wins today's contest for best title ever!
Thank you, Ben Shapiro.
Showing posts with label Supreme Court. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Supreme Court. Show all posts
Tuesday, October 27, 2020
Saturday, June 27, 2015
RIP: Constitution, States' Rights, and Rule of Law...
we're going to miss you.
This was a dark week in the history of our country. The destruction didn't start this week; it has essentially accumulated since the beginning of time. When Eve talked Adam into eating the apple, the ball was put into play, and now it's being kicked across the goal post. (I apologize for the lame reference to sports, but it's all I can muster up this morning.)
Every single decision handed down by the Supreme Court this week was an assault on the individual and an assault on the rule of law, except the one in favor of the California raisin farmer. Add to that the fast tracking of secret trade deals that will further decimate the economy makes it clear that the future will be difficult.
It's amusing to see the people on Facebook (a cesspool of narcissism), painting their profile pictures with the colors of the sodomite rainbow, and chanting "love wins." Have they ever heard the term "useful idiot?"
The bishops of the Catholic Church are all in a tizzy. Other than for a few, the rest have been complicit by remaining silent for years. And we now have a pope who is more concerned with global warming than with saving souls.
This is not the end; it's the beginning.
The Marxists and Communists roam freely in our institutions, and no longer even try to hide their presence. They control the press and the schools. They control Washington DC, and they've infiltrated the Catholic Church.
If you consider yourself to be a free individual and worthy of your own thoughts, you may want to consider what you'll be facing. Speak up against sodomite marriage and lose your job? It could, and no doubt will, happen. Are you ready? Are you ready to have your children corrupted in our Godless schools with the government's seal of approval? Are you ready to be sued and have your business destroyed? I ask again, "Are you ready?"
Take a look at the goals 20 through 32 of the communist party read into the Congressional Record on January 10, 1963, by HON. A. S. HERLONG, JR. OF FLORIDA:
free people.
I happen to think I'm right.
From: Alliance Defending Freedom
Thursday, June 25, 2015
More:
Pirate's Cove: What’s Next For Gay Advocates?
Survival Blog: A Dark Day for America
Abbey Roads: Now that gay marriage is legal and equal to traditional marriage in the United States ...
This was a dark week in the history of our country. The destruction didn't start this week; it has essentially accumulated since the beginning of time. When Eve talked Adam into eating the apple, the ball was put into play, and now it's being kicked across the goal post. (I apologize for the lame reference to sports, but it's all I can muster up this morning.)
Every single decision handed down by the Supreme Court this week was an assault on the individual and an assault on the rule of law, except the one in favor of the California raisin farmer. Add to that the fast tracking of secret trade deals that will further decimate the economy makes it clear that the future will be difficult.
It's amusing to see the people on Facebook (a cesspool of narcissism), painting their profile pictures with the colors of the sodomite rainbow, and chanting "love wins." Have they ever heard the term "useful idiot?"
The bishops of the Catholic Church are all in a tizzy. Other than for a few, the rest have been complicit by remaining silent for years. And we now have a pope who is more concerned with global warming than with saving souls.
This is not the end; it's the beginning.
The Marxists and Communists roam freely in our institutions, and no longer even try to hide their presence. They control the press and the schools. They control Washington DC, and they've infiltrated the Catholic Church.
If you consider yourself to be a free individual and worthy of your own thoughts, you may want to consider what you'll be facing. Speak up against sodomite marriage and lose your job? It could, and no doubt will, happen. Are you ready? Are you ready to have your children corrupted in our Godless schools with the government's seal of approval? Are you ready to be sued and have your business destroyed? I ask again, "Are you ready?"
Take a look at the goals 20 through 32 of the communist party read into the Congressional Record on January 10, 1963, by HON. A. S. HERLONG, JR. OF FLORIDA:
20. Infiltrate the press. Get control of book-review assignments, editorial writing, policy making positions.Think I'm wrong? That is entirely your right; it's a privilege afforded to
21. Gain control of key positions in radio, TV, and motion pictures.
22. Continue discrediting American culture by degrading all forms of artistic expression. An American Communist cell was told to "eliminate all good sculpture from parks and buildings, substitute shapeless, awkward and meaningless forms."
23. Control art critics and directors of art museums. "Our plan is to promote ugliness, repulsive, meaningless art."
24. Eliminate all laws governing obscenity by calling them "censorship" and a violation of free speech and free press.
25. Break down cultural standards of morality by promoting pornography and obscenity in books, magazines, motion pictures, radio, and TV.
26. Present homosexuality, degeneracy and promiscuity as "normal, natural, healthy."
27. Infiltrate the churches and replace revealed religion with "social" religion. Discredit the Bible and emphasize the need for intellectual maturity which does not need a "religious crutch."
28. Eliminate prayer or any phase of religious expression in the schools on the ground that it violates the principle of "separation of church and state."
29. Discredit the American Constitution by calling it inadequate, old-fashioned, out of step with modern needs, a hindrance to cooperation between nations on a worldwide basis.
30. Discredit the American Founding Fathers. Present them as selfish aristocrats who had no concern for the "common man."
31. Belittle all forms of American culture and discourage the teaching of American history on the ground that it was only a minor part of the "big picture." Give more emphasis to Russian history since the Communists took over.
32. Support any socialist movement to give centralized control over any part of the culture--education, social agencies, welfare programs, mental health clinics, etc. source
free people.
I happen to think I'm right.
From: Alliance Defending Freedom
Thursday, June 25, 2015
ALBANY, N.Y. – Alliance Defending Freedom and one of its allied attorneys filed their opening brief Thursday in an appeal of a New York State Division of Human Rights decision against the owners of an upstate farm.I happen to believe that events in this country are going to spiral out of control. Michael Snyder, of the Economic Collapse Blog, agrees with me.
The agency ruled that Cynthia and Robert Gifford were guilty of “sexual orientation discrimination” for declining to host and coordinate a same-sex ceremony on their property. As punishment, the government fined them $10,000 plus $3,000 in damages and ordered them to implement staff re-education training classes that teach the state’s viewpoint on marriage.
“All Americans should be free to live and work according to their beliefs,” said ADF Senior Counsel Byron Babione. “Our government was formed to be freedom’s greatest protector, not its greatest threat. In this case, however, the government is coming after both this couple’s freedom and their ability to make a living.” read the rest
More:
Pirate's Cove: What’s Next For Gay Advocates?
Survival Blog: A Dark Day for America
Abbey Roads: Now that gay marriage is legal and equal to traditional marriage in the United States ...
Liberty's Torch: The Fatal Decisions
Alt Market: The U.S. And EU Will Collapse Regardless Of Economic ‘Contagion’
Alt Market: The U.S. And EU Will Collapse Regardless Of Economic ‘Contagion’
Thursday, March 27, 2014
This is why women should not be on the Supreme Court...
because they tend to reason by way of their feelings rather than logic.
Before we go further, I'm well aware that many of my female readers are not going to like what I have to say. That's mainly because the majority of women who visit here have exceptionally logical minds. Being a woman does not preclude thinking logically.
However, women and men do think differently and reach conclusions based on different criteria. Women have been gifted with an abundance of compassion and a nurturing spirit. The care and raising of children requires these types of gifts.
Men, before being turned into moisturizing metro-sexual wussy pants by over bearing women libbers, used to be the providers and protectors of the family. Over the last 50 or so years, however, we have seen a role reversal in the family that has not born fruit for men, women, or their children.
It is natural for a woman to want to nurture and raise her children. But we've told them that they should head out every day and go toe to toe with the men.
I can remember being a very young girl when women first started dumping their progeny into day cares. I can also remember my mother saying how sad it was that a poor little baby, who may not be feeling well that day, had to be bundled up and hauled out in the cold so Mommy could go to work.
My mother was not some high school dropout who wanted to stay home and be Mommy. She was a college-educated woman who understood the importance of her "mommy job".
Associate Justice Sonia Sotomayor had a brief marriage that ended in divorce, in part "due to the demands of her work." source Associate Justice Elena Kagan has never been married. Make of it what you will.
While some may say that the questions asked in the Hobby Lobby/Conestoga case before the Supreme Court were logical, they were also supremely unintelligent. One has to ask themselves why in the first question Sotomayor asked, she referred to "another choice nobody talks about"?
There's usually a reason no one is talking about it, Sonia. Suggesting that a company dump their company-provided health insurance and shoving their employees onto a government-run, very expensive health insurance Ponzi scheme, or paying a fine of $2,000.00 per employee, could not be called compassionate, or even logical.
Both Kagan and Sotomayor came out swinging because they feel that women should have free abortions and free birth control, which is not free, but is money taken from others to fund the sex life of women. They are so steeped in the liberal stew of emotions that to consider the logic, or lack thereof, behind such an assertion never even crosses their minds.
Onward:
Paul Clement, attorney for Hobby Lobby and Conestoga Wood Specialties, argued that employers with deep religious convictions were left with an unsavory choice: They could either offer a policy that included coverage for contraceptives against their beliefs, or they could exclude it from the coverage offered and pay an exorbitant penalty. Associate Justice Sonia Sotomayor, answered with this:
It's time for that to end. Let widget makers make widgets while not being burdened with overseeing health insurance for their employees.
People should buy their own health insurance. It should belong to them. And, no - that doesn't mean over-priced lousy coverage offered by the government. It means real insurance that covers catastrophic events, and not visits to the doctor to treat a cold.
Secondly, Ms Kagan's offer is just ludicrous. She's suggesting that Hobby Lobby just stop offering health insurance and hand over $2,000.00 per employee to the government to squander in any way they desire.
The owners of Hobby Lobby, being the upright Christians they are, would not do such a thing. If they no longer offered health insurance, they most certainly would provide a salary high enough for the employees to purchase their own insurance.
Except that Ms Kagan is demanding that the first $2,000.00 of possible higher wages be handed over to the government.
There are no winners here except the government.
Before we go further, I'm well aware that many of my female readers are not going to like what I have to say. That's mainly because the majority of women who visit here have exceptionally logical minds. Being a woman does not preclude thinking logically.
However, women and men do think differently and reach conclusions based on different criteria. Women have been gifted with an abundance of compassion and a nurturing spirit. The care and raising of children requires these types of gifts.
Men, before being turned into moisturizing metro-sexual wussy pants by over bearing women libbers, used to be the providers and protectors of the family. Over the last 50 or so years, however, we have seen a role reversal in the family that has not born fruit for men, women, or their children.
It is natural for a woman to want to nurture and raise her children. But we've told them that they should head out every day and go toe to toe with the men.
I can remember being a very young girl when women first started dumping their progeny into day cares. I can also remember my mother saying how sad it was that a poor little baby, who may not be feeling well that day, had to be bundled up and hauled out in the cold so Mommy could go to work.
My mother was not some high school dropout who wanted to stay home and be Mommy. She was a college-educated woman who understood the importance of her "mommy job".
Associate Justice Sonia Sotomayor had a brief marriage that ended in divorce, in part "due to the demands of her work." source Associate Justice Elena Kagan has never been married. Make of it what you will.
While some may say that the questions asked in the Hobby Lobby/Conestoga case before the Supreme Court were logical, they were also supremely unintelligent. One has to ask themselves why in the first question Sotomayor asked, she referred to "another choice nobody talks about"?
There's usually a reason no one is talking about it, Sonia. Suggesting that a company dump their company-provided health insurance and shoving their employees onto a government-run, very expensive health insurance Ponzi scheme, or paying a fine of $2,000.00 per employee, could not be called compassionate, or even logical.
Both Kagan and Sotomayor came out swinging because they feel that women should have free abortions and free birth control, which is not free, but is money taken from others to fund the sex life of women. They are so steeped in the liberal stew of emotions that to consider the logic, or lack thereof, behind such an assertion never even crosses their minds.
Onward:
Paul Clement, attorney for Hobby Lobby and Conestoga Wood Specialties, argued that employers with deep religious convictions were left with an unsavory choice: They could either offer a policy that included coverage for contraceptives against their beliefs, or they could exclude it from the coverage offered and pay an exorbitant penalty. Associate Justice Sonia Sotomayor, answered with this:
“But isn’t there another choice nobody talks about, which is paying the tax, which is a lot less than a penalty and a lot less than — than the cost of health insurance at all? Those employers could choose not to give health insurance and pay not that high a penalty – not that high a tax."
Clement noted that the penalty to Hobby Lobby would amount to $500 million per year.Not to be left out, Associate Justice Elena Kagan jumped in and said:
No, I don’t think that that’s the same thing, Mr. Clement. There’s one penalty that is if the employer continues to provide health insurance without this part of the coverage, but Hobby Lobby would choose not to provide health insurance at all. And in that case Hobby Lobby would pay $2,000 per employee, which is less than Hobby Lobby probably pays to provide insurance to its employees. So there is a choice here. It’s not even a penalty by – in the language of the statute. It’s a payment or a tax. There’s a choice.First of all, no employer should be forced to provide insurance. The fact that they do offer health insurance is a holdover from wage and price controls during WWII. When the War Labor Board ruled that wage and price controls did not apply to fringe benefits such as health insurance, many employers started offering health insurance to lure good employees.
It's time for that to end. Let widget makers make widgets while not being burdened with overseeing health insurance for their employees.
People should buy their own health insurance. It should belong to them. And, no - that doesn't mean over-priced lousy coverage offered by the government. It means real insurance that covers catastrophic events, and not visits to the doctor to treat a cold.
Secondly, Ms Kagan's offer is just ludicrous. She's suggesting that Hobby Lobby just stop offering health insurance and hand over $2,000.00 per employee to the government to squander in any way they desire.
The owners of Hobby Lobby, being the upright Christians they are, would not do such a thing. If they no longer offered health insurance, they most certainly would provide a salary high enough for the employees to purchase their own insurance.
Except that Ms Kagan is demanding that the first $2,000.00 of possible higher wages be handed over to the government.
There are no winners here except the government.
Wednesday, June 26, 2013
I'm gone...
not forever, but for awhile (at least until Monday.)
I'll be popping in to some of my favorite blogs and may even be commenting, but for now I have nothing to say except the following.
Guess what?
I don't really care what the Supreme Court said today. If the libtards want to live in a world of their own making, I say, "Let them." It doesn't change one iota of how I plan on living my life, nor should it change how you live your life.
The consequences of their immorality will be theirs alone to "enjoy." Kill babies by the million up to and after birth? Just dandy. Practice unsafe and abnormal sex? Yum! Have illegitimate children by the bucketful and expect the state (that would be us) to support them? Too cool.
Wake up people. The libtards are creating their utopia. They'll have to live in it. The only way they can beat us is to force us to join them. You don't have to do that. Protect yourself. Protect your family.
Live your life the way God intended. It's as simple as that...
I think I may have to read some Jane Austen this weekend...
I'll be popping in to some of my favorite blogs and may even be commenting, but for now I have nothing to say except the following.
Guess what?
I don't really care what the Supreme Court said today. If the libtards want to live in a world of their own making, I say, "Let them." It doesn't change one iota of how I plan on living my life, nor should it change how you live your life.
The consequences of their immorality will be theirs alone to "enjoy." Kill babies by the million up to and after birth? Just dandy. Practice unsafe and abnormal sex? Yum! Have illegitimate children by the bucketful and expect the state (that would be us) to support them? Too cool.
Wake up people. The libtards are creating their utopia. They'll have to live in it. The only way they can beat us is to force us to join them. You don't have to do that. Protect yourself. Protect your family.
Live your life the way God intended. It's as simple as that...
I think I may have to read some Jane Austen this weekend...
Thursday, June 28, 2012
Wednesday, June 20, 2012
Will SCOTUS hand down the opinion on the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) tomorrow...
not sure how you feel about this, but I'm ready for it to be over with. Let's roll!
From: The SCOTUSblog:
From: The SCOTUSblog:
Remaining merits cases: In Plain English
On Monday the Court issued four opinions in argued cases. Between tomorrow and the end of next week, we expect the Court to issue ten more opinions in argued cases. (That number is based on the assumption that the Court will issue only one opinion covering all of the health care cases and issues; whether the Court will in fact do so remains to be seen.) read the rest
Thursday, May 3, 2012
The Catholic vote...
will it make a difference in the election?
The average Catholic is so poorly catechized, and so steeped in Marxist "social justice" garbage, that voting for a man who is completely in favor of abortion does not even make their outrage meter wiggle.
The bishops have taken a stand against the contraception mandate. All well and good, except they then schizophrenically turn around and lambast Paul Ryan's budget because they think it "hurts poor people", or some darn thing.
With the exception of those who pay attention to what is going on, which is few to none, we wonder why Catholics are confused? On the other hand, few to none of the the general population pay any attention to what's going on either. You see, just because we are involved in the political process (over involved to the detriment of our mental health?), the majority of Americans wander around pecking at their little screens and walking unawares into traffic.
While I generally agree with most everything Michael Voris says, and indeed, 90% of what he says in this video is correct, it sort of runs off the rails when he says the bishops need to quit fighting the HHS contraceptive battle on the grounds of religious liberty, but instead use the concept of natural law as a means of winning the argument. Well (IMO), that bird has a broken wing.
First of all, the average person has no concept of what natural law even is, and secondly, you're having a battle with committed Marxists who don't recognize natural law - at least in the Catholic sense of natural law. Natural law over the entire span of man, has garnered so many different definitions that it would soon devolve into an argument over what natural law even is.
Here's what I think is really going on. Remember, this is just my opinion. I think the bishops are counting on Obamacare being struck down by the Supremes as unconstitutional, either in part or whole, at which time the mandates become meaningless. Voila, they look like heroes for standing up for religious freedom.
The real question is, why is the federal government mandating to a private business what they shall pay for or provide? Of course, the insurance company is not paying for it as I've actually heard some lefties say. The customer, that would be you and me, will be paying for it in the form of higher premiums. And next will be the mandate for free abortions under the guise of "women's health." You can absolutely count on it.
More:
Hot Air: Gallup: Catholic vote a tossup, 46/46
Renew America: The roots of the culture war: The debate over universal law
The average Catholic is so poorly catechized, and so steeped in Marxist "social justice" garbage, that voting for a man who is completely in favor of abortion does not even make their outrage meter wiggle.
The bishops have taken a stand against the contraception mandate. All well and good, except they then schizophrenically turn around and lambast Paul Ryan's budget because they think it "hurts poor people", or some darn thing.
With the exception of those who pay attention to what is going on, which is few to none, we wonder why Catholics are confused? On the other hand, few to none of the the general population pay any attention to what's going on either. You see, just because we are involved in the political process (over involved to the detriment of our mental health?), the majority of Americans wander around pecking at their little screens and walking unawares into traffic.
While I generally agree with most everything Michael Voris says, and indeed, 90% of what he says in this video is correct, it sort of runs off the rails when he says the bishops need to quit fighting the HHS contraceptive battle on the grounds of religious liberty, but instead use the concept of natural law as a means of winning the argument. Well (IMO), that bird has a broken wing.
First of all, the average person has no concept of what natural law even is, and secondly, you're having a battle with committed Marxists who don't recognize natural law - at least in the Catholic sense of natural law. Natural law over the entire span of man, has garnered so many different definitions that it would soon devolve into an argument over what natural law even is.
Here's what I think is really going on. Remember, this is just my opinion. I think the bishops are counting on Obamacare being struck down by the Supremes as unconstitutional, either in part or whole, at which time the mandates become meaningless. Voila, they look like heroes for standing up for religious freedom.
The real question is, why is the federal government mandating to a private business what they shall pay for or provide? Of course, the insurance company is not paying for it as I've actually heard some lefties say. The customer, that would be you and me, will be paying for it in the form of higher premiums. And next will be the mandate for free abortions under the guise of "women's health." You can absolutely count on it.
More:
Hot Air: Gallup: Catholic vote a tossup, 46/46
Renew America: The roots of the culture war: The debate over universal law
Friday, April 13, 2012
Communists in the Supreme Court?...
you may be surprised. Then again - maybe not.
What would you say if you learned that a member of the highest court in the land has spent the last 30 years openly advocating for the destruction of the US Constitution and even went so far as to accept $20 million from Shariah Law proponents to accomplish her goal? read the rest
Friday, March 30, 2012
Where Does the Supreme Court Get Its Power?
a very good question and one I'm sure most of us have asked.
Dr. Robert Owens answers it over at the Lonely Conservative.
Where Does the Supreme Court Get Its Power?
Dr. Robert Owens answers it over at the Lonely Conservative.
Where Does the Supreme Court Get Its Power?
This week the eyes of everyone concerned with the continuance of limited government were riveted on the Supreme Court. For three days the nine Justices heard arguments by the Solicitor General in favor of ruling the individual mandate, which is the keystone of Obamacare, constitutional. They also heard the representatives of twenty-six States argue that it is unconstitutional. This is the first time that a majority of the States have combined to protest an act of Congress. Now We the People must wait while the fate of our Republic is decided in secret by our Black Robed rulers from whom there is no appeal.
How did we get here? read the rest
Friday, August 6, 2010
Some of the Best Posts on the Recent Same-Sex Marriage Ruling w/ my thoughts FWIW
Bob Belvedere over at The Camp of the Saints beautifully elaborates on things Stacy has said:"As with Roe v. Wade, once the elite make up their minds about a subject, they go to court to impose their will on the rest of us, and then subject us to lectures about how benighted and backward we are for not sharing their enthusiasm for Progress." Stacy McCain
And In The End, The Love You Make, Is Equal To…
Smitty is in agreement with a couple of libertarian homosexuals who favor getting the government out of the marriage business.
So is Cheeky Pink Girl in Sign Me Up for a Church Wedding.
Viewed From the Right disagrees with same-sex marriage in A rejoinder to The Classic Liberal
and (IMO) has some very good reasons.
The Blog Prof has a great video and voices his opinion (quite forcefully) in CNN Goes To Gay Bar In West Hollywood For Their ONLY Reaction To Prop 8 Ruling Overturning Gay Marriage Ban in CA
Matthew Archbold in We the People Means 9, weighs in and earns the second quote of the day award.
And last but certainly not least - from my legal beagle buddy in Spokane, Mark at Ordered Liberty, comes Perry v. Schwarzenegger and the confusion of rights with desires . A most excellent post with some outstanding links."Secularists are winning the culture war because for too long those upholding traditional values didn’t understand the field on which the culture war was taking place. For too long we thought it was simply a battle for the hearts and souls of our fellow Americans. We didn’t know the people had nothing to do with it. When we figured that out we then moved towards politics until we found out that the Senate and the House isn’t where the real power resides either. Then and only then did we discover that the only reason politicians matter is so they can nominate or block judges who actually make the decisions."
And what do I think?
I think this will end up at the Supreme Court. I'm thinking the Supremes will uphold the over-turning of Prop 8, which really means Kennedy, as Mark points out.
None of this is really about "marriage", but about a small minority of people wishing to impose their beliefs on the majority. Being able to get "married" is not the goal here. Homosexuals don't want tolerance or equality. They want you to not only accept their choice of sexual activities, but to approve and even consider a man having sex with a man (with all that entails), and a woman with a woman as normal. It's not and it never will be normal.
Within 10 years or less of this passing, the entire social structure will be even more tilted than it already is. If the state guarantees homosexual marriage as a "right", it will open the floodgates to all sorts of open indoctrination in the schools, churches, and the work place. Homosexual adoption and artificial insemination will be the norm. We can expect the courts to be clogged with same-sex couples fighting over their little designer babies when the union goes belly-up. If over 50% of heterosexual marriages end in divorce, we can certainly not expect "homosexual marriage" to be an improvement.
The state has traditionally protected and encouraged marriage and the family because it's for the good of society. However, when they began rewarding women for having children out of wedlock by throwing money at them, and then coming up with the concept of "no-fault divorce", it has wreaked havoc on our society. Single mothers are, in most cases, the poor that the rest of us have to support. Women and men are cast aside like used Kleenex just because a partner is having a mid-life crisis. Unlike the former wife of Tiger Woods, most of these women will live in reduced circumstances - many to the point of poverty. Boys are raised without fathers to teach them the proper meaning of being a man. And don't even get me started on raising a little girl without a strong father figure to teach her how she should expect to be treated by a real man.
Is there any chance our society will once again embrace our former strong standards of morality? Sure. As soon as we have a huge, ugly crisis. And, trust me (said the spider to the fly), this crisis is coming sooner than we may think, and it will be unimaginably horrible.
So - that's what I think.
A really cool idea!
Head over to Reaganite Republican. He came up with the best ever idea. He did 'point" and Michael at Jumping in Pools did the counterpoint. Maybe I could talk RR into doing one with moi.
Point-Counterpoint: Is Obama Simply Incompetent... or is it All by Design? Then Take Our Poll...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)