John of AllFaith is Multiplying!

This is interesting. Thanks for adding it!

We indeed need to do something.
We could do something
Will we do anything?

Hi Midnight,
In the main I agree. There is no new information in this video for me either to speak of. However it will be new for many people.
As for historic cycles, there are a few important differences today though.
1. Israel has been reestablished (as the prophets foretold).
2. The technology did not exist before to control the planet as it does today.
3. The Novus Ordo Seclorum (New Secular Age) and its soon fulfillment (judging by appearance) is a very old plan that is only now coming to fruition. We have experienced pieces of it before but never a full frontal global assault.
4. There have always been opposition parties to resist the globalist. If the NWO manages to stop the Islamic Ummah there will be no serious opposition to their plans. If the Ummah prevails in establishing the global caliphate it offers nothing better (or worse).
5. Never before has humankind had the potential to destroy all life on the planet.
6. Never before has the entire western world be more asleep and ready to embrace a global dictatorship. This shows no signs of changing anytime soon.

So no, Alex doesn't rock the boat here with new information, but there is information that many many people don't know. The video is well researched, well presented and as far as I can tell completely accurate.

Thanks for your thoughts.

Hi John,

By the way I don't think I thanked you for the link to this video. I'd been wanting to watch it but until we got rid of Hughesnet for our ISP I couldn't. So thanks!

What any of us should do is a tough one.
IF we only focus on centering, on meditation and sadhana there will be no opposition to what they are doing.

I think a big part of the problem is that, "united we stand, divided we fall" but there are very few standing united against this.

In my case, I put much of my energy into blogging and sharing information. One person posting a message on the internet can impact millions (directly and indirectly). The more people understand what is going on the better the possibility of resistance.

I also talk about these thing in my off-line contacts, but as I am largely a recluse I share more on-line than off.

I have spoken about these events coming to fruition since the 1970's. Now that they are manifesting so clearly in the manifest realms that only the willfully blind do not see what's happening I am somewhat encouraged.

There is no doubt that We the People could still nip this evil in the bud if we chose to act decisively. As of now that is nowhere in sight, however many people are beginning to wake up.

In my opinion, what I tell my sons, is that the best any of us can do at this point is do what we need to do to maintain ourselves in the world as IF the end were not in sight, but keep our eyes and ears open. Get your degree, study, learn, and act as you are able and feel led.

There will probably be a major uprising before the death of our nation. Be ready to take part. It is probable that pockets of the country will hold fast. Try and be in one of these areas as they make their Stands.

Stay/get healthy (I'm currently on a much needed fast/diet to try and get in better physical shape).
If you are on any medications try and get off of them as the NWO will be/allegedly is adding mind control substances to them (but don't jeopardize your health to do this).

Go to Alex Jone's web sites and stay in touch:
http://www.infowars.com
http://www.prisonplanet.com
(but don't support Ron Paul).
And similar information sources, such as Freedom to Fascism: http://www.freedomtofascism.com

Be skeptical of EVERYTHING you hear on the US/NWO controlled propaganda media sources (CNN, FOX News, MSNBC, ABC, CBS, NBC, New York Times, BBC, etc. etc.) as well as the so-called liberal news sources (Democracy Now! Link TV, PBS, Free Speech TV, etc.).

Study the prophesies if you are so inclined. There is much wisdom in them (regardless of religion, 'The Spirit moveth to and fro' ).

If you do astral projection, remote viewing, trance work, etc. there is a HUGE amount of possible wisdom to be realized and assistance to be given, but be aware that just as there are negative material powers afoot, there are also negative spiritual forces that can, do and will seek to deceive you and block your work of hindering the Rex Mundi.

Make no mistake, this is war. This is real. As of now the extra-material battlefields are least as active in these struggles as the material fields. For those who are skilled in this area, there is much important work to be done in non-material/trans-material reality. Read my articles on the Sheep and the Goats parable if you haven't (http://allfaith.com/Religions/AllFaith/sheep.html). Those who are "Sheep" can do a LOT to help! One needs only the desire.

Don't become overwhelmed! Stop and smell the Roses and other flowers. There remains great good in this world. A critical danger exists for those who take up the Cause that they may become obsessed and lose their balance. This is not a good thing! Balance is absolutely essential.

On a mundane level, establishing autocephalic communities is good. There are too few of these as now.

Networking with others can be very helpful, although again, 'discretion is the better part of valor.' Assume you are under surveillance (we all are to some degree). Assume that every site you visit, especially those dealing with these sorts of issues, are being monitored (they almost certainly are).

Several people wrongly believe that by looking at the viewing history on the bottom of these pages one can know who has been to a given page. These are easily gotten around. At Y! 360 a few of my friends had software they thought was dependable but they never saw my visits to their blogs because I used software too. These tracking plug-ins are easy to get around.

Decide in your mind what level of commitment you have. Are you prepared to go to jail? To face "extraordinary rendition"? To be beaten? Dismembered? There are no right and wrong determinations in this, but its good to be clear in your own mind.

Personally, I have expected to die as a martyr resisting the Rex Mundi since 1969. I have no problems with this death. If I have not died before the Mark is issued and declared mandatory I will absolutely refuse it whatever the costs (and may reject the soon-to-be released pre-cursor REAL ID depending on whether it contains the RFID chip and any requisite vows -- I will pledge my allegiance to no country, no government, no church, no nothing whatever the cost).

BUT I don't want to throw my life away either, I want my martyrdom or declaration of non-personhood to mean something, so there are limits I will not, at this time, cross. For instance, I wont do a frontal assault on a Bilderberg center or a CIA black site. That would serve no purpose (at this time at least).

The overall picture of the New World Order (Novus Ordo Mundi) and the New Secular Order (Novus Ordo Seclorum) is now pretty clear. The details are all that remains. The servants of Rex Mundi are flexible in these, and we must be as well.

'Having done all to stand, STAND."

Now sprinkling fairy dust over my head, imagining Tahiti, and wishing you roses to stop and smell.
Going back to my happy place. La, la, la.
Life's too short. Buy some bubble gum!

Sigh....
Art will depict that which it criticizes. Remember Robert Mapplethorpe? Surely you do. He photographed a crucifix immersed in urine. It was provocative. It was political.
Should the art exhibit at the airport post just anything without comment or discretion?
Absolutely! The relationship is between the artist and the audience without censorship, or it is not art. I admire provocative pieces in particular. I don't give a rat's ass about non-controversial landscapes and still lifes.
Should rape or pedophilia be subjects of art? Should art depict socially unacceptable topics?
Again, mere depiction does not equal celebration, as you frame it. What is the context? What is the subtext?
I know for sure that art has depicted rape, but I can't pull the name of the pieces from memory right now. I am thinking of a famous piece by one of the Masters which I believe comes from one of the Greco-Roman myths. So yes. I find it to be appropriate.
Why do you frame depiction as celebration, or for that matter, why does the narrator? That is subjective spin.
I don't give a damn about the narrator's description of the art. All I care about is what the Artist is saying to me. I look at the imagery and see criticisms, where others see celebration. That is why art should not be censored. What is the artist's point of view? Could it possibly be a snapshot of reality? Could the artist be saying, "open your damn eyes, people!" ? Is it designed to evoke a visceral response? Take a look again without the presupposition of the narrator's narrow-minded interpretations. Let the art speak to YOUR imagination. The artist may in fact be saying, "see here! take a look at this! what do you plan to do about it?"
Never let somebody else frame art for you. That is intellectually lazy and irresponsible.

Hi Political Junkie, ,

I saw the Mapplethorpe exhibit in San Francisco. He's a very talented, controversial artist who enjoys pushing the limits and I completely support his right to do so.

BUT the difference is, I went to the gallery to see the exhibit. I would not have wanted my young son to stumble across it on his way to the airport snack bar.

There are appropriate and inappropriate venues for everything. This is why we have restrooms in airports rather than toilets mixed in with the waiting room seats. People don't want to see (smell etc) people passing stool. We don't ban defecation, we just place it in inoffensive areas. If one enters a public restroom one may see or smell something unpleasant (but even then we add stalls within the restrooms for the most part). For people to live in peace together we must honor each other's space, privacy and beliefs, especially in public places.

Same with "Puppetry of the Penis" if you saw that. I loved it! Its a hilarious Australian show where men manipulate their "privates" in amazing ways)! But doing this in an airport? No. It would not offend me, but many it would.

You: "The relationship is between the artist and the audience without censorship, or it is not art"

I absolutely disagree here as countless other artists would. Art is determined by the creative processes within the artist her/himself. Showing art is secondary to the practice of art. I support the arts whole heartedly, they are vital to the spiritual, mental and environmental well being of any community, but placing controversial pieces in galleries rather than in public locations is simply showing respect for the community and its standards and maintaining artist freedom to create as they are inspired.

You: "I admire provocative pieces in particular. I don't give a rat's ass about non-controversial landscapes and still lifes. "

I LOVE provocative art as well. It makes us think, it prods us, shakes us up, and I 110% support the right of this artist to make such images, absolutely! But it doesn't belong in a public airport...

And I also love still lifes, landscape arts, nudes, modern art, etc. etc. But there are proper ways and places to display them.

You: "Again, mere depiction does not equal celebration, as you frame it. What is the context? What is the subtext?"

Personally I'd answer my question "Yes!" As long as there are artists who wish to depict such things (and the models are not really being abused of course), they are entitled to create them, BUT such pieces do not belong in places where the general public (and kids) will stumble across them.

A problem with your point here in my opinion is that the context and subtext of all art is completely subjective. To me, as well as obviously to Barb and others, the subtext of this piece is the celebration of the death of Christians and Jews and others and the promised genocide of the vapors behind him.
This is not acceptable in a public place like an airport where people may (do) roam in without foreknowledge of what is being shown to them. I do not blame the artist, I blame the airport. I would NEVER support banning the artists, only the venue for this particular piece.

There have been countless works of art depicting rape. One goes to the art gallery to see them. Many of these are awesome works. But in the case of the Masters I can't think of any that show the rapist as the good guy (maybe there are). Usually the victim is the focus, her/his pain and sorrow at the injustice is evident. The sense I got from this painting was a threat, that we (whoever we are) will fall before the mighty sword of Islam. That the Islamic Ummah is on the move and that we have no chance to survive. Personally, although a subjective interpretation, if you spoke with the artists I think this was the intent. As for the gold, the West runs on gold (money) and the soldier was letting us know that not only was he taking the gold, he wasn't conquering us for that reason. He was removing an infestation! (This is partly why I disagree with the narrator's idea of the alien, if he meant it literally rather than figuratively).

I should add that I would be just as offended by a painting depicting a Christian soldier doing the same to Muslims or others. It simply does not belong in a public airport.

"You: "Why do you frame depiction as celebration, or for that matter, why does the narrator? That is subjective spin."

As I look at that painting that's what I see. The soldier's expression is one of exultation over his helpless victims. But this is my point, in art EVERYTHING is subjective. My painting of the Noahide Church in the Wilderness got me an e-mail from a Jewish friend who felt it was insulting to Judaism for reason! I'm the last person who would ever do that, but that was his hit on the piece regardless of my intentions.

Art that is obviously insulting and threatening the very people who are viewing it (most people who go through Denver will be on the loosing side of the depicted threat) with death by sword and biological warfare, does not, again in my opinion, belong in a public airport.

You: "I don't give a damn about the narrator's description of the art. All I care about is what the Artist is saying to me."

I agree completely. And had I disagreed with what he saw I might be of a different opinion now. But to Barb, to the narrator, to me and who can say how many others, the piece says what he said. In my opinion, intentionally so.

I agree that one should not allow anyone, including the artist, to 'frame art' for us. That's not what happened here. My response to the piece, Barb's response to the piece... is the point. People in airports and other public places, especially where we are forced to wait around for long periods of time, should not be have their senses, the beliefs, the morality etc. attacked in this way.

Personally, if this artist ever has an exhibit in my area I'd love to go! Its a fascinating piece, it just doesn't belong in an airport. Had I stumbled across it while catching a flight there I would have filed a formal complaint.

You: "He is obviously too stupid to recognize symbols from the periodic table of elements."

So now in the same post you say that you not only have the right to interpret the art for the narrator, Barb, me and millions of others, but now we're stupid as well?

See the problem? Airports and similar places need to be rather generic resting areas where people can relax while they wait. We all have specialties. I can't tell you how many inaccurate statements I hear made about various religions, my specialty. We just have to nod sometimes and move on. We all have different areas of knowledge.

The purpose of airports is catching planes not having offensive material thrown into our faces. This is why the Hare Krsna's were banned from airports and it is why this type of art should be banned THERE as well. I am solidly for religious freedom and I was living in the LA Krsna temple when we were banned from LAX, but personally I agreed with the airport. That was not the proper venue for what the devotees were doing.

The information on Colorado history (most of which I knew, and yes I know Silverton, its close to Duranga) and gold was interesting. Do you known Cherokee, CA? That's where the largest gold nugget was found, its near my present house. It is not however necessary to know the ins and outs of the gold rush or history of Colorado to critic a work of art, and whose to say your interpretation of the gold and symbols is any more accurate than his?

By the way, to me the flower over their heads was a death lily, not a columbine ;-)

The answer: You are replying to what the picture said to you, and this is great! However what it says to others is equally valid. That's what's so cool about art.

Peace

Hi Political Junkie,
You: ""BUT the difference is, I went to the gallery to see the exhibit. I would not have wanted my young son to stumble across it on his way to the airport snack bar."
Children should never be allowed to wander unaccompanied by a parent or guardian. A child who is too young to "stumble across" art, is too young to go to the snack bar alone."

Good point (and I would never allow him to that).

You: ""There are appropriate and inappropriate venues for everything."
Really? This is a slippery slope, my friend.
Who is the arbiter of "appropriate"? What are the standards, and by whom are these standards set?"

The decider should be the host, in this case the airport. A country that can/does not self-regulate is a country that will not last. If the host is out of sinc with the society it serves then those impacted should complain, boycott, picket etc. and the host then decides, given enough opposition, that the policy etc. should be changed. This is a HUGE problem with the United States. We have become apathetic.

Forty minutes from my house is Marysville, California. Over the last few months the city has installed four (by my count) spy cameras. With these cameras they can tract who comes into the town and when they leave. I looked for some local opposition because I wanted to help. Anytime I go south to Sacramento or points beyond I have to drive there. I can not find a single person who is doing any kind of protest there. If the people of Marysville stood up at this point and demand the cameras be removed they would be. Since they are not resisting, they will be under greater and greater surveillance. But people seem fine with Big Brother.

The point is, IF the people lead the leaders will follow... but we are not leading. Those who are offended by the violent artwork at Denver should have complained and demanded it be removed. Maybe they did, maybe that's why its not in the video you referenced, I don't know. But Barb's concern is EXACTLY what a free society needs. If We the People don't the set the limits, the New World Order elites will (and are).

I am NOT suggesting the Federal government should make such determinations for us. So rather than being a slippery slope it is democracy in action. Those who are opposed speak out. Those in favor speak out. And the system self regulates. THAT is how freedom works.

You: "Come on. Apples and Oranges. You cannot compare daily bathrooming, an unconscious bodily function, to willful artistic expression. No matter how much I may wish to produce a solid gold shit, that just isn't going to happen! If I could, you bet I'd invite people to watch!"

LOL me too... then sell to the highest bider!

I'm not talking about "daily bathrooming" but about the occasional bathrooming in airports and other public areas.

The point is (and remains) that civilized societies must have standards of acceptable and unacceptable behavior, timing and settings.

You: "We live in a free society. I don't want the government to protect my "delicate sensibilities".
We have a lot of express Constitutional Rights, but the right NOT to be offended, just doesn't exist."

First, as I said above in this reply, I'm not suggesting government censorship. The role of the federal government should be VERY limited as demanded by our beleaguered Constitution.

Secondly, protection from being offended certainly IS in the Constitution: We the People.

We the People are responsible to set local, state and national standards of behavior. For instance, we see this in action in cases of proper language. The once very common "N" word is a case in point. That word is not illegal as of now, but using it can cause serious repercussions because We, the People, have determined it is not accepted in polite society. It is still used in the "bathrooms" (ie in private places among select groups of people who so choose) but it is not going to be said over the PA system of Denver International! Not because doing so would be illegal, but because it would be offensive to a large percentage of those present and they would be flooded with complaints, protests and boycotts. And yet the "N" word is NOT offensive to everyone in all cases. SOME Black people use it (like some gay people use "fag" and "queer"). White people can safely use the "N" Word to make certain points, however only with forethought and positive intent. I use the "N" Word in my autobiographical piece on the assassination of Dr. King (see http://allfaith.com/Mystory/king.html ) which several Black people have written telling me they appreciated. They are not offended because I use it there in an acceptable place and manner. This is just an example.

In the same way, this and similar works of art are fine, in the proper context and place.

You: "As a woman, you can imagine that I would take umbrage at having my sensibilities defined and protected. Someone who is willing to "protect" my sensibilities better be wearing a catcher's mask, or they will risk getting a punch in the nose!"

While I appreciate that, I also know it can be unhealthy to refer to women as "girls", "chicks", "babes", and so on or to always use male pronouns when gender is not specified: mankind, he, etc. Out of respect I usually employ largely gender neutral language. There are standards of respect that need to be shown to people.

When I was a kid the proper way to reference someone from China (or elsewhere in the East) was as an "Oriental." Blacks were "Negros" or "Colored people" (consider the NAACP) or "Afro-Americans," although everyone I know in the North Georgia of my youth thought nothing of using the "N Word" publicly, but today such words are considered offensive.

And I well remember my mom struggling over wearing pants to church. She didn't like dresses but many people felt it was inappropriate for women to wear "men's cloths" to church. AND back then it was inappropriate because in the Southern culture of my youth society determined it to be! But that gradually changed. Today it isn't even an question that comes up for the most part. As time passes so does society's determination of acceptable behavior and terminology. The day may well come when depicting a celebration of Christian and Jewish genocide is acceptable, but not yet (I hope not ever!). This is just my opinion of course. Many things are becoming common place that I think are wrong, in some cases evil.

We are each entitled to our views. That's an essential part of the freedom that remains for now.

There are also public galleries, but they also have their standards.

"Freedom" does not now and never has meant doing anything one wants.

For instance, like thousands of others I'm a lifelong nudist, but if went to town naked I'd be arrested. I don't have that right (unfortunately). When people come to my house, although I have every right in the world to be nude there, I usually wear clothes unless I know they are cool with nudity. Why should I offend them? (The majority of our regular guests are fine with with it by the way once they understand that nudism has nothing to do with sexuality -- after all, If God had wanted us to be naked we have been born that way! Right?). In a similar vein, I have the "right" to post nude photos of myself here but I would not do that because I know that several of my on-line friends would be offended, and because Multiply, who owns this service, has clearly forbidden it in their TOS as is THEIR right.

Again, I love to drive fast, but if I speed I'll get a ticket, my insurance will go up etc. Its not worth it (but I do keep my "fuz buster" running at all times!).

I love to travel, but without a passport (and often a Visa) I can't go to most other countries.

I love to eat (hence I am on a rather severe diet -- another 2 pounds gone today, yeah!) but unless I pay the store owner (or grow my own) I'll starve in this land of the free.

In the same way, for artists, we are free to make our art as we wish, but we must buy the canvas, the paints etc (or make our own which is hard and nearly impossible to get the same quality). We are free to display our art, but we must make arrangements with other free people who run the galleries, give the permits etc. Freedom does not mean no responsibility and no requirements. That would be total anarchy and chaos and society would soon collapse.

As for Constitutionally protected free speech, it is illegal to shout "fire" in a crowded theater. It is illegal to use speech to cheat people out of their money, property etc. It is illegal to call for the overthrow of the country... Again, free speech has it limits.

We have 'freedom of the press,' but unless the editor of the paper or TV agrees, our words wont appear in them. He/she has freedom over her/his paper, station, etc. The gallery owner has freedom over the gallery. The speaker has freedom over the words spoken, the artist over the art created.

I have a novel I want to publish but the idea of submitting it to a publisher bothers me. I don't want to be told I have to go through re-writes etc. based on someone else's opinion of my work... BUT the publisher has the right to decide whether or not to publish my work and make requirements.... No one is an island.

The way the system works is that artists, speakers etc. make agreements with the editor, station manager, gallery owner etc. to post their works in a way that benefits both. Of course, the artist can open a gallery, the speaker can start a newspaper or tv or radio station.... I can self-publish... if I come up with the money... This is why publicists and agents make so much money! They deal with this part of the process that most artists don't like!

The point is, no one is an island. Part of living in a society is working within the system. If the system needs to be changed we can work for that too. If the system needs to be replace we can work for that. But we are all interconnected and mutually dependent. If the artists don't paint the gallery shuts down. If papers are not bought the newspaper closes. This is the system we live under, for better of for worse.

I'm enjoying our conversations, I hope you are as well.
Peace, Love and Plenty of Grits!

Hi Political Junkie,

You: "Yes. I regard you as possibly persuadable."

Wonderful! What more could an old Dharma bum hope for? hehe

You: "My revolt was against the statement:
"This is scary as hell. We have to do something.And have you seen the Murals at the Denver Airport?"
So, 1. Art is not scary. 2. Do something about art that is gone? New displays rotate through. 3. I missed this display, but have seen others - again they rotate through. BFD!"

Some art is very scary (some is consoling, some is inspiring etc). I have had very powerful emotional reactions after viewing works of art. For instance:



Who was not deeply moved by this photo when it was released? Many say this photo ended the Viet Nam Police Action. That is, in part, the reason art is so very important. It can move us, inspire us to action and change our opinions.

I can't speak for Barb of course, but I don't think she lives in Denver and so probably she didn't understand the rotating nature of that exhibit (not did I until you explained it, nor do I think it matters to her central point, showing such art in public places she feels is unacceptable. She is as entitled to her views as anyone else).

You: "It really pissed me off that this YouTube video was swallowed hook, line and sinker."
There was nothing to "swallow." It is what it is. The piece was there. The narrator was irrelevant. Anyone could what the piece was depicting.

You: "Whatever happened to "trust, but verify" at the very minimum?"
That's what we're doing. Thus far you have not presenting anything, other that the meanig of the symbol for gold, that disproves what we clear see in that photo. I don't honestly understand why you are so upset by this. Your attacks on Barb and the narrator seem disproportional to what was stated. The piece IS celebrating the genocide of Jews and Christians and the spreading of deadly toxins. "This particular lecturer was instantly proven to be long-winded, but short on facts." What facts? The narrator is irrelevant to this central point. The picture is depicting, more or less, what he said.

You: "No, but you ARE suggesting that LOCAL government should make such determinations for us. DIA is a public entity run and financed by the city and county of Denver. Freedom of Speech applies to THE PEOPLE no matter what level of government has jurisdiction."

Where did I say that? I did not. I said:

"The decider should be the host, in this case the airport. A country that can/does not self-regulate is a country that will not last. If the host is out of sinc with the society it serves then those impacted should complain, boycott, picket etc. and the host then decides, given enough opposition, that the policy etc. should be changed. This is a HUGE problem with the United States. We have become apathetic."

NOWHERE did I suggest ANY government involvement. The people who run the airport, regardless of where their funding comes from, should make the decisions. Someone must have the authority and if we entrust the airport staff with the safety of the public and the aircraft they are the logical people to determine the airport's policy. They determine smoking zones (if any) which concessions are allowed and denied, which areas are accessible by non-ticketed guests, etc. This is not the same thing as given the authority over the question "to the government."

You: "Eh, hem. I think YOU just made MY point! Who sets limits? The PEOPLE or the GOVERNMENT?"

I don't think so. Barb is not the government. She is a citizen expressing her concerns.

You: "I think THE PEOPLE who live in the city and county of Denver determined that revolving public art at THEIR airport was an important COMMUNITY value."

I think the locals should have a big part in it yes (not that every piece of art should be subject to an election of course!), but by this same logic if an area wants to place clearly racist images in their airport should it be allowed? Should Denver Airport be allowed to fly Nazi and KKK flags wherever it might want to? And why should the desire of a single artist (Nazi, Klansman etc) trump the views of others who are opposed to such? This was a big question in the Civil Rights struggles. Certain stores and businesses said they should have the right to exclude anyone they wanted to, to serve or refuse services as they saw fit. The decision of the courts and the opinions that won (and continue to win whenever these cases come up) is that businesses do not have that right. That publicly displaying such images is offensive to the norms of the community and hence disallowed.

The same applies here. IF (which I don't believe for a second just to be clear) everyone living in the Denver area supports the public display of art that celebrates the death of Jews and Christians and the very possible coming of genetic warfare, that does NOT mean the airport (which has visitors from all over the world), should have the right to display it.

The best way for the determinations to be made are, as I said, that host practices self restraint and common sense. If that fails, those offended speak up and those who agree with the host come forward to express their views. The host then either decides to change the policy and the people accept the decision or they escalate their opposition. IN the case of publicly funded places (especially) the matter might have to referred on to the courts (as it had to the Civil Rights cases) but this is best avoided if possible. But first come public outcry and that's all that Barb did here. She expressed her opinion. I see nothing with that and certainly nothing that should result in the tongue lashing you are giving here.

Honestly, I see no logic in your position here at all.

You: "You see, Denver is no longer a po-dunk, cow town. It is a major cultural center, a cosmopolitan city having over 3 million tax payers. I think they have the right to decide how their tax dollars are spent. Sure, launch a protest. Try to impose your values on someone ELSE'S community. We'll just point and laugh. Whose values should prevail? That of the offended traveler, or those of the sponsoring COMMUNITY?"

I love Denver (more Boulder where I lived for a while), and I have never thought of it a, "po-dunk, cow town." Actually, if it were it would have more lee-way in such areas. No one really cares what 'little hick towns' do, but major cities with major airports, sports teams etc. are called upon to live up to higher standards. I live what is really is "po-dunk, cow town" and I see things around here occassionally that I shake my head at. I have been heard to say, "You move to Mayberry and this is what you have to expect!" but Denver is a major city.

No one and no major city is an island.

I'm NOT comparing you or your views to the Klan here, but I grew up in a VERY racist, and segregated area and people said similar things. "Maybe they force can Atlanta to integrate, but not Chamblee!" Well guess again, Chamblee is now known as Chambodia and White people are a minority there. The times are a changing my friend. Whether we like it or not, globalism is a fact and words, art, movies, books, traditions, etc. that are offensive to others are becoming unacceptable and in some cases illegal.

You: "and our Constitution is the prevailing law restraining government Federally, at the State and the Municipal level."

The US Constitution is only barely worth the paper it was written on already. The desire of the globalists is the law now. Fact.

We have lost freedom of assembly.
We are fast losing freedom of speak.
We have lost the freedom to bear arms.
We have lost privacy rights.
For the past seven years we have had a "president" who never elected.
Other than the internet (which is being threatened) we have lost much of our freedom of the press.
We have lost habeas corpus protections.
And and on.

You: "...There is no express right not to be offended..."

True, but there are remedies when we are if we take action, which is what I said.

You: "...nor is there any express restraint upon government not to offend, nor any caveat prevailing upon the government to prevent the offense of the people. The Preamble neither grants any powers nor inhibits any actions."

The US Constitution was flatly and correctly rejected by the American people until a Bill of Rights was added. The US Constitution, without the Bill of Rights, is a fascist, sexist, racist document that no free people should EVER consider accepting. The Bill of Rights grants us freedom to redress our grievance and in that we have the ability to hold the government accountable if they offend us. Again however, we have become Sheeple and accepted our servant government as our overlord.

You: "Saying it is in the Constitution, just doesn't make it so!"

Where did I say it was?

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.["

There can be no domestic Tranquility if the people are constantly be offended, either by their government or by others. In order to form a more perfect Union The Bill of Rights were added providing us with effective ways to confront offenses.

The Amendments

* First Amendment – Establishment clause, freedom of religion, speech, and press, and peaceable assembly as well as the right to petition the government.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

* Second Amendment – Right to keep and bear arms.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

* Third Amendment – Protection from quartering of troops.

No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

* Fourth Amendment – Protection from unreasonable search and seizure.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

* Fifth Amendment – Due process, double jeopardy, self-incrimination, eminent domain.

No person shall be held to answer for any capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

* Sixth Amendment – Trial by jury and other rights of the accused.

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district where in the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense.

* Seventh Amendment – Civil trial by jury.

In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise reexamined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

* Eighth Amendment – Prohibition of excessive bail, as well as cruel and unusual punishment.

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

* Ninth Amendment – Protection of rights not specifically enumerated in the Bill of Rights.

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

* Tenth Amendment – Powers of states and people.

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.


Most of these rights are gone or going and they ALL under serious attack except the third.

In the case of disallowing offensive art work in tax payer funded areas like airports, it is a question of insuring domestic Tranquility. We need to respect one another, especially in places like airports.