Guest views are now limited to 12 pages. If you get an "Error" message, just sign in! If you need to create an account, click here.

Jump to content
  • CRYPTO REWARDS!

    Full endorsement on this opportunity - but it's limited, so get in while you can!

The Death of the United States of America


Recommended Posts

I though I would vomit when I saw this.  My heart sank and I could hardly contain the rage and sadness.  My wife of 53 years had tears in her eyes.  We were married under the sign of the rainbow and we will still continue to use the rainbow as the symbol of our undying trust in God's promises, our commitment to each other, and the promises we made at our wedding.  We will not let some perverted sexual group spoil our "pride" in the true symbol of our love and devotion or the highjacking of something beautiful.  

I am proud of those who are standing for freedom, but not those who are standing for the abuse of freedom.  The SCOTUS has overstepped it's authority and thumbed their noses in the face of Almighty God. In my estimation the course is being set for the destruction of our nation.  God help us.   

The White House should be burned to the ground in all of it's perversion, like you i've seen the most beautifully formed creations in the sky and what this current Government has done cannot be undone, I'm affraid that we are at the point of no return.  I'll pray for peace and I'm ready for war should God call my name.    :angel:

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Alabama Supreme Court have proven themselves. These justices have already ruled against redefining marriage.  Eight of them are on record for ruling that Federal courts have no jurisdiction in Alabama.  We need to stand behind Alabama and let them know that they are the hope of America. 

 

Alabama Supreme Court Main Office:  1-334-229-0700, here you can get the listing of the Alabama Supreme Court Justices. 

 

Alabama Chief Justice Roy S. Moore 1-334-229-0700

 

Justice Glenn Murdock  1-334-229-0700

 

Justice Greg Shaw ( voted against) 1-334-229-0700

 

Justice Tommy E. Bryan 1-334-270-1002

 

Justice Michael F. Bolin 1-205-298-1162

 

Justice Lyn Stuart 1-334-229 0625

 

Justice Tom Parker 1-334-260-0271

 

Justice James A. Main 1-334-229-0700

 

Justice Kelli Wise 1-334-271-1760

 

Alabama Governor Robert Bentley 1-334-242-7100

 

Alabama Attorney General Luther Strange 1-334-242-7300

 

These are the ones we need to support and join in their "stand down" with the United States Supreme Courts. Let them know not to back down, lead us in this fight...for the whole nation.

I would encourage the people of faith to pass this forward to your congregations, churches, friends, family and everyone you know, including those from foreign countries.  

 

If we weaken our stance of the injustice of marriage, what next, and next. 

 

Pray that the grace of God will prevail over His people and give us the strength to fight this immoral battle.

  • Upvote 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11027128_10200586881230374_8663021503685

Thank you all and 8th ID. I just can't talk about it yet. I do find it comforting to read reasoned words from a thinking adult. May God bless and protect Justice Scalia...

12 Must-Read Quotes From Scalia’s Blistering Same-Sex Marriage Dissent

Anyone who thought Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia’s dissent in Thursday’s Obamacare — which Scalia now calls “SCOTUScare” ( http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2015/06/25/the-top-15-quotes-from-justice-scalias-dissent-in-king-v-burwell/ )— ruling was intense should read his dissent in Friday’s 5-4 ruling legalizing same-sex marriage in all 50 states ( http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/14-556_3204.pdf ). In fact, Fox News’ Andrew Napolitano said that Scalia’s Obamacare dissent “looks like a Christmas card” compared to his rebuke of Justice Anthony Kennedy’s majority opinion.

Scalia didn’t hold back in his criticisms of the Supreme Court and the “wisdom” of five robed members of the federal government.

We pulled out a dozen of the best quotes from his blistering disagreement with the SCOTUS majority (emphasis added):

NO. 1: SCOTUS IS A ‘THREAT’

“I write separately to call attention to this Court’s threat to American democracy.”

NO. 2: OUR NEW RULERS

t is not of special importance to me what the law says about marriage. It is of overwhelming importance, however, who it is that rules me. Today’s decree says that my Ruler, and the Ruler of 320 million Americans coast-to-coast, is a majority of the nine lawyers on the Supreme Court. The opinion in these cases is the furthest extension in fact—and the furthest extension one can even imagine—of the Court’s claimed power to create ‘liberties’ that the Constitution and its Amendments neglect to mention. This practice of constitutional revision by an unelected committee of nine, always accompanied (as it is today) by extravagant praise of liberty, robs the People of the most important liberty they asserted in the Declaration of Independence and won in the Revolution of 1776: the freedom to govern themselves.”

NO. 3: NAKED CLAIM TO POWER

“This is a naked judicial claim to legislative—indeed, super-legislative—power; a claim fundamentally at odds with our system of government. Except as limited by a constitutional prohibition agreed to by the People, the States are free to adopt whatever laws they like, even those that offend the esteemed Justices’ ‘reasoned judgment.’ A system of government that makes the People subordinate to a committee of nine unelected lawyers does not deserve to be called a democracy.”

NO. 4: ‘PRETENTIOUS’ AND ‘EGOTISTIC’

“The opinion is couched in a style that is as pretentious as its content is egotistic. It is one thing for separate concurring or dissenting opinions to contain extravagances, even silly extravagances, of thought and expression; it is something else for the official opinion of the Court to do so.”

NO. 5: FIVE JUSTICES THINK THEY KNOW ALL

“The five Justices who compose today’s majority are entirely comfortable concluding that every State violated the Constitution for all of the 135 years between the Fourteenth Amendment’s ratification and Massachusetts’ permitting of same-sex marriages in 2003. They have discovered in the Fourteenth Amendment a ‘fundamental right’ overlooked by every person alive at the time of ratification, and almost everyone else in the time since. They see what lesser legal minds—minds like Thomas Cooley, John Marshall Harlan, Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., Learned Hand, Louis Brandeis, William Howard Taft, Benjamin Cardozo, Hugo Black, Felix Frankfurter, Robert Jackson, and Henry Friendly—could not. They are certain that the People ratified the Fourteenth Amendment to bestow on them the power to remove questions from the democratic process when that is called for by their ‘reasoned judgment.’ These Justices know that limiting marriage to one man and one woman is contrary to reason; they know that an institution as old as government itself, and accepted by every nation in history until 15 years ago, cannot possibly be supported by anything other than ignorance or bigotry. And they are willing to say that any citizen who does not agree with that, who adheres to what was, until 15 years ago, the unanimous judgment of all generations and all societies, stands against the Constitution.”

NO. 6: COURT’S REPUTATION DIMINISHED

“The stuff contained in today’s opinion has to diminish this Court’s reputation for clear thinking and sober analysis.”

NO. 7: ‘PROFOUNDLY INCOHERENT’

“[T]he opinion’s showy profundities are often profoundly incoherent. ‘The nature of marriage is that, through its enduring bond, two persons together can find other freedoms, such as expression, intimacy, and spirituality.’ (Really? Who ever thought that intimacy and spirituality [whatever that means] were freedoms? And if intimacy is, one would think Freedom of Intimacy is abridged rather than expanded by marriage. Ask the nearest hippie. Expression, sure enough, is a freedom, but anyone in a long-lasting marriage will attest that that happy state constricts, rather than expands, what one can prudently say.)

“Rights, we are told, can ‘rise . . . from a better informed understanding of how constitutional imperatives define a liberty that remains urgent in our own era.’ (Huh? How can a better informed understanding of how constitutional imperatives [whatever that means] define [whatever that means] an urgent liberty [never mind], give birth to a right?)

“And we are told that, ‘n any particular case,’ either the Equal Protection or Due Process Clause ‘may be thought to capture the essence of [a] right in a more accurate and comprehensive way,’ than the other, ‘even as the two Clauses may converge in the identification and definition of the right.’ (What say? What possible ‘essence’ does substantive due process ‘capture’ in an ‘accurate and comprehensive way’? It stands for nothing whatever, except those freedoms and entitlements that this Court really likes. And the Equal Protection Clause, as employed today, identifies nothing except a difference in treatment that this Court really dislikes. Hardly a distillation of essence. If the opinion is correct that the two clauses ‘converge in the identification and definition of [a] right,’ that is only because the majority’s likes and dislikes are predictably compatible.)”

NO. 8: SUPREME COURT ‘ENDS’ PUBLIC DEBATE

“When the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified in 1868, every State limited marriage to one man and one woman, and no one doubted the constitutionality of doing so. … Since there is no doubt whatever that the People never decided to prohibit the limitation of marriage to opposite-sex couples, the public debate over same-sex marriage must be allowed to continue.

“But the Court ends this debate, in an opinion lacking even a thin veneer of law.”

NO. 9: A ‘JUDGE-EMPOWERING’ DECISION

“Buried beneath the mummeries and straining-to-be-memorable passages of the opinion is a candid and startling assertion: No matter what it was the People ratified, the Fourteenth Amendment protects those rights that the Judiciary, in its ‘reasoned judgment,’ thinks the Fourteenth Amendment ought to protect. That is so because ‘[t]he generations that wrote and ratified the Bill of Rights and the Fourteenth Amendment did not presume to know the extent of freedom in all of its dimensions . . . . ‘ One would think that sentence would continue: ‘. . . and therefore they provided for a means by which the People could amend the Constitution,’ or perhaps ‘. . . and therefore they left the creation of additional liberties, such as the freedom to marry someone of the same sex, to the People, through the never-ending process of legislation.’ But no. What logically follows, in the majority’s judge-empowering estimation, is: ‘and so they entrusted to future generations a charter protecting the right of all persons to enjoy liberty as we learn its meaning.’ The ‘we,’ needless to say, is the nine of us.”

NO. 10: VIOLATING PRINCIPLES

“[T]o allow the policy question of same-sex marriage to be considered and resolved by a select, patrician, highly unrepresentative panel of nine is to violate a principle even more fundamental than no taxation without representation: no social transformation without representation.”

NO. 11: OVERTHROWING THE GOVERNMENT

“[W]hat really astounds is the hubris reflected in today’s judicial Putsch.”

NO. 12: ‘ONE STEP CLOSER …’

“With each decision of ours that takes from the People a question properly left to them—with each decision that is unabashedly based not on law, but on the ‘reasoned judgment’ of a bare majority of this Court—we move one step closer to being reminded of our impotence.”

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2015/06/26/12-must-read-quotes-from-scalias-blistering-same-sex-marriage-dissent/

  • Upvote 7
  • Downvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yukon, I understand your capitalism cha ching point...really I do. :) To focus on money over our liberties being threaten, in my opinion is a lack of understanding of what is truly happening to our Nation. 

 

The main point, is this government's invasive actions toward controlling the people of America, threatening our freedoms, and turning America into a socialist country.  Money is no good to us if we have a government controlling us in the form of dictatorship, taking every hard earn penny away and give it to many able bodies that can work to help the economy grow. Do you get my drift.  :peace:

 

Protect the United State Constitution, then we can have capitalism, if not, look forward to a commie Nation.   

  • Upvote 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just in case anyone is wondering. :lol:

  • putsch

    po͝oCH/

    noun

     

  • a violent attempt to overthrow a government.

Thanks Mark :lol:

Just in case anyone is wondering what our once Great Republic has turned into... 

kak·is·toc·ra·cy

\ˌkakə̇ˈstäkrəsē\

noun

Government by the least qualified or most unprincipled citizens.

Origin:

Greek (go figure!) - kakistos (superl. of kakos bad) + E -cracy 

Edited by Markinsa
Removed large spaces in quote
  • Upvote 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nelg, you speak of them spoiling the rainbow, it's the same thing they did to the Confederate flag. Anything they see as good will be used for evil..

////

***

They just HAVE to be contrary.... running around wearing kommie CHE GUEVARA t-shirts,

putting up statues of LENIN in liberal Washington,

trippin' on a lark to cuba and venezuela lauding the virtues of murderous kommies everywhere!

 

their communist manifesto instructs these ignorant, simple-minded slaves to take everything

we hold sacred and destroy it and reverse it and to use deflection and lies to destroy any

vestige of Liberty & Freedom from the masses.

 

They are too stupid to even realise that their g-a-y lifestyle would have them dead by CHE & LENIN !

 

 

 

 

.

Edited by SgtFuryUSCZ
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

In America, laws are structured to define what a person 'can't do' for the safety of others ie; speed limits in residential neighborhoods and school zones.

 

In a Communist country, laws are structured to dictate what a person 'shall do' for the security of the state under the guise of 'safety' for all ie; speech codes and determined residential areas.

 

Don't be fooled, the g-a-y activists will not be finished until they have transformed orthodox Christianity and other religious faiths into neutered cults of blasphemy.

 

We have a battle before us but as scripture reveals in Romans 8:28,  "If God is for us, who can be against us?"

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

In America, laws are structured to define what a person 'can't do' for the safety of others ie; speed limits in residential neighborhoods and school zones.

 

In a Communist country, laws are structured to dictate what a person 'shall do' for the security of the state under the guise of 'safety' for all ie; speech codes and determined residential areas.

 

Don't be fooled, the g-a-y activists will not be finished until they have transformed orthodox Christianity and other religious faiths into neutered cults of blasphemy.

 

We have a battle before us but as scripture reveals in Romans 8:28,  "If God is for us, who can be against us?"

After 2000+ yrs of doing everything possible to stop Christianity you'd thing some 

 

idiot would just figure it out and ignore us. But Old Sarg's Gal's are correct, these

 

people are so stupid they don't even know that under the very belief systems they

 

are promoting they themselves would be dead. 

 

An amazing study in social behavior  indeed.  

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Don't worry, guys.  There's hope at the end of the tunnel.  Why just today, I was reading this article which is sure to put some smiles on everyone's faces. http://content.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,2023083,00.html

 

Oh really?  Gonna give me a neg on that?  I thought that's what you guys liked to see?  I mean, you bully people and teach your kids to treat *** kids like they're deranged monsters, so why don't you giggle and have a heart filled with joy when you see that one of those "perverse freaks" are off the streets?

Edited by Yukon Silvermoon
  • Upvote 3
  • Downvote 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Don't worry, guys.  There's hope at the end of the tunnel.  Why just today, I was reading this article which is sure to put some smiles on everyone's faces. http://content.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,2023083,00.html

 

Oh really?  Gonna give me a neg on that?  I thought that's what you guys liked to see?  I mean, you bully people and teach your kids to treat *** kids like they're deranged monsters, so why don't you giggle and have a heart filled with joy when you see that one of those "perverse freaks" are off the streets?

 

This statement has resulted in Mod Review for you. NO ONE brought up this subject but you! If you make another post like this after your Mod Review is removed, you will be put on Permanent Mod Review.

 

:cowboy2:

  • Upvote 4
  • Downvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

First let me say I am not poking fun of anyone or any group here.

As most here know I am not a religious person at all.  I have studied religion and it seems to me many of the Worlds problems are caused by religion.

On that note I do believe that every person has the right to worship whatever and whoever  they want to. Does not bother me one bit if they worship[ a doorknob if they want to.

 

I am married and was married in a Catholic church. My wife is obviously catholic. It did not bother me one bit that we were married in a church. They made me go to some weekend church camp-out event and not once did anyone ask me if i believed in God so I'm guessing it did not matter to them.  So i wonder why they allowed me to get married if I do not believe.

 

If the U.S. was founded on the Christian religion, the Constitution would clearly say so--but it does not. Nowhere does the Constitution say: "The United States is a Christian Nation", or anything even close to that. In fact, the words "Jesus Christ, Christianity, Bible, Creator, Divine, and God" are never mentioned in the Constitution-- not even once. Nowhere in the Constitution is religion mentioned, except in exclusionary terms. When the Founders wrote the nation's Constitution, they specified that "no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States." (Article 6, section 3)   This provision was radical in its day-- giving equal citizenship to believers and non-believers alike.  They wanted to ensure that no religion could make the claim of being the official, national religion, such as England had.

 

The 1796 Treaty with Tripoli states that the United States was "not in any sense founded on the Christian religion" This was not an idle statement meant to satisfy muslims-- they believed it and meant it. This treaty was written under the presidency of George Washington and signed under the presidency of John Adams.

 

titleXI.jpg

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What I'm saying LGD is you do not need to be Christian to be patriotic.

 

- George Washington, letter to the United Baptist Chamber of Virginia (1789)

“Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, then that of blindfolded fear.”

- Samuel Adams, The Rights of the Colonists (1771)

- Thomas Paine, The Rights of Man (1791)“Persecution is not an original feature in any religion; but it is always the strongly marked feature of all religions established by law. Take away the law-establishment, and every religion re-assumes its original benignity.”

“Congress has no power to make any religious establishments.”

- Roger Sherman, Congress (1789)

- Benjamin Franklin, Poor Richard's Almanack (1758)"The way to see by faith is to shut the eye of reason."

- Thomas Jefferson, letter to the Danbury Baptists (1802)"I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people build a wall of separation between Church & State."

- Thomas Paine, The American Crisis No. V (1776)

"To argue with a man who has renounced the use of reason is like administering medicine to the dead."

“Our civil rights have no dependence on our religious opinions, any more than our opinions in physics or geometry.”

- Thomas Jefferson, A Bill for Establishing Religious Freedom (1779)

- James Madison, letter to William Bradford, Jr. (1774)"Christian establishments tend to great ignorance and corruption, all of which facilitate the execution of mischievous projects."

- George Washington, address to Congress (1790)"There is nothing which can better deserve our patronage than the promotion of science and literature. Knowledge is in every country the surest basis of public happiness."

 "During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial. What has been its fruits? More or less, in all places, pride and indolence in the clergy; ignorance and servility in the laity; in both, superstition, bigotry and persecution."

Edited by SocalDinar
  • Upvote 2
  • Downvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can see this decision by the SCOTUS carrying further, and possibly encompassing all rights practiced in one state becoming the "law of the land" for all. It is precedent setting, in my view. 

 

My main concern is gun laws. I hope those in states like Texas are adopted, instead of my home state of NJ, where, unless you are now, or retired from law enforcement you CANNOT get a permit to carry.

 

It would go even further so that all laws were the same everywhere. Can't tell if that is good or bad, but knowing our representatives, I am not optimistic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And the same day he allowed that he went to a church and sang, Amazing Grace.

<iframe width="854" height="510" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/WmRAxJIa0u8" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

 

 

Galatians 6:7

 

Be not deceived; God is not mocked: for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap

 

That man has no idea what hes playing with. 

That's what I believe too! Now the devils agenda, is to make the little "o"s brand of Christianity, right to the world, Than the

way I believe, what  the Word wrong and stupid. The little "o" says he's a Christian, which, may be true! I think then, he is a very back slidden soul, If true. The word says you shall know my flock, by the fruit the bear! Nuff Said!  :tiphat:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.