Remember! SCOTUS has ruled that ALL laws repugnant to the Constitution are automatically NULL AND VOID! Make this go viral!
(media.patriots.win)
W W G 1 W G A
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (32)
sorted by:
Why do you support bullshit?
Tirany has many forms. Yours is one form, as you still have to grasp the meaning of liberty.
You do remember the Declaration of Independence, do you not? Do you find yourself in agreement with it?
If so, your position towards another is simply one on an equal plane. Your views and sensibilities are just that: yours.
As I have said: the money machine has turned a perfectly sensibel idea into a monstrosity it has become. That money machine is the single item that allows all you see playing out.
The empire and the bull shit wars. The meddling in other countries and regime change, the crony form of capitalism, the morally depraved way people are used for profit and power, blackmail, the totally inept legislators, the omnibus bills and the sneaking in of laws that are repugnant to liberty, the mass immigration, the mass influx of drugs, the detoriation of the social fabric of society, the deverythingetoriation of the fabric of civil society die to forfeiture, foreclosure, government handouts, you see it always comes back to one issue: follow the money.
It is amazing how all these so called well intentioned measure always turn sour and cause effects detrimental to liberty.
A nation of laws is a corrupt nation. Liberty does not require laws, it requires virtue. That is why you hear Ron Paul often say: let's try liberty for a change. And he is branded as a cook.
It is the world inverted into Davy Jones Locker. It fosters the export of a culture that is decadent, corrupt, pernicious, unnatural.
As to the topic at hand, in Roe v Wade, which most people still refuse to read, it is clearly demonstrated the relationship between liberty and choice under common law. Failing to see that, is also denying the essence of what liberty actually is.
Does the choice belong to the fed-government? No. That would put the fed-government out of its bounds.
If we allow government to proscribe what should be the outcome of a personal choice, what you end up with is a government proscribing and forcing you to take the jab, or anything else really under the guise of State-interest.
It fosters the idea that government has a higher claim to your life, your energy, your thinking, your acting, instead of where these issues truly are and should be: with each individual. It fosters the idea that you need supervision. It fosters the idea that you are incapable. It fosters the idea that you ARE a person instead of a human. In essence, thát is at stake.
And depending on how the current constellation of the Scotus rules, and from what I have read, I am not very thrilled, it will destroy the last remnants of the free exercise of your rights.
I do however consider a reverting back to the states of the abortion issue as a matter now embedded with the fed government to be a good thing. The reasoning however, determines wether that is so.
See a previous post of mine on here regarding this issue and analysis of the Roe v Wade ruling. There you will find links to searchvoat with the corresponding posts.
So, instead of framing this issue like you do, I am looking at it from a totally different perspective, a higher perspective. The perspective from the highest authority, the highest jurisdiction on this Earth: the individual human.
And only thinking humans can make moral choices in line with the law of Nature.
You're still conflating licenciousness with liberty. It's you who does not understand the true meaning of liberty.
Wrong. Now you're just delving into anarchist nonsense. Romans 13.
So again, why do you complicity support the murder of unborn babies? Repent.
And you are conflating your theocracy with liberty.
Romans 13 that is your answer? The answer of a failed Pharisee, frightening slaves to stay put? No wonder you are singing the praises of the 14th amendment.
No, instead the declaration of Independence offers a much more liber view of why governments are instituted: To protect the rights of man.
Why this charge? Because they are instituted by man.
Of the people, by the people, for the people.
Yes .... I am sure that is not in your to a failed Pharisee attributed scripture. And there is a reason why. We already tried the Roman 13 way. Somewhere around 800-1500. It was no success.
Again, that is why dr. Paul keep reminding us: let's try liberty for a change.
The reason you bring up the word: licentiousness, is interesting. A free man does not need license. YOU as a subordinate slave who thinks is free, need a license from his government by the ordination of your God. Interestingly. these days, you need a license for almost everything, is it not? There are rules regulating the length of a grass. And you are conforming to it. So, I infer it is you who is licentious.
It is a sorry thing when people start to use words they have no clue of what they are really saying. It sounds important. No doubt. But it is typical for sleepy people who have awakened to just one single part of the puzzle. They start big mouthing with delusions of grandeur and loaned authority, and import sounding words like licentiousness, while trying to cover up their own insecurities and appealing to some old odd ends stolen forth from holy writ, of which they know nothing about in the stream of time, but play the saint when most they are the devil.
Claiming such a premise as you do, first requires you to know me. Else, you are judgemental to such a degree as will influence the judgement with which you will be judged (according to Jesus and James). And I am sure, you do not know me. Hence, I am save to say you will be judged by your own standards of judgementalism.
Laws of nature are very precise. There are 8 of them. Two of them you know. Your failed Pharisee mentioned them. The other 6, you know not. And because you know them not, your view is only partial at best, if not deluded by superimposed questionable material interpreted in such a way as to best keep you a slave to a failed Pharisee version of what you call Christianity.
That is your prerogative of course. I recognize your liberty to live according to your own standards, whether they be purely yours, or induced by some interpretation of a bygone era. Do not bother me with your ancient myths.
Within the Law of Nature, there is no licentiousness. Account is being taken and will be presented in due course. Old vestiges will erode. Liberty will remain, as that is the embodiment of our being.
First: your question shows your judgemental attitude.
Second, you have no need for my answer as you already judged a matter before it is heard. According to, as you so eloquently quoted, scripture, but on this occasion I intend to call upon Proverbs, it is a folly from your side to do so.
Third, you still fail to see the Roe v Wade ACTUAL issue. I would wager, you never read the damn ruling. Yes ..... Yes, otherwise you would immediately have recognized what I am writing about. You did not, I am sad to say, and even if you had, you only could have read it with augmented eyes. Your reading ability is compromised as the Good Shepard asked: How do you read? Hence, the almost certain supposition, you are an illiterate on this topic.
But wait! It gets worse! I would posit: you never had to even go through considerations connected to an abortion yourself. All you have is a theocracy of your own image. So, it is reasonable to posit I am not only dealing with an illiterate who foolishly judges things before a case is heard, and is incapable of digesting what he is given, but also someone who has no subject-matter-jurisduction.
You're so vain!
And the best of all: Re-pent. I am going to do that with the misses. She's already calling.
You sound angry fren. Guess being complicit with baby murder and having to come to grips with the reality that you're actually in the worst place on this issue, right on the fence, is really messing with your conscience... sure you know what the Good Lord says about being lukewarm 😉
Love thy neighbor fren. Turning a blind eye to terrible evil like murder, isn't love. You're just too much a coward to speak the truth, and hide behind sophistry.
Ah .... emotional arguments based on your own bias, deflecting from the issue at hand. Congrats on your new level of zealotry.
What is at hand is the fundamental issue of liberty.
Your view of the subject matter is just that. And you are free to hold such views. At the same time, it does not change the fact that your views are not the laws people are duty-bound to live by, lest you wish for a " liberty oriented society" of your own making, that is, you get to choose what liberty is.
There are many systems that purport to stand for some idea what liberty should be, but on closer examination they are just another iteration of brute Force.
In a way, we are discussing the translation of personally held strong beliefs versus the operation of government. I will revisit this a little bit later.
Anarchism is just that, a society without an archon. Be it a president, a mono-arch (monarch), a small group of people deciding what is and what is not desirable( a Soviet, a committee, and what have you). Lacking knowledge of the articles of confederation and the operation of that compact, is detrimental to grasping what the intent was of these compacts.
Freedom requires virtue as opposed to servitude to a system of thought, system of behavior. It requires self determination to never be dependent, will-power, critical thinking, work-ethos, etc.
What I have shown you with a few words in my other posts, is there is a difference between your version of government, and our government. You are free to live according to any set of religious standards as long as you leave others the same courtesy. Why? Because then you would be trespassing on the rights of others.
That is the nucluous of the Roe v Wade Ruling which for sheer zealotry, you have not read. If you would, depending on how you read, you might come away with a different viewpoint. But I guess your mind is to closed to even be able to read and grasp the argument made in that ruling.
While the Scotus held that individual freedom cannot be trespassed against is a basic tenet of our co-habitation, it introduced State-interest, turning any pregnant woman into a ward of the state. Although there indeed is such a thing as state interest, the only interest the state has is the preservation of rights of individuals. By that standard, both federal and state are totally failing and by the same standard this ruling fails.
Reversal of Roe v Wade then mean what exactly? Not what you think it is. Reversal would mean putting the issue back where it belongs, with the individual and the State. However, a state too is bound by the limits put on it due to it's charge: the protection of the rights of the living, thinking, acting. ( Life, liberty, pursuit of happiness)
What you want is a total prohibition. And if one thing is clear from experience, prohibition does not work. See the prohibition amendments. It was a stupid, costly and unconstitutional amendment. This is a utilitarian argument. The principle is that a prohibition trespasses on the rights of the individual.
Even you can grasp the idea that the sovereign people create a state, the states create the fed. Fed then is a servant to the states, the states to the people.
The death-jab is in the same area. Prosciption or mandates vs rights of the individual. I am sure you would choose to defend liberty.
It seems your idea of principle is limited. Freedom is either a principle or it is not. If it is, it should function as the focal point to how we view any issue larger than our own circle of life.
Our experience in our life is a total inversion, where we are not free but subordinated to the state and the fed government. This is exacerbated by the unlimited creation of fake money. It breeds corruption and a unhealthy power distribution.
This corruption is taking shape on a large scale and of such eggregious level, it threatens to undo the social fabric. We already discussed the phenomenae.
In your personal life, living by your conviction is a good thing. But this country was not founded as a theocracy, it was founded on the principle of freedom, so as to facilitate your version of living by standards you are convinced are the ultimate truth. And only living beings of sound mind and heart can do so. Again, I point you to both the declaration of Independence, and the 1793 farewell address of George Washington.
To expound on the issue, it will perhaps surprise you that philosophically there was a time when debates were raging whether locals in Africa and America had a soul at all. You do not have to trust me on this. Simply read a book on late middle age philosophy. It is all out there. Or read up on witch hunts. These are disquieting. The commonality is a lack of knowledge and insight.
For practical purposes, government can never make any law establishing a religion. Hence, the reason for any action must therefor be free of religious connotations, as that would violate the sovereign right to freedom of the living, thinking, acting.
So, in essence, take out the source of the corruption, and then revisit this topic again. It will be of a different magnitude.