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

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

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

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

Texas Textbook Massacre: State Board Suggests Books ‘Tainted’ With ‘Pro-Islamic, Anti-Christian Distortions’



Liberals and moderates have had a hard time protecting our education system from theocratic indoctrination.

Kansas is infamous for constantly changing the definition of “science” to add or subtract religion from science classes. The value of their diplomas has been discounted by the unreliability of their educational basis.

And of course there was the case of Tammy Kitzmiller, et al. v. Dover Area School District, et al in Pennsylvania.

Then there is the cult-style home schooling by Christian fundamentalists, evangelicals, and born-agains who do not live in theocratic districts.

School vouchers that weaken public education by diverting public funds to private schools.

The failure of abstinence-only…

Do not pretend that liberals and moderates have had a free hand. The country would be better off if they had.

Texas is beginning the conversion of public education into a Christian version of Madrasahs. This reduction in standards and unconstitutional embrace of religion is a major blow to future American competitiveness.

Conservatives believe it’s a victory.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

September 17, 2010 Posted by | Education, Government, Religion | , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Atheists Erect Billboard In Oklahoma City, Critic Says It’s ‘Like They’re Poking A Finger In Your Eye’



The billboard is no different from any billboard inviting someone to visit a church. To protest this and not the other is to declare yourself opposed to true freedom of religion.

What concerns me most is the relentless march toward theocracy. Theocracy is based on blind faith in religious dogma. Democracy is based on reasoned policy and informed consent. The two are incompatible at best, and antithetical at worst.

The question becomes: Do we fight for government of the people, by the people, for the people – or do we submit to the religious doctrines of fundamentalist Christians?

This billboard is a signal that those of us who believe in true freedom of religion – freedom for all – are not prepared to go quietly into the night and render up one of the greatest ideals of the “Great Experiment” that is the United States to the whims of Christian fundamentalism – knowing that doing so would signal the end of the “last, best hope of Earth.”

“The kings of the Gentiles exercise leadership over them,” said our Saviour to his disciples, “but ye shall not be so.” The business of true religion is quite another thing. It is not instituted in order to the erecting of an external pomp, nor to the obtaining of ecclesiastical dominion, nor to the exercising of compulsive force, but to the regulating of men’s lives, according to the rules of virtue and piety.
John Locke, A Letter Concerning Toleration.
http://www.constitution.org/jl/tolerati.htm

Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

September 16, 2010 Posted by | Religion | , , , | Leave a comment

A Nation Founded on Faith – in People


U.S. Declaration of Independence ratified by t...

Image via Wikipedia

Contrary to impassioned theocratic urban legend, the country was NOT founded on belief in a God. It was founded on the belief in the people to govern themselves through a government that derives it’s authority THROUGH THE CONSENT OF THE GOVERNED.

The political philosophy of the Declaration was not new; its ideals of individual liberty had already been expressed by John Locke and the Continental philosophers. What Jefferson did was to summarize this philosophy in “self-evident truths”

The Declaration of Independence

Religious zealots like to quote the Declaration of Independence: “they are endowed by their Creator” but they take it out of context in pursuit of their own agenda.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.–That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,

The Declaration of Independence

Instituted among Men (not the church), deriving their powers from the consent of the governed (not God). Continue reading

September 15, 2010 Posted by | Constitution, Religion | , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

   

%d bloggers like this: