Author Topic: News alert... (Read 1084 times)

ironglow · « **on:** February 23, 2011, 07:28:27 AM »

Just a few minutes ago it was announced that the Obama "justice"

department will stop enforcing a selected federal law.
Holder & co. announced they would no longer enforce the law called "The Defense of Marriage Act " ! This law was passed through in the 1990's and signed by pres Clinton. It simply says that a given state need not recognize a marriage of homosexuals which was performed in another state.
For Obama, Holder & co ignoring "inconvenient" laws is a pattern they follow...remember the hooligans who, brandishing clubs, intimidated voters away from the polling places in Philadelphia (the "City of Brotherly Love")...and Holder, evidently obeying his boss refused to prosecute the thugs, even though he had a "slam-dunk case" ?
Then, testimony was given by attorneys who resigned from his "justice"

department, said he demanded that only white people would be prosecuted for civil rights violations..

Anybody here agree with the Obama justice

department ?

rdmallory · « **Reply #1 on:** February 23, 2011, 09:53:37 AM »

Wasn't this what the war in 1860 was all about?

Doug

beerbelly · « **Reply #2 on:** February 23, 2011, 09:57:18 AM »

The dictator in charge Obama, if he can not get law passed in congress he just makes it law through an executive directive! The laws on the books he don't he just don't enforce! If this is not a dictatorship, I don't know what is!

bigMikeA · « **Reply #3 on:** February 23, 2011, 04:10:48 PM »

No sir!! I do NOT agree with the obamination justice department!

lakota · « **Reply #4 on:** February 24, 2011, 11:12:50 AM »

I heard news report on the radio this morning that Obama RULED the law unconstitutional. Exact wording. So apparently he had declared himself the Supreme Court.

I wonder if he will rule the election invalid if he loses in 2012?

Gary G · « **Reply #5 on:** February 24, 2011, 11:21:27 AM »

It would be alright with me if they didn't enforce a lot of laws and instead enforced the constitution. We shouldn't even need a license to get married. That should be between a man, a woman and the preacher. Do you resent having to get permission (license) from the government to get married? People before us lived in a free country.

Casull · « **Reply #6 on:** February 24, 2011, 11:26:36 AM »

Quote

We shouldn't even need a license to get married.

We don't need a license to get married. You can do whatever you want. But, if you want the government to acknowledge your marriage and enforce the benefits of marriage, then you need a license. I have no problem with this. Otherwise, anyone can CLAIM to be married and what's to stop wholesale bigamy?

teamnelson · « **Reply #7 on:** February 24, 2011, 01:59:54 PM »

Quote from: Casull on February 24, 2011, 11:26:36 AM

We don't need a license to get married. You can do whatever you want. But, if you want the government to acknowledge your marriage and enforce the benefits of marriage, then you need a license. I have no problem with this. Otherwise, anyone can CLAIM to be married and what's to stop wholesale bigamy?

Used to be the church, back when we were a free society even the non religious went to a preacher to get hitched. We've replaced community and church, when we were free, with The State.

Pat/Rick · « **Reply #8 on:** February 24, 2011, 02:11:29 PM »

GaryG and Chaps, YES SIRS!

I find it a bit confronting to have in our WA states Constitution preamble, the phrase (paraphrased) "the US Constitution is the supreme law of the land". That in itself null and voids ALOT of laws here in this state. chairman "O" by stating something is unConstitutional, is usurping his powers, that is why there is a judicial branch, or was that done away with? And didn't the judicial branch limit comerads clintons executive powers when he decided to write so many executive orders?? The downward spiral continues.

billy_56081 · « **Reply #9 on:** February 24, 2011, 02:28:49 PM »

Now if BHO and company make it so other states must accept any and all licences issued by another state, this could set a legal precedent for concealed carry.

Casull · « **Reply #10 on:** February 24, 2011, 05:54:34 PM »

Quote

Used to be the church, back when we were a free society even the non religious went to a preacher to get hitched.

Most still do. And not ALL marriages way back when were in a church. But, back then there were no income taxes, social security, etc. So, again, if you want the perks that go with marriage, the state needs to know that it is a legitimate marriage. If you don't, then "marry" however you want.

teamnelson · « **Reply #11 on:** February 24, 2011, 09:27:57 PM »

Casull, I agree completely. We've sort've taken the "in for a penny in for a pound" with our government. I don't think you can cherry pick issues and keep the principles intact - you got to start with a principle, which for me is "as little State as possible". Then I figure out how to solve the other things. Give me back my tax $, I'll invest for my own retirement future, and let the community of faith of my choosing handle charity and social institutions like they did for millenia prior. I guess I either have too much imagination or not enough; I can clearly envision life without entitlements and the taxes necessary to fund them. I think we'd be okay, different, but okay.

ironglow · « **Reply #12 on:** February 25, 2011, 03:18:35 AM »

B. Hussein may not even realize what he may have tried to start a precedent with..but of course, that's nothing new.

A new Republican president in 2012 should simply say " I don't like this socialized medicine idea, so I'm not going to enforce the Obamacare stuff" !
That way, each state can come up with a plan and each person find an insuror from a nationwide choice.

I guess what's good for the goose is also good for the gander !

Pat/Rick · « **Reply #13 on:** February 25, 2011, 06:51:49 AM »

ironglow, could you imagine the campaign speeches!? And if elected president I'm not going to enforce, nor let and agency enforce,___________ (insert law) that you don't like, and the votes should roll right in. Does a nation choosing not to enforce its laws breed anarchy? Some would say our borders/illegal invaders are proof.

ironglow · « **Reply #14 on:** February 25, 2011, 08:44:12 AM »

Pat/Rick;
I was speaking with a sense of irony, of course..

Pat/Rick · « **Reply #15 on:** February 25, 2011, 10:11:13 AM »

absolutely

teamnelson · « **Reply #16 on:** February 25, 2011, 11:42:48 AM »

TM7, true. But if your means of creating an equitable system is add more government, then you're really exacerbating the problem. You'd create a dependency whereby the only way we could ever have an equitable system by which smaller government would work, is to have a really large government.

Or you just cut government, and accept the pain. I believe this option to be preferable because its based on principle, not pragmatism.

ironglow · « **Reply #17 on:** February 25, 2011, 02:41:26 PM »

More evangelism, followed by more discipleship training, wouild produce a much more equitable system than tons of more government would ever do ! (IMO)

Gary G · « **Reply #18 on:** February 26, 2011, 12:23:43 PM »

TM7 wrote:

Quote

As little state as possible works when you have an equitable system of things. We don't have anything close to that now...legally, economically, socially, or any other way.

And that inequitable system was caused by the capturing of big government by various powerful interests. That could not have happened with a limited government.

ironglow · « **Reply #19 on:** February 26, 2011, 01:18:21 PM »

Right there, Gary;

If there were only minimal government...wealthy and influential people, be they corporate, Fabian socialists, anarchists or union leaders could not seize great power from the government..if the government did not have great power to seize.