Announcement

Collapse

Forum Rules - You must read(Updated!)

DISCLAIMER

You agree to NOT use this site or its affiliated sites, services you may have access to as a result of being a member here (subscriber or otherwise), to post items (images, textual material, etc.) that are pornographic in nature, illegal in the United States and/or the country you reside in, support or encourage illegal activities (e.g., terrorism), advertise for your own personal profit, or send unsolicited messages (i.e. SPAM) to members or non-members.

AND

You agree that if any clause or component of this document is found to not be legally binding in a court of law of proper jurisdiction then the remainder of this document shall remain fully binding and in full force.

AND

You agree to NOT hold Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd. (makers of the forum software), uspoliticsonline.com, sites affiliated with uspoliticsonline.com, its administrators, its moderators, others associated with its operation, and its owners liable for any and all of the following (in whole or in part):
Personal insults/attacks by other members.
The content posted by other members, whether directed at you personally or a label/classification you associate with. This includes remarks you consider to be libelous or slanderous in any way.
Any financial or time loss due to your participation here or as a result of something you read at this site, including posts/PMs by other members and feature(s)/software available at the domain uspoliticsonline.com.
The dissemination of any personal information about you as a result of either your negligence (e.g. staying logged into a computer that others have access to) or willingness to post such information on a public and or private forum, private message or chat box. This includes using your real name or other details that could allow other members and/or the general public to determine your true identity. You are prohibited from using your real name on these forums, either as your username or in posts / PMs you write.

FORUM RULES, IN ADDITION TO THE DISCLAIMER

1. These rules apply to all sections of USPOL, including public and private forums, blogs, and visitor messages.

2. You cannot attack and/or personally insult someone. You cannot bait other forum members; this includes referring to posters by derogatory terms. Please, remain courteous and respectful to all forum members at all times. You agree to take responsibility for reporting such posts when you come across them. Please, use the ignore feature if need be. Any member who intentionally and continually posts inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages with the primary intent of provoking readers into an emotional response, or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion, may be regarded as a “troll” by staff, and have their account suspended or banned.

3. You cannot harass (sexually or otherwise) other members. This includes malicious, slanderous, or defamatory comments. If you are not sure if something you write is inappropriate or not then don't say it. Err on the side of caution.

4. Copying and Pasting Articles, and Starting New Threads. You cannot simply cut and paste in posts or when starting threads. You MUST provide the identifying information (source, author, date, and URL). You must also offer some original thoughts along with the cut and paste. You may copy and paste an excerpt or series of excerpts from the article. Excerpts really shouldn’t be more then a paragraph or two. Furthermore, if you use images or other copyrighted material in your posts or signature you must have permission of the copyright holder unless you know for a fact that the image is in the public domain. In addition:
a. It must include the identifying information; e.g., where available, the author, the publication, the date, the URL.
b. The member must offer some context, including: How did you hear of this article? What is your opinion? Why is it important to you? Why should it be important to forum readers? The more context you provide, the more you assist others in gauging the excerpted information's significance.
c. You may copy and paste an excerpt or series of excerpts, not the whole thing or even the majority of the whole thing to encourage people to read the entire article.

A violation of any of the above will result in the deletion or closing of the post or thread and could earn you a warning or suspension. If you have any questions concering any of the above please PM a moderator and we will be happy to clarify.

5. You cannot post the same thing in multiple forums. You must not open similar threads about the same or a similar topic. You cannot spam the board or send unsolicited messages to members via PM, email or any other means.

6. Do not post off-topic. You cannot derail a thread with off topic posts.

7. You cannot shout in posts. This includes posting in all CAPS, bold, lIkE tHiS, and extra large font. Posts should also be one color, although you may use an additional color for highlighting ideas you wish to address.

8. You may not alter quotes in a way that misrepresents what was originally said.

9. Multiple accounts are not allowed. If you are found to have more than one account all accounts will be permanently terminated.

10. You cannot have a user name, avatar, signature, or post images that are deliberately offensive. That includes the display of overly explicit or graphic images that may not be suitable for minors.

11. Signatures can not have more than three lines of text, with a font size no larger than "4", and no more than two font colors. Images in signatures cannot be any larger than 800 pixels wide x 200 pixels tall. Animated images are not allowed.

12. You are prohibited from taking any action to disturb the use of the services by others, distribute material that contains viruses, spyware or any other malicious code or harmful programs. This includes interfering with the working of the network, attempts to gain unauthorized access to a service or other computer systems that are part of the site or any other site, by use of the available services.

13. Discussion of moderation actions in public and/or private forums is not permitted. Moderation actions include warnings, suspensions and the editing or deletion of posts. If a member has a concern about a moderation action, he or she is invited to address it with the board staff via Private Message. This rule exists to protect the privacy of all posters with regards to disciplinary action. The moderator team will never publicly discuss the warnings/suspensions of any posters, and we ask that you return the favor, whether about yourself or another poster. Posting about moderation actions in the public forums constitutes a violation. You are free to discuss a moderation action via Private Message with the moderator involved, but you may not harass or abuse the moderators (as already specified in the forum rules). In practical terms, this means that once a moderator tells you his or her decision is final, no further PMs about that moderation action are permitted. If you have a concern about a moderation action, you are free to appeal to a Forum Administrator via Private Message. You may only discuss moderator activities or discussion of moderation with staff member if you chose to private message and are not under any circumstances allowed to use the PM function to forward or promote moderator discussion in regards to specific forum action, amongst other regular members. Administrators do reserve the right to read said PMs and may do so ; if that results in discovery of messaging between posters of such moderator discussion then it will lead to the same violation being received for discussing said moderator actions on the forum. If you receive a message to the effect of having been given moderator information, please report it to a member of staff. Engaging back in that discussion with the original violator will earn you just as stiff a sanction.

14. Do not ignore moderators or administrators. Do not repost something a moderator or administrator has deleted. You cannot have moderators or administrators on your ignore list.

15. Only post in English. Short passages in foreign languages may be acceptable if its use seems helpful for the ongoing discussion and when there is no indication of a potential violation of the forum rules. Always provide a translation into English in such cases. In case of doubt, the incident will be regarded as a violation, no matter of the actual meaning of the foreign language text.

16. The use of words/comments etc. written by other posters, without approval of the poster in your personal signature is not allowed nor are references, by name, to other posters allowed.

17. Please pay attention to announcements by Forum staff that will be found in the "Welcome! / News & Announcements" forum from time to time.

18. Use of "liar", "lies", "lying", etc. Accusing someone of being a "liar" or similar accusations towards other posters will generally be regarded as implying an insult and therewith as a violation of the forum rules. "I question the validity of your statement because...", "That's not the truth" or "you are wrong about that" are sufficient for any decent discussion if you want to disagree with somebody's assertions.

19. Thread opening restriction for new members. In order to control SPAM, new members must have moderator approval to start their own threads.

20. Thread titles must relate to the discussion within. Do not make misleading titles, or titles such as "Guess what..." or "You'll never believe this...". Members need to be able to identify the general gist of the thread via the title. Profanity in thread titles is not permitted.

21. Forum members are instructed to use forum tools and abilities for their intended purposes and no other. If members identify a forum glitch or weakness of any kind that allows you to see or do something you know you shouldn't, please report it. Being aware of any unintended access to the Forum and failing to take appropriate steps to notify staff of said access issues, will create a presumption of seeking to take advantage of the issue, will result in either account suspension, or banishment.

22. Any link to a site that contains graphic content, must contain a warning describing what a person might reasonably expect to view if they click on said link. No graphic pictures are to be posted on the Forum.

23. Threats or advocations of violence toward a public figure, or member of the Forum, will not be tolerated. Conversation about revolution or the like is not prohibited by this rule; directly calling for violence is, eg “It's time to kill every <redacted> that voted for the bill,” is not permitted.

24. Accounts with no posts will be deleted after 30 days. Inactive accounts with low post histories may be deleted after one year.

25. Private forums are something offered to members that decide to contribute directly to this site via donations. These donations help immensely in keeping this site up and running. Private forums are designed to allow the contributing member discuss whatever he/she wants to and to have the power to direct that discussion in whatever way he/she chose. They were not designed nor are they intended for simply talking trash about members that don't have access to the forum. While the targeted members cannot see the forum or the comments, it creates a negative atmosphere that really isn't necessary. If you want to totally rip apart ideas, ideologies, political parties, etc. that is fine. We simply ask that you don't use the private forums as a means to attack other members that aren't privy to such comments. It is difficult enough to have a political discussion forum because the discussion of politics is inherently heated as people are so passionate about their beliefs...the ones that take the time to come to such a site in the first place at least. The idea of private forums is so people of similar political persuasions can discuss whatever they want without fear of being attacked. Nonetheless, we hope that a certain level of maturity would foster itself within such an arena and not simply lend itself to a bashing forum.

Private Forums are governed by all of the above Forum rules. In addition:
  • Private forums that essentially become abandoned homes will be subject to deletion, donation or reorganization. Just like elsewhere in life, clubs sometimes lose their vitality and purpose for a myriad of reasons. If it becomes clear that a private forum has clearly lost its vitality and nobody is going to really use it anymore, owners are advised to consider whether to reuse the forum for something new and productive rather than let them linger or notify the Administration that the forum should be rearranged for other purposes, closed, merged with other compatible private forums, donated to others for new purposes, etc. Do not be concerned that your forum must be a membership and post count race with others to avoid falling under this policy; the question is whether your forum has actual vitality instead of being 'brain dead.'
  • Additionally, private forums may only be owned by subscribed members in the Platinum or Diamond categories.
  • Should the owner of a private forum be banned, quit USPOL or otherwise abandon the forum the PF will be transferred to another owner or closed.
  • Propriety of private forums. Administration staff will determine the desirability of a proposed private forum and enact any conditions upon it to ensure its purpose is productive.
  • Any and all instances of sharing accounts by allowing someone else to log in under their own account so they can see into private forums for which they are otherwise not permitted to access, will be deemed violation of the double account rule and all caught doing so will be permanently banned.
  • Relaying private forum posts and information to other posters who are not members of the particular private forum for any negative or destructive purpose (eg mean-spirited gossip, fueling interpersonal disputes, etc), is not permitted, and will constitute a violation of the Forum rules.
  • For purposes of monitoring USPOL Terms of Service Administrative staff (not Moderators) will have access to Private Forums.
  • All Private Forums must have at least one active Administrator as a member for purposes of handling issues which cannot be addressed through moderation permissions.
  • Discussion of moderation activities is prohibited on the open site and is likewise prohibited in Private Forums.

26. The administrators and moderators reserve the right to edit and/or delete a post,and/or close a thread, and/or delete a thread at any time if of the opinion that the post is too obscene, inappropriate, or the discussion has run its course.

27. 'Back seat moderating' is not allowed. If you take issue with another poster's contribution to the forum, you're welcome to report any posts you think are out of line, but you should not bring it up publicly within the forum.

28. Images in posts (whether embedded or hot linked) must be reasonable in size. 800x800 should be considered a good rule of thumb. Excessively large images make it difficult for users on mobile devices to load pages. If necessary please simply link to very large images using the URL tags. In addition, the following images are not permitted (including, but not limited to pages with images or videos containing):
  • Strategically covered nudity
  • Sheer or see-through clothing
  • Lewd or provocative poses
  • Close-ups of breasts, buttocks, or crotches

29. Any solicitation or communication involving sports betting / gambling / online casinos / bookies and or internet based card or slot machine systems or sites will lead to all said content being physically removed from the site and server, and will lead to any and or all parties involved being permanently removed and banned from the site to the farthest extent possible. This includes any links to any form of bookmaker, casino, any type of game or match or event where money transfers on the outcome or link of any sort to wire act violations and or anything in violation of either the Internet Gambling Regulation, Consumer Protection, and Enforcement Act, Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006, or the Federal wire Act. This applies not only to the open forum but all and or any chat rooms, articles, private messages and or private forums. All content that violates this rule will be deleted, without notice.

CONSEQUENCES

Failure to comply with any of the forum rules may result in your posts being edited or deleted and/or your account being temporarily or permanently banned from the forums. U.S. Politics Online uses a warning system that generates an automated Private Message to members when they are in violation of Forum rules. The decision to issue a warning is left to the discretion of the moderator or administrator handling the violation. If a member does not agree with an action taken by a moderator, they can appeal to an administrator after seeking clarification from the moderator who issued the warning/infraction and appealing to them in the first instance. Members MAY NOT harass a moderator or administrator by sending excessive PMs when they are discussing an appeal.

Violations are assigned a point value. Points are valid for 30 days. When a members earns 10 points, their account will be automatically suspended: five (5) days for a first suspension; ten (10) days for a second suspension; and twenty (20) days for a third suspension. If a member incurs an additional 10 points after having served three periods of suspension, then they will be permanently banned from the Forum.

Point values are as follows:
Zero (0) points – Warning
Two (2) points - Minor infraction / Non post infraction (minor) / Off topic posts / spamming
Four (4) points - Academic dishonesty / Baiting / Discussing moderator or administrator actions / Implying an insult / Minor insults / Moderate infraction / Non-post infraction (moderate) / Thread dumping
Six (6) points - Direct insult at another member / major infraction / Non-post infraction (major)
Ten (10) points - Act of criminality, or advocating thereof

The administrators and moderators also bear the right to issue warnings, temporarily suspend or ban posters for continued trolling or other serious misconduct (eg. professional spamming) even if the poster has not yet reached the maximum warning points or suspensions level. Other options if the above consequences do not seem adequate include placing the member in a moderation queue, which means all posts will have to be approved before they are posted to the board.

PRIVACY POLICY

All information obtained by the end user via the registration process is for internal purposes only and will not be sold to or shared with any third parties. However, if the end user participates in illegal activities and a court of proper jurisdiction orders U.S. Politics Online to release certain information about said user then we will act according to the law. Furthermore, no information will be released on threat of a lawsuit, attempted or actual intimidation, or due to any other reason except as notated in the first sentence of this paragraph. Nonetheless, keep in mind that the information we do have is very limited and generally only consists of the IP address a member uses.

SUBSCRIPTIONS

U.S. Politics Online offers several subscription plans to help cover the operational costs of the site. As a thank you for your donation, you will receive special added benefits meant to enhance your U.S. Politics Online experience. Plans vary in price, starting at only $0.05/day, and benefits vary with the price. Benefits include ability to go straight to new posts, to search the forum, larger avatar, private forums, invisible mode, photo gallery, email, web hosting, and no advertisement banners. Please, click here for more details.
See more
See less

All for 3%

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • tsquare
    started a topic All for 3%

    All for 3%

    We as a people have been asked to flip 5,000 years of cultural tradition on it's head for... wait for it... 3% of the population

    Less than 3 percent of the U.S. population identify themselves as gay, lesbian or bisexual, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reported Tuesday in the first large-scale government survey measuring Americans’ sexual orientation.

    The National Health Interview Survey, which is the government’s premier tool for annually assessing Americans’ health and behaviors, found that 1.6 percent of adults self-identify as gay or lesbian, and 0.7 percent consider themselves bisexual.

    The overwhelming majority of adults, 96.6 percent, labeled themselves as straight in the 2013 survey. An additional 1.1 percent declined to answer, responded “I don’t know the answer” or said they were “something else.”
    Well okay... 1.6% actually.

    Far, far lower than the 10-15% numbers that usually are used by some folks around here.




    http://www.washingtonpost.com/nation...f8f_story.html

  • Blue Doggy
    replied
    We have to be equal under our laws. But it has moved far beyond that. Some now demand that sodom and Gomorrah behavior be taught to children and the earlier the better

    In most cases gender is genetically binary if science has a say. Those that think they are the opposite sex suffer from a dysphoria that is actually a rare affliction and obviously are not mentally healthy people

    And to deny this reality is doing no one a service

    We should be treating this instead of indulging it or celebrating it. Or demanding we all learn and use 80 new pronouns by law as we see in Canada today. Heed Jordan Peterson

    Leave a comment:


  • Captain Trips
    replied
    The insane are running the asylum

    when we have crazy people deciding what is & is not crazy, what do you think we're going to get ?

    If you said craziness, you're correct !

    It has been and still is.. it gets ever more nutzoid by the year

    Now we have "lesbian and homosexual psychologists" telling us that "consensual non-monogamy," a 'professional euphemism for adultery and infidelity,' is good for us.

    Does it surprise us that some "lesbian and homosexual psychologists" would tell us this ???

    It shouldn't

    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    ... the American Psychological Association was on board in the 1970s when the similarly named American Psychiatric Association, bowing to pressure, dropped homosexuality from its Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders. It had been included as a mental disorder in the very first DSM published in 1952.

    According to the Human Rights Campaign, the homosexual lobbying group, the ruling 'helped shift public opinion, marking a major milestone for LGBTQ equality.'

    Now, 45 years later, the push from the task force of university professors, licensed therapists, activists, and writers is to defend and legitimize polyamory.

    The task force members and their controversial contributions are listed here thanks to Higgins and IFA.

    Citing the task force's own publications, Higgins says Division 44 is using the same tactics used in the 1970s, and most recently for transgenders, which is to claim people who oppose its views are bigoted and ignorant.


    [ "You're a bigot if you don't accept my sexual perversion." they tell us. ]

    The task force even has "research" about its proponents suffering discrimination for their views.

    According to Higgins, however, the latest opinions from Division 44 open the door to the destruction of the traditional family and to marriages in particular.

    "We know that the only criterion left is consent," she observes."So if people consent to something, no matter how deviant, no matter how it undermines human dignity, it's ethical."

    The professional association that bowed to pressure from homosexual activists during the 1970s is now advocating adultery among married couples.

    Laurie Higgins of the Illinois Family Institute (IFI) suggests no one should ever consider the American Psychological Association a legitimate source again, citing the push for "consensual non-monogam" from a group of lesbian and homosexual psychologists.

    According to Higgins and IFI, an APA group known as Division 44, founded in the 1980s, formed a "task force advisory board" last year that examined consensual non-monogamy in the interest o"relationship diversity" and has now released its findings"Consensual mon-monogamy"' is professional euphemism for adultery and infidelity.

    Reading from the task force's conclusions, Higgins tells OneNewsNow the LGBT group aims to promote 'awareness and inclusivity' about what it calls 'diverse expressions' of intimate relationships.

    According to the task force:

    These include but are not limited to people who practice polyamory, open relationships, swinging relationship anarchy and other types of ethical non-monogamous relationships.


    https://onenewsnow.com/culture/2019/...-your-marriage



    Leave a comment:


  • Captain Trips
    replied
    Originally posted by eohrnberger View Post

    You can step right into the results of their dumb ideas right in San Francisco. But you'll probably want to scrap it off your shoes.
    That's what I mean

    Can people not see what is happening ?

    I think they CAN

    It truly is a social/cultural disease this liberalism

    Leave a comment:


  • eohrnberger
    replied
    Originally posted by Captain Trips View Post

    I find it hard to believe that most of America wants these immature people to be in charge of anything

    it's not as if we haven't seen the results of their dumb ideas applied all over America
    You can step right into the results of their dumb ideas right in San Francisco. But you'll probably want to scrap it off your shoes.

    Leave a comment:


  • Captain Trips
    replied
    Originally posted by eohrnberger View Post
    "They want what they want, no matter the effects or negatives" or who else has to pickup the tab and pay the costs.

    "Very much like spoiled children" Indeed.
    I find it hard to believe that most of America wants these immature people to be in charge of anything

    it's not as if we haven't seen the results of their dumb ideas applied all over America

    Leave a comment:


  • eohrnberger
    replied
    Originally posted by Captain Trips View Post

    That is how it works in the minds of liberals

    They want what they want, no matter the effects or negatives

    Very much like spoiled children
    "They want what they want, no matter the effects or negatives" or who else has to pickup the tab and pay the costs.

    "Very much like spoiled children" Indeed.

    Leave a comment:


  • Captain Trips
    replied
    Originally posted by Marcus1124 View Post
    In talking about the when an interpretation of the Constitution would render age-old practices and customs of our society suddenly unconstitutional, Scalia told the following story (paraphrased):

    "When I was in Catholic School, we had an old Irish priest who taught English literature. We were reading one of Shakespeare's plays, when some smart aleck in the class.. Antonelli was his name...announced that in his opinion it was not a very good play. To which the old Irish priest responded..'Mr. Antonelli, when you read Shakespeare, it is not Shakespeare that is being reviewed, YOU ARE!" He went on to suggest that he followed this "Shakespeare rule" in such situations on the Bench, when an interpretation of the text of the constitution runs afoul with the long-standing customs and practices of the society, dating back to the earliest days of the union (and predating in most instances) it is not the long standing customs and practices that are impermisable, the interpretation is.

    What a phenomenal Justice, thinker, man, and American...his loss is still a big whole in our jurisprudence. A liberal friend of mind, when we were discussing Scalia and Ginsburg's friendship, he suggested they were the Right/Left equivalents. I had to differ. Scalia's opinions (and dissents) are held up and referenced for the quality of the reasoning they embody and the quality of how they are written. That is the mark of a true originalist...reasoning, thoughtfulness. Most of us who were true fans of Scalia frequently read his opinions (majority and dissents) and learned much about the law and his judicial philosophy in the process. I doubt very many Ginsburg fans ever actually read any of her opinions...for the very simple reason that her fans (and she herself) are driven by OUTCOME, not process. They don't CARE one damn bit about her reasoning, they only care that she is a solid liberal in terms of outcomes.
    That is how it works in the minds of liberals

    They want what they want, no matter the effects or negatives

    Very much like spoiled children

    Leave a comment:


  • Marcus1124
    replied
    Originally posted by Captain Trips View Post
    The people on the supreme court are good at creating problems for themselves, and the rest of us, when they undertake to legislate, when it isn't in their domain to do so.

    But here we are.

    Two big problems that will never go away, thanks to the supreme court meddling in ways that they have no Constitutional right to meddle in

    -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A pro-family activist predicts the Obergefell decision that imposed homosexual marriage on the United States will eventually receive the same legal and moral scrutiny as Roe v. Wade.

    June 26 marks the fourth anniversary of the Obergefell v. Hodges decision, a 5-4 ruling that found same-sex couples are guaranteed the legal right to marry by the 14th Amendment, the Equal Protection Clause in the U.S. Constitution.

    The ruling was predictably hailed as a historic moment for homosexuals and lesbians, who had successfully sued in numerous courts to roll back state-level efforts to defend normal, man-woman marriage.

    Peter LaBarbera, president of Americans for Truth about Homosexuality, tells OneNewsNow that Obergefell deserves notorious recognition like Roe v. Wade, the 1973 ruling that legalized abortion.

    "Pro-lifers come from all across the country to march on D.C. in January to mark Roe v. Wade," LaBarbera says, "and we're hoping that we build a coalition against this evil gay marriage ruling from 2015 in just the same way."

    Pro-life activists have criticized Roe for finding a constitutional right to abortion, when the historic document is silent on the issue, and the minority on the court found a similar problem with the Obergefell ruling, too.

    The majority of justices failed to provide “even a single sentence explaining how the Equal Protection Clause supplies independent weight for its position," Chief Justice John Roberts (pictured below) wrote in his dissent.

    Roberts wrote elsewhere that the Supreme Court is “not a legislature," which seemed to be a direct shot at Justice Anthony Kennedy, the court’s swing vote who wrote the majority opinion for the five justices.

    During oral arguments, Kennedy had raised eyebrows in the courtroom by pointing out that man-woman marriage dates back "for millennia" and the court was being asked to redefine that history.

    But his pivotal vote tilted the opinion in the opposite direction. Kennedy's majority opinion begins with him describing the "transcendent importance of marriage" and how it aids the “universal fear” of being lonely and all alone.

    "Their hope," he wrote of the homosexual plaintiffs, "is not to be condemned to live in loneliness, excluded from one of civilization's oldest institutions."

    "Whether same-sex marriage is a good idea should be of no concern to us," Roberts wrote in his dissent. "Under the Constitution, judges have power to say what the law is, not what it should be."

    Reacting to the majority opinion, Justice Samuel Alito wrote that the majority of justices seemed to reassure the public in the closing sentences that "rights of conscience" will be protected despite the landmark ruling.

    "We will soon see whether this proves to be true," Alito predicted, which is an interesting observation since the court ruled narrowly for Colorado baker Jack Phillips three years later in what was expected to be a landmark ruling on religious freedom.

    The high court announced this month it was not taking up the case of Oregon florist Barronelle Stutzman and sent it back to a lower court.

    "I assume," Alito wrote four years ago, "that those who cling to old beliefs will be able to whisper their thoughts in the recesses of their homes, but if they repeat those views in public, they will risk being labeled as bigots and treated as such by governments, employers, and schools."

    From gym locker rooms to the Georgia Dept. of Health, OneNewsNow has been reporting on numerous incidents since Alito wrote that warning.


    LaBarbera tells OneNewsNow a protest is planned for tomorrow in the front of the U.S. Supreme Court building, but he is not naïve about the size of the crowd nor its impact.

    "There are not a lot of people who are rising up as they should," he says. "So it's going to take a long time -- but what we want to do is hold up God's standard of what marriage really is. It's one-man, one-woman."


    https://onenewsnow.com/culture/2019/...14th-amendment
    In talking about the when an interpretation of the Constitution would render age-old practices and customs of our society suddenly unconstitutional, Scalia told the following story (paraphrased):

    "When I was in Catholic School, we had an old Irish priest who taught English literature. We were reading one of Shakespeare's plays, when some smart aleck in the class.. Antonelli was his name...announced that in his opinion it was not a very good play. To which the old Irish priest responded..'Mr. Antonelli, when you read Shakespeare, it is not Shakespeare that is being reviewed, YOU ARE!" He went on to suggest that he followed this "Shakespeare rule" in such situations on the Bench, when an interpretation of the text of the constitution runs afoul with the long-standing customs and practices of the society, dating back to the earliest days of the union (and predating in most instances) it is not the long standing customs and practices that are impermisable, the interpretation is.

    What a phenomenal Justice, thinker, man, and American...his loss is still a big whole in our jurisprudence. A liberal friend of mind, when we were discussing Scalia and Ginsburg's friendship, he suggested they were the Right/Left equivalents. I had to differ. Scalia's opinions (and dissents) are held up and referenced for the quality of the reasoning they embody and the quality of how they are written. That is the mark of a true originalist...reasoning, thoughtfulness. Most of us who were true fans of Scalia frequently read his opinions (majority and dissents) and learned much about the law and his judicial philosophy in the process. I doubt very many Ginsburg fans ever actually read any of her opinions...for the very simple reason that her fans (and she herself) are driven by OUTCOME, not process. They don't CARE one damn bit about her reasoning, they only care that she is a solid liberal in terms of outcomes.

    Leave a comment:


  • Captain Trips
    replied
    The people on the supreme court are good at creating problems for themselves, and the rest of us, when they undertake to legislate, when it isn't in their domain to do so.

    But here we are.

    Two big problems that will never go away, thanks to the supreme court meddling in ways that they have no Constitutional right to meddle in

    -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A pro-family activist predicts the Obergefell decision that imposed homosexual marriage on the United States will eventually receive the same legal and moral scrutiny as Roe v. Wade.

    June 26 marks the fourth anniversary of the Obergefell v. Hodges decision, a 5-4 ruling that found same-sex couples are guaranteed the legal right to marry by the 14th Amendment, the Equal Protection Clause in the U.S. Constitution.

    The ruling was predictably hailed as a historic moment for homosexuals and lesbians, who had successfully sued in numerous courts to roll back state-level efforts to defend normal, man-woman marriage.

    Peter LaBarbera, president of Americans for Truth about Homosexuality, tells OneNewsNow that Obergefell deserves notorious recognition like Roe v. Wade, the 1973 ruling that legalized abortion.

    "Pro-lifers come from all across the country to march on D.C. in January to mark Roe v. Wade," LaBarbera says, "and we're hoping that we build a coalition against this evil gay marriage ruling from 2015 in just the same way."

    Pro-life activists have criticized Roe for finding a constitutional right to abortion, when the historic document is silent on the issue, and the minority on the court found a similar problem with the Obergefell ruling, too.

    The majority of justices failed to provide “even a single sentence explaining how the Equal Protection Clause supplies independent weight for its position," Chief Justice John Roberts (pictured below) wrote in his dissent.

    Roberts wrote elsewhere that the Supreme Court is “not a legislature," which seemed to be a direct shot at Justice Anthony Kennedy, the court’s swing vote who wrote the majority opinion for the five justices.

    During oral arguments, Kennedy had raised eyebrows in the courtroom by pointing out that man-woman marriage dates back "for millennia" and the court was being asked to redefine that history.

    But his pivotal vote tilted the opinion in the opposite direction. Kennedy's majority opinion begins with him describing the "transcendent importance of marriage" and how it aids the “universal fear” of being lonely and all alone.

    "Their hope," he wrote of the homosexual plaintiffs, "is not to be condemned to live in loneliness, excluded from one of civilization's oldest institutions."

    "Whether same-sex marriage is a good idea should be of no concern to us," Roberts wrote in his dissent. "Under the Constitution, judges have power to say what the law is, not what it should be."

    Reacting to the majority opinion, Justice Samuel Alito wrote that the majority of justices seemed to reassure the public in the closing sentences that "rights of conscience" will be protected despite the landmark ruling.

    "We will soon see whether this proves to be true," Alito predicted, which is an interesting observation since the court ruled narrowly for Colorado baker Jack Phillips three years later in what was expected to be a landmark ruling on religious freedom.

    The high court announced this month it was not taking up the case of Oregon florist Barronelle Stutzman and sent it back to a lower court.

    "I assume," Alito wrote four years ago, "that those who cling to old beliefs will be able to whisper their thoughts in the recesses of their homes, but if they repeat those views in public, they will risk being labeled as bigots and treated as such by governments, employers, and schools."

    From gym locker rooms to the Georgia Dept. of Health, OneNewsNow has been reporting on numerous incidents since Alito wrote that warning.


    LaBarbera tells OneNewsNow a protest is planned for tomorrow in the front of the U.S. Supreme Court building, but he is not naïve about the size of the crowd nor its impact.

    "There are not a lot of people who are rising up as they should," he says. "So it's going to take a long time -- but what we want to do is hold up God's standard of what marriage really is. It's one-man, one-woman."


    https://onenewsnow.com/culture/2019/...14th-amendment

    Leave a comment:


  • eohrnberger
    replied
    I disagree with hormone treatments for transitioning for the prepubescent, I think this to be child abuse, full stop.
    I disagree with hormone treatments for transitioning before the age of 21.
    I disagree that the prepubescent are indoctrinated by the public education system. If you want to make it part of sex-ed, once the children are 15 or so, I guess that'd be more reasonable.

    If you want to whatever it is that you want in the privacy of the bedroom. Fine.
    This doesn't give you the right to make a lewd and crude display of yourself in the public square.

    Leave a comment:


  • Captain Trips
    replied
    It's time to reject the sickness & hate given to us by the deranged

    They've attacked our kids, is that not enough ???

    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    ..allowing our kids to be traumatized with LGBTQ crazy ideology is incredibly cruel, insane and irresponsible. God commands us to protect children.

    In a California kindergarten class, the teacher read to her students two transgender indoctrination stories for kids. After the teacher finished reading these stories, little Joey went to the restroom and returned to class wearing a dress. The teacher said: 'Boys and girls, Joey is really a girl just like Jazz in our story. From now on we need to call her Josephine.' This was Joey's parents' and the teacher's way to introduce Joey's transformation to his fellow kindergartners.

    Joey's classmates were extremely confused. One little girl was terrified. At home, after bathing in the tub, the girl's mom wrapped her in a towel. Passing a mirror, the girl noticed that her hair was slicked back. Panicked, she burst into tears. 'Mommy, am I turning into a boy? I don't wanna turn into a boy! Joey turned into a girl. Am I gonna turn into a boy?'

    LGBTQ activists claim rejecting their lifestyle in any of its manifestations is bigotry, the same as rejecting me because I am black. This is nonsense.

    My DNA confirms that I was born black. But there is no homosexual gene.

    As I stated, daring to state this scientific truth is not permitted; igniting swift and intense retaliation on offenders. It blows my mind that we are not allowed to publicly state facts, common sense and truth. The LGBTQ enforcers demand that we embrace lies, evil and craziness.

    "I Am Jazz" was one of the transgender indoctrination children books read to Joey's kindergarten class. Insanely, Jazz's parents started his male to female transition at 3 years old.

    How on earth could rational parents conclude that their 3 year old was born in the wrong body?

    Looking like a female from the waist up, Jazz is now 17, star of his own TV show. LBGTQ enforcers are on the verge of making the reading of "I Am Jazz" a mandatory part of the national curriculum in public schools.

    It shows that government-mandated sexual child abuse is taking root in public schools across America. Meanwhile, far too many Christian pastors give us sermons about how we must be more tolerant of the LGBTQ agenda.


    Responsible parents said 'no' to the mandatory reading of “I Am Jazz” to their children in schools. The great Christian patriots at Liberty Counsel are handling the parents' case.

    Here is one of the fake news media headlines trashing the parents:

    "Elementary school cancels reading of book about a transgender child after 'hate group' threatens to sue."

    The tactic of LGBTQ enforcers and their fake news media minions is to brand all who oppose them infecting our children with LGBTQ craziness as 'haters.'



    [ The real haters are the sex addicted sicko's & perverts who we've allowed to do this to our kids !! ]


    Dr. Cretella made a great point. She said if someone wants to cut off a healthy arm or leg because they believe they are an amputee trapped in a normal body, medical professionals correctly would diagnose that person as mentally ill, suffering from Body Identity Integrity Disorder. And yet, if a person wishes to cut off her healthy breasts or his healthy penis, medical professionals diagnose them as transgender. Dr. Cretella says transgenderism is a mental illness which should not be a civil right.

    The problem is everyone is terrified to publicly state common-sense facts and truth regarding LGBTQ ideology. Dr. Cretella said she has been secretly contacted by even leftist medical professionals, thanking her for her courage to tout the absurdity of LGBTQ ideology. They won't go public because they fear losing their jobs as she does.

    When I was a black kid growing up in the projects of Baltimore in the 1950s, I thought America was the greatest source of good around the world. I still believe that. I thought presidents were exceptional people because six-year-old George Washington confessed to chopping down his father's cherry tree. He could not tell a lie. Roy Rogers and Superman were good guys like my dad who always tried to do the right thing. As a young man, I thought politicians could not lie because of video. Silly me.

    Today, youths are taught there is no longer such a thing as definite right and wrong.

    What happened to us? Biblical morality upon which America was founded is systematically being banned from government and our culture.

    The Democratic party, LGBTQ enforcers, and fake news media demand that biblical morality be replaced with government-mandated satanic evil, lies and plain craziness.

    We must not allow craziness to become America's accepted norm.



    https://www.americanthinker.com/arti...ted_norm_.html

    Leave a comment:


  • Captain Trips
    replied
    Love & tolerance, great things

    The "lgbtqwety whatevers" know it not

    What DO they know ?

    They know hate

    They know intolerance


    They know how to sue Christians into submission

    They know how to silence those who don't agree with their "lifesyle"

    Their hatred makes them not at all choosy about who they attack.. even one of their own !

    Because he didn't bow to the alter of the one great hive mind of homosexuals and other general deviants

    How dare he !!

    How dare he not think like all others !!!

    But there are plenty of - mostly silent - gay people who don't follow the stupidity of the LGBTQ 'activists' motivated by hate

    Why are so many of them silent ??

    For the same reasons Muslims, who don't necessarily believe in killing for Holy Jihad, murdering infidels are silent.

    Keep your mouth shut, or your own family, your own people will "take care" of you. . . does this not tell you who & what the hard left IS ?

    It was the liberal liars in the "media" that turned him away, that made him leave the demo-rat party

    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Pride - with its messages of love, acceptance and self-expression - is a sham, according to conservative gay rights activist Brandon Straka.

    The 42-year-old Harlem hairdresser said the gay community turned its back on him once the former diehard liberal - who voted for Hillary Clinton in 2016 - switched to the Republican Party.

    According to a complaint filed Friday in Manhattan Supreme Court and exclusively obtained by The Post, the LGBT Center in Greenwich Village discriminated against Straka by canceling his 250-person WalkAway event LGBT TownHall in March, days before it was scheduled to take place.

    The event was to feature Straka and a panel of two gay men and a transgender woman talking about why they left the Democratic Party.

    "I'm considered a traitor. [The community] wanted to silence me, they wanted to roll over me and make me disappear," said Straka, who is seeking $20 million in damages.

    He alleges that the LGBT Center caved to pressure from liberal activists who, Straka said, 'mounted a smear campaign.' Some 280 people signed an open letter to the center, demanding that the event be canceled. The letter refers to Straka and his panelists as 'racist' and 'transphobic.' (One of the panelists, Rob Smith, is black.)

    Straka left the Democrats in 2017 after growing 'fed up with the liberal-media lies,' he said.

    That year, 'Rachel Maddow said on Twitter she had [President Trump’s] tax returns ' a smoking gun - and to tune in that night. I said to myself, "OK, if she really has the smoking gun against Trump, I'll forget about all the negative feelings I have about the liberal media and Democratic Party."

    "Finally, at the end of her show, she produced two pieces of paper from 2005 that showed he paid his taxes. That was the moment I decided I'm no longer a liberal or Democrat. That was the final straw for me," Straka said.

    "By the end of 2017 I embraced Trump, and by 2018 I registered as a Republican."


    He founded the WalkAway campaign, which encourages voters of all stripes to leave the Democratic Party, in May 2018.

    Straka, who is dating a fellow conservative, said he learned his WalkAway event was canceled by reading the news on the LGBT Center’s website.

    "I was devastated " it felt like a betrayal," said Straka, who had frequented the center for years and attended weekly AA meetings there.

    Per the complaint, 'the LGBT Center, which ostensibly cultivates a welcome environment for all members - violated their own mission in addition to engaging in unlawful discriminatory practices by specifically targeting particular members of the LGBT Community whose identity does not conform to the subjectively homogeneous community for which they advocate.'

    In its statement of cancellation, the center wrote: "We reserve the right to cancel any event that promotes discriminatory speech or bigotry; negatively impacts other groups or individuals - Permitting this event to proceed would make many of our community members feel unsafe."

    As part of Straka's suit, he alleges that the center's statement was "intentionally defamatory."


    Now, he added, seeing the city blanketed in rainbow flags and slogans of love of acceptance only strikes him as "hypocritical - It's pretty hollow. Right now, the focus of this community is the hatred of this president and anyone who supports him. The so-called love they espouse is not compatible with their relentless hatred in the name of resistance."

    With the 50th anniversary of the Stonewall riots, Straka added, "the LGBT community should be celebrating that we live in a time of true equality. Stop living in fear of a president that celebrates diversity and Pride month."


    https://nypost.com/2019/06/15/former...s-lgbt-center/

    Leave a comment:


  • Captain Trips
    replied
    Originally posted by eohrnberger View Post
    The funny thing is that with all the faurxrage over Chick-Fil-A from the left, they've gained more market share and greater profitability.
    This will only serve to outrage the left even more probably

    I doubt they're willing to learn anything.

    Anything like; "Hey, if we don't speak and behave like lunatics, maybe we won't lose so much !"

    Instead, they're more likely to have a "march" or a "rally," a "protest" against those evil white homophobe bigots

    Which will make them look stupid again

    Around & around it goes

    They'll wise up eventually, how long that is, no one can know for certain

    Leave a comment:


  • eohrnberger
    replied
    Originally posted by Captain Trips View Post
    Sadly a bill had to be signed by a governor to protect people's Biblical beliefs about marriage and human sexuality

    But it's been done now

    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


    "The legislation effectively stops attempts to interfere with the popular restaurant chain because the owners support traditional marriage."

    Chick-Fil-A has been under fire from the far-left after the son of the Chick-Fil-A founder, Dan Cathy said in an interview that, “We are very much supportive of the family — the biblical definition of the family unit. We are a family-owned business, a family-led business, and we are married to our first wives. We give God thanks for that.”

    Abbott’s decision pleased supporters of the legislation who say it is necessary to protect the restaurant from harassment and to protect religious freedom. Detractors say the bill and the restaurant work against those identifying as LGBT.



    ............

    https://trendingpolitics.com/gov-abb...edium=manychat
    The funny thing is that with all the faurxrage over Chick-Fil-A from the left, they've gained more market share and greater profitability.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X