[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register] 

In Day of the Lord, 24 Church Elders with Crowns Join Jesus in His Throne

In Day of the Lord, 24 Church Elders with Crowns Join Jesus in His Throne

Deadly Saltwater and Deadly Fresh Water to Increase

Deadly Cancers to soon Become Thing of the Past?

Plague of deadly New Diseases Continues

[FULL VIDEO] Police release bodycam footage of Monroe County District Attorney Sandra Doorley traffi

Police clash with pro-Palestine protesters on Ohio State University campus

Joe Rogan Experience #2138 - Tucker Carlson

Police Dispersing Student Protesters at USC - Breaking News Coverage (College Protests)

What Passover Means For The New Testament Believer

Are We Closer Than Ever To The Next Pandemic?

War in Ukraine Turns on Russia

what happened during total solar eclipse

Israel Attacks Iran, Report Says - LIVE Breaking News Coverage

Earth is Scorched with Heat

Antiwar Activists Chant ‘Death to America’ at Event Featuring Chicago Alderman

Vibe Shift

A stream that makes the pleasant Rain sound.

Older Men - Keep One Foot In The Dark Ages

When You Really Want to Meet the Diversity Requirements

CERN to test world's most powerful particle accelerator during April's solar eclipse

Utopian Visionaries Who Won’t Leave People Alone

No - no - no Ain'T going To get away with iT

Pete Buttplug's Butt Plugger Trying to Turn Kids into Faggots

Mark Levin: I'm sick and tired of these attacks

Questioning the Big Bang

James Webb Data Contradicts the Big Bang

Pssst! Don't tell the creationists, but scientists don't have a clue how life began

A fine romance: how humans and chimps just couldn't let go

Early humans had sex with chimps

O’Keefe dons bulletproof vest to extract undercover journalist from NGO camp.

Biblical Contradictions (Alleged)

Catholic Church Praising Lucifer

Raising the Knife

One Of The HARDEST Videos I Had To Make..

Houthi rebels' attack severely damages a Belize-flagged ship in key strait leading to the Red Sea (British Ship)

Chinese Illegal Alien. I'm here for the moneuy

Red Tides Plague Gulf Beaches

Tucker Carlson calls out Nikki Haley, Ben Shapiro, and every other person calling for war:

{Are there 7 Deadly Sins?} I’ve heard people refer to the “7 Deadly Sins,” but I haven’t been able to find that sort of list in Scripture.

Abomination of Desolation | THEORY, BIBLE STUDY

Bible Help

Libertysflame Database Updated

Crush EVERYONE with the Alien Gambit!

Vladimir Putin tells Tucker Carlson US should stop arming Ukraine to end war

Putin hints Moscow and Washington in back-channel talks in revealing Tucker Carlson interview

Trump accuses Fulton County DA Fani Willis of lying in court response to Roman's motion

Mandatory anti-white racism at Disney.

Iceland Volcano Erupts For Third Time In 2 Months, State Of Emergency Declared

Tucker Carlson Interview with Vladamir Putin


Status: Not Logged In; Sign In

United States News
See other United States News Articles

Title: High court on verge of destroying the family
Source: [None]
URL Source: [None]
Published: May 4, 2015
Author: James Dobson
Post Date: 2015-05-04 07:02:10 by A K A Stone
Keywords: None
Views: 11629
Comments: 99

Dear Friends,

May I urge you to read this letter carefully? It has been written with a fervent prayer that you will recognize the urgency it conveys. It deals with a decision that is about to be announced by the U.S. Supreme Court, dealing with the definition of marriage. In late June or early July, the justices will reveal their decision to either affirm the definition of marriage as being exclusively between one man and one woman, or it will redefine this institution to include same-sex unions. If marriage is to be reconfigured in the law, which court-watchers predict is almost certain, every dimension of the culture will be adversely affected. It will be one of the most momentous rulings in U.S. history, tantamount to the Roe v. Wade decision in 1973. As we know, that terrible ruling 42 years ago divided the nation irreparably and has resulted in the deaths of 58 million babies.

I do not recall a time when the institutions of marriage and the family have faced such peril, or when the forces arrayed against them were more formidable or determined. Barring a miracle, the family that has existed since antiquity will likely crumble, presaging the fall of Western civilization itself. This is a time for concerted prayer, divine wisdom and greater courage than we have ever been called upon to exercise.

For more than 50 years, the homosexual activist movement has sought to implement a master plan that has had as its centerpiece the destruction or redesign of the family. Many of these objectives have largely been realized, including widespread support of the gay lifestyle, discrediting of Scriptures that condemn homosexuality or sexual immorality, muzzling of the clergy and Christian media, inclusion of gays and lesbians in all branches of the military, granting of special privileges and rights in the law, overturning laws prohibiting pedophilia, indoctrinating children and future generations through public education, and securing all the legal benefits of marriage for any two or more people who claim to have homosexual tendencies. By promoting what is known as LGBT, we must remember that the “B” stands for bisexuality. That would include acceptance of sexual relations between both genders in groups and among every category of sexual expression outside the bonds of marriage. Now the proponents of LGBT seek to legalize gay and lesbian marriage, which could mean anything or nothing in a few years.

These objectives seemed unthinkable just a few years ago, but they are now within reach. We in North America and Europe are not simply “slouching towards Gomorrah,” as Judge Robert Bork warned in his best-selling book; we are hurtling toward it. The old earthen dam that has held and protected the reservoir of Judeo-Christian values since the days of our Founding Fathers has given way. Traditional marriage is the last bulwark to fall.

Let’s put this issue in perspective. The institution of the family is one of the Creator’s most marvelous and enduring gifts to humankind. It was revealed to Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden and then described succinctly in Genesis 2:24, where we read, “For this cause, a man shall leave his father and mother and cleave to his wife, and they shall be one flesh.” With those 20 words, God announced the ordination of male-female marriage, long before He established the two other great human institutions, the church and 
the government.

At least 5,000 years have come and gone since that point of origin, yet every civilization in the history of the world has been built upon it. Despite today’s skeptics who claim that marriage is an outmoded and narrow- minded Christian concoction, the desire of men and women to “leave” and “cleave” has survived and thrived through times of prosperity, famine, wars, peace, epidemics, tyranny, and every other circumstance and human condition. It has been the bedrock of culture in Asia, Africa, Europe, North America, South America, Australia and even Antarctica. Given this history, one might begin to suspect that something mystical exists within human nature that draws the sexes together – not just for purposes of reproduction as with animals – but to satisfy an inexpressible longing for spiritual bonding. Indeed, how can it be doubted? Clearly, our loving Creator placed the desire for intimacy and companionship deep within men and women – and referred to everything he had made and pronounced it “very good” (Genesis 1:31).

Admittedly, there have been various societies in history where homosexuality has flourished, including the biblical cities of Sodom and Gomorrah, in ancient Greece and in the Roman Empire. None of these civilizations survived. Furthermore, even where sexual perversion was tolerated or flourished, the institution of marriage continued to be honored in law and custom. Only in the last few years has what is called “gay marriage” been given equal status with biblical male-female unions. In fact, to date only 18 countries in the world recognize the legitimacy of same-sex marriage. America appears on the verge of becoming No. 19. God help us if we throw the divine plan for humankind on the ash heap of history.

The impact of experimenting with the meaning of marriage is no longer speculative. We can see where it leads by observing what has happened in Scandinavian countries. Leaders in Norway, Denmark and Sweden first embraced de facto marriages between homosexuals in the 1990s. The consequences for families in those countries were devastating. The institution of marriage began dying, with most young couples cohabitating or choosing to remain single. More than 80 percent of children in some areas of Norway were and continue to be born out of wedlock. It appears that tampering with the ancient plan for males and females spells doom for the family and for everything related to it.

To put it concisely, marriage represents the very foundation of human social order. Everything of value sits on that base. Institutions, governments, prosperity, religious liberty and the welfare of children are all dependent on its stability. When it is weakened or undermined, the entire superstructure begins to wobble. That is exactly what has happened during the last 45 years. The American people didn’t demand the sea change that is occurring. In fact, the populations in 31 states voted individually on the definition of marriage. Every one of them affirmed it as being exclusively between a man and a woman. Those proclamations were ensconced in their state constitutions.

Now, however, many of those popular elections are being overridden by imperious federal judges who are changing the course of history. In mid- 2012, only six states had legalized same-sex marriage. Now, three years later, there are 37, and the Supreme Court is poised to make it 50! Whatever happened to Abraham Lincoln’s pronouncement in the Gettysburg Address that ours is a government “of the people, by the people, and for the people”? It is rapidly being replaced by a government “of the courts, by the courts, and for the courts.”

How did this happen to us? How could such a great and freedom-loving people have allowed themselves to be dominated by a handful of unelected, unaccountable, arrogant and often godless federal judges, who have been appointed for life and continue to violate the democratic process? It is an ominous development. Was it the desire of the Founding Fathers when they designed this great representative form of government? Hardly!

Thomas Jefferson warned repeatedly about the emergence of an out-of-control judiciary that would destroy the Constitution and, along with it, America’s fundamental freedoms. He first became alarmed when, in 1803, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a landmark decision called Marbury v. Madison. It allowed the justices to rule on the constitutionality of every legal issue, both inside and outside the government, giving themselves unrivaled imperial power. The concept of “checks and balances” that was intended to keep one branch from eclipsing the other two was no longer in force – at least not with regard to the judiciary.

When Jefferson recognized the full implications of the Marbury decision, he wrote this prophetic statement: “It is a very dangerous doctrine to consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions. It is one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy.”

BINGO! What we have today, 235 years later, is an oligarchy (meaning rule by a small cadre of elites). The courts simply strike down laws and policies they don’t like, whether their opinions reflect the provisions of the Constitution or not. Furthermore, the activist judges and those who support them have turned the Constitution into what they call “a living, breathing document,” in which its actual words no longer mean what they say. The Constitution “evolves,” they tell us, to fit the biases of the court. The people are no longer given the opportunities to vote on issues that matter to them, or to elect representatives who will do their bidding. That is not what the Founding Fathers designed for us.

The Marbury decision in 1803 continued to agitate Jefferson for many years. Nearly two decades later he wrote: “The Constitution … is a mere thing of wax in the hands of the judiciary which they may twist and shape into any form they please.” “It has long been my opinion, and I have never shrunk from its expression … that the germ of dissolution of our federal government is in the constitution of the federal Judiciary; working like gravity by night and by day, gaining a little today and a little tomorrow, and advancing its noiseless step like a thief, over the field of jurisdiction, until all shall be usurped.”

Jefferson issued one more warning in 1823, just three years before his death. This time, however, he was not simply predicting the rise of an imperious court; by then he had observed it firsthand. Jefferson said, “At the establishment of our constitution, the judiciary bodies were supposed to be the most helpless and harmless members of the government. Experience, however, soon showed in what way they were to become the most dangerous. …”

Now, the misfortune that worried Jefferson has produced for us a culture of death that is steeped in moral relativism. We are victims in our day of the grab for power that should have been squelched two centuries ago. Since then, the Supreme Court has overridden the will of the people, regularly and without apology. Every time the justices convene as a body it is like a mini-constitutional convention in which the meaning of the foundational document is changed without the consent of the governed. Henceforth, their pronouncements are the ultimate law of the land.

Let’s get to the bottom line. If the U.S. Supreme Court redefines marriage to include same-sex unions, I guarantee you that it will not be the end of the matter. An avalanche of court cases will be filed on related issues that can’t even be imagined today. Here are a few that we can foresee:

1. Religious liberty will be assaulted from every side. You can be certain that conservative churches will be dragged into court by the hundreds. Their leaders will be required to hire people who don’t share the beliefs of their denominations and constituents. Pastors may have to officiate at same-sex marriages, and they could be prohibited from preaching certain passages of Scripture. Those who refuse to comply will not only be threatened legally, but many will be protested and picketed by activists. Perhaps this is a worst-case scenario, but maybe not. Prison is also a possibility.

2. Christian businesses and ministries will be made to dance to the government’s tune. We’ve all seen examples of photographers, bakeries and florists being required to serve at gay weddings, on penalty of closure or bankruptcy. This kind of legal oppression is coming all across the nation.

3. Christian colleges may be unable to teach scriptural views of marriage. Any nonprofit Christian organization that opposes same-sex unions, including our own, will likely lose its tax-exempt status. Many will be forced to close their doors.

Do these consequences sound draconian to you? If so, consider an editorial published in the New York Times a few weeks ago. It was written by liberal columnist Frank Bruni, who insisted that Christians must be “made” to change their church doctrines on sexual morality. He actually wrote, “Church leaders must be made to take homosexuality off their sin list.”

Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council, wrote this in response to Bruni’s statement: “These activists aren’t after a ‘live-and- let-live’ policy. They’re on a march to force all Americans to celebrate and affirm what they do under the penalty of law.”

Indeed. I wonder if Frank Bruni has read the Bill of Rights in the First Amendment to the Constitution.

Now let’s look at what the law may require of parents and their children in the future:

4. Here’s an example of what is to come: A few weeks ago, President Obama actually demanded legislation prohibiting parents from seeking professional therapy to assist their children who were dealing with sexual identity crises. What business does this man have telling parents how to help their confused and disoriented kids even after they have been abused and exploited sexually? This is outrageous! In some states, counselors can lose their licenses if they try to assist their troubled children in this way. These intrusions appear to be forerunners of things to come.

5. Any professional with a state license of any kind may be stripped of his or her right to practice or do business if he or she doesn’t conform to the court’s biases on same-sex relationships.

6. Textbooks for children of all ages will almost certainly be rewritten and republished to illustrate gay and lesbian marriages.

7. The most outrageous interference with parental rights will come from public schools that require children as young as 5 to be taught gay and lesbian concepts. It will matter not that this teaching will contradict the beliefs and convictions of parents. This could become a requirement in every public school by judicial decree. It is already the law in California and Massachusetts.

There are many other things I could write about at this crossroads of history. Let me summarize my concerns this way: Down one path are millions of strong and vibrant families with their children growing up in the fear and admonition of the Lord. Down the other path is a nation drifting away from its spiritual roots in a culture that will teach a dangerous ideology to today’s younger generation and those yet to come.

What can we do to save the nation? Prayer is our only hope, but it is a powerful one. Even at this late hour, the Lord could still respond to the petitions of millions of godly people. Shirley and I are among those who are praying for a miracle. Will you join us?

God bless you. And may God bless America.

James C. Dobson, Ph.D.
, President and Founder, 
Family Talk

Before I close, I want to share a portion of a speech given by my great friend, professor Robby P. George. … He is a professor of jurisprudence at Princeton University and a graduate of Harvard School of Law. He also has a Ph.D. from Oxford University. He is one of the most brilliant people I know. On Good Friday last year, he spoke to the National Catholic Prayer Breakfast. Professor George is a committed Catholic scholar, and I am an Evangelical, yet I find myself in complete accord with his speech. I hope you will be blessed as you read his address about standing boldly in defense of the Gospel.


Poster Comment: Everyone that supports imaginary "same sex marriage", and those who don't give a shit. They are parasites that need RAID sprayed on them.

Post Comment   Private Reply   Ignore Thread  


TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

Comments (1-40) not displayed.
      .
      .
      .

#41. To: jeremiad (#40)

While I disagree when it comes to Rapture, I agree that we must do something.

BobCeleste  posted on  2015-05-04   20:13:48 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#42. To: Liberator (#35)

I'm* the "fool" for having the audacity to ask you your source for your authority of history? At least give me a hint; Does it begin with "HUFF and end with "PO"??

For someone who can't tell the difference between 0buma and Thomas Jefferson, my question for your source of "history" was perfectly reasonable. Ready to answer, or are you bailing?

Chyeah, it must be enbrassing to be you on this subject.

"Shortly thereafter, Jefferson wrote to Kentucky's governor, James Garrard, to inform him of Monroe's appointment and to assure him that Monroe was empowered to enter into "arrangements that may effectually secure our rights & interest in the Mississippi, and in the country eastward of that."[8]

As Jefferson noted in that letter, Monroe's charge was to obtain land east of the Mississippi. Monroe's instructions, drawn up by Madison and approved by Jefferson, allocated up to $10 million for the purchase of New Orleans and all or part of the Floridas. If this bid failed, Monroe was instructed to try to purchase just New Orleans, or, at the very least, secure U.S. access to the Mississippi and the port.

But when Monroe reached Paris on April 12, 1803, he learned from Livingston that a very different offer was on the table.

Napoleon's plans to re-establish France in the New World were unraveling. The French army sent to suppress a rebellion by slaves and free blacks in the sugar- rich colony of Saint Domingue (present-day Haiti) had been decimated by yellow fever, and a new war with Britain seemed inevitable. France's minister of finance, Francois de Barbé-Marbois, who had always doubted Louisiana's worth, counseled Napoleon that Louisiana would be less valuable without Saint Domingue and, in the event of war, the territory would likely be taken by the British from Canada. France could not afford to send forces to occupy the entire Mississippi Valley, so why not abandon the idea of empire in America and sell the territory to the United States?

Napoleon agreed. On April 11, Foreign Minister Charles Maurice de Talleyrand told Livingston that France was willing to sell all of Louisiana. Livingston informed Monroe upon his arrival the next day.

Seizing on what Jefferson later called "a fugitive occurrence," Monroe and Livingston immediately entered into negotiations and on April 30 reached an agreement that exceeded their authority - the purchase of the Louisiana territory, " The word is Uncle. But if you insist to pursue your further embassment I will taunt you some more with HISTORICAL FACTS. Or are you bailing? HINT: There are a sh*t load of references on this. If you don't believe me just do even a most basic google search. Fair warning, you will lose.

потому что Бог хочет это тот путь

SOSO  posted on  2015-05-04   21:07:13 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#43. To: SOSO (#42)

As Jefferson noted in that letter, Monroe's charge was to obtain land east of the Mississippi. Monroe's instructions, drawn up by Madison and approved by Jefferson, allocated up to $10 million for the purchase of New Orleans and all or part of the Floridas. If this bid failed, Monroe was instructed to try to purchase just New Orleans, or, at the very least, secure U.S. access to the Mississippi and the port.

It was a treaty. Legal.

A K A Stone  posted on  2015-05-04   21:09:49 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#44. To: SOSO (#42)

," Monroe and Livingston immediately entered into negotiations and on April 30 reached an agreement that exceeded their authority -

So says the author.

The problem with the constitution is that it is written by men. It is not perfect never was, never will be. Unlike the Bible.

The constitution may be the height of mans law. But every part doesn't work together like the Bible does.

A K A Stone  posted on  2015-05-04   21:12:03 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#45. To: Liberator (#42)

Oh, here's one from the National Archieves, a well known subsidiary of the Huffington Post.

"Jefferson's men were in Paris because he wanted to buy the port of New Orleans.

On April 11, 1803, a day before Monroe arrived in Paris, the French minister of foreign relations, Charles Maurice de Talleyrand-Perigord, surprised Livingston by offering the United States not just New Orleans but all of the Louisiana Territory. François Barbé-Marbois, the French minister of the public treasury, discussed the possible sale of Louisiana again with Livingston on April 13.

Although the newly arrived Monroe was less inclined to exceed his instructions, he went along with the idea as an agreement was reached.

For four days at the end of April 1803, the Americans and the French worked out an agreement, and on April 30 a treaty was signed. Jefferson did not learn about the historic deal until July 3, and did not receive the official documents until July 14."

Still want to play?

потому что Бог хочет это тот путь

SOSO  posted on  2015-05-04   21:14:55 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#46. To: SOSO (#45)

and on April 30 a treaty was signed.

A treaty. From your source.

A K A Stone  posted on  2015-05-04   21:16:52 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#47. To: A K A Stone (#44)

," Monroe and Livingston immediately entered into negotiations and on April 30 reached an agreement that exceeded their authority - So says the author.

Wow. OK, you do not believe Jefferson himself saying so. Now I challenge you to do the research and prove that Monroe and Livingston did not exceed their authority or even their instructions from Jefferson, as Jefferson himself acknowledged.

BTW, this is now getting tiresome.

потому что Бог хочет это тот путь

SOSO  posted on  2015-05-04   21:19:17 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#48. To: SOSO (#47)

Wow. OK, you do not believe Jefferson himself saying so.

I didn't follow the whole thread.

Someone can be wrong and change their mind and be correct.

States must have had the right to buy Louisiana and not the Feds?

A K A Stone  posted on  2015-05-04   21:23:53 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#49. To: Liberator (#34)

Comparing 0buma to Thomas Jefferson in the context of "Constitution" is just ridiculous. Come on, man!

One of the two helped create the Constitution;

I guess you do not know that Jefferson had no hand nor input in the drafting the Consitution. In fact he was out of the country at the time. Your comment is ridiculous. Come on, man!

потому что Бог хочет это тот путь

SOSO  posted on  2015-05-04   22:11:26 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#50. To: A K A Stone (#48)

States must have had the right to buy Louisiana and not the Feds?

I doubt it because the LP was cast (rationalized) as a treaty by some in Jefferson's camp and states cannot enter into treaties with foreign governments.

потому что Бог хочет это тот путь

SOSO  posted on  2015-05-04   22:13:32 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#51. To: SOSO (#45) (Edited)

Still want to play?

You STILL haven't answered the gist of your ENTIRE argument:

Are you somehow making the assertion that "controlling" Jefferson's authority with respect to The Louisiana Purchase might have stopped 0bola's fascist, dictatorial over-reach?

Go ahead, Senor Quicks-Draw.

Liberator  posted on  2015-05-04   23:11:49 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#52. To: A K A Stone, SOSO (#48)

I didn't follow the whole thread.

Let me summarize in brief:

SOSO is drawing a comparison (*snicker*) between 0buma's 24/7/365 shredding of the US Constitution that destroys liberty for Americans, with that of the singular act of Thomas Jefferson's Louisiana Purchase that created more liberty for Americans.

*double eyeball roll*

Liberator  posted on  2015-05-04   23:16:39 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#53. To: SOSO (#49)

I guess you do not know that Jefferson had no hand nor input in the drafting the Consitution. In fact he was out of the country at the time. Your comment is ridiculous. Come on, man!

Oh, excuse me. Jefferson only helped draft the Declaration of Independence. What a piker! But he was a close friend of Madison and peer who did help craft the USCON.

0buma...hmmm....what did he help draft?...Oh, that's right -- 'The Declaration of Communitah Organizing' and 'The Bitter Clingers Have No Rights Act'.

Yup, you won the argument!

Liberator  posted on  2015-05-04   23:24:17 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#54. To: SOSO (#42) (Edited)

There are a sh*t load of references on this.

"Sh*tload" -- you got that right. Too bad it's IRRELEVANT to your claim that constitutionally, Jefferson = 0buma.

Expecting me to fall for your irrelevant, smelly red herring is...funny.

Not happening, Waldo :-(

Liberator  posted on  2015-05-04   23:27:27 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#55. To: SOSO (#28)

You still failed to answer the bell on ANY of the following questions that are the basis of your entire point for this thread.

1a,b) What's your beef with Jefferson? Is it your contention that he stole land ceded in the Louisiana Purchase from the French??

2) Or that he acted just outside the fringe of the Constitution while ensuring American security and resources? It sure came in handy during the war of 1812, didn't it?

3) How did that Jefferson's act destroy or usurp US and citizenry sovereignty, liberty, and rights? Answer: It didn't AT ALL. It HELPED ensure it.

BONUS: I answered #3 for you.

Liberator  posted on  2015-05-04   23:36:39 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#56. To: BobCeleste (#1)

Well stated Bob. Many will not want to admit it, but the truth is the truth, even if it is unpleasant.

Si vis pacem, para bellum

Stoner  posted on  2015-05-06   12:11:16 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#57. To: Liberator (#19)

" Heil Jefferson!! Heil 0bama!!

You have GOT to be kidding. Comparing ZERO to Jefferson is like comparing Hitler to Reagan. "

EXACTLY!!!

Si vis pacem, para bellum

Stoner  posted on  2015-05-06   12:41:56 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#58. To: Stoner (#57)

not to worry my dear Brother, for the Lord Himself told us this:

Matthew 7:13&14 Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat: Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it.

John 15:18 If the world hate you, ye know that it hated Me before it hated you.

BobCeleste  posted on  2015-05-06   13:13:28 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#59. To: A K A Stone, liberator, BobCeleste, GarySpFc, Don, tomder55 (#0)

Now, the misfortune that worried Jefferson has produced for us a culture of death that is steeped in moral relativism. We are victims in our day of the grab for power that should have been squelched two centuries ago. Since then, the Supreme Court has overridden the will of the people, regularly and without apology. Every time the justices convene as a body it is like a mini-constitutional convention in which the meaning of the foundational document is changed without the consent of the governed. Henceforth, their pronouncements are the ultimate law of the land.

Boom...the above sends it out of the ball park. Great article and historical analysis by Dobson.

"For You formed my inward parts; You wove me in my mother’s womb.” (Psalm 139:13)

redleghunter  posted on  2015-05-06   13:31:54 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#60. To: Liberator (#14)

Come on. Seriously.

THAT is your case against Jefferson's "unconstitutional violations" vs. the Judiciary? That's comparing jaywalking to murder. No, it's more than that; It's comparing BUILDING a country to TEARING it down.

I agree. And the senate did ratify the purchase.

"For You formed my inward parts; You wove me in my mother’s womb.” (Psalm 139:13)

redleghunter  posted on  2015-05-06   13:42:04 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#61. To: SOSO (#22)

Absolutely false. History has it that Jefferson sent Monroe and Livinston to France to buy New Orleans and New Orleans only. Monroe and Livingston exceeded their authority and bought the whole damn thing WITHOUT Jefferson's knowledge, much less consent.

And this has what to do with sodomite 'marriage?'

"For You formed my inward parts; You wove me in my mother’s womb.” (Psalm 139:13)

redleghunter  posted on  2015-05-06   13:48:35 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#62. To: redleghunter, A K A Stone, liberator, BobCeleste, GarySpFc, Don, tomder55 (#59)

Thomas Jefferson warned repeatedly about the emergence of an out-of-control judiciary that would destroy the Constitution and, along with it, America’s fundamental freedoms. He first became alarmed when, in 1803, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a landmark decision called Marbury v. Madison. It allowed the justices to rule on the constitutionality of every legal issue, both inside and outside the government, giving themselves unrivaled imperial power. The concept of “checks and balances” that was intended to keep one branch from eclipsing the other two was no longer in force – at least not with regard to the judiciary.

Really? Jefferson worried about one branch eclipsing the other two? Jefferson was one of earliest violators of this priciple, the one about which he pays lip service worry only. Jefferson knowingly shattered the Consitution and justified doing so with the ends justify the means rationalization. There is a very solid argument to be made, support by historical records and documents, that Jefferson was the first Imperial President and set the model for those elected to the office to follow, not the least of which being Obama.

потому что Бог хочет это тот путь

SOSO  posted on  2015-05-06   13:48:56 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#63. To: A K A Stone, tomder55, SOSO, liberator (#24)

I cannot fault Jefferson for this one.

Nor can I.

Yet the comparison of what the SCOTUS, one branch of three, is doing today compared to an early Prez, one branch of three, sending the matter to another branch of government for their ratification and funding, has to do with the run away SCOTUS in our history and sodomite 'marriage' is beyond me.

"For You formed my inward parts; You wove me in my mother’s womb.” (Psalm 139:13)

redleghunter  posted on  2015-05-06   13:51:56 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#64. To: Liberator, SOSO (#26)

Aaah, the old "apples = oranges" rebuttal.

So what's your beef? That Jefferson supposedly stole the land bought and ceded in the Louisiana Purchase from the French?? Or that he acted just outside the fringe of the Constitution while ensuring American security and resources? It sure came in handy during the war of 1812, didn't it?

How did that act destroy or usurp US and citizenry sovereignty, liberty, and rights? Answer: It doesn't AT ALL.

Meanwhile, 200+ years of unconstitutionality by the Judiciary has been murdering the republic -- except instead of death by a thousand cuts, it's been death-by-a-MILLION-cuts from Klintoon-thru-Dubya-thru ZERO's regime. PERSONAL LIBERTY AND RIGHTS HAVE BEEN THE CASUALTY.

He's got you there Jasper.

"For You formed my inward parts; You wove me in my mother’s womb.” (Psalm 139:13)

redleghunter  posted on  2015-05-06   13:58:14 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#65. To: redleghunter (#61)

And this has what to do with sodomite 'marriage?'

Nothing per se but rather the hypocrisy of invoking Jefferson as someone who was a staunch defender of the purity of the Constitution. He talked the talked but didn't walk the walk.

So let's not be so selective in the sources of defense of who did/does what to the U.S. Constitution as the principle of sh*tting on it in some degree or other on it goes back to GW himslef.

It isn't OK for one to approve of some incidents of violation of the Constitution because one approves of the ends (and say screw the means) and not others because you disapprove of the ends (and demand the means be pure).

потому что Бог хочет это тот путь

SOSO  posted on  2015-05-06   13:58:59 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#66. To: jeremiad (#40)

We still must fight for ourselves and our country. To do less is to tempt God in a manner that Yeshua himself would not do by throwing himself off the mountain. We must live like we will be on Earth till a natural death, and our children and grandchildren also. To do less is to not give our all. NO ONE knows the day or the time, but the Father. We can though guess fairly closely on the "season". Whether it be my fervent hope, or misguided wish, it seems that the time for the fact to be known is within this generation.

Good words. Wise words indeed.

"For You formed my inward parts; You wove me in my mother’s womb.” (Psalm 139:13)

redleghunter  posted on  2015-05-06   14:05:44 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#67. To: redleghunter, Liberator (#64)

He's got you there Jasper.

BS, the ends justify the means rationalization rarely, if ever, suffices as a winning argument. But to the contrary he proves my point. He agrees with me that the Consitution has been violated since its beginning. This is exactly my point which he knowingly chose to deflect to something else becuase he was nailed. WTF does the Consitution mean in practice when it can and has been so readily violated virtually since its day one?

He, and apparently you as well, corrupt your position by defending the ends justify the means rationalization. This is pure BS and intellectual dishonest in a pure form. You applaud when the Consitution is violated when you approve of the ends but moan and groan and demand fidelity to the Consitution when you do not approve of the ends. Shame on you, you should know better, Ram.

потому что Бог хочет это тот путь

SOSO  posted on  2015-05-06   14:07:57 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#68. To: SOSO, liberator, tomder55, A K A Stone (#42)

Seizing on what Jefferson later called "a fugitive occurrence," Monroe and Livingston immediately entered into negotiations and on April 30 reached an agreement that exceeded their authority - the purchase of the Louisiana territory, "

So let's say John Kerry goes back to talks with Iran. Zero tells him that he has authority to negotiate the allowance of 17 nuclear reactors for Iran. Iran then offers to get rid of them all and recognize Israel as a nation. Zero accepts this much better offer and then brings it to the senate for ratification. The senate approves it and the House funds it.

Was Kerry and Zero overstepping their constitutional executive authorities?

"For You formed my inward parts; You wove me in my mother’s womb.” (Psalm 139:13)

redleghunter  posted on  2015-05-06   14:13:42 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#69. To: SOSO, liberator, tomder55, A K A Stone (#45)

For four days at the end of April 1803, the Americans and the French worked out an agreement, and on April 30 a treaty was signed. Jefferson did not learn about the historic deal until July 3, and did not receive the official documents until July 14."

Still want to play?

Let's throw in some historical exegesis here. Monroe and Livingston were where when this deal went down? Where was Jefferson?

I don't think even back then there were flip cell phones to 'confer' thousands of miles across the Atlantic.

The ultimate outcome to the executive actions was for them to confer the matter constitutionally with the legislative branch of government for ratification. Jefferson did that.

"For You formed my inward parts; You wove me in my mother’s womb.” (Psalm 139:13)

redleghunter  posted on  2015-05-06   14:18:21 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#70. To: A K A Stone (#0)

I generally hesitate to jump in on threads where the issue of homosexual marriage is being discussed. Not because I don't (as a Christian) have strong opinions on it, but instead because most people's minds are pretty solidly made up. The discussions, in my view, usually degenerate into name-calling and mud throwing.

But I do have an observation and question I'd like to put out there, and this may be the place to do it.

Marriage (in Western culture, anyway) has religious roots, and is considered, along with baptism (and confirmation, for Catholics) a religious rite.

That said, can anyone imagine the SCOTUS taking up the issue of Baptism? Of Confirmation?

Can anyone picture hoardes of people marching for Baptism equality?

Would it not seem that this problem could have been put to rest very early on by just offering (in legal terms for the secular society) a legal equivalent to marriage? Just don't call it marriage?

Just askin'

Rufus T Firefly  posted on  2015-05-06   14:23:44 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#71. To: redleghunter (#68)

Was Kerry and Zero overstepping their constitutional executive authorities?

Did Obama act within his Consitutional authority to enter into a treaty? No- one GAS what Kerry did, he has no power, he is not an elected official, he serves at the pleasure of Obama.

The fact that Congress votes on something does not de facto make the act Consitutional. Congress can vote to approve an unconsitutional law or act. If no-one challenges it, as was the case with the Louisana Purchase, then de facto the law/act stands. Remember that Jefferson had a Congress of his Party and he actively and readily consolidted the power that that gave him in practice. Jefferson was the first to establish and practice the Spoils Sysytem though he is rarely acknowledged as such - but he was almost ruthless in this regard.

The old adage still applies, those that do not know history are condemned to repeat it.

потому что Бог хочет это тот путь

SOSO  posted on  2015-05-06   14:38:02 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#72. To: redleghunter (#69)

The ultimate outcome to the executive actions was for them to confer the matter constitutionally with the legislative branch of government for ratification. Jefferson did that.

It was a kangaroo copurt. Jefferson himself believed that he needed an Amendment to the Consitution to go through with the deal. He gave in to not getting the Amendment which he firmly believed was needed or was duped to do so becuase he was told that Napolean was having second thoughts on the deal and would use any delay as an excuse to back out of the sale.

Those that do not know history are condemned to repeat it.

потому что Бог хочет это тот путь

SOSO  posted on  2015-05-06   14:40:53 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#73. To: Rufus T Firefly, A K A Stone (#70)

Marriage (in Western culture, anyway) has religious roots, and is considered, along with baptism (and confirmation, for Catholics) a religious rite.

That said, can anyone imagine the SCOTUS taking up the issue of Baptism? Of Confirmation?

Marriage is also a very secular thing and has long history as well in Civil law which Baptism and COnfirmation do not. his is a major distinction with a major difference.

Every marriage recognized by the State is de facto a Civil Union. IMO the State should not use the word marriage to described its civil union and the term marriage should be left as a religous thing which confers something more to the civil union that is only of meaning to the participants and nothing the state.

потому что Бог хочет это тот путь

SOSO  posted on  2015-05-06   14:45:10 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#74. To: SOSO (#73)

IMO the State should not use the word marriage to described its civil union and the term marriage should be left as a religous thing which confers something more to the civil union that is only of meaning to the participants and nothing the state.

Agree 100 percent

Rufus T Firefly  posted on  2015-05-06   14:50:46 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#75. To: redleghunter (#61)

And this has what to do with sodomite 'marriage?'

For the record, are you against Civil Unions for gays?

потому что Бог хочет это тот путь

SOSO  posted on  2015-05-06   15:03:58 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#76. To: SOSO (#62)

Jefferson worried about one branch eclipsing the other two?

The senate ratified what he put in treaty.

"For You formed my inward parts; You wove me in my mother’s womb.” (Psalm 139:13)

redleghunter  posted on  2015-05-06   17:03:58 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#77. To: SOSO (#65)

Monroe and Livingston did not have a telegraph, telephone or smart phone to communicate over the Atlantic.

"For You formed my inward parts; You wove me in my mother’s womb.” (Psalm 139:13)

redleghunter  posted on  2015-05-06   17:07:31 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#78. To: SOSO (#67)

He, and apparently you as well, corrupt your position by defending the ends justify the means rationalization.

Monroe and Livingston got a better deal. That deal passed the Senate as a treaty, which is in the Constitution.

"For You formed my inward parts; You wove me in my mother’s womb.” (Psalm 139:13)

redleghunter  posted on  2015-05-06   17:08:38 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#79. To: SOSO (#75)

For the record, are you against Civil Unions for gays?

Our law already has mechanisms for two parties to enter into contracts through power of attorneys and last will and testaments. The mechanisms existed, still do way before homosexual civil unions or 'gay marriage' was even conceived of an idea.

So no, civil unions for a specific group is special laws for a special class. What's wrong with existing legal mechanisms? They don't force the hand of government or society to forced acceptance and indoctrination.

"For You formed my inward parts; You wove me in my mother’s womb.” (Psalm 139:13)

redleghunter  posted on  2015-05-06   17:12:58 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#80. To: redleghunter (#60)

It's a strange disconnect . Jefferson acted on the advice of the author of the Constitution. I wonder what Madison would've said to Jefferson if he had unilaterally rewritten laws . It sucks . Even a treaty I support in principle , (the Trans-Pacific Partnership ), he the is screwing up by his executive excesses.

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

tomder55  posted on  2015-05-06   17:23:33 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  



      .
      .
      .

Comments (81 - 99) not displayed.

TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register] 

Please report web page problems, questions and comments to webmaster@libertysflame.com