40 Replies to “Now Is The Time At SDA When We Juxtapose!”

  1. What exactly are you trying to say lance? That by advocating states rights you automatically puts in a support of gay marriage? You have sum lernin to do, son.

  2. I too, found this post to be ambiguous … However, I will say that the gay marriage issue and the abortion issue are history … Flogging that dead horse is a loser …. It ain’t going back to the way it used to be. I don’t support either of those two issues, but I do not waste my time pining over what should be or what might have been … Socialists flog dead horses such as their flawed political philosophy … Wise folks move on to what can still be won.

  3. I too am missing Lance’s point. Cruz is entirely consistent here – the Supreme Court usurped state rights by forcing gay marriage on all states, regardless of the will of its people. Total judicial activism. I’m not sure how Cruz can reverse this other than through a constitutional amendment. But his stated intent is to give this decision back to the states.
    If you don’t like Cruz, just say so…or come up with much better arguments.

  4. Constitutionally speaking, the Federal government has no jurisdiction over these issues.
    Most people don’t have the foggiest of what the Constitution says regarding the limitations the Fed’s have vs the States.
    Most don’t even know that the Constitution states that the Governor of each State in the Union must be a Bible believing follower of Jesus. When was the last time you heard that being discussed in the MSM and the Law Courts.
    The Progressive position is that the Constitution is a “living” document and therefore open to revisions that reflect the current climate of cultural relevance. This is exactly what the Founding Fathers wanted to prevent, as they saw and wanted to prevent the abuses of the tyranny of the British Government. That is why it was crafted the way it was.
    Progressives hate that!

  5. I assume Kate’s travelling again, or some such.
    Cruz’ “defense” of religious liberty is about 50% keeping the government out of private religion and about 50% defending the government’s power to make taxpayers pay for someone else’s religion. Not exactly a stellar comprehension of religious liberty.

  6. Sadly, all it takes to overturn a lot of current precedents is replacing one or two US Supreme Court Justices. They are very predictable, and decide based on their prejudices. Just look at the Obamacare decisions. The Obamacare law is not what the text says, it is what five justices say it says. It is a fee, it is a tax, it is a f__king dessert topping. When it says “states” it really meant states or some federal government entity. Because that was what it takes to make the law work, the actual text be damned.
    Want to go hard left? Replace one of Alito, Scalia, or Thomas.
    Want to go hard right? Replace two of Sotomayor, Kagan, Ginsburg, or Breyer.
    Or we can go with the method we used to replace the Dred Scott Decision 155 years ago. It took four years and 600,000 lives. Next time it will not be a regional issue, so it will be very messy. My guess is another four years and probably 25-150 million lives this time. Imagine a continent wide Syria or Yugoslavian breakup with a little left-right Rwanda thrown in. I prefer we settle it politically.

  7. Most don’t even know that the Constitution states that the Governor of each State in the Union must be a Bible believing follower of Jesus.
    I’m sure you have a citation from the original text for such a claim.

  8. “The Progressive position is that the Constitution is a “living” document and therefore open to revisions” Glacierman
    Actually they don’t believe in “the” Constitutional lawful “Revisions” (FED & State agreement) They believe that the Black Robes can revise & override without lawful revision.
    The issue is not moot… Cruz is making valid points but HE is not the one who can achieve results… Trump CAN both win the WH and will provide shirt tails for House & a Super majority in the Senate. He will have the opportunity to over-rule (pass binding Law) the corrupt (over reach) Court decisions.

  9. Trump doesn’t believe in less gov’t so much as more efficient gov’t.
    It’ll work this time…where have we heard that before?
    The founding fathers deliberately made gov’t inefficient so it wouldn’t get too powerful. Worked for awhile…long enough to make the US very rich and powerful, and a target for some already very rich and powerful shysters. Rather doubt Trump will be turning that around. If he tried, he would be neutralized…

  10. my my rd you are cynical.
    and spot on predicting such an outcome.
    complacency sets in when things remain the status quo for decades.
    feel free SDA to discuss the ups and downs of fortune with, oh, say Londoners during the blitz, Wall Street types circa October ’29.
    anything can happen. anything at all. the future is wide wide open because we mortal and limited scope humahns lack knowledge of sometimes even the very *existence* of most variables.

  11. The supreme court of the United States had no constitutional authority to rule or make any rules on marriage no matter what type of marriage.
    The subject of marriage is not mentioned within the US constitution but it does say under the 10th amendment –
    ” The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”
    So as it goes the subject of marriage regarding its legislation rests within the power of the individual states, not the US federal government.
    So Lance let me ask you, how is Cruz being contradictory?
    Obama’s position on gay marriage is non constitutional, and if Cruz is correct regarding his accusation towards Rubio and Trump, their views regarding this subject would be non constitutional as well.
    So where’s the juxtaposition?

  12. Gay marriage is a deviant twist that underscores why government should not be involved in any part of marriage other than perhaps supporting basic enforcement of contract law. Because of a litany of laws and privileges that apply to married couples differently than non married couples, the state is compelled to gravitate toward a non-discriminating position. Additionally, people whose religious ties, history, and culture want some form of sanctification tied to the marriage contract. Hence, the present state where the spoils of political / judicial activism results in the compelling of private sanctification by the state. Add a little progressive PC so-called diversity activism and we are now faced with no longer simple tolerance and acceptance but state compulsion of the “celebration” of what is biologically defined as deviant behavior. IOW, marriage should be limited to civil contracts and voluntary association with private purveyors of sanctification (Eg. Churches). People’s views and opportunities of marriage should not be subject to the coercive outcome of vote-pimping or rulings of robed Philosopher-Kings but on the voluntary free marketplace of consenting adults.

  13. Ted Cruz, who has been anointed the “anti-politician,” has been using typical political tactics. His attempt to make Donald Trump and Marco Rubio look bad on the basis of a homosexual marriage is a typical political tactic, pandering to the evangelical Christian base.
    Indeed, for the Iowa state caucus, he developed a traditional, professional “ground-game” that typical politicians use to gain office.
    Indeed, Mr. Cruz has been a government employee almost all his working life, yet he gives the impression that he is “anti-establishment”.
    He seems to like government. It pays, has good benefits, and the pension plan is likely top-drawer.
    Indeed, Mr. Cruz uses the typical political tactic of “Give me some of your money and I PROMISE you that you will have a better life.” I hear someone laughing all the way to the bank – Goldman-Sachs, to be exact – and it’s not the people giving him their money.
    Mr. Cruz’ wife was, at one time, a term member of the Council on Foreign Relations for five years – her membership there must have fallen on her head – and yet he calls the CFR a “pernicious nest of snakes”. She was one of the co-authors of a CFR-sponsored report called “Building a North American Community”, essentially calling for an EU version of North America. Mr. Cruz has never disassociated himself from that.
    Mr. Cruz himself was, until recently, a citizen of two countries, Canada (where he was born in Calgary and lived for four years) and the U.S. While he was still a Canadian citizen – a person with divided loyalties, i.e., allegiance to the Queen of Canada and to the U.S. – he was a Texas state solicitor general and a US senator. He seems to have liked having it both ways until someone in the media called him out on it. Embarrassed, he relinquished his Canadian citizenship.
    There is far more to Ted Cruz than meets the eye.

  14. Can’t see the contradiction.
    The supreme court of the US ruled
    1. in favour of gay marriage at the federal level due to 14 amendment of constitution
    2. and therefore against states’ rights to decide the issue (10th amendment relegating decisions to the states)
    So this boils down to whether you think gay marriage is covered by the 14th amendment or not
    Now, perhaps Lance is suggesting that Cruz is
    1. against gay marriage at the federal level due to 14th amendment
    2. while at the same time arguing for states’ rights to decide the issue due to 10th amendment
    3. which would be a valid contradiction, the matter is decided either by the 14th amendment or the 10th, but it cannot be both
    However, you could say that Cruz is
    1. against federal jurisdiction on gay marriage
    2. in support of states’ rights to decide the issue
    3. which is not a contradiction at all, it is simply the opinion that gay marriage is not covered by the 14th amendment which therefore means it is covered by the 10th amendment

  15. “Most don’t even know that the Constitution states that the Governor of each State in the Union must be a Bible believing follower of Jesus.”
    Article VI – “but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.”

  16. For once I’m in agreement with strad. Trump wants control of the government, not to diminish it. What’s worse, being an energetic fool, Trump fails Tacitus’ test of the four types of generals.

  17. Frankly, Cruz makes me tired. This perpetual slagging of other GOP candidates is stupid and petty politics. He’s got about as much class as a one room school.
    Rubio has demonstrated infinitely more class, discretion, character, sincerity and conviction…you know, “presidential” qualities…than both Trump and Cruz could scrape up between the two of those blowhards!
    Came across this today…
    http://www.thepoliticalinsider.com/leaked-poll-from-south-carolina-gop-primary-breaking-news/
    Rubio is not out of this race, not by a long shot!

  19. Very interesting poll results here…
    http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/latest_polls/
    Oklahoma, Arkansas, New York, Michigan. Rubio is either leading Cruz and second, or basically tied with him for second…or in one state, tied with Trump for second.
    Bush, Kasich and Carson fading fast.
    The bulk of that support, I’m betting, will go to Rubio…and Cruz will be toast. As eventually will also be Trump. The kinds of voters who support Bush, Kasich and Carson, can’t stand the likes of either Cruz or Trump.

  21. Whatever. If some sexual degenerates want to think their parodies of marriage are relevant – and other idiots want to indulge them…I suppose there is no harm in it. But we all know where that one is really headed – the usual suspects are floating trial balloons for legalized and state sanctioned pedophilia even as we speak – and no doubt the same idiot liberals and turd brained ‘conservatives’ will go along with that too. In my world, ‘tolerance’ has come to mean ‘moral apathy’ … and the usual suspects insist on getting stupid with that I can only warn them that I will not bow down to them. What happens to them after that is on them.
    In any event, Trump is going to win so what the queers and liberals think is irrelevant.

  22. The issue should be addressed… Cruz & others should want Trump to take a position. I support Trump
    but I want to hear SOME substance regarding State Rights.
    1. He will sign into law a “STATE RIGHTS” bill (by Congress) over ALL Marriage… Pro or CON
    2. He will Sign into law “Judicial Impeachment” proceeding. Abuse of power, failure to recuse
    3. He will Sign into law the revised US 9th Circuit.. “delay of Justice is Justice denied”
    The 9th circuit is corrupt, they take bribes from Mexican drug cartels & others. The political ploy (activist) is a smoke screen to protect judicial gangsters.
    I don’t find any issue out of bounds.. clarity is good for America…

  23. “… government should not be involved in any part of marriage other than perhaps supporting basic enforcement of contract law”
    So you are okay with polygamy?

  24. Rubio worked with Democrats to try and solve a problem that’s been festering for decades, and came up with the best deal possible, given the circumstances.
    As he says, in the end it still wasn’t going to pass.
    But he’s also candid in saying that was two years ago. It’s an entirely different world now, given the rise of ISIS, etc.
    And he’s frank about what needs to be done BEFORE any solution can be reached that Americans will support. Which is, in a nutshell, border security with Mexico.
    The notion that Cruz or anyone else will merely deport 12,000,000 people, many of whom have been living in the US for years, is just utter claptrap for far right Conservative consumption. The reality is that that’s just simply not going to happen, end of story, if for no other reason than it’s completely unfeasible, and would cause a s**tstorm were it ever attempted.
    At the end of the day, reality will trump ideology every single time…left or right!

  25. Yes he has said that. Is the reason more likely that he is running for the Republican nomination or that he actually changed his personally held beliefs since deciding he is running for POTUS?
    As for the illegals already here well, stay illegal. Deport the ones who come in contact with government. How does it benefit the citizenry if they are made legal? It doesn’t. Immigration is to benefit the citizens of the United States not to benefit foreigners.
    We hear they already pay taxes and social security (which I highly doubt). We hear they already do all our trivial labor even though that’s been dis-proven – but that doesn’t even matter.
    It doesn’t affect us whether or not you legalize them except for the fact it rewards the lawbreakers. I don’t care if they’ve lived here 50 years – go figure it out and if that means getting a foreign address to fill out an application then so be it. If you don’t gain citizenship, too damn bad. You should have done all this in the first place.
    Mass deportation is not the only alternative to amnesty. We already have immigration laws.

  26. I don’t think Rubio has changed his position for the sake of this run for POTUS. I think he’s being realistic now, as he was being when he tried to broker a deal with Democrats back then. If there’s one valid criticism of the current government down there, it’s that there’s been damn little effort to work together…due in large part to the pompous jerk in the WH.
    Which raises the point that the next POTUS has to be willing to work with all sides of the Congress and the Senate. Can anyone actually believe that either Trump or Cruz could accomplish this? Trump, because he’s so belligerent, and Cruz because just about everyone already detests the guy? Both are the very antithesis of Rubio’s nature.
    I think Rubio’s talking the most common sense on immigration, and his own background tempers his thinking. It’s a bitch of a big problem in America…something most Canadians can’t even begin to relate to, and, thankfully, don’t have to contend with.
    And all that said, go back over all those polls. Trump or Cruz wins, basically guarantees…God forbid!!!…Clinton or Sanders wins, and not by just a little bit.
    The numbers are strikingly different when either comes up against Rubio.
    Win the battle, still lose the war, eh?

  27. Should add…
    All those on the Democrat side who are POed with the status quo? They’re going to vote for Sanders, in the same manner as are POed Republicans favoring Trump.
    Historically, votes in the US come remarkably close to splitting right down the middle. Presidential victories are decided by one or two points either way.
    To stop the Liberals/Democrats will require drawing soft support to the Republicans, in the same manner as did Reagan.
    Rubio, by all appearances, can do this.
    Neither Trump nor Cruz, if their very lives depended on it, could pull this off! In fact, they’ll chase moderate Republicans over to the Democrats. Both of their unfavorable ratings among Republicans are off the chart, Trump’s are over 60%!
    Last number I saw, Rubio was at a paltry 7%…you know, ’cause you just can’t please everyone.

  28. “Trump, because he’s so belligerent”
    The difference is that TRUMP is a “real” CEO who “plays” belligerent.. Most of us in NYC are familiar with Trump because he was a staple of the celebrity set… He will win NY State without a doubt…
    It may not be obvious, but Rubio seems not to disagree with Trump on a wide swath of issues.
    JMHO

  29. Trump could be the second coming, but if 65% of Americans simply don’t like him, or worse, think he’s an ass, he won’t win.
    IOW, he’d come gift wrapped to both Clinton or Sanders.
    And you’re right, Rubio isn’t that far apart from Trump…except that Rubio actually can articulate policy, and do so without offending people.
    Truth is, none of them are all that far apart.
    What it comes down to, as does it always, is electability. Reagan had this in spades. So did most who ever won the WH.

  30. Consenting adults contracting in a marriage type agreement with multiple partners is none of my business nor concern and it shouldn’t be any business of the state either unless coercion, fraud, breach of contract, etc. has occurred or any relevant legal statute is broken. The parties involved should not expect any kind of approval by traditional institutions that are not so inclined.

  31. Exactly John chittick…as a Christian a church going bible believing God fearing Christian I completely oppose gay marriage and polygamy but marriage to a Christian is between man woman and God…..no gov there at all. The gov inserted itself in the beginning for tax reasons and the like again to uphold contractual law between individuals it was never the abitor on who can or can’t get married it is self serving its a gov and gov was established by God but that does not mean a just society is a moral society . Christians are not moralists we do not run around trying to control people or at least we shouldn’t ….we use established gov to protest ie we vote it is our only method of “forcing our views” on people if 2 gays get married we as Christians oppose it we will not recognize it or respect it …..and most importantly God has not blessed or sanctified one single polygamous or homosexual marriage ever all that happens is the false fake Christian pastor is blaspheming against God and the gov gets to issue another piece of paper.
    It is wrong and should polygamous marriage ever be a voting issue I will vote to ban it , along with abortion and gay marriage …however they are not so I simply trust God his word in the holy scripture and I vote for the party that will best uphold my biblical beliefs as a Christian. I don’t like abortion in fact it’s far worse to me than gay marriage or polygamy ….but no one seems to care about the unborn children that are hacked crushed and chopped to bits and tossed in a glad garbage bag but eh who cares it’s “a dead horse”
    I will continue my open opposition to abortion as I am a Christian and that is how I see it based on scripture even with out scripture it’s just as savage as beheading kids in the name of Allah ……how can we say we are any better than those savages when we do these types of things.

  32. “The notion that Cruz or anyone else will merely deport 12,000,000 people, many of whom have been living in the US for years, is just utter claptrap…”
    Yeah? Read up on “Operation Wetback” during the Eisenhower administration. He did it.
    And as far as Mexico paying for that wall, did you know that cash transfers to MX from the US just surpased there ENTIRE oil revenue?
    Just putting a 50% surcharge would garner over 12 BILLION USD!
    Yup. Pretty high, thick and deep wall for that kind of scratch.

  33. jux·ta·pose
    ˈjəkstəˌpōz/Submit
    verb
    place or deal with close together for contrasting effect.
    I read both pieces a couple of times and could NOT find any contradictory viewpoint or talking points. Lance it looks like it may be time to go back to school, If I remember correctly you might get some help out of a grade 4 reader.

  34. My apologies to the Constitutional reference, it was actually written into the most conservative of the 13 original Colonies, such as South Carolina, that upon taking their oaths they had to swear that they were a member of the Protestant faith.
    Congress and the House could not tell the States what they could or could not do regarding these State Laws.
    The Federal Government was not allowed to establish any national religion, it was the responsibility of the individual States to establish their own guidelines.

  35. “I will continue my open opposition to abortion as I am a Christian and that is how I see it based on scripture even with out scripture it’s just as savage as beheading kids in the name of Allah ……how can we say we are any better than those savages when we do these types of things.”
    The only difference between ISIS and western civilization is where the killing is done. We kill humans in the womb and ISIS kills humans after they have been born. Anyone who condemns ISIS and condones western conduct is a hypocrite. Both are acts of savagery, but comparing the two, WE are the worst!
    The propaganda machine tells us that we no longer have capital punishment in Canada. Actually we have the worst form of capital punishment. We execute innocent lives without trial paid for by Canadians. It can’t be any worse.

  36. Well said, as were the comments by Warren Zoell, John Chittick and Paul.
    Al in Cranbook, “Truth is, none of them are all that far apart.” Electibility is right. Let us hope that our American cousins choose the right candidate to oppose the Marxists this time.

  37. [i]”government should not be involved in any part of marriage”[/i]
    Yes! The term “marriage” should be removed from all government regulations and replaced with the term “civil union”. The state’s only function is to ensure that all parties are treated equally before the law.
    “Marriage” is a religious term with thousands of years of history in many faiths, and the definitions of what constitutes “marriage” are not the same.
    Let each religious group sanctify “marriage” in their terms. What consenting adults do in the privacy of their lives is not the government’s or society’s business. Problems will occur when minority groups openly call attention to their deviant behaviors and demand that society accept it as ‘normal’.

  38. What consenting adults do in the privacy of their lives is not the government’s or society’s business.
    The Romans thought that…eventually it took them down.

  39. Ted Cruz is perfectly right. Lance must not understand the American Constitution at all, or what Cruz is proposing.

  40. Strad we voted to ban gay marriage. A judge decided against it and vetoed 235 politicians votes. That represented a super majority of Canadians .
    A just society is not a moral society. Christians are not enforcers of morality we use the tools that God gives us (voting & protesting peaceful marches) to follow scripture and live lives that are pleasing to him . I will stand with any Christian that has their conscience violated by a gov law rule or regulation mark my words Christian persecution is not far from Canada’s shores. Muslims out breed us and we pay/reward them for doing so we turn a blind eye to their polygamous marriages but jail some guy in bc to make it look good .
    We are swirling the bowl already.
    I challenge any and everyone in here to join the march for Jesus or the march for life ….I know it’s uncool it’s blah blah blah…..you all have excuses you do nothing for solidarity with one another it’s so sad that we won’t even walk down a street to show our support for Jesus and then you wonder why Christians get arrested and silenced in Canada because we do nothing to stop it. To lazy gotta work kids have hockey Ect Ect.
    We deserve everything that is coming our way…all of it.

Proudly powered by WordPress & Skyrocket Themes

MENU

Navigation