NewGuy

Van Jones is another stupid dictatorial commie.. Screw that @sshole. He should read all the racist crap so many "great socialist and communist thinkers" wrote about blacks.

Hey, I don't care for Arnold but I LIKED Reagan! hahaha

I said we were founded as a Christian Nation. Hence the the quotes from the Founding Fathers.. I mean even Obama agrees with my view didn't he say we weren't a Christian Nation any longer b/c of all the faiths we now have? Remember I said "founded" past tense.. We aren't the Christian version of Israel now. Just because we aren't one now it doesn't mean we weren't one then.

I don't agree with that. If we were a Christian Nation, the words "Christ" or "Jesus" would appear in our national documents (like the constitution or the declaration of independence). They do not. We'd have a cross on our flag, the way that Israel has a star. But we have none of that. So while we're a nation founded by Christians, and comprised primarily of Christians, I don't see us as a religious state, the way, say, Iran is. So what does "Christian Nation" mean to you if not that Christianity is our official religion? That is certainly true. But, did you know that Thomas Jefferson created his own edit of the Bible? I think it's amazing that even in those times, Americans were 'thinking outside the box'. My point in bringing that up is that from the start, we've had room for a wide range of views. Many Liberals and Atheists cite the Treaty of Tripoli as a supposed proof of the lack of Christian influence in the young US also demonstrate rather surprising myopia, as they fail to read to the end of it, which gives the game away entirely -- the first paragraph of "the receipt" of the document starts with: "Praise be to God! (etc.)" No Christian influence? That treaty, written in Arabic, was translated for the Senate and President Adams by Joel Barlow. The following from the Yale Law School Web site may enlighten our liberal friends: "... the Barlow translation is at best a poor attempt at a paraphrase or summary of the sense of the Arabic ... Most extraordinary ... is the fact that Article 11 of the Barlow translation, with its famous phrase, 'the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion,' does not exist at all. There is no Article 11. The Arabic text which is between Articles 10 and 12 is in form a letter, crude and flamboyant and withal quite unimportant, from the Dey of Algiers to the Pasha of Tripoli. How that script came to be written ... as Article 11 ... is a mystery and seemingly must remain so." (Found under "Note regarding the Barlow translation" (avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/ bar1796n.asp#n3).) "Progressives" using the Treaty of Tripoli are revising history and perpetuating an anti-American hoax. Recently, many authors have debated whether or not the United States of America was founded as a Christian nation. I wish to provide a few historical quotes from our Founding Era that lend credence to the supposition that we indeed were founded as a Christian nation. Granted, God is not mentioned in the Constitution, but He is mentioned in every major document leading up to the final wording of the Constitution. For example, Connecticut is still known as the "Constitution State" because its colonial constitution was used as a model for the United States Constitution. Its first words were: "For as much as it has pleased the almighty God by the wise disposition of His Divine Providence…" Most of the fifty-five Founding Fathers who worked on the Constitution were members of orthodox Christian churches and many were even evangelical Christians. The first official act in the First Continental Congress was to open in Christian prayer, which ended in these words: "...the merits of Jesus Christ, Thy Son, our Savior. Amen". Sounds Christian to me. Ben Franklin, at the Constitutional Convention, said: "...God governs in the affairs of men. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without His notice is it probable that an empire can rise without His aid?" John Adams stated so eloquently during this period of time that; "The general principles on which the fathers achieved Independence were ... the general principles of Christianity ... I will avow that I then believed, and now believe, that the general principles of Christianity are as etemal and immutable as the existence and attributes of God." Later, John Quincy Adams answered the question as to why, next to Christmas, was the Fourth of July this most joyous and venerated day in the United States. He answered: "...Is it not that the Declaration of Independence first organized the social compact on the foundation of the Redeemer's mission upon earth? That it laid the cornerstone of human government upon the first precepts of Christianity?" Sounds like the founding of a Christian nation to me. John Quincy Adams went on to say that the biggest victory won in the American Revolution was that Christian principles and civil government would be tied together In what he called an "indissoluble" bond. The Founding Fathers understood that religion was inextricably part of our nation and government. The practice of the Christian religion in our government was not only welcomed but encouraged. The intent of the First Amendment was well understood during the founding of our country. The First Amendment was not to keep religion out of government. It was to keep Government from establishing a 'National Denomination" (like the Church of England). As early as 1799 a court declared: "By our form of government the Christian religion is the established religion; and all sects and denominations of Christians are placed on the same equal footing." Even in the letter that Thomas Jefferson wrote to the Baptists of Danbury Connecticut (from which we derive the term "separation of Church and State") he made it quite clear that the wall of separation was to insure that Government would never interfere with religious activities because religious freedom came from God, not from Government. Even George Washington who certainly knew the intent of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, since he presided over their formation, said in his "Farewell Address": "Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great pillars." Sure doesn't sound like Washington was trying to separate religion and politics. John Jay, the first Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court, and one of the three men most responsible for the writing of the Constitution declared: "Providence has given to our people the choice of their rulers, and it is their duty-as well as privilege and interest- of our Christian nation to select and prefer Christians for their rulers." Still sounds like the Founding Fathers knew this was a Christian nation. This view, that we were a Christian nation, was hold for almost 150 years until the Everson v. Board of Education ruling in 1947. Before that momentous ruling, even the Supreme Court knew that we were a Christian nation. In 1892 the Court stated: "No purpose of action against religion can be imputed to any legislation, state or national, because this is a religious people...This is a Christian nation." There it is again! From the Supreme Court of the United States. This court went on to cite 87 precedents (prior actions, words, and rulings) to conclude that this was a "Christian nation". In 1854, the House Judiciary Committee said: "in this age, there is no substitute for Christianity...That was the religion of the founders of the republic, and they expected it to remain the religion of their descendants.' It should be noted here that even as late as 1958 a dissenting judge warned in Baer v. Kolmorgen that if the court did not stop talking about the "separation of Church and State", people were going to start thinking it was part of the Constitution. It has been demonstrated in their own words: Ben Franklin, George Washington and John Adams, to the House of Representatives and the Supreme Court, how our founding fathers felt about the mix of politics and religion. When we read articles such as "What's God got to do with it?" (Primack, 5/4) and "The wall between state and church must not be breached" (Tager, 5/7) it just reaffirms how little, even intelligent people, understand about the founding of our great Republic. To say that this nation was not founded as a Christian nation or that the Constitution was not founded on Christian principles is totally at odds with the facts of history.

Here's a link to a page for a fallen Marine in my hometown: http://www.frederick.com/Kurt_S_Shea_USMC__Honored_Hero-a-1502.html The video on it shows the great outpouring of people civilian and military from my town as well as the Patriot Guard Riders all who "stood in the gap" to keep the WBC out of sight and earshot of the family..

That means that you can believe that a super-being is watching everything you do, and keeping a list of who's naughty and nice, but I don't have to believe it, and our government will stay out of religious matters. This doesn't just protect me, the non-believer, from government forcing religion on me. It also protects people of faith from having the government interfere in their matters as well. It is not taught any longer (some people want to cut all ties to Christianity and religion in general) but this nation was founded as a Christian Nation. What you quoted was pertaining to the establishment of a "State Religion" like the Church of England - our Founding Fathers had a strong memory of all the wars fought between Protestants and Catholics. And also contrary to what is also being taught today, if you read primary source material and not revisionist history, the vast majority of the Founding Fathers were Christians and not Deists.

And here's a video made by a brave and righteous muslim about the true history of the Israeli/Arab conflict: http://www.youtube.c...ayer_embedded#! Because of their public stance on the issue both Walid Shoebat and Mahmoudabuz (creator of this video) must now live in hiding b/c of death threats - some of which even coming from their family..

WJ made a great point in another post also! If the "environmental" policies instituted in this country, of having no oil rigs close to shore and no more inland rigs, were not put in place we probably wouldn't have the "worst environmental disaster" in US history ever happen..

Great article about the situation by former PLO terrorist Walid Shoebat: Helen Thomas the now former hanging prune of the White house press core gets her due at last. Helen Thomas goes quietly into the sunset as a well dried out plum. Helen’s speaking agent dropped her, and her employer Hearst forced her to resign, as did the White House Press corp. It seems we do have some semblance of decency left in the establishment, but the story was buried in the lame stream media; for exposing Helen Thomas in such venerable newspapers as the New York Times and the Washington Post might expose some truths which most of the liberal media would secretly agree with Helen Thomas but it is just not quite politically correct to be so public about it like she was. The power of the Internet and the ability to lead on important stories like this is a blessing for free speech and what is left of our freedoms in America. Our president is trying to reverse this but that is for another article. Let us look more closely as to the whole concept of being “Pro Palestine” and its agenda. The facts are very clear if one chooses to look at the facts instead of the propaganda. 1. There was never in history a country called Palestine or an ethnic group called Palestinian until 1974. Arabs living in Israel, Jordan, Gaza or Judea/Samaria (West Bank) never referred to themselves as Palestinian until after the Yom Kippur War. The only people prior to 1974 who were referred to as Palestinian were the Jews who lived under the Palestine mandate prior to 1948. 2. Prior to the 6-day war in 1967 all Arabs living in Gaza called themselves Egyptian and those living on the West Bank were Jordanian and were entitled or possessed passports for those countries. 3. Any country securing land in a defensive war; that land is not considered occupied under international law. The land was secured from Jordan and Egypt in the 1967 6 day war, who many years later renounced their claim to those territories. Israel now owns those territories based on international law (though they do not fully claim them) and the creation of a Palestinian state is their prerogative and no one else’s whether one agrees or disagrees with such a policy. 4. Helen Thomas epitomizes the real truth of the left’s agenda as well a that of the Arab lobby in revealing the true nature of the conflict, which is Jew hatred. The concept of a land dispute is to con the world into believing that Palestinian nationhood and freedom is the reason for the dispute. It is also a useful way of playing on the guilt of Jewish people who are predominantly of left wing thinking. 5. If you study the facts of the history of the conflict it is based on hatred of Jews and the culture and teachings of Islam. In both conflicts of 1948 and 1967 the chants from the street were to “Kill the Jews.” If we look at the video shown on Al Jazeera prior to the Gaza Flotilla incident we hear the same rhetoric, if we listen to the audio response to the Israeli Navy when they intercepted the boats of the Gaza Flotilla we heard the same Jew hating expletives. No non-Muslim country can be tolerated in what Muslims regard as there sphere of influence. Helen Thomas provides you with the true feeling and thinking of people on the left who are “pro Palestinian” including Jews by birth who are also of the same view. As far as I am concerned they are Jews who are descendants of the few who escaped destruction after the incident of the Golden Calf in the Bible. Let us just call a spade a spade. I thought it was just us conservative tea baggers who are the bigots! To put it simply, a two state solution is a suicide solution. People who propose such are at best naïve and at worst Helen Thomas types. Do not kid yourselves, the Helen Thomas types are much more common than you think. Up to now they have kept their true feelings to their chest or at dinner parties with their fellow leftists. Now that the anti Semitic fervor is on the rise again in the world, they will feel more comfortable coming out of the closet. Helen Thomas thought the time was right now, but fortunately her bigotry is not quite as politically correct yet in this country, and long may it stay that way.

They were at the funeral in my hometown also.. Great thing they're doing!

And I had to laugh my ass off about this picture posted from a BP gas station! LOL!

Holy Sh*t?! Can we finally get a politician who isn't in bed with Big Oil?! >_< BP Tied To White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/beltway-confidential/Top-PR-firm-for-BP-tied-to-White-House-Chief-of-Staff-Rahm-Emanuel-95223369.html

Hey man thanks a lot! I need all the encouragement I can get some days! (Especially days like today) hahaha I used to ALWAYS take art electives but I got my BA in History.. (I fell for the bullsh*t that men had to go into a "manly" profession instead of going with the gifts they were born with you know? Family thing... ) While I don't regret my old career - I did get disillusioned with it. So recently quit my old job and am making a stab at trying to be an artist. And since I took like ten years off from art I have a sh*tload to catch up on, especially with digital media and making business contacts. As to customs - I used to do them a lot. Don't have the time to as much now b/c my hours are crazy but here's my old site: http://whoflungpoo.t....com/my_weblog/ Unfortunately, I haven't updated it for a while, I haven't added some of my new stuff and haven't replaced some of the pics of the customs I tweaked! haha Anyway, thanks again for the kind words - it really helps! PS: If you do customs please post a link!

Uh oh.. Someone new to these forums doesn't like this video at all.. This is the one that so infuriated them that they printed the names, addresses, and telephone numbers of the people who broadcasted it on their blog.

Thanks to VH for turning me onto Kelly Brook! <nod of the head tip of the hat>

LMAO!!! @loll@

LOL! You totally typed her name but my eyes didn't even notice!?! hahahahaha

WHOA!?! VIPER WHAT'S HER NAME?!

Agreed hellfish! But also, the muslim book also states that women don't get no "magical virgins" (after the man has sex with one she magically "turned back into a virgin again") in the afterlife like the men. If women are "good" they can continue to serve their husbands.. Oh! And islam apologists will say it's "cultural" but the book likes child brides - old Mo's wife A'isha was 9. Oof.. And as to the violence Mo preached, give me Buddha any day of the week! When his followers "kill" it's themselves and not other people! haha

I think b/c WWII overshadowed WWI.. (Before WWII any politician damn well better have said some words about the German sneak-attack if he didn't want to be roundly criticized though! haha) And I said, "Our president should acknowledge all the battles and wars when the price was paid at such a very very high price and was such an important event in our history.." D-Day was a biggie! He should acknowledge the biggies that most Americans see as biggies.. And with the 66th anniversary I was upset that he didn't say one single word - not even a blurb on the White House home page. That's simply wrong. And of course he doesn't have to have a tattoo on his forehead! haha Don't be glib. <Tom Cruise voice> And I don't care if he wears a lapel pin or not. haha It can be pandering but can also be in honor of our country's accomplishments - depends.. What conservatives I think feel uneasy about is the Left's vast history of being anti-military and mocking of traditional American values. Most think America has done wrong and may still do - but its rights and goodness far outweigh them.

Holly why don't you defend Judaism and Christianity as zealously as you do islam? There have been many posts from people who have decried them but you don't say one word in their defense. And again, the mods are trying to get all posts back on topic - this is about Flounnderr's exhibition. Decorum from the poster and the forums dictate dialog of a non-accusatory and angry nature and constructive criticism.

I made too many mistakes in that last post! Had to edit it twice! hahaha

It would be nice for the commander and chief of our armed forces to honor the sacrifices of all our fallen dead wouldn't it? haha And comparing D-Day to the Lusitania?! That's a big difference. Our president should acknowledge all the battles and wars when the price was paid at such a very very high price and was such an important event in our history.. And not trying to be mean here, I make plenty of mistakes, but you really need to stop arguing your point by saying, "Well George Bush did something stupid also." I am bashing Obama b/c he is the current president. You do not have to defend him so hard and can admit when he did something wrong.. And it is quite simply wrong for Obama or any president to do something like this. And thank you for remembering that I don't like George Bush - either one of them. But remember I told you that I spoke out against him when he was president also. (I initially voted for him but quickly became disillusioned.. Both seem to me to be Internationalist RINOs.) I keep pushing it but please check out Liberal Fascism - lefties will find the title offensive but the author cites EVERYTHING and points out so many little known (and untaught) facts about the Liberal Progressive movement - and have fun at work! haha

More: "Before the war, fascism was widely viewed as a progressive social movement with many liberal and left-wing adherents in Europe and the United States..." Hard Leftist John Patrick Diggins wrote, "For the radicals of the twenties the whiff from Italy and Germany carried no foul ideological odor." H.G. Wells said, "Progressives must become 'liberal fascists and 'enlightened Nazis,' he told the Young Liberals at Oxford in a speech in July 1932." He also said, "the good there is in these Fascists. There is something brave and well-meaning about them." By 1941 no less a figure than George Orwell couldn't help but conclude, "Much of what Wells has imagined and worked for is physically there in Nazi Germany. What distinguished Nazism from other brands of Socialism and Communism was not so much that it included more aspects from the political right (though there were some). What distinguished Nazism was that it forthrightly included a worldview we now associate almost completely with the political left: identity politics. This was what distinguished Nazism from doctrinaire Communism, and it seems hard to argue the marriage of one leftist vision to another can somehow produce right-wing progeny. If this was how the world worked, we would have to label Nationalist-Socialist organizations like the PLO and Cuban Communist Party right-wing. Hitler's hatred for communism has been opportunistically exploited to signify ideological distance, when in fact it indicated the exact opposite. Today this maneuver has settled into conventional wisdom. But what Hitler hated about Marxism and Communism had almost nothing to do with those aspects of Communism that we would consider relevant, such as the economic doctrine or the need to destroy capitalists and bourgeoise. In these areas Hitler largely saw eye to eye with Socialists and Communists. His hatred stemmed from his paranoid conviction that the people calling themselves Communists were in fact in on a foreign, Jewish conspiracy. He says this over and over again in Mein Kampf. Liberal Progressives loved what Mussilini said about how government be, "Everything in the state, nothing outside the state." Like his father, Joe Kennedy Jr. admired Adolf Hitler. Young Joe had come away impressed by Nazi rhetoric after traveling in Germany as a student in 1934. Writing at the time, Joe applauded Hitler's insight in realizing the German people's "need of a common enemy, someone of whom to make the goat. Someone, by whose riddance the Germans would feel they had cast out the cause of their predicament. It was excellent psychology, and it was too bad that it had to be done to the Jews. The dislike of the Jews, however, was well-founded. They were at the heads of all big business, in law etc. It is all to their credit for them to get so far, but their methods had been quite unscrupulous ... the lawyers and prominent judges were Jews, and if you had a case against a Jew, you were nearly always sure to lose it. ... As far as the brutality is concerned, it must have been necessary to use some ... ."

Again, the "learned elite" of the Liberal Progressives before WWII exhausted Nazism and Fascism just as enthusiastically as they did with Socialism and Communism.. Here's what I stated in "The Black Founding Fathers"