The Christian right seeks cultural and political domination

a reply to: BO XIAN

Oh sweetie... you're shadow boxing. Communism and Socialism scares the crap out of the elites. Absolutely there's all kinds of power plays going on at the moment. Some are using religion and the illusion that it takes less than a lottery shot at becoming filthy rich, to do it. In the case of America, Evangelicals and Dominionists use the same tactics you do and tell people all the Democrats and Leftists are devil worshiping Socialists. This effectively keeps workers powerless and CEOs, bankers, politicians and government officials fully in position to exploit the rest of us.

Smart and powerful enough to control the whole world but so stupid as to expose their plans to anyone that can read? I don't think so. None of us should give a damn what anyone in power says, only what they do.

I can easily say that I'm a Dominionist and Right-Libertarian and win the hearts of Christians and Tea Partiers all over the country, cozy up to the Kochs and get myself elected to Congress but then I can turn around and consistently vote for higher corporate taxes, tougher gun laws, tougher regulations, higher taxes on the wealthy and then turn around and weep for Jesus on TV and sneer at science in classrooms and a government sorely lacking in Jesus.

Does that make me an actual Right Wing Dominionist? Nope. I'm just saying enough of the right things to be perceived as such. See how that works? Because of the words coming out of my mouth Democrats and the Left will hate me, a good lot of the Christian Right will love me... only the people looking at my actions will understand that I've been deceitful.

So you can say Socialism is evil because of Stalin and Communism because of Lenin and the USSR but you've only been reading their claims of being Socialist and Communist... not seeing that their actions weren't true to their words.

a reply to: Kali74

Nope, socialism and communism are state controlled constructs that put the absolute power into the hands of the elite forever. They take away private property rights and the elite retain political power and control in the name of the people to make sure it's all "fair" for us little folks.

Study the Soviet Union. You had the vast mass of destitute workers in their "paradise" who "owned" everything, and the elite political class who actually administered it all in their name and lived high on the hog reaping all the rewards. In this case, the corporate, media, Hollywood, academic, political elites would just move into the political power party while all of us would be divested of all we had "for our own good."

a reply to: mOjOmYou say hobby lobby is a fictional entity and i say that so are you. Your name is in all caps for a reason on your birth certificate cause let's face it without that birth certificate the entity that has been created for you would not exist. That goes for all "citizens".

a reply to: ketsuko

Study Anarchism, Socialism and Communism then try to tell me again that the USSR was any of those things. Perfect example of paying attention to the words and not the actions.

originally posted by: deadeyedick
a reply to: mOjOmYou say hobby lobby is a fictional entity and i say that so are you. Your name is in all caps for a reason on your birth certificate cause let's face it without that birth certificate the entity that has been created for you would not exist. That goes for all "citizens".

Yah genius but I'm not ONLY a FICTIONAL LEGAL ENTITY I am also a Natural Person as well. A corporation isn't.

I find it hilarious the lengths to which so many of you try and challenge that idea or challenge my position on this. It's just a fact. Yet you still try so desperately to avoid admitting that.

So yes, we are all Legal Fictions however unlike a corporation which is only a legal fiction all people are also REAL Natural People as well. You see the difference???

I can't believe I actually have to continue to spell it out like that. It's ridiculous!!!

Without the Birth Certificate, my Legal Fiction would not exist, but I, the Real Person, would still exist.

originally posted by: mOjOm

originally posted by: ketsuko
Social justice is the idea that all must be made equal by law. That means we must be forced to be equal in whatever way the law deems fit.

It means that we are all treated Equally by the Law. I'm not sure if that's what you mean or not, but I thought I'd check.

Do you not think we should be treated Equally from a Legal standpoint??? Do you think that certain people or groups should be seen as above the law???

You mean "above the law" like illegal alien invaders and their offspring?

The Christian Right bases their beliefs on a literal interpretation of a 2000 year old book and wish that laws for everybody in the United States would be based on their interpretation of religion. While claiming to be persecuted, Christians are actually a majority in this country and historically persecuted people of OTHER beliefs. Moreover, the religious right wants all people to have their personal behavior (such as gay marriage or substance use) regulated by the government because the Bible is supposedly against such things as gays.

On average, the "leftists" and moderates just want to be able to live their own life as they see fit, whether straight, gay, transgender, Muslim, atheist, you have it.

As a policy professional and former science teacher, I can say first hand that the only laws that the center and left want legislated for all are THOSE THAT HAVE A HUGE BODY OF PEER REVIEWED EVIDENCE FOR, such as environmental issues, or social science based criminal justice, etc. We DO NOT want to have the religious right and fundamentalists force us all to bow to a literal interpretation of a 2000 year old book.

Which one is more rationale and freedom-orientated? Certainly not the religious right. Who is the side that wants everyone to have the literalist interoperation of gender roles and marriage roles? Certainly not the left. Who wants legislation to be based on careful scientific evidence where possible? The left and moderates.

I rest my case.

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: BuzzyWigs

Everything you write or you quote, I could take out Christian right and put in Leftists and it would apply just as much.

There is no conspiracy theory here. Their strategy is evidently clear and unashamedly boasted. Their strategy is to control state and federal legislatures, and the courts – in a way that says, “We don’t care what the American people want. We write the laws, and those laws will not reflect the wishes of the center majority, but instead will cater only for the socialist cranks within our ranks.”

Just as one example.

originally posted by: vjr1113
i disagree the labels exist for a reason, fundamental differences in beliefs. usually the right are considered religious conservatives and the left are considered open minded liberals.

i personally don't believe that these labels are being represented as they should. we should, instead of dividing ourselves, try to decide what beliefs should be taught to the next generation, as a whole society.

The Right = Value freedom at the expense of equality.
The Left = Value equality at the expense of freedom.

That is it.

No other differences exists between "sides".

Using words like "conservative" (unwilling to change) and "open minded" (willing to change) further add to the incorrect labels.

Equality and Freedom are both important to society, and they (TPTB) know that, which is why we have the 2 sides we do today. Everyone agrees Equality is good, everyone agrees Freedom is good; but you cannot maximize one without diminishing the other.

How far each individual mind desires their personal "side" (equality or freedom) at the expense of the natural opposing side dictates where you are "labeled" on the political spectrum (how far from center you fall).

Don't play into the stereotype. We are all unique minds desiring different degrees of freedom and equality based on our personal convictions. Being "christian" or "religious" does not make you "right wing"; your value on freedom vs equality does.

God Bless,

a reply to: Quetzalcoatl14

So what's to worry about ?

The 1st Amendment addresses all the conflicts does it not ?

The Right = Value freedom at the expense of equality.
The Left = Value equality at the expense of freedom.

a reply to: ElohimJD

Perhaps more like:

The "Real" Right = Value freedom and equality at no expense to anyone.

The "Real" Left = Value equality for a select few at the expense of everyone else.

But you keep appealing to legal aspects to admiralty courts. Thats why we keep informing you of this fact. In these courts you and your fiction are crpopration just like hobby lobby, except it does seem they have more rights than your "person". It would be different if you made this to common law courts and naturallaws. But you are not doing that. a reply to: mOjOm

usa-the-republic.com...

The word "person" is used in many laws. If you don't know what the term means, you might think that you are one of these.

American Law and Procedure, Vol 13, page 137, 1910: 

"This word `person' and its scope and bearing in the law, involving, as it does, legal fictions and also apparently natural beings, it is difficult to understand; but it is absolutely necessary to grasp, at whatever cost, a true and proper understanding to the word in all the phases of its proper use ...  A person is here not a physical or individual person, but the status or condition with which he is invested ... not an individual or physical person, but the status, condition or character borne by physical persons ...  The law of persons is the law of status or condition."

People are not persons. On the next page you will read legal definitions of the word `person.'  As you will see, persons are defined as non-sovereigns.  A sovereign is someone who is not subject to statutes.  A person is someone who voluntarily submits himself to statutes.

In the United States the people are sovereign over their civil servants:

Romans 6:16 (NIV): "Don't you know that when you offer yourselves to someone to obey him as slaves, you are slaves to the one whom you obey ..."

Spooner v. McConnell, 22 F 939, 943: 

"The sovereignty of a state does not reside in the persons who fill the different departments of its government, but in the People, from whom the government emanated; and they may change it at their discretion. Sovereignty, then in this country, abides with the constituency, and not with the agent; and this remark is true, both in reference to the federal and state government." 

1794 US Supreme Court case Glass v. Sloop Betsey: 

"... Our government is founded upon compact.  Sovereignty was, and is, in the people" 

1829 US Supreme Court case Lansing v. Smith:

"People of a state are entitled to all rights which formerly belong to the King, by his prerogative." 

US Supreme Court in 4 Wheat 402: 

"The United States, as a whole, emanates from the people ...  The people, in their capacity as sovereigns, made and adopted the Constitution ..." 

US Supreme Court in Luther v. Borden, 48 US 1, 12 LEd 581: 

"... The governments are but trustees acting under derived authority and have no power to delegate what is not delegated to them. But the people, as the original fountain might take away what they have delegated and intrust to whom they please. ... The sovereignty in every state resides in the people of the state and they may alter and change their form of government at their own pleasure." 

US Supreme Court in Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 US 356, page 370: 

"While sovereign powers are delegated to ... the government, sovereignty itself remains with the people ..." 

Yick Wo is a powerful anti-discrimination case. You might get the impression that the legislature can write perfectly legal laws, yet the laws cannot be enforced contrary to the intent of the people. It's as if servants do not make rules for their masters. It's as if the Citizens who created government were their masters. It's as if civil servants were to obey the higher authority. You are the higher authority of Romans 13:1. You as ruler are not a terror to good works per Romans 13:3. Imagine that! Isn't it a shame that your government was surrendered to those who are a terror to good works? Isn't it a shame that you enlisted to obey them?

US Supreme Court in Julliard v. Greenman, 110 US 421: 

"There is no such thing as a power of inherent sovereignty in the government of the United States .... In this country sovereignty resides in the people, and Congress can exercise no power which they have not, by their Constitution entrusted to it: All else is withheld." 

US Supreme Court in Wilson v. Omaha Indian Tribe 442 US 653, 667 (1979): 

"In common usage, the term 'person' does not include the sovereign, and statutes employing the word are ordinarily construed to exclude it." 

US Supreme Court in U.S. v. Cooper, 312 US 600,604, 61 SCt 742 (1941): 

"Since in common usage the term `person' does not include the sovereign, statutes employing that term are ordinarily construed to exclude it." 

US Supreme Court in U.S. v. United Mine Workers of America, 330 U.S. 258, 67 SCt 677 (1947): 

"In common usage, the term `person' does not include the sovereign and statutes employing it will ordinarily not be construed to do so." 

US Supreme Court in US v. Fox 94 US 315: 

"Since in common usage, the term `person' does not include the sovereign, statutes employing the phrase are ordinarily construed to exclude it." 

U.S. v. General Motors Corporation, D.C. Ill, 2 F.R.D. 528, 530: 

"In common usage the word `person' does not include the sovereign, and statutes employing the word are generally construed to exclude the sovereign."

Church of Scientology v. US Department of Justice (1979) 612 F2d 417, 425: 

"The word `person' in legal terminology is perceived as a general word which normally includes in its scope a variety of entities other than human beings., see e.g. 1, U.S.C. para 1." 

In the 1935 Supreme Court case of Perry v. U.S. (294 US 330) the Supreme Court found that "In United States, sovereignty resides in people ... the Congress cannot invoke the sovereign power of the People to override their will as thus declared."

That's right! According to the US Supreme Court, the people are non-persons.  This all makes sense, after all, servants don't make rules for their masters.

In his book Judicial Tyranny and Your Income Tax, tax attorney Jeffrey Dickstein included the transcript of the tax trial U.S. v. Carl Beery, Case A87-43CR Vol. IIItranscript. On page 296 of the book, you will read where the IRS claims that "an individual is somebody with a social security number." 
 

For the advanced student:

The 1936 conference of Governors made a promise to pay the interest on the national debt from the future earnings of its federal citizens. This is as valid as any other promise to pay, as is a promissory note. As with any mortgage or loan it can be sold or even foreclosed. When it is sold, the collateral is transferred with it.

a reply to: beezzer

Now, now Beezer . . .

you probably well know . . . that lots of folks are great at pontificating as long as they do NOT

HAVE TO APPLY

their pontifications to themselves! LOL.

Too often, it seems to be a very human trait . . . more pronounced and intense in some than in others.

originally posted by: xuenchen
a reply to: Quetzalcoatl14

So what's to worry about ?

The 1st Amendment addresses all the conflicts does it not ?

Does it?

SEC. 3. FREE EXERCISE OF RELIGION PROTECTED.

(a) IN GENERAL. -- Government shall not substantially burden a person's exercise of religion even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability, except as provided in subsection (b).

(b) EXCEPTION. -- Government may burden a person's exercise of religion only if it demonstrates that application of the burden to the person --

(1) furthers a compelling governmental interest; and

(2) is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest.

That's from the Religious Freedom Restoration Act

Ironically, This is also from the ACT.

ESTABLISHMENT CLAUSE UNAFFECTED.

(a) IN GENERAL. -- Nothing in this Act shall be construed to affect, interpret, or in any way address that portion of the First Amendment prohibiting laws respecting the establishment of religion. Granting government funding, benefits, or exemptions, to the extent permissible under the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, shall not constitute a violation of this Act.

The Religious Freedom Restoration Act is unconstitutional. It needs to be repealed.

a reply to: Kali74

None of us should give a damn what anyone in power says, only what they do.

Uhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh . . . Please tell me you've been alive longer than too few years.

The folks I listed and the quotes I referenced

HAVE BEEN WALKED OUT, APPLIED, ACTED OUT IN MULTIPLE WAYS REPEATEDLY . . . over the last 100+ years and CERTAINLY

over the last 60+ years.

If you call Jacques Cousteau's assertion that they NEEDED to kill off an EXTRA 350,000 PEOPLE PER DAY

merely idle blather of no functional consequence . . . then I'll have to consider your knowledge, understanding and perceptiveness at a fairly low level.

The oligarchy has been steadily DOING and steadily INCREASING THE DOING of their genocidal, depopulation efforts the last 100+ years. Ignorance of that is . . . wellllll . . . frankly, gross ignorance.

Call it shadow boxing all you want . . . when the gestapo comes for you or your family member at 04:00 in the morning, you might feel boxed by something more substantial than a shadow.

You seem to be a pretty bright person. It's mystifying to me that you seem to have been living in a cave in terms of your awareness of these matters.

Even fairly doltish, TV addicted, tuned-out, greatly unaware folks in my social network have been waking-up to these realities the last 5-10 years.

Even a dyed-in-the-wool lifelong, family heritage, clueless liberal type DEM addicted, Obama 'worshiping' type attitude cousin of mine has finally awakened--and certainly not due to any of my inputs.

The oligarchy is NOT building any kind of constructive theocracy. It is totally blood thirsty, ruthless, ugly, evil, destructive, deadly from the foundation up.

Rationalizing that away is not a good survival habit.

originally posted by: xuenchen

The Right = Value freedom at the expense of equality.
The Left = Value equality at the expense of freedom.

a reply to: ElohimJD

Perhaps more like:

The "Real" Right = Value freedom and equality at no expense to anyone.

The "Real" Left = Value equality for a select few at the expense of everyone else.

Explain to me how you can have freedom (do whatever you desire by choice) and equality (everything is equal for all people) at the same time.

Our nature would have to change from selfish to selfless for this sentence to be true, where all mankind chooses to make conditions equal; freely. The present age is not that time, the evidence of our current nature is the world around you.

Let go of your political bias. I am neither side; I wait for the coming of a new kingdom.

God Bless,

originally posted by: BO XIAN
The oligarchy has been steadily DOING and steadily INCREASING THE DOING of their genocidal, depopulation efforts the last 100+ years. Ignorance of that is . . . wellllll . . . frankly, gross ignorance.

And has the world's population gone up or down as a result of this alleged effort?

a reply to: windword

a) IN GENERAL. -- Government shall not substantially burden a person's exercise of religion even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability, except as provided in subsection (b).
(b) EXCEPTION. -- Government may burden a person's exercise of religion only if it demonstrates that application of the burden to the person --

(1) furthers a compelling governmental interest; and

(2) is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest.

Care to elaborate on what's unconstitutional about that?

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

Fine with me.

But some OT folks tried something similar . . . the demonic God "fell" over in the night and was broken in the presence of . . . I forget what . . . from the Jewish Temple.

a reply to: manna2 &
Sunwolf

I don't even know wtf either of you are saying at this point. To sunwolf, all I can say is I have no clue why you even bring up illegal immigration. I never said anything about immigration at any point so where you are going with that conversation is all on you.

Manna2. I also don't get your point. My Legal Persona is Fictitious. However the actual flesh and blood me that was born from my mothers vagina is in fact a Real Person. Real even if NO LAW or court or anything else can document it. A Natural Person is just that. I'm not arguing legalities, nor is that even the topic of this thread so I don't know why you even bring it up. But I tell you what, if you can prove that I, as in the real natural person is only a fictional entity then I'll listen to what you have to say, until then I don't care. All People are Real Natural Persons, who may or may not have a legal persona as well, but if that legal persona is not there, the Real Person still is. That's it and there is nothing more to say. Now get back on topic.

a reply to: BuzzyWigs

I'm NOT in favor of a politically manipulated anything . . . including an Evangelical theocracy. We do poorly enough running our own churches. The idea of them cut loose to run the country or worse the world could leave one breaking out in hives or worse.