Free Republic 3rd Quarter Fundraising Target: $88,000 Receipts & Pledges to-date: $75,683
86%  
Woo hoo!! And we're now over 86%!! Thank you all very much!!

Posts by marsh2

Brevity: Headers | « Text »
  • Some surprising winners and losers in the 2016 fundraising race

    07/19/2015 11:12:50 AM PDT · 3 of 4
    marsh2 to 2ndDivisionVet

    Would be interested to see who the big donors are. It will tell us who OWNS them and whose interests they will further in their policies.

  • GOP Candidate, Do you agree with Senator McCain that Trump supporters in Phoenix were "Crazies"?

    07/19/2015 11:08:31 AM PDT · 9 of 49
    marsh2 to Will88

    I guess McCain acted further on that belief and apparently asked the IRS to target tea party groups with investigation.

  • OOPS -- Trump Is Right

  • Polygamous Montana trio applies for wedding license

    07/02/2015 1:16:03 AM PDT · 35 of 42
    marsh2 to SeekAndFind

    Never happen - too complex legally. Many institutions anticipate a committed contractual arrangement between two adults. There is the tax structure; next of kin status for medical and burial decisions; life medical and dental insurance; adoption; community property and liability. Three or more just won’t work.

  • Gay weddings: who must perform them?

    06/30/2015 10:43:46 AM PDT · 42 of 96
    marsh2 to xzins

    When CA allowed same sex marriages, our County Clerk ceased performing any marriages. They do, however, issue marriage licenses to both. They also issue a permit allowing any adult the authority to perform a one time marriage ceremony. That was the couple can have anyone of their choice.

  • Conservative churches confront new reality on gay marriage

    06/28/2015 2:47:34 PM PDT · 10 of 29
    marsh2 to Cincinatus' Wife

    The decision established that the Fourteenth Amendment requires a State to license a marriage between two people of the same sex and to recognize a marriage between two people of the same sex when their marriage was lawfully licensed and performed out-of-State.

    At this point, there is no decision that any church must perform a gay marriage. There is no decision addressing the First Amendment right of religious conscience, or the prohibition against government establishing religious dogma. That will likely be taken up in a future case.

    It does appear, though, that the right of marriage between any two adults is a recognized civil right. I would imagine that churches that violate someone’s civil rights would not be eligible for government grants or tax exemptions.

  • White HuffPo Writer: I Was So Ashamed of My Whiteness That I Didn’t Want Children

    06/23/2015 12:01:18 PM PDT · 11 of 50
    marsh2 to Michael van der Galien

    Sounds like a clinically pathological condition.

  • 3,800-year-old statuettes found in Peru

    06/17/2015 3:33:02 PM PDT · 22 of 50
    marsh2 to equaviator

    Their headdresses/hair looks similar to Egyptian statues and sarcophagus

  • Explosive intervention by Pope Francis set to transform climate change debate

    06/14/2015 1:45:13 AM PDT · 9 of 89
    marsh2 to 2ndDivisionVet

    What a hypocrite! The Catholic church’s teachings on birth control have contributed to population pressures on natural resources and the conditions of poverty in which many south American adherents find themselves. Why doesn’t he address that before he claims moral superiority.

  • Immigrants should be allowed to hit their children because there is a ‘different cultural’…(UK)

    06/10/2015 1:27:44 AM PDT · 28 of 35
    marsh2 to Olog-hai

    The child and the wife have rights to not be abused the moment they set foot on UK (US) soil. To hell with whatever the culture/religious teachings were in whatever third world hell hole they came from.

  • Please! Let's Lose This 'Independent for President' Rubbish

    06/10/2015 1:22:25 AM PDT · 14 of 17
    marsh2 to COBOL2Java

    yep. If we end up with this loser as the Republican candidate, I will not vote in the election unless there is a good independent candidate.

  • Power outages hit 65,000 in Bay Area, slow BART

    06/09/2015 11:57:48 AM PDT · 19 of 22
    marsh2 to Oldeconomybuyer

    It was out in N. Stockton. My daughter’s house was out but mine was on a couple of blocks away. No water, no AC. It is like we are living in a third world country. Come on CA. If you are going to encourage migrants to up the population, you need to responsibly plan to expand the infrastructure for their needs. Environmentalists will have to be put in their place if needs be.

  • Obama lawyers asked secret court to ignore public court’s decision on spying

    06/09/2015 11:48:15 AM PDT · 20 of 20
    marsh2 to Timber Rattler

    Obama is destroying the rule of law. This will undermine the core of society. When “special people” get special rules (Obamacare) and Congressional laws and court orders are ignored, and edicts with the force of law are given by the President, we no longer have an orderly society. Top that off with the plethora of bureaucratic rules that no one can know or obey and treaties that supersede the powers delegated by the People and our society is rotting where it stands.

    No man is above the law and the President should exercise only that power delegated to him by the Constitution.

  • NRA version of 2nd Amendment lacks common sense (ENGLISH TEACHER MISREADS BILL OF RIGHTS)

    06/06/2015 2:27:19 PM PDT · 17 of 47
    marsh2 to Chi-townChief

    nope. http://www.newsherald.com/opinions/letters-to-the-editor/the-historical-context-of-a-well-regulated-militia-1.91690

    The historical context of a well-regulated militia

    “The Military Act of 1757 defined a “well-regulated militia” as all 18-to-45-year-old males who were not already a member of the regular English forces and who are declared by authority are subject to call to military service. The act called for penalties and fines for all males who did not bear arms, detailed the militia ranks of authority, required the colonial government to provide arms to the poor, required the amount of dry powder to hold in reserve, and outlined exemptions for clergy, etc.”

    The clause simply provides the reason for the Amendment but categorically does not qualify “shall not be infringed,” limiting it to all adult males subject to draft.

  • Depression is no longer the No. 1 mental-health concern among college students

    06/02/2015 9:11:47 AM PDT · 7 of 22
    marsh2 to SeekAndFind

    I gues this is why they need “safe spaces” to be protected frThey appear to find comfort in agreeing with everyone else at every step of the way on their cell phone.

  • Islam: Criticize It And You're A Bigot

    06/02/2015 9:07:31 AM PDT · 15 of 33
    marsh2 to OddLane

    Islam appears to have many tenets that are in contradiction with the individual liberties protected by the Bill of Rights. These God-given liberties/rights are the foundation upon which our society and government rest. I, for one, will continue to oppose any action, policy or trend that would suppress my liberty because it “offends” a Muslim or places him in a “non-safe space” emotionally, or affronts his right to practice his religion (interpreted as “impose his religion” on the rest of us.)

    If we don’t fight for our rights, they will be consumed by this religion. Go ahead, call me a bigot. I will call you a blind fool in return.

  • Americans' Acceptance of Sexual Immorality Growing, Gallup Finds

    05/31/2015 10:30:10 AM PDT · 24 of 43
    marsh2 to yetidog

    “Morality” as a generally accepted code of behavior/conduct in our pluralistic society is increasingly no longer tethered to the Bible. Do we pin it to the Golden Rule - do unto others that which we would have done to us? Or perhaps herald back to the Maxims of Roman Law something on the order of the maxim sic utere tuo ut alienum non laedas - one must use his property so as not to injure the lawful rights of another. Certainly, in the rejection of traditional Christian mores, we do not want to find ourselves with Sharia as our moral code.

  • Fox News Contributor Goes Off on Christians: So Bible verses are "vile" now?

    05/29/2015 5:12:36 PM PDT · 72 of 78
    marsh2 to 2ndDivisionVet

    You cannot categorically say that “Christianity” believes that homosexuality is a sin and homosexual marriage is not accepted when two mainstream Christian sects, the Presbyterians and Episcopals, accept it. All you can say is that your Christian sect and God as your Christian sect understands him.

    You cannot say that homosexuality is not natural when studies have pinpointed patterns in two regions of the human genome - one on the X chromosome and one on chromosome 8 as having a tie to male homosexuality. (Also certain hormone levels in mothers while they are pregnant have been found to have a tie with homosexuality.)
    http://www.natureworldnews.com/articles/10443/20141118/homosexuality-genetic-strongest-evidence.htm

    Marriage is not simply a spiritual union. It is a legal and economic one. It carries with it spousal rights to inheritance, tax benefits, hospital visitation and health decisions, property rights, child visitation rights (and child support) etc. This is why a civil union or marriage should be allowed. The new Irish law allows any two adults to enter into such a formal union and does not affect the religious marriages allowed by any religion.

    The argument against gay adoption is likely fear based. I think a very large number of children from heterosexual relationships are now raised by one parent or outside of a marriage relationship.

  • Shocker: Morality Goes Out The Window, Americans Embrace Social Liberalism

    05/29/2015 8:44:51 AM PDT · 23 of 27
    marsh2 to Michael van der Galien

    If you do not tether “morality,” meaning the standard of right and wrong conduct, to the Bible or the Koran or the Mosaic Law or some other religious authority, then you must chose another standard. The Golden Rule? Hollywood? The ruling or dominant culture? What is in the best interests of society as a whole? Who decides that?

  • Fox News Contributor Goes Off on Christians: So Bible verses are "vile" now?

    05/28/2015 10:42:42 PM PDT · 48 of 78
    marsh2 to 2ndDivisionVet

    “Christian” sects that oppose gay marriage should recall that mainstream Episcopal and Presbyterian sects do accept homosexuality and gay marriage. Opposition to homosexuality is not a universal Christian God thing, but mainly an Evangelical one.

    The use of “Bible versus” as authority is very irritating to those who do not embrace the words of the Bible as God’s literal word. It is particularly irritating when it is used to cut off debate or to justify imposing ones “Christian” beliefs on someone else as a moral or legal standard of conduct by which they should be judged. The law serves that purpose limited by the Constitution. This is why Islam is now coming into direct conflict with the rights of people protected by the Constitution. The Constitution trumps religion, whether Christian or Muslim, as an enforceable standard of conduct.

  • Fox News Contributor Goes Off on Christians: So Bible verses are "vile" now?

    05/28/2015 10:31:09 PM PDT · 47 of 78
    marsh2 to 2ndDivisionVet

    The real question here for those running for the Presidency is not whether their religious faith holds that homosexuality is a sin and gay marriage would be forbidden by God as they understand him. The real question is whether in purely secular civil matters according to the equal protection clause Amendment XIV, gay adults should be entitled to the privileges and protections of civil marriage just like other (heterosexual) adults.

    Amendment XIV SECTION. 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

    I have no doubt whatsoever that Huckabee would impose his personal religious creed on the civil law. That, and his support of big central social programs are, why I oppose him.

    Would Cruz do the same as a “Constitutional Conservative”? Or would Cruz make a demarcation between the civil and the religious, - supporting equity in civil marriage, while supporting religious institutions and individuals First Amendment Rights to conscience in not accepting homosexuality and not performing gay marriage or personal services as part of such a marriage? So far I think he has just punted the issue to state jurisdiction under the 10th.

  • When it Counts: Huck, Cruz, Walker in the Lead

    05/28/2015 10:04:07 PM PDT · 9 of 26
    marsh2 to VinL

    curious about how Libertarians would place them. I am a Constitutional Conservative who has left the Republicans for the Libertarian party. I wager I am not alone. I would vote for Cruz. Huckabee, Bush - no way. Walker is a waffler. Not impressed. Rand Paul has yet to convince me he is up to it.

  • Biden To The Navy: ‘Our Forces Will Have To Be Ready’ For Climate Change

    05/22/2015 11:28:42 AM PDT · 40 of 50
    marsh2 to kimtom

    It is amazing that these jokers keep trying to sell this failed narrative. They just released another study showing there has been no loss of polar ice since the 1970s. It is obvious that those seeking more power and wealth at the expense of the American people have seized upon this meme as their strategic route to achievement. Follow the script relentlessly and demonize those who won’t. It doesn’t matter what the facts actually tell us.

  • Could Conservatives Push TPA Over the Finish Line?

    05/22/2015 11:02:08 AM PDT · 32 of 64
    marsh2 to Mariner

    Do they realize that this apparently cuts China out of the picture? With a slowing consumer based economy in China, TPTB will likely turn to militarization to unify and strengthen their economy. (Guns and butter theory.)

    In addition, wasn’t NAFTA such a great idea? All these agreements do nothing to lift our industries, economy and employment. They act as levelers with us as the losers. We cannot compete with third world wages, lax third world environmental laws and our own laws that increasingly lock up natural resources.

  • Obama to issue flurry of energy regulations this summer

    05/22/2015 10:56:34 AM PDT · 17 of 24
    marsh2 to jazusamo

    It is truly shocking what is happening. It used to be that our representatives in Congress passed law that was implemented by agencies through the rulemaking of regulatory codes. Congress declined to endorse the Global Climate Treaty, yet the agencies are taking their own initiative at the direction of the President to implement Administrative policy, rather than law. To the poor sucker at the end of the regulation, it makes no difference. He still is compelled to comply.

    Congress needs to pull the reins back like it is doing on the Waters of the United States rulemaking. Things have gotten way out of hand. We need to get representative government back in the driver’s seat and severely constrain the blanket delegation of authority which is being allowed of regulatory agencies.

  • Obama, Clinton Want To Enforce 'Correct' Thinking In America

    05/21/2015 2:43:48 PM PDT · 11 of 23
    marsh2 to Talisker

    Yeh, my ancestor was the first Archbishop of the Church of England and was burned at the stake as a heretic when Catholic Mary took the throne years later. It was a revolving door. Ironically, it was the reason his descendants formed an Anglican colony in Maine in 1624.

  • Romney looks strong for 2016

    05/21/2015 2:35:44 PM PDT · 21 of 42
    marsh2 to 2ndDivisionVet

    you are kidding me, right?.....right?

  • Relief Coming for Drought-Ravaged California?

    05/19/2015 8:49:06 PM PDT · 33 of 41
    marsh2 to robowombat

    Although rain would help fill the reservoirs, what we will need for next year is snowpack this fall and winter. With a warm El Nino, that may not be possible.

  • Conservatives Blame GOP Leaders For Not Stopping ‘Fundamental Transformation of America’

    05/19/2015 1:10:39 PM PDT · 8 of 40
    marsh2 to Olog-hai

    Go Libertarian. After 45 years as a Republican, I did. I also think that if the 30 some candidates for the Republican nominee for President rubs out a true conservative, we should encourage them to run as a Libertarian.

  • Suppose you're wealthy. Do you feel SAFER knowing most people are dopes?

    05/18/2015 5:26:22 PM PDT · 2 of 17
    marsh2 to BruceDeitrickPrice

    The current system is not only creating the ignorant. Oakland school district recently dropped any discipline in the form of consequences for disrespectful, disruptive and inattentive behavior. None of these students will be employable if they don’t learn basic self discipline and workplace ready behavior. Then they wonder why they can’t get a job...

  • Saudi Rapist in Colorado Says Sex Offender Program is Against His Religion (but rape isn't)

    05/17/2015 10:32:31 AM PDT · 42 of 53
    marsh2 to bestintxas

    With the advent of the English Common Law system, people moved away from Canon Law to a secular system based entirely in civil law. That still goes for everyone, no exceptions. Everyone is equal before the law with no special rules for Muslims, Christians, Jews, etc.

  • America, a changing country

    05/11/2015 11:30:36 AM PDT · 4 of 6
    marsh2 to Oldpuppymax

    As we meet Muslim assaults to our core principles and rights - such as the push to exempt blasphemy against Mohammed from freedom of speech, we are actually strengthened because we have already met some of these Constitutional challenges with Christianity. Artists can dunk a crucifix in urine, artists can draw a cartoon of Mohammed. This is freedom of speech protected by our Constitution.

    It should swing the same for every religion: Individual children do have the right to read a Bible in school. Individual Muslims can hold their daily prayers. Consistent principles should apply. We should no more apply Cannon Law to our courts than Sharia Law. We are a real multicultural society to which laws must be applied. Can a Sikh child wear ceremonial knives at school? Can a Muslim woman cover her face in court? Should buses in New York be segregated by sex to suit Hasseatic Jewish law? Should school lunches be Hallal? Should Amish be forced to pasteurize their milk? Should mountain tops and everything that can be seen from them be regulated to preserve Native American spiritual experience (Mt. Shasta.)

    That does not mean we toss out the Creator as the font of our inalienable rights, unreachable by the actions of man, and become a purely secular society like socialist France. It is also important that we must remain anchored in the Mosaic Law so that we are not cut adrift guided only by the democratic opinion of the day. In this respect, parsing the application of the law in a multicultural society is truly an American experience.

  • Yelling Fire in a Crowded Theater Metaphor vs Texas Cartoon

    05/09/2015 11:14:05 AM PDT · 16 of 35
    marsh2 to SERKIT

    Let us call it was it is. terrorism = the use of violent acts or the threat of violent acts to frighten the people as a way of trying to achieve a political goal; The use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims.

    Islam is not only a “religion.” It is a legal and social system. Many of its doctrines and laws are wholly incompatible with inalienable rights and freedoms guaranteed to the citizens of the United States. The the threat of violence and intimidation is clearly being used here to suppress individual rights of U.S. citizens. This is called terrorism.

  • Study: Social Security 'going to be insolvent before anyone thinks'

    05/09/2015 11:06:37 AM PDT · 8 of 64
    marsh2 to SeekAndFind

    Social Security owns 16% of the National Debt ( http://www.forbes.com/sites/mikepatton/2014/10/28/who-owns-the-most-u-s-debt/ ) I wonder how this will play out if they are determined insolvent,

  • Get off my ... American lawn

    05/09/2015 11:01:42 AM PDT · 4 of 10
    marsh2 to Starman417

    terrorism = the use of violent acts or the threat of violent acts to frighten the people as a way of trying to achieve a political goal; The use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims.

    Islam is not only a “religion.” It is a legal and social system. Many of its doctrines and laws are wholly incompatible with inalienable rights and freedoms guaranteed to the citizens of the United States. The use of the threat of violence and intimidation is clearly being used here to suppress individual rights of U.S. citizens. This is called terrorism.

  • Supreme Court likely to legalize same-sex marriage in June, Justice Kennedy will cast decisive vote

    05/07/2015 11:09:03 AM PDT · 47 of 55
    marsh2 to shepardspie33

    The court may be able to compel the states and their agencies into recognizing same sex “marriage,” but it cannot compel religious bodies to do so against the tenets of their belief. That would clearly constitute “establishment” of religion which is prohibited under the First Amendment.

  • Huckabee’s Candidacy Could Mean Showdown with Libertarians

    05/05/2015 11:43:21 AM PDT · 31 of 97
    marsh2 to 2ndDivisionVet

    As a libertarian, I want to live my life free of government coercion as long as my actions do not harm anyone else. My view of Evangelicals in the social conservative faction is that they believe that scripture is literally the word of the one God and their interpretation of it should apply to everyone. They would use the coercive force of government to make that happen.

    Not quite as restrictive as the Talliban, but I prefer my individual liberty over what they are selling. It is why the First Amendment prohibits the government from establishing religion. I don’t think ole Huck has gotten the message on that one.

  • Why We Must Unite Behind Ted Cruz [Open letter to conservative talk show hosts]

    05/05/2015 11:29:19 AM PDT · 59 of 118
    marsh2 to SoConPubbie

    My impression of Walker is that he obfuscates and then waffles on important issues. I wanted to like him, but from what I have seen, I am not impressed.

    Cruz not only takes a definitive conservative stance, he explains why he is taking that stance in relation to the Constitution. Like Reagan, he is an excellent communicator who helps people understand. His intellectual beliefs are consistent and interrelated. He acts from a well reasoned belief system and a strong moral compass. It is the reason why he can resist D.C. corruption and games. No other candidate comes close.

  • Muhammad Cartoon Contest: Note to Jihadists, in America, We Shoot Back

    05/04/2015 3:02:42 PM PDT · 25 of 50
    marsh2 to Kaslin

    Gets down to another core First Amendment issue. The “scripture” of the Koran appears to state many doctrines that violate our guaranteed freedoms under the Constitution and Bill of Rights. Most followers of Islam believe that Allah’s word as revealed in the Koran is sacred above all other laws of man or religious doctrine. When followers of Islam assert the doctrines of the Koran over others who are not Muslims or over any Americans in detriment to their natural and civil rights, then we feel that Islam must yield. When followers of Islam use violence or the threat of violence to coerce people into adhering to their religious doctrines, that is called terrorism.

    The quandary occurs when this is considered with the natural inalienable right of conscience and another First Amendment prohibition/right: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;”

    Surely Muslims, Christians, Jews, etc. have the right to believe whatever doctrine they wish and to hold that as the one word of God. Surely the government may not reach in and change religious doctrine or scripture. However, where are the exact limits of exercise of that right of conscience/religion which ranges from the extreme Muslim shooting of cartoonists, to pharmacists refusing to provide morning after pills, to Christians refusing to bake a wedding cake? Conversely, where is the boundary placed on the state in compelling behavior contrary to individual’s religious belief on behalf of an other’s rights? ...Interesting....

  • AMICUS BRIEF FILED BY U.S. CATHOLIC BISHOP SUPPORTING TRADITIONAL MARRIAGE

    04/26/2015 8:36:19 PM PDT · 10 of 14
    marsh2 to Steelfish

    It seems to me that religions consider “marriage” to be a holy sacrament. In this respect, government is prohibited from “establishing religion” [Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;] or redefining it. Only the religious body can do that.

    The realm of government is civil. It has the capacity to define “civil unions” and contracts anyway it wishes. In America, people are guaranteed equal rights. It would seem that civil unions must provide for unions between any two adults who desire it. Although I would draw the line between siblings and offspring and possible first cousins because of the genetic issues.

  • Hillary channels Madame Mao: 'deep-seated cultural codes, religious beliefs and structural biases...

    04/26/2015 8:09:48 PM PDT · 24 of 25
    marsh2 to markomalley

    This is a video of Alan Keyes talking on the logic of faith and liberty: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z5-nott2qiE

    What I take away from this is that the Founders attributed the origination of their natural rights to God and with faith in God came a higher moral authority that gave us the Mosaic law and the understanding of right and wrong. Inherent in this is the understanding that our rights do not extend to injuring others. With rights come the responsibility to restrain our actions accordingly and to extend a helping hand to others. This combination is the foundation that makes individual liberty possible.

    I look at the leftists like Hilary. They do not look to God as a higher authority in our civil life. They believe that all rights are granted to us by government. The authority for our rights is not a higher power. Because of that, there is no higher absolute morality of right and wrong. Because of this loss, government must step in to define what is right and wrong, to set regulations to enforce those standards of restraint and to compel right behavior by force. This is the antithesis of individual liberty.

    Hilary seeks to destroy the authority of a higher power in rights and morality, and therefore individual liberty itself.

    I would also like to state that in my opinion, religion is likewise a threat to our liberty. When our political leaders seek to impose religious doctrine defining what is right and wrong in individual belief or behavior in matters where no injury to others is occurring, to regulate same and to compel “right” thought and behavior by force, it is likewise a threat to individual liberty.

    Although government may pass its own regulations prohibiting individual action that it feels harms another, anytime government moves to compel someone to act against his moral conscience to benefit another, you have a violation of free will and of liberty.

  • Ted Cruz: Democrats home to 'liberal fascism'

    04/26/2015 12:58:32 PM PDT · 17 of 41
    marsh2 to E. Pluribus Unum

    I support Cruz, but I no more want a tyranny of leftist beliefs than I want a Tyranny of Christian beliefs.

    The Constitution is a frame that allows for ideas, religious or secular, to stand up on their own two legs when challenged. The subtle issue here is that America was created around the assumption of a Judeo Christian moral authority that originated from God, who is the author of our natural rights. This speaks to the understanding of right and wrong as codified in the 10 Commandments and the notion that one’s rights cease where they cause injury to another’s rights. This is an essential companion to our belief in individual liberties. It is the moral responsibility that accompanies those beliefs. Some Christians want to go farther and impose religious doctrine on other’s individual rights.

    The leftist have no belief in natural rights or a moral code originating from higher authority. Therefore, they need government to define, regulate and compel “right” thought and behavior and to forbid deviance. This is the antithesis of individual liberty.

  • Why the 'safe space' movement is a liberal assault on freedom

    04/25/2015 2:43:57 PM PDT · 15 of 37
    marsh2 to QT3.14

    yet they have no qualms about calling for the death of “climate deniers,” forcing people to act against their conscience when gay marriage is involved, refusing to seat a jew on the student council or denigrating Caucasians with the accusation of “white privilege.” There is no room for this “safe space” nonsense in America. Ideas need to stand on their own legs in a competitive arena.

  • The New York Times Wants Us to Rewrite the Bible

    04/08/2015 1:14:24 PM PDT · 26 of 27
    marsh2 to SeekAndFind

    It is the same foundational argument to those who believe that marriage is a holy religious sacrament between God a man and a woman. The legislature wants to recognize marriage between gays. However, under the Bill of Rights, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”. It cannot change the Bible and redefine marriage. Only a church can do that as one of the Presbyterian churches recently did. The only jurisdiction the legislature has is in defining civil unions.

    The legislature cannot prohibit the free exercise of conscience, yet it wants to force people (florists, bakers, photographers) to participate in a ceremonial celebration that they feel violates the sacrament of marriage. That would clearly be prohibiting the free exercise of their religion prohibited under the Constitution.

    BTW, I am not religious nor am I opposed to gay civil unions. I just don’t think that government has any authority to meddle in church doctrine or rights of conscience.

  • Did Harry Reid’s Brother Beat him up? (YES)

    04/08/2015 12:22:07 PM PDT · 62 of 80
    marsh2 to elhombrelibre

    Brother Larry - left hand injury
    Harry - injury to right eye which would be on the left facing Larry

    Looks consistent

  • What is Marriage?

    04/06/2015 12:44:46 AM PDT · 19 of 31
    marsh2 to mylife

    I always understood marriage to be a sacrament. As the Bill of Rights prohibits Congress from the establishment of religion, it does not have the capacity to redefine marriage from that definition which is given it by various religions. I know that one Presbyterian sects does recognize gay marriage, but to most religions, marriage is a spiritual, physical, social and economic union between one man and one woman.

    A civil union is another thing altogether. This is the civil recognition of a physical, social and economic relationship between whomever the civil authorities decide is lawful.

  • Ted Cruz accused of wanting to repeal the 20th Century

    04/05/2015 3:57:18 PM PDT · 39 of 52
    marsh2 to Marcus

    The success of America has been firmly built on the recognition of natural rights and the protection of individual rights against the juggernaut of the majority in order to maximize freedom. Since FDR inserted the notion of American “democracy” into every school room, we have been marching toward European socialism where the individual is sacrificed to the interests of the whole. We have lost our soul along with our liberty.

    Read these words of the Essex Result of 1778, thought to have been penned by Sam Adams. http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/v1ch4s8.html Does this sound like the American compact individuals have today?

    “All men are born equally free. The rights they possess at their births are equal, and of the same kind. Some of those rights are alienable, and may be parted with for an equivalent. Others are unalienable and inherent, and of that importance, that no equivalent can be received in exchange. Sometimes we shall mention the surrendering of a power to controul our natural rights, which perhaps is speaking with more precision, than when we use the expression of parting with natural rights—but the same thing is intended. Those rights which are unalienable, and of that importance, are called the rights of conscience. We have duties, for the discharge of which we are accountable to our Creator and benefactor, which no human power can cancel. What those duties are, is determinable by right reason, which may be, and is called, a well informed conscience. What this conscience dictates as our duty, is so; and that power which assumes a controul over it, is an usurper; for no consent can be pleaded to justify the controul, as any consent in this case is void. The alienation of some rights, in themselves alienable, may be also void, if the bargain is of that nature, that no equivalent can be received. Thus, if a man surrender all his alienable rights, without reserving a controul over the supreme power, or a right to resume in certain cases, the surrender is void, for he becomes a slave; and a slave can receive no equivalent. Common equity would set aside this bargain.

    “When men form themselves into society, and erect a body politic or State, they are to be considered as one moral whole, which is in possession of the supreme power of the State. This supreme power is composed of the powers of each individual collected together, and VOLUNTARILY parted with by him. No individual, in this case, parts with his unalienable rights, the supreme power therefore cannot controul them. Each individual also surrenders the power of controuling his natural alienable rights, ONLY WHEN THE GOOD OF THE WHOLE REQUIRES it. The supreme power therefore can do nothing but what is for the good of the whole; and when it goes beyond this line, it is a power usurped. If the individual receives an equivalent for the right of controul he has parted with, the surrender of that right is valid; if he receives no equivalent, the surrender is void, and the supreme power as it respects him is an usurper. If the supreme power is so directed and executed that he does not enjoy political liberty, it is an illegal power, and he is not bound to obey. Political liberty is by some defined, a liberty of doing whatever is not prohibited by law. The definition is erroneous. A tyrant may govern by laws. The republic’s of Venice and Holland govern by laws, yet those republic’s have degenerated into insupportable tyrannies. Let it be thus defined; political liberty is the right every man in the state has, to do whatever is not prohibited by laws, TO WHICH HE HAS GIVEN HIS CONSENT. This definition is in unison with the feelings of a free people. But to return—If a fundamental principle on which each individual enters into society is, that he shall be bound by no laws but those to which he has consented, he cannot be considered as consenting to any law enacted by a minority: for he parts with the power of controuling his natural rights, only when the good of the whole requires it; and of this there can be but one absolute judge in the State. If the minority can assume the right of judging, there may then be two judges; for however large the minority may be, there must be another body still larger, who have the same claim, if not a better, to the right of absolute determination. If therefore the supreme power should be so modelled and exerted, that a law may be enacted by a minority, the inforcing of that law upon an individual who is opposed to it, is an act of tyranny. Further, as every individual, in entering into the society, parted with a power of controuling his natural rights equal to that parted with by any other, or in other words, as all the members of the society contributed an equal portion of their natural rights, towards the forming of the supreme power, so every member ought to receive equal benefit from, have equal influence in forming, and retain an equal controul over, the supreme power.

    “It has been observed, that each individual parts with the power of controuling his natural alienable rights, only when the good of the whole requires it, he therefore has remaining, after entering into political society, all his unalienable natural rights, and a part also of his alienable natural rights, provided the good of the whole does not require the sacrifice of them. Over the class of unalienable rights the supreme power hath no controul, and they ought to be clearly defined and ascertained in a BILL OF RIGHTS, previous to the ratification of any constitution. The bill of rights should also contain the equivalent every man receives, as a consideration for the rights he has surrendered. This equivalent consists principally in the security of his person and property, and is also unassailable by the supreme power: for if the equivalent is taken back, those natural rights which were parted with to purchase it, return to the original proprietor, as nothing is more true, than that Allegiance and protection are reciprocal.”

  • Israel no longer worried about its water supply, thanks to desalination plants

    04/05/2015 3:33:35 PM PDT · 57 of 60
    marsh2 to grundle

    Water desalinization plants do not fit in with the climate change acolytes’ concept of “sustainability.” It consumes too much carbon emitting power. They want water conservation, reuse and austerity instead.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/01/business/energy-environment/a-costly-california-desalination-plant-bets-on-future-affordability.html?_r=0

    “The environmental group the Surfrider Foundation, which has fought the Carlsbad plant at every turn, expects the plant to be an object lesson in how not to guard against water shortages. Among other things, the foundation emphasizes the energy needs of the plant, which will consume 5,000 kilowatt-hours of electricity to produce an acre-foot of water.”

  • Was 19th Century apewoman a yeti? 6ft 6in Russian serf who could outrun a horse was 'not human'...

    04/05/2015 1:09:36 PM PDT · 11 of 46
    marsh2 to PROCON

    wait, does no one else see the resemblance to the Mona Lisa?

  • Ana Marie Cox: You Have to Force People to Do Things They Don’t Want To

    04/05/2015 1:01:17 PM PDT · 51 of 66
    marsh2 to cotton1706

    sort of continues along the lines of thought of Cass Sunstein and the elitist patronizing view of “nudging people” toward correct decisions.