Messianic Jews say they are persecuted in Israel

[DALSIMER 5 column]

Christianity is best represented by Quakers , some Methodists and some others who pursue peace,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, Pat Robertson , John Hagee and Dick Cheney are war mongers and psuedo-chrstians that demand Armageddon .............the Rapture Wingnutz fund traitors like jon pollard , Grinch Gotlieb , Erhard Milch Tevlow and Aldrich Ames Dalsimer of the JDL WINGNUT MILITIA and AIPAC.

[Frijoles]

Voluntarist wrote:

<quoted text>
There were secondary devices in the building, virtually.impossible for the box truck to cause such damage, bomb squad was there BEFORE the explosion, surveilance tapes just happen to be unavailable.

If the question of the hour is what do I think of that - the answer would be that you are nuts.

[Frijoles]

Cult of Reason wrote:

I see the tinfoil hat brigade is busy as ever conjuring up boogey men.

Everybody has a gift in this life.

[Frijoles]

Cult of Reason wrote:

<quoted text>
Not sure I agree with your interpretation of the 2nd amendment. Neither have the courts.

Excellent Op-Ed by a former soldier - gun rights believer on how/why he changed his mind about the issue

http://www.salon.com/2012/12/28/iraq_vet_newt...

Iraq vet: Newtown changed my mind on gun control

I'm a hunter and a vet, and I revere the Second Amendment. But I used bankrupt logic: It's time for gun control

By Liam Madden

".......But my reverence is irrelevant. The Second Amendment stopped giving the insurrectionists among us a chance as soon as military technology advanced beyond the rifle. No modern Shays’ Rebellion is viable, militarily speaking, unless the Second Amendment is read to protect an individual’s right to bear surface-to-air missiles, personally owned Abrams tanks and state-sanctioned depleted uranium artillery. Who in their right mind would want to live in a place that gave access to these things to any person, no matter how law abiding or responsible?..."

[Frijoles]

Voluntarist wrote:

<quoted text>
Do you have some new years resolution stopping you?

Sometimes it helps just to try to be a better person.

[rabbee yehoshooah adam]

DALSIMER 5 column wrote:

Christianity is best represented by Quakers , some Methodists and some others who pursue peace,,,,,,,,,, Pat Robertson , John Hagee and Dick Cheney are war mongers and psuedo-chrstians that demand Armageddon ..........the Rapture Wingnutz fund traitors like jon pollard , Grinch Gotlieb , Erhard Milch Tevlow and Aldrich Ames Dalsimer of the JDL WINGNUT MILITIA and AIPAC.

rabbee: oh come on, not a single one or group you mentioned are christ-like. there ain't any one else in this world, being even close to chrit-like. if anything they, are all more antichrist like to more or lesser degree.

they all ain't even living in the reality, here in TheStory of Creation again. there all living in some, untrue mental idol fantasy. and there ain't ever going to be, peace in this world doing that. even religious worshipers of santa clause, are doing a better job than most religions.

with one particular small group of messianic jews*, doing a slightly better job. with this whole world trying their best, to prove just how pathetic you can all actually be. with this whole world is in a race, in the wrong direction for dead last.

and if christians and jews*, get any worse. you might as well all become pagan muslems and atheists. as i am still waiting to see, if any of you should decide to be true to G-D, here and now in TheTorah. cause i know the next little book after this one, is called Parashas Noach actually to happen.

and whoopee! ain't i, having fun getting to be crucified all over again. in the exact same story again, from HaShem G-D?!! as if this ingrate world ever, really cared about adam and their grandmother. with your it's ok to forever murder and cheat, your grandmother and grandfather.

[Voluntarist]

Frijoles wrote:

<quoted text>
Excellent Op-Ed by a former soldier - gun rights believer on how/why he changed his mind about the issue
http://www.salon.com/2012/12/28/iraq_vet_newt...
Iraq vet: Newtown changed my mind on gun control
I'm a hunter and a vet, and I revere the Second Amendment. But I used bankrupt logic: It's time for gun control
By Liam Madden
".......But my reverence is irrelevant. The Second Amendment stopped giving the insurrectionists among us a chance as soon as military technology advanced beyond the rifle. No modern Shays’ Rebellion is viable, militarily speaking, unless the Second Amendment is read to protect an individual’s right to bear surface-to-air missiles, personally owned Abrams tanks and state-sanctioned depleted uranium artillery. Who in their right mind would want to live in a place that gave access to these things to any person, no matter how law abiding or responsible?..."

The sandy hook school system is a gun free zone, how did that work out?

Sandy Hook Lingerie Party
Massacre 2000
Directed
http://aslashabove.com/2012/07/20/sandy-hook-...

[Voluntarist]

Frijoles wrote:

<quoted text>
If the question of the hour is what do I think of that - the answer would be that you are nuts.

Problem with facts?

[Voluntarist]

Notice and Demand for action to secure
a Writ of Quo Warranto
Now, please understand the effect of such
a document:
1.“Quo Warranto” is a Latin phrase that
essentially asks the question:“By what
authority?”
2. The right of Quo Warranto is an original
remedial right of the people (see: the 9th
Amendment).
3. The right of Quo Warranto is unavoidable
when properly applied at law as follows:
a. Anyone can raise a Quo Warranto challenge
to the Attorney General (hereinafter “AG”);
b. Once so raised, the AG has the right to
choose to either prosecute the matter or
not;
c. If the AG chooses not to prosecute, the
party raising the cause retains the right to
prosecute as an independent prosecutor for
the AG’s office; with the full authority of the
AG’s office to do so;
d. The prosecutor merely raises the contest in
court, the Defendant must then prove Quo
Warranto does not apply or the only
remedy available to the court is, issue a
Writ of Quo Warranto for removal from
office.
4. Because this case is brought against Barrack
Obama’s candidacy, contesting that he does
not lawfully qualify as Candidate for the
Office of U.S. President, he cannot have
been lawfully elected to the President
Elect’s Office;
5. Which means, Barrack Obama will be
compelled to prove that he qualifies as a
“natural born Citizen” in accord with the
Constitution’s requirement at Article 2,§ 1,
clause 5; and,
6. In accord with the Law of Nations,
regardless of Obama’s birthplace, the
Supreme Court has consistently indicated
the constitutional phrase,“natural born
Citizen”, is a child naturally born of parents
both of whom are citizens of the United
States.
Therefore, given the fact that Barrack
Obama’s birth certificate (posted on the
White House website) shows his father was
not a U.S. citizen, Barrack Obama cannot
qualify as a candidate for the office of U.S.
President Elect; accordingly, Quo Warranto
applies and this contest will remove Obama
from the office of President Elect because
he cannot qualify as a lawful candidate.

[Frijoles]

Voluntarist wrote:

<quoted text>
Problem with facts?

No, why do you ask?

[Voluntarist]

Frijoles wrote:

<quoted text>
No, why do you ask?

Lets start with a secondary device, have a problem with that fact?

[Frijoles]

Voluntarist wrote:

<quoted text>
Lets start with a secondary device, have a problem with that fact?

you are making no sense (shocking, I know)

[Voluntarist]

Frijoles wrote:

<quoted text>
Excellent Op-Ed by a former soldier - gun rights believer on how/why he changed his mind about the issue
http://www.salon.com/2012/12/28/iraq_vet_newt...
Iraq vet: Newtown changed my mind on gun control
I'm a hunter and a vet, and I revere the Second Amendment. But I used bankrupt logic: It's time for gun control
By Liam Madden
".......But my reverence is irrelevant. The Second Amendment stopped giving the insurrectionists among us a chance as soon as military technology advanced beyond the rifle. No modern Shays’ Rebellion is viable, militarily speaking, unless the Second Amendment is read to protect an individual’s right to bear surface-to-air missiles, personally owned Abrams tanks and state-sanctioned depleted uranium artillery. Who in their right mind would want to live in a place that gave access to these things to any person, no matter how law abiding or responsible?..."

That makes so much sense, not.

[Voluntarist]

Frijoles wrote:

<quoted text>
you are making no sense (shocking, I know)

Are you off your meds? we are talking about the okc bombing, secondary devices, a fact.

[BlandOatmeal]

This is a test.

[BlandOatmeal]

Wow! I got on, without any of that login/password stuff!

I stumbled upon this thread, while looking for news. Just some comments on the OP:

1. Israel doesn't just persecute Messianics. Moshe Feiglin just got arrested for "bowing" on the Temple Mount. Is that meshuggah, or what?

2. All these people who want to evangelize the Jews... I think it's from God. Evangelically-oriented Christians have been going OUT into the world for centuries, seeking to evangelize "unreached" people. Ithink a major motivation for that, is frustration at trying to preach the Bible to Christians. Not only did they generally not listen and get offended, but some people got burned at the stake for trying it. Better to get cooked for supper by cannibal savages: There's a better benefit-to-cost ration. So now, they've stopped going OUT, and are coming BACK HOME to Jerusalem. It's sort of poetic. On the other hand, I think a lot of Christians are going to Israel to preach, because the Jews are actually MORE receptive and LESS persecuting than the alternative. Can I see a show of hands, for missionaries who want to go to Somalia? Timbuktoo? Waziristan? Jews give Christians a hard time; but after a while, the Christians get wise, and realize that's just the Jewish way of saying "Hello" -- They do it to everyone, especially each other!

3. It beats me, what a "Messianic" is. I've been labelled one by "Christian Forums", with the added embellishment that I'm "Non-Trinitarian", which bars me from theological discussions. I'm not Jewish, and my mother's not Jewish. I avoid truly treif foods (It beats me, for instance, how one can boil a turkey in its mother's milk), and I celebrate Jewish holidays instead of Christian ones, because that's what the followers of Jesus did. How that makes me a "Jew for Jesus", though, is beyond me. By the way, I'm not interested in converting Jews to anything. I honestly don't care. Burn in hell, if you want to -- Do you think I want to go to heaven, and spend eternity with a bunch of people kvetching because they don't want to be there? Who do the Jews take us for?

I guess that's it. Let's see if this gets censored.

Shalom shalom :-)

[BlandOatmeal]

Voluntarist wrote:

Notice and Demand for action to secure
a Writ of Quo Warranto
Now, please understand the effect of such
a document:
1.“Quo Warranto” is a Latin phrase that
essentially asks the question:“By what
authority?”
2. The right of Quo Warranto is an original
remedial right of the people (see: the 9th
Amendment).
3. The right of Quo Warranto is unavoidable
when properly applied at law as follows:
a. Anyone can raise a Quo Warranto challenge
to the Attorney General (hereinafter “AG”);
b. Once so raised, the AG has the right to
choose to either prosecute the matter or
not;
c. If the AG chooses not to prosecute, the
party raising the cause retains the right to
prosecute as an independent prosecutor for
the AG’s office; with the full authority of the
AG’s office to do so;
d. The prosecutor merely raises the contest in
court, the Defendant must then prove Quo
Warranto does not apply or the only
remedy available to the court is, issue a
Writ of Quo Warranto for removal from
office.
4. Because this case is brought against Barrack
Obama’s candidacy, contesting that he does
not lawfully qualify as Candidate for the
Office of U.S. President, he cannot have
been lawfully elected to the President
Elect’s Office;
5. Which means, Barrack Obama will be
compelled to prove that he qualifies as a
“natural born Citizen” in accord with the
Constitution’s requirement at Article 2,§ 1,
clause 5; and,
6. In accord with the Law of Nations,
regardless of Obama’s birthplace, the
Supreme Court has consistently indicated
the constitutional phrase,“natural born
Citizen”, is a child naturally born of parents
both of whom are citizens of the United
States.
Therefore, given the fact that Barrack
Obama’s birth certificate (posted on the
White House website) shows his father was
not a U.S. citizen, Barrack Obama cannot
qualify as a candidate for the office of U.S.
President Elect; accordingly, Quo Warranto
applies and this contest will remove Obama
from the office of President Elect because
he cannot qualify as a lawful candidate.

Hi, Voluntarist.

I'm new here, and seeking to interract a bit. I haven't heard about the birth certificate since Romney got nominated. What happened since then, I believe, is that the United States was successfully invaded by a foreign entity:

http://www.tcm.com/mediaroom/video/238421/Mou...

I'm afraid that America as we knew it has quite disappeared. "Quo Warranto" has become "What it is!" or something. Perhaps those of us who still remember what the US was like under Farmer Jones (from a different movie) can all do aliyah to Israel. There doesn't seem to be much room in Israel, though -- people are getting arrested for building homes, adding bathrooms to their homes, and, worst of all, it seems, LIVING in homes. It makes America under Quo Warranto Obama seem like the land of the free!

Back on the subject of the OP, are you pre-trib, post-trib or Jewish? Just trying to make small talk.

Shalom shalom :-)

[MUQ]

Eric wrote:

What happened to MUQ's posts from Sunday? There were some from early Sunday that I didn't have time to respond and now they are gone.

Is there some conspiracy? Some people "trying at my back" to get them removed?

I also do not have a copy of the replies I wrote, may be you repeat the questions, and we can re-create the response.

[Eric]

MUQ wrote:

<quoted text>
Is there some conspiracy? Some people "trying at my back" to get them removed?
I also do not have a copy of the replies I wrote, may be you repeat the questions, and we can re-create the response.

I was just upset that someone was trying to censor you. You and I don't share the same opinions, but I back your right to express your opinions.

No one should be deprived of their right to communicate.

[Frijoles]

MUQ wrote:

<quoted text>
Is there some conspiracy? Some people "trying at my back" to get them removed?
I also do not have a copy of the replies I wrote, may be you repeat the questions, and we can re-create the response.

Dont let it get to your head. Chances are, the "censorship" was a just random act from a Topix algorithim. If they really wanted you banned, you would be banned.