Friday, June 26, 2015

The New American Civil War

 "The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie-- deliberate, contrived and dishonest-- but the myth, persistent, persuasive and unrealistic. Belief in myths allows the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought." -John F. Kennedy
The New American Civil War
Will the new non-specific definition of marriage cause riots and civil disobedience.

By de Andréa, Opinion Editorialist
Published June 6, 2015

So, what issue will be the catalyst that will begin the civil unrest and civil disobedience possibly culminating in an all-out war against the state and federal governments in the U.S. that Jade Helm 15 is preparing for?

It may be something other than what you thought.

Both Rick Santorum and Tom Delay say “the U.S. Supreme court doesn’t have the final say on Constitutional Law.”  This is ultimately a government by the people not the courts.  

In light of this morning’s Supreme Court RULING, which is not a legal rule at all, a rule is a law and Courts can’t make law only elected legislators can make law.  The court can write opinions that’s all. Moreover the U.S. Supreme has not written a proper constitutional opinion that actually upheld the Constitution since the John Jay Court.

Five Supreme Court justices said that this was a constitutional issue and made their decision on that bases.  Except not one of those five justices actually said where the constitution addresses this issue. Because it doesn’t.  As Justas Scalia said this is a people issue and should be decided by the people which states like Californian did…twice…and both times it was illegally overturned by the courts.
Justice Antonin Scalia wrote a dissenting opinion of the Supreme Court's decision and called the majority on the high court a "threat to American democracy."
Justice Antonin Scalia wrote a dissenting opinion of the Supreme Court's decision and called the majority on the high court a "threat to American democracy."
No matter what side one comes down on this issue this has illegally become a legal issue and the courts can’t make law.   

Former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay tells Newsmax TV he is ready to fight the U.S. Supreme Court tooth and nail should it rule that same-sex marriages must be recognized nationwide — including staging acts of civil disobedience.

"Rick Santorum is absolutely right. If this Supreme Court rules against marriage, all hell is going to break loose," said DeLay, a Texas Republican who represented the Lone Star State's 22nd District, said on "The Steve Malzberg Show."

"In fact, I'm a signatory of a document that basically says you can rule any way you want to, but we're going to stand for marriage even if it takes civil disobedience." Continued DeLay.

DeLay did not outline exactly what forms of civil disobedience would be used, but insisted that a Supreme Court ruling is not necessarily enforceable. 

"A ruling by the Supreme Court is nothing but a court opinion, if the legislative branch and the executive branch do not enforce it," he told Steve Malzberg.

"Not only that, if the states would just invoke the 10th Amendment and assert their sovereignty, they can defy any ruling by the Supreme Court. It's in the Constitution. We can tell the court what cases they can hear.”

Note: The 10th Amendment is the most violated Amendment of the U.S. Constitution by both the federal government and the U.S. Supreme Court.
The 10th amendment: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” (Emphasis mine.)
"I passed six bills out of the House limiting the jurisdiction of the courts saying you can't hear a case on prayer in schools or you can't hear a case on a nativity scene on the county lawn." Said DeLay.

The Supreme Court is set to rule on whether same-sex marriage is a constitutional right and many legal experts believe the nation's top jurists will invalidate gay marriage ‘bans’ (meaning an opinion supporting gay marriage nationwide.) because five of them voted to advance gay rights as recently as 2013.  DeLay said if that happens, the United States will be bucking the longstanding and historical definition of marriage.

"For all of time, not just Christians and Jews, but all’ religions have defined marriage as one man and one woman to come together as one and have children and raise those children," he said.

"You cannot redefine it. It is set in stone. You can call it something else and create civil unions, but you cannot redefine marriage. Plus, this is about religious liberty. Look at what's already happened and the Supreme Court has not ruled yet.  We have a photographer losing their business, a baker losing her business, a florist losing her business because the government and its heavy hand came down on them because under their religious tenets and religious standing, they could not bring themselves to service a same-sex marriage ceremony … This is about religious liberty more than anything else.”  Said DeLay.

THE BOTTOM LINE: Whether one believes in a million year old civilization on earth or a 6 thousand year old civilization recorded in history, as Tom Delay says Marriage has always been between a Man and a Woman. Any and every belief system supports that, even the stannic religion of Islam.  If that were not true, the population of the earth would likely be a pitiful few and wouldn’t have survived.  I am not a biologist but even I know that two of the same gender in the human species cannot propagate the earth.  One only needs to do a little research to understand that it is just the way we were designed, if you believe either randomly or with purpose. Moreover, and in spite of the desire to pervert that fact, it still only works one way.

The not so obvious problem here is that marriage has always been specific. Meaning that it is specifically between a male and a female of the human species.  But if the U.S. Supreme court in all their bias and ignorance, should for some reason defy the laws of nature then the specificity of marriage is now... well it’s gone, unless a man and a woman can no longer marry and the specificity has then changed to same gender marriage only. Then it would be specific to those of the same gender.  But alas it will have no specificity so a woman or a man could show up at the magistrate’s office with his or her tree or turtle or baboon, because marriage is no longer specific.  It is now anything goes. Well I guess it is one way to solve the population explosion of 7 billion people and counting.

But that is not the end of the not so obvious problem.  As the population of heterosexuals decrease, because the population of homosexuals increases, and the population of Muslims increase, then the population of homosexuals will decrease because you see, Muslim kill homosexuals and infidels. Then…catch your breath… the population of heterosexual infidels will decrease. Because Muslims kill them as well.  Then finally, all that will be left are Muslim heterosexuals.  Because Muslim have an average of 15 – 18 children.  Osama Ben laden for example was one of 52 siblings. Osama himself had 27 children before Obama had him killed…because… Obama himself wanted to be top dog in the Muslim Brotherhood…but I digress…

Tom DeLay seems to think that if the Supreme Court decides to ‘Rule’ Marriage as being between two of anything. Then yes I agree that could have long term and far reaching repercussions that could spark off civil unrest all across the nation.

If a man wants to live with his goat, or a woman want’s to live with her pig. Or two men what to live with each other or two women want to live with each other.  I don’t personally care. But why does the law for the rest of us, the vast majority of us, have to change.  FROM SPICIFICLY BETWEEN A MAN AND A WOMAN, TO…. I don’t know I like it just the way it has always been, thank you very much.

Read an important article and watch a video by the AFA here. 

Thanks for listening – de Andréa

Please pass on this article to everyone on your email list.  It may be the only chance for your friends to hear the truth.

No comments: