Like this:

1. Seems odd, if Darwin himself believed in Intelligent Design, that today Darwinists are so against it:

“Darwin’s theories of evolution are not incompatible with religion
…
In 1879 Darwin wrote to John Fordyce: “It seems to me absurd to doubt that a man may be an ardent Theist & an evolutionist . . . In my most extreme fluctuations, I have never been an atheist in the sense of denying the existence of a God.”

Darwin died three years later, without changing his mind. “You have expressed my inward conviction,” he told the author William Graham in one of his last letters, “that the Universe is not the result of chance.”

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/letters/article5703979.ece

2.  “Sen. Leahy Discusses A Truth and Reconciliation Commission
…

Senator Leahy. What if you found out that the anthrax that was sent to your office was sent there at the behest of members of the Cheney/Bush crime family?

I am for truth and justice, not reconciliation. These bastards are criminals. They knowingly committed criminal acts and war crimes. The rule of law is at stake. The evidence is there. There should be consequences for those involved. They should do their time if they did the crime. This is what the rule of law is about. Why would we even consider reconciliation rather than prosecution? I think it is because the criminals are still entrenched in the system and will do what they can to block efforts for justice.“

http://www.911blogger.com/node/19370

3.  “This Friday night at The Tattered Cover in LoDo, Richard Gage, founder of Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth will present scientific evidence proving beyond reasonable doubt that the World Trade Center towers and World Trade Building 7 were demolished by conventional and novel forms of controlled demolition. He invites the best and most skeptical minds in the metro area to be there and to show him any errors of logic or reason. He will not be entertaining conjecture or conspiracy theories, but focusing on the hard scientific evidence. Many have refused to look for myriad reasons, but as the great Sherlock Holmes said: “. . .when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.” Gage has eliminated the impossible. Which leaves us with some very bitter pills to swallow.
It is surreal and sad to me that Reason and Science are being treated like heresy these days. If Gage’s research is flawed, and the almost 600 architects and engineers in AE911Truth are wrong as well, then this will be determined only by rational scrutiny. What does it say about us citizens, who cannot bring ourselves to examine what is arguably the greatest deception ever perpetrated on us, and then the world?
We were never guaranteed our freedoms by those who envisioned them over 230 years ago. They were earned through defiance of oppression and a resplendent moral resolve which laid the foundations for the greatest nation in history. Our freedoms, to peaceably assemble for the redress of grievances, to speak the truth as we see it, to be protected from unreasonable search and seizure and more are in the hazard: Richard Cheney has repeatedly thrown gasoline onto the furnace of fear in an attempt to frighten us into silence. Our greatest recourse is reason. But we must use it. Now.“

http://www.911blogger.com/node/19366

4. “Extradition” is the legal term for moving a suspect from one country to another AFTER a court has reviewed the evidence, AND, if there is an Extradition Treaty allowing the transfer of subjects between the two countries.

“Rendition” is just unlawful kidnapping of innocent people from one country (often for delivery to a third country) by the Rogue USA Police State.

…

Rendition is the fancy word for kidnapping and vigilante justice.“

http://www.911blogger.com/node/19365

5.  “either you give immunity and get the truth or you never get it with constant stonewalling.

David Ray Griffin is also advocating this approach as he feels it is the only way we will get the truth.

Unfortunately, this is probably the only way to really get at what occurred, but in the end it will also have a deterent effect. There will be a certain level of public humiliation for the perpetrators. Even though they might not go to jail it will certainly make their lives different when it comes to how people view them. They will be viewed with contempt and reviled the rest of their lives. There won’t be any place to polish that legacy.“

http://www.911blogger.com/node/19364

6.  “Government-mandated “community service” is integral to Barack Obama’s vision of “change.” Obama has described such service as a key element of creating “a new era of responsibility — a recognition on the part of every American that we have duties to ourselves, our nation and the world; duties that we do not grudgingly accept, but rather seize gladly, firm in the knowledge that there is nothing so satisfying to the spirit, so defining of our character than giving our all to a difficult task.”
…
Of course, most Americans are hardly strangers to responsibility. They hold jobs, provide for families, and perform volunteer work for schools and churches. Thousands of acts of service occur literally every second of every day in America, both in the form of mutually beneficial business transactions and charitable deeds performed out of conviction.

The problem with such service, apparently, is that it is neither mandated nor brokered by the government. So from the perspective of those who believe that life should be organized by the state, such spontaneous service simply doesn’t count.
…
It was not explained how service could be both “universal” and truly “voluntary”: Was the assumption that differences over opinion regarding the proper type of “service” would simply vanish? Or would the reluctance of many Americans to surrender valuable time to carry out government-approved activities be overcome by the sheer power of Obama’s charisma?
…
All “national service” proposals, whether civilian or military, are rooted in the assumption that individuals owe service to the State — indeed, that the State has the first claim on the individual’s time, labor, and wealth.

Although the legally protected practice of chattel slavery ended roughly a century and a half ago, politicians routinely insist that the government is entitled to claim uncompensated labor from the citizenry in the name of “community” or “national” service.
…
Through government-imposed labor, James insisted, young men “would have paid their blood-tax” to the amorphous entity called “society” without serving in the military. In fact, it was through this proposal for universal conscription that James infected American political discourse with the phrase “moral equivalent of war,” an expression that has become one of our more obnoxious cliches.
…
The common understanding is that government exists to protect the lives and individual rights of citizens. Military conscription, which is the most severe form of “national service,” is based on the idea that the people exist to protect the government. This principle was given voice in a July 1863 editorial supporting the draft in which the New York Times claimed that “our national authority has the right — to every dollar and every right arm for its protection” (emphasis added).

In any form, government-compelled “service” is an assertion of state ownership of the individual, and a violation of the most fundamental property right — self-ownership. In the Western tradition of individual liberty under law, no other human being, either individually or acting as part of a collective, can properly claim ownership over any part of our lives, or the product of our exertions, without our consent. That consent can be expressed through contract, commerce, covenant, or charity. It cannot properly be obtained through coercion or fraud.

Thomas Jefferson, in a letter written to John Adams during the War for Independence, referred to conscription as “the last of all oppressions.” If the State can steal you — not just your labor, but your physical being — as those controlling it see fit, you have no rights.”

http://www.campaignforliberty.com/article.php?view=11

7.  “A President who seeks to aggrandize his own power through wildly expansive claims of executive authority ought to be vigorously criticized.  But the ultimate responsibility to put a stop to that lies with the Congress (and the courts).  More than anything else, it was the failure of the Congress to rein in the abuses of the Bush presidency (when they weren’t actively endorsing those abuses) that was the ultimate enabling force of the extremism and destruction of the last eight years.

What we need far more than a benevolent and magnanimous President is a re-assertion of Congressional authority as a check on executive power.  Even if Obama decided unilaterally to refrain from exercising some of the powers which the Bush administration seized, that would be a woefully insufficient check against future abuse, since it would mean that these liberties would be preserved only when a benevolent ruler occupies the White House (and, then, only when the benevolent occupant decides not to use the power).  Acts of Congress — along with meaningful, enforced oversight of the President — are indispensable for preventing these abuses.  And that’s true whether or not one believes that the current occupant of the Oval Office is a good, kind and trustworthy ruler.  “

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/

Advertisement