Posted on 02/18/2014 9:42:33 AM PST by Kaslin
When President Barack Obama said he planned to "fundamentally transform" the United States, he wasn't referring only to spreading the wealth around or even to conforming our foreign-trade regulations to the dictates of globalist busybodies. He is also working openly and covertly, through administrative regulations and supremacist judges' decisions, to transform us into a sanitized secular nation.
The cutting edge of Obama's war on religion will come into public view on March 25, when the U.S. Supreme Court will hear oral arguments about the Obama administration's attempt to force private companies, such as Hobby Lobby, to cover abortion-inducing drugs for their employees, even though the company's owners are morally opposed to them. Hobby Lobby has courageously stood up for its religious principles against this requirement despite the threat of fines of $1.3 million daily for not complying with this Obamacare mandate.
Another company, Conestoga Wood, has also stood up against this suffocating infringement on freedom of religion by Obamacare. The Supreme Court will hear both cases on the same day.
Hobby Lobby is a prime example of America as a land of opportunity. The family-owned company was started in 1970 with a $600 loan and garage workshop. Today, it boasts 588 stores in 47 states and 13,000 full-time employees.
The owners are devout Christians who treat their employees extra well, donate a big hunk of their profits to charity, and are closed on Sundays. The issue being addressed in the Supreme Court case is the Obama administration's attempt to force Hobby Lobby's owners to provide abortion-inducing products that violate their religious beliefs.
Hobby Lobby's owners are not demanding for these products to be banned or that anyone (including employees or customers) be prohibited from buying or using them. Hobby Lobby's owners just do not want to insure items that violate their moral principles.
This same Obama argument is already being used against adoption service providers and against Catholic hospitals. But all that is only the beginning of Obama's direct attack on religion.
We are already seeing regiments of Obamaites prosecuting smaller and smaller business owners who invoke the First Amendment to be faithful to their religious beliefs. These include the baker who refused to bake a wedding cake for a same-sex marriage and the photographer who refused to photograph a same-sex marriage ceremony, although they were quite willing to do any other business with gay customers.
The supremacist judge who ruled against the photographer and imposed a fine pompously declared it "the price of citizenship." Has kowtowing to Obama's redefinition of the First Amendment now become the price of American citizenship and of doing business in the United States?
Will all denominations be ordered by some judge to recognize same-sex marriages? Will churches that refuse an order to conform be hit with steep and ongoing fines, like the fines that threaten Hobby Lobby, or be denied tax exemption? Make no mistake; we are in a war for religious liberty.
One of Obama's famous lies is: "If you like your health insurance, you can keep it." We can now almost hear him saying, "If you like your religion, you can keep it." But just as Obamacare lets you keep your insurance only if it complies with obnoxious federal regulations, Obama wants you to be able to keep your religion only if you speak your words of faith behind closed doors, and only if you pay tremendous fines to the government. That doesn't meet any recognized definition of our First Amendment's "free exercise" of religion.
Since Obama became president, two other groups have joined his anti-religion campaign, the military and the public school system. Perhaps they want to curry favor with the commander-in-chief or with the grant-awarding bureaucrats in the Department of Education, or maybe they merely want to show they are politically correct.
Obama has made it clear that he doesn't want any expression of religious faith in any public place, including buildings or schools or events. He wants to redefine the First Amendment from "free exercise" to "freedom of worship," which means you would only be able to go inside your church, shut and perhaps lock the doors, and say a prayer where no one else can hear you.
When the Founding Fathers wrote "free exercise" of religion into the Constitution, they meant public as well as private exercise. Most of the famous people in American history talked openly about their faith and religion, and public expression of faith in God and religious principles by America's leaders has been part of our history and culture since the beginning.
And on Super Sunday, Obama denied he said he would ‘fundamentally change’ this country. He lies even when he knows there is video. Because he enjoys the protection of Big Media who covers for him at every turn.
He’s not any different than any of the other “progressives”
You don’t have to be a church or church activity to enjoy constitutionally protected freedom of religion in this country. You need only be an individual adult human. In fact, the foundational principle on which the constitution rests is the God given rights of the individual that the government is expressly prohited from infringing.
i.e. you can’t be compelled to do something against your religion, even if you own a business.
He’s got a war the first 10.
Add to this Obama’s use of the IRS to stifle the political speech of conservative groups. I also wouldn’t be surprised if his FCC were to enact some type of “fairness doctrine” to muzzle conservative talk radio and control Internet conservative sites. The MSM is already a willing part of the White House propaganda machine and if it were not for Fox News and conservative talk radio, free speech in this country would be on par with the former communist East Germany.
This was, IIRC, a case in the New Mexico Supreme Court — it illustrates the contempt that the government (and the judiciary in particular) has for their Constitution as the New Mexico State Constitution says the following:
Art 2, Sec. 11. [Freedom of religion.]If you want a widespread illustration of this sort of disregard look into your state constitution's analog to the Bill of Rights — especially those regarding arms. For example, North Dakota has the following laws [direct link] regarding arms:
Every man shall be free to worship God according to the dictates of his own conscience, and no person shall ever be molested or denied any civil or political right or privilege on account of his religious opinion or mode of religious worship. No person shall be required to attend any place of worship or support any religious sect or denomination; nor shall any preference be given by law to any religious denomination or mode of worship.
While the ND State Constitution says:
- Administrative Rules (January 2014)
- North Dakota Century Code
Article 1And there are many, many examples of this.
Section 1. All individuals are by nature equally free and independent and have certain inalienable rights, among which are those of enjoying and defending life and liberty; acquiring, possessing and protecting property and reputation; pursuing and obtaining safety and happiness; and to keep and bear arms for the defense of their person, family, property, and the state, and for lawful hunting, recreational, and other lawful purposes, which shall not be infringed.
Section 20.
To guard against transgressions of the high powers which we have delegated, we declare that everything in this article is excepted out of the general powers of government and shall forever remain inviolate.
Section 24.
The provisions of this constitution are mandatory and prohibitory unless, by express words, they are declared to be otherwise.
The War on Drugs has been incredibly destructive to 60%-70% of the Bill of Rights… this has been going on for long before anyone ever heard of Obama.
First Amendment
Second Amendment
Guns should be treated like books. No registration of each book you own, no waiting period if you want to buy a book, no limit to the number of pages in a book, no $200 tax per sale, none of that crap.
And can Congress make the Episcopal Church illegal? No.
Can Utah make all churches except LDS illegal? No.
Can Congress restrict guns? It should not be able to.
Can MA restrict guns? It should not be able to.
Writers and readers and churchgoers wouldn’t put up with it. Gun owners have been far too patient.
Besides Media, he also enjoys the lockstep, regimented support of Senate Democrats, who proved that they could afford any 'Rat president protection from any and all "high crimes and misdemeanors" no matter how public and notorious.
Likewise, Clinton benefited from the overwhelmingly black jury pool that will hear any accusation of misconduct in a federal courtroom in the District of Columbia. This is the significance of the O.J. trial, which demonstrated that black jurors, if they are politicized in the courtroom with race appeals, will vote down the line to acquit any black felon, and to convict any white accused (as in the Malice Green case in Detroit, which was contemporary with the Rodney King / L.A. riot / O.J. trials, 1992-5).
Obama faces a landscape without remedies in the constitution, in law, or in politics. He is now effectively an unconstitutional tyrant.
You druggies are all the same. "Pass me that bong, dude, and don't bogart the 'shrooms." </off Cheech Marin>
Oh, and yeah -- there is only one reason for anyone to demand legalization of these street drugs: He is an enthusiast, and probably a user.
So there's your burden. Wear it proudly.
Amendment 10 — Destroyed by combining “necessary and proper” with the intrastate/interstate regulation of Wickard.
Amendment 9 — Everything. Seriously, EVERYTHING about the War on Drugs is about the federal government exercising powers not expressly delegated by the Constitution.
From Justice Thomas’s Dissent in Raich:
“If the Federal Government can regulate growing a half-dozen cannabis plants for personal consumption (not because it is interstate commerce, but because it is inextricably bound up with interstate commerce), then Congress’ Article I powers – as expanded by the Necessary and Proper Clause – have no meaningful limits.”
”The Fourth Amendment expressly imposes two requirements: All searches and seizures must be reasonable; and a warrant may not be issued unless probable cause is properly established and the scope of the authorized search is set out with particularity. [...] The proper test follows from the principle that permits warrantless searches: warrantless searches are allowed when the circumstances make it reasonable, within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment , to dispense with the warrant requirement.”In other words:
Yes, the fourth amendment requires warrants for searches, but… fuck that!
So, that’s 90% of the amendments in the Bill of Rights.
If that's not cause for concern, and impetus for stopping the War on Drugs then is there anything that cannot be done in its name?
No reason except the word isn’t working
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.