I am sorry that I have to disagree regarding Islam being peaceful. Within the Koran there are no less than 109 places where nonbelievers must be searched out and k**led. And if a Muslim does not, then Alah will send them to Hell. Here are just a few examples, and more can be found at http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/quran/023-violence.htm

Quran (2:191-193) - "And k**l them wherever you find them, and turn them out from where they have turned you out. And Al-Fitnah [disbelief] is worse than k*****g...

but if they desist, then lo! Allah is forgiving and merciful. And fight them until there is no more Fitnah [disbelief and worshipping of others along with Allah] and worship is for Allah alone. But if they cease, let there be no t***sgression except against Az-Zalimun (the polytheists, and wrong-doers, etc.)" The historical context of this passage is not defensive warfare, since Muhammad and his Muslims had just relocated to Medina and were not under attack by their Meccan adversaries. In fact, the verses urge offensive warfare, in that Muslims are to drive Meccans out of their own city (which they later did). The use of the word "persecution" by some Muslim t***slators is thus disingenuous (the actual Muslim words for persecution - "idtihad" - and oppression - a variation of "z-l-m" - do not appear in the verse). The actual Arabic comes from "fitna" which can mean disbelief, or the disorder that results from unbelief or temptation. Taken as a whole, the context makes clear that violence is being authorized until "religion is for Allah" - ie. unbelievers desist in their unbelief.

Quran (2:244) - "Then fight in the cause of Allah, and know that Allah Heareth and knoweth all things."

Quran (2:216) - "Fighting is prescribed for you, and ye dislike it. But it is possible that ye dislike a thing which is good for you, and that ye love a thing which is bad for you. But Allah knoweth, and ye know not." Not only does this verse establish that violence can be virtuous, but it also contradicts the myth that fighting is intended only in self-defense, since the audience was obviously not under attack at the time. From the Hadith, we know that this verse was narrated at a time that Muhammad was actually trying to motivate his people into raiding merchant caravans for l**t.

Quran (3:56) - "As to those who reject faith, I will punish them with terrible agony in this world and in the Hereafter, nor will they have anyone to help."

Quran (3:151) - "Soon shall We cast terror into the hearts of the Unbelievers, for that they joined companions with Allah, for which He had sent no authority". This speaks directly of polytheists, yet it also includes Christians, since they believe in the Trinity (ie. what Muhammad incorrectly believed to be 'joining companions to Allah').

Quran (4:74) - "Let those fight in the way of Allah who sell the life of this world for the other. Whoso fighteth in the way of Allah, be he slain or be he victorious, on him We shall bestow a vast reward." The martyrs of Islam are unlike the early Christians, led meekly to the slaughter. These Muslims are k**led in battle, as they attempt to inflict death and destruction for the cause of Allah. Here is the theological basis for today's suicide bombers.

As said, this is only a sample.

Having said that, I insist that most people are good. Most people are kind hearted. I know that there are religions that teach us to be guarded, to shun those that do not believe as they, and in the past have done horrible things in the name of religion.

When I say art, they have vaults of originals canvases. Many of these pieces can be sold to private collectors for billions. I would not dream of thinking of spoiling the frescos or murals. Those I believe are part of the buildings and should not be spoiled or sold. But, they could start by not charging a fee to enter Vatican City.

Thank you for your support. I think if the Pope decides to follow in the footsteps, then he will have plenty of mail from the field. Many churches have vast holdings, I am not saying it is right or wrong, but only a small percentage of their wealth is spent on community or poverty.

Again, I do admire this Pope and I pray he has a long and happy life!

Has anyone heard of the new benefit that Obama is quietly putting in place to repay the Unions for helping his e******n?

http://hotair.com/archives/2013/11/27/yep-unions-get-their-exemption-from-obamacares-reinsurance-fee/

http://www.aon.com/human-capital-consulting/thought-leadership/leg_updates/healthcare/reports-pubs_ACA_Reinsurance_Fees_Hits_Employers_2014.jsp

So, if you have signed up for Obamacare and think you know the cost of your plans, well it seems that the plan keeps changing and more and more business, government favored individuals, and Unions are being let off the hook and your have now become the bait.

This is in addition to the "honor system" the government has put Insurance Companies. Here is a list of companies where your money is going to bail out!

http://projects.propublica.org/bailout/list

I have thought about this and have to say that I admire the current Pope. He is a simple man who will not accept all the funerary of the Church, thinks more of others than himself, and does appear to emulate the Christ. If I am correct, then he will need to start with his own church and start with a mass distribution of the Church's holdings. I wonder if his brothers/sisters will permit a redistribution of the billions in art, artifacts, gold, silver, lands, and so on.

And people say that he is not the Grinch who wants to steal Christmas. Perhaps he does not celebrate Christmas?? I bet that this would not be tolerated if one of these dancers was his own daughter. No! That would be raciest!!

I do believe that they are overwhelmed. I am for arming them, and for them to carry out their oath to protect the border and if necessary send the military because I know that oath. To protect and defend our nation from enemies both foreign and domestic. There has been too many of our border patrol who have lost their lives.

The border patrol has received only minimal support from this Administration, Obama. Obama is all for opening the borders and not just for Latinos, but to anyone and anything.

So, I am not sure whey you are asking me this question. Perhaps you could address it to Catpaw who seems to think that Obama has put sufficient energy into protecting our border.

You may be right, but I think that there is a judge in Alabama Supreme Court that is reviewing the documents and statements. I do not know how far it has progressed, but I do know that the judge in question is a strong Constitutionalist, I think his name is Roy Moore. He has a strong record.

:thumbup: :thumbup:
Whereas some people would argue that any source presented is potential tainted sources, one must ask the question of how to decide. If a court reviews the document, the experts, and related persons of interest and finds the document questionable or as many believe (as I do) that it is a forgery, then will that be good enough? Or will the same people say that the judge is not a Liberal and therefor their opinion does not count. Where does this end? I suggest that the document, along with all evidence for and against present their information to the court and let a judge decide based on testimony and evidence. If the judge rules that it is a forgery, then impeach Obama and jail time for anyone participating or having knowledge that the document was forged. If this includes Obama, then put him in jail. We deserve more than what we are getting in the form of t***h on many accounts, better leadership, a more involved representation for the concerns of citizens of this grate nation.

Sorry LaddyBoy, but I do not know to whom you are responding. Please use the quote reply button. It makes it much easier to follow the threads. Thank you

There are some questions about the original post and remarks made that it is a simple effort to sell a book. Therefore I went in search of evidence and found some interesting reading at : http://www.mrconservative.com/2013/05/16111-alabama-supreme-court-reviews-shocking-evidence-obamas-birth-certificate-likely-a-forgery/

This is in reference to a court case, but keep reading. About half way down the "long form birth certificate" is discussed at length.

Your comments are outstanding. I went to some lengths to answer this person by each point. But, I could have saved myself the effort had I read your post first.:thumbup: :thumbup:

And, thank you for the nod, I am honored that you read my input. Thank you!
:-D

(1.) The letter of law should supercede basic motives of survival and equate it to criminal behavior.
Absolutely. If I may, you misspelled supersede. Regarding the law. Whether you are visiting another country or people are visiting my country the USA, the laws of the land must be obeyed.

(2.) Anyone in this country, no matter how they got here, is subject to our laws. That includes the Bill of Rights and the 14th amendment. I don't recall the 14th amendment segregating a segment of population and making them an exception.

You must look at individual clauses to determine the meaning, the original intent, and the definitions of the language used at the time. The founding fathers, largely due to loyalists to Great Britain discouraged divided loyalties and wanted to guard against divided allegiances. Senators Howard and Trumbaull wished to be consistent with the original intent as possible. I can suggest some interesting reading but most of it comes from legal analysis of the Supreme Court, the National Achieves, and scholars. Send me a PM if you wish more information, but due to the length of the documents and consideration for others I have not included the data. Now then, if you are still reading. On to the next part in understanding the Constitutional Rights, we must examine the word “jurisdiction.” The word “jurisdiction” in the citizenship clause, according to the Congressional Globe, meant “full allegiance to the United States.” According to Immigration: “The formal removal of an alien from the United States when the alien has been found removable for violating the i*********n l*ws. Deportation is ordered by an immigration judge without any punishment being imposed or contemplated. “Now then, it would appear that crossing the border without proper documentation make this a violation of i*********n l*ws.

As for i*****l a***ns, and their “right” to constitutional protections, as non-citizens that have intruded upon our nation by breaking i*********n l*w, should they be afforded the same protections as law-abiding citizens? The key comes down to the desire to protect us from those who have divided loyalties. In fact, in the case of i*****l a***ns, they are really nothing different than the member of an enemy faction in the United States, for like a terrorist group, they have invaded our nation. Should invaders receive those constitutional protections?

It may be prudent to return to definitions. The definition of invasion according to the American Heritage College Dictionary is: 1. To enter by force in order to conquer or pillage, 2. To encroach or intrude on; violate, 3. To overrun as if by invading; infest, 4. To enter and permeate, especially harmfully. Entering the United States illegally, which means the potential immigrants broke American i*********n l*ws, the aliens have intruded, encroached, and indeed forced their way into the country.
Article IV, Section 4 states that the United States government will protect the States against invasion.
Surely, members of an invading force should not be afforded these constitutional protections.

As for a further argument regarding the applicability of the Constitution to citizens, and not non-citizens, you can also derive a definition from the Preamble, itself. The Preamble, though not holding any legal authority, as the Constitution’s introduction it sets a few parameters and definitions. The first three words are “We The People,” but We The People of what? “Of The United States.” This would indicate that if We The People are “of the United States,” it is citizens being referred to. Later, whenever the people is mentioned, which is throughout the Constitution, the people is defined by that first sentence, which indicates that the people are “of the United States,” or “citizens,” or at worst, citizens and legal residents. The Fourth Amendment begins “The right of the people. . . ” Who are “the people?” We the People of the United States.
. . . and so on. This is, I think, a good that the Constitution was written to apply to the federal government, and to protect “citizens” from that central government.

(3.) Deporting 11 million residents in not a practical solution, and probably impossible.

Wherein your comment would make perfect sense if the population of i******s were stagnate. That is they do not leave and return, hold traceable jobs, drive cars, rent abodes, and so forth, then you would be right. The key, as I see it is limit the number of new entrants and make it less attractive for illegal ones to stay and make it easier and more attractive to leave, then we could decrease the size of the i*****l a***n population without any need to deport them all at one time. See the graph for a visual understanding.

(4.) Past apathy of lax border security has been a consent to i*****l i*********n. How soon you forget that George Bush dropped the pretense and extended an open border policy to Vicinte Fox during a White House visit.

This point is not arguable. President Bush is not the president now and we cannot change the past. We can only work with the current situation to prevent future problems.
References; http://www.14thamendment.us/articles/anchor_babies_unconstitutionality.html
https://cis.org/immigrant-flows
http://www.uscis.gov/tools/citizenship-resource-center

Allow me to add my voice to those who are welcoming you to the forum.

SWEET! I am so very happy for you. I know that trucks are a guy thing, but there is just something about a pickup truck! Love it. Hope it gives you and your wife miles and miles of bliss!