http://tinyurl.com/yhznva7

Quote :

"Area Man Passionate Defender Of What He Imagines Constitution To Be ESCONDIDO, CA—Spurred by an administration he believes to be guilty of numerous transgressions, self-described American patriot Kyle Mortensen, 47, is a vehement defender of ideas he seems to think are enshrined in the U.S. Constitution and principles that brave men have fought and died for solely in his head. "Our very way of life is under siege," said Mortensen, whose understanding of the Constitution derives not from a close reading of the document but from talk-show pundits, books by television personalities, and the limitless expanse of his own colorful imagination. "It's time for true Americans to stand up and protect the values that make us who we are." According to Mortensen—an otherwise mild-mannered husband, father, and small-business owner—the most serious threat to his fanciful version of the 222-year-old Constitution is the attempt by far-left "traitors" to strip it of its religious foundation. "Right there in the preamble, the authors make their priorities clear: 'one nation under God,'" said Mortensen, attributing to the Constitution a line from the Pledge of Allegiance, which itself did not include any reference to a deity until 1954. "Well, there's a reason they put that right at the top." "Men like Madison and Jefferson were moved by the ideals of Christianity, and wanted the United States to reflect those values as a Christian nation," continued Mortensen, referring to the "Father of the Constitution," James Madison, considered by many historians to be an atheist, and Thomas Jefferson, an Enlightenment-era thinker who rejected the divinity of Christ and was in France at the time the document was written. "The words on the page speak for themselves." According to sources who have read the nation's charter, the U.S. Constitution and its 27 amendments do not contain the word "God" or "Christ." Mortensen said his admiration for the loose assemblage of vague half-notions he calls the Constitution has only grown over time. He believes that each detail he has pulled from thin air—from prohibitions on sodomy and flag-burning, to mandatory crackdowns on immigrants, to the right of citizens not to have their hard-earned income confiscated in the form of taxes—has contributed to making it the best framework for governance "since the Ten Commandments." "And let's not forget that when the Constitution was ratified it brought freedom to every single American," Mortensen said. Mortensen's passion for safeguarding the elaborate fantasy world in which his conception of the Constitution resides is greatly respected by his likeminded friends and relatives, many of whom have been known to repeat his unfounded assertions verbatim when angered. Still, some friends and family members remain critical. "Dad's great, but listening to all that talk radio has put some weird ideas into his head," said daughter Samantha, a freshman at Reed College in Portland, OR. "He believes the Constitution allows the government to torture people and ban gay marriage, yet he doesn't even know that it guarantees universal health care." Mortensen told reporters that he'll fight until the bitter end for what he roughly supposes the Constitution to be. He acknowledged, however, that it might already be too late to win the battle. "The freedoms our Founding Fathers spilled their blood for are vanishing before our eyes," Mortensen said. "In under a year, a fascist, socialist regime has turned a proud democracy into a totalitarian state that will soon control every facet of American life." "Don't just take my word for it," Mortensen added. "Try reading a newspaper or watching the news sometime.""

I felt this was a nice complement to my widely believed facts thread.

[Edited on July 13, 2010 at 11:41 AM. Reason : i -> e, ty]

7/13/2010 11:26:19 AM

*complement

7/13/2010 11:30:58 AM

Quote :

"He believes the Constitution allows the government to torture people and ban gay marriage, yet he doesn't even know that it guarantees universal health care"

Hmph. I just learned something.

7/13/2010 11:34:42 AM

old

7/13/2010 11:45:35 AM

^Not to Joshua.

7/13/2010 11:51:04 AM

This guy reminds me of the Constitution Party, which really has nothing to do with the Constitution....
...and is really just a bunch of Christian bullshit.

Quote :

"Right there in the preamble, the authors make their priorities clear: 'one nation under God,'" said Mortensen, attributing to the Constitution a line from the Pledge of Allegiance, which itself did not include any reference to a deity until 1954. "Well, there's a reason they put that right at the top."

7/13/2010 12:02:34 PM

^

7/13/2010 12:06:23 PM

This guy needs to brush up on the Constitution as well as U.S. history.

7/13/2010 12:17:50 PM

Thanks Russia, for making our paranoid grandfathers add that stupid ass line to our pledge.

Our Founding Fathers were mostly deists, and Thomas Jefferson was surely an atheist. Separation of church and state was a very big deal to them and it's evident in the Constitution and everything else they wrote.

But no, we should respect everyone's religious beliefs because they have no impact on anyone else.

7/13/2010 12:33:44 PM

^^^
What?


[Edited on July 13, 2010 at 12:37 PM. Reason : (agreeing with me?)]

7/13/2010 12:36:08 PM

This guy is way too stupid to have made it 47 years in life...

7/13/2010 12:58:44 PM

^^^let's not forget leading them to make "in god we trust" the national motto 2 years later and put it on all money that didn't already have it

7/13/2010 1:06:58 PM

Quote :

""Dad's great, but listening to all that talk radio has put some weird ideas into his head," said daughter Samantha, a freshman at Reed College in Portland, OR. "He believes the Constitution allows the government to torture people and ban gay marriage, yet he doesn't even know that it guarantees universal health care.""

lol good one

7/13/2010 1:16:23 PM

7/13/2010 1:31:08 PM

lol, didn't check the source.

But don't delude yourself into thinking there aren't people in this country trying to turn us into a Christian theocracy. Or that there aren't moderate religious people that extol faith as a virtue that allows this bullshit to happen.

7/13/2010 1:33:41 PM

yes, but its truths, including everything not attributed to the man or his daughter, are profound

7/13/2010 1:34:45 PM

tinyurl and the Onion teamed up to get me on that one.

That it is a believable piece makes me .

7/13/2010 1:41:19 PM

It took me a minute to realize that some of you actually thought this was a serious article.

7/13/2010 6:00:42 PM

Quote :

"But don't delude yourself into thinking there aren't people in this country trying to turn us into a Christian theocracy. Or that there aren't moderate religious people that extol faith as a virtue that allows this bullshit to happen. "

That's what's funny... obviously this is an exaggeration, but it does reflect how a lot of the so-called libertarians on the Internet are.

7/13/2010 6:03:56 PM

^^There's actually an entire book about the lies promulgated by the Right to support the dangerous notion that America was founded to be a Christian nation: http://www.liarsforjesus.com/
I can barely wait for Volumes II and III to be released.

7/13/2010 6:11:27 PM

Hey, in Texas, the main book buying state in the US that helps set the curriculum for all our kids, they are writing separation of church and state out of the text books & downplaying Jefferson. They're getting rid of the word capitalism too b/c its too offensive, preferring instead "free-enterprise system" as easier to sell.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/13/education/13texas.html

Quote :

"Texas Conservatives Win Curriculum Change AUSTIN, Tex. — After three days of turbulent meetings, the Texas Board of Education on Friday approved a social studies curriculum that will put a conservative stamp on history and economics textbooks, stressing the superiority of American capitalism, questioning the Founding Fathers’ commitment to a purely secular government and presenting Republican political philosophies in a more positive light. The vote was 10 to 5 along party lines, with all the Republicans on the board voting for it."

How I wish that too was an Onion article

7/13/2010 6:27:38 PM

that's old news by now, and I remember back then there were still a few hurdles before the Texas Board of Education could finally set our kids on the road to perdition

7/13/2010 6:29:07 PM

Quote :

"But don't delude yourself into thinking there aren't people in this country trying to turn us into a Christian theocracy. Or that there aren't moderate religious people that extol faith as a virtue that allows this bullshit to happen."

Take your pick. This so-called Christian theocratic movement is infinitely superior in every way to what Europe is facing in its Islamic future.

And if without the hispanics and their high birth rate, we'd be facing the same demographic future. Europe has thoroughly shown that the pluralistic diversity-worship cannot hold back the aggression of a totalitarian religion. Sponges don't stand up to swords.

The only reason Europe exists as it currently does is because it was previously unified in opposition to the invading Muslims. Without that unity, they are done. It will be interesting to see which way we go.

[Edited on July 13, 2010 at 6:47 PM. Reason : g]

7/13/2010 6:46:43 PM

^Christianity isn't necessary to Democracy. Just a few examples off the top of my head.

Countries: Ancient Greece, India, Israel, Turkey
Primary religions: Polytheistic, Hindu, Jewish, Muslim

Quote :

"they are done. It will be interesting to see which way we go."

Muslims have ruined Europe already, so now all that's left to see is if they ruin our little island too?

7/13/2010 7:03:31 PM

^Europe's fate is sealed. Nearly every country in it will have a Muslim majority before you and I die. The birth rate and demographic trend is irreversible at this point.

I know Christianity is not necessary for Democracy. But Islam will not tolerate it, at least not a democracy with equal rights for Muslims and non-Muslims. Turkey is balancing a temporary, unstable equilibrium, and isn't exactly a shining beacon, even though it is the closest thing anyone can point to.

Europe can thank it's uncritical acceptance of all 'diverse' views and this attitude (http://www.thewolfweb.com/message_topic.aspx?topic=598204) constitutes voluntary cultural suicide.

[Edited on July 13, 2010 at 7:15 PM. Reason : a]

7/13/2010 7:13:48 PM

damn, I'm glad I clicked the link. I was about to have a shit fit.

7/13/2010 7:17:44 PM

7/13/2010 8:14:11 PM

I hate that guy for pissing on the Constitution by defying a Supreme Court ruling deeming the forced removal of the Cherokee via the "Trail of Tears" a big no-no.

7/13/2010 9:14:34 PM

Quote :

"Take your pick. This so-called Christian theocratic movement is infinitely superior in every way to what Europe is facing in its Islamic future."

Oh, are those my only choices?

7/14/2010 9:30:11 AM

ahh, the onion. clever supplanter, clever!

7/14/2010 9:56:24 AM

Quote :

"Europe's fate is sealed. Nearly every country in it will have a Muslim majority before you and I die."

While I don't know the demographic trends well enough to know how much truth there is to that, I'm still wondering how that is inherently bad thing as you seem to suggest with:

Quote :

"Christian theocratic movement is infinitely superior in every way to what Europe is facing in its Islamic future. "

Quote :

"they are done"

Quote :

"Europe's fate is sealed."

All the Muslims I've met practice their religion in a way that seems no different in terms of impact on the society in which I live than does the practice of Christianity.

Hypothetically speaking, lets say England does become majority Muslim in 75 years. Why should I believe the majority on that side of the pond would practice their religion in a way worse than what I've seen here rather than in a way that assimilates into democracy?

7/14/2010 12:05:49 PM

I think the argument is that enforcing Sharia law is worse than enforcing fundamentalist Christian law.

This argument will probably be made by a Christian.

As an aside, I saw the NC Secular billboard on Capital today. Beautiful.

7/14/2010 12:58:48 PM

Eh, I guess I can kinda see part of what he's saying. "Fundamentalist Christian law" is bad, but the people who promote it only focus on a handful of things -- gays and abortion are bad, teaching creation and shit are good. Very few people promote the full laundry list, the Gary Birdsong list if you will, of making women stay in the kitchen dressing modestly and oppressing nonbelievers. And these people are generally thought of as the lunatics they are.

My impression is that in Islam there's a larger group of people who want to go "whole hog" (chosen for irony) on the Sharia thing. I mean, how many people worldwide are involved in political parties whose express purpose is the implementation of "fundamentalist Christian law" compared to the number in parties whose express purpose is the implementation of Sharia?

That said, I'm with supplanter in thinking that the large majority of Muslims in Europe will assimilate into democracy just fine, and the only reason anybody worries about the democratic shift is that white people are scared of getting outnumbered.

7/14/2010 1:41:50 PM

^That really is our only hope. Islam has to be diluted by Western materialism and relativism. Give them enough money and McDonald's and maybe they'll drop the sword.

But it doesn't really appear to be working.

France, Holland, Belgium, Germany, etc. are on the front lines of this, and even the 2nd generation Muslim immigrants are no better than their parents.

Quote :

"Hypothetically speaking, lets say England does become majority Muslim in 75 years. Why should I believe the majority on that side of the pond would practice their religion in a way worse than what I've seen here rather than in a way that assimilates into democracy?"

Have you seen European muslims? The Islamic community is humble, peaceful and minds their own business.....until there is enough of them.

You really could not ask for these countries to have been any more welcoming to Muslim immigrants than they have been. And now, there is starting to be a backlash, even in the greatest holdouts for tolerance. Islam is not compatible with civil society, and people are starting to see that.

Bland and blind multicultralism cannot hold its ground in the face of it, unless Islam is diluted and changed. A stronger worldview could fight back and stand.

So why will they be worse than the Muslims you know? Because the Muslims you know are not in charge yet, frankly. Africa, the Middle East, and Southeast Asia can all testify here. Once a majority, the "Muslims you know" will not be "the Muslims you know" any more.

Quote :

"Oh, are those my only choices?"

So, pretty much, yes. A strong worldview will always win over a weak worldview. That means the current state of affairs is unlikely to continue indefinitely.

[Edited on July 14, 2010 at 2:08 PM. Reason : s]

7/14/2010 2:04:03 PM

Quote :

"Islam has to be diluted by Western materialism and relativism. Give them enough money and McDonald's and maybe they'll drop the sword. "

This is true of all religions. Europeans were shitting on the street when religion ruled their lives, until someone finally said, "Fuck this, I'd like to actually have some money" and it turned out money was awesome.

Quote :

"You really could not ask for these countries to have been any more welcoming to Muslim immigrants than they have been."

hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

OK, OK, I'm sorry, I wasn't sure that you were trolling until this part. My apologies. Disregard the rest of my post.

7/14/2010 2:12:36 PM

Wait, so allowing Muslims to grow from 0% to 10% of your population within a generation (legally) is unfriendly to Muslim immigrants? (France)

Allowing Muslims who are foreign citizens to hold office in your country is mean to them? (Netherlands)

Allowing your congressmen to be formal advisory staff on the payroll of a foreign nation is intolerant? (Netherlands)

When the Prime Ministers of multiple nations have actually stated that these immigrants can be governed by their own odious laws...that's a move against diversity? (All of them)

Quote :

"This is true of all religions. Europeans were shitting on the street when religion ruled their lives, until someone finally said, "Fuck this, I'd like to actually have some money" and it turned out money was awesome."

Yeah, except that's not at all how it happened.

[Edited on July 14, 2010 at 2:23 PM. Reason : s]

7/14/2010 2:21:56 PM

http://ncsumsa.org/constitution/

Quote :

"ARTICLE I - Aims and Purposes Section 1 The aim and purpose of the MSA is to serve the best interest of Islam and of the Muslims of North Carolina State University. Towards this end, the MSA shall: 1) Promote unity and joint action among the Muslims. 2) Conduct religious, social, cultural, and other activities in the best traditions of Islam. 3) Arrange and hold congregational prayers and Islamic religious festivals at appropriate times. 4) Promote friendly relations between Muslims and non-Muslims. 5) Endeavor to make Islamic teachings known to interested non-Muslims. 6) Provide Islamic education for Muslim students through Lectures, Halaqahs etc. 7) Act as a support group for Muslim students."

Doesn't get more evil than that...

7/14/2010 2:23:19 PM

^Look up Taqiyya and Kitman.

[Edited on July 14, 2010 at 2:26 PM. Reason : a]

7/14/2010 2:26:18 PM

Quote :

"Within the Shia theological framework,[1] the concept of taqiyya (???? - 'fear, caution, fear of God or of sin', also taghiyeh)[2] refers to a dispensation allowing believers to conceal their faith when under threat, persecution or compulsion."

-wiki

So they only reason Muslim students at NCSU aren't out destroying democracy for us all is because they feel threatened in a college atmosphere/environment from expressing their true/secret thoughts?

People choose how to practice their religion. I'm having trouble seeing any large organized religion as being significantly different in how well they could coexist with democracy in America.

Quote :

"It will be interesting to see which way we go."

So if you think this is such a problem, what do you propose we do about it?

7/14/2010 2:37:17 PM

Christianity is preferred to Islam simply because of their relative impact on society (less is better).

So the obvious answer is to get rid of both completely. At the very least in terms of their impact to society.

7/14/2010 2:43:54 PM

Quote :

"Wait, so allowing Muslims to grow from 0% to 10% of your population within a generation (legally) is unfriendly to Muslim immigrants? (France)"

As opposed to what, passing specifically anti-Muslim immigration laws?

We can go tit-for-tat if you want:

So banning the construction of religious structures is welcoming to Muslims? (Switzerland)

Worrying about Turkey joining the EU because you don't want a massive influx of Muslim immigrants is welcoming to the same? (All of them)

Based on your bold claim that we could not ask for Europe "to have been any more welcoming to Muslim immigrants," I don't have to meet a very high standard with my examples. Anything less than perfectly friendly makes you wrong.

Although apparently you have a warped view of how friendly we can expect them to be, since you consider "not specifically banning them from coming to the country" to be exceedingly welcoming.

7/14/2010 2:44:52 PM

It's funny that this nation of immigrants has such a long history of panic and hyperventilation over immigration.

7/14/2010 3:22:42 PM

^^Those (isolated) examples of policy against Muslim immigration are relatively recent. When I say Europe could not have been more welcoming, I mean over the past 50 years.

Only recently has the multicultural, pluralistic, cultural equivalence-loving Euro-Left started to question that approach.

The fact that the most hippie, relativist, post-modern, anything-goes continent in the world would start to draw a line in the sand is proof of exactly what I'm talking about. When the sword started to meet the sponge, the sponge started realizing that maybe it should toughen up.

[Edited on July 14, 2010 at 6:53 PM. Reason : a]

7/14/2010 6:52:36 PM

Quote :

"It will be interesting to see which way we go."

Okay, you think Muslims are a problem, and that Europe is basically lost. What do you suggest America should do?

7/14/2010 7:01:40 PM

Get the fuck out of the Middle East (in every way, sanctions and trade restrictions gone also), and quit making Islam worse than it already is. It's already inherently totalitarian and aggressive, and we don't need to give the average Mohammed over there any more reason to be radicalized.

My money and McDonald's strategy to kill Islam cannot work if we keep pushing them back into the Koran to find even more excuses to cut our throats.

This serves another purpose. It will expose Islam for exactly what it is. You see, if we pulled out every America soldier, and got rid of every American entanglement, restriction, sanction, and pressure in the region, their attacks would not stop. But, the entire non-Muslim world would then see it for what it is, and not be fooled any longer.

That's a start. On the domestic side and immigration issue, we could do some other things, but that's the heart of what would help in the long-run.

[Edited on July 14, 2010 at 7:12 PM. Reason : d]

7/14/2010 7:11:41 PM

I would not be opposed to us banning full blown burqas in gov. buildings in the US on the basis of oppression of women, but i would be opposed to the banning of head scarves.

Quote :

"This serves another purpose. It will expose Islam for exactly what it is. You see, if we pulled out every America soldier, and got rid of every American entanglement, restriction, sanction, and pressure in the region, their attacks would not stop. But, the entire non-Muslim world would then see it for what it is, and not be fooled any longer. "

I don't think this is true. It's easy to believe this because we have demonized the mid eastern people for so long, but they aren't savages.

[Edited on July 14, 2010 at 7:14 PM. Reason : ]

7/14/2010 7:12:32 PM

Quote :

"I would not be opposed to us banning full blown burqas in gov. buildings in the US on the basis of oppression of women"

Wow.
No one is forcing them to wear burqas.
And if someone is, that's the real crime, not the women merely wearing a particular article of clothing...

You want to restrict the actions of alleged victims to punish, who?
What if a women who is forced to wear a burqa does so after such a law is passed. Do we arrest her?
Have you all lost your fucking minds?

(It's amazing how you authoritarians think sometimes....)


Also, if it's on the basis of oppression of women, why would you limit it government buildings? WTF?

[Edited on July 14, 2010 at 7:32 PM. Reason : ]

7/14/2010 7:31:03 PM

Quote :

"No one is forcing them to wear burqas. "

LOL

7/14/2010 7:31:43 PM

^
Troll much?
Are you really gonna take a quote out of context, right after I posted it?

Quote :

"No one is forcing them to wear burqas. And if someone is, that's the real crime, not the women merely wearing a particular article of clothing..."

Seriously. What you said is 100% indefensible. You are a monster.

7/14/2010 7:34:22 PM

Do you know what a burqa is?

If you're a muslim women in America wearing a burqa, you are most likely being forced to do it.

7/14/2010 7:39:58 PM