I'm one of America's 75 million Baby Boomers. I was born in the Midwest in the late 1950's. I grew up in the turbulent 60's, the decadent 70's and the opulent 80's. But I have never been more ashamed of my country as I am now.
I was just a young boy when I saw footage of police brutality against blacks in Alabama and Georgia. I felt sorry for those folks, and ashamed of those police.
In 1973, I was just 15 years old when the Supreme Court announced their verdict on Roe v Wade. They said it was a constitutional right to murder your own unborn child. Even at fifteen years of age, I knew this was insanity. Constitutionally protected murder? Until then, I was generally proud of my country, but no longer. Forty years later, over a million innocent babies are legally murdered each year in the United States. Their organs are harvested and sold to the highest bidder.
Then on June 26, 2015, the Supreme Court announced that all 50 states must bow down to their liberal throne and endorse gay marriage, claiming that it was a constitutional right. Once again I hung my head in shame.
You see, I believe in God. And He gave us a written Code of Behavior called the Bible. Within its pages we find the guidance we need to live a fulfilling life. It teaches us to love God with our whole heart, soul and strength. It speaks of forgiveness, grace, mercy, love and even justice. It tells us what God desires of us as His Children. Most of it is very enlightening, joyous and positive.
But God also tells us that there are consequences for bad behavior. He requires that governments maintain social standards of behavior and insists that those who defy those standards must be held accountable.
Therefore, theft, murder, sexual immorality...etc, must require some form of discipline, not endorsement.
Our government was founded on those principles. But now our US Supreme Court thinks they know better than our Founding Fathers and even God. They don't even believe in God. To them, God is a fairy tale. They are about to find out that God is real and He is sick and tired of their lies and rebellion.
I suspect that the roots of this insanity go back to the Scopes Trial in 1925 where our government took their first official step into the cesspool of atheism and officially declared that there is no God. Eventually this opened the door for many states to decriminalize adultry and other moral issues.
This led to the inevitable conclusion in 1963 that prayer should not be allowed in school, since there is no God. Our government controlled public schools now teach our children that they are not the pinnacle of Creation by a loving God, they are just animals brought about by random chance. And we wonder why our youth are dropping like flies? Your government is indoctrinating them eight hours a day and giving them homework so they have even less time to spend with their parents. The system is both ingenious and insidious.
But the church has also fallen away. She has become a business and also a slave to the US government, bowing at the Throne of Tax Exemption.
So, in many people's eyes, we are stuck here in this immoral, God forsaken hell-hole called America. But are we? Aren't we allowed to leave? Heck yes! But wait a minute, this is my country, too. Why should I leave because of a handful of freaks and 5 foolish judges? That's right! This is my country, too, and I'm not leaving! I'm going to stay and fight!
One in four Americans want their state to secede from the union!
So where do we start? It's too late to fix this country. She's going to hell in a hand basket. Movements like the Patriot Movement and the Tea Party had the right idea but the wrong vehicle. They tried to do a tune-up on a car that had no motor. You can't drive a car that has no wheels. You need a new vehicle. You need to start from scratch.
We need to find a state that has the guts to secede from the union and start fresh with a new and sane form of government, including the judicial branch. I hear that Texas is our best shot, so what do you say Texas...you ready to lock and load? Many Texas citizens have already signed a petition to secede, and Texas has actually demanded that the Federal Reserve return all their gold! Some in Texas are even preparing for an Obama military invasion!
If no individual state will fight for freedom, I say we petition the government for land (BLM), just like what was given to the native Americans. Just like we stole land from the Indians, the liberals have stolen this land from us (those who believe in the Constitution).
Another example is the District of Columbia, otherwise known as Washington, D.C. They are autonomous and not part of any US state. Or maybe there is a state out there willing to split, like they did with Virginia, Dakota and Carolina. Colorado would be a great choice! The northern half (Denver/Boulder) is liberal, the southern half (Colorado Springs/Pueblo) is conservative.
Call this new country whatever you like, but I'm leaning towards Newmerica.
Goals, Guidelines and Utopian Wishlist:
True Equality, Freedom of Speech and Freedom of Religion would be the pinnacle of this new government, but with common sense limitations. No one is allowed to bear false witness against his neighbor. No religions are allowed to dominate another or even be allowed to practice their “faith” if their stated goals are to destroy another. Examples: Islam, Satanism, KKK…etc. There is no religious litmus test, but all religions are required to openly publish what they believe and practice. No one goes to jail for refusing to make a cake for a gay wedding because Marriage would be between one man and one woman.
This new country would not be a theocracy nor anarchy, but both perspectives would be tolerated. Presidents, governors, judges and mayors run for one four year term and no outsiders can contribute financially to their campaign because all elections include free and equal promotions for all candidates. All candidates are considered equal, no matter their sex, race or social status.
Elections are simple and are conducted in such a way that truth, transparency and equality are primary goals. Voting is required by all citizens. Any elected official who does not achieve their campaign promises within two years are removed from office. There are no confusing Electoral Colleges or Political Action Committees, just pure popular votes. Supreme Court judges are ELECTED for ONE four year term, not APPOINTED for LIFE.
All laws should be based on Grace, Mercy and Justice, not high paid lawyers playing the system. The Healthcare System should be voluntary, affordable and self-sufficient. Doctors get paid the same sensible wages as everyone else and medical malpractice suits are limited. This attracts genuine healers rather than the money grubbers of our current system.
There should be very little taxation and welfare. There would be no property taxes (so you cannot lose your property when you get old), a flat 10% sales tax, and a 10% income tax with no personal or corporate write-offs. Everyone pays their fair share but no one is over-burdened. If you are able to work you will have a job, either in the private sector or working for the state. State provided jobs would include something for all education and intellectual levels from research and administration to some form of maintenance.
If you are the type who wants to run your own business, the new government will encourage you in any way we can with training and advice. You will be able to hire and fire anyone you want. You will not be forced to hire anyone you don't feel like would be a good fit, without fear of repercussions.
Infrastructure is built and maintained through a cooperation between the government and local citizens. Resources to maintain local roads are free to the public. If you have a pot hole on your street, you ask for assistance or you take care of it yourself. Your government is your friend, not your Nanny.
There is no ACLU, National Endowments for the Arts, Planned Parenthood, Public Radio/Television or any other special interest groups draining billions of dollars out of a balanced national budget.
Home schooling is preferred, free and legal but public schools are also free (including college) and would allow and even encourage prayer.
Abortion will be considered murder and should not happen within our borders. Anyone who doesn’t like our principles and laws are free to go back to New York or Chicago or wherever they came from.
We do not interfere with other nation's political processes and do not allow them to interfere with ours. We do not financially support other nations nor solicit their support. Anyone caught within our borders illegally will be deported with dignity (the first time). No one is allowed into the new country for more than 6 months unless they have a job. The welfare system is only for people who truly cannot work.
We endorse and practice free and open trade with all the other 49 states and any FREE nations (ie no dictatorships like Russia, China or Saudi Arabia). We produce our own oil but work hard to make solar power our main source of energy. Lobbyist are not allowed and laws are only enacted when absolutely necessary to promote the health, welfare and safety of our citizens.
Our new country will stand as a Beacon of Light, a shining example of Freedom and Liberty with laws based on the original Constitution and God's Word, not man's fleeting opinion. All politicians must take an oath to uphold the Constitution and can be easily voted out of office for failure to do so.
It's time to get back to the basics. Back to our Foundations. Back to what America was meant to be. I'm tired of voting for the lesser of two evils.
We are not talking about mere rebellion or civil disobedience, it's more of a Reformation or Revolution.
In 1973 the Supreme Court said it was a constitutional "right" to murder babies.
On 6-26-15 they ruled that same-sex marriage is also a constitutionally protected "right." The four justices who disagreed with the Court's opinion, authored by Justice Anthony Kennedy, each wrote their own dissent, explaining why they believed the ruling to be wrong:
Chief Justice John Roberts
Roberts's argument centered around the need to preserve states' rights over what he viewed as following the turn of public opinion. In ruling in favor of gay marriage, he said, "Five lawyers have closed the debate and enacted their own vision of marriage as a matter of constitutional law."
Justice Scalia and Justice Thomas joined him in his dissent.
While Roberts said he did not "begrudge" any of the celebrations that would follow the Court ruling, he had serious concerns that the Court had extended its role from constitutional enforcer to activist.
"Understand well what this dissent is about: It is not about whether, in my judgment, the institution of marriage should be changed to include same-sex couples. It is instead about whether, in our democratic republic, that decision should rest with the people acting through their elected representatives, or with five lawyers who happen to hold commissions authorizing them to resolve legal disputes according to law," he wrote.
While, he recognized the decision would be hailed as a major victory for same-sex couples and their allies, he noted they had been set back.
"Supporters of same-sex marriage have achieved considerable success persuading their fellow citizens—through the democratic process—to adopt their view. That ends today," Roberts wrote. "Stealing this issue from the people will for many cast a cloud over same-sex marriage, making a dramatic social change that much more difficult to accept."
Roberts disparaged the majority decision by saying that it was nothing more than a flimsy argument.
"Stripped of its shiny rhetorical gloss, the majority's argument is that the Due Process Clause gives same-sex couples a fundamental right to marry because it will be good for them and for society," Roberts wrote. "If I were a legislator, I would certainly consider that view as a matter of social policy. But as a judge, I find the majority's position indefensible as a matter of constitutional law."
Roberts's other dispute is that many of the arguments made in support of gay marriage could be used to also support plural marriage.
"If not having the opportunity to marry 'serves to disrespect and subordinate' gay and lesbian couples, why wouldn't the same 'imposition of this disability,' ... serve to disrespect and subordinate people who find fulfillment in polyamorous relationships?" he writes. "I do not mean to equate marriage between same-sex couples with plural marriages in all respects. There may well be relevant differences that compel different legal analysis. But if there are, petitioners have not pointed to any."
Justice Antonin Scalia
According to Justice Antonin Scalia, today's majority ruling represents a "judicial Putsch."
Scalia wrote that while he has no personal opinions on whether the law should allow same-sex marriage, he feels very strongly that it is not the place of the Supreme Court to decide.
"Until the courts put a stop to it, public debate over same-sex marriage displayed American democracy at its best," Scalia wrote. "But the Court ends this debate, in an opinion lacking even a thin veneer of law."
Scalia stated he wanted to write a separate dissent "to call attention to this Court's threat to American democracy." Justice Clarence Thomas joined Scalia in this dissent.
Scalia attacked his colleagues' opinion with his signature flourish. "The opinion is couched in a style that is as pretentious as its content is egotistic," he wrote.
Scalia: "One would think Freedom of Intimacy is abridged rather than expanded by marriage. Ask the nearest hippie."
According to Scalia, the five justices in the majority are using the 14th Amendment in a way that was never intended by its writers. "When the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified in 1868, every State limited marriage to one man and one woman, and no one doubted the constitutionality of doing so," he wrote.
"They [the majority] have discovered in the Fourteenth Amendment a 'fundamental right' overlooked by every person alive at the time of ratification, and almost everyone else in the time since."
Scalia called out the majority for acting like activists, not judges. (He was similarly critical in Thursday's ruling on health care.) "States are free to adopt whatever laws they like, even those that offend the esteemed Justices' 'reasoned judgment,'" he wrote.
Scalia's scorn went beyond picking apart the majority's legal judgement. He also made fun of their language.
The majority began its opinion with the line: "The Constitution promises liberty to all within its reach, a liberty that includes certain specific rights that allow persons, within a lawful realm, to define and express their identity."
Scalia wrote that if he ever were to join an opinion that began with that sentence he "would hide my head in a bag," saying such language was more like the "mystical aphorisms of the fortune cookie" than, say, legendary Chief Justice John Marshall.
Elsewhere, the majority wrote "The nature of marriage is that, through its enduring bond, two persons together can find other freedoms, such as expression, intimacy, and spirituality."
Scalia scoffed at this assertion, saying that even "the nearest hippie" would know that marriage hinders the freedom of intimacy. Here are his words:
Really? Who ever thought that intimacy and spirituality [whatever that means] were freedoms? And if intimacy is, one would think Freedom of Intimacy is abridged rather than expanded by marriage. Ask the nearest hippie.
Scalia's "hippie" comment was referring to the hippie's perspective on "free love" where one-night-stands were the norm versus long term commitment in marriage.
Justice Clarence Thomas
In his own separate dissent, which Scalia also joined, Justice Clarence Thomas pilloried the majority opinion as "at odds not only with the Constitution, but with the principles upon which our nation were built."
Kennedy and the Court's liberal wing are invoking a definition of "liberty" that the Constitution's framers "would not have recognized, to the detriment of the liberty they sought to protect."
"Along the way, it rejects the idea—captured in our Declaration of Independence—that human dignity is innate and suggests instead that it comes from the Government," Thomas said. "This distortion of our Constitution not only ignores the text, it inverts the relationship between the individual and the state in our Republic. I cannot agree with it."
Thomas argues that the majority is erring in its interpretation of the 14th Amendment's due-process clause, by reading it as more expansive and far-reaching than originally intended. The case lacks standing on this issue, he continues, because the plaintiff does not adequately show that a state ban on same-sex marriage constitutes a true deprivation of "liberty" under the law.
"As used in the Due Process Clauses, 'liberty' most likely refers to 'the power of locomotion, of changing situation, or removing one's person to whatsoever place one's own inclination may direct; without imprisonment or restraint, unless by due course of law,'" Thomas wrote. "That definition is drawn from the historical roots of the Clauses and is consistent with our Constitution's text and structure."
Further, the long-standing legal understanding of liberty does not encompass the rights the majority opinion says it does, Thomas argues. Liberty has "long been understood as individual freedom from government action, not as a right to a particular governmental entitlement."
"Whether we define 'liberty' as locomotion or freedom from governmental action more broadly, petitioners have in no way been deprived of it," he continued. "Petitioners cannot claim, under the most plausible definition of 'liberty,' that they have been imprisoned or physically restrained by the States for participating in same-sex relationships."
Thomas, echoing a grievance expressed by many conservative politicians, also laments that the Supreme Court's decision is enshrining a definition of marriage into the Constitution in a way that puts it "beyond the reach of the normal democratic process for the entire nation."
Thomas additionally warns that the Court's "inversion of the original meaning of liberty will likely cause collateral damage to other aspects of our constitutional order that protect liberty." Further, he argues that the decision will threaten religious liberty by creating an unavoidable collision between the interests of same-sex couples and some religious organizations.
"In our society, marriage is not simply a governmental institution; it is a religious institution as well," Thomas wrote. "Today's decision might change the former, but it cannot change the latter. It appears all but inevitable that the two will come into conflict, particularly as individuals and churches are confronted with demands to participate in and endorse civil marriages between same-sex couples."
Justice Samuel Alito
In his dissent, Alito argues that gay marriage is not protected in the Constitution under the Due Process Clause because "liberty" only applies to those principles that are rooted in U.S. tradition. His argument is that the concept of gay marriage is new and therefore not included.
"For today's majority, it does not matter that the right to same-sex marriage lacks deep roots or even that it is contrary to long-established tradition. The Justices in the majority claim the authority to confer constitutional protection upon that right simply because they believe that it is fundamental," Alito writes.
Alito also reaffirms his position that there is no way to confirm what the outcome of gay marriage may be on the institution of traditional marriage and therefore the Court is and should not be in a position to take on the topic. At present, no one—including social scientists, philosophers, and historians—can predict with any certainty what the long-term ramifications of widespread acceptance of same-sex marriage will be. And judges are certainly not equipped to make such an assessment," Alito wrote.
Alito's belief is also that traditional marriage has existed between a man and woman for one key reason: children. His argument is:
For millennia, marriage was inextricably linked to the one thing that only an opposite-sex couple can do: procreate. Adherents to different schools of philosophy use different terms to explain why society should formalize marriage and attach special benefits and obligations to persons who marry. Their basic argument is that States formalize and promote marriage, unlike other fulfilling human relationships, in order to encourage potentially procreative conduct to take place within a lasting unit that has long been thought to provide the best atmosphere for raising children.
Now that the majority has ruled in favor of gay marriage, Alito offers a stark warning about future conflict between religious liberty and progressive ideas.
"By imposing its own views on the entire country, the majority facilitates the marginalization of the many Americans who have traditional ideas. Recalling the harsh treatment of gays and lesbians in the past, some may think that turnabout is fair play. But if that sentiment prevails, the Nation will experience bitter and lasting wounds," he writes.
Like his conservative colleagues, Alito worries that the Court is overstepping its power, making sweeping legal changes for every state in the country. He concludes on a warning.
"Even enthusiastic supporters of same-sex marriage should worry about the scope of the power that today's majority claims," Alito writes. "Today's decision shows that decades of attempts to restrain this Court's abuse of its authority have failed. "
Some might say that seceding is impossible. Tell that to the citizens of the former Soviet Union. Many Americans also said the same thing 250 years ago when our original colonies were under the tyrannical thumb of Great Britain. Luckily, there were people of courage and conviction. The cry of the American Revolutionary War was, “Give me Liberty or give me Death!”
They say that "history is written by the victors." Never was this more true than the Civil War. I grew up in Illinois and was taught in my Federally Controlled Schools that the South was fighting the North over slavery. Not true! I could never understand why so many southerners would give up their lives over the issue of slavery when 99% of them did not have slaves. In reality, slavery was a secondary issue. The primary issue was States' Rights. The ability to live in autonomy and freedom without fear of the Federal Government interfering with your state's laws and preferences.
Ironically, it is now the South again fighting the North, but this time the South is fighting against slavery...slavery to Washington, D.C.
Could this lead to civil war? Anything is possible, but for now, the pen is mightier than the sword. But talk is cheap and so far, talking is all we are seeing. We have got to up the ante. Our next step is to unify. According to statistics, there are over 7 million people wanting to secede.
Are you ready to fight for your freedom? Are you ready to create Newmerica?