More FOX News Controlled Opposition – This Time Its Andrea Tantaros Ripping Kim Davis

Freedom Outpost ^ | 9/10/15 | Tim Brown

[JohnKinAK]

More FOX News Controlled Opposition – This Time Its Andrea Tantaros Ripping Kim Davis & Pushing Nuremberg-Style Rhetoric

FOX News needs some people who actually have read the Constitution and know what it says. They also need some people who actually know what they are talking about. Andrea Tantaros is the latest FOX personality to demonstrate the news outlet is controlled opposition as she blasted Kim Davis for setting a "dangerous precedent" for doing what the law commands.

Appearing on The O'Reilly Factor on Wednesday evening, Tantaros told host Bill O'Reilly, "The problem is she's essential rewriting the laws of that county by not issuing [licenses]. As a Christian I do feel sorry for her and I'm sympathetic to her beliefs, however she doesn't have a legal leg to stand on."

She claimed that Davis cannot decide to not enforce law simply because she believes it's wrong.

"It sets a dangerous precedent," Tantaros continued. "A woman with Sharia not issuing drivers licenses to women, because she doesn't believe she can drive, or say somebody who says, 'I don't believe in the Second Amendment so I'm not going to give gun permits.'"

Wow! She just pulled a Shepard Smith and brought Sharia into the picture! Amazing! It's not even a good contrast since Davis actually upheld law and the Muslim woman was not doing that.

Well, let's see, Andrea is using the same kind of ridiculous arguments that the Nazis employed at Nuremberg. She wants Kim Davis to follow unlawful orders from a Bush-appointed, sodomite endorsing judge rather than follow the law. How many times do these people fail to cite the law? They claim law and claim Davis is breaking it and that she is attempting to rewrite it, but is she? Absolutely not!

I've cited Kentucky law, which is the only law that matters. It is the mantra that attorney Michael Peroutka chanted at the rally on Saturday, "Show me the law or free Kim Davis." So far, no one has cited a law she has violated. Andrea Tantaros would do well to read it and actually educate herself on what the law is. She, like sodomite Shepard Smith and others, wrongly thinks a Supreme Court's decision is law. It is not.

The Constitution is clear. Article 1, Section 1 of the Constitution reads:

All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives. (emphasis mine)

Now, Ms. Tantaros, if all legislative powers are granted to Congress, how much is left for the Supreme Court? How much for any federal court? How much for the Executive Branch? None, zero, zip, nada! They have no legislative power and it's amazing to me that some of these people lose their minds over Obama's executive orders pointing out quite often that they are not law and he doesn't have a right to write law. They will also talk about "legislating from the bench." Well, Tantaros, what do you think the Supreme Court did? They legislated from the bench, which is unconstitutional and illegal and frankly, every judge who ruled against the states in the marriage case should be impeached and then brought up on charges.

Tantaros professed to be a Christian and as a Christian, she should know that God's law is what man's law should be based upon. William Blackstone wrote:

No enactment of man can be considered law unless it conforms to the law of God.

Sadly, too many End-times "prophets" and Christians are running around proclaiming to be on the lookout for an electronic "Mark of the Beast" and have failed to realize that symbolism of the mark being on the forehead or the hand was tied directly to the observance of God's Law found in Deuteronomy 6. The Mark of the Beast (Rev. 13:16-18) is following tyrants and their usurped laws instead of God's laws. These people further fail to understand how it is contrasted with those who are redeemed who are also sealed in their foreheads (Rev. 7:3). They are the ones who do what? Keep the commandments of Jesus (The Law of God) (rev. 12:17; 14:12).

As a side note, I'm not saying get an electronic implant. I think we should be wary of any command of government that would make such a requirement law and we should openly reject it, but that is not the point that is being communicated in Revelation 13. It is an issue of who you are bowing to, God or the State, and which one is the Lawgiver. That determines who you are worshipping.

Tantaros is advocating the true Mark of the Beast, not the Law of God.

Beyond that, Tantaros should know that the Constitution did not give authority to the federal government concerning marriage and since it did not do so, those rights are reserved to the states and the people (Tenth Amendment).

It is this stupidity and ignorance that is destroying America. As a Christian, perhaps Tantaros needs to understand what Romans 13 teaches and then tell us why the Nazis were wrong for following their pretended laws and unlawful orders based on those pretended laws. I'll bet she will side with me on that issue, but is completely inconsistent when it comes to Kim Davis, who actually followed the law, but rejected unlawful orders.

[gwgn02]

Fox News bimbo’s.

[Rapscallion]

I have stopped watching FOX News. You should consider it too.

[WENDLE]

Notice this. No condemnation of Obama for not enforcing the law of the land in immigration or non profit IRS approval for conservative groups. No condemnation of sanctuary cities open violation of enforcement of federal laws. No condemnation of Hillary's concealment and destruction of government property in clear violation against 5 existing federal laws. And this person I have never heard of is given license on FAUX to lament Kim Davis? You can't make that up!!

[headstamp 2]

“Andrea Tantaros is the latest FOX personality to demonstrate the news outlet is controlled opposition as she blasted Kim Davis for setting a “dangerous precedent” for doing what the law commands. “

Um, no. That would be Barry about 5 years ago.

[Catsrus]

One doesn’t have to read “The National Enquirer,” or “The Globe” any more at the checkout lines. Just tune into Fox News.

[OldSmaj]

I find it difficult to even look at her, much less listen to any opinion she may have.

[timestax]

[dfwgator]

Isn’t she dating the dude from Jane’s Addiction?

[GreyFriar]

I have vowed to only watch tv networks and talk radio shows where the hosts agree with me 110% on every topic I have an opinion on.

[Yosemitest]

Americans will not stand with SODOMITES !

Radical Islamist" dictates from the Oval Office's ILLEGAL ALIEN IN CHIEF and his IRANIAN SPY ?

Take these GREAT WORDS with you.
Put them on posters along with the faces that said them.


Let us remember WHERE we came from.

Footnote: U.S. Constitution
Article I, Section 8: Uniform Immigration
Leviticus 19:34
Article II, Section 1: President Natural-Born
Deuteronomy 17:15
Article III, Section3: Witnesses
Deuteronomy 17:6
Article III, Section 3: Attainer
Ezekiel 18:20
Separation of Powers
Jeremiah 17:9
Three Branches of Government
Isaiah 33:22
Tax-Exemption for Churches
Ezra 7:24
Republicanism
Exodus 18:21

And let us NOT FORGET THESE GREAT MEN and WHAT they SAID !

“For what business, in the name of common sense, has the magistrate with our religion?
The state does not have any concern in the matter.
In what manner does it affect society in what outward form we think it best to pay our adoration to God?
The consciences of men are not the objects of human legislation.
In contrast with this spiritual tyranny, how beautiful appears our constitution in disclaiming all jurisdiction over the souls of men,
securing by a never-to-be- repealed section the voluntary, unchecked moral persuasion of every person by his own self-directed communication with the Father of spirits!”
– William Livingston, Constitution Signer


“Security under our constitution is given to the rights of conscience and private judgment.
They are by nature subject to no control but that of Deity, a
nd in that free situation they are now left.”
– John Jay, first Supreme Court Chief Justice



Original Intent of the First Amendment

Fisher Ames provided the wording for the First Amendment in the House of Representatives.
He did not say anything about “separation of church and state” in his debate, nor may it be inferred as his intent.
In fact, Fisher Ames said something that would be ruled unconstitutional because of the court’s modern application of that very phrase, “separation of church and state.”
He said,
“Not only should the Bible be in our schools, it should be the primary textbook of our schools.” xliv


Earlier, at the time of the Constitutional Convention, the founders discussed the individual rights of American citizens, which would later become the Bill of Rights.
How many times did they mention the phrase “separation of church and state?”
Zero.
They did not talk about it once.

The phrase “separation of church and state” was not even introduced into the American vernacular until a little over a decade after the First Amendment was adopted.
The phrase is exactly that - a phrase.
It is not a statute, it is not a law, and it is not an amendment to the Constitution.
It is simply a phrase lifted from a letter written by one of our Founding Fathers, Thomas Jefferson.

Jefferson was writing to the Danbury Baptist Association on January 1, 1802, in response to a letter wherein
they raised their concerns about religious liberty ever being infringed by the American government.
Jefferson responded that this would not occur because the Constitution builds “a wall of separation between Church and State.” xlv
So much has been erroneously inferred from that one statement.
(I encourage you to read David Barton’s article in the November 2003 issue of the Notre Dame Law Review for a more thorough treatment of Jefferson’s intent.)

Simply stated, Jefferson was using the phrase to describe the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment, which says, “or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” The protection of our rights to live out our faith without government interference is what was being expressed both in the letter and in the First Amendment.


What About Separation of Church & State

The Supreme Court twisted the meaning of the First Amendment by isolating those eight words from this personal letter from Jefferson. xlvi
They did not even consider the letter in its full context. xlvii
Then, in 1962, the Court used the phrase to completely remove God from all governmental institutions. xlviii
It is amazing how the court can ignore history and rewrite it to fulfill their particular agenda and purpose.

We’ve Got the Wrong Guy

Perhaps even worse than misapplying Jefferson’s words is the fact that Jefferson’s words were used in the first place
as a means for discovering the intent of the First Amendment.
Actually, Thomas Jefferson and his words “separation of church and state” are irrelevant when it comes to interpreting the intended meaning of the First Amendment
because Jefferson did not give us the Constitution or the Bill of Rights.


When a biographer wrote to Thomas Jefferson, to congratulate him for his influence on the Constitution, his response was,
One passage of the paper you enclosed must be corrected.
It is the following.
‘I will say it was yourself more than any other individual that planned and established the Constitution.’
xlix


Jefferson pointed out to the biographer that
he “was in Europe when the Constitution was planned,
and never saw it
until after it had been established.”l


Nor was Thomas Jefferson one of the Congressmen that passed the Bill of Rights, which contains the First Amendment.

So, arguing what the framers’ intent was by using Thomas Jefferson as an expert witness on the First Amendment
is the same as
having a murder trial where the judge allows those who were not at the scene of the murder
to come forth and tell us what happened.
It is intellectually dishonest
and a piece of cleverly crafted creative history at best, to say that Thomas Jefferson’s words provide the intent for the First Amendment.
To understand the original intent of the First Amendment, you must scrutinize the thoughts of those who took part in the debate,
the ones who actually gave us the First Amendment.
That debate emphasized the need to avoid another Church of England being established in America.
In other words, they were trying to prevent a national denomination from being forced upon the citizens.
None of their comments reflected intent to separate religious principles from government or from the public square.
Just the opposite:
they wanted to foster free expression, not political oppression.

For those who still want to rely on Jefferson as their expert regarding the First Amendment, it should not go unnoticed that
exactly two days after writing his letter to the Danbury Baptists, he attended the weekly church service being held AT the U.S. Capitol.
These were religious services that he had helped to start and faithfully attended throughout the remainder of his presidency.li

It appears that Jefferson’s views were far removed from the interpretation of them by our modern courts today.
Would Jefferson,
a man who himself established and attended religious services on federal property while holding the office of the President,
really think that it was against the good of our nation or our citizens
for children to pray for their teachers, parents, and country at the beginning of each school day?
You decide.



Notes:
xliv. Compiled By Friends, Works of Fisher Ames 134 (Boston: T. B. Wait & Co., 1809).

xlv. Letter to the Danbury Baptist Association (January 1, 1802), in Thomas Jefferson, Jefferson Writings 510 (Merril D. Peterson et al. eds., 1984) (1781).

xlvi. Everson v. Board of Education, 330 U.S. 1 (1947).

xlvii. Thomas Jefferson, Letter to the Danbury Baptist Association, in Thomas Jefferson, Jefferson Writings 510 (Merrill D. Peterson et al. eds., 1984)
(1802): Believing with you
that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God,
that he owes account to none other for faith or his worship,
that the legislative powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions,
I contemplate with solemn reverence that act of the whole American people which declared
that their legislature should “make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,”
thus building a wall of separation between Church and State.


l. Engle v. Vitale, 370 U.S. 421 (1962).

lii. Letter to Dr. Joseph Priestly (Washington ed., 441). < http://etext.lib.virginia.edu/etcbin/foley-page?id=JCE1686>.

l. Id.

li. William Parker Cutler and Julia Perkins Cutler, Life, Journal, and Correspondence of Rev. Manasseh Cutler (Cincinnati: Colin Robert Clarke & Co., 1888), Vol. II, p. 66, 119,
letter to Joseph Torrey, January 4, 1802.
Cutler meant that Jefferson attended church on January 3, 1802, for the first time as President.
Bishop Claggett’s letter of February 18, 1801, already revealed that as Vice-President, Jefferson went to church services in the House.

[wattsgnu]

I have stopped watching all news. I only get my news here and Drudge, but I do wake up with Fox and Friends. At least it mainly leans right, and only touches on the news with some early morning chuckles. (I turn it off when Geraldo is on for a few minutes once a week.)

[Old Sarge]

A very good article.

Pity they won’t read it.

[John S Mosby]

It should be noted, that the Nuremburg Laws, in nationalist socialist worker’s party pre WWII Germany— those Laws were instituted by:

The Judiciary. Ruled by Judges— not an electorate.

Fox is 30% controlled by a muzzie investor Talaweed, is it not? Muzzie/nazi love, starting with the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem.

[DungeonMaster]

The law of the land is as good and pure as bible when it says what you want it to say. I’m noticing that a lot these days.

[ObozoMustGo2012]

I gave up on F&F. It’s no different than the Today show, except Brian Kilmeade is more annoying than Matt Lauer.

I switched to watching Maria Bartiromo in the mornings. Much more intelligent talk, IMO. Plus, Maria is very easy on the eyes! :-)

[TADSLOS]

Just stop watching FNC. You’ll feel better.

[MNGal]

This poor woman, Kim Davis, has sure been getting a lot of flak. The actions of this one County Clerk in Kentucky has sure freaked everyone out, huh? What if everyone who opposed the Supreme Court edict did the same?

[shadeaud]

I believe she is a Greek Goddess. That is very bright and speaks her mind.

[stanne]

Why hasn’t congress made it clear that this is not law?