Did You Ask For A Theorcracy?

[PoliticalChic]

.....well....the warnings were there.
The Left is all about shutting down opposing voices, marginalizing dissenting opinions....


That's right....the Left.

1. Remember this:
"In a 1996 paper, "Private Speech, Public Purpose: The Role of Governmental Motive in First Amendment Doctrine," Kagan argued it may be proper to suppress speech because it is offensive to society or to the government.
That paper asserted First Amendment doctrine is comprised of "motives and ... actions infested with them" and she goes so far as to claim that "First Amendment law is best understood and most readily explained as a kind of motive-hunting."

Kagan's name was also on a brief, United States V. Stevens, dug up by the Washington Examiner, stating: "Whether a given category of speech enjoys First Amendment protection depends upon a categorical balancing of the value of the speech against its societal costs."
If the government doesn't like what you say, Elena Kagan believes it is the duty of courts to tell you to shut up. If some pantywaist is offended by what you say, Elena Kagan believes your words can be "disappeared".
WyBlog -- Elena Kagan's America: some speech can be "disappeared"


Who put Kagan on the bench???




2. Oh...right....the President who's minions tried to silence debate on WGN radio.....a typical Chicago thug tactic.

"Chicago radio station WGN-AM is again coming under attack from the presidential campaign of Sen. Barack Obama for offering airtime to a controversial author.
It is the second time in recent weeks the station has been the target of an "Obama Action Wire" alert to supporters of the Illinois Democrat."
Obama Vs. WGN, Take Two





3. Now, this:

"A U.S. attorney in Tennessee is reportedly vowing to use federal civil rights statutes to clamp down on offensive and inflammatory speech about Islam.

Bill Killian, U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of Tennessee, was quoted by the Tullahoma News this week suggesting that some inflammatory material on Islam might run afoul of federal civil rights laws.

"We need to educate people about Muslims and their civil rights, and as long as we’re here, they’re going to be protected," Killian told the newspaper.

Killian, along with the FBI special agent that runs the Knoxville office, are set to speak next week to a special meeting with the local Muslim community, informing them about their rights under federal law."
Feds suggest anti-Muslim speech can be punished - POLITICO.com


And that was from the Leftist organ, Politico.




Connect the dots: the IRS scandal is about the same thing.

Question: When will Obama supporters wake up?

Answer: when it's too late.


You've put a fascist in the White House.

 

[jwoodie]

We already have a secular theocracy, presided over by the High Priests of Liberalism whose beliefs are based on what they would like the world to be rather than what it is. The only Evil they recognize is opposition to their policies and control of our government.

 

[PoliticalChic]

We already have a secular theocracy, presided over by the High Priests of Liberalism whose beliefs are based on what they would like the world to be rather than what it is. The only Evil they recognize is opposition to their policies and control of our government.

Though liberalism rejects the idea of God and reviles people of faith, argues Coulter, it bears all the attributes of a religion itself. In "Godless," she throws open the doors of the Church of Liberalism, showing us:

its sacraments (abortion)
its holy writ (Roe v. Wade)
its martyrs (from Soviet spy Alger Hiss to cop-killer Mumia Abu Jamal)
its clergy (public school teachers)
its churches (government schools, where prayer is prohibited but condoms are free)
its doctrine of infallibility (as manifest in the "absolute moral authority" of spokesmen from Cindy Sheehan to Max Cleland)
and its cosmology (in which mankind is an inconsequential accident)
(Ann Coulter, Godless: The Church of Liberalism)


Can I get an 'amen,' brother?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Amen!

 

[Jimmy_Jam]

We already have a secular theocracy, presided over by the High Priests of Liberalism whose beliefs are based on what they would like the world to be rather than what it is. The only Evil they recognize is opposition to their policies and control of our government.

Though liberalism rejects the idea of God and reviles people of faith, argues Coulter, it bears all the attributes of a religion itself. In "Godless," she throws open the doors of the Church of Liberalism, showing us:

its sacraments (abortion)
its holy writ (Roe v. Wade)
its martyrs (from Soviet spy Alger Hiss to cop-killer Mumia Abu Jamal)
its clergy (public school teachers)
its churches (government schools, where prayer is prohibited but condoms are free)
its doctrine of infallibility (as manifest in the "absolute moral authority" of spokesmen from Cindy Sheehan to Max Cleland)
and its cosmology (in which mankind is an inconsequential accident)
(Ann Coulter, Godless: The Church of Liberalism)


Can I get an 'amen,' brother?

We often disagree, PC, but this is a poignant observation. It mirrors Carl Jung's position that humanity has an inescapable religious drive, and that to attempt do dislocate that drive, one must displace it with something else, often manifested as a replacement of spiritual adoration with adoration of the state. It is sometimes manifested as a replacement with science, or, the version of science that opposes and denigrates spiritual belief. I've always found Jung's position difficult to deny.

Don't get me wrong, I continue to have my issues with religious fundamentalists of all kinds, but I get what you're saying here.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Let's see. I will go with the Lord and ignore Coulter et al.

Theorcracy?

 

[PoliticalChic]

We already have a secular theocracy, presided over by the High Priests of Liberalism whose beliefs are based on what they would like the world to be rather than what it is. The only Evil they recognize is opposition to their policies and control of our government.

Though liberalism rejects the idea of God and reviles people of faith, argues Coulter, it bears all the attributes of a religion itself. In "Godless," she throws open the doors of the Church of Liberalism, showing us:

its sacraments (abortion)
its holy writ (Roe v. Wade)
its martyrs (from Soviet spy Alger Hiss to cop-killer Mumia Abu Jamal)
its clergy (public school teachers)
its churches (government schools, where prayer is prohibited but condoms are free)
its doctrine of infallibility (as manifest in the "absolute moral authority" of spokesmen from Cindy Sheehan to Max Cleland)
and its cosmology (in which mankind is an inconsequential accident)
(Ann Coulter, Godless: The Church of Liberalism)


Can I get an 'amen,' brother?

We often disagree, PC, but this is a poignant observation. It mirrors Carl Jung's position that humanity has an inescapable religious drive, and that to attempt do dislocate that drive, one must displace it with something else, often manifested as a replacement of spiritual adoration with adoration of the state. It is sometimes manifested as a replacement with science, or, the version of science that opposes and denigrates spiritual belief. I've always found Jung's position difficult to deny.

Don't get me wrong, I continue to have my issues with religious fundamentalists of all kinds, but I get what you're saying here.

Now, that's interesting....
....not "We often disagree, PC,..." because,of course, I can't force you to always be right...


...but that perspective of Jung's.
I've studied the relationship between the French Revolution, and the direct descent into anti-religion.

The attempt was made to replace religion with reason/science....and produced the abattoir, and then the Russian Revolution and its clones.
Liberalism is it's shadow.

No...not Jung's concept of the shadow, i.e., everything in us that is unconscious, repressed, undeveloped and denied.
The repression of religion was right out front in the French Revolution.
It's the explanation for 600,000 deaths.....
...very different from the American revolution, carried out by religious folk.


Imagine...if universities actually taught of the different bases of the two revolutions....perhaps things would be different, here, today.

Think we'd have a President who endorsed infanticide?

 

[PoliticalChic]

Let's see. I will go with the Lord and ignore Coulter et al.

Theorcracy?

Is that a misspelling? I've noticed that you 'always go with the Left.'

And that, of course, is because you've never read any of Queen Ann's best-sellers....have you.




Any truth to the rumor that when asked what your IQ is, you said twenty-twenty?

 

[Book of Jeremiah]

.....well....the warnings were there.
The Left is all about shutting down opposing voices, marginalizing dissenting opinions....


That's right....the Left.

1. Remember this:
"In a 1996 paper, "Private Speech, Public Purpose: The Role of Governmental Motive in First Amendment Doctrine," Kagan argued it may be proper to suppress speech because it is offensive to society or to the government.
That paper asserted First Amendment doctrine is comprised of "motives and ... actions infested with them" and she goes so far as to claim that "First Amendment law is best understood and most readily explained as a kind of motive-hunting."

Kagan's name was also on a brief, United States V. Stevens, dug up by the Washington Examiner, stating: "Whether a given category of speech enjoys First Amendment protection depends upon a categorical balancing of the value of the speech against its societal costs."
If the government doesn't like what you say, Elena Kagan believes it is the duty of courts to tell you to shut up. If some pantywaist is offended by what you say, Elena Kagan believes your words can be "disappeared".
WyBlog -- Elena Kagan's America: some speech can be "disappeared"


Who put Kagan on the bench???




2. Oh...right....the President who's minions tried to silence debate on WGN radio.....a typical Chicago thug tactic.

"Chicago radio station WGN-AM is again coming under attack from the presidential campaign of Sen. Barack Obama for offering airtime to a controversial author.
It is the second time in recent weeks the station has been the target of an "Obama Action Wire" alert to supporters of the Illinois Democrat."
Obama Vs. WGN, Take Two





3. Now, this:

"A U.S. attorney in Tennessee is reportedly vowing to use federal civil rights statutes to clamp down on offensive and inflammatory speech about Islam.

Bill Killian, U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of Tennessee, was quoted by the Tullahoma News this week suggesting that some inflammatory material on Islam might run afoul of federal civil rights laws.

"We need to educate people about Muslims and their civil rights, and as long as we’re here, they’re going to be protected," Killian told the newspaper.

Killian, along with the FBI special agent that runs the Knoxville office, are set to speak next week to a special meeting with the local Muslim community, informing them about their rights under federal law."
Feds suggest anti-Muslim speech can be punished - POLITICO.com


And that was from the Leftist organ, Politico.




Connect the dots: the IRS scandal is about the same thing.

Question: When will Obama supporters wake up?

Answer: when it's too late.


You've put a fascist in the White House.

I got an email today that was titled DOJ : Slamming Muslims will bring Feds to investigate or something. I read it and it appears it is true that they are now adding civil rights into the 1st amendment when speaking of one specific group - Muslims - which I didn't know could be done. Isn't that Sharia? When I heard about it yesterday I was certain someone was misunderstanding defamation lawsuit type speech on internet which is already on the books. It appears I was mistaken. What a sad day for America.

 

[PoliticalChic]

.....well....the warnings were there.
The Left is all about shutting down opposing voices, marginalizing dissenting opinions....


That's right....the Left.

1. Remember this:
"In a 1996 paper, "Private Speech, Public Purpose: The Role of Governmental Motive in First Amendment Doctrine," Kagan argued it may be proper to suppress speech because it is offensive to society or to the government.
That paper asserted First Amendment doctrine is comprised of "motives and ... actions infested with them" and she goes so far as to claim that "First Amendment law is best understood and most readily explained as a kind of motive-hunting."

Kagan's name was also on a brief, United States V. Stevens, dug up by the Washington Examiner, stating: "Whether a given category of speech enjoys First Amendment protection depends upon a categorical balancing of the value of the speech against its societal costs."
If the government doesn't like what you say, Elena Kagan believes it is the duty of courts to tell you to shut up. If some pantywaist is offended by what you say, Elena Kagan believes your words can be "disappeared".
WyBlog -- Elena Kagan's America: some speech can be "disappeared"


Who put Kagan on the bench???




2. Oh...right....the President who's minions tried to silence debate on WGN radio.....a typical Chicago thug tactic.

"Chicago radio station WGN-AM is again coming under attack from the presidential campaign of Sen. Barack Obama for offering airtime to a controversial author.
It is the second time in recent weeks the station has been the target of an "Obama Action Wire" alert to supporters of the Illinois Democrat."
Obama Vs. WGN, Take Two





3. Now, this:

"A U.S. attorney in Tennessee is reportedly vowing to use federal civil rights statutes to clamp down on offensive and inflammatory speech about Islam.

Bill Killian, U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of Tennessee, was quoted by the Tullahoma News this week suggesting that some inflammatory material on Islam might run afoul of federal civil rights laws.

"We need to educate people about Muslims and their civil rights, and as long as we’re here, they’re going to be protected," Killian told the newspaper.

Killian, along with the FBI special agent that runs the Knoxville office, are set to speak next week to a special meeting with the local Muslim community, informing them about their rights under federal law."
Feds suggest anti-Muslim speech can be punished - POLITICO.com


And that was from the Leftist organ, Politico.




Connect the dots: the IRS scandal is about the same thing.

Question: When will Obama supporters wake up?

Answer: when it's too late.


You've put a fascist in the White House.

I got an email today that was titled DOJ : Slamming Muslims will bring Feds to investigate or something. I read it and it appears it is true that they are now adding civil rights into the 1st amendment when speaking of one specific group - Muslims - which I didn't know could be done. Isn't that Sharia? When I heard about it yesterday I was certain someone was misunderstanding defamation lawsuit type speech on internet which is already on the books. It appears I was mistaken. What a sad day for America.

I don't see this through the prism of a particular group.



The government of a democracy has no business preventing any....any....speech.


And the federal attorney should be out of a job immediately.

Justice Kagan....the same.



Notice that no one has anything to say about "You've put a fascist in the White House"


That's because it is true.

 

[Book of Jeremiah]

I agree. We do.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Let's see. I will go with the Lord and ignore Coulter et al.

Theorcracy?

Is that a misspelling? I've noticed that you 'always go with the Left.' And that, of course, is because you've never read any of Queen Ann's best-sellers....have you. Any truth to the rumor that when asked what your IQ is, you said twenty-twenty?

No, I read The American Dictionary. And I finally got my cholesterol count lower than my IQ. Everyone misspells. I probably do it more than most because I rarely proof.

 

[Katzndogz]

We already have a secular theocracy, presided over by the High Priests of Liberalism whose beliefs are based on what they would like the world to be rather than what it is. The only Evil they recognize is opposition to their policies and control of our government.

Though liberalism rejects the idea of God and reviles people of faith, argues Coulter, it bears all the attributes of a religion itself. In "Godless," she throws open the doors of the Church of Liberalism, showing us:

its sacraments (abortion)
its holy writ (Roe v. Wade)
its martyrs (from Soviet spy Alger Hiss to cop-killer Mumia Abu Jamal)
its clergy (public school teachers)
its churches (government schools, where prayer is prohibited but condoms are free)
its doctrine of infallibility (as manifest in the "absolute moral authority" of spokesmen from Cindy Sheehan to Max Cleland)
and its cosmology (in which mankind is an inconsequential accident)
(Ann Coulter, Godless: The Church of Liberalism)


Can I get an 'amen,' brother?

We often disagree, PC, but this is a poignant observation. It mirrors Carl Jung's position that humanity has an inescapable religious drive, and that to attempt do dislocate that drive, one must displace it with something else, often manifested as a replacement of spiritual adoration with adoration of the state. It is sometimes manifested as a replacement with science, or, the version of science that opposes and denigrates spiritual belief. I've always found Jung's position difficult to deny.

Don't get me wrong, I continue to have my issues with religious fundamentalists of all kinds, but I get what you're saying here.

I had heard that explanation before but had no idea that it came from Jung. Thank you. And here's my amen.

Amen.

 

[Jimmy_Jam]

Though liberalism rejects the idea of God and reviles people of faith, argues Coulter, it bears all the attributes of a religion itself. In "Godless," she throws open the doors of the Church of Liberalism, showing us:

its sacraments (abortion)
its holy writ (Roe v. Wade)
its martyrs (from Soviet spy Alger Hiss to cop-killer Mumia Abu Jamal)
its clergy (public school teachers)
its churches (government schools, where prayer is prohibited but condoms are free)
its doctrine of infallibility (as manifest in the "absolute moral authority" of spokesmen from Cindy Sheehan to Max Cleland)
and its cosmology (in which mankind is an inconsequential accident)
(Ann Coulter, Godless: The Church of Liberalism)


Can I get an 'amen,' brother?

We often disagree, PC, but this is a poignant observation. It mirrors Carl Jung's position that humanity has an inescapable religious drive, and that to attempt do dislocate that drive, one must displace it with something else, often manifested as a replacement of spiritual adoration with adoration of the state. It is sometimes manifested as a replacement with science, or, the version of science that opposes and denigrates spiritual belief. I've always found Jung's position difficult to deny.

Don't get me wrong, I continue to have my issues with religious fundamentalists of all kinds, but I get what you're saying here.

Now, that's interesting....
....not "We often disagree, PC,..." because,of course, I can't force you to always be right...


...but that perspective of Jung's.
I've studied the relationship between the French Revolution, and the direct descent into anti-religion.

The attempt was made to replace religion with reason/science....and produced the abattoir, and then the Russian Revolution and its clones.
Liberalism is it's shadow.

No...not Jung's concept of the shadow, i.e., everything in us that is unconscious, repressed, undeveloped and denied.
The repression of religion was right out front in the French Revolution.
It's the explanation for 600,000 deaths.....
...very different from the American revolution, carried out by religious folk.


Imagine...if universities actually taught of the different bases of the two revolutions....perhaps things would be different, here, today.

Think we'd have a President who endorsed infanticide?

It would be important to explore those differences, I agree. However, the importance of the emphasis that you place to heavily on religion is not something I agree with entirely.

That's okay, there is room for religious fundamentalists, atheists, and centrists like myself within the American spectrum, despite the ridiculous infighting so common in our current polarized culture. I understand that you see everything as a fight, I get it, I just do not. I would like to see a little more "unity" in the United States of America, recognizing that we are all Americans. There is less a spirit of that, in my opinion, than there used to be, and I see that as a drawback, not a benefit.

I'm not about to get into a comparative analysis of the past 250 years with you. I don't really see much to be gained from it. I simply found your sentiments were similar to Jung's position. Jung was not a fundamentally religious man, more of a mystic than a devout member of a Christian sect. For that reason, I have always found his position particularly poignant because it is not burdened so heavily with an agenda.

 

[PoliticalChic]

We often disagree, PC, but this is a poignant observation. It mirrors Carl Jung's position that humanity has an inescapable religious drive, and that to attempt do dislocate that drive, one must displace it with something else, often manifested as a replacement of spiritual adoration with adoration of the state. It is sometimes manifested as a replacement with science, or, the version of science that opposes and denigrates spiritual belief. I've always found Jung's position difficult to deny.

Don't get me wrong, I continue to have my issues with religious fundamentalists of all kinds, but I get what you're saying here.

Now, that's interesting....
....not "We often disagree, PC,..." because,of course, I can't force you to always be right...


...but that perspective of Jung's.
I've studied the relationship between the French Revolution, and the direct descent into anti-religion.

The attempt was made to replace religion with reason/science....and produced the abattoir, and then the Russian Revolution and its clones.
Liberalism is it's shadow.

No...not Jung's concept of the shadow, i.e., everything in us that is unconscious, repressed, undeveloped and denied.
The repression of religion was right out front in the French Revolution.
It's the explanation for 600,000 deaths.....
...very different from the American revolution, carried out by religious folk.


Imagine...if universities actually taught of the different bases of the two revolutions....perhaps things would be different, here, today.

Think we'd have a President who endorsed infanticide?

It would be important to explore those differences, I agree. However, the importance of the emphasis that you place to heavily on religion is not something I agree with entirely.

That's okay, there is room for religious fundamentalists, atheists, and centrists like myself within the American spectrum, despite the ridiculous infighting so common in our current polarized culture. I understand that you see everything as a fight, I get it, I just do not. I would like to see a little more "unity" in the United States of America, recognizing that we are all Americans. There is less a spirit of that, in my opinion, than there used to be, and I see that as a drawback, not a benefit.

I'm not about to get into a comparative analysis of the past 250 years with you. I don't really see much to be gained from it. I simply found your sentiments were similar to Jung's position. Jung was not a fundamentally religious man, more of a mystic than a devout member of a Christian sect. For that reason, I have always found his position particularly poignant because it is not burdened so heavily with an agenda.

"I'm not about to get into a comparative analysis of the past 250 years with you."

In 1971, US Secretary of State Henry Kissinger travelled secretly to China and met with Zhou EnLai…and asked Zhou of his assessment of the 1789 French Revolution. He answered “ It’s too early to tell.”

 

[Jimmy_Jam]

Now, that's interesting....
....not "We often disagree, PC,..." because,of course, I can't force you to always be right...


...but that perspective of Jung's.
I've studied the relationship between the French Revolution, and the direct descent into anti-religion.

The attempt was made to replace religion with reason/science....and produced the abattoir, and then the Russian Revolution and its clones.
Liberalism is it's shadow.

No...not Jung's concept of the shadow, i.e., everything in us that is unconscious, repressed, undeveloped and denied.
The repression of religion was right out front in the French Revolution.
It's the explanation for 600,000 deaths.....
...very different from the American revolution, carried out by religious folk.


Imagine...if universities actually taught of the different bases of the two revolutions....perhaps things would be different, here, today.

Think we'd have a President who endorsed infanticide?

It would be important to explore those differences, I agree. However, the importance of the emphasis that you place to heavily on religion is not something I agree with entirely.

That's okay, there is room for religious fundamentalists, atheists, and centrists like myself within the American spectrum, despite the ridiculous infighting so common in our current polarized culture. I understand that you see everything as a fight, I get it, I just do not. I would like to see a little more "unity" in the United States of America, recognizing that we are all Americans. There is less a spirit of that, in my opinion, than there used to be, and I see that as a drawback, not a benefit.

I'm not about to get into a comparative analysis of the past 250 years with you. I don't really see much to be gained from it. I simply found your sentiments were similar to Jung's position. Jung was not a fundamentally religious man, more of a mystic than a devout member of a Christian sect. For that reason, I have always found his position particularly poignant because it is not burdened so heavily with an agenda.

"I'm not about to get into a comparative analysis of the past 250 years with you."

In 1971, US Secretary of State Henry Kissinger travelled secretly to China and met with Zhou EnLai…and asked Zhou of his assessment of the 1789 French Revolution. He answered “ It’s too early to tell.”

How long did the secret keep?