The resolution was introduced by Virginia Democrat Donald S. Beyer, and sponsored by Frank Pallone, a New Jersey Democrat, and endorsed by seventy-one other Representatives, most of them Democrats… …After all, the “victims” are Muslims, and the House wishes to put it in the record that certain of its members are against hurting anyone’s feelings.
Many of the usual suspects have endorsed the resolution: Keith Ellison, a Democrat and Muslim from Minnesota; Debbie Wasserman Schultz, Florida Democrat and chairman of the Democratic National Committee; Charles Rangel, New York Democrat; and Alan Grayson, a Democrat from Florida. Most of the other endorsers’ names I do not recognize. They are all termites who have made careers of eating away at the rule of law and “transforming” America from a Western nation into a multicultural, welfare-statist, politically correct stewpot of no particular character.
“Freedom of religion means freedom to hold an opinion or belief, but not to take action in violation of social duties or subversive to good order,” In Reynolds v. United States (1878), the Supreme Court found that while laws cannot interfere with religious belief and opinions, laws can be made to regulate some religious practices (e.g., human sacrifices, and the Hindu practice of suttee). The Court stated that to rule otherwise, “would be to make the professed doctrines of religious belief superior to the law of the land, and in effect permit every citizen to become a law unto himself. Government would exist only in name under such circumstances.” InCantwell v. Connecticut (1940),
I have been explaining to people for a while that corporations being citizens is and insidious, unsustainable, evil. Corporations being people makes them citizens, it grants them more equality than you and I have because it cements a false, forced, equality. You do not have the resources of a corporation, the money, the man power, the lawyers, or the lobbyists.
“Communism is when the government owns the corporations,
Fascism is when the corporations own the government.”
The other foot has fallen in the natural outcropping of taking things to their next logical conclusion.
If Citizens are granted freedom of religion, and corporations are now people this means corporations now have the rights granted citizens, which means that Corporations can have religion. Hopefully, I don’t have to explain to you how insane this is or where it is going to go eventually. This law was passed stupidly for no other reason but for GREED. Stupid, angry, gluttonous, greed that isn’t smart enough to detect its own horse shit and wouldn’t be inclined to do so anyway.
Imagine if you will a dystopia in which you have to choose a corporation most akin to your life style, and you have to work for that corporation, go to their church, believe what they tell you, buy their shows, eat their food, keep your money in their bank, live in their state, etc. That is where this is going. A corporate feudal system. Nobody believed me when i said this years ago. You don’t understand the nature of psychopaths, if you change the playing field they will figure out how to take advantage of every nook and cranny to do their will. They don’t ask, “should I be doing this?” They ask, “Can I get away with this?” Corporations are more interested in competing with other corporations than pondering morality. You have to be able to compete in order to be relevant. The quicker you position yourself, the better you will be able to attack and defend. Corporations try to push each other out of business and steal each others markets. Essentially, the war between corporations will get more and more vicious, and yes the american people will be their pawns…
In my philosophy, Rational Praxis-ism, the individual, even in relationship prehends their resources. That is to say, that your resources do your will because it is a meritocracy and you earned your resources. Even in relationship your resources do your will unless you have made an agreement to the contrary. All of the time I hear people arguing for what other people should think and say and do. In my system your actions, thoughts, and self expression are yours and yours alone. Only when someone has proven their correctness to you and NOT to themselves and you have agreed to change your behavior can they hold it against you if your behavior is not desirable, or if you changing your behavior is necessary for the success of the endeavor and is reasonable, as in mitigation.
People are so full of their stupid judgments. They presuppose their own self appointed moral authority, I refer to this as not being smart enough to detect your own horse shit. What’s good for you is good for you, and what’s good for me is what’s good for me. You don’t get to choose what is good for me. This is known as judging tacitly from analogy. It is a normative bias in which the person thinking that everybody should think like themselves pecker slaps people with their perspective, arguing that they should change their expression, that they are experiencing life wrong. It is one thing to say, “this is my experience of life.” or, “you cannot relate to me in this way by doing this with me, I will not participate with it.” it is quite another thing to say, “you are experiencing life incorrectly and you have to change the way you think, express yourself, and behave.” especially when their has been no contest of proof, no scientific experiment, and no debate with reasoned arguments.
The most annoying thing, I think, to me, is that there are soooo many more stupid people than intelligent people, and stupid people are not less judgmental, they are more so…..