1 - 10 Next
In response to:

Criminalizing Dissent Via Lawfare

Marcos464 Wrote: Oct 23, 2014 8:18 PM
At some point, people must be willing to take a stand and not be willing to comply with misuse of the law. The more that leftist believe that they can get away with 'lawfare' the more they will use it to silence and intimidate those who won't tow the PC line in all areas of life.
This sounds like what Joe Biden did in his debate with Paul Ryan in the 2012 VP debate. Would show a lot of bluster, condescend, interrupt Ryan, and throw falsehoods out there about his opponents position. I hope Garcia was equally as forceful back in rejecting Kuster's bombastic remarks and condescending style.
Very insightful and penetrating analysis
In response to:

Fascist Leftists in Houston

Marcos464 Wrote: Oct 17, 2014 8:05 PM
I agree with many of the posters here. Extreme 'progressive' leftists will continue to exceed their authority as long as people allow them to get away with it. Freedom loving people can't just be like sheep and watch and stare as scenarios like this play out. Venting on internet blogs is not enough. Ways must be found to appropriately yet forcefully send the message to extreme 'progressive' leftists that freedom loving people will not abide this type of corruption and abuse of power, no matter how 'proper' this abuse is power is spun by its perpetrators.
Sen. Cruz: City of Houston Has No Business Asking Pastors for Sermons Releases statement about City of Houston subpoena October 15, 2014 | (202) 228-7561 WASHINGTON, DC -- U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, today released the following statement responding to the City of Houston’s recent subpoena requiring pastors to submit sermons: “I'm proud to stand with the pastors. Religious liberty is the very first protection in the Bill of Rights, the foundation of all of our liberties. The City of Houston’s subpoenas demanding that pastors provide the government with copies of their sermons is both shocking and shameful. For far too long, the federal government has led an assault against religious liberty, and now, sadly, my hometown of Houston is joining the fight. This is wrong. It's unbefitting of Texans, and it's un-American. The government has no business asking pastors to turn over their sermons. These subpoenas are a grotesque abuse of power, and the officials who approved them should be held accountable by the people. The Mayor should be ashamed. And we should all be proud to stand up and defend the pastors who are resisting these blatant attempts to suppress their First Amendment rights."
Todd Starnes: Please write a follow up article to this stating what happened. Articles like this are frustrating unless people take concrete action. The raise awareness but people need to act now to defend their legitimate freedoms before they are further eroded.
David wrote: " As for this Houston issue, this is one of the most egregious violations of free speech we've seen in a long time. It's one thing to REQUEST copies of sermons, but to DEMAND them and SUBPOENA them? A subpoena has to be issued by a court clerk, and I can't imagine that any judge would go along with it. Surely some judge in a higher court will issue an injunction to stop this insanity." David you and I don't often agree on the topic of SSM but am respectful of your being fair minded on this point.
This smacks of over-reach. Church's are not government agencies whose non classified records you can obtain through public records act requests or freedom of information act requests. Subpoenas? Must be administrative, not court ordered. What legitimate legal authority e does the city council and mayor of Houston have do this? None. This is extremely serious, and dangerous. Starnes is right. A time comes when you must be willing to defy an action that you know is illegal, unethical, and an attempt to suppress your legitimate rights. If this can happen in Texas, imagine how this can run amok in very blue states, unless people take a stand against it now.
In response to:

Answering Ted Olson

Marcos464 Wrote: Oct 14, 2014 12:37 AM
She argues that same-sex marriage was justified by David Cameron on spurious grounds that marriage would be strengthened for everybody, and that ‘gay marriage’ would help resolve many of the negative social and health problems suffered by people who live a homosexual lifestyle. Patricia is highly critical of the political urgency to introduce same-sex 'marriage': “Proposals for same-sex marriage appeared in no party’s manifesto. It was not a response to the general will or popular demand, or a matter of general welfare or benefit. There was no struggle, no mass protests. The passing of civil partnership legislation had been replete with emphatic announcements that this was not a gateway to SSM and had been passed on the understanding that marriage would be unaffected. All lies.” “ The age-old understanding of marriage as the basis of a father-and-mother family has been replaced with the concept of a relationship centred on the satisfaction of a couple, or a private agreement to which children are irrelevant, peripheral or an add-on,” says Morgan. In an interview ... Patricia Morgan stresses that those who raise legitimate concerns about the negative effects of homosexual lifestyles should not be labelled as “homophobic”.
In response to:

Answering Ted Olson

Marcos464 Wrote: Oct 14, 2014 12:36 AM
Here is an article I think you will appreciate Mona. It is from the OK and describes what SSM has done there ------------------------- Marriage is the ‘Ghost’ at the bedside of Britain’s social ills ‘The Marriage Files’, a new book...argues that the introduction of same-sex marriage is the culmination of a concerted political, economic and legal process in which marriage has been progressively diluted and dismantled. “With.. the multi-billion extravaganzas to counteract poverty, educational failure, crime and childhood disadvantage, there are legitimate interests in wishing children to grow up in the most favourable or optimum conditions - parents bound to each other and their offspring by the ties of morality and law as well as nature,” says Patricia Morgan, an independent author, broadcaster and researcher whose speciality is family policy and developments. The author argues that while same-sex 'marriage' completely broke with age-old understandings of marriage, “marriage itself, parenthood and child-rearing were already being eased apart and fathers progressively lost from homes, as the self-sufficient or stand-alone mother largely became the focus of policies affecting families”. She emphasises that “a fundamental task of marriage has always been to make a father, but if it is deemed that children do not ‘need’ one, then marriage is superfluous to how children are born and raised”. ‘The Marriage Files’ documents how marriage has been “castigated by academics, mocked by media and targeted by demolitionists” leading to marriage being “legally diluted and penalised by fiscal and welfare policy”. “With the political classes generally averse or hostile, it has deserved little or no support or protection. For Labour and Liberal Democrat it has been something to demolish. Tories have side-lined it out of embarrassment, generally discriminated against it and raided it to resource other priorities,” she says. (continued)
1 - 10 Next