User Profile: Uriel

Member Since: January 04, 2011


  • September 21, 2013 at 3:03pm

    Federalist = Statist
    Anti-Federalist = Anti-Statist

    The terms “federalist” and “anti-federalist” were twisted to mean the exact opposite of what the words themselves actually mean. Originally, an “anti”-federalist would have been one who favored a strong central government, and the consolodation of formerly sovereign states (nations) into a single entity; and “federalist” would have meant extant states (nations) maintaining their sovereignty.

    Now, any dictionary will say that “federalist” means supportive of government in which “sovereign states surrender sovereignty to a CENTRAL GOVERNMENT”. That had been the opposite of the meaning of “federalist” at the time.

    Madison, Hamilton, and Jay — lawyers all — knew exacty what they were doing. They knew that when they called their articles “Federalist” papers they were, in fact, just the oppposite.

    In short, despite meaning the opposite of what they’re named, the so-called “anti-federalists” favored states being sovereign; “federalists” favored a single central government

    The “Federalist Papers” are “authoritative” for a reason. They were written by the authors of the Constitution and are chock full of specious dismissals of the legitimate concerns of the “Anti-Federalists”. Like concerns about the lack of restriction on the power of the judiciary. Madison — a lawyer (just to remind you) — knew that he was lying when he wrote what he wrote about the “weak”ness of the judiciary

  • September 16, 2013 at 11:04am

    Guys, that’s not what the law says. TW1919 was right the first time. Rifles = legal to open carry; Handguns = NOT legal to open carry … EVEN IF they are prior to 1899, black powder, or functioning replicas.

    All that selected part of the definition says is that if you (for some unknown reason) stick a bayonet on the end of your pre-1899 handgun, you’re going to be arrested for openly carrying an “illegal knife”.

    That’s silly, I know. But if you shoot someone dead with your bayoneted, pre-1899 pistol, you’ll be charged with murder/manslaughter/orwhatever, AND illegally discharging a “firearm”, AND with openly carrying an “illegal knife”. That is, the law will say you SHOT someone with your “knife”, and you’ll be convicted.

    Either way, you cannot legally open carry your 1878 Colt revolver (not a replica) just because it’s over 100 years old. Likewise, you can’t legally open carry a pistol just because it’s “black powder”.

    But, if you put a 6-inch blade on either, they’ll CALL it an “illegal knife” — and you STILL won’t legally be alowed to open carry it.

    If you want me to tell you that that law makes ANY sense at all … sorry, I can’t. But it says what it says.

    Responses (1) +
  • September 14, 2013 at 10:54pm

    “Under Texas law, a gun manufactured before 1899 isn’t even considered a “firearm,” therefore not subject to open carry laws:

    (3) “Firearm” means any device designed, made, or adapted to expel a projectile through a barrel by using the energy generated by an explosion or burning substance or any device readily convertible to that use. Firearm does not include a firearm that may have, as an integral part, a folding knife blade or other characteristics of weapons made illegal by this chapter AND that is:
    (A) an antique or curio firearm manufactured before 1899; or
    (B) a replica of an antique or curio firearm manufactured before 1899, but only if the replica does not use rim fire or center fire ammunition.”

    Unfortunately, the law you cite does not say what you say it says.

    It says that IF:
    A. gun is a pre-1899 AND
    B. is better described as a “club”, “spear”, “knife”, “sword”, etc.

    THEN, it is treated as a “club” etc for the purposes of that chapter of the law.

    So, the statement that “[u]nder Texas law, a gun manufactured before 1899 isn’t even considered a “firearm,” therefore not subject to open carry laws,” is not accurate. The word “AND” (emph. added) in the cited section is important. It’s not legalese … it’s only English.

    This is regardless of any other arguments about the legality of the actions of these men, or of the stupidity of the law as written.

  • September 10, 2013 at 11:15am

    Heh. I just read your last comment, Unalien.

    I think we agree.

    My point was that it was not as simple as toppling Syria to get a pipeline — there are further considerations beyond Syria-proper.

    It still seems insane from the perspective of actual U.S. interests. It can’t end well for us to create a Caliphate FOR them. Like choosing to be eaten by a Lion tomorrow to avoid being eaten by a Bear today.

    Me? I’d pick not getting eaten at all.

  • September 10, 2013 at 11:08am

    After reading your last comment, we are in agreement except on one thing. Syria is not the end, it is merely PART. Now there is Saudi Arabia for the Qatari/MB/U.S. agenda to contend with.

    My point is only that undermining/overthrowing Assad does very little for Qatar by itself. They now need to somehow subjugate Saudi Arabia, too (which may have been part of the plan all along).

    Qatar, and the M.B., want a Pan-Arab Caliphate. For reasons religious, political, AND economic (i.e. the religious-socio-economic system called Islam). Not just a Sunni Caliphate; but a Salafist — rather than Wahabbist — Caliphate. Syria is a small, though critical, part of this. The pipeline itself is mostly irrelvant though, because IF they could cross Saudi Arabia, any pipeline could traverse Iraq and avoid Syria altogether. They don’t need Syria for the pipeline.

    A Pan-Arab Caliphate including Syria, however, would give Qatar/M.B. control of Syrian gas, just as they were after natural gas when (with U.S. backing) they overthrew Mubarak in Egypt. Egypt has little oil, but lots of untapped (estimated) gas. Libya has plenty of oil, and the M.B. (with U.S. backing) was behind the overthrow of Qadaffi, too. Without U.S. backing, the M.B. was also the source of the Algerian civil war a decade ago.

    Unfortunately, blocking Russia this way will just end up replacing the petrodollar with the petro-RIAL.

  • September 10, 2013 at 10:44am

    I see your article from 2010, and raise. An article from from one year ago (2012).

    The critical point is paragraph #20:

    “It relies upon the export of LNG, because it is restricted by Saudi Arabia from building pipelines to distant markets. In 2009, the proposal of a pipeline to Europe through Saudi Arabia and Turkey to the Nabucco pipeline was considered, BUT SAUDI ARABIA – that is angered by its smaller and much louder brother – HAS BLOCKED ANY OVERLAND EXPANSION.” (emph. added)

  • September 9, 2013 at 9:56pm

    How will Qatar get its gas into a pipeline located in Syria?

    You see that red line that Glenn drew on the map in the top picture? It does not exist, and it will not exist.

    Suadi Arabia has DENIED PERMISSION to Qatar to build a pipeline across their territory.

    An overland pipeline from Qatar — to anywhere — MUST go across Saudi Arabia. But it CAN’T, because Saudi Arabia will not allow it.

    In short, Syria is NOT about a gas pipeline from Qatar.

  • July 12, 2013 at 10:34pm

    Say, … what’s up with investigations into Benghazi? Not to mention the potential outbreak of WWIII over Syria?
    Or, IRS scandal? EPA? FEC?
    How’s about the National Government scrapping the Constitution to spy on everyone … ALL THE TIME?
    Administration targeting journalists?
    Fast & Furious????
    How about just the ongoing police state at all airports? Or anything that might potentially matter beyond this next week?

    Zimmerman trial? Who cares? The Justice System as a whole is irrevocably broken even if they incidentally arrive at justice once or thrice. There is no Rule of Law in America.

    As for “unrest” in the event of a not guilty verdict ….. no different than the result of a lost (or won) high-stakes NBA game.

  • July 10, 2013 at 10:00pm

    While the tactics of individuals who apparently seek out checkpoints to antagonize law enforcement officials have been criticized,

    “ANTAGONIZE”?!? Refusing to allow the government to infringe one’s God-given, and constitutionally guaranteed RIGHTS is now called “antagonizing” LEOs?

    Wow! What an excellent example of leftist bias in media is on display here from Jason Howerton (who works on the news site of the guy who — with a straight face — says “I will not comply” …. Hah!). It’s subtle (if you’re a mental midget), it’s just one or two characterizations; but it displays fully the lack of understanding of what liberty is, and Mr. Howerton’s ignorance of what it means to live in a free country — as opposed to a fascist police state.

    p.s.: No. That last is neither hyperbole nor even slight exaggeration. This happens ONLY in a fascist police state … nowhere else.

    The Blaze just took another in a long series of steps toward mimicking ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN and the arcane print brethren of the STATE MEDIA. Congratulations.

  • June 26, 2013 at 1:20pm

    Maybe because IT IS homicide. Unreal. I know Glenn doesn’t own a dictionary because of his butchering of the Washington quote he keeps repeating … wrongly. But doesn’t ANYONE at the Blaze, in Glenn’s employ, or ANY member of his audience own one? You don’t need a Law Dictionary in this case, a regular English dictionary will do. If you kill someone, … THAT’S HOMICIDE — even if you did it justifiably in self-defense and never spend a day in jail. If you purposely kill someone without justification or mitigation, then that’s MURDER. Murder is a KIND of homicide. Justifiably killing someone in self-defense is also a KIND of homicide.

  • June 15, 2013 at 9:48pm


    Why can’t he be both? ….
    ….. like John McCain?

  • May 16, 2013 at 10:52pm

    Agreed, Gordon Harvey.

    For Glenn Beck: The “talking points”/youtube video cover story was NOT intended to cover up gun running.

    The cover story was to cover up MURDER.

    The murder (of Stevens, et al.) was the “cover up” of the gun-running.

  • April 6, 2013 at 10:01pm

    Survey finds highschoolers smarter than their own parents.

  • April 6, 2013 at 9:57pm

    No, a person (who’s name is in the headline) would have to be mentally ill, mentally retarded, dangerously and recklessly ignorant, or suffering senile dementia to have not seen it 4 to 5 years ago or more.
    Rush has become an irrelevant joke.

  • March 7, 2013 at 8:02am

    “strikes against Americans on U.S. soil are “unconstitutional.””

    Why is the physical location of the target so important to people?

    Is everybody o.k. with drone strikes on Americans NOT on U.S. soil? Say, if you visit Canada. Would it be constitutional to kill an American citizen in Canada?

    And everyone — including Rand Paul — thinks that’s just hunkey-dorey, eh?

  • February 18, 2013 at 10:24pm

    Tell it to Instapundit

  • February 18, 2013 at 10:20pm

    It’s just the transhumanists getting their first wish granted.

  • February 10, 2013 at 8:27am

    Wonder why Glenn dropped the transhumansim hot potato?

    Responses (1) +
  • February 7, 2013 at 9:45pm

    Once Kurzweil & his allies become transcend humanity (i.e. become no longer “human” because they’re “superhuman”) then “human” nature will matter to them no more than lab-rat nature matters to you or me.
    They will no longer be human and therefore no longer subject to human morality. That is their goal. They will become the lab techs, and you & me will be the lab rats. Lab techs don’t lose sleep over experimentation that causes death or torment in lab rats.
    Lab Rats Unite!!

  • February 6, 2013 at 10:34pm

    Tranhumanism isn’t about technology. It’s about using particcular technologies to create SUPERMEN.
    Transhumanism is about transforming a select “elite” among the current population into super-human beings with greater physical and mental ability, and clinical immortality.
    Once such a race of SUPERMEN is created; guess what happens to the rest of us?

    Responses (1) +