Arnold Schwarzenegger’s speech to Americans.

Of course not....

 

Great now if you could only master knowing real law and due process when you see it.

 

the only reason anyone would want to listen to that speech is to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt arnie has been bought and paid for in full! LOL

 

Amen, brother. Exactly why Establishment RINOs are going and have gone against Trump

 

Great to bad it does not apply to law and the legal process.
nice try though.

 

That’s your loss.

I actually find it sad and discouraging that one of the most patriotic and inspiring speeches recently has been made by a naturalized citizen, and that so many people who probably consider themselves to be patriots reject his speech solely because it reflects badly on their hero.

I challenge you to listen to the speech and find anything that you disagree with.

 

Trump be the RINO.

 

Except in the Western world, deeply impacted by Jesus teaching of "render to Caesar that which is Caesar's and to God that which is God's, there is little tolerance for a belief system that is independent of the State. In the Western world, impacted by Judeo/Christian thought, it's understood that these are separate realms with freedom of conscience.

Certainly we are a fairly religious people, and we have managed to strike a pretty good balance between no establishment of a religion and freely allowing all to worship according to their own conscience.

Certainly the Thesis statement of the Declaration, that our rights come from God and that the purpose of government is to mutually secure them for one another is a religious philosophical statement, but, I also think it's a very good fit for us.

Yes, and bossy secularism rather quickly begins to operate as a secular religion, demonstrating the worst flaws of religious extremism.

I bet that even Arnie agrees that mutually recognized freedom of conscience, and minding one's own business pretty much does the trick for all of us.

 

You cant be serious, if anything just the opposite.

 

I like most of what you said, however when people are 'limited' to worship (as stated in most of the 'state' constitutions) it denies and violates your right to 'freely exercise' (put into practice) your religion by limiting it to mere philosophical rhetoric that cannot be acted upon without guv permission. Few people are even aware that is whats going on in the legal undercurrents of this country, top shelf con law attorneys excepted.

 

While I'm disappointed in the current Supreme Court's failure to protect Art. 1, § 4, cl. 1, of the United States Constitution in the 2020 election, I remain hopeful that they will, inch by inch, protect freedom to freely worship in this nation, certainly they slapped down Gavin Newsom and Andrew Cuomo and made it quite clear that they would continue to slap them down if they kept showing up before them.

They proceed so painfully slowly, out of respect for precedent, which serves to provide the populace adequate notice. It is a duty of government to make it clear what a person that wishes to order their lives in accordance to the law must do to remain in lawful standing, and the Judiciary making big fast abrupt moves violates that imperative. So, I expect it to be little by little, with extensive writing in the decisions, loudly signaling where the majority is going.

 

unfortunately you fail to recognize the point I am trying to drive home.

Worship and exercise are not the same rights.

Every state followed suite in cutting out 1/2 of your rights. "The right to exercise your religion"

The states ratified and agreed to the federal constitution, with no stipulation to the contrary, that you have the right to exercise your religion, not limited to only worship.

Limited to worship only denotes lip service.


What Is Worship According to the Bible? Definitions ...
pursuitbible.com › what-is-worship-according-to-the-bi...
The word worship in English means to acknowledge and ascribe worth to someone or something. The Biblical words describe the actual act of worship, that of ...

What is Worship? Biblical Meaning & Definition
www.biblestudytools.com › dictionary › worship
Worship during the patriarchal period was either an expression of praise and thanksgiving prompted by a theophany (the visible or auditory manifestation of God to ...

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

Worship | Philosophy Talk
www.philosophytalk.org › shows › worship
What Is It. Worship is the feeling or expression of reverence and adoration for something. The attitude of worship towards God or gods or ancestors is ...

=====================


What does “free exercise” of religion mean under the First Amendment?
The free-exercise clause of the First Amendment states that the government “shall make no law … prohibiting the free exercise of religion.” Although the text sounds absolute, “no law” does not always mean “no law.” [Thanks to bullshit politics of] The Supreme Court has had to place some limits on the freedom to practice religion. [They had no such requirement, doing so violated the LAW] To take an easy example cited by the Court in one of its landmark “free-exercise” cases (Reynolds v. U.S., 187, [only one wife] the First Amendment would not protect the practice of human sacrifice even if some religion required it. [The state just violated your rights by choosing religions you may not exercise] In other words, while the freedom to believe is absolute, the freedom to act on those beliefs is not.

But where may government draw the line on the practice of religion? The courts have struggled with the answer to that question for much of our history. Over time, the Supreme Court developed a test to help judges determine the limits of free exercise. First fully articulated in the 1963 case of Sherbert v. Verner, this test is sometimes referred to as the Sherbert or “compelling interest” test. The test has four parts: two that apply to any person who claims that his freedom of religion has been violated, and two that apply to the government agency accused of violating those rights.

For the individual, the court must determine

Whether the person has a claim involving a sincere religious belief, and

Whether the government action places a substantial burden on the person’s ability to act on that belief.

If these two elements are established, then the government must prove

That it is acting in furtherance of a “compelling state interest,” and

That it has pursued that interest in the manner least restrictive, or least burdensome, to religion.

The Supreme Court, however, curtailed the application of the Sherbert test in the 1990 case of Employment Division v. Smith. In that case, the Court held that a burden on free exercise no longer had to be justified by a compelling state interest if the burden was an unintended result of laws that are generally applicable.

After Smith, only laws (or government actions) that (1) were intended to prohibit the free exercise of religion, or (2) violated other constitutional rights, such as freedom of speech, were subject to the compelling-interest test. For example, a state could not pass a law stating that Native Americans are prohibited from using peyote, but it could accomplish the same result by prohibiting the use of peyote by everyone.

In the wake of Smith, many religious and civil liberties groups have worked to restore the Sherbert test — or compelling-interest test — through legislation. These efforts have been successful in some states. In other states, the courts have ruled that the compelling-interest test is applicable to religious claims by virtue of the state’s own constitution. In many states, however, the level of protection for free-exercise claims is uncertain.

The moral of that story is if you do not agree with ANY religion and said religion did not violate YOUR rights dont join it.

If mayans want to move to this country and sacrifice their own as barbaric as it may be to our religions they have the reserved right to do so. The state has no right to shut them down, and compelling interest is used as an easy method to completely remove all rights simply with a claim of interest in the subject matter.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;

They are far smarter than you are. If you challenge it they will simply tell you congress did not make a law, scrotumus maximus did!.....or in the case of the states, well the legislatures did, not us!

ALL cases it all boils down to collusion, high crimes by wilful negligence of judicial, congressional, and legislative branches.

You have the right to pray and it ends there, your right to exercise has been stolen by scrotumus maximus.

Scrotumus maximus violated their SUPREME OATH to UPHOLD the law of this country, they have no legal authority to rewrite or rationalize our reserved rights to serve their purposes.

Using arguments of ration and reason does not grant them the authority to violate the law and overrule the contract.

 

Of course, that exercise of rights deprives another of life. The competing rights are balanced and the right to retain your life is honored while the "right" to take the life of another is denied.

Yup.

The Oregon Peyote case and the drug rehab counselors. Now I'm a non-drug and alcohol user, but I ended up at the extended acquaintances meetings because a person in our social circle was going through rehab. This was a hospital based program using cutting edge research. During the question answer period someone brought up the use of psychedelics in drug rehab and I set back waiting for the doctors to lambast the concept, to my amazement they said that carefully handled studies, where folks in recovery for drugs or alcohol or PTSD, that were guided on a trip or so with an experienced counselor, who apparently was also experienced in the use of psychedelics, were leapfrogging in a trip or two to results that normally take years and years of counseling. I found this amazing and stunning, and I damn sure wouldn't recommend it, but, suffice to say that in the 30 years since this case, there is a building body of evidence that those guys were onto something.

Scalia delivered the majority opinion, and it follows the lines you describe, but, many of the Libertarian/Conservative think that Scalia stepped back from Scaliaism in that decision and I'm not sure you would get the same outcome today, but, I get your point and I do not disagree with it.

Yes. I do think that the Court's actions regarding COVID and the NY and CA cases, though, made it clear that this is not a second class right, as Alito warned when these kinds of cases were going the other way, thanks to Roberts. Once RBG was switched out for ACB, the results started to change.

I think that even Arnie would concede that.

 

Charles Mason went to prison for life for what he incited his cult followers to do

 

Trump is saying "we don't know?"

Do you think that there is no truth at all to the Hunter stuff?

 

No, I think its been a witch hunt since day one. And I also think that the ultimate hypocrisy of the right during all of this has been 2 fold:

1. They have not only ignored, but supported the shielding Trumps children from this very type of investigation
2. They have tried to tie what they accuse hunter of doing to Joe and his position of power
(Ivankas Chinese trademarks anyone?)

But let me be clear. If Hunter OR JOE did anything illegal, they should be held accountable

But if they had that, they would have already used it. The “Laptop” story was just that, it was made up to try to effect the election. Not only was their no “their, there”, its was made out of whole cloth

 

So the laptop doesn't even exist?

 

I would imagine so.

Conan was as much of a marketing campaign as it was a movie.

 

Nope.

Your telling me that Trumps FBI had the laptop, and they kept the information quiet ?

 

It is not a witch hunt if an investigation is triggered by actual physical activity with a reasonable suspicion, unlike any of the Trump "investigations."

 

What "physical evidence" ?

 

Why would the FBI make all of the information public?

 

If the rest of America knew what a corrupt piece of crap Arnold is, then they wouldn't even listen to this scumbag.

I wonder how many of you know that he pardoned the Democratic head of the California Assembly's son on his last day of office after the murderer repeatedly stabbed to death another kid in front of a bunch of party goers.

https://www.thedailybeast.com/arnol...warzeneggers-commutation-of-fabian-nunezs-son

 

he was an oppressed Mexican American who was predisposed to violence.

arnold oppressed his Mexican American maid, and the pardon could have been reparations.

 

Wow! I didn't know about this! What a corrupt piece of SCUM!