User Profile: OUTLAW_WEALTH

OUTLAW_WEALTH

Member Since: December 07, 2012

CommentsDisplaying comments newest to oldest.

123 To page: Go
  • April 20, 2014 at 8:07pm

    These cops are de facto communists. What the multiculturalists and progressives have given us is choking our liberty and 1st Amendment rights.

    Don’t be fooled by the lie of “tolerance”. It only works one way. You can do whatever the state tolerates, nothing more.

  • April 18, 2014 at 6:50pm

    Evolutionists can’t even explain how sex evolved, because it has to happen within one lifespan and if it doesn’t happen, no reproduction.

    They can’t explain how the thryoid evolved either, because if it doesn’t evolve within about ten minutes, the being dies from temperature dysregulation.

    Responses (1) +
  • April 18, 2014 at 6:47pm

    even if that WERE the case, the Feds have no jurisdiction here, according to the Constitution.

  • April 18, 2014 at 6:46pm

    Shoplifting: A FEDERAL crime? Bwahahaha.

    And as is usually the case, the punishment doesn’t fit the crime, which the government doesn’t seek to correct, but seeks to PROFIT from.

  • April 16, 2014 at 9:22pm

    I have to ask you why you are so certain you have interpreted the Bible correctly, or why you believe it is complete?

  • April 15, 2014 at 7:16pm

    Sexual polarity is what sex is all about. I think it’s incredible that so many have swallowed the homosexual koolaid in this country and seem proud of their “accomplishment.”

    Their hypocrisy is underwhelming and is simply the old immorality parading around as the new morality.

    The shadow government knows that to govern a people you have to demoralize them first to prepare them for the takeover. You have to confuse their conscience. You have to muddle their meditations so they cannot think straight, pun intended.

  • April 15, 2014 at 7:11pm

    Love and killing in the same poem. I smell the acrid testimonial of hypocrisy.

  • April 15, 2014 at 6:15pm

    Must be a lot of folks doing this. I’m not. I don’t know anyone who is.

    Responses (1) +
  • April 15, 2014 at 8:21am

    In the West the FEDS “own” most of the property in violation of the Constitution.

    http://libertasutah.org/center-for-private-property/federal-public-land-ownership-in-utah-feudalism-vs-federalism/

  • April 15, 2014 at 8:18am

    It was a JOKE people. A poor one. But do we really want controlled speech? I think not. This is a local matter for locals to decide. If you don’t like what the school does, DON’T ENROLL.

  • April 15, 2014 at 8:15am

    Listen to that white little, bright little, light inside. Go to the light. The light of Christ, the light of conscience, the light of peace.

    God will fight our battles. We just need to have His love in our hearts and live the two greatest commandments. God’s government will prevail while the government of men will come to naught.

    Responses (3) +
  • April 15, 2014 at 8:09am

    The Supreme Court has ruled that only the Supreme Court can interpret the Constitution ! How ironic.

    “The federal government owns the disputed land and has claimed ownership since before Nevada even joined the union, according to a 2013 U.S. District Court ruling.”

    They should read article 1, section 8, clause 17.

    “exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;–”

    http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/tocs/a1_8_17.html

    Mr Gerry contended that this power might be made use of to enslave any particular State by buying up its territory, and that the strongholds proposed would be a means of awing the State into an undue obedience to the Genl. Government–

    Mr. King thought himself the provision unnecessary, the power being already involved: but would move to insert after the word “purchased” the words “by the consent of the Legislature of the State” This would certainly make the power safe.

    http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/a1_8_17s2.html

  • April 14, 2014 at 8:13pm

    If only Clive Bundy had named his ranch Benghazi – they wouldn’t have shown up!

  • April 14, 2014 at 8:10pm

    Actually we ought to be glad they are foolish enough to keep the issue hot. America is waking up to the Federal Violation of the Constitution.

    Article 1, Section 8, clause 17. http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/tocs/a1_8_17.html

  • April 14, 2014 at 8:09pm

    ““Well, it’s not over. We can’t have an American people that violate the law and then just walk away from it. So it’s not over,” ”

    That’s right Reid. So we need to get you and every other law violating official out of the Federal Government. Then we will be happy. Then we will be abiding by the Constitution of the United States, not by the dictates of mere men who usurp the power and leave us holding the bag.

  • April 14, 2014 at 3:15pm

    People need to read and understand the Constitution itself, and not what the Federal court says it means, but what the words ACTUALLY mean:

    To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of Particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;–

    And you should also read what the Founders talked about when passing this clause. They feared the FEDS would use it to overawe the states and take away their power, and so they stipulated that they must PURCHASE the land, with the CONSENT of the state, and only for specific enumerated purposes.

    http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/tocs/a1_8_17.html

  • April 14, 2014 at 3:10pm

    According to Article 1, Section 8, clause 17. They can’t even have forests or parks. The purposes for which the FEDS may acquire land are very specific.

    “erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dock yards, and other needful buildings”

    The Making of America, p 458.

    “Mr Gerry contended that this power might be made use of to enslave any particular State by buying up its territory, and that the strongholds proposed would be a means of awing the State into an undue obedience to the Genl. Government–

    Mr. King thought himself the provision unnecessary, the power being already involved: but would move to insert after the word “purchased” the words “by the consent of the Legislature of the State” This would certainly make the power safe.

    Mr. Govr Morris 2ded. the motion, which was agreed to nem: con: as was then the residue of the clause as amended.”

    http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/a1_8_17s2.html

    Responses (1) +
  • April 14, 2014 at 3:06pm

    THANK YOU Blaze, for keeping this conversation alive. The US of A really needs to have this conversation. For too long we have merely accepted the authority of an overbearing government who decides all Constitutional questions, and the people have forgotten that that Document, the Constitution, is simply a contract between the FEDS and the people. To have only one side doing all the interpreting makes all the interpretations lopsided. If I had the sole and exclusive power to interpret the terms of the contract, how do you think I would rule? The same thing of course applies to the Supreme Court. Since they have ruled that they are the only ones permitted to interpret it, all kinds of mischief have been undertaken.

  • April 13, 2014 at 12:55am

    I enjoyed this conference address

    “Sadly enough, . . . it is a characteristic of our age that if people want any gods at all, they want them to be gods who do not demand much, comfortable gods, smooth gods who not only don’t rock the boat but don’t even row it, gods who pat us on the head, make us giggle, then tell us to run along and pick marigolds.”

    - Jeffrey R. Holland

  • April 13, 2014 at 12:49am

    Glenn, I’m having trouble understanding you. You said you were pouring over your scriptures? What was it you were pouring?

    Personally, I pore over mine. Why ruin a perfectly good set of scriptures?

    Responses (1) +
123 To page: Go