Michele Bachmann Talks Evolution, Intelligent Design At Republican Leadership Conference 2011
“I support intelligent design,” Bachmann told reporters in New Orleans following her speech to the Republican Leadership Conference. “What I support is putting all science on the table and then letting students decide. I don’t think it’s a good idea for government to come down on one side of scientific issue or another, when there is reasonable doubt on both sides.”
I wonder if her class on the Constitution made it as far as the First Amendment. She simply does not believe in Separation of Church and State. This tells us, in turn, that she does not comprehend the reason for Separation – or, for that matter, the demands and limitations of democracy.
As far as scientific issues go, she’s wrong on that point too. A federal court ruled that intelligent design is NOT science, but religion presented as science. I guess that law degree from a faith-based “university” isn’t really working for her. One would think that her time at William & Mary School of Law would have straightened her out on the law.
- http://www.pamd.uscourts.gov/kitzmiller/kitzmiller_342.pdf
- BBC: ‘Intelligent design’ teaching ban
- Bachmann’s Unrivaled Extremism
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost
Related articles
- Bachmann: teach both sides, no matter how stupid (whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com)
- Republican Leadership Conference 2011: Pragmatism vs. principle. (slate.com)
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
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
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’
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
Related Articles
- Huck: Blaming tea party ‘reprehensible’ (politico.com)
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
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.
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
Related Articles
Joe Miller Tepid Again With Palin Endorsement, Says She’s Qualified Constitutionally (VIDEO)
Wally the Beerman is Constitutionally qualified to be president. All you need is a pulse and an old birth certificate. Although conservatives seemed to prefer a Panamanian birth certificate to a Hawaiian one.
The real question is if the republicans can field a candidate willing to put the Constitution ahead of the Bible as the highest law of the land. I don’t see that happening. Their religious test is too much a part of the party ideology.
Oops, there goes the Constitution.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost
Related Articles
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
Related Articles
- NJEA.org – NJEA supports excellent charters, but not vouchers for private schools (gloucestercitynews.net)
- Dems Move To End Funding For Ineffective Abstinence-Only Education Programs (pinkbananaworld.com)
- QUESTION OF THE DAY: Should Being A Former Prostitute Preclude This Woman From Teaching In Public School? (businessinsider.com)
Save the American Dream
Zera's Blog 