your view, relate to the situation in iraq? it isn't enough to copy & paste a great speech. you make several assertions that you string to this text but do not support. after all, the foremost power in the world then was the british empire upon which the sun did not set; now it is us. then, we were david to george III's goliath; now, it is reversed.

    ed
  • bloc said on May 15, 2007....
    I think this speech is a great refutation of Bush.

    "Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!"

    liberty means habeas corpus. Liberty means a presumption of innocence. Liberty means a right to a trial. Liberty means freedom from evidence based on torture.
  • truthsayer said on May 15, 2007....

    For starters, in reference to ALIEN's blog:

    For my own part, I consider it as nothing less than a question of freedom or slavery; and in proportion to the magnitude of the subject ought to be the freedom of the debate. It is only in this way that we can hope to arrive at truth, and fulfill the great responsibility which we hold to God and our country. Should I keep back my opinions at such a time, through fear of giving offense, I should consider myself as guilty of treason towards my country, and of an act of disloyalty toward the Majesty of Heaven, which I revere above all earthly kings.

    As I said at last in that discussion:  I will not sit silently and idly by, while my country is taken over by a lie of secular humanism, and whilst the truth is perverted by popular opinion in regard to this nation, and her purpose.  I will not give her up to weak and Godless men and women.  I will not bow to false ideals.

    As to the war in Iraq:

    The war on terror is a Goliath, all who have the courage to fight it are the true Davids.  Most will be afraid, hang back, or try to ignore it,...but David fights Goliath with confidence, because he knows who it is that gives the victory.

    I feel sorry for you, if you cannot see the parallels in this speech and our present day debate on whether or not to continue the war on terrorism.  I feel sorry for you because that means that you still do not understand your enemy, or, that you are enslaved by your false ideals. 

    If you can read the last two paragraphs of that beautiful speech without realizing the oppression that looms over us today, then you should be able to understand this quote:   Gentlemen may cry, Peace, Peace-- but there is no peace [Jer. 6:14]. The war is actually begun!  But quite possibly, you only understand it from the perspective of one of those that cry, "Peace, Peace", when there is no peace.

    No offense, but even my 12 year old daughter said upon reading this speech as an impromptu history assignment today; "Wow, that sounds exactly like today, except the terrorism is what we have to fight today!  It's almost like he was fortelling the future!" 

    My 16 year old son said "How can anyone not see that this is happening today?  This is exactly what people want to ignore so they don't have to deal with conflict."  It was because of their revelation, and mine, that I write this. 

    Perhaps our forefathers, like Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, were actually misunderstood prophets.  This day, we fight, and follow through with commitment to victory, because as Patrick Henry said, so long ago:  The war is actually begun!  We cannot let our hearts fail now.

    truthsayer 

     

  • bloc said on May 15, 2007....
    i was thinking about this some more. Your title is "give me liberty from terrorism". I think you are conflating liberty with safety which seems all the more odd because this speech is arguing that safety is worthless without liberty. That they aren't the same AND that liberty is the more important.

    "Give me liberty or give me death" does not mean "give me safety and less liberty". It means the opposite!

  • bloc said on May 15, 2007....
    I was writing my last comment before you posted yours so I didn't see it until after I posted it :)

    After reading your comment I think you misunderstand the position of people such as myself. I believe that we absolutely need to fight terrorists and terrorism. However, I don't believe that we should give up our fundamental values in the process. I don't believe we should give up our liberty for perceived safety and that's exactly what Henry was arguing in this speech. We should allow Bush to take away our privacy, our right to due process, and he shouldn't turn us into a torturing nation. Give me liberty or give me death. I.e. we must keep our liberties or the terrorists have won.

    As for Iraq, I don't believe it made any sense to invade that country in this struggle. We should have kept our focus on Afghanistan and al qaeda.
  • secretlife said on May 15, 2007....

    truth:  i don't take part in these political discussion and have no intention of starting today.  i see them as a chance for the people here to polish up their debating skills and to nitpick and take apart to the nth degree every point you try to make.  it's like batting your head against the wall. 

    i will tell you that the good news is this is a very small community.

    i take heart that the views expressed here might be the mainstream for SoulCast, but are not the mainstream views for America. 

    isn't it coincidental that we both picked quotes from the same speech?  lol

    oh, and you mentioned Jeremiah - isn't it also coincidental jeremiah 5:21 says,

    21'Now hear this, O foolish and senseless people,
             Who have (AK)eyes but do not see;
             Who have ears but do not hear.

     

  • truthsayer said on May 15, 2007....

    You know bloc, you often surprise me, and I really appreciate that.  This is the reason that I do not call myself a conservative.  You may call me that, but I have many characteristics of a liberal as well. 

    For instance, this may seem unrelated, but I think it would rankle the forefathers as well:  I do not want a chip inserted into all of my animals by the year 2008.  As a matter of fact, I will refuse. 

    I do not want safety at the cost of my liberty either.

    I told you or maybe it was lioneljay, that I personally knew a guy that was sent here to live among us, until his country, or his religion, told him to activate whatever machinations they had planned for him to do.  That was true.  I don't know where the guy is now, but if I hadn't met him, I might not understand the gravity of what is currently happening here.

    Like the British troops, they have sent their people here and all over the world, really.  Cells.  Why else would they be here?  Think about the speech.  They are here, I know it.  They have been here for a long time.  Like the speech says, talking and negotiating have done nothing...they will never help with this force of evil. 

    So, I open the debate here:  What do we do now?  How do we preserve our freedom and still, have some degree of safety on our soil?  How about we keep them in Iraq?  I didn't plan this course, but you brought it up, and it is valid.

    What do you think?

    truth

  • truthsayer said on May 15, 2007....

    Amen secretlife!  Thanks for stopping in here again.  I really appreciate it.  I know what they do and that they tend to 'show up' together.  I actually kind of enjoy bloc (hi bloc ; ).  I use them to sharpen my skills too ; ) 

    Bloc doesn't seem to take things personally, so we can 'talk', even if, as you say, and Alien said earlier, no minds are changed...it strengthens my resolve and makes me realize that if it is the squeeky wheel that gets the grease...perhaps we Christians need to speak up a bit more and learn their 'game'. 

    Thanks for the quotes, again.  I really think you have started something here.  My 12 year old suggested looking at the forefathers' letters as being prophetic, and write about that!  I love my kids.  I wish all children were allowed by their teachers to be brilliant.  Unfortunately, public schools today (not in the past) sort of frown on brilliance...it takes too much time and attention in today's system, I suppose. 

    Thank you so much secret. 

    truthsayer 

  • truthsayer said on May 15, 2007....

    One more thing secret...how will they hear the truth unless it is preached?  ; )

    Love ya,

    truth

  • bloc said on May 15, 2007....
    "How about we keep them in Iraq?  I didn't plan this course, but you brought it up, and it is valid."

    Let's assume they are here as you say. In fact, I'm sure there are some here. When we invaded Iraq a few years ago did they catch the next plain to Iraq or did they, more than likely, stay here?

    You didn't directly answer my concern. Should we get rid of due process, privacy, and habeas corpus while legalizing torture in order to keep our liberty form terror? Yes, that's an intentional oxymoron ;)

    "Unfortunately, public schools today (not in the past) sort of frown on brilliance...it takes too much time and attention in today's system, I suppose. "

    My wife is a teacher and I can assure you that this isn't true in general. We can talk about that another day :)

    Also, I try not to pigeon hole people with labels like "conservative". Alien and d6 are the ones that dismiss anything by anyone they claim is liberal and the call quite a few conservatives "liberal".
  • truthsayer said on May 15, 2007....

    Well bloc, they are labels.  Humans categorize as a faculty to our thought processes.  It isn't bad, unless you use them instead of real thought!  My views are quite conservative, and in other ways, more liberal than yours.  I bow only to my Creator, and that could make me appear a tad rebellious to some ; )  If you must label me, for the most part, I prefer conservative...but don't use it to keep me in your little box.  I expect more of all of us, than that.

    Anyway, the brilliance issue is for another day for sure.  Not all teachers are 'bad', some are actually teaching because they love to teach!  Rare gems indeed.

    As far as your unadressed concerns: 

    1. due process (for citizens) 

    2. privacy (for citizens) 

    3. habeus corpus  (etc.)

    4. torture (etc.)

    Those are rather broad categories for one debate, and they are more complicated than either you or I could possibly answer in one blog, let alone one comment in a blog...and frankly, I don't think either you or I have access to enough information to understand all of the implications in this new beast. 

    Terrorism is not a kind of war we have ever fought before; at least not on this scale.  We have had problems with Muslims practically since the inception of this nation, and we have tried all things 'peaceful'. 

    I suggest to you (again), that we are in a time which calls for all of our skills to be used and all of our minds to be set to how we are going to fight this war, and not lose our freedom, in the process. 

    I can guarantee you that passing bills in congress that say I am not allowed to 'hurt their feelings' even if I am quoting directly from the Koran...or that I cannot turn someone's name over to the authorities that I feel is 'behaving strangely' at risk of being sued for infringing on 'their rights' and forgetting my right to my personal safety...or...my right to free speech had better not be limited in the least! 

    Are you getting my drift bloc?

    Please don't disparage the president anymore in here bloc.  He is one man in a very lonely and powerful office.  He is in a position that you or I could not possibly handle without the hand of God being upon us. 

    No one has ever had to deal with a war like this, of this magnitude, on so many fronts and be in a position where the whole world looks to us for leadership and protection when they want it; and then bite our hands as we feed, protect, etc.  If you cannot see that, we probably don't have much to talk about. 

    To demonize one man (especially the President of the United States of America) is ludicrous and completely illogical.  The most evil men in the history of the world could never have done the things they did without a lot of help along the way.  I hate these simplistic arguments.  They are worthless and empty.

    Are you capable or willing to discuss this without disrespecting the president?

     

     

  • bloc said on May 15, 2007....
    did I mention the president in my last comment? I only mentioned him twice in this thread. Once when I said that Henry's speech is a refutation of Bush's policies which I believe is true and not disrespectful. The second time I was asking if we should accept the lose of liberty Bush is asking of us. Again, I don't see that as disrespectful unless you consider a difference of opinion to be disrespect. 
  • truthsayer said on May 15, 2007....

    Okay, then we can continue.  It isn't President Bush that is asking these things of us, it is our leaders best assessment of what we can do to protect ourselves at this time.  I know what you mean though, about our liberty.  I see the terrorists as desiring to completely anhilate our freedom.  They hate this about us and are incredibly manipulative.  Bin Laden told us what he could do on that video made in the cab in NYC.  He did it.  Even Saddam took advantage and manipulated us with of the 'best of who we are'.  This is complicated and tricky, and I do not want to be deceived or manipulated by my enemy anymore.

    I do want to discuss this reasonably, and we can. 

    It is 7:30 pm here though...how about tomorrow?  

    Until then?

    truthsayer

  • bloc said on May 15, 2007....
    "It isn't President Bush that is asking these things of us, it is our leaders best assessment of what we can do to protect ourselves at this time."

    I don't understand this. It was the Bush admin the secretly ignored the FISA laws. It was the Bush admin that arrested an american and held them in prison for 3 years without a trial or charges of any kind. The Bush admin may not have written the law that repealed habeas corpus, but they were outspoken proponents of it.
  • mobil said on May 15, 2007....
    Great speech Truth, I don't believe I've ever read it in it's entirety before.
    Just the most famous line. These forefathers of ours were some great
    men and they had a great ability to put their thoughts to words.
     
    I have read President Lincoln's Gettysburg Address many times and the
    story behind it is unbelievable.
     
    I could not agree with you more concerning the war on Islamic Fascists.
    Way too many Secular Progressives about today. Our college professors
    are bending mushy minds towards their communist, secular thinking and
    there is a price we will all pay for this in time.
     
    When we become bogged down and side tracked with one sided
    discussions of torture and legal status in times of War. We weaken the
    overall effort to win and protect ourselves. There has not been an attack
    here since September 2001. I'd say President Bush is doing something
    right.
     
    We can figure out who did what to who and why after the smoke clears.
    Some will sit and shout torture like it's the most important aspect of what
    we've done or are doing. They hate President Bush and will undermine
    his every effort.
     
    We need more men in the fray, we could win this quickly if we had a
    million young men in arms.  We could kick ass from Iraq to Timbuktu and
    back again. We have an opportunity to straighten this bullshit out in the
    Middle East for once and for all.
     
    There are too many panty waist men in our country today. Our Forefathers
    would flip in their graves where they to see these girly men our nation
    has produced. I say kick ass and take names, well fix the little shit after
    the smell of napalm and cordite clears.
    Thanks Truth........great speech and post.
     
  • kelly said on May 15, 2007....
    "I will not sit silently and idly by, while my country is taken over by a lie of secular humanism, and whilst the truth is perverted by popular opinion in regard to this nation, and her purpose.  I will not give her up to weak and Godless men and women.  I will not bow to false ideals."

    Well, be prepared to deal with people like myself who will not sit idly by and watch my country slip back toward the dark ages of church guided "science" and hypocritical "men of god."

    Criminy.  I'm going to have to battle terrorists AND fundamentalists in my own country.

    And on a side note, do you think the US should stop using terrorism as a way to subvert and take over Central American countries?  Just a question that I can't seem to get answered around here.

    "Please don't disparage the president anymore in here bloc.  He is one man in a very lonely and powerful office.  He is in a position that you or I could not possibly handle without the hand of God being upon us. "

    In where?  In your blog?  Or on Soulcast?  Actually, god has nothing to do with how Bush handles the office.  It's all about narcissism and entitlement.  With those skills anybody can go to war.
  • silverwhisper said on May 16, 2007....
    discussions with you would be so much more interesting if you could avoid being condescending, truthsayer.

    i will return to this when time permits later in the day. in the intervening time, shall i assume then that you aren't interesting in presenting an argument but rather just want to discuss the tension between liberty and security?

    ed
  • truthsayer said on May 16, 2007....

    bloc, mobil et. al.:

    I was offline all day and have to set up a 'new' computer now. 

    In brief:

    bloc: 

    I appreciate your tone and your question.  I will do research on your question (FISA laws) and get back to you.  I let myself get a little behind yesterday, and have been trying to 'catch up' today.  I will be back as soon as I get this system up and running.  I am not ignoring you.  Just keeping up with some big changes here.  We are going ahead and remodeling our offices and are forced to move things around until the end of the month (at least).   Please read through my comments to sw and kelly too.  I hope I have not offended you with my boldness.

    truth

     

    mobil:

    Thank you so much for your heartfelt comments.  We have been devouring our new history materials and amazed at the documents, papers and other things that are now available to us.  We have also been reading things that we have read before, but with new appetites, so to speak!  Like you, I had read parts, or may have read all of these documents in earlier years, but not with all of the new constitutional commentaries and examples of the depth of influence throughout all of our government. 

    Since my son will be voting in his first election in 2008, we have really gotten into this in a very rich and real way.  I agree with you on so many points and feel that things are really changing...otherwise there would not be so much 'opposition' ; )  Like plickers and I were discussing in another blog page, it tells us much about what is really happening.  The enemy always turns up the heat when we are making real progress ; ) 

    Thanks for the support too.  Not like we are a 'gang' or anything ; )  Still, good to see you and secret in here, y' know?

    I had such a bad string of experiences in politics, that eventhough I did my duty, and that is more how I looked at it, as a duty...not, unfortunately,  as the priveledge that it is.  Sour grapes in my mouth, that I would not want to set my son's teeth on edge.  So, my passion for truth, even in politics, is renewed.  Besides, if the Good Lord brings me a radio show again (they both practically dropped into my lap before), it is definitely time to practice, 'speaking up'!

    truth

    To silver and kelly:

    I know what a big deal this is for you two.  I know that this is part of who you are and I am not looking to change that.  I could be wrong, but I think that bloc is sincerly looking for common ground on which to discuss this.  If I am wrong, then I am wrong, but I am going to give him the benefit of the doubt.  I think you told me (sw) that he served in the armed forces too, so I am looking forward to a good, honest discussion.  Please allow us the space in which to have our discussion.  I so dislike the gang mentality.  If that is bloc's intent, I shall shortly know it and I will respond accordingly.  If you cannot understand what I have said so far, then let's just save that misunderstanding for another day, ok?  Right now, I am looking for understanding of a few things, and I think I can understand what bloc is saying much better from him.  Ok?  Please?

    truth

    Thanks again to all commenters. 

    All comments are welcome, but I fully intend to research each topic/subject before answering any specific questions; so this won't be a discussion of debate tactics or low blows.  How we protect ourselves, our children and our way of life is paramount; bloc is right, we must do it well...and we can always do better. 

    If you guys, sw or kelly in particular, think that bloc is being manipulative or insincere, please call him out; I will pay attention...otherwise, please allow us to proceed.  I am not condescending to anyone sw.  I am sorry that speaking my mind seems to offend you so often these days.  I would refrain from speaking my mind, if it wasn't so dear to my heart and so necessary on my part; if it would spare you in some way. 

    But it is very important. 

    Like Patrick Henry's speech says: "...different men often see the same subject in different lights; and, therefore, I hope it will not be thought disrespectful to those gentlemen if, entertaining as I do opinions of a character very opposite to theirs, I shall speak forth my sentiments freely and without reserve. This is no time for ceremony. The questing before the House is one of awful moment to this country."

    God Bless America,

    truthsayer

     

  • silverwhisper said on May 17, 2007....
    truthsayer, i composed a response to this on the train but it became very long. you are having a productive exchange with bloc--and no, i think he's being quite forthright with you and if i felt differently i would have called him on it--so in the interests of not interfering with that exchange, i am posting my response on a blog entry on my page.

    ed
  • kelly said on May 17, 2007....
    OK, I'm done with this, but I would really have liked to get a response from you regarding US use of terrorism and whether or not we should stop that.  Is liberty from terrorism only for people in the United States?
  • truthsayer said on May 18, 2007....
    for bloc:
     
    This is what I found when I researched FISA law.  I post this one because it quotes so many democrats, which I know you prefer.  Let me know what you think.
     
     
     
  • bloc said on May 18, 2007....
    that' can't be all you found :)

    That's an old article and we've learned a lot since then. Even in that article they make it clearly that Bush clearly choose to violate current law, and they said the law should be changed. Can I get away with that when I commit a crime?

    Check out this post of mine. Notice how he will only refer to "this" program and at the end he won't answer the question about other potential "programs".


  • truthsayer said on May 18, 2007....
     
    Thanks SeanR for inspiring me to research this again.  I am posting the link in my blog too.  I really think that some of you need to read one of Sean's statements:
     
    I would also urge you to take into consideration the fact that Bush is privy to things that we aren’t.
     
    As I do my research to try to understand you fellas, I cannot help but think that all these aharacter disparaging arguments and legal debates, by people that are citizens but certainly not students of law, or government; smack sinfully close to the privates trying to run the war themselves, and 'the damn generals had better listen to us, or else!' 
     
    I will save most of this for my blog discussion with bloc, which of course you are all welcome to visit, if you care to...but my independent research, even using the wikipedia, which I do not much care for, is not showing me that your constant debates on law and foreign affairs do not seem to be very productive.
     
    Alas, the enemy is quite adept at using the dissention and such to their own advantage.  (Wait til they get ahold of this new one:  Schumer wants to have a no confidence vote and dismiss the UNITED STATES attorney general...what country do they think they are in?  Maybe he should run for reelection to the parlaiment next time ; ) They are not covered nor do they observe the Geneva Convention; and they never will.  Their goal is world domination and world war, or their messiah will not be able to come back. 
     
    It is unfortunate that Jose, or whatever his islamic name is, has made such an error in judgement with his one life.  The courts have been busy sorting things out, and he is suffering the consequences of his actions as an enemy of the US and his enemy alliances. 
     
    The habeus corpus was suspended for the civil war, changed after the OKC bombing by Clinton, and suspended after 9/11.  If you guys don't get it that we haven't had another major attack because we have done some things right...and you want to mess with what ain't broke...I don't get it.  Sean served.  You tell me that bloc served.  But did they run the war?  No, we have order for a reason. 
     
    The generals and the  Commander in Chief know that they need the service men and women...but, hopefully, all the service men and women know that they need generals and a Commander in Chief too.
     
    Sorry Sean, I had no intention of writing this long.  I should have posted this in my own blog, but I will be addressing it point by point...thanks for calling my attention to Abdullah al-Muhajir or Muhajir Abdulla, aka Padilla again. 
     
    Thanks,
     
    Truthsayer
  • truthsayer said on May 18, 2007....
    I really hope I don't muck up our simple discussion of a complex topic by posting this comment in here too.  I lost the link on my computer before I got it pasted in here too.  We're still having VERY annoying connection problems here in my makeshift office, and it keeps kicking me off! And ticking me off too! 
     
    I cut and pasted it in case I can't stay on here tonight.  At least I have made some honest response ; )
     
    I didn't say it was recent, I said it was thorough on the points of law, and they decided it was lawful.  I have seen a lot more whining type of articles, and tons of blogs of opinion...I was looking for actual points of law.
     
    I have a most fascinating book coming for our home library that outlines the constitution point my point with references and cases, etc...I love cross referencing.  It is so wholistic.
     
    Anyway, I shall try to go read your link asap. 
     
    truth
  • truthsayer said on May 18, 2007....
    Sorry bloc.  Remember I can't 'watch' anything.  I already tried that the day you posted it.  Gotta stick with print with me.  Sorry again for the inconvenience.  Now that our offices are being remodeled, I could be working like this for months ( I thought they'd be done by the end of the month...now I find it could be months : (
  • bloc said on May 18, 2007....
    The article didn't make technical legal arguments.

    from the article
    "The judges, however, said Mr. Bush's choice to ignore established law regarding foreign intelligence gathering was made "at his own peril,""
  • bloc said on May 18, 2007....
    let me make some other important points. The Bush admin did this program without ANY oversight from anyone. These judges did not know anything about it for a long time. They still don't know the details of it, so they aren't in any real position to argue that it's legal.

    If you you want some serious reading on this, try here.
  • truthsayer said on May 18, 2007....

    I do have one very important question for you, as long as I am not being kicked off of here yet (a victim of my own computer : P ) Here it is:

    What, exactly, would satisfy you in regard to whether the various wire tappings, NSA projects/programs, or even the interrogations, etc...were 'worth it'? 

    Please help me to understand, because it sounds like unless you, personally, are told all of the specific information gained from these programs, you just won't accept any of the actions. In addition, it sounds like even if they told you,  then you would want to decide, personally, if each program, indeed, each procedure, was worth it? 

    I confess, I don't get it.  I could never get my job done if I was busy doing everyone elses job, checking all of their decisions, all of their judgement calls, and making them explain everything to me after they did it.

    I am really leaning towards exactly what mobil said in his comment...that we did what we had to do and we are now looking at the 'evaluation' phase of our plans and actions...that is normal.  Not criminal.  It is a normal feedback system to have an evaluation phase, in order to do better...not to disparage all that we did in the past as criminal!  My God!  No one would ever get anything done!  All we would do is talk each other to death.  Maybe that is how some people like it...kind of reminds me of congress I guess.  I am not too pleased with them myself.  Too much talk and dirty little nasties inserted into what could be legitimate bills.

    Sorry bloc, that last line was loaded but not a shot at you.  I just found out about a bill in 1954 that had one of those dirty little nasties inserted...and that is what is used against churches today to keep us 'out of politics'.  There is quite a bit of dirt thrown at Christians and churches, and I was feeling like I needed to take a shower ; )

    Anyway, how do you answer my question?  What woud it take?

    truth

  • truthsayer said on May 18, 2007....

    No, not technical legal arguments.  I figured that Leahy saying it was legal, and he is one of the most liberal of the liberals...that you might care about that.  There were quite a few experts in the field (which you and I are not) that said it was legal.  It sounded pretty conclusive for the date, and I thought if we could agree on just that one article as a starting point, that we could limit our discussions only to what you assert has changed since then.

    I'll go read the article, but I don't want second hand stuff...like from a blog.  I prefer official sources/primary, or no further than secondary sources...I mean no editorializing type things like we do here in blogsville ; )

    I'm off to see/read what you are offering me!

    truth

     

  • theobjectionist said on May 19, 2007....

    Difference is that during the revolution our liberty was at stake while in Iraq only the liberty of people on the opposite side of the globe is at stake. Even then the minute we leave they will turn it into whatever they're going to do anyway. Whether we leave tomorrow or in 100 years, the result is going to be the same.

    A foreign power cannot impose a national identity on a domestic populace; most of the borders in the Middle East and Africa are drawn by foreigners and look at the lack of social cohesion it has caused. Iraq's borders were made by the UK in order to deny Iraq of a major port and to include 3 distinct groups that hate eachother. The country must support itself, either now or never. Americans must come home.

  • bewaresmoothtalkers said on May 20, 2007....

    I'm new to this blogging game, but let me make several observations I deem possible. First; a person that writes an article may say they have first hand knowledge of an event or the background that gives credence to what they say.

    I had conversations with man that claimed he was a Vietnam vet, he told me stories about the unit he was with & tales of combat he was in. I totally believed what he said, because why would anyone go to such lengths to learn minute details of  a grunt's life in the bush. Then one day it struke me, this guy was way too young to have been in Vietnam, I made him show me his drivers license. He would have been about nine or ten years old at the time.

     Why did I give this example, I feel many people need to exaggerate their personal backgrounds, so when they say something, it has more weight to it ! So, for example a journalist says his or her source in the White House or the Pentagon is close to the top in the establishment said ; How do we know the journalist was not talking to the janitor that might have heard bits of a conversation that they felt might earn them some notoriety or about a disgruntled staff member that wishes to get back at their boss or the worse of them all, a person that is working for the other side and will leak items so as to hurt the person or party they oppose. Why then are we as a free thinking society so qiuck accept items we read in one article & dismiss other articles outright ? Could it by chance be that if we are of a certain mind set, then we just take for granted what someone writes to be true. I think any article, manuscript or book that is suppose to be NON-Fictional should be loaded with footnotes that disclose the writers source. Further more the writer's background should be open to scrutiny, especially when that person first begins their writting career. 

     Alast dear truthsayer I have veered off course, my main point is ;  Too many people have grown lazy when it comes to doing their own research on a given topic. I do remember when you had to go to the Library or goverment office to check on something, now most of us users of information gladly accept someone elses research on a topic, as long as they are close to our own mind set . The  last point I would like to make is; When someone writes something are there people that have personal knowledge as to what was written and claim the piece contains either fabrications, extortations or outright lies, do you still accept the item at face value ?     Sorry for the lenght  BST

     

  • bloc said on May 20, 2007....
    @truth
    I believe, regarding spying, that you need a specific warrant to spy on an american. I believe in checks and balances! I don't believe that the president should be allowed to spy on any american without justifying it to a judge that ensures he isn't abusing power.

    "that we did what we had to do and we are now looking at the 'evaluation' phase of our plans and actions...that is normal.  Not criminal."

    I could see this point if the President were being honest about what he did. He's not. I wish you could watch the gonzales video that I put up. We have to get you some internet :)

    that blog that you don't want it read is a lawyer's blog. It's not second hand.
  • bloc said on May 20, 2007....
    @truth
    here is a giant part of my problem

    http://www.crooksandliars.com/2007/05/19/alberto-gonzales-is-a-liar/

    This is just one of many many examples I can give. That video I keep mentioning is another. They've lied and refused to answer questions about what they are actually doing.
  • truthsayer said on May 21, 2007....
    Sorry everyone:
     
    This is my first time on here in days.  I finally got some software that speeds up my dial up connection (in my 'wilderness' home : )  and I hope it is finished kicking me off...(grrr). 
     
    Anyway, I will do my best to respond to the comments.  I did get to do some more research, so I feel better about that.  If I got to a webpage and got it loaded, I could still read offline!  (GRRRR...)
     
    BACK TO SQUARE ONE:
     
    As you know bloc, I am a true believer, and I always turn to the word of God and see what he has in the way of direction for me.  You would be surprised how accurate it is, and I mean that.  You are the kind of man, that if you understood how God guides us and has provided all the wisdom that we need, and all we have to do is search it out; you would be a brilliant and valiant warrior for Good.  I know that because you are already trying to do just that, there is more available to you, and it is up to the likes of me, to help you to understand that.  So, I have prepared and received.  Remember in all things:  I am the slingshot and he is the smooth stone.  And I know, you are the water.  Let's give it a go.
     
    When I know that you, or anyone else is here while I type; I am going to do shorter comments so that we are conversing in a better likeness to 'real time'.  : )
     
    I did read over the blog site, it is just that I could just as easily use a constitutional attorney, like Ann Coulter, to represent a more conservative viewpoint, nearer to my own...you could use a civil liberties attorney who once worked (or still worked for) the ACLU, whom I loathe...I could then use the ACLJ, who would defend my civil rights whereas the ACLU wouldn't touch 'my case'...and you see, we, you and I would be no further along in this discussion.  Do you see my point?  You directed me to a webpage that held all of the same positions that the far left, liberals, and I guess then, you must completely agree with and espouse the same...right?
     
    I am trying not to do that, but go directly to our founding documents and our country's original intent.  Because I think this is where some of our worst problems today, can be circumvented, at least in part.  Our awareness of a thing and what we look for, affects change.  I think with your eastern training, you can relate to that; at least somewhat. 
     
    This is what I thank you for:  This country seems to have gotten off track from some of its most precious ideals.  I was trained in General Systems Theory.  I don't want to define that again here, because I think you read it on lioneljay's blog back when...
     
    Anyway, we always go back to the input of the system, in order to understand the system...the problem is NEVER in the process...but ALWAYS in the input.  Your comments...not the rantings ; )  but the real 'comments' that you make, made me do some real searching for a good way to address this, and to acknowledge that in some ways, you are right: 
     
    1.  America is supposed to hold to the highest standards.  We may or may not agree with what those standards are; but I think you will find more agreement, than disagreement (perhaps to your own surprise).
     
    2.  Human Rights are truly a gift from God, they are the inalienable rights that we are endowed with, by our Creator.  You may not agree with the language, but then again, you are an American and that is stated in our founding documents...so, whether you use the word "Creator" or not, you would probably agree with the universality of those inalienable rights at least...yes?
     
     
    truthsayer
     
     
  • bloc said on May 21, 2007....
    I am writing this comment as I read yours. I.e. what i'm about to say is relating to your first big paragraph and I haven't read the rest yet. Let's see how this "real time" conversation works out :)

    I agree about attorneys. There are many different attorneys with varied positions.

    I also look to the original intent of the constitution. That's why I'm so worked up over issues of due process and checks and balances.

    1. I agree. I think most of us will agree with the fundamentals. Right to due process, freedom of speech, etc. I also think it's easy for people to not hear things they don't want to hear. Many people don't want to hear or believe certain things, like the fact that we're torturing people. That's why I try to bring the conversation back to the basics when I talk to people like alienated and d6. Do we all agree that all american's have a right to due process? Ok, then what follows from that belief with regard to current events.

    2. I agree with it, even the wording, assuming a loose definition of God :)



  • truthsayer said on May 21, 2007....
    Hello theobjectionist:
     
    In your first paragraph, you will have to excuse me in that you don't really know me, nor I you...really, on the net, none of us really know each other.  We could be chatting with a convicted felon, a military official, a journalist, a housewife or an unemployed mentally ill person!  I can only tell you that I am none of these (at this time ; ) as I am not a currently under any media employ : ) 
     
    However, none of us should be false in any way.  So, I have knowledge that this current war didn't start with President George Bush.  It didn't start with Clinton.  It didn't start with George HW Bush either.  For the US, it began well over 20 years ago...depending on your view of history (and I am speaking of United States history primarily, and world history secondarily).
     
    I hate repeating things if you already know this, but I knew a man that came here over 20 years ago, that changed my view of the world and our place in it, over 20 years ago.  He married a young woman that worked in our office.  He married her so that he could stay in this country.  She shouldn't have married him, but she did.  She shouldn't have fallen in love with him, on top of it all (it was just supposed to be 'an arrangement')...but she did.  I do not know what ever became of them, but her good friend told me, after she left our office, the circumstances of their 'relationship'. 
     
    He had always appeared biligerant and hostile to me at our agency functions, but I never understood why, until I learned that he even told Jennifer, that his name was not his real name, he was here as a 'volunteer' for a cause of his country, political group, religion, etc.  He told her not to fall in love with him because he didn't know how long it would be until he was called into action and he would be leaving, he would dissappear and she would never see him again, or know what happened to him. 
     
    I flipped...the fact that Jennifer would keep that information to herself, and even that her friend would have kept that information to herself, was just too bizarre for me!  In fact it was so bizarre that I doubted that it was even true.  I wasn't very old myself, in terms of my political views, but even I knew that that sounded like a matter of national security.  I never reported it either though...one tends to think in very surreal terms when these kinds of things are first realized.  It wasn't until I was much older, and we were in the first Gulf War with Bush Sr. that it all started to come back to me. 
     
    So, this is the main reason that I quash any talk of this starting with us...whether it was with the GHW Bush, Clinton, or George Bush administrations.  That man came here with a wave of students, as I understand it now.  His student visa was expiring and he would have had to 'leave the country' if he hadn't married Jen.  He said that he would stay whether she married him or not, but their marriage would help him in some ways.  He had to get someone's permission for them to marry, but I don't know whose permission was necessary.
     
    I am still amazed that they have been planning and executing their plans, right under our noses, for so long, and I am not sure when our government found out about their plans, but I can assure you that they have known for a very long time...whether it was made plain to American citizens or not is clearly not the point.
     
    So, as you see, we have enemies embedded right here and they have been blending in here, for quite some time.  I don't think that our government knew what their plans really were.  I do think that they went primarily 'undetected' for quite some time...or else, we were just waiting and watching and listening until they began acting out their plan.
     
    I didn't even used to know what habeus corpus was...at least not since my college days.  I had to research how and why it was used and when it was used, and under the circumstances of both the attack on the World Trade Centers, 9/11; and Osama having been filmed in that taxi telling us that we were much more vulnerable than we thought we were, and even gave a 'for instance' of the airplanes being flown into buildings...and since I know, for a fact, that we have Muslims embedded and living among us...THEY MUST SUSPEND THE HABEUS CORPUS for now.  We are still very much under 'attack'...thankfully, their plans have heretofore been thwarted. 
     
    Do you see how this knowledge is relevant to your first paragraph?
     
    As to your second paragraph...you are right in so far as to say that Iraq's leaders have failed to keep their word and do what they said they would do.  I cannot pin that on all of the Iraqi people, but they have very poor leadership, at best...at worst, they may be in alignment with Iran and others in the area...I certainly hope that they are not, but it would not suprise me in the least.  The palestianians haven't done anything that Arafat said they would, Egypt hasn't done what they said they would (guarding the borders) and even though war is hell...at least Lebanon is now doing what the UN told them to do over three years ago.  As you can see now, there may be many other reasons, that we are not aware of, nor could we be made aware of, without compromising our national security. 
     
    "From the halls of Montezuma, to the shores of Tripoli"...sound familiar?  We have been at war with Muslims in Tripoli before.  Ask any Marine.  I am not saying that we will be there again, but at least the Lebanese are fighting the terrorists now...too bad that they had to be attacked by them...but at least, it got them going after them, where before, they had flatly refused.
     
     
    truthsayer
  • truthsayer said on May 21, 2007....

    To bewaresmoothtalkers:

    I will answer your questions after I visit with bloc for a bit, while he is in here now.  You bring up great points though, some of which had an effect on my answer to theobjectionist, and even to bloc...so please know that I did read them and will respond.  I commited to 'shorter'answers in 'real time' with bloc, when I know he is here.  I will attempt to do the same with you or anyone, when I know that you are here in real time.

    truthsayer

  • truthsayer said on May 21, 2007....
    Hi bloc:
     
    You said:  I also look to the original intent of the constitution. That's why I'm so worked up over issues of due process and checks and balances.
     
    btw:  I like this shorter answer thing in 'real time'.
     
    I too get worked up over this.  We may not interpret the information the same way, and we may disagree about how well the system works or what is the cause of the dysfunction.  But I think we both want the 'best', and this is a good place to start. 
     
    I have experience with our court systems.  I found out and experienced way too much from helping my dad with his legal battles.  I have found that our federal courts are quite liberal and corrupt.  I hope that doesn't offend you.  I believe that the judiciary got way out of balance.  So, logically, that 'check and balance' system isn't perfect and corruption in government is always a threat.  I have different views, I assure you, on how to 'fix' that problem, but that is a different blog.
     
    This next area, your number 1, is where terrorism muddies the waters.  We were actually at 'war' with terrorists, on some levels...at least national security was affected, and in ways that most of us would never know.  That is why they had to work out when they are enemies of the state...oh , whats that term...I really don't want to leave here to look it up...help me out here bloc...what is the term that defines them as a threat and it was enacted to make them distinct from citizens and pow's? 
     
    truth
    truthsayer
     
     
  • truthsayer said on May 21, 2007....

    bloc

    To number two of your comments, we can agree on that, and our founding fathers when they referred to 'natural laws' meant God's word, his divine law.  And that is why we have the freedom that we have today.  It is also why we help to defend human rights around the world...but it is hard because life is so much more complex than it used to be.

    Do you remember me telling you about my friend from Nicaragua?  I read her text books, and I know about many covert operations.  It shocked me.  But, my friend had left her homeland, and became a US citizen, confessing that communism does not work.  She was mad about our uninformed populace, and yet, she finally confessed that she understood, from both positions, why our position is so hard.  It almost killed her father when she left, but she was firm with him too.  She knew that we have freedom, and finally, she understood that we have to fight to protect it, in ways that we cannot really understand. 

    She was raised an avid athiest and refused to believe in God...she said it was her offering to her father, that at least as long as he lived, she would affirm his philosophies that one can be a good person and on high moral ground, without believing in God.  Her life was complicated by the fact that she also confessed that it was our Christian heritage and ideals that she finally understood...truly made our country great.  It was very hard for her to live in both of those worlds of knowledge.

    truth

  • bloc said on May 21, 2007....
    you are looking for the term "enemy combatant". I'm not sure what point you are making regarding that term.

    What also makes our country great is it's refusal to conflate government with any particular religion. That why it was founded after all :)

  • truthsayer said on May 21, 2007....

    In the early 1870s, President Grant suspended habeas corpus in nine counties in South Carolina, as part of federal civil rights action against the Ku Klux Klan under the 1870 Force Act and 1871 Ku Klux Klan Act.

    That's from the wikepedia.  The only reason I copied that is because these were US citizens who otherwise could have entered a writ of habeus corpus, and Grant suspended it.

    btw, the word I was searching for was unlawful combatants and enemy combatants and unlawful enemy combatants.  As in the case of Jose Padilla, or whatever his Muslim name is now, he is a citizen, but since he was involved in treason-like activities...we have muddy waters again, imho. 

    There is another term in the Geneva Convention that is like 'enemy combatants' et al.  But these people are not in the nations covered by the Geneva Convention, so it doesn't really apply...but I'm going to look it up anyway, since I think we lost the 'real' of the real time ; )

    Remember the guy I told you about?  All I know is that his first name was Nadir, and Jen was very secretive and protective of him.  I know her last name, but not his, because she went by her own name.  Anyway, what about him?  If he married her, he became a US citizen for reasons of sabotage, or spying, or terrorism, etc.  Do people that came here, some with wives and children...do they get to have full rights of citizenship when they actually came here with ulterior motives:  To destroy us?  Our government?  To divide and conquer, to cause us to submit to Islam (which means 'submission' by the way, not peace)...to they get to take that which is best and most nobel about us, pervert it, and use it against us and to their own benefit and to cover their own devious, subversive and totally destructive ends? 

    Think carefully on this.  Because this is what we are dealing with.  SeanR has even tried to explain this from his experience over there.  We have historically, consistently and seriously underestimated the patience and determination of our enemy. 

    Christianity and Judaism are based on respect for life, from conception to the grave; Muslims are taught to venerate death.  Farfur the Mouse should show you that.  Are American Muslims different?  Some.  But that doesn't change the ones that have declared war on us.  Their intent is as it always was:  World domination and world submission to Allah.  Your only RIGHT, is complete and total submission to Islam and Allah.

    Sorry, that I lost you from the 'real time' I hoped for.  I was already working on the long reply to someone else, before I ever saw that you had been 'in here'.

    truthsayer

  • truthsayer said on May 21, 2007....
    bloc, you said:

    What also makes our country great is it's refusal to conflate government with any particular religion. That why it was founded after all :)
     
    That is completely false.  But having come from the same public schools you came from...I understand why you believe that. 
     
    I have studied this extensively and it is, unfortunately, patently false.  This country was and is a Christian nation.  The separation of state lie came from a 1962 case (I think, I can find the case) where for the first time, they didn't cite any precedents in the case...none...they took eight words from a letter written by Thomas Jefferson to the leaders of a Baptist church, which I think was in Virginia.  They were concerned about our leaders advocating a certain sect, or denomination of Christianity over another...not that we were not a Christian nation.  They didn't use the letter, or even parts of it, for context...they used eight words in personal correspondence...with no legal precedents whatsoever (unheard of) and passed it.  It was the effect of decades of influence by secular humanists trying to erode the religious foundation of this country.
     
    This is actually another blog.  The separation of church and state was never, and I repeat, never intended to keep Christian values or Christians, separate from our government.  The two of the founders that 'they' say were the least religious, were far more devout than evangelicals are today.  They openly confessed their belief in Jesus Christ, and their adherance to his principles in government from its inception.  I have much documentation on this if you are interested in it sometime.  But I don't think it is something that you and I have to agree upon for this discussion. 
     
    Besides the founding fathers were adament that Christianity must never be forced upon anyone, for that would be blatantly disobeying our Heavenly Father's natural law.  But they wrote often, that they could not conceive of a time or a people that would not recognize the superiority of the doctrines of Jesus Christ that our founding documents were based upon. 
     
    Woodrow Wilson said that he was concerned (so long ago) that America was losing her way...because people had forgotten what America was founded upon, and without knowing our very foundations of Christian principles, we could not possibly hope to understand our very purpose.
     
    So, let's not get into it any further now...unless you feel that it is necessary for this conversation.  If it is, let me know and I will prepare some things.  Ok?
     
    truth
  • truthsayer said on May 21, 2007....
    Ok, I have failed at this 'short answer' - 'real time' thing.  I apologize.  I get sort of 'mission oriented' myself bloc.  Perhaps that is what I recognize in you too.  : )
  • bloc said on May 21, 2007....
    Just a quick point about religion then back to our other conversation.
    the issue with religion is complex. Many of the founders were deists which is very different the the majority of christians today. Many were fleeing from religious persecution and intended to setup a government that did not promote 1 version of religion over any other. 

    Ok, back to due process. the fact that something has happened in the past does not make it OK. So let's talking about what we feel is acceptable. Padilla was held in prison for 3 years in very harsh conditions. He was "coercively interrogated". He was not proven to be guilty of anything. Do you believe the president should have this power over any american citizen?
  • cotteralladams3 said on May 22, 2007....
    Then stop sending soldiers into Middle Eastern countries.  Why ruin Iraq, Afghanistan, Somalia and Iran?  American foreign policy is devastating to this region.  I don't agree with 9/11 but the C.I.A. had lots of info on Osama.  It was not like they didn't know it was coming out of Saudi Arabia.  The media was more concerned with Clinton's 'weapons of mass destruction' and what Monica thought of it in the oval office and not concerned about Wahhabism.  Go figure.  They are an ally of the U.S. and apparently, a moderate country.  Read the news in the last few weeks?  What about all that stuff on militants planning a large-scale attack on oil rigs in the Kingdom?  Now I really don't care if the I.D.F. does in fanatics who support suicide bombings and recruit young people for their militant organizations.  Militant meaning militant.  Doesn't bug me one bit. 
  • truthsayer said on May 27, 2007....
    I almost forgot this blog!
     
    bewaresmoothtalkers!  Here is my answer to your questions if it is not too late.
     
    You said:
    Alast dear truthsayer I have veered off course, my main point is ;  Too many people have grown lazy when it comes to doing their own research on a given topic. I do remember when you had to go to the Library or goverment office to check on something, now most of us users of information gladly accept someone elses research on a topic, as long as they are close to our own mind set .
     
    I agree with you wholeheartedly here BSM.  I can sound like a 'know it all' sometimes, ok, maybe a lot of the time ; )  But it is because I am a natural born researcher.  After I entered college, I felt like I had the whole world at my fingertips.  Especially early on, the library was my home away from home.  I dated a psychiatrist that showed me how to get into the university 'stacks' all over the states, from a computer! 
     
    That was a long time ago.  But the point is, as soon as I hear that something may be false, or misrepresented, I feel that I need to research it myself.  Most people do not do that...and although I don't expect people to get as excited or as deep as I do...I do expect that if they dearly hold to a certain position or philosophy, that they have at least taken the time to research both sides of the issue, so that they have some credibility.  I do know what you mean here.  Humans are predisposed to selective perception, selective retention and a host of other 'selective' -tions and -isms!
     
    Then you said:
     
    The  last point I would like to make is; When someone writes something are there people that have personal knowledge as to what was written and claim the piece contains either fabrications, extortations or outright lies, do you still accept the item at face value ?
     
    If a person has personal knowledge of something?  Like they have witnessed something themselves, and then they write about it?  If that is what you mean, then I don't think I would go so far as to call them a liar, or expound on their truthfulness either.  I would try to verify it with others I suppose.  Hearsay is usually not reliable for 'facts', but it can be used to stimulate discussion I suppose. 
     
    I used to have a pastor that was always saying:  what would you think of this, or that, hypothetically speaking.  Then he used to like to throw in more and more 'circumstances' and add or subtract from the 'facts' to see how my answer would change!  It was exhausting.  I finally told him (jokingly ; ) that he should have been born a Jewish rabbi, because they love discussing the law in many different 'hypothetical' situations!  He finally stopped asking me these things when I said, 'tell me real facts with real people and I will be glad to discuss these things with you', but no more 'hypotheticals'!  They wear me out, and I have real life issues to deal with!
     
    I too was deceived by someone that talked about being in all sorts of secret ops; this was years ago.  I pretty much took him at his word, but always had this nagging feeling that he was lying.  Finally, I asked his mother and his best friend, who supposedly knew that he had 'post traumatic stress disorder'.  His own mother said he was nuts, and his best friend (whose father was really some big wig in the CIA, and they had a weapons room in their house that was scary!) said that he had been around military people his whole life and although this guy was his best friend, he said the guy just didn't think, talk or even walk like he was military.  I was glad I finally ran into both of them to ask.  I only talked to the guy one more time by phone, and we ran into him one other time in a restaurant. 
     
    Whacko.  Yup, they are 'out there'!  The internet makes it worse I think.  All this business about 'personnas' and alter egos!
     
    truthsayer
     
     
  • truthsayer said on May 27, 2007....
    Hi bloc:
     
    Sorry this has taken me so long to get back to.  I have been pleasantly busy with our nanotech business in my real life.  Also, wrapping up our homeschool year takes some good quality time.
     
    You said:
     
    Just a quick point about religion then back to our other conversation.
    the issue with religion is complex. Many of the founders were deists which is very different the the majority of christians today. Many were fleeing from religious persecution and intended to setup a government that did not promote 1 version of religion over any other.
     
    This just isn't true at all, but I do acknowledge that this is pretty much what has been taught in public schools since the fifties and sixties, at least.  Historical revisionists began rewriting our history books in the 20's, 30's and 40's.
     
    Can you name one of the founders that you claim was a 'deist'?  Because, upon doing my own research, I could not find any.  Benjamin Franklin and Thomas Jefferson were called deists in recent history, but they were both Christians, and much more religious and zealous than evangelical Christians are today.  If you have some specific names for me, that you believe to be deists, I can verify that and get back to you.
     
    The founding fathers wanted religious freedom, yes...but free to chose which denomination of Christianity, and they didn't want to have a national denomination like the Church of England.  They did, however, intend for us to elect Christians, and warned us what would happen if we didn't.  I think it was the first supreme court justice Roy (who explained the meaning of our constitution to each state) said that we are a Christian nation.  Prior to 1947, it was a well accepted and well documented fact.   I can get the quotes for you, if you like. 
  • truthsayer said on May 27, 2007....
    bloc, as to the rest of your questions:
     
    It is my understanding that Padilla was charged, although there were probably some deals cut, and charges lessened.  I am not 'on that case', and as I have told you repeatedly...there are people here that claim to be loyal to America, but they are not.  How would you suggest we deal with them? 
     
    If they came here to attack from within, do they still have full rights of citizenship?  Or are they some form of a traitor---merely patient and persistent rebels, always loyal to their country of origin, and here more like spys sent in behind enemy lines?  If you have an easy answer to this dilema, I would like to hear it. 
     
    How would you keep people from panicking if they knew how many were here?  Would you pick them all up and turn them all in?  What if some of them have decided over the last 20-25 years that they want be loyal Americans?  What if they have 'changed sides'...do you think a general populace, if they knew who they were, where they were and what they were here for, originally...do you think they woud be safe if the government told us all of this information?  What if some of them are even 'helping us' now?   
     
    This is a sneaky world bloc, and not everyone tells the truth or even has good in their heart towards you and your country.  This is bigger than the cold war bloc.  And I want to add this too...I have decided to change the word, 'terrorists' to Jihadists.  There are one in four American Muslim youth that think the suicide bombings are wrong...of course, that means that 75% think they are right, but let's focus on the bright side, shall we?
     
    As for the President and his executive branch powers.  I think that is why we were having this 'discussion', isn't it?  Congress finally took the vote and passed the bill because of the impassioned pleas and speeches of those that reminded them all that the very first thing on their list of priorities is the security of our nation.  I wish I had a figure for how much it cost us as a nation during all of the political posturing that was done before that final vote.  They are quite costly and come up with all sorts of things stuck in there that were unnecessary.  5 billion extra in pork barrel spending?  Ridiculous.  I wish we had the line item vito.  We should.  I wish we had it in 1954 (57?) when they stuck in one line:  churches should stay out of politics', on some 501c3 legislation. 
     
    I think it was three of our presidents were ministers, and tons more in all kinds of offices (state, local, etc.)  Christianity shaped this country and now, all people like you want to do is keep us quiet.  Well, unfortunately for you and others, I serve God first, I obey God first, and I won't be silenced by the lies anymore ; )
     
    The judiciary has been making laws that are contrary to the consititution for quite a while.  I believe there are too many 'activist judges' that want to gradually rewrite the American constitution to suit their own opinions.  Like the crazy case which claimed that the forefathers wanted a separation of church and state, which is not true and took eight words from a personal letter of Jefferson's to the Baptistry of Virginia (I think that was it) assuring them that as president, he would not declare one certain denomination of Christianity for the entire nation, thereby repeating the mistake of England. 
     
    That particular case cited NO LEGAL PRECIDENTS.  All other constitutional arguments had heretofore had 87 legal precidents cited...that ill fated and deceptive 'separation of church and state' was a travesty.  We are all suffering the consequences in this country.  America has just about lost her way, and finding out who she was intended to be, is the only sure way we have of reclaiming our true-God-given-liberties.
     
    Thanks for the discussion bloc.  Sorry it took me so long to get back in here.
     
    truthsayer 
  • silverwhisper said on May 29, 2007....
    i'm surprised you aren't familiar with deism. several US founders were known to be deists.

    ed
  • bloc said on May 29, 2007....
    @truth
    are you saying that someone like myself, a non christian, shouldn't be allowed to run for President or maybe even allowed to vote?

    I'm in the process of moving so I don't have a lot of time to reply :(
  • truthsayer said on May 29, 2007....
    Oh for Heaven's sake no bloc.  You can run, anyone can.  I am the one that posted about the guy in Minnesota that was a Muslim and won the race for state legislator (I think that was the office).  In fact, David Barton was asked to write a position paper on that by someone in the government (can't remember right now either).  He said that it is clear that if the people of that district chose him, by voting for him, that is all that is necessary. 
     
    Our nation was never supposed to force religion on anyone, any religion.  But the facts are undeniable that it is based on Christian principles, the Holy Bible, etc.  As a matter of fact, if you were a non-religious "conservative", who stood for Biblical principles...and your opponent was a Christian, but stood for (like a voting record, etc.) The Bible directs us to vote for you, not the professing Christian that is inconsistent or down right wrong.  The Bible says also that skill is necessary, not just a profession of faith. 
     
    The forefathers that were supposedly deists, were actually Christians, and it is proven, and I have the documentation (in quotes and papers...not the real originals ; ) Although Wall Builders does have 70,000+ original documents of the forefathers, their families, etc. that are pre-1813 or 1817 (fuzzy ; )
     
    It isn't the fault of the 'left' or liberals that our nation has become so liberal and strayed from its Biblical roots.  It is the fault of Christians.  Christians let themselves become lazy and deceived.  Remember, the deception will be so powerful, that even the elect could be deceived, if that were possible. 
     
    I hope you have a safe and easy move ahead of you.  We have moved all over, and I hate moving.  I often threaten to sell or give away everything, just so we don't have to move anything but ourselves!  I have the greatest empathy for you.  I hope the move is a good one, seriously...and under the best of circumstances bloc.
     
    I have a lot going on right now too, so my responses are faster and may not be as clear either for a while.  We are moving too, in a sense.  We are remodeling our offices and thus, I basically have to move everything to our ranch!  My barn/My office ; ) 
     
    Take Good Care,
     
    truthsayer 
  • truthsayer said on May 29, 2007....

    Hi ed:

    Let me start here, with this paragraph, taken from your wikepedia link.

    Prior to the 17th century the terms ["Deism" and "Deist"] were used interchangeably with the terms "theism" and "theist", respectively. ... Theologians and philosophers of the seventeenth century began to give a different signification to the words.... Both [theists and Deists] asserted belief in one supreme God, the Creator.... and agreed that God is personal and distinct from the world. But the theist taught that god remained actively interested in and operative in the world which he had made, whereas the Deist maintained that God endowed the world at creation with self-sustaining and self-acting powers and then abandoned it to the operation of these powers acting as second causes.

    This is probably the crux of what I am saying, and I can hear Sean saying:  "Semantics"!  Yet, as far as the deception goes, it is crucial.  George Washington was a Christian by his own words/quotes, his family's letters, etc.  Yet Paine, and others that were as you say, agnostics, were debating Christianity even back then.  So, as I said, the battle is not new, only the 'soldiers'. 

    Washington's granddaughter even wrote about him, because there were agnostics that were questioning his Christianity already.  She was raised as his daughter, after his son died.  She said that if you are going to question her 'father's' Christianity, you might as well question his patriotism!

    Benjamin Franklin is often called a 'deist' as well.  Yet he took on Paine in open debate, defending Christianity and the Holy Bible through their heated exchange of letters. 

    As you can guess, David Barton is a well respected historian and took responsibility for finding, verifying and compiling more letters, papers, articles, etc. of the founding fathers than anyone, except for maybe the Library of Congress...but I think he has them beat...because their documents are more like official documents that our government houses in the Library of Congress.  He has now made them available to you and I.  He has also been involved in seven Supreme Court cases as an expert in the field.

    If I wanted to know you, and I knew that you had a blog, I would read your many, many blogs ; )  If you had written letters, as was the way of our forefathers who didn't have blogs (haha), I would search high and low for your letters...if you were a newspaper man, I would read your articles; a philosopher, your position papers; if you were clergy, I would read your sermons.  See? 

    I, for one, had no idea we had such documentation on the forefathers.  They removed Washington's farewell speech from history books.  Why?  Because was a devoted Christian and warned us what would happen if we ever abandoned our Christian ideals and foundation. 

    Paine (or Payne, I am not sure which) was actively trying to discredit the founders, even then.  That is why I asked you, well, bloc; for actual names.  I can go through the names in the wikepedia, one by one, if you want me to.  I am not being sarcastic, I am serious.  I may do it anyway, as a paper on that page of the wikepedia.  There are even text books that say that, it was either Washington or Jefferson was a Unitarian, and yet, Unitarianism didn't begin until 19 years after Washington/Jefferson's death.  I am sorry that I cannot remember which it was right now.  I will look this up too, if you want to know which it was. 

    I like the truth.  I hate lies.  So, I found that I had to go do more research.  I could not just accept what "they" say.  There has been a pattern of historical revisionism for a long time now.  They have even changed direct quotes of the forefathers.  I hope you don't respect that.

    And of course I know what deism is.  And the forefathers that I have mentioned so far, were clearly not deists.  They were Christians, and as Thomas Jefferson said of his own faith, he is a Christian and holds to the doctrines of Jesus Christ.  The actual quote is in my Thomas Jefferson blog.  Thomas Jefferson, George Washington and Benjamin Franklin, to name a few, all called upon God for protection, providense and expected him to act on their behalf; even in miraculous ways.  I would love to provide some of these quotes and stories to you, if you are interested in knowing this truth.

    Here is one of the papers, written by David Barton.  He is a consultant for those who write history books and also to the government.  John Locke's work is huge in our constitution, and they have found and proved that he based it on the Bible.

    This link is to an article at Wall Builders.  Much of my information I have on video/DVD, but I thought you might enjoy reading this for yourself:

    http://www.wallbuilders.com/resources/search/detail.php?ResourceID=13

    Have fun with this site and read up.

    Best wishes ed,

    truthsayer 

     

  • truthsayer said on May 29, 2007....

    Hi cotteralladams3:

    I am sorry it took me so long to get to your comment.  I am usually in a big hurry, and because of that, I regret that I miss comments sometimes.  I apologize.

    I am not sure that I understand what you are saying to me though.  Could you try me again please?

    Thanks very much,

    truthsayer

  • bewaresmoothtalkers said on May 29, 2007....
    TS, bravo! your comment to SW was well put, I find I'm more easy with someone that presents an arguement with a line of facts that can easily be traced if anyone cares to question your points. this has nothing to do with your comment but are you aware that George Washington was a Free MASON. I am not a mason but my father was a mason for many years, there were three articles, the masons use in their ceremonies, the gentleman that used these articles at my dad's lodge had left them behind & he needed them at the next lodge he was going to. I was able to get the articles to the man in time for his ceremony. He told dad to thank me & he mentioned these articles once belonged to George Washington when he was a mason. BST
  • lfbno7 said on Jun 15, 2007....
    Hi.  My instant reaction to your Patrick Henry post, and to his famous comment "Give me liberty or give me death", is something I heard about our friend Patrick on the history channel perhaps, or the Discovery channel.  They said that Patrick was a slaveholder and was a