Mandatory Social Engineering?

[ultramag44]

It seems every day we see more & more social engineering.

In the past it was just suggestions or to @ least consider the "ideas" of the so-called "free-thinkers".

Then it was optional classes in schools or the prefix of "theory" tagged to these ideas and classes. Americans still had the opt-out option to reject what they considered rubbish or subversive.  Suddenly the theories became "facts" (w/o proof or w/ vodo proof) and there wasn't an option clause any more!

Who thought. in their lifetime, that some private person could use imminent domain over another private person to take their house or land?  That was (used to be) reserved for government to build a school or a highway.

Last June a High School decided to not have a senior prom. A private group of parents, @ their own expense, rented a hall to give a private graduation party.  As it was a privately funded party, it was by invitation only. So what happens? A group of uninvited malcontents go to court to try and force open invitation!  Since when can people think they have a right (by Devine right or by court order) to crash a private function?

This is social engineering, pure & simple!

Is the next step mandatory mate or marriage pairing?  Right now a marriage license is issued from the aspect of:  You are free to marry whomever you want, as long as that person is of age, unmarried, does not have an STD, is not a close relation, etc.                                                                               

Are they going to try, in the next generation or so, forced pairing?  Maybe to make it "fair & balanced" they will have a marriage bureau set up to match people based on sharing the wealth, intelligence and strength with the have-nots ?  After all, Adolph and Jim did it.

I'm just supposing, based on the little things I see...is the handwriting on the wall?

[jcn59]

I've quoted this before but I think it bears repeating:
 The general misconception is that any statute passed by legislators bearing the appearance of
law constitutes the law of the land. The U.S. Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and
any statute, to be valid, must be in agreement. It is impossible for a law, which violates the
Constitution to be valid. This is succinctly stated as follows:

“All laws which are repugnant to the Constitution are null and void.”

Marbury vs. Madison, 5
US (2 Cranch) 137, 174, 176, (1803)

“When rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or
legislation which would abrogate them.”

Miranda vs. Arizona, 384 US 436 p. 491.

“An unconstitutional act is not law; it confers no rights; it imposes no duties; affords no
protection; it creates no office; it is in legal contemplation, as inoperative as though it had never
been passed.”

Norton vs. Shelby County 118 US 425 p. 442

“The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law, is
in reality no law, but is wholly void, and ineffective for any purpose, since unconstitutionality
dates from the time of its enactment, and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it.

“No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it.” 16
Am Jur 2nd, Sec 177 late 2d, Sec 256

[tom548]

That may be all so but the selectively picked judges (By the Dictator) on the Supreme court don't allways follow the Constitution.  Example the new female judge shot down the NY case against the  Weapons ban that violates our 2nd. Amendent rights, even after the Heller decision had said it did protect our rights of the Private citizen to keep and bear arms..
So if one judge retires and the Dictator can appoint one more He then has the Court on his side and we loose all hope of fighting in court and getting a fair decision. Some of the Judges are in their 80's.

[jcn59]

We can't allow incompetent appointees to sit in judgement of what "Shall not be infringed" means anymore than we could allow bill clinton to tell us "it depends on how you define:  IS"  when he lied to the Grand Jury.  These coastal fools can only take our rights from us if we allow it.   Look what happened over the weekend a few weeks ago when jhoe biden was going to take our 2A. rights away.   They got so much flak from people like us who told them we would not register anything that they backed off.  Lots of us told our congressmen that they were about to start the 2nd American Revolution, and we meant it.