“Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom, must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it.”
~ Thomas Paine
The “Supreme” Court does not make laws, it simply offers opinions on whether or not a “law” meets Constitutional muster. If the law violates the Constitution, then the law is remanded back to the Legislative branch so that the law can be re-written to fall in line with the Constitution. This is how our government is supposed to create laws.
Bear in mind that offering an “opinion” does not change the law. They just tell us that it does and we believe their lies. We then repeat their lies and teach them to others. The lies soon become “truth”, although it is not The Truth. I’ll say it again. Courts do not make laws.
Abortion is not legal anywhere in America. That’s right, there is no Federal Law on the books regarding abortion. None! There is a “Supreme” Court opinion called Roe V Wade, but that is merely an opinion…not a law! They just tell us that it is and we believe them, follow the lie, and teach it to others.
Access to abortions of “convenience” is illegal in all 50 states. A “Supreme” Court decision cannot and does not change the law. They just tell us that it does, and we, like gullible subjects, believe them.
Planned Parenthood has been violating the law in all 50 states and should be closed, and all of the directors and abortionists should go to prison as accessories to murder. That is the law of the land, and that is the Truth.
The same Truth also applies to homo “marriage.” Before the recent “opinion” of the “Supreme” Court, marriage was strictly between a man and a woman in 39 states. Eleven states had legalized sodomite “marriage” through the legislative process, 3 by direct election of the people, and 8 by action of State Legislatures. Today, sodomite “marriage” is still illegal in all 39 of the states where the law is still on the books. The “Supreme” Court cannot change the law, but can only offer opinions about it.
“The greatest [calamity] which could befall [us would be] submission to a government of unlimited powers.”
~ Thomas Jefferson
“The issue today is the same as it has been throughout all history, whether man shall be allowed to govern himself or be ruled by a small elite.”
~ Thomas Jefferson
“If we keep ourselves in tune with the Lord we are preparing for whatever confronts us and with the LORD we can overcome ANYTHING!!”
“He who neglects his duty to his Maker may well be expected to be deficient and insincere in his duty towards the public.”
Like clouds, word meanings change throughout time. “Awful” once meant “full of wonder and reverence”; “cute” meant “bowlegged”; “gay” meant “jovial”; and “nice” meant “precise”.
Accordingly, if someone from an earlier time wrote of a “cute gay man”, he was not referring to an adorable homosexual, but to a cheerful bowlegged man.
So! In order to understand the genuine meaning of a text, we must use the definitions the authors used when they wrote it. Otherwise, written texts become as shifting and impermanent as the clouds – blown hither and yon throughout the years by those who unthinkingly read in their own uninformed understandings, or deliberately pervert the text to further their own agenda.
So! Is Our Constitution built on the Rock of Fixed Definitions – those our Framers used? Or are its Words mere clouds to be blown about by Acts of Congress, whims of federal judges, and the idiotic notions of every ignoramus who writes about it?
What Did Our Framers mean by “natural born Citizen”?
Read the entire article:
In this article the write specifically points out that Marco Rubio and Barack Husein Obama are not Natural Born Citizens and are not eligible to hold the office of President. It is stressed repeatedly that a Natural Born Citizen is born of parents, (plural) which are citizens at the time of the candidates birth. Not mentioned are the two other ineligible, potential candidates; Ted Cruz and Bobby Jindal.
Jindal was born June 10, 1971. His parents were not US citizens at the time of his birth; they were here on green cards. His mother became a citizen in 1976, his father in 1986. Jindal is a US citizen at birth, but not a Natural Born Citizen. A fine man an loyal American but not eligible for the presidency.
Ted Cruz was born in Canada. His mother was born in Delaware. Cruz’ father was born in Cuba, lived in the US on a student visa, went to Canada and became a Canadian citizen. But, he did not become a naturalized US citizen until 2005. Ted Cruz is a US citizen at birth, but not a Natural Born Citizen because both parents must be citizens at the time of the candidates birth. Ted is another fine man and wonderful senator but not eligible for the presidency.
“Neither the wisest constitution nor the wisest laws will secure the liberty and happiness of a people whose manners are universally corrupt.”
~ Samuel Adams
“When vice is bold, that is not the time for virtue to be timid”
“This is my Father’s world. Oh, let me ne’er forget that though the wrong seems oft so strong, God is the ruler yet.”
~ Author Unknown
“I am not pledging obedience to the government, it is to the Republic. We don’t ask for our rights, and we don’t negotiate for our rights. We will take America back.”
Because ALL law that violates the Constitution is not law, it is VOID!.. We the people will not tolerate this law. We will not bow down and lick the boots of tyrants, we will stand for the liberty of our children. We’re not waiting for politicians, judges or lawyers. Our birthright is NOT to be touched. We gather and we will affirm that liberty.”
Read the full article ~
Why the Tea Party Failed
The tea party movement failed – was co-opted by RINOs and lying progressives – because it was never founded on principles.
What they wanted to do was chant slogans and have someone else – a leader – a savior – come along and handle everything. The savior would figure all this out and fix the problems.
At the beginning of the movement, Marco Rubio was one of the tea party people that Ann Coulter and Mark Levin “loved.” Now it’s Ted Cruz. [Both of them are ineligible to be President and are as phony as a $3.00 bill.]
Impeachment: All you need to know (and you do need to know it)
A President may – and should – be impeached & removed for usurpations of power, mismanagement, incompetence, or for any other reason deemed sufficient by Congress.
The lawful methods of getting rid of a sitting President [whether eligible or not to hold the office], in addition to impeachment, are set forth in the 25th Amendment: Natural death, resignation, or inability to do the job.
Do not spin your wheels in fruitless insistence that a person (who may still be an Indonesian national) who occupies the office of President can’t be impeached because he is ineligible to hold that office. The FACT is that he holds the office. Impeachment is a lawful & constitutional method to rid ourselves of this blight.
Will Obama be impeached now that Republicans control both houses of Congress?
November 12, 2014
Stephen Stone, RenewAmerica President
Shortly after communist-mentored Barack Obama was elected to the White House in 2008, I asked a brother at a family gathering, “Who’s going to be president of the United States in 20 years?” Without hesitating, he said, “Barack Obama.”
More informed than most people I’d asked, he instantly got the drift of my question.
As we contemplate the compelling need to impeach and remove the president, consider the following exchange between Rep. Trey Gowdy and a witness before Congress in December 2013, as Rep. Gowdy wondered aloud if Obama planned to stay on indefinitely:
- “If the president can fail to enforce immigration laws, can the president likewise fail to enforce election laws?” Gowdy asked of Simon Lazarus, senior counsel to the Constitutional Accountability Center, who was giving testimony.
“If you can dispense with immigration laws or marijuana laws or mandatory minimums, can you also dispense with election laws?” Gowdy asked Lazarus.
For his part, Lazarus said that Obama couldn’t do such a thing. But Gowdy pressed on and asked the logical question, “Why not?”
“Because we live in a government of laws, and the president is bound to obey them and apply them,” Lazarus replied.
But Gowdy wasn’t to be so easily pushed off point.
“Well he’s not applying the ACA, and he’s not applying immigration laws, and he’s not applying marijuana laws, and he’s not applying mandatory minimums. What’s the difference with election laws?” Gowdy asked pointedly.
Of course, all Obama’s supporters blithely assure us that Obama wouldn’t be so anti-American, anti-law, and anti-Constitution as to ignore his lawful duties in the way Gowdy suggests. But the fact is he’s already done it dozens of times before. So, why not again?
Prudence requires that we give Obama no further opportunity to weaken or destroy the Constitution, including the prospect of imposing, with his phone and pen, a change in term limits — or otherwise unilaterally altering the rules of governance. The best way to ensure he can’t do so is to remove him post-haste.
Read the entire article http://www.renewamerica.com/columns/stone/141110
“If ever a time should come, when vain and aspiring men shall possess the highest seats in Government, our country will stand in need of its experienced patriots to prevent its ruin.”
There ought to be one day — just one — when there is open season on Congressmen.
“Let each citizen remember at the moment he is offering his vote that he is not making a present or a compliment to please an individual – or at least that he ought not so to do; but that he is executing one of the most solemn trusts in human society for which he is accountable to God and his country.”
~ Samuel Adams, 1781