No, the SCOTUS found that we couldn't invade the privacy of the Dr. office to control it. Why is this not applied evenly across other medical procedures? No doubt you will continue to ignore the point being made.
The point I'm taking from you is that you want it to be different now, without any additional effort, except that associated with taking up arms against the government.
That, to me, is a position of weakness, not strength.
The point I'm taking from you is that you want it to be different now, without any additional effort, except that associated with taking up arms against the government.
That, to me, is a position of weakness, not strength.
Odd you would say that considering that abortion was "legalized" without the "effort" required under our laws. You refusal to address the point being made shows the weakness of your position.
The legality of abortion was interpreted from the Constitution as it existed at the time and by the court as it was comprised at the time.
Change the Constitution and you then change the interpretation and therefore the law. Make that which was once inferred explicit and you remove all doubt.
And you can do it without shedding a drop of blood. Brilliant.
Violent overthrow of the U.S. government? And then what? Replace it with the U.S. government.?
"The Government" isn't the problem. Certain elements ( lovely phrase that, implies so much and has so little meaning ) in our government are in positions where they do not answer to the law. Some people feel they are an elite, and we, especially those foolish folk in "flyover country", are idiots, potential slaves, and should shut up, sit down, and let the wise rule us.
We aren't very good at that.
No one with half a brain wants to shoot at the military, or the police, or the fire dept.
Leftist, racist, fringe groups DO shoot at the police and firemen, and have murdered military, police and firemen. The President's babysitter ( back when he was living in Chicago ) is one such anarchistic murdering scum. Some think he wrote Obama's "autobiography". ( I think it likely )
Not to say there are not looney toons on the right. Most "militia" groups are Commando wannabe's just looking to have a good time. ( splatball just isn't loud enough ) There are a few, though, that would be wise to keep an eye on.
So, out of 300 million people, we have, ( guessing ) 400 right wing looneys, perhaps 3 of whom will do something really stupid when their wife dumps them. And... about 700 thousand lefty loons, about 4000 who will beat people in planned protests, and 6 or so that will murder people Bill Maher accuses of murder. That doesn't count professionals. They Work for George Soros.
The past decade shows that Jihadis kill more folk than the right & left loons combined, they just don't rally where the news cameras can get a good angle to lie about their numbers.
So if you just slipped your cams, decided that life is not worth living, want to abandon your family, children, and any hope of anyone remembering you as a good guy, go ahead and attack the Congressmen you heard some professional jerk on AM radio complain about. Please use a club. If you use a gun, the lefty scum will want to ban them, and send jack booted thugs to kick down our doors. If you use a sword, they will try and ban them, and us history buffs will catch heat. I'd even be careful about a baseball bat, since YOU KNOW some idiot WILL call for registration, and someones 6 year old will be arrested on the way to the park to play ball.
Or just bite them on the neck, so we can see an end to the Twilight boy vampire crap at long last.
Absolutely not. If it's in the Constitution, it's constitutional. No judge can rule against it on constitutional grounds. Remember Prohibition?
The legality of abortion was interpreted from the Constitution as it existed at the time and by the court as it was comprised at the time.
You contradict yourself while at the same time making Sifo's point.
For the last 100 years the SCOTUS has been legislating via judicial fiat rather than operating under the intended purpose of the Supreme Court.
Ever wonder WHY there are so few Constitutional amendments these days when there were many in previous years? Why go through the effort of pushing for Constitutional amendment when you can simply appoint activist judges to the Supreme Court?
Liberals have found a short cut. When you can't secure the outcome you want, change the referee. Obama said so himself.
Obama completely fails at understanding the intent and purpose of the Supreme Court. Too much power? They are the ONLY check and balance on the legislature. It's the job of the Supreme Court to stand in the way of legislation that goes contrary to the Constitution.
Obama seeks to appoint judges who agree with progressive legislation AND are willing to legislate from the bench in "interpreting" powers for the Federal Government not granted by the Constitution.
Obama views any judge who follows a strict constructionist view of the Constitution as "conservative" whereas ALL SUPREME COURT JUDGES should be strict constructionist adherents.
I'm pretty sure that the framers NEVER intended for the government to be able to seize private property and give it to another private owner. Considering land ownership was the key to personal wealth and self actualization, I'm pretty sure they would be rising up with torches and pitch forks at the current "interpretation" of eminent domain.
Regarding the 14th Amendment, the Supreme Court thoroughly f'ed up the original intent of the law in the United States v. Wong Kim Ark case.
Instead of reading the law as it was intended based upon the court precedent and the legislative debate held prior to the passage of the amendment, the SCOTUS created law out of whole cloth.
I agree. An amendment to the 14th is in order. This means that even Michelle Malkin has to apply for citizenship.
Do Not use violence to try and make political moves. We've done pretty good ( not counting the War of Northern Aggression ) at transitions of power with minimal bloodshed. ( the Clinton Whitehouse Staff's childish theft of the letter "W" from keyboards just showed what jerks they are )
Anyone who does use violence against innocents or to overthrow our Constitutional State, well, feel free to use any means necessary to stop them.
I'm deadly fraking serious about not using a gun, sword, or baseball bat. If sandlot baseball gets banned because of some jerk, I'm going to be very, very cross.
Actually, it's the progressives who seek violent overthrow of the government.
There are many protests scheduled for this summer. The hope is to have mass violence like in Egypt and Libya.
I don't advocate violent overthrow since the vacuum created on the backside provides fertile ground for all kinds of nasty forms of authoritarian rule to spout.
But Blake, it's not the police or military that's the problem. We need the fringe guys to run up to congressmen with a wooden stake,and scream "he sparkles!" before doing the Buffy on them. ( there, that will end the Twilight movies for sure! heh heh heh. )
not calling for violence except for comedic effect
When the government prevents you from voting, writing, donating, praying, and working, all bets are off. Follow the Egyptian example, loudly descend on the Washington Mall, and stop The Machine. Starve it. Ayn Rand and John Galt would smile down upon you.
But "tyranny" isn't the case today. We are free to make the changes we want to make for the causes we support and to guide the nation where we want it to go.
All too often it seems that mention of "tyranny" in our current gov't is instead rather mention of "folks/legislators/judges who don't agree with me." You, we, can influence all three of those groups, no matter where on the political spectrum we dwell.
The folks in Iran, Venezuela, Egypt, and other totalitarian states get to vote, so that criteria fails. The true test is allowing representatives from any/all freedom loving political parties to contest any election they like.
>>> writing,
See latest Soros backed "war" against Fox News? Recall the Obama administration's prior blatant hostility towards Fox News? Not heard about the so-called "fairness doctrine"? Wake up.
>>> donating,
I'd say to be able to freely choose whether or not to donate is the valid measure. In some cases people are now being forced to donate to the party of leftists by so-called labor unions. Fail. Tyranny rules.
>>> praying,
Prayer is being prevented all over the place more times than can be counted.
>>> and working,
Happens all the time in non-right to work states. Again the so-called labor unions see to that. Ask the former Gulf of Mexico offshore oil field workers if they have been allowed to work or if they were put out of their jobs by an ideological president's decree.
>>> Follow the Egyptian example, loudly descend on the Washington Mall, and stop The Machine.
You apparently missed the tea parties. Understandable since the press did all they could to belittle, badmouth, smear and oppose them.
The Egyptian example requires bewilderingly high unemployment to facilitate the long term congregation of such large masses of disgruntled citizens, or it would require sponsored by so-called labor unions.
>>> But "tyranny" isn't the case today.
It absolutely is in some cases, see the EPA for instance, or Obama's new war in Libya. The trend is clear in all areas of government. See this for instance.
>>> We are free to make the changes we want to make for the causes we support and to guide the nation where we want it to go.
Not so much. When a President and judges declare that a state must lie impotent in the face of rampant criminal invasion by illegal immigrants, that is tyranny.
The meaning of tyranny is a government that does not abide by the rule of law, but makes it up or changes it to suit their own agenda. Did you miss the 100% partisan stunt pulled in congress, especially by the Senate in order to get Obamacare passed? They used "reconciliation" improperly, unprecedentedly in the case of MASSIVE new social legislation. The president lied, outright lied to congressman Bart Stupak about there being no funding for abortion. Most recently the Obama administration refused to defund abortion during budget negotiations. Liars.
Did you somehow miss that the Dem controlled congress REFUSED to pass or even submit a budget for fiscal year 2010, choosing instead to fund the government via continuing resolutions. Why the @#$! do you think they shirked their primary responsibility like that? They knew that if they exposed their social spending plans in writing to the American people they'd have lost even worse than they did.
Who in the government prevented YOU from voting for the candidate of YOUR choice?
Who in the government prevented YOU from writing/speaking whatever YOU want?
Who in the government prevented YOU from donating to/volunteering for the initiatives and causes YOU supported?
Who in the government prevented YOU from praying in YOUR church, home, office, sidewalk, legislative house, etc.
Who in the government prevented YOU from working in YOUR chosen field, for YOUR chosen employer, in YOUR chosen locality (market forces aside, of course)?
Is your beef with labor unions? Vote them out of existence (see Wisconsin's recent example). Is your beef with competing news/media outlets? Boycott them and their sponsors (while sighing with relief that at least you have a choice of media outlets). Is your beef with the EPA? Vote/legislate it out of existence (see the Republican's recent push during budget negotiations to scale back EPA authority). Is your beef with "activist judges"? Enact constitutional laws that minimize or eliminate the need for precedence and/or judicial interpretation (politicize judicial elections, too, if you want).
When I am forced to hand over a large portion of the fruits of my own labors in support of all that I listed above, that is tyranny. I for one won't be so selfish as to wait until it happens to me personally. Instead I'll try to follow the example of Ben Franklin and Thomas Jefferson.
My "beef" as you say is as I've described in detail in my previous post, which you have failed to address. Perfect left winger side-step of the actual issues, turning the debate to ad-hominem.
Tyranny in action as mandated by the Obama administration:
"If they bring a knife, we bring a gun."
Not so much a cowboy. I like cowboys. More an inner city thug.
Who's side-stepping who? Those "detailed" responses were somehow meant to show that "tyranny" is in place? The logic is flawed. "I saw a Buell motorcycle on the street today and no others, therefore all motorcycles must be Buells."
So you're powerless, huh? Given up, have you? It's all stacked against you and your fellow patriots? That's why armed resistance is a viable path to bringing about your vision of "true" government?
See latest Soros backed "war" against Fox News? Recall the Obama administration's prior blatant hostility towards Fox News? Not heard about the so-called "fairness doctrine"? Wake up.
This is true. Now that NPR stuck their foot in their mouth hopefully the will lose Fed Gov funding.... but I doubt it.
From the Oh No thread:
I'm confident that they know and believe they are doing allah's will. It's difficult for some to identify and face evil. It's imperative that we do so if we wish to continue enjoying our freedoms and our lives.
>>>>>Tyranny in action as mandated by the Obama administration: <object><param></param><param></param><param></par am><embed></embed></object>
These two statements seem to contridict or am I interpreting it wrong?
So ex-pat, if you dont like it, cant stand it, cant change it, leave.
If more talent leaves, they will eventually change their mind. But how many of the jobs are already heading over seas? Engineering, consulting, customer service, security, networking, all being outsourced. Follow the money, and you wont end up staying domestic for long. Grab a language, your dictionaries, your passport, and GTFO. (whilest you can! Remember Stalin would execute those that tried to flee his regime)
They might let you watch, they wont invite you, the pawns they use, wont entice you; when they play at that level.... well it really is a drag, really such a pity. So you better just go back to your bars, your massage parlors, your reality tv.... sleep.
Logic getting the best of you eh? Can't address the actual issues for loss of ability to do so? Sorry about that. I'd not beat yourself up though. Truth is truth and facts are facts, tough keep up a false front against both for very long.
>>> So you're powerless, huh? Given up, have you?
No, and no. Neither of which implies that tyranny is not on the march as previously described.
>>> These two statements seem to contradict or am I interpreting it wrong?
I think you have a very poor understanding of what it means to face evil and that we must do so without trashing our rights. In the face of evil, the most sensible response is to confront and destroy it. Feeling up little girls does neither. It is a tyrannical coward's response. It is despicable and contrary to our rights.
Having the guts to declare islamism (that portion of islam that seeks totalitarian control and sharia law) a subversive cult would be a good start.
Cutting back on MASSIVE economy killing socialist entitlement programs rather than expanding them would be another.
Standing by and supporting our allies would be another.
Not supporting the muslim brotherhood's take over of Egypt would be another.
Condemning our enemies (Iran, Syria) while supporting those who seek to oust their totalitarian oppressors would be another.
