That’s crazy. Luckily for me, I’ve never had a Facebook and I have an extremely common name for males my age. Not to mention the fact that there are two professional athletes with my name. Those background checkers will be weeks in and chin-deep in other people’s accounts and ESPN stories before they realize it’s going to be impossible to find me on any social media site.
December 15, 2014 at 3:28pm
The incessant pop ups and ubiquitous advertisements will cover it, i’m sure.
 December 15, 2014 at 3:23pm
Your phrasing says it all. “Just what that state needs”
I have no concerns with the ambiguous, collective “needs” of “the state”. My concern is with the sovereignty of the INDIVIDUAL. Your concern should be with your rights, not with protecting a collective “state” from law abiding citizens.
 December 15, 2014 at 3:21pm
Interestingly, the right to bear arms in the name of self defense and defense against tyranny was originally drafted in the English Parliamentary Bill of Rights of 1689.
A lot of the amendments in the bill of rights originally came out of the British rebellions in the 1200′s – which manifested in the Magna Carta. If you want to point to one single piece of historical precedent on which the US constitution was built, it’s the Magna Carta, hands down.
But they also believed all rights stemmed from the King/Queen (central government) and the function of law and government was to enforce that man made order and what the king had given the king could take away. Lock, Whitfield, et al contended basic liberties and rights were innate in the individual at birth and the role of government was to protect those individual rights allowing the individual to prosper on his own.
You are correct (in my opinion) without the several hundred years of English Law starting with the Magna Carta the American self governing "experiment" would not have happened. All the more reason to fight like hell to keep what we have and return to our Founding Roots. Don't bother me that Texas is leading the way.
 December 15, 2014 at 3:15pm
“If we’re honest with ourselves”
…but we’re talking about the Bible so we’re probably not…
December 15, 2014 at 3:13pm
TIL Moses was Welsh.
 December 15, 2014 at 3:06pm
If Jesus can forgive the men who tortured him to death as he hung there dying, I think we can learn to be the bigger person and lead by example.
After all, Christ’s compassion was so provoking it made his torturers repent on the spot. THAT’S the message of Christ.
And don’t forget God’s warning about retaliation (Romans 12:19)
Maybe we can also steady the muzzle against our foreheads to let them know that they are loved and accepted. Yes, I am sure that is what Jesus would have us do just like God had Moses offer up himself and the Jews for slaughter.
Real forgiveness is essential for everyone, as it is the only thought that redirects sufficiently to break the cycle of guilt, projection, anger and attack.
Demonstration is the best way to inspire others to change.
However, my understanding is that God does not ask us to sacrifice ourselves. We can observe without judgment, see who believes in a thought system of conquest and destruction, and take reasonable efforts to protect our bodies from attack.
IMO that being a willing and vulnerable victim to attack and destruction helps no one and hinders spiritual progress.
 December 15, 2014 at 2:00pm
“Imagine that you had an intelligent digital assistant which would mediate your interaction with your friends and also with content on Facebook,”
OR, imagine you take your eyes off of pictures of yourself long enough to think about how to be responsible with what pictures you post.
Imagine being intelligent enough to realize posting drunk pictures of yourself in skimpy outfits makes you look like a drunk slut.
Imagine being intelligent enough to realize that if you genuinely valued privacy and protecting yourself from embarrassment, you wouldn’t have a Facebook in the first place.
 December 15, 2014 at 1:52pm
If everything is a choice, and these people are so ashamed to be gay that they abstain from the “gay lifestyle”, why wouldn’t they just “choose” to not be gay? It makes no sense to say they “choose” to be something they’re trying desperately to not be….
They're ashamed to be gay because certain people and publications make them feel like they need to be ashamed, when of course that isn't true. But try they will.
This means it is not a choice for them. They are just not attracted to the other sex, and they just decided not to practice sex relations at all. I find this beautiful. Why would you find it more acceptable for them to have sex with the opposite gender without them being attracted to it? Wouldn't this be like rape? Would you find it more Christian? (by the way, I am totally hetero-sexual...).
I' ve got a little parody for you.
You make me feel like a natural woman. You make me feel like I should be ashamed of being one. You make me feel like I should tell you that no one makes you 'feel' anything other than yourself and your own inner mechanisms (some of us call that a soul). Thus, if anyone has a feeling that is not comfortable for themselves to be in that state of being, they need to examine their own soul and take responsibility for it themselves.
I am not God, and therefore, I can't MAKE anybody feel anything that their own conscience isn't suggesting . . .
Why are we allowing a few to define the many. Do we heterosexuals think of our being heterosexual as the sole definition of who we are? No. We are people in a wider variety of relationships w/the people around us.
For Christians and Jews who take God seriously, how we express our sexuality matters. God calls us to be holy, set apart, not run of the mill, or mundane. For any unmarried person, celibacy is the behavior, or call it lifestyle, that God approves. Heterosexuals who take God seriously do not sleep around. They save themselves for the wedding night and life as a marriage partner for life.
Those who do not take God seriously are going to do whatever pleases them. It won't matter until the Day of the Lord when their chosen lifestyle will meet with His disapproval.
Great point. in a total vacuum of people, someone doing something "wrong" with feel shame.
 December 15, 2014 at 1:49pm
“Although I see no need to disregard the religious element of the Ten Commandments, if we do for a moment what does the ten commandments stand for if not common sense?”
I see no need to display the 10 commandments in a public school. They’re not “common sense” principles, with the exception of a few, they’re either explicitly religious or non-American in principle.
1. You shall have no other gods before Me. (Religious, against 1st amendment)
2. You shall not make idols. (Religious, against 1st amendment)
3. You shall not take the name of the LORD your God in vain. (Religious, against 1st amendment)
4. Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy. (Religious, against 1st amendment)
5. Honor your father and your mother. (Common sense, common to nearly all belief systems)
6. You shall not murder. (Common sense, common to laws predating Christianity)
7. You shall not commit adultery. (Common sense)
8. You shall not steal. (Common sense, common to laws predating Christianity)
9.You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor. (Common sense, common to laws predating Christianity)
10. You shall not covet. (This is essentially anti-capitalist)
So you have 5/10 commandments that go directly against the Constitutional or economic principles of the US. 2 others are laws common to nearly all societies.
That leaves you with be nice to your parents, don’t cheat on your spouse, and don’t lie about people.
I think we can do better providing a common sense framework than this.
The First Amendment states ‘Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…..’.
What part of C O N G R E S S do you not understand? Schools are not Congress. Superintendents of schools are not Congress. What part of the English language do you struggle with?
I think we can do better providing a common sense framework than this.
We're all ears....
@mscledge. What part of Constitutional law do you not understand?
Well, to start with, the Fourteenth Amendment. "No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
"For present purposes we may and do assume that freedom of speech and of the press—which are protected by the First Amendment from abridgment by Congress—are among the fundamental personal rights and ‘liberties' protected by the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment from impairment by the States." Gitlow v. People of State of New York, 268 U.S. 652, 666, 45 S. Ct. 625, 630, 69 L. Ed. 1138 (1925).
So, you moron, if you would read ALL of the amendments AND the appropriate case law, you would not make a fool of yourself here.
I thought @AnimalsAsLeaders' analysis was rather comprehensive, and his conclusion entirely accurate, i.e. these Biblical commandments are of dubious value; certainly they do not correspond with the concept of an inclusive secondary school setting.
And I'm sorry @mcsledge, but your understanding of the Constitution - its scope and its implications in civil society - appears to be very limited, and possibly just mistaken.
In any case, this was dedicated in memory of the class of 1953. The only reason the school officials removed it was because they were afraid of having their paychecks cut by offended people in court.
Yup, all or nothing. That’s what Jesus said, no change to the law. In other words, don’t pick and choose which of God’s laws y’all should follow, because y’all aren’t smart enough to figure it out.
This was a post you sent to me on this story. But as you can see from animalsasleaders post, it's not US who are picking and choosing what to follow between the 10 commandments and the constitution. We are smart enough to figure out, we can follow both.
You could not be more wrong...
1: (Religious, against 1st amendment): Not at all against the first amendment. It is a statement towards believers that you shall have no other gods. It is not an oath taken or an enforcement of religion and as such is not at all against the Constitution so long as the government does not say as of today the first commandment is to be adhered to under penalty of law
2: (Religious, against 1st amendment): Not true for the same reason as above. This is not a legal edict enforced by the state.
3: (Religious, against 1st amendment) Not true for the same reasons as above.
4: (Religious, against 1st amendment), again, not true for the same reason as above.
* The Boy Scout oath also goes against the 1st amendment if you believe the 1st amendment prevents any non-governmental, extra-constitutional. After all how can a pledge to be psychically strong and morally straight be possible under your version of the Constitution? In facts courts have ruled that such paths and pledges are in fact permissible which renders your entire argument fallacious and onerous. Unless the school were to instruct students to adhere to each commandment under penalty of state or federal law then there is no establishment of any kind.
Now on to the so called common sense...
5: Since the rise of secularism respect and honor towards parents has drastically eroded. Teen violence stems from this, the increased rate of abortion among young women stems from this.
@vofr. LOL, typical response. You do understand that in the post about picking and choosing, I was calling you hypocrites? That you only followed the Biblical laws that you wanted to and ignored the rest, in violation of what Jesus told you to do?
Has your church had any unwed mothers? Did you stone them to death? Do any of you church members ever work on the Sabbath? Any ever play football and touch a pigskin? Watch this clip, especially from 1:30 on, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S1-ip47WYWc
6: Despite your plea to common sense murder is alive and well. What religion does is provide a moral framework for why not to do it. Even atheists retreat to the moral framework when they argue reasons for why murder is not tolerable. Simply put all morality is religious morality. Even secular morality has only borrowed the terms set forth first through religion.
7: Divorce, infidelity, porn, ever wonder why as we grow more secular we also grow more prone to stray? Secularism does not create adultery but it removes the moral reasoning behind why it is wrong. and rather than keeping it morally wrong it renders it merely an issue of trust. But of course in a pure secular society the self is center so what pleases the self takes precedence.
8: Indeed these laws do predate Christianity. Of course the ten commandments are not actually Christian. They are Jewish and among the oldest moral codes in human history. In fact other, older sets of rules lay out only punishments and penalties seeking to control negative behavior. Only the Decalogue forms negative behavior in moral terms that make stealing always wrong, killing always wrong, etc. No Priest or King was absolved from the law and no circumstances superseded the law. This is why David still guilty of adultery and why Moses was still guilt of murder.
9: false rape allegations, rushing to guilty verdicts, media bias, political slander, seems to me that if the best you can do is argue for common sense then you are arguing from an already losing position.
10: if you think coveting has anything to do with capitalism, for or against then you have a poor grasp of the moral concept. To want something, or desire something is not covet. To covet s to literally be so hungry for something someone else has that you are starving for it. It is a desperate need to possess, not a simple desire to have.
Now strip away all religion from human history. Every religious thought and concept, all religious writings, every sermon or temple invocation... And suggest where common sense could do any better.
Or better yet, stand before a judge accused, or your wife accused, or your neighbors or co worker or peers and ask yourself how well you trust common sense to protect you.
Websters defines "common sense" as: sound and prudent judgment based on a simple perception of the situation or facts
Trayvon Martin, Brown, War on terror, hostage crisis in Australia, gang violence, maybe your wife is cheating on you, feel slighted at work, jilted by a lover, corporate greed vs you use of corporate made products...
You wont be able to find any two people who can agree on a simple perception of the fact on any situation so common sense is in fact common foolishness.
"Has your church had any unwed mothers? Did you stone them to death...."
This is an old tired argument by those that try to undermine the truth of God's Word. Deliberately, I suspect. Christians are not required to live by the Old Testament which is where these statements above came from. They are to live by the teachings and example of Jesus. To constantly be trying to hold Christians to the law of Moses (OT) makes you appear as one simply grasping at straws to attempt to refute Christianity.
Now, you are going to say "Well the 10 Commandments are in the OT aren't they? Why do you pick and choose which ones to obey?" Simple, do they agree with the teachings of Jesus? Yes, except that Jesus requirement of the Christian goes much further than the 10 Commandments. Instead of "Thou shalt not kill" - it is "Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you." Matt 5:44 (KJV)
May we, as Christians, follow Jesus in all we do and say.
"Christians are not required to live by the Old Testament which is where these statements above came from. They are to live by the teachings and example of Jesus. To constantly be trying to hold Christians to the law of Moses (OT) makes you appear as one simply grasping at straws to attempt to refute Christianity."
I'm not the one holding Christers to the law of Moses, Jesus is. Look at "It is easier for Heaven and Earth to pass away than for the smallest part of the letter of the law to become invalid." (Luke 16:17) Is that not the voice of Jesus telling you to obey God's laws? And "It is easier for Heaven and Earth to pass away than for the smallest part of the letter of the law to become invalid." (Luke 16:17)
"Now, you are going to say “Well the 10 Commandments are in the OT aren’t they? Why do you pick and choose which ones to obey?” No, you do not understand what I am getting at. You Christers condemn homosexuality based on "God's law" but it is not in the 10 Commandments, it is in the other laws of the OT. Then you ignore all of the other laws of the OT.
Jesus told you to follow all of God's laws, not to pick and choose what you like or dislike.
What you are doing is hypocritical.
No, it is not hypocritical. Nor am I "picking and choosing". I just explained how you are misunderstanding those verses. I'm afraid the problem is that you simply don't want to understand them.
"Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you: For every one that asketh receiveth; and he that seeketh findeth; and to him that knocketh it shall be opened." Matt 7:7-8 (KJV)
"Yea, if thou criest after knowledge, and liftest up thy voice for understanding; If thou seekest her as silver, and searchest for her as for hid treasures; Then shalt thou understand the fear of the LORD, and find the knowledge of God." Prov 2:3-5 (KJV)
Sorry guy. I don't buy into to secret meaning BS.
The text is clear. The original Greek is clear.
You are picking and choosing what parts of the Bible you want to believe. It's easy to understand why that is--it is due to the errors created by the congregationalist heresy, the lack of episcopal leadership, and the sola scriptura heresy that most Christers have fallen victim to.
December 10, 2014 at 6:38pm
Our allies don’t trust us because they shouldn’t. But, then again, they have no choice.
Our enemies still fear us they just can get away with acting like they don’t because Obama won’t call them out.
 December 10, 2014 at 6:34pm
I don’t know what kind of bull crap they were talking about on the radio but theblaze.com is not anywhere NEAR in the top 100 websites globally. I tried digging through multiple sites that count visitors and traffic from a thousand different perspectives. It never even breaks the top 500.
Alexa is the most trusted and used source for website popularity rankings. It puts theblaze.com at #835 globally. That figure is also UP 177 places from the previous three months, which means theblaze.com was down to at least #1012 at one point.
Number 10 on the link. But, just to save you the time, let me quote the report:
” On November [redacted], 2002, Gul Rahman was shackled to the wall of his cell in a short chain position, which required him to sit on the bare concrete. Rahman was wearing a sweatshirt but was nude from the waist down. On November [redacted], 2002, the guards at DETENTION SITE COBALT found Gul Rahman’s dead body. Although a CIA employee tried to perform CPR, Gul Rahman remained unresponsive and was declared dead. An autopsy report by the CIA found that the cause of Gul Rahman’s death was ‘undetermined’, but the clinical impression of the medical officer who conducted the autopsy was that the cause of death was ‘hypothermia’.”
I get my information FROM THE DOCUMENT SUMMARIZING THE CIA REPORT. You call it “lies” because it’s inconvenient to admit.
December 10, 2014 at 3:12pm
You’re treading on REALLY thin ice with the word “need”.
 December 10, 2014 at 3:10pm
Yes, identifying yourself is required under specific circumstances which differ between the states. For instance, if you’re getting a ticket for littering while walking down the street, you do have to identify yourself so they can write your name and address on the ticket.
HOWEVER, you do not need a photo ID to identify yourself. You can simply give the officer your name and address verbally. The officer in this video was intentionally being misleading because he suggests you need to “prove” who you are with an ID because you “could be lying”. That’s total BS. Giving your name verbally is 100% lawful and sufficient.
December 10, 2014 at 2:24pm
I highly recommend looking into the Libertarian Party presidential candidates in 2016. Last time they ran Gary Johnson, who was fantastic and won more presidential votes than any previous libertarian candidate (1.2+ million votes).
I KNOW people are reading this saying “i want to vote for someone who will win…”. You have to play the long-term game. Consider this:
If that number doubles in 2016 to 3 million and then doubles again the next time around, it will be national news that the libertarian party is gaining ground. It will give the perceived legitimacy needed to be treated the same way as an R or D candidate. Once we can get Libertarians in the same debates and get them the same air time, there’s no stopping it.
Your long term game sounds reasonable, BUT you have to convince the people in the first place. Your formula is the same as turning people to God, I am a Christian; but I have more time to convert people to God than you have to save the government.
December 10, 2014 at 2:20pm
Mark is on point 99% of the time. He’s dead-on here. When it comes to historical prescient and constitutional obligations of government officials, he’s THE voice of reason.
He tends to be wrong about war, national security, the NSA/CIA etc. and his true neo-con roots do shine through sometimes. He’s also fallen victim to the personality cult of Reagan.
 December 10, 2014 at 2:16pm
Nobody in the US is required to have, carry or present an ID while minding their own business in public.
Great Big Brother Avatar. Some states do require you to identify yourself when asked by the police. Additonally, you are required to identify yourself if there is reasonable suspicion you have been involved in illegal activity. It seems LEO's try to get around this by telling you "Someone called and complained..." Are we having fun yet?
Yes, identifying yourself is required under specific circumstances which differ between the states. For instance, if you're getting a ticket for littering while walking down the street, you do have to identify yourself so they can write your name and address on the ticket.
HOWEVER, you do not need a photo ID to identify yourself. You can simply give the officer your name and address verbally. The officer in this video was intentionally being misleading because he suggests you need to "prove" who you are with an ID because you "could be lying". That's total BS. Giving your name verbally is 100% lawful and sufficient.
"Stop and identify" statutes are statute laws in the United States that authorize police to legally obtain the identification of someone whom they reasonably suspect has committed a crime. If the person is not reasonably suspected of committing a crime, they are not required to provide identification, even in states with stop and identify statutes. Texas is not a "stop and identify" state. Also, an "ID" is not required as they can search your information and reason if you are truthful by the information that you can give them verbally, such as Name, birth date, and address. It is in your best interest to have the state code memorized if you wish to back up your claim when they ask you, it makes them think their next lie if they think you are well versed in the laws. Look for your annotated code under the heading of something like mine, "Alabama Code - Section 15-5-30 — Authority of peace officer to stop and question."
Until now. The next step is to file a harrassment lawsuit against the department. Make them PROVE they received a call. And if they did receive a call... so what, the police receive many calls from people that are a nuisance. They do nothing on those calls but, maybe drive by.
You "identify" yourself by telling the officer your name..no other identification is legally required
When the obama said it was racist to ask a person to prove they are who they say they are i stopped carry any kind of identification and I was pulled over and told the cop exactly that. I gave him my information, he asked a few questions, first he asked my height, weight, I looked at him and said I have no idea what I put for weight, what women does not lie in that box.......... glad he did not have a power trip and understood from where I was coming from... However since the government is so hell bent on opening up our border then the illegals can start paying for the overblown government and I will keep the money used for identification and since I am an American I am FREE TO TRAVEL THIS COUNTRY WITHOUT ANY LIMITS OR RESTRICTIONS.......... the act of 1871 is a good read and a way to get our country back.............. amazing how little power washington dc really has against we the people, not allowed to have credit of more than 5% of what the value of the land in the district is valued at. All laws no matter how well they are written if they go against the constitution they are null and void no matter how legal they sound.......... that is just a few things the act of 1871 has to offer............do yourself a favor and read the act....
Sir/ Ma'am/ Doc
I know of one state, IN that allows law enforcement personnel to demand identification information without any articulable suspicion; the Just Because I Can Statue.
It should be apparent to any thinking person that law enforcement employees are not required to be truthful to/ with the public, are not held accountable for misleading the public, writing false reports, and that they are under no obligation to protect a citizens' rights. It is incumbent upon every person to know their rights and exercise them to prevent abuse by law enforcement.
The one area that has become a way to protect yourself from law enforcement, video, has just become a felony crime in IL again. Yes, in the police state of IL it is a felony to record law enforcement, prosecutors, judges, or government officials. You don't have to ask why just review the criminality and corruption in the state to see why they don't want anyone recording them. It is also interesting to see that all unions and the rank and file don't want body cams and are coordinating ways to render them useless - much they way they are trained regarding the positioning of dash cams.
 December 10, 2014 at 2:14pm
“You are going to jail for failure to ID because you can’t tell me who you are, you can’t prove who you are.”
Really think about the thought process involved in an officer making that statement. This officer KNOWS it’s not illegal to not have an ID. The officer KNOWS you don’t have to identify yourself unless you’re being officially charged with a crime. The officer KNOWS it’s legal to video tape police officers.
And yet, he’s willing to LIE about these things in order to manipulate innocent civilians into complying with his overbearing intrusion in their privacy. Absolutely CRIMINAL.
The internet and social media are increasing the knowledge of the average citizen, perhaps not directly, but at least showcasing areas of the law where the citizenry are not aware of. The police need to catch up with the fact that more and more people know the law, and should be approaching things differently.
We need the police, and by far, most are decent people who want to and do the right thing. Some push the envelope. Understandable when your life is on the line all day long, but too, there are officers who do have a superiority complex. That's is dangerous as well.
But there must be balance and a reasonable response on both side. Citizens need to understand the law, and police need to engage those they are protecting in a way that one, is not threatening (unless the situation calls for it), but two ... and in this case, I would be congratulating the guy for understanding the law first rather than assuming the worst.
He was willing to do all those things because he planned on deleting the recording and then it would be his word against "some right wing nut job". Too bad for him he wasn't smart enough to work the phone.
…what good is a body camera?
 December 10, 2014 at 2:09pm
Because decades of infiltrating governments and illegally bombing countries and killing innocent people was ok. But admit you once tortured people? THAT’S gonna be the last straw? LOL.