Kubel

Looks like the Muslims are feeding the troll. If someone were burning a Bible next to me, I probably wouldn't appreciate it all that much. But loss of appreciation is about as far as I will go. It's obvious what the motive is for these religious trolls (Jones, Phelps, etc...)- provocation. The best way to win is just to let them do their thing, respect their rights, and ignore them.

Why would anyone name their children Cain or Jezebel.

That said, what matters is what the parents teach their children, and if they truly teach them of the Lord's way they will give their children a good name and it does not have to be a name from the Bible.

As for the lost, they know no better, yet some of the names that are being used today should not be given to a dog.

If I ever got two dogs, I would seriously consider naming them Hophni and Phinehas.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g5FF5vnqUfw - Father of 9 year old killed asks for no gun control as a result of the shooting.

- And the citizen that held the shooter until police arrived was ARMED, with hand on gun, and safety off. He said he would have shot him if he wasn't already subdued. He also told Ed a thing or two about gun control .

No matter whose good or for what purpose he released the clasified material, according to the letter of the law, he is guilty under the Uniformed Code of Military Justice.

Section 881. Art. 81. Conspiracy
SubPara b
Any person subject to this chapter who
conspires with any other person to commit an
offense under the law of war, and who knowingly
does an overt act to effect the object of the conspiracy,
shall be punished, if death results to
one or more of the victims, by death or such
other punishment as a court-martial or military
commission may direct, and, if death does not
result to any of the victims, by such punishment,
other than death, as a court-martial or
military commission may direct.

Section 906a. Art. 106a. Espionage
(a)(1) Any person subject to this chapter who,
with intent or reason to believe that it is to be
used to the injury of the United States...

For sure he conspired with someone outside the military, that is conspiracy. Possibly, he is also guilty of espionage, if it can be proved he meant to do injury to the United States.

There are a whole bunch of lessor articles this guy will be charged with. The UCMJ is accessable on line from many sources just run down through chapter 47 and you'll see that he may be charged with malingering and many others. Whatever you may think, the UCMJ is real blind justice and it is not a terror unto good works.

His actions have not resulted in deaths, nor was his intent or reason to cause injury to the US. It was the exact opposite. He exposed to the people a crime that had been committed by the military and hidden by the government. Journalists were shot and killed, innocent people attempting to come to the aid of the people shot were also shot and killed, and a car with two children was shot up with both children being injured. That's not something the government wants released, but if it's happening, I want to know about it.

He may have released information to the press, and it's the military's job to keep classified information classified (to the point of punishing those who do it), there's no question about that. But the government is attempting to punish him (and others) AT THE EXPENSE of the People- and that is the problem that I have with this whole thing. He saw what he thought was a war crime, he released evidence of that war crime to the media, now he is being punished.

When you take th oath to the Military Services of the United States, you sign away such rights, and its a different game.

When you take the Oath of Enlistment, you first swear your loyalty to defend the Constitution. They specifically worded it this way so as to make it clear that the People are in charge, and only in the service to the People through protecting the Constitution can you obey the President and commanders over you. When you sign up for the military, you sign away you rights- but you should never sign away your loyalty to the People. I would hope that any member of the armed services, when faced with the choice of being loyal to the military or to the People, would chose the People without a moments thought. Manning did this- exposing the government to the truths that it did not want its people to know about. And now, amazingly, some sheeple are calling for him to be hanged.

Leasing a Ford Focus EV once they come out.

Avast is free for home use. You just need to register for a free account and they will email you a product key for activation.

I had it worse sleeping in a HuMVee in an Iraqi landfill where I had to eat my food within 30 secs or the flies would cover it en masse...that was in 100 degree weather with MOPP gear and armor on.

The July 2007 airstrike video that Manning allegedly released showed the murder of Iraqi civilians and journalists. He acted not out of treason, but because he saw a warcrime and blew the whistle to the public. Manning is a political prisoner. No foreign power or enemy gained from what he released, it was meant to expose to the People the acts that the government doesn't want us to see. We the People gain from what he released because we are given a glimpse into the truth of our foreign relations and the result of our foreign policy. If he had released classified information to China to weaken our position and increase theirs, I would be in support of seeing him go on trial for treason. But what Manning did, he did for us- so that more young people wouldn't have to go through what you went through (or worse) in a pointless, illegal, unsustainable, unwinable war. He will have to face the consequences for his actions, yes, but any punishment on him is punishment on us.

I am in support of seeing Manning released and all attempts at bringing a case against Assange dropped immediately.

We are truly in the last days...

Ironically, if you think about it, the human race would have never seen a third generation without committing incest. So maybe we are in the first days...

I don't believe a secular free government can restrict incest between two (or more) consenting people any more than it can restrict polygamy or homosexuality; they are all moral matters. In the interest of making the government more secular, incest might be legalized just as homosexuality is. But in the interest of public health, our socialist government will prOBably not permit it any time soon.

There is even a growing number of professing Christians and preachers who proclaim the destruction of those two cities wasn't because of homosexuality or a statement against homosexuality.

Homosexuality wasn't the exclusive reason that Sodom and Gomorrah (and surrounding cities) were destroyed, but it was one of them that were explicitly mentioned by description and example.

I will pray that it is removed, and replaced with common sense. Government is looking at this all wrong. There's no such thing as "gay rights" just like there's no such thing as "secular marriage". People don't have collective rights, we have individual rights. And marriage is not a union by government, it's a union by God- that makes it 'religious'. Government has no business getting involved in religious affairs.

I propose something very simple: Stop requiring government to define, establish, and regulate marriage. If it wants to start making it's own secular 'civil union' thing for legal or tax purposes, fine. But defining something that has historically been religious is not a duty of the government.

All the focus seems to be on Assange and WikiLeaks. But that is not acceptable since their position is that of a free press. Some people are saying focus the blame on the individual(s) that leaked the info. That's a turn in a better direction (after all, how does an Army private gain access to so much information?), but it's still not looking into the root of the prOBlem. The root of the prOBlem is a government that is too involved in the affairs of foreign countries. And when those affairs come to light, the government is ashamed. But instead of looking into what it is that they are ashamed about, the govenrment is calling for the arrest (and some are calling for the assassination) of Assange, it's placing pressure on corporations to attempt to snuff out this free press, and they will quickly realize the people will not stand for that.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentagon_Papers

Anyone recognize that? The New York Times was found NOT GUILTY in 1971 for the publication of the Pentagon Papers. The release of this information to the public told us the TRUTH about Vietnam and the lies that led us to the war. How is WikiLeaks any different?

"Only a free and unrestrained press can effectively expose deception in government. And paramount among the responsibilities of a free press is the duty to prevent any part of the government from deceiving the people and sending them off to distant lands to die of foreign fevers and foreign shot and shell."
—Justice Black, 1971

Chev has a good point. We separate men from women OBviously because the two are (for the most part) attracted to one another and can cause a disruption if they were to share certain facilities. Does this mean men and women will be integrated? It's certainly an argument I've never thought about.

However, with that said, I highly doubt that if DADT is repealed that we will have even a minor increase in sexually disruptive behavior- the military doesn't tolerate it for straights, they certainly won't tolerate it for gays.

Wikileaks is a free press. The government cannot legally interfere. But private corporations that do will face the wrath of consumers that don't appreciate them taking a stand against the free press.

I find it strange that so many conservatives can't recognize that free press is absolutely required in order for us to be a free people. I also find it strange that so many conservatives are ignorant when it comes to understanding the difference between a journalist and a traitor. Even if Assange was a US Citizen (he's not, thus it's impossible for him to be a traitor), and WikiLeaks was a phystical domestic free press (which it's not, thus it's impossible for them to be treasonous), the information was leaked to WikiLeaks from the government. Dispersing leaked information is not a crime, it's journalism.

Just think about it. This is the first time we've seen an attempt at the international level (not just China) to snuff out a free press devoted solely to government transparency. Also think about this, just days after WikiLeaks releases a massive amount of information that governments all over the world would rather the people not know, its spokesperson is brought up on charges previously dropped due to insufficient evidence.

WikiLeaks is much larger than any one spokesperson, and its web presence has since the very beginning been resistant to censorship- so not even the combined forces of international corporatism can silence people who desire transparent government.

I'm a libertarian, so I believe people should be free to control their own lives without the government telling people what to do, and that includes telling them whether or not they can be gay. However, everyone knows that when you join the military, you are agreeing to be shaped by the military into the killing machine that they desire. So if the military is for DADT because gays make bad soldiers, then so be it. On the flip side, if the military ever determined that Christians make bad soldiers (which is far from the truth), and prohibited them from enlisting, I would have to accept that as well. Soldiers lose their freedom and many of their rights when they join. Don't expect a democracy where you have a say in the matter.

In short, if you don't like DADT, or don't like that it will be repealed, then the best advice I can give is- don't join.

Libertarianism is close to the view which prevailed during the time of the Judges; everyone doing what is right in their own eyes. The Bible declares this is wickedness.

Libertarian minarchy is not the Judaeo-anarchy we find following the death of Joshua. You'll still have government protecting people from rape, murder, theft, and to enforce contracts. Any sin committed against fellow man would not be lawful in a libertarian minarchist society.

I'm also not sure how we can compare the US to Israel. Israel (and Israel alone) was a God-established theocracy- and the Jews (and the Jews alone) were called to follow a very strict Law (the purpose of which was to ultimately point to Christ). We as Christians don't pretend to follow that Law. The US was never established to follow the Law (and I hope it will never be required to follow the law of any religion, particularly I fear Sharia). It was established (in part) to allow everyone to worship God freely. To accomplish this, it was required of the government to be secular. You can't enforce personal morality without seeking religious interference. And we know what happens when government gets involved in religion. If the US were to become a church state, the Biblical interpretation set forth as law will not be in line with our own. Why? Because whatever government does, it does badly.

Our government isn't the solution to sin. It makes a very poor substitute for Christ. Our government is established to set rules to restrict itself and to protect us against domestic or foreign interference so that we can live in liberty and have the freedom to worship God. The more government, the less freedom.

Overall, libertarianism is incompatible with Christianity.

How is it incompatible?

I can see how people would confuse my personal liberty stand as saying to God, "this is my life and I'll do with it how I will". But I'm not saying that to God, I'm saying that to government. I can be a Christian and still accept secular minarchism as the most ideal form of government on this Earth.

Take homosexuality for instance. I believe the Bible says it is sin. I believe it is sin. I believe homosexuals are sinners. I believe it's immoral. I think it's sad when people allow themselves to be ruled by this sin. I think people should turn from their sin and look to God. But I don't feel government should force them to do that. Government should stay out of peoples lives. If other people are not being hurt, killed, having contracts violated, or having property invaded or taken from them because of homosexuality, then I believe it should be an issue of faith, not of government.

Take abortion as another example. I believe it's sin and immoral, it's sad, people should repent, etc.... But it's not just a personal issue of morality that is directly affects the individual having the abortion (as is the case of homosexuality). It's directly affecting the life of the child- IT'S MURDER! And I believe it's governments duty to protect the right to life. Many in the LP (I'm not a member) support abortion prOBably because they don't recognize life prior to birth, but there is the same division within the LP as there are in other parties. The question should be asked in all political parties "when does life begin?". If some libertarians (like myself and Dr. Paul) believe it begins at conception, then they will be against abortion (or more to the point, against murder).

Government is a tricky thing, and in my OBservation of it, I have found that when it tries to 'fix' things, it only makes them worse (and does so at great expense to the taxpayers). If government stuck to its basic responsibilities of enforcing contracts, protecting life and liberty, etc... I think we would all be better off. And I know that might sound scary to some people (the thought of a government that does not enforce personal morals). But let's be honest, there's no hope for anyone outside of Jesus Christ. Government certainly isn't going to save people or make them moral. But it sure does try to. It's just that government makes a very bad church. Historically, when it tries to be one, it only hurts liberty.

Funding should be cut immediately. Not just because it's a foreign waste of taxpayers money, but also because it's government sponsored religion.

For one person to have free rights that means someone will have to sacrifice some rights. Even in a free country there has to be laws and restrictions that limits rights.

How is it against someone elses rights for a private property owner to build a mosque on property that their own? This Ground Zero Mosque argument needs to be stripped of all emotionalism and drama, because only then will people look at the law. The law quite clearly gives the private property owner the right to build a mosque there. My personal feelings, your feelings, the nations emotions- none of this matters when it comes to freedom.

As a libertarian, I have found that freedom is a difficult concept for even conservative Americans to grasp.

China realizes the US empire is going to end and they are now building up to fill in where we pull out of. It's about time though. Even with this build up, their defense budget is nothing compared to ours.

The Constitution grants them the right to have a Mosque on their private property. Being the champion of the Constitution that he is, it's no surprise that Ron Paul would defend it. I support him.

I'm supportive of their right to build a mosque just like I'm supporting of Baptists rights to build churches.

I disagree. If after reading the WikiLeaks people start asking the question "Why are we there?", it will be beneficial to our troops security, not detrimental. The war is lost. It's going to take bankruptcy for us to realize it and pull out. Our national security is worse off for us being over there.

@Jerry

How can you possibly believe democracy is an acceptable form of government? Under democracy, it's possible for the majority to tread upon someones rights. If society continues to degrade to the point where the majority decides it's best to ban Baptists from assembling, would you think that's ok?

Democracy, like socialism, leads to the destruction of liberty- because what's best for the majority outweighs individual freedom. Unfortunately, this battle won't go away until the conservatives stop making government define something that it has no business being involved in to begin with.

http://www.foxnews.com/world/2010/08/12/wikileaks-spokesman-preparing-release-remaining-afghan-intelligence-files/?test=latestnews

This is just plain out ridiculous. I won't say anymore because it isn't very nice.

I hope if anything comes from these leaks, it's that the people realize just how much of a failure this war is and how futile it is to continue.