Tuesday, April 07, 2009

You Don’t Speak for Me, President Obama!

How dare you, Mr. President, say that the United
States is “not a Christian nation”?........... how dare
you demean the presidency of the US by bowing to
King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia?, how dare you
apologize for our “arrogance” while in a Muslim
nation?

In short, you do not speak for 85% of the
United States, and your actions only emphasize the
claims of your opponents during the presidential
campaign........... that you are unqualified for the
position that you hold, based on your total lack of
experience.

Did you somehow feel the need to suck-up to the
Europeans.......... the most overrated civilizations to
ever grace the planet? Instead of bending over
backwards, to both the European community and to
the Muslim nations, you should have stressed that it
was the United States that shed it’s treasure and blood
to rescue the bulk of the world from tyranny and
oppression. That would have been a much better
explanation of the reasons for our “arrogance” and
pride.

Your twenty years with Reverend Wright have obviously
slanted your vision of this wonderful country. The
insidious lessons were well learned, much to the delight
of our “European allies” and our Muslim adversaries.
Your friendship with generally distasteful people, such
as William Ayres, shows that you are not, and probably
never were comfortable being “American” Whether or
not the first ten years of your life, when you attended a
Muslim school, in a Muslim country, plays into that
thinking, is yet to be confirmed.

Maybe when the myriad of lawsuits working their way
through the courts, concerning your country of birth, are
finally settled, many things will come to light. In the
meantime, put aside your desire to be loved by weak
“allies”, and vicious enemies, and do what is in the best
interest of the country that elected you.

In Defense of Marriage, in Defense of Truth

Iowa State Supreme Court (From left to right): Justice Brent R. Appel, Justice David S. Wiggins, Justice Mark S. Cady, Chief justice Marsha K. Ternus, Justice Michael J. Streit, Justice Darly L. Hecht, Justice David L. Baker
This, I think, is what scares ordinary people the most about the swift attempt to kick the foundation out from under traditional marriage.

They intuit that there is something, well, tyrannical in the idea that virtually overnight, the long-settled meaning of marriage could change in a vast social experiment without historical precedent - and that any attempt to resist this radicalization stands condemned as God-intoxicated bigotry.
—Rod Dreher
Rod Dreher’s “Secular Liberalism as Consensus,” speaks of a reality in which the ideology of Liberalism is a tyrannical force that is securely ensconced in the American society. (see article)

How did this happen? For Decades Universities, News and Entertainment Media, Government and Corporations have been establishing the ideology of Liberalism in the U.S. as the dominate ideological way of life.

Why would they do that you ask? Well because the primary tenant in this Neo-Liberalism is that anything traditional or Conservative is evil and must be destroyed. Therefore anything goes, we can sell what we want, we can broadcast what we want, we can teach what we want, we can marry whomever we want, hell we can just about do whatever it is that we wish to do, with no bothersome restraints of traditional morals or values.

That also was the underlying message in the Barack Obama campaign for Change and that, as well, is the underlying message for Homosexual’s who are attempting to destroy the sacred traditions of marriage.

Oh Homosexuals won’t come straight out and say we don’t like the fact that marriage has always been the uniting of a man and a woman, or that we intend to destroy the traditional definition of marriage. No they disguise their arguments under the cloak of constitutional and human rights which are arguments built on bricks of clouds and air.

Bricks of clouds and air because there are no Constitutional guarantees that support homosexuality or homosexuality marriage and likewise there are no human rights that mandate that homosexuals must have their sexual proclivities equated to civil rights.

Yet homosexuals have been able to weave tapestries of lies and false logic into legalistic arguments which fools in black robes, who consider themselves judges of the law, accept. Not because the homosexual arguments are strong, true, logical and based on precedence of law but rather because Judges accept the consensus of the ideologies of Liberalism as Dreher’s article points out.

The Iowa Supreme Court is but the latest court that has accepted fallacious arguments of equal rights for homosexuals thus proving that the law is an immoral ass. (see story)

What Iowa’s Supreme Court has done is essentially sodomized the law. Thomas Jefferson wrote of this in his Bill for Religious Freedom for the state of Virginia. Jefferson warned of Judges imposing their own personal morality through the law on the people, Jefferson wrote:

[T]he opinions of men are not the object of civil government, nor under its jurisdiction; that to suffer the civil magistrate to intrude his powers into the field of opinion and to restrain the profession or propagation of principles on supposition of their ill tendency is a dangerous fallacy, which at once destroys all religious liberty, because he being of course judge of that tendency will make his opinions the rule of judgment, and approve or condemn the sentiments of others only as they shall square with or differ from his own; that it is time enough for the rightful purposes of civil government for its officers to interfere when principles break out into overt acts against peace and good order; and finally, that truth is great and will prevail if left to herself; that she is the proper and sufficient antagonist to error, and has nothing to fear from the conflict unless by human interposition disarmed of her natural weapons, free argument and debate; errors ceasing to be dangerous when it is permitted freely to contradict them. —Thomas Jefferson, Bill Establishing Religious Freedom in the State of Virginia, 1786

Jefferson argued that opinions, including those of religion, but nevertheless men’s opinions should not be the object of civil government.

Therefore the fallacy that the Iowa Supreme Court has committed is to take an opinion, i.e. homosexuality and make their opinions concerning homosexuality the rule of judgment as Jefferson foresaw would happen.

That is why Jefferson reasoned that these types of personal issues of opinion were not to be determined by civil government in the form of the courts nor are they under its jurisdiction.

Therefore these fools in black robes cast aside traditional morals for arguments that are the equivalent to, ‘Because we now want homosexuality to be considered normal you must give it to us.’ When one cuts through all of the fa├žade of human rights, civil rights and equality of rights the bottom line is homosexuals have built these phony arguments with which to wile the judiciary. All the while making judges ignorantly feel that they are striking a blow for rights, instead of what they are really doing, which is striking a blow which will eventually destroy America by destroying fundamental tenants in America, tenets which are truth, logic, family and constitutional based government.

Only in a courtroom where law is immoral and apparently judges are too can homosexuality be adjudicated a civil right.

When the Supreme Court of California attempted this very same preposterous legal absurdity 6.3million California voters stormed the voting polls like the storming of the France Bastille in 1789, they supported proposition 8 which reversed California’s court’s attempted Oligarchical coup against a government of the people, for the people and by the people.

Iowans should similarly take back their government