Posted on 04/05/2015 5:22:15 PM PDT by Talisker
I believe there should a UN Human Rights Law, that NO state make religion the official religion of their country and NO state should allow state funds for any religious group, Episcopalian, Christians, Muslim, Buddhist, or Hindu.
You stoned?
> Now, the reason that homosexuals are being foolish is that by relying on federal law to enforce their desires, they are actually relying on federal policies that may be changed at any time to suit the needs of the federal government. Right now, the federal government finds it beneficial to enforce corporate homosexual privileges over corporate Christian privileges. But how long will that last? What about the rising demands of corporate Muslim privileges? Historically, how do Muslims treat gays? Historically, how does anyone anywhere treat gays? The only place gays have found solid refuge is in their acknowledgement of NON-corporate, human being status in the American Constitution. That status CANNOT be changed or challenged. Anywhere else, they live and die at the whim of the corporate government’s needs.
The homos should heed this warning. As soon as their usefulness runs out, the very Muslims they supported over Christians will be the one that slit their throats and lop off their heads...
Reject “civil rights” altogether. The rights that matter are the ones “endowed by the Creator”.
> Now, the reason that homosexuals are being foolish is that by relying on federal law to enforce their desires, they are actually relying on federal policies that may be changed at any time to suit the needs of the federal government. Right now, the federal government finds it beneficial to enforce corporate homosexual privileges over corporate Christian privileges. But how long will that last? What about the rising demands of corporate Muslim privileges? Historically, how do Muslims treat gays? Historically, how does anyone anywhere treat gays? The only place gays have found solid refuge is in their acknowledgement of NON-corporate, human being status in the American Constitution. That status CANNOT be changed or challenged. Anywhere else, they live and die at the whim of the corporate government’s needs.
The homos should heed this warning. As soon as their usefulness runs out, the very Muslims they supported over Christians will be the ones that slit their throats and lop off their heads...
bump
How about this “two governmental powers” idea get a little airplay, and let’s see if the people think it’s right.
I too have often pondered the similarity in the attitude of the first European settlers towards the “savages in the Heartland” and our current Elite’s own attitude to people like us.
Interesting perspective, and something definitely worth thinking about. Thanks for posting.
Happy Easter!
"Justice Roberts, in his now infamous Obamacare decision for which he is generally (and wrongly) reviled by conservatives, remarked:
No, we don't. We have two "governments," in fact. Two completely separate "governments," under one Constitution."
Thanks for posting Talisker. Good things in your post. But please allow me to indicate some issues that I had with with just a couple of your statements. Starting with your two governments remark, please consider the following.
We have two types of government under the Constitution, state and federal governments. In fact, it is the state governments who established the federal government, not vice versa as you may be thinking.
And not only did the original states establish the federal government, but they also drafted the federal Constitution to deliberately limit (cripple) the federal government’s powers. In other words, what the people have forgotten over the generations is that the original states drafted the Constitution to reserve the lion’s share of government power to serve the people to themselves, not to the federal government.
And the reason that the federal government is unconstitutionally big today is this. As a consequence of generations of parents not making sure that their children were taught about the federal government’s constitutionally limited powers, the federal government has been able to steal state government powers to regulate, tax and spend for many things that the states have actually never delegated to the feds, expressly via the Constitution, the specific powers to do. In fact, Thomas Jefferson had predicted that the people would become apathetic towards government affairs.
“Cherish, therefore, the spirit of our people, and keep alive their attention. If once they become inattentive to the public affairs, you and I, and Congress and Assemblies, judges and governors, shall all become wolves. It seems to be the law of our general nature.” - Thomas Jefferson (Letter to Edward Carrington January 16, 1787)
Next, since you evidently think that activist Justice Roberts was correct to argue the constitutionally of Obamacare, please consider the excerpts from historical Supreme Court case decisions below. Unlike Roberts, these excerpts indicate that previous generations of state power-respecting justices have historically clarified, on several occasions, that the states have never delegated to the feds, expressly via the Constitution, the specific power to regulate, tax and spend for intrastate healthcare purposes.
Please note in particular that the current controversy about the Obamacare insurance mandate is actually not controversial at all imo. This is evidenced by the fourth entry in the list from Paul v. Virginia (Paul). The Paul excerpt indicates that the Supreme Court had previously clarified that insurance policies are contracts, not commerce, Congress therefore having no Commerce Clause power to regulate insurance policies, regardless if such policies are negotiated across state borders.
”State inspection laws, health laws, and laws for regulating the internal commerce of a State, and those which respect turnpike roads, ferries, &c. are not within the power granted to Congress. [emphases added]” —Gibbons v. Ogden, 1824.
“Congress is not empowered to tax for those purposes which are within the exclusive province of the States.” —Justice John Marshall, Gibbons v. Ogden, 1824.
“Inspection laws, quarantine laws, health laws of every description [emphasis added], as well as laws for regulating the internal commerce of a state and those which respect turnpike roads, ferries, &c., are component parts of this mass.” —Justice Barbour, New York v. Miln., 1837.
”4. The issuing of a policy of insurance is not a transaction of commerce [emphasis added] within the meaning of the latter of the two clauses, even though the parties be domiciled in different States, but is a simple contract of indemnity against loss.” — Paul v. Virginia, 1869. (The corrupt feds have no Commerce Clause (1.8.3) power to regulate insurance.)
“Direct control of medical practice in the states is obviously [emphases added] beyond the power of Congress.” –Linder v. United States, 1925.
In fact, note that regardless that federal Democrats, RINOs, corrupt justices and indoctrinated attorneys will argue that if the Constitution doesn’t say that the feds can’t do something then they can do it, the Supreme Court has addressed that foolish idea too. Politically correct interpretations of the Constitution's Supremacy Clause (5.2) aside, the Court has clarified in broad terms that powers not delegated to the feds, expressly via the Constitution, the specific power to regulate intrastate healthcare in this case, are prohibited to the feds.
”From the accepted doctrine that the United States is a government of delegated powers, it follows that those not expressly granted, or reasonably to be implied from such as are conferred, are reserved to the states, or to the people. To forestall any suggestion to the contrary, the Tenth Amendment was adopted. The same proposition, otherwise stated, is that powers not granted are prohibited [emphasis added].” —United States v. Butler, 1936.
Note that when the Founding States had established the federal Senate, they had given control of the Senate uniquely to state lawmakers. This basically so that the Senate could defend their states by killing bills made by the House which not only wrongly stole 10th Amendment-protected states powers, but arguably steal state revenues associated with those powers.
The reason that general voters now elect federal senators is this. State lawmakers caved into pressure from misguided citizens who evidently did not understand why they couldn’t vote for federal senators. State lawmakers subsequently turned the control of the federal Senate over to the popular vote by ratifying the ill-conceived 17th Amendment (17A), foolishly giving up the voices of state lawmakers in Congress by doing so.
One very bad consequence of 17A is this. The Senate wrongly passed constitutionally indefensible Obamacare, for example, regardless that the states have never delegated to Congress, expressly via the Constitution, the specific power to regulate, tax and spend for intrastate healthcare purposes as previously mentioned.
The 17th Amendment needs to disappear.
But the SC has also ruled that closely held corporations are exempt from certain federal laws, like Hobby Lobby.
Once you get on that road, though, you breeze right by the "centralized democracy" station ... straight on through to "popular dictatorship," and shortly thereafter, "totalitarian dictatorship".
Are you an attorney? If not, I would be interested in hearing what an attorney (one with an interest in these matters) would say about your article.
Because some people in government are now hostile to marriage as God defined it, in order to protect godly marriage we must remove the power of the State to define and regulate marriage. Then anyone will be perfectly free to enter into whatever relationship they want. However, they will not be able to call upon the police power of the state to force me to recognize a “marriage” that I know is theologically illegitimate and morally repugnant.
If we remove government from marriage and return it to the private sphere where it came from, lesbians can still marry each other, but they won’t be able to use government to force me to sell them wedding cake or artfully photograph their “marriage”. They will be free to do as they please without being able to coerce anyone else about their private affair.
But this was never really about marriage. For homosexuals it was social engineering and payback. They could destroy marriage as God defined it, they could rub Christianity’s nose in it, they could punish people who objected and they could force anyone who was too vocal to shut up. But what they really want is approval, and it just galls them that a lot of people will never give it to them.
hear!! hear!! love your comment & i’ll add I’d love to see the day these gay political flamers so eager for a wedding cake & flowers & music to go to a muslim bakery or orthodox jewish bakery and make their requests made. Now either of those two would be a test case wouldn’t it?
The “two powers” Roberts references are the interstate commerce and taxing powers... nonetheless your point that religion should not be legalized is still valid and important.
The “invisible weapon” is the dynamics of mass marketing: perverts are exceptionally desired consumers and media will do whatever it can to please and attract them.
Supplying such a manipulable, low self-esteem audience for their customers- advertisers- is to the media’s highest profit.
And they control the public square, so demographics their customers- advertisers- desire are portrayed favorably.
Politicians get favorable coverage in the media for boosting their profits from pleasing their customers- advertisers- and act accordingly.
No one sees this.
We are indeed ignorant savages who do not comprehend what is destroying us though it is before our eyes.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
