End the Iran Agreement by Killing the Virtual Filibuster

With the Iranian Nuclear “treaty-not treaty- agreement” on the table, the voice of the American people as expressed kerry bowsin their legislative houses will be utterly muted. Why? Because an antiquated tool of the D.C. establishment has, again, slit the throat of the people’s voice. The Democrats will filibuster, and not in the old style manner of Cruz or Paul, but in the anonymous, effortless, no-commitment style of the 1960’s push-button filibuster, a style of filibuster actually enacted under an LBJ Democratically controlled congress in 1975. To pass the legislation that censors the Iranian nuclear agreement, conservatives and constitutionalists should kill the virtual filibuster and bid it good riddance forever.

The hour of action on killing this irresponsible filibuster has long passed. Because the push-button filibuster hides senate votes, it has allowed cowards to control our foreign policy and elite insiders to control our budgets. Today, not only will the cowards seek to appease Iran instead of stand, the cowards in the Senate will avoid a vote entirely, keeping their base acts from seeing the light of day.

The elitist Senate, since the August recess, has surprised the nation by displaying a noblesse oblige, hinting that they were, perhaps, inclined to independent thought after all. There was such a dramatic change from the usual snore and pull-for-party attitude that all America wondered. For a second, everyone actually thought that Senators were going to deliberate, a phenomenon not seen since befo1153re Watergate. For a glorious moment it appeared that the eloquent and noble minded Senate was planning to put what each senator deduced to be the best for the nation ahead of his or her own political faction. Yea, right…

This week, a per usual, as liberals returned to the city of their corruption, far from their families, their natural interests, and their constituencies, they reverted to kind. Marching in lock-step they now plan quash the vote of the Senate and House majority. They will simply silence it, for a vote condemning the oil-rich, Russian-led, Iran appeasement bill simply cannot be condoned. The liberal Senate silence us via the safe, censorship-proof tool of the “virtual” filibuster.

Since the Civil War, factional battle lines have never been so hardened. Into this climate of faction, enter mullahthe overreaching executive, the tyrannical courts, and a filibuster that effectively shuts the mouths of the American people. There is nothing good about any of this and, essentially, because of the 1975 cloture rules, the congress has become a dead letter institution allowing the other branches to become overgrown and hideous. End the “virtual” filibuster now.

As much as one wanted to suspend disbelief and be surprised that, after all their grandstanding, liberals went forward in lock-step unity, it is even harder to be surprised that the do-nothing GOP establishment chain of fools did not procure a simple up or down vote when this entire matter came up last spring. The GOP leadership, in fact every member of both houses, knew this would happen. They knew no vote on the most blatantly weak foreign policy ever initiated by an United States president would not even receivea Senate vote. Yes, they knew it. Yet they marched harmoniously together in a show of bi-partisanship. Why? Only those privy to cloak room agreements know for sure, but it is certain that, even if the GOP leadership really had a wit of sense, no deal with a straight up or down vote would have made it through the current Senate cloture process.

One senator, a Senator Murphy of Connecticut, claims that a veto fight would embarrass the country. This is proof that the cloture procedure has become a cloak of cowardice, censorship, and tyranny, for Palin-Rallies-Tea-Partiers-AP-Photo-640x480while a veto fight takes fewer votes than a cloture fight the liberals want no part of it. The liberals have no desire that the voice of the people is heard by their directly elected representatives.

A veto fight is the constitutional way the executive and legislative branches are to engage. The founders never envisioned the current fights over cloture as part of the legislative process. The modernized, no-commitment, liberal cloture, the push-button filibuster, is the way of the shiftless, corrupt, and irresponsible. The vermin are hiding in its darkness. Before whom does Senator Murphy fear embarrassment? Would he be embarrassed before Russia? How about Iran? Maybe he’s afraid of the mocking words of the Chinese? Are Murphy and the President afraid to defend the constitutional processes of a free people before the dictators and tyrants of this world? The push button filibuster is the way of cowards. It is time to end it once and for all and ending it to yell at the top of our lungs about the evil before us in Iran would be a lasting and profound historical statement.

A Tyranny of Judicial Madness Continues in Oklahoma

Recently, the Oklahoma State Supreme Court ruled that a statue of the Ten Commandments on the Oklahoma Capitol grounds was contrary to the Oklahoma Constitution because, the court held, the Ten Commandments jack-nicholson-the-shiningbenefited a religion. Which religion it was that benefited from the monument is apparently a somewhat abstract concept to the Oklahoma court. Nevertheless, even though the monument doesn’t benefit any certain religion, it must be damned because it is part of Jewish and Christian faiths. Logic is blind to its assumptions. In Oklahoma insane assumptions about religion have led to a judicial tyranny that history will characterize as madness.

Simply, a faith is not necessarily a religion. One may have a faith in a Just and Orderly Creator and seek Him by way of a variety of religions. One may even believe in the Christian Messiah and seek him in by way of variety of Christian denominations. Indeed, this last scenario was the one that the founding fathers were most concerned about. The great variety of Christian faiths that arose after the Protestant Reformation were welcomed without governmental judgment in the New World. Jefferson sheathed the sword first wielded among Christians by Constantine the Great.

A lie believed is a tyranny of the soul. A lie enforced by a government is grounds for its abolition. Legislators in Oklahoma are calling for the impeachment of all seven justices who can’t see beyond their highly elevated noses. That’s not enough. The Oklahoma legislators are also calling for judicial reformation, a reformation that bars the state bar from monopolizing judicial appointments. That might go far enough, but it’s still an open question. Attorney General Scott Pruitt spent far too much time emphasizing that the monument was historical in nature.

Arguing that the Ten Commandments are of historic importance to our legal system, a systemTen-Commandments-statue-JPG that has now ‘evolved,’ is simply inadequate to reformation. Tell the truth: the monuments to the Ten Commandments are a symbol of our common faith that a Just God rules; that from Him all justice proceeds and before Him all our human justice will be judged. This is not a religion. Catholicism is a religion. Classical Reform Judaism is a religion.

For a century, Americans and their justices have been fed on the fat of the lie that governments can exist without a soul and, like the dust beneath our feet, continue objectively on. It’s just not true. If our government loses its soul, its humanity, we, as a nation, lose ours. Every key idea from how the value of humanity contrasts with the animal kingdom, to the meaning of nature’s voice in the relationship between the genders in marriage requires a primary axiom for logical conclusions to foster laws. All of these matters require and depend on a faith that a just Creator, the God of Nature, is out there somewhere. This is not a religion. When it concerns matters of jurisprudence, it’s a philosophy. The founders called their version of this philosophy Deism.

The Deism of some of the founders was an Enlightenment view of the Divine Right of the individual and of the Creator’s limits on the rights of collective society, of government. When this faith or belief that a Just Creator is ‘out there somewhere’ changes into a belief about how people should seek Him, the faith can be named religious. Otherwise, a faith that a Just Creator reigns is the philosophic foundation for the panoply of all religions. (When Deism moves from its rational, philosophic, intelligent design ideas to worship of some sort, it, too, can be called religious; however, it is generally too disorganized to make it as a formal religion.)

For instance, apparently, the highly intelligent and well-educated Oklahoma justices ignored the claim Islam makes on the Ten Commandments. The claim is somewhat tenuous and is perhaps made by some for less than forthright TJFlag-ForceCannotDisjoinreasons, but, because of the claim on the commandments made by others in Islam, it can be fairly argued that also among Muslims, the role of the Creator as a lawgiver, One Who governs in the affairs of all people, is understood.

Apparently, a satanic church, in the firm belief that equality of outcomes is the same thing as justice, petitioned to have an idol placed along side the monument to the Ten Commandments. That idol is a summons to worship while the Ten Commandments forbid anyone from worshiping any stone monument. Hence, as a summons to worship, it does profit a religious viewpoint. Most importantly, a free people dedicated to laws and justice has no need to give equal time to a self-proclaimed god of lawlessness and evil.

Likewise, a Hindu group also wanted to place a symbol of its worship on the capitol’s grounds. If that symbol is not a call to worship, and if it is a symbol of the belief that a Creator somewhere rules and gives laws to people, put it to a vote. The Ten Commandments are genuinely elegant in appearance, eloquent in letter, and inspiring in content. Those are plenty of reasons for the electorate to favor one monument and not another. In any case, put it to the public, not to un-elected, poorly educated, elitist, shriveled heads with gavels for brains.

To make a long story short: A Hindu, a satanist, and an American walked before the bar. None got justice, but they all heard the insane laughter of evil men howling as they butchered a free nation.

Same Sex “Marriage” as a Weapon Against Liberty

There are many powerful people who purport to believe that religion, “the opiate of the people,” is a scourgjoseph-stalin-39-728e on humanity. Altruists, they purport to genuinely believe that society would be better if all religions, especially Christianity, were expunged from planet earth.

That’s not a constitutional view of course. Freedom of religion is as sacred as the freedom of speech. Like the right to marry, it is part of what is innate in people and part of who we are as people prior to governments. It’s self-evident, no matter what one believes about religion, that governments need to, as much as is possible, keep out of the business of policing faith. Any law or ordinance that puts government into the business of arbitrating religious belief should be shunned. Indeed, governments ought to be in the business of promoting and exalting those freedoms that abound in a free people. This includes the “right to marry” and the practice of religion openly and freely.

marriage 3For instance, the ACLU may believe in the right of same-sex couples to call their unions a marriage too. That’s fine; however, if Reverend James Wilson is correct in his analysis of the effect of laws in Canada as applied in the United States, perhaps the ACLU and others have a more nefarious agenda in mind. Perhaps there is a secret treasure to be exhumed from the corpse of our mangled national marriage laws. With a victory in the Supreme Court, perhaps the ACLU can end religion in public life completely. We will be able to think religious thoughts, but we will not be able to either speak our beliefs or practice them in public.

To some, it’s an abomination to say that humans are, by nature, God-hungry. Indeed, to some, such a belief is a blasphemy against enlightenment. To some, all who profess such things as a right to worship should be shunned and cast out of the public square as filth. That’s fine, but that’s not our constitution. We the people, not the courts, were entrusted by our founders with the legal authority to change the constitutional basis of our land.

Reverend James Wilson wrote in “Proposition 8 protects freedom of religion” that:

“The state Supreme Court decision OK’ing civil rights laws for suppression of doctors’ consciences is part of an alarming pattern. The decision held doctors liable after they refused for religious reasons to inseminate a lesbian. The doctors referred her; there was no injury to the woman as she was inseminated and gave birth. But the court said doctors lose their right to free speech and religion when licensed to practice medicine in California. And if the experience of northern Europe and Canada is any indicator pastors will lose those rights should Proposition 8 fail in November. That is because courts in those nations have found pastors (and any who express politically incorrect views) guilty of hate speech.’:”

Many in California at the time tried to laugh off such notions as ridiculously alarmist, but, even in those days, the series of bilious comments by readers of Wilson’s article made one suspicious. Here were a few from long ago:

“Rev. James Wilson, it’s a shame you don’t follow Jesus’ teachings to love one another instead of spreading hate like this column.
Practice what you preach.”
You have no idea what the Bible says, do ya…

“He’s just being a hypocrite.”

“…it IS ‘hate speech’, MR. Wilson (you don’t deserve to be addressed as “Reverend” – that title should be reserved for people who attempt to reflect God’s love and compassion in their lives).

Revgrx_topbar_v01-40. Wilson’s most controversial line was that “love without truth is not love.” Reverend Wilson’s article was simply one of a tremendous variety of instances in those days surrounding California amending its a Constitution to  define marriage as between a man and a woman. At almost every turn the volume of the spiteful ad hominem attacks increased exponentially when faith was mentioned at all. The raw enmity expressed in any number of reader comments associated with those expressing religious disagreements with homosexuality itself was a firestorm. Whether the religion is Roman Catholic, Mormon, or Muslim, the hate was as furious as it was obvious.

There is no shortage of even more intolerance today. The Supreme Court of the United States’ decision on gay marriage has only made matters worse.florist Whether it is threatening pizzeria owners in Indiana or suing a little old lady’s flower shop in Washington, examples abound of mean-spirited hate being unleashed nation-wide against Christian believers. Perhaps, this, this torrent of brown-shirted, fascist hatred against the faithful is exactly the point of the entire same sex marriage movement.

Oh, so, when those crazy extremist, right-wing Christians’ heads were on the ACLU’s chopping block, it was no big deal. Have you noticed that even your girls high school locker rooms and your little girls’ public bathrooms are not safe from the homosexual assault on liberty and privacy? Is it a big deal yet? Have you noticed who your true friends have been all this time? Can you see who Liberty’s true enemies are yet?

Law suits are very exact instruments. No one has to sue. No one has to sue a Muslim cake maker. No one has to sue a Muslim cake maker in Dearborn, Michigan. No on has to sue a Jewish florist, but if a powerful group like the ACLU wants to target Christian religious institutions in every state in the nation, the Supreme Court has handed the ACLU a perfect weapon.

We’re still feeling the consequences of the weapon of Roe v. Wade of course. However, this new weapon would be more like the weapon delivered to the ACLU in 1967 when prayer and God were banned from public schools. A fundamental misrepresentation of the Constitution has now become a wedge by way of which the ACLU has threatened even a cross standing as a war memorial in San Diego.

Perhaps it is this weapon against the faithful, not marriage equality at all, that is what the entire court driven, elite media agenda has been all about. The promise of atheism is license to “do whatever feels good.” It’s truth, atheism’s essence is totalitarian slavery.

The Dread Justice Roberts Relabeled Botulism a Tax

After brilliantly producing a false analogy between the penalty for not participating in a government approved health care insurance program and the decapitation tax once contemplated by the founding fathers (see Part I), the Dread Pirate robertsRoberts’ second point seems, remarkably enough, even more inane. Thus Roberts ruminates: if the taxes for choosing not to participate in the majority’s life-style choices get so high that they “destroy,” the court will surely step in (42). Tax me more if I’m not comforted by this!

The Dread Pirate Roberts’ third justification for labeling a penalty a tax adds the bizarre to the absurd; however, it is a more practical analysis. The dread pirate argues that taxes aren’t as bad as penalties. In other words, the legal trouble folks can get into for not paying a penalty is far worse than the trouble they might find in not paying their taxes. Tell it to Capone–talk about bananas!

Roberts has simply relabeled a jar of Constitutional botulism. If he had upheld the exploitation of the commerce clause, the people would be forced to write a constitutional amendment. Now that Roberts has invented this new, broader power of taxation, the people must rewrite dread piratethe constitution. Indeed, the new constitution must exclude judicial fiat by some mechanism. Perhaps by by defining natural rights and limiting Supreme Court Justices to a veto power based solely on these natural liberties, these elitists law school escapees could be properly caged. Furthermore, the new constitution will have to invent a penalty worthy of The Dread Roberts himself. For instance, if any Supreme Court Judge decides or comments on any matter not within the scope of natural rights, they shall not be sentenced to death by taxation, (a cruel and unusual penalty). Instead, he or she shall be penalized, not to the death, but to the pain. For every right thing the so sentenced justice omits doing in his or her daily life, said justice will pay the IRS one thousandth of their gross income, not as a tax, but as a penalty. In addition, the reprobate justice will be in a perpetual yearly audit of omitted virtues. This audit will be published online, and any taxpaying Obamacare participant may suggest a virtuous act the failed justice didn’t consider. Each suggestion, would, of course, require the audit and penalties to begin afresh. If this sounds unfair, it is simply the slippery slope of the twisted logic to which the Dread Justice Roberts has subjected us all.

There are 3-2 pitches, bases loaded in the bottom of the ninth, that are called strikes even though they’re well off the plate. That’s one thing. It’s another when strike three is over the umpire’s head and whacks a little kid in the stands. Bananas.

Dehumanized Marriage is Not a Party

Dehumanized marriage, gay marriage, is often touted as progress of some sort. Many seem to feel that a dehumanized marriage is like “letting everyone be part of the party.” Dehumanized marriage is not a party; it’s an invitation to tyranny.

Marriage, “a joining,” is a mutual commitment based on a biological union. While indeed, marriage is a “celebration” of this commitmarrriage 4ment, here the word “celebration” is not a party. Instead, the celebration sets aside a relationship between two people as unique because of the mutual decision to form a biological, sexual union. Whether or not children arise from this biological union, this union, marriage, is a commitment based on biological realities.

Marriage is both a natural right and a constitutional right. It’s a natural right because it is utterly independent of governments. Legitimate governments, though, as with all natural rights, are responsible for recognizing and protecting the humanizing reality of marriage. Indeed, in our recent constitutional past, courts have found this to be the case. In 1967, in 1978, and in 1987 the Supreme Court rightly found that marriage, understood in essence as, “the conjugal union of man and woman, contracted between two qualified persons, …[obliging] them to live together throughout life,” is not only a natural right, but a fundamental right inherent in the liberties our constitution obliges our government to note and protect.

Everyone knows that marriage is no picnic, but neither is it an adult prom, a special chance to be recognized by friends and family as part of the traditional flow of society. American laws are based on nearly eight hundred years of cartawar demanding, protecting, and transmitting natural rights and liberties. There must be some other way to make same sex couples feel welcome in society than by purposely undermining the core reality of natural rights that forms the foundation of Western law and civilization.

Doug Mainwaring, a gay Tea-Party activist, once called the marriage equality movement an “un-defining” of marriage. He was exactly right. This “un-defining” is an insidious destruction, not only of marriage, but of the limited government a free people must demand. While marriage, like conscience, is as lasting as our humanity itself, limited government relies on the rule of law. As Marxism has “un-defined” property and thievery, so our judicial system has been bearing the national chest to the storm, begging the lightning to strike. By dehumanizing our marriages and families, we declare ourselves mindless, mewing cattle ready for the avarice of tyrants.

Some of even the most patriotic Americans don’t really understand either the legal or spiritual history of marriage. magna-carta1For instance, one brief before the Ninth Circuit brief read: “At the heart of this case are two competing conceptions of marriage. The traditional conception…holds that.. its [marriage’s] central purpose…is to channel potentially procreative sexual relationships into enduring, stable unions for the sake of responsibly producing and raising the next generation.”

The carriage is before the horse! Children and a strong family are but a benefit of maintaining a marriage. It’s the fruit, not the tree. Our judiciary must be unceasingly reminded of their Constitutional responsibility to uphold the natural right to marry and all other natural rights.

Un-defining a right denies that right. If we have a right to marry, but the word “marriage” is meaningless, we have a right to nothing. A society that suppresses, ignores, or devalues any natural right will reap the whirlwind.

More will be impacted than the state of children in dehumanized “marriages.” If our government cannot be trusted to tell the truth about marriage, it can’t be trusted to tell the truth on anything. Why should we unfetter gmarriage 3overnment from its obligations to guard our inherent liberties? Would we willing allow the federal judiciary to un-define the right to bear arms? Perhaps the right to bear sharp Frisbees is liberty enough for a free people.

Any government that does not recognize and protect natural, unalienable rights is an unnatural evil. Why? Because that government’s entire mission statement has become corrupted. Legitimate governments only exist by virtue of their charter to recognize and protect the naturally arising, unalienable, inherent rights of every person.

Our founders rejected the early tenets of evolution expressed by the Enlightenment (see Thomas Jefferson On Intelligent Design), and, instead, felt that these inherent rights were evidence of the will of the Supreme Judge of the world. Any government that is “destructive of these ends” is, therefore, not only without legitimate authority, but also at war with Divine Providence.

Dehumanizing Marriage: Party A, You May Now Kiss Party B

Anytime a basic civil right, an inalienable right, whether enumerated in the U.S. Constitutional documents or not, is violated by a government, that government is dehumanized, the citizens participating in that government are dehumanized, and, of course, those having their constitutional liberties abridged are dehumanized.

Consider the cases in Nazi Germany in which Jews were made to wear a yellow Star of David. The Nazi’s ignored ttwohe basic and self-evident equality among ethnicities in order to single Jews out as less human, deprived of the dignity of equality. The most devious of the Nazi aims, however, had to do with dehumanizing the populace of Germany itself. By refusing to stand up for their fellow humans, the people of German civil society became callous towards the Jews. Ultimately, the Nazi’s themselves became more and more unfeeling towards human life and the plight of their fellow man.

Of course the dehumanization of the German Jew was exponentially quickened because essential religious freedom to worship was likewise stigmatized. Two sets of essential civil liberties were abridged by the Nazis at once. Yet, could the Jews have claimed to have been harmed by wearing the yellow star of David? Shouldn’t they have been proud of their religious background? The wearing of the star was the first of a continuing series of Nazi violations of civil liberties, but the dehumanization of the Jew was already complete before the clear harm began. The prima facia violations of the human rights of privacy and freedom of religion produced the harm to Jewish natural liberties that paved the way for genocide.

Likewise, no matter how one wants to interpret the wording of the 2nd amendment of the United States Constitution, humans in a state of nature, without government, have the right to take up arms and defend themselves. Although the choice is intimidating to some, it must be; for that is the essence of self-defense. The right to defend oneself is a severe right that elevates all human life by its severity. The choice to bear arms or not to bear arms defines human character, but it is still a fundamental free choice, a liberty that is part of being human. Although, as the U. S. Supreme Court found, to protect the general welfare and to secure the blessings of all our liberties, the state, as authorized by the people, has the right to limit the liberty to bear arms, court or no court, the right to self-defense must not be compromised.  The District of Columbia completely abridged the right to bear arms and the right of self-defense thereby. Law abiding citizens, then, are completely reduced to dependency on government for their defense. They become no more than serfs of the Dark Ages dependent on their feudal lords for defense. They become the chattel of the state, the property of the state. Their humanity is compromised. The state too is dehumanized, for it becomes like a feudal lord, above those whom it exists solely to serve.

Yet, how are those that were refused the right to bear arms for many years in DC harmed? There is only slight evidence of that harm. The NRA often points to the rise in violent crime in areas in which the second amendment is severely constrained. This may simply be the obvious result of the criminals becoming emboldened by an unarmed populace. However, it could also be that the dehumanizing effects of abridging the right to bear arms emboldens those who contemplate violence.

How do these tests of the effects of abridging of natural liberties relate to the recent ban on marriage in California? In both of these instances, laws abridging human rights have plainly existed without any clear harm initially being found. Both instances are also examples of the truth that abridging any civil liberty dehumanizes the state and its citizens. In California there are no more marriages. Men and women cannot receive a marriage license that says “husband” and “wife”; instead, they become “Party A” and “Party B.” This language is plainly dehumanizing, and it is not the 0417marrriageapp1happenstance of nomenclature. The ruling of the Supreme Court of California and its accompanying opinion wreaks with violations of civil liberties and a callous, inhuman refusal to acknowledge the very essence of what it means for a man and woman to join in matrimony.

California’s Court has reduced marriage to only that over which the state has authority. It has looked at all the clothing of marriage and called these changing incidentals ‘marriage’; but the Court has ruled to ignore that unchanging reality of marriage that forms the basis of marriage as a natural liberty.

In every case, a constitutional liberty is such because its reality is greater than man; its power is independent of governments. It is because of such fundamental liberties’ superiority and priority to government that good governments reside in harmony with these native, inborn rights natural to humanity. Good government perceives that these greater, natural, freedoms are the very blessings of liberty that governments exist, solely, to secure. Marriage is such a liberty because it is more than contracts and commitments conferred by the state. The duties of marriage proceed from the joining in marriage, not from government. This joining for which men and woman are designed (whether by natural selection of by the hand of the God of Nature Himself), this is the very essence of marriage the State refuses to acknowledge.

Refusing the title of “husband” and “wife” is not a happenstance of nomenclature; it is evidence that the State of California refuses to acknowledge the essence of marriage, the joining in marriage, that is central to marriage as a constitutional liberty.  Because the state of California, through the voice of its Supreme Pontiffs, manifestly rec615x200-ehow-images-a06-af-f1-obtain-copy-marriage-license-800x800ognizes only those social rights involved in marriage, and because the essence of my marriage, my ‘right to marry,’ to join with my partner as husband and wife, is no longer recognized by California law, my constitutional right to marry is completely abridged. It is in the essence of humanity, male and female, to be able to freely join in marriage. California has a right to regulate marriage, even as the District of Columbia has a right to regulate the right to bear arms, but California does not have the right to legislate marriage out of existence, to deny its reality, and to ignore its core humanity. To designate marriage as a simple set of rights society chooses by tradition to assign dehumanizes us all.