Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Beck will never change his tune, he is just a pundit spouting "talking points". Hannity says the same thing to almost every caller "you are a great American", neither have substance. I think David Letterman once told O'Reilly that about 60 per cent of what he says is crap (or something like that.) Rush is just a blowhard, he does not hide the fact that he hates unions, workers, unemployed, single parents, anybody who HAS to work and is not independently wealthy.
Keith-O , Rachel Maddow, are commentators, there's a HUGE difference.
This thread is in direct contrast to the other thread that proclaims liberals "smarter" than conservatives.
DUH!!!!! We are talking about the region in Asia that is NOW called Israel. Try and stay focused here.
The original assertion made by "mickey mouse is dead"was:
All Glenn is doing is spreading Mormon theology...most of what he says comes straight from mormonism....the other day he was talking about native americans and he inferred that they could have descended from Israel....straight LDS babble.
"LDS babble" as "mickey mouse is dead"characterized it, is that they were Israelites not just from the geographical area of Israel.
The Book of Mormon tells the story of a small group of Israelites, led by a prophet named Lehi, who fled Jerusalem around 600 BCE and traveled to the Americas. Two of Lehi's sons, Laman and Nephi, become the fathers of two separate nations, the Lamanites and the Nephites. The parent DNA of these two nations would likely have come from one of five people: Lehi, his wife Sariah, Ishmael, his wife (unnamed), or Zoram. Little information is given in the Book of Mormon about the genetic background of these people, but it is stated that Lehi is a descendant (possibly, but not necessarily, patrilineal) of Manasseh. It is uncertain whether other people travelled with Lehi's party to the Americas. For the context of the debate regarding genetics and the Book of Mormon, it is usually assumed that Lehi and his party had mostly Middle Eastern genes.
You asked "Do you know that they didn't?".
My assertion stands: Native Americans were in North America prior to 600 BCE.
The original assertion made by "mickey mouse is dead"was:
All Glenn is doing is spreading Mormon theology...most of what he says comes straight from mormonism....the other day he was talking about native americans and he inferred that they could have descended from Israel....straight LDS babble.
"LDS babble" as "mickey mouse is dead"characterized it, is that they were Israelites not just from the geographical area of Israel.
The Book of Mormon tells the story of a small group of Israelites, led by a prophet named Lehi, who fled Jerusalem around 600 BCE and traveled to the Americas. Two of Lehi's sons, Laman and Nephi, become the fathers of two separate nations, the Lamanites and the Nephites. The parent DNA of these two nations would likely have come from one of five people: Lehi, his wife Sariah, Ishmael, his wife (unnamed), or Zoram. Little information is given in the Book of Mormon about the genetic background of these people, but it is stated that Lehi is a descendant (possibly, but not necessarily, patrilineal) of Manasseh. It is uncertain whether other people travelled with Lehi's party to the Americas. For the context of the debate regarding genetics and the Book of Mormon, it is usually assumed that Lehi and his party had mostly Middle Eastern genes.
You asked "Do you know that they didn't?".
My assertion stands: Native Americans were in North America prior to 600 BCE.
Native Americans are comprised of many cultures and tribes. Those in the North (i.e. Minnesota) have nothing in common with those in Guadalajara. Is like lumping all hispanics into on group, when they too are a very diverse people.
What is laughable is that you are not making any sense. What freaking law are you even talking about and what did Beck get so wrong? It really helps to include all the pertinent info if you are going to make an argument for it. All I see in your 2 posts is a bunch of ranting gibber jabber.
It is apparent that you are suffering cognitive dissonance. It will pass.
What the law is saying about Americans is one thing. What we were taught to believe is something else.
In the law, on the books, American nationals are born with inalienable rights that mature into sovereignty, at majority, exercised upon private property, absolutely owned.
But, the vast majority of Americans were persuaded (or tricked) into surrendering their rights, in exchange for entitlements, via FICA.
And that for over three generations of controlled indoctrination, those facts have been effectively erased from the collective minds of America.
The most succinct fact that I can show is that in the law, the government admits that (a) people are sovereigns, but (b) citizens are subjects.
A sovereign is not a citizen, a citizen is not a sovereign.
If American people are sovereigns, how did "all persons born in the U.S." become U.S. citizens / subjects?
The Supreme Court has held, in Butler v. Perry, 240 U.S. 328 (1916), that the Thirteenth Amendment does not prohibit "enforcement of those duties which individuals owe to the state, such as services in the army, militia, on the jury, etc." In Selective Draft Law Cases, 245 U.S. 366 (1918), the Supreme Court ruled that the military draft was not "involuntary servitude".
All male citizens are the militia, obligated to train, fight and die on command. That is the reason why conscription is 100% constitutional.
Title 10 USC Sec. 311. Militia: composition and classes
(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, CITIZENS of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are—
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.
Title 50 USC Sec. 453. Registration (Selective Service)
(a)...it shall be the duty of every male CITIZEN of the United States, and every other male person RESIDING in the United States, who, on the day or days fixed for the first or any subsequent registration, is between the ages of eighteen and twenty-six, to present himself for and submit to registration at such time or times and place or places, and in such manner, as shall be determined by proclamation of the President and by rules and regulations prescribed hereunder.
Art. 1, Sec. 8, USCON
Congress shall have power ... To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;
Articles of Confederation, VI.
...every State shall always keep up a well-regulated and disciplined militia, sufficiently armed and accoutered, and shall provide and constantly have ready for use, in public stores, a due number of filed pieces and tents, and a proper quantity of arms, ammunition and camp equipage.
------------
The American people are sovereign over the government
At the Revolution, the sovereignty devolved on the people and they are truly the sovereigns of the country.
Chisholm v. Georgia, 2 Dall. 440, 463
It will be admitted on all hands that with the exception of the powers granted to the states and the federal government, through the Constitutions, the people of the several states are unconditionally sovereign within their respective states.
Ohio L. Ins. & T. Co. v. Debolt 16 How. 416, 14 L.Ed. 997
In America, however, the case is widely different. Our government is founded upon compact. Sovereignty was, and is, in the people.
[ Glass vs The Sloop Betsey, 3 Dall 6 (1794)]
Sovereignty itself is, of course, not subject to law, for it is the author and source of law; but in our system, while sovereign powers are delegated to the agencies of government, sovereignty itself remains with the people, by whom and for whom all government exists and acts.
[Yick Wo vs Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356, 370 (1886)]
And I know most Americans haven't been informed that they volunteered to be subject citizens.
CITIZEN - ... Citizens are members of a political community who, in their associative capacity, have established or submitted themselves to the dominion of government for the promotion of the general welfare and the protection of their individual as well as collective rights.
- - - Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Ed. p.244
SUBJECT - One that owes allegiance to a sovereign and is governed by his laws.
...Men in free governments are subjects as well as citizens; as citizens they enjoy rights and franchises; as subjects they are bound to obey the laws. The term is little used, in this sense, in countries enjoying a republican form of government.
- - - Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, p. 1425
"... the term 'citizen,' in the United States, is analogous to the term "subject" in the common law; the change of phrase has resulted from the change in government. ... he who before was a "subject of the King" is now a citizen of the State."
State v. Manuel, 20 N.C. 144 (1838)
If you are one of the sovereign people, your rights are protected.
If you are one of the subject citizens, you surrendered your rights.
Then as Republicans you would stop watching and Fox would lose millions of dollars in revenue and would cease to exist. Therefore, most of what you see on Fox News you will agree with if you're Republican. The same goes for the liberal media. Do you agree with said theory? Of not, why? Thanks.
Well, it's probably why Beck doesn't openly declare his views about social issues (e.g., gay marriage) on Fox; he'd alienate a good bit of his base to an extent.
Beck bashes Republicans too. I see the OP is severely misinformed.
Was it that obvious? Oh yes
Clueless leading the blind.
Beck doesn't see Democrat and he doesn't see Republican. Shows how much they really know about Glenn, yet they wish to make things up, just to destroy the guy exposing all the mess the Progressives are pushing. This stuff only makes the OP look like the fool.
Then as Republicans you would stop watching and Fox would lose millions of dollars in revenue and would cease to exist. Therefore, most of what you see on Fox News you will agree with if you're Republican. The same goes for the liberal media. Do you agree with said theory? Of not, why? Thanks.
Why do you people keep making uninformed statements?
Show us some date that shows that 1, Beck is a Republican. 2, Only Republicans watch him. And 3. he has NEVER talked bad about Republicans
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
