Pro-Life Americans Do Not Have First Amendment Religious Freedoms…America, 1776-2016

[Busybody]

RIP!

 

[JohnnySavage]

I wish you'd save your latest wackadoodle outrages for the morning. I like a laugh with my cup of coffee.

 

[Busybody]

this isnt an outrage?

(btw, she is a GAZE)

Dem Sen. Tammy Baldwin: Pro-Life Americans Do Not Have First Amendment Religious Freedoms…



Nice try.

Via Life News:

A pro-abortion Democrat Senator is getting criticism for a comment suggesting that only churches enjoy First Amendment religious freedom protections, and that those freedoms do not extend to individual people.

The comment is a huge concern for pro-life advocates who are worried about being forced to pay for abortions with their tax dollars or insurance premiums. The concerns also extend to pro-life medical professionals like doctors and nurses who do not want to be forced to perform or assist in or refer for abortions.

Balwdin’s comments are instructive for the pro-life movement because they come at a time when abortion advocates are pushing abortion well beyond its legal status to become a mandate where pro-life people are forced to pay for abortions, refer for them or promote them in some other shape or form

 

[JohnnySavage]

Ms. Baldwin isn't the Absolute Dictator of the United States. She can say whatever stupid things she wants to - which have no bearing on anything, other than exposing how stupid she is.

But it's Wisconsin... the Texas of the North.

 

[Busybody]

thats always teh answer, right?

a lunatic says something means NOTHING

really? is taht THE POSITION you take? REALLY?

 

[Colonel Hogan]

this isnt an outrage?

(btw, she is a GAZE)

Dem Sen. Tammy Baldwin: Pro-Life Americans Do Not Have First Amendment Religious Freedoms…

Nice try.

Via Life News:

A pro-abortion Democrat Senator is getting criticism for a comment suggesting that only churches enjoy First Amendment religious freedom protections, and that those freedoms do not extend to individual people.

The comment is a huge concern for pro-life advocates who are worried about being forced to pay for abortions with their tax dollars or insurance premiums. The concerns also extend to pro-life medical professionals like doctors and nurses who do not want to be forced to perform or assist in or refer for abortions.

The First Amendment gives you the right to protest any government policies and programs including, but certainly not limited to, wars, welfare, and the government's taxing authority in totality.

It does not, never has and was never intended to guarantee you exemption from being financially, socially or physically affected by those programs implemented by your elected representatives and/or upheld or invalidated by courts of law, for fuck's sake.

Medical professionals who do not wish to participate in abortions would do well to consider specializing in orthopedics or eyes, ears, nose and throat clinical practice.

Meanwhile, you also have a right as a moral arbiter of a government gone satanic to be a martyr for your fervent religious beliefs. Black people did this throughout the South in the Fifties and Sixties. They filled the jails in Mississippi and Alabama.

If the government is unconstitutionally using your tax dollars in violation of your religious rights, then shit into your 1040 and send it to the IRS with your return address in large print.

Then suffer the consequences knowing you have faithfully served the Lord your God.

 

[BotanyBoy]

The First Amendment gives you the right to protest any government policies and programs including, but certainly not limited to, wars, welfare, and the government's taxing authority in totality.

It does not, never has and was never intended to guarantee you exemption from being financially, socially or physically affected by those programs implemented by your elected representatives and/or upheld or invalidated by courts of law, for fuck's sake.

Medical professionals who do not wish to participate in abortions would do well to consider specializing in orthopedics or eyes, ears, nose and throat clinical practice.

Meanwhile, you also have a right as a moral arbiter of a government gone satanic to be a martyr for your fervent religious beliefs. Black people did this throughout the South in the Fifties and Sixties. They filled the jails in Mississippi and Alabama.

If the government is unconstitutionally using your tax dollars in violation of your religious rights, then shit into your 1040 and send it to the IRS with your return address in large print.

Then suffer the consequences knowing you have faithfully served the Lord your God.

http://media.giphy.com/media/NnGGHE0muVqpO/giphy.gif

 

[eyer]

The First Amendment gives you the right to protest any government policies and programs including, but certainly not limited to, wars, welfare, and the government's taxing authority in totality.

It does not, never has and was never intended to guarantee you exemption from being financially, socially or physically affected by those programs implemented by your elected representatives and/or upheld or invalidated by courts of law, for fuck's sake.

Medical professionals who do not wish to participate in abortions would do well to consider specializing in orthopedics or eyes, ears, nose and throat clinical practice.

Meanwhile, you also have a right as a moral arbiter of a government gone satanic to be a martyr for your fervent religious beliefs. Black people did this throughout the South in the Fifties and Sixties. They filled the jails in Mississippi and Alabama.

If the government is unconstitutionally using your tax dollars in violation of your religious rights, then shit into your 1040 and send it to the IRS with your return address in large print.

Then suffer the consequences knowing you have faithfully served the Lord your God.

Fucking baby killer.

 

[Busybody]

The First Amendment gives you the right to protest any government policies and programs including, but certainly not limited to, wars, welfare, and the government's taxing authority in totality.

It does not, never has and was never intended to guarantee you exemption from being financially, socially or physically affected by those programs implemented by your elected representatives and/or upheld or invalidated by courts of law, for fuck's sake.

Medical professionals who do not wish to participate in abortions would do well to consider specializing in orthopedics or eyes, ears, nose and throat clinical practice.

Meanwhile, you also have a right as a moral arbiter of a government gone satanic to be a martyr for your fervent religious beliefs. Black people did this throughout the South in the Fifties and Sixties. They filled the jails in Mississippi and Alabama.

If the government is unconstitutionally using your tax dollars in violation of your religious rights, then shit into your 1040 and send it to the IRS with your return address in large print.

Then suffer the consequences knowing you have faithfully served the Lord your God.

^^^Future ISIS memeber

 

[JohnnySavage]

The First Amendment gives you the right to protest any government policies and programs including, but certainly not limited to, wars, welfare, and the government's taxing authority in totality.

...

A minor technical point here: The First Amendment (like all the Bill of Rights) places restrictions on what the government can do to curtail rights that existed prior to ratification.

 

[Busybody]

Ha! A cat fight between Pvt Turd (c)lass Hogan and Black Savage

 

[JohnnySavage]

Ha! A cat fight between Pvt Turd (c)lass Hogan and Black Savage

The purpose of the Constitution has been lost and diluted over the years (I blame the Commerce Clause), and as a practical matter, has become a framework for what we can do, vs what the Federal government can do.

But as you know, I'm a stickler for technicalities.

 

[Busybody]

The purpose of the Constitution has been lost and diluted over the years (I blame the Commerce Clause), and as a practical matter, has become a framework for what we can do, vs what the Federal government can do.

But as you know, I'm a stickler for technicalities.

http://opedart.com/images/nitpick.gif

 

[eyer]

A minor technical point here: The First Amendment (like all the Bill of Rights) places restrictions on what the government can do to curtail rights that existed prior to ratification.

A major constitutional point here:

The First Amendment doesn't place "restrictions on" "government"...

...it commands Congress only from even fantasizing itself any legal authority at all in the issue of free speech in the first place.

"government", literally...

...never enters that picture, since the other two branches are constituted to simply enforce and interpret law already enacted.

Naturally then, and staying with the specific case of free speech, since Congress is forbidden to make any law at all in that regard...

...neither enforcement or interpretation are relevant.

Congress is not "government"; Congress is a branch of the federal government...

...and Amendment I only commands Congress.

The only constitutional power either of the two other branches of federal government posses in regards to Amendment I...

...is if the Congress itself betrays its oath to the Constitution by disobeying what it is specifically, intentionally, and purposefully commanded not to do.

When/if that happens, the Constitution actually empowers the Executive, the Judiciary, the States, and the People to act...

...against Congress.

Your renowned progressive relativism and statist adoration of "government" commands you to use your softer, totally inaccurate, "restrictions"...

...when - in individual liberty-loving constitutional reality - Amendment I is an absolute, outright, UNRESTRICTED BAN commanded upon the lawmakers of this nation - ONLY.

 

[Colonel Hogan]

Ha! A cat fight between Pvt Turd (c)lass Hogan and Black Savage

I don't get any sense whatsoever that Mr. Savage disputes my assertion that you are full of crap if you actually believe that the First Amendment provision protecting the "free exercise" of religion affords you (or anyone else) a legal claim against the federal government merely upon the declaration that a particular expenditure of government funds allegedly violates your religious sensibilities.

Given the vast realm of potential moral objections based on religious foundations there would be a virtually unlimited scope of objections to innumerable federal expenditures from individual religious practitioners if the First Amendment stood for such nonsense. It most certainly does not, and your original post asserted a loss of "First Amendment Religious Freedoms."

It was an abjectly stupid claim.

 

[BotanyBoy]

A major constitutional point here:

The First Amendment doesn't place "restrictions on" "government"...

...it commands Congress only from even fantasizing itself any legal authority at all in the issue of free speech in the first place.

"government", literally...

...never enters that picture, since the other two branches are constituted to simply enforce and interpret law already enacted.

Naturally then, and staying with the specific case of free speech, since Congress is forbidden to make any law at all in that regard...

...neither enforcement or interpretation are relevant.

Congress is not "government"; Congress is a branch of the federal government...

...and Amendment I only commands Congress.

The only constitutional power either of the two other branches of federal government posses in regards to Amendment I...

...is if the Congress itself betrays its oath to the Constitution by disobeying what it is specifically, intentionally, and purposefully commanded not to do.

When/if that happens, the Constitution actually empowers the Executive, the Judiciary, the States, and the People to act...

...against Congress.

Your renowned progressive relativism and statist adoration of "government" commands you to use your softer, totally inaccurate, "restrictions"...

...when - in individual liberty-loving constitutional reality - Amendment I is an absolute, outright, UNRESTRICTED BAN commanded upon the lawmakers of this nation - ONLY.

http://24.media.tumblr.com/2d060a276e629b6ebb59511c43f2a5ba/tumblr_mpxzy0KiZx1rgewb2o1_250.gif

 

[phrodeau]

I don't get any sense whatsoever that Mr. Savage disputes my assertion that you are full of crap if you actually believe that the First Amendment provision protecting the "free exercise" of religion affords you (or anyone else) a legal claim against the federal government merely upon the declaration that a particular expenditure of government funds allegedly violates your religious sensibilities.

Given the vast realm of potential moral objections based on religious foundations there would be a virtually unlimited scope of objections to innumerable federal expenditures from individual religious practitioners if the First Amendment stood for such nonsense. It most certainly does not, and your original post asserted a loss of "First Amendment Religious Freedoms."

It was an abjectly stupid claim.

You'll get nothing but crickets from that one. He posts what he's told to post.

 

[eyer]

Congress shall make no law...prohibiting the free exercise [of religion];

Amendment I is the law for all, above all...

...no citizen, legislator, judge, or executive holds any constitutional authority at all to alter - in any way - the literal command of those words.

Any ruling, decision, law - whatever - that violates in any way the literal meaning of I is repugnant to it and, therefore, not legal in any sense. In that case, every citizen's natural right is to consider that illegal act as exactly the constitutional fallacy it is...

...and civilly disobey it.

Legally, no other act may change the literal meaning of those words in any way...

...but a new constitutional Amendment with the specific purpose to do exactly that.

The free exercise of religion includes for many Americans the natural right to have nothing to do at all with the act of individuals intentionally killing another individual...

...such a hateful act is as repugnant to their religious beliefs as any act illegally enacted which affects those religious beliefs is.

The federal government can statistly "legalize" the intentional killing of innocent human life without prohibiting the free exercise of religion, because those to whom abortion is murder can still freely exercise their religion by having nothing to do with that totally repugnant act against every human being's natural right to life...

...the statist government isn't violating their religious beliefs in this instance, the statist government is simply alienating itself further away from half the body which actually empowers all government in the first place.

Free exercise remains because a believer can still avoid what is repugnant to his beliefs...

...however:

When the statist federal government acts to tax those same people so as to provide abortions to others, the statist government is, indeed, violating the literal meaning of Amendment I by forcing them to be involved in an action which is totally repugnant to their religious beliefs...

...they no longer possess the religious freedom to freely keep themselves totally apart from such a despicably evil; their individual liberty to freely practice their religious beliefs has been illegally extinguished simply in order to forcibly serve the collective.

In essence, it's just another illegal, statist end-around on the Constitution itself: the feign is, taxing you against your religious beliefs to provide abortion isn't prohibiting your free exercise of religion...

...while, in fact, it completely deletes the "free" command of the 1st by illegally establishing a cost now upon it.

It is repugnant to the literal meaning of I...

...and it is wholly repugnant to the literal intent of the framers of the 1st.

Any person who even begins to fantasize that the framers would ever even tolerate the mere suggestion of federal mandatory taxation of every citizen to provide abortion services is a person who has absolutely no American civic sense in the least...

...let alone even an iota of practical knowledge of that same matter.

If posterity after the framers wish in any way to alter either the literal intent or meaning of Amendment I, to any degree whatsoever...

...the People must first amend the Constitution, for there is no other legal option.

Alas, as life in the USSA today continually proves...

...that legal horse fled the barn long, long ago.

And so lemmings have exactly the repugnant government...

...they deserve.

The day is now at hand that civil disobedience directly against that very repugnancy commences in earnest by individual liberty-lovers throughout America...

...and if statist government and all its lemmings do not heed this second-to-last call, then they'll have no choice but to fully face the next.

Who will be the first Presidential candidate to sincerely pick up the flag of God-given individual liberty...

...and stoutly, righteously lead the charge?

Or, are all they...

...simply lemmings in American clothing, too?

 

[BotanyBoy]

Amendment I is the law for all, above all...

...no citizen, legislator, judge, or executive holds any constitutional authority at all to alter - in any way - the literal command of those words.

Except they do....

http://media.giphy.com/media/Ic97mPViHEG5O/giphy.gif