skip to main |
skip to sidebar
Glenn Beck has a slogan he wants us to pass around:
Not racist.
Not violent.
No longer silent.
I think that he's hit it right on the head. This describes me and I think most that think like me to the core. However, those that would take our freedom and destroy the Constitution need to understand something. Don't mistake our peaceful ways and prayers for weakness and lack of resolve. Just because we don't want to take up arms doesn't mean we won't. And if we do, God help you. Because when Americans take up arms they don't put them down until the fight is over and the bad guys are dead.
And don't think that you've got the military and police on your side, either. They know us and we know them. We're brothers and sisters in the American family and we never turn on our own.
So think carefully about the words of Admiral Yamamoto in the poster below. He understood something about the American family that you just don't seem to get.
"A court in Arizona ruled on Tuesday that a noise ordinance banning churches in Phoenix from ringing their bells is unconstitutional. One pastor was sentenced to jail last year for violating the ordinance, which allowed an exception for ice cream trucks but not for churches.
St. Mark Roman Catholic Parish, First Christian Church, and Christ the King Liturgical Charismatic Church all challenged the ordinance in a lawsuit filed by attorneys from the Alliance Defense Fund (ADF) in 2009.
Christ the King Church joined the lawsuit after its pastor, Bishop Rick Painter, was sentenced for ringing his church’s bells, despite making compromises to appease the few local residents who filed complaints. He was given a suspended sentence of 10 days in jail and three years of probation on June 3, 2009.
ADF reported on Tuesday that a federal judge ruled the city of Phoenix could not enforce its noise ordinance to prohibit “sound generated in the course of religious expression.”
“Churches shouldn’t be targeted and punished for ringing their bells as a public expression of faith that’s been done for centuries,” said Erik Stanley, ADF Senior Legal Counsel in response to the court decision.
“The federal court has made the right decision by declaring that the city’s noise ordinance violates the First and Fourteenth Amendments.”
EWTN News
"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."
1st Amendment-U.S. Constitution
"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."
14th Amendment Section 1-U.S. Constitution
There are some things that just don't require a law degree from Harvard to figure out. Bell ringing at a church is clearly part of religious practice and thus cannot be prohibited by the government. The wall of separation that Jefferson wrote about in his letter to the Danbury Baptists also is clearly pertinent here because that wall is intended to keep government out of the affairs of churches.
There is a reason that something as seemingly clear and simple as the bell issue cannot be seen by some in our country, including legal scholars. The reason is that the clear intent of the founders, to allow for free expression of political thought and religious worship has been polluted by filth like the story below.
How can we have an 8-1 majority opinion, including from the likes of Scalia and Thomas, in favor of this level of perversion and hiding it under the cover of freedom of speech? If the men that wrote the Bill of Rights were alive today they would hang the freaks with the "fetishes" and then figure out a way to reestablish the original intent of their words.
America is wallowing in a cesspool of Satanic degradation. When even respected jurists refuse to call deviancy what it is but instead see fit to raise it to the level of protected speech we are nearing a judgement from above. And we deserve it.
"The Supreme Court ruled Tuesday that even videos that depict wanton animal cruelty deserve free-speech protections under the First Amendment.
In an 8-1 decision that united the court's liberal and conservative wings, the justices struck down a law that was enacted in response to so-called crush videos, supposedly designed to satisfy bizarre sexual cravings. The court said the law, however well-intentioned, went too far.
"Maybe there are some categories of speech that have been historically unprotected," Chief Justice John Roberts wrote for the majority, "but if so, there is no evidence that depictions of animal cruelty is among them."
Dallas News
If the healthcare bill passes, which I'm sure it will, what is the next step? The courts? And then what?
We're crossing uncharted waters.
"...The Slaughter Solution is a poisoned chalice. By drinking from it, the Democrats would not only commit political suicide. They would guarantee that any bill signed by Mr. Obama is illegitimate, illegal and blatantly unconstitutional. It would be worse than a strategic blunder; it would be a crime - a moral crime against the American people and a direct abrogation of the Constitution and our very democracy.
It would open Mr. Obama, as well as key congressional leaders such as Mrs. Pelosi, to impeachment. The Slaughter Solution would replace the rule of law with arbitrary one-party rule. It violates the entire basis of our constitutional government - meeting the threshold of "high crimes and misdemeanors." If it's enacted, Republicans should campaign for the November elections not only on repealing Obamacare, but on removing Mr. Obama and his gang of leftist thugs from office.
It is time Americans drew a line in the sand. Mr. Obama crosses it at his peril."
Washington Times
"That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security."
Declaration of Independence
If thirty eight states sign on to this you not only have the 2/3 of the states needed to call a Constitutional Convention, you also have the 3/4 of the states needed to ratify an amendment. If the push for the Tenth Amendment rights of the states is not recognized this is the next step; to call for a Constitutional Convention. The question is, can it be contained to just the health care debate or would it throw open the whole Constitution for reconsideration?
These are the times that try mens souls.
"Idaho took the lead in a growing, nationwide fight against health care overhaul Wednesday when its governor became the first to sign a measure requiring the state attorney general to sue the federal government if residents are forced to buy health insurance.
Similar legislation is pending in 37 other states.
Constitutional law experts say the movement is mostly symbolic because federal laws supersede those of the states.
But the state measures reflect a growing frustration with President President Barack Obama's health care overhaul. The proposal would cover some 30 million uninsured people, end insurance practices such as denying coverage to those with pre-existing conditions, require almost all Americans to get coverage by law, and try to slow the cost of medical care nationwide.
Democratic leaders hope to vote on it this weekend.
With Washington closing in on a deal in the months-long battle over health care overhaul, Republican state lawmakers opposed to the measure are stepping up opposition.
Otter, a Republican, said he believes any future lawsuit from Idaho has a legitimate shot of winning, despite what the naysayers say.
"The ivory tower folks will tell you, 'No, they're not going anywhere,' " he told reporters. "But I'll tell you what, you get 36 states, that's a critical mass. That's a constitutional mass."
AP
:...The second method prescribed is for a Constitutional Convention to be called by two-thirds of the legislatures of the States, and for that Convention to propose one or more amendments. These amendments are then sent to the states to be approved by three-fourths of the legislatures or conventions. This route has never been taken, and there is discussion in political science circles about just how such a convention would be convened, and what kind of changes it would bring about."
U.S. Constitution.net
Ioannes over at Commentarius de Prognosticis is running a series of commentaries on the platform of the Constitution Party over the next few weeks. Here is an excerpt from his first installment:
"This blogsite has been exceedingly critical of the Democrat Party, and rightly so given its policies supporting the infanticide of the unborn and the legitimatization of homosexual relationships. But we have been mostly silent on the Republican Party. It is therefore time to state clearly what we do support, and that is the principles of the US Constitution Party. Its platform is the closest to the teachings of Holy Mother Church."
I too am an ardent supporter of the Constitution party and agree whole heartedly with the paragraph above. I'm going to link back to each of the forthcoming articles in hope of spreading the word to as many people as possible about this great alternative to the Republicans and Democrats. Neither of the traditional parties can be trusted to do what they promise; well maybe the Democrats. They've been pretty upfront about their Progressivism lately.
We always hear that a vote for a third party is wasted. We hear that a party like the Constitution Party will just take votes away from the Republicans and give the election to the Democrats. If this is the case then so be it. I can no longer vote Republican if I am offered a candidate from the Constitution Party. I have thrown away my votes for the last 20 years, punching the Republican ticket in vain hope that the size of the Federal Government would be reduced to its Constitutional limits. Instead, I've been given expanding government and increasing involvement with wars and empire building in foreign countries. And now we are faced with a cataclysmic collapse of our entire Republic. Both wings of the Progressive Party are responsible. So why should I vote for either ever again?
The first installment at Commentarius de Prognosticis can be found here and the second here.
Read them and go to the Constitution Party website for further information. I'll post additional entries from Ioannes as they become available.
All of us that consider ourselves conservatives need to support the efforts of the U.S. Constitution Party. We have to start somewhere to bring Constitutionally sane government back to America. We know through long and bitter experience that the Republicans are no more likely to accomplish this goal than the Democrats. It's time for a different way to be tried.
Vote for the Constitution; vote Constitution Party!
Posts
