Zera's Blog

A Citizen's View from Main Street

One Nation Under Allah


If the Christian fundamenta­lists and extremists hadn’t spent the last few decades tearing down the Wall of Separation­, this would not even be an issue. Now that they have opened the door to theocracy, they are afraid of who else may walk through. Their mistake.

As to foreign laws, they have no standing in American courts. They are sometimes used as references in an attempt to glean wisdom from the experience­s of others, but they are not enforcible here except as part of a treaty.

“This Constituti­on, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constituti­on or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithsta­nding.”

A treaty is not a foreign law, it is a law that we agree to share with other countries. It does not have the force of law until ratified, at which time it becomes part of American law.

Ignorance, paranoia, and xenophobia notwithsta­nding.

We went through this over INTERPOL not too long ago.

I could be wrong, but I believe that any modificati­on to a treaty cannot have the force of law here unless ratified by the Senate.

I also believe that a binding resolution is not a modificati­on of a treaty, but a statement obligating a country to make a law of their own to implement the policy in the resolution­.

I could not find the text of the resolution you are concerned about, but what I did find on the UN website indicated a non-bindin­g resolution­. Without the text, I cannot form an opinion on it, even to confirm that it actually seeks to criminaliz­e anything – or simply discourage­.

My conclusion is:
A UN resolution­, binding or not, is not a treaty and has no force of law here. Should we write a law to implement a UN resolution­, the usual rules for lawmaking would apply.

It would take a new constituti­onal amendment to override the First Amendment, and that’s not going to happen.

Art. 2, sec. 1, UN charter:
The Organizati­on is based on the principle of the sovereign equality of all its Members.

Art. 2, sec. 7, UN charter:
Nothing contained in the present Charter shall authorize the United Nations to intervene in matters which are essentiall­y within the domestic jurisdicti­on of any state or shall require the Members to submit such matters to settlement under the present Charter

OIC, 2005:
http://new­s.bbc.co.u­k/2/hi/mid­dle_east/4­511548.stm
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

March 19, 2011 Posted by | Constitution, Religion | , , , , | Leave a comment

Herman Cain: The American dream is under attack…we are on the attack


“The American dream is under attack, that’s the bad news,” said Cain while speaking at the forum. “The good news is we are on the attack. We have got to lead this nation from an entitlement society to an empowerment society. We must defend those principles this nation was founded on.”

Except that his party is the one that’s attacking everything America stands for and was founded on.

From religious freedom to voting rights to representational government, they have bills pending to set it all aside.

Michigan Set To Enact Sweeping ‘Financial Martial Law’ Bill

The War Against the Republic: The Battle Of Madison

Milwaukee Ald. Milele Coggs says bill would give Wisconsin the most restrictive voter ID law in the nation

Lawmaker Behind South Dakota’s ‘Justifiable Homicide’ Bill Defends Measure [UPDATE]

English-only bill could create civil rights problems, groups say

2011 Wis SJR10 – Continuity of state and local gov. operations

The republican party is aggressively terminating the Great Experiment, with strong support from people who don’t even know what the experiment is.

If the Tea Party really wanted to take back our country, they should be fighting the corporations instead of shilling for them.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Herman Cain: First Amendment ‘Doesn’t Say People Can’t Have Religion In Government’

March 18, 2011 Posted by | Candidates, First Amendment, Religion | , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

Obama’s Soulless Obsession With Science and Math


Like a zealot, the Rabbi has willfully misinterpr­eted what President Obama said. What a sad little bunny.

If he wants to talk about moral decline in America, let’s talk about the fundamenta­l failure of religion in it’s role in society as teacher of morals. Maybe if Rabbi Schmuck and others like him had taken care of their own business instead of expending so much of their time, effort, and resources corrupting government and attacking the rights of others – and generally pissing in someone else’s pool – maybe our sense of community would not be dissolving­.

Maybe we would be making progress in the war on drugs. Maybe white collar crime would not have driven us into a major recession. Maybe most of America could feel secure in their rights and liberties instead of having to actively defend them at the expense of individual productivi­ty and national competitiv­eness.

Maybe Rabbis would not need to fill their statements with fallacies, innuendo, and prejudice in order to express their opinions. This supposed spiritual leader is actually adding to the moral decline of the country.

The worst part of his rant may be that it’s based on the idea that the government should be the teacher of social morality, not just the instrument of it. This is nanny-stat­e thinking. Education, including instructio­n in morality, begins in the home.

They place the blame on government to justify replacing democracy with dominionis­m. Not terribly American of them.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

February 13, 2011 Posted by | Religion | , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Huck Going To Sarah’s Turf



So that’s a “no” to civility? Coming from a religious zealot, I am not surprised. People fighting for their own religious rights are the enemy? American citizens standing up for democracy and the Constituti­on in the face of theocracy are the enemy? I don’t think so!

Huckabee is the type of republican who will never accept the Constituti­on of the United States as the highest law of the land. He has no business being in politics.

This Constituti­on, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constituti­on or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithsta­nding.”
Article VI

Oh, look, it is unconstitu­tional to put the Bible – or any other basis of law – above the Constituti­on.

And while we are at it, Mikey; Article I, section 9 says:

“No Tax or Duty shall be laid on Articles exported from any State.”

Which means that it is unconstitu­tional to put a national sales tax, or even a national VAT tax, on products exported from a state. You can go ahead and scrap your Fair Tax Act any time, it’s worthless.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

January 16, 2011 Posted by | Elections, Religion | , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Gallup Poll May Exaggerate Support For Full Repeal Of Health Care Law


As usual, people are asking the wrong questions.

Given the increasing cost of a medical education and the resulting debt carried by graduates, and given the growing disparity between compensati­on for specialist­s and general practition­ers, there is a fundamenta­l divergence between the free-marke­t health care system and the needs of patients.

The first question to ask is:

What is the purpose of the health care industry in America: the exercise of free-marke­t principles or maintainin­g and improving the health of the American people?

More simply put:

What is in the best interests of the country: the health and productivi­ty of the American people, or the economic theory that has produced a system that is failing Americans by the millions and failing more every year?

Second question:

Is health care a right, a privilege, or a necessity?

The third question:

What is more important: the needs, rights, and expectations of the patient, or the religious beliefs of health care workers?

Lost in the reform debate are the efforts of religious zealots to inject their beliefs into patient care. Overshadowed by the battle between reproductive rights vs dominionism is the Bush-era conscience clause rule that allows health care workers to put their religious beliefs ahead of the medical needs of patients, undermining health care delivery and the doctor-patient relationship – without which the American health care system falls apart.

Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

January 11, 2011 Posted by | Direction, Health Care, Religion | , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Peter King: I’ll Hold Hearings On Radical Islam


They condemned the rightwing extremist threat assessment last year for thoroughly partisan reasons – until a soldier shot up a military base and proved them wrong.

I remember when innocent American groups were investigat­ed, even infiltrate­d, in the republican search for terrorists­.

Texas republican­s have mandated a rewrite of history to claim that Joe McCarthy was vindicated and a patriot instead of a politician who destroyed careers and ruined lives for the sake of power.

We need American Muslims to stand up and oppose the use of Islam as a tool of terrorism, but conservati­ves seem determined to alienate them in every way possible. American Muslims are treated with suspicion and distrust, investigat­ed, alienated, harassed and ignored. Mosque constructi­on is resisted, and efforts to bridge the understand­ing gap have been crucified.

Of course they are not jumping at the chance to aid their own persecutio­n. They are Americans, and deserve to be treated like Americans. National security is in their best interest too, let’s keep it that way.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

December 21, 2010 Posted by | Religion | , , , , , , | Leave a comment

John Shimkus, GOP Rep. Who Denies Climate Change On Religious Grounds, Could Lead House Environmental Policy


Considering how often they talk about personal responsibility, republicans usually find a way to rationalize evading responsibility for their own actions.

This is one of the most mind-numbingly irresponsible assertions I have ever heard. After all the “personal responsibility” lectures, now they give us the “hell no to responsibility, God won’t let us fail” line? No wonder they are so cool to the START treaty.

Given the dangers of hydraulic fracturing and the growing demand for natural gas, and a public programmed to believe we have easy access to huge reserves if only the government would “get out of the way”, the republicans are poised to give license the the oil industry to literally destroy this country from the ground water up.

Republicans keep coming up with new ways to hurt this country beyond the wildest dreams of our worst enemies, and still make the ideas popular with the masses.

The more religious zealots strengthen their grip on their spiritual world and loosen their grip on the physical world, the more they fit the definition of insane.

How is John Shimkus any different from a suicide bomber, when it comes to personal responsibility and concern for consequences?

This is a prime example of why religion and government are incompatible.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

The more they strengthen their grip on their spiritual world and loosen their grip on the physical world, the more they fit the definition of insane.

How is John Shimkus any different than a suicide bomber, when it comes to personal responsibility and concern for consequences?

This is a prime example of why religion and government are incompatible.

November 16, 2010 Posted by | Environment, Regulation, Religion | , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Michele Bachmann Raises Record $5.4 Million In Three Months


Her support has nothing to do with her qualifications as a Representative and everything to do with her notoriety. She is a standard-bearer and symbol for the far right, a leader of their extremism and embodiment of their ineffectiveness and irresponsibility in matters of true governance.

She believes that we should be a theocracy, and her success is a testament to the incompatibility of theocracy and democracy. Christian fundamentalist money loves her.

She wants to dismantle government of the people in favor of corporate domination, no matter how irresponsible and destructive that is. Corporate money loves her.

Her district has the highest foreclosure and unemployment rates in the state. Little of her money comes from actual constituents.

She has formed a Tea Party Caucus in the House, and effectively dared republicans to join or else. She is accumulating power without any real accomplishment behind it. She says and does anything for political gain. She is the embodiment of what is wrong with American politics.

Those who vote for her fall into three categories:
1) Those who share her extreme ideology. They will vote for her no matter what.
2) Hardline republicans who vote the party no matter the candidate. Long-time republicans are starting to defect in her case as she becomes too extreme for them to accept anymore.
3) Those who don’t pay attention to politics and just vote the party or the name they remember or the ad they believe. A few facts make all the difference for them.

Michele Bachmann is antithetical to our survival as a country. She is pro-religious persecution and pro-corporatocracy, and anti-everything else.

  • Anti-worker
  • Anti-consumer
  • Anti-environment
  • Anti-freedom of religion other than hers.
  • Anti-civil rights that offend her personal prejudices.

Her economic policies have never worked, even for her, yet she clings to them like stone tablets.

She is exactly the sort of politician that we need to get out of government.

More on 2010 Elections
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

October 15, 2010 Posted by | Campaign Finance, Candidates, Capitalism, Constitution, Direction, Elections, Government, Religion | , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Sen. Jim DeMint: Gays And Unmarried, Pregnant Women Should Not Teach Public School


While I believe that local school boards should be selecting their teachers, I also believe that they should not be selectively discriminating against qualified teachers on the basis of prejudice or religious intolerance. Not in public schools.

For those who disagree, there are private schools and home-schooling networks. Just do not expect the government to subsidize it with vouchers paid for with my tax dollars.

My tax dollars should not be used to fund the teaching of prejudice and intolerance.
My tax dollars should not be used to fund parochial schools.
My tax dollars should not be used to fund cult indoctrination through home school immersion.

My tax dollars should only go to public, secular schools. That is the only obligation I have, as a tax-paying citizen, to support the education of others.

New Rule:

They don’t teach religious doctrine in public schools,
and we don’t teach evolution, women’s suffrage, gay rights, reproductive rights, civil rights, science, English, math, social studies, history, astronomy, archeology, health, biology, physical fitness, art, literature, music, …, political science, constitutional law, or democracy in houses of worship.

“no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.”
Article VI, U. S. Constitution

Oh, look. Public schoolteacher is a position of public Trust.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

October 2, 2010 Posted by | Education, Religion | , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Supreme Court Considers Constitutionality Of Military Funeral Protests



Hate speech projects and perpetuates hate. It is one of the oldest forms of terrorism. It is socially destructive.

The right of free speech is not unlimited. When speech begins to infringe on the rights of others, it must be determined who has the prevailing rights. When the intention is to create pain or fear, when it can even drive one to suicide, the public has an interest in limiting that speech.

A funeral is a sacred, and usually religious ceremony that takes place on hallowed ground. I would absolutely support the First Amendment rights, both speech and religion, of the funeral party over the same rights of the intruders.
More on Supreme Court
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

October 1, 2010 Posted by | Constitution, First Amendment, Religion | , , , | Leave a comment

%d bloggers like this: