Daniel Ellsberg, dubbed the most dangerous man in America, thinks of these people as heroes and patriots, I do too.
Freedom must be defended. Can you imagine $100+ million dollars in Wikileaks coffers? That would send a huge message to our failed governments.
Tim Berners-Lee, inventor of the World Wide Web, said “The Web as we know it [is] being threatened.” He said this in reference to the FCC net neutrality regulations. I believe Wikileaks is part of this same argument though.
Its true for many reasons. This is on the heals of TSA fiasco, and the Blacklist bill that is being pushed through!
"Genachowski then went on the explain why he believes the newly approved rule adopting Net Neutrality regulations is basically a good thing. Genachowski’s statement said that Internet users have the right to know the terms regulating their Internet access and how their network is being managed. He also said that customers have the right to send and receive lawful traffic without hindrance by Internet providers."(eWeek.com)
That goes for Wikileaks.org too, I hope. I believe we have the right to have open and free dialog about our governments, enter OpenLeaks.org. If ISP's, Banks, and Governments want to control our freedoms then we have a DUTY to combat this, in a civil manner I might add, to vote a more "Constitutional Government" into office and with our purchasing powers. This current Government, somehow, believes there is an uncodified constitution, and only because we are allowing that wrong to happen.
To quote something Dr. Bahnsen said in a book of his, I am currently reading, about Theonomic Ethics (Highly recommended and worth the read, BTW).
[Christian] "ethics likewise rejects legal positivism and maintains that there is a "law above the (civil) law" to which appeal can be made against the tyranny of rulers and the anarchy of overzealous reformers alike. Since Jesus Christ is Lord over all [Absolute Authority], civil magistrates are His servants and owe obedience to His revealed standards for them. There is no Biblically based justification for exempting civil authorities from responsibility to the universal standards of justice found in God's Old Testament revelation. Therefore, in the absence of Biblically grounded argumentation which releases the civil magistrate from Old Testament social norms, it follows from our previous premises that in the exercise of their offices, rulers are morally responsible to obey the revealed standards of social justice in the Old Testament law. This does not mean, however, that civil rulers have unlimited authority to intrude just anywhere into the affairs of men and societies; their legitimate sphere is restricted to what God's word has authorized them to do - thus calling for a limited role for civil government. Finally, Christians are urged to use persuasive and "democratic" means of social reform."
Even the Atheist Benjamin Franklin said, whoever would trade liberty for some temporary security, deserves neither liberty nor security. I completely agree.
Whether we allow the government to rule the people, or the people rule the government, this will be the point in history where the people gave up, and gave in, to fascism or stood up and buried it.
Do you really want to go down without a fight? It's time to Man Up, again. Stand for something, but stand never-the-less.
"A man who stands for nothing will fall for anything." ~Malcolm X.
The Bible says you will all allow Fascism to reign. Do you really want to prove the Bible right...again?
I've just heard that the American Government has launched the Wikileakes Task Force (WTF) :)
ReplyDelete$100,000,000 would be good. Then Wikileaks could start to infiltrate the major religions. Exposeing lies, crimes and secrets.
Ant,
ReplyDelete>>Then Wikileaks could start to infiltrate the major religions. Exposing lies, crimes and secrets.
God willing! This place needs a good sweeping. :7)
Remember, the closer to truth you get, the closer to God you are.
Right, Dan...right. You don't consider christianity to be a religion, do you? It's a "relationship" right?
ReplyDeleteSo do you agree that churches should start paying taxes?
Reynold,
ReplyDelete>>You don't consider [C]hristianity to be a religion, do you?
Yes. Our religion is from the Creator. It is a result of our hope and trust in God. It is the natural fruit. False religions have a common denominator and that is there assault on the term "Justification." They are working toward their salvation. We are working as a result of our salvation. Howard Huge difference.
>>It's a "relationship" right?
Yes. Indeed it is.
>>So do you agree that churches should start paying taxes?
I believe that WE shouldn't pay taxes (income taxes), so no.
Dan:
ReplyDeleteHow about property taxes? Churches are the only group somehow exempt from property taxes. Secular non-profit agencies, which are otherwise untaxed, have to pay property taxes -- at least, if they own any real estate.
Pvb,
ReplyDelete>>How about property taxes?
Absolutely not!! Property tax means that you NEVER own your own property and goes against "pursuit of happiness" (property ownership). Essentially NO one owns property in the US. Get behind on property taxes and the Government takes it 'back". Now with the unconstitutional eminent domain they can do it on a whim for someone else with more money. We have certainly gotten far away from our Constitution and its about time we ALL do something about it. If I need to beg I will. NO ONE owns property in the US, we all rent. Besides, we all rent anyway from banks. Either bank, or Governments, you are renters these days.
Dan:
ReplyDeleteThe Constitution does give government the power to levy taxes. Even worse, without a check placed by the government, the most wealthy and powerful would effectively become a de facto government and reduce the population to slavery. The fact is that there are some things we need government for. And, in order to accomplish that, it has to levy taxes.
According to Dan, atheists simply lack a relationship with God. This means atheism isn't a religion.
ReplyDeleteWem,
ReplyDelete>>According to Dan, atheists simply lack a relationship with God.
Do you have any evidence of me saying that? I will admit that you and God are not on "speaking terms" but that does not mean the same thing. His wrath is upon you and you do have a relationship, its just not one I wish to have with our Father.
Pvb,
ReplyDelete>>The Constitution does give government the power to levy taxes.
I disagree. The Constitution does not allow the government to specifically tax income and property, something that makes ownership of ANYTHING an illusion. Even if that were true though, to say we can "own" property is certainly not true. Whoever says they "own" anything, is fooling themselves in the US as long as their is a property/income tax. Why not just sales tax and tariffs? At least we can own things here then. Goods and services that cost more would be worth it for a little liberty, don't you think?
Dan:
ReplyDeleteArticle 1, Section 8 states that Congress shall have the power to "lay and collect taxes." The mere fact that it does not specify what should be the basis of those taxes does not make all taxation unconstitutional. Now, if you don't care what the Constitution says and you just don't like taxes at all, just say so.
Personally, I like the idea of income taxes rather than sales taxes. Sales taxes push the burden more onto those people just trying to make ends meet, because they don't tax the money that the wealthy just "throw on the pile."
Pvb,
ReplyDelete>>The mere fact that it does not specify what should be the basis of those taxes does not make all taxation unconstitutional.
Yes it does say that but it also says we have a right to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness (own property) so it conflicts with the Constitution i.e. unconstitutional.
If you're income is taxed at 90% you cannot have life and liberty, in other words its unconstitutional. If there are ANY property taxes then its unconstitutional, because you cannot EVER own property. (no liberty or a pursuit of happiness)
I "just don't like" the way Congress, you, and many others try to change words, meanings, and intent of the contractual agreement called the Constitution.
Dan:
ReplyDelete"I 'just don't like' the way Congress, you, and many others try to change words, meanings, and intent..."
This from the guy who just said "pursuit of happiness" really means "own property." Incidentally, that little tidbit is in the Declaration of Independence, not the Constitution. It represents desired ideals, but is not legally binding.
"If you're income is taxed at 90%..."
I don't think there is any justification for a tax rate of 90% -- unless, perhaps, it is an inheritance tax and government is trying to discourage hoarding wealth to pass on for twenty generations or so. Even then...
"If there are ANY property taxes then its unconstitutional, because you cannot EVER own property."
Property needs to be maintained as it is. There are maintenance costs with or without taxes. I don't think it unreasonable to regard property taxes as another maintenance cost. But it looks to me like you dislike property taxes for some reason that you are not telling us and trying to retrofit a "reason" that you think will sound good. It just doesn't work for me.
Pvb,
ReplyDelete>> This from the guy who just said "pursuit of happiness" really means "own property."
This from a guy that doesn't know his history well enough to comment on things.
"The first and second article of the Virginia Declaration of Rights adopted unanimously by the Virginia Convention of Delegates on June 12, 1776 and written by George Mason, is:
That all men are by nature equally free and independent, and have certain inherent rights, of which, when they enter into a state of society, they cannot, by any compact, deprive or divest their posterity; namely, the enjoyment of life and liberty, with the means of acquiring and possessing property, and pursuing and obtaining happiness and safety."
>>It represents desired ideals, but is not legally binding.
Intent of contracts ARE legally binding, they are legally bound by the promise and intent. The Declaration 'itself' may not be binding because we do have a contract (Constitution), but the intent of the Constitution is voiced in the Declaration. Its binding.
>>I don't think it unreasonable to regard property taxes as another maintenance cost.
This is where we disagree then. Most all of the property taxes, at least in my area, go towards the, extremely corrupted, public school system. Teachers here make 6 figures and they build new schools when a 'failing' (poor performance) school arises. Then they take the same old, failing, teachers and place them into the new schools until the next "new" school can be built. The unions are burying this state because they NEVER fire teachers. They then blame it on the school (building) conditions. I wish I can choose where my property tax can be spent at. I would starve the public school system for sure. I digress. Property taxes are unconstitutional for the simple fact that they can take that property when you do not pay those taxes. Its racketeering.
>>But it looks to me like you dislike property taxes for some reason that you are not telling us and trying to retrofit a "reason" that you think will sound good.
You should run for the California School board or the Teachers union, that is for sure.
>>It just doesn't work for me.
Honesty never does for union sympathizers. :7)
Dan:
ReplyDeleteNo court has ever recognized the Declaration of Independence as being part of the law of the land.
You might want to read your own quote again. Virginia identified the right to own property and the right to pursue happiness as separate rights that should both be protected. Furthermore, the quote you gave from Virginia does not indicate the belief that taxes on property mean that you don't own said property.
"I would starve the public school system for sure."
Let me see if I understand you. First you set up a school for failure by ensuring that 90 percent of the students are inattentive and/or disruptive. (The public school system has to take in all students. Other schools have the luxury of turning "problem" students away.) Then you tell the teachers that they are not allowed to do thing one in effort to restore order in the classroom and reach those remaining students that are there to learn and now, to top it all off, you want to defund them to remove any possibility of education going on. Is that it? Tell you what. You volunteer to take in all the troublemakers; bind yourself with the restrictions that these "corrupt" schoolteachers face; and see how much better a job you do. Oh, right, let's not forget that you can have the zero-funding that you think is such a good idea. But I think we have hit your real opposition to property taxes. You want to eliminate property taxes as a means to dismantle the public education system.
"Property taxes are unconstitutional for the simple fact that they can take that property when you do not pay those taxes."
Interestingly, the Constitution does not say that your property cannot be taken if you break the law. Failure to pay the relevant taxes is breaking the law -- even if you don't like that law. "Unconstitutional" is anything specifically forbidden by the Constitution, not anything Dan doesn't like. There are circumstances in which property can be forfeit. Did you know that government can seize your property if you allow it to become blighted, too? And it's legal. And the Constitution does not prohibit it.
"Honesty never does for union [busters.]"
Yes, well honesty works for me. Trying to make a dishonest explanation sound good doesn't.
Pvb,
ReplyDelete>> You volunteer to take in all the troublemakers; bind yourself with the restrictions that these "corrupt" schoolteachers face; and see how much better a job you do. Oh, right, let's not forget that you can have the zero-funding that you think is such a good idea.
What you described is homeschooling. These are the conditions I face everyday and am quite successful at it, God willing. If you ever tried it yourself, you would see very easily, that the public school system is a corrupt system.
Kids need love, not funding.
Love wont get them a job.
ReplyDeleteDan's keen on ruining America.
Dan:
ReplyDelete"What you described is homeschooling."
Not quite. I am not supposing that your children are trying to disrupt the educational process. Take on fifteen children that actively want to make it hard for your children to learn, with you having no recourse, and then your homeschooling will approximate what you would have public school teachers go through.
Pvb,
ReplyDelete>>Take on fifteen children that actively want to make it hard for your children to learn, with you having no recourse, and then your homeschooling will approximate what you would have public school teachers go through.
And you blame that, as the Unions do, on funding and inadequate taxes?
I have a simple solution for all of those problems. We look to the Bible as a guideline. Theonomic Ethics!
In other words, corporal punishment for the brats. Its the liberal left, the teachers and Unions, that feel that the self esteem of children should be elevated.
My friend gave some good guidelines for parents to follow to solve those "issues" (Number 1 is most important):
1. Subdue self-will in a child and work together with God to save his soul.
2. Teach him to pray as soon as he can speak.
3. Give him nothing he cries for and only what is good for him if he asks for it politely.
4. To prevent lying, punish no fault which is freely confessed but never allow a rebellious, sinful act to go unnoticed.
5. Commend and reward good behavior.
6. Strictly observe all promises you have made to your child.
"And you blame that, as the Unions do, on funding and inadequate taxes?"
ReplyDeleteNo, I say that people who want to dismantle public education have orchestrated a no-win condition for public education and are using it as an excuse for why there shouldn't be a public school system. Then they use the coerced failure to do zero funding so that they can eliminate textbooks, pencils, paper... Do your children use a computer for learning? No, I am not advocating a bottomless pit of money. I am advocating allowing teachers to have the resources they need to do their jobs. And it might be a good idea to remove the children that are only interested in making education impossible rather than creating a guaranteed failure.
"In other words, corporal punishment for the brats. Its the liberal left, the teachers and Unions, that feel that the self esteem of children should be elevated."
Back when I was a child (you know, when dinosaurs roamed the earth) teachers were not pushing self-esteem. I doubt they are now. However, district policy, set by people (like you) who want to tear down public education, may be pushing it. It may even be so that people have to turn to your church if they want their children to have any chance at an education. Yes, I smell sabotage. There are people who want children to be taught about "god" 8 hours a day.
Pvb,
ReplyDelete>>No, I say that people who want to dismantle public education have orchestrated a no-win condition for public education and are using it as an excuse for why there shouldn't be a public school system.
There might be some truth to that, but only for me personally, since I have declared war against the current public school system. So my bias to that effect, may be affecting my reasoning. Its not a norm or a conspiracy.
>>I am advocating allowing teachers to have the resources they need to do their jobs.
I am advocating a strictly volunteer basis for teaching. We can rotate mentors and experts in their fields. When its just a job, for a mere paycheck, things get old, mundane, and stale especially when the teacher gets discouraged. From what what I hear from you, that is quite often in the current public school system. I knew some teachers that got high at nights to "wind down" from "those kids." The system is broke. Save money, non profit, no more taxes to take peoples property. Competition. You with me?
Competition is a good subject too. Public schools is a monopoly, unconstitutional. Where is the competition? Free market, of volunteer schools would eliminate horrible teachers.
>>Yes, I smell sabotage.
Yes, we are all aware of your baseless bare assertions. *pshaw
>>There are people who want children to be taught about "god" 8 hours a day.
Well its the only true subject that matters. The Bible teaches many things. Its simply the only schoolmaster needed for a successful life.
That last bit is a CLEAR indication that Dan wants to ruin this country.
ReplyDeleteThe Bible wont teach you how to grow food, how to read write or count, how to gain the skills to get a job, how to avoid natural disasters, how to manage your wealth, or how to understand the Bible in context with other historical events.
Having nothing but the Bible, a baby would die. Having nothing but a Bible and parents who were smart enough to look beyond the Bible for knowledge, a baby isn't guaranteed success or happiness or health.
This is further evidence that Dan's religion (as interpreted by the Dishonest One himself) is a death cult.
I feel so bad for Dan kids, poor darlings having their brain washed by their father. Where's the mother why is she letting him do this to them?
ReplyDeletePoor little American idiots :(
the cycle continues
I actually agree with you about Wikileaks, however I believe you misunderstand what net neutrality is about.
ReplyDeleteThe idea of net neutrality legislation is to enforce the type of internet we have had since its beginning, that is to say one where ISPs treat data in an neutral (unbiased) manner (not throttling it because it comes from a competing business server, for example). It is a major issue today because some companies are throttling certain kinds of traffic, which violates this standard.