User Profile: Lordchamp


Member Since: October 31, 2011


123 To page: Go
  • [3] September 17, 2015 at 7:44pm

    Both intense and serious and GOP establishment bought and paid for. BOTH mirror bush’s policies almost verbatim. Fiorina even worked for Romney’s campaign and rubio could be bush’s god-child since bush is his mentor.
    Yea, real good choices there beck. So you’re now a bought and paid GOPe shill is seems. The money got to you.

  • [3] September 8, 2015 at 10:13pm

    Why is it dead? Why no autonomy?

    On reason and one reason only. Inaction.

    Inaction on our part to DEMAND our States stand up for us. So what if the SCOTUS says something. If it is outside their jurisdiction and enumerated powers, which most everything is, then the State and the people should just ignore the opinion/ruling.

    It’s really just that simple. Requires backbone, but still simple. If it is unconstitutional, it’s already null and void and the States, NOT SCOTUS, are the final say on that except in the very narrow and limited areas enumerated to the SCOTUS.

    Responses (2) +
  • September 8, 2015 at 10:03pm

    They can already be impeached it’s just rarely done because we don’t demand it.

  • [1] September 8, 2015 at 10:01pm

    What Constitution are you reading? The American Constitution certainly has not failed us in any way. WE HAVE FAILED IT.
    Government will ALWAYS overstep it boundaries when it is allowed and we have allowed.

    It’s OUR responsibility, not a piece of parchment. No matter what had been written if the people don’t enforce it, government will become tyrannical. It’s the nature of the beast that is government. It’s human nature.

    At least keeping things close to the people and at the State level makes it more manageable and you can always move to another State that better fits what you believe if the State you are in becomes tyrannical and out of control. That was the intent of the Founders and we failed that test miserably.

    As it is now, there is no place to move to because of the tyranny of the federal government covering the entire nation.

  • [21] September 8, 2015 at 8:25pm

    Well DUH! That’s written there in plain language for all to read and understand. Plus there are countless writings by the Founders expounding on that very subject starting with the Federalist Papers.

    The Constitution is very easily understood IF you don’t have a personal political agenda to gain from it which of course the federal government does.

    A better question for him to answer is why is it that we the people allow the government that was CREATED by the Constitution to be the one interpreting it when the interpretations almost always give them more power and us less freedom.

    Based on the limited and enumerated powers he refers to, the SCOTUS is NOT the final say on issues EXCEPT for those within it’s enumerated powers which are VERY narrow and limited. Probably at least 95% of everything the SCOTUS has ruled on in the past 150-200 years should be disregarded because of their lack of jurisdiction according to the Constitution AS WRITTEN.

    Responses (1) +
  • [31] September 8, 2015 at 8:18pm

    You’re wrong on one point. Most people do NOT know. America as a whole is ignorant of it’s Founding Documents. That is proven by the fact that almost everything we complain about on a daily basis that the federal government does IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL already, yet we continue to allow them to do it. If the majority of the people really knew what the Constitution said and meant that would not be the case.

    Heck , most have never even read the Constitution word for word, much less any of the Founders writings explaining it and their intentions within it.

    Ignorance is killing us as a Country.

    Responses (4) +
  • [13] September 8, 2015 at 3:49pm

    1. If you want our help, get rid of the bad cops immediately. Cross that “thin blue line” and get it done.

    2. If you want our help, stop the militarization, return to the serve and protect attitude (not the do as I say or else attitude), and do away with your “protected class” status. If you break the law you pay for it just like we do. PERIOD. You should lead by example. You are NOT our keepers, nor our masters.

    3. If you want our help, stand up for the Constitution and refuse to enforce unconstitutional, bad laws.

    4. If you want our help, stop being revenue collectors and start being police again.

    5. If you want our help, be a part of our communities again, NOT outsiders and remember you are NOT our masters.

    6. Refuse to be nationalized by the federal government. Ignore their influence and support ONLY your local communities. Stop the police state in it’s tracks by not aiding and abetting it. Without you, it dies.

    There is much more but those would be a good start to show your true intentions. THEN we will gladly stand with you and help you. It’s your move.

    Otherwise, we will gladly take over your job and do it ourselves. You’re out of chances to change it would appear, so act quickly and we will respond in kind.

    Responses (7) +
  • [-2] September 4, 2015 at 12:36pm

    However, to be completely accurate, this issue should NOT be arising.

    According to the enumerated powers GIVEN to the federal government BY THE STATES, controlling marriage is NOT an enumerated power of the federal government.

    So, based on that, the SCOTUS has no jurisdiction to rule on this issue. It is a State issue ONLY, according to the Constitution AS WRITTEN, not as interpreted.

    So say the Founders.

  • [-1] September 4, 2015 at 12:31pm

    So? Mere deflection from the point at hand.

    Look over there, nothing to see here, right?

  • [-3] September 4, 2015 at 12:30pm

    What is this law you refer to? Please quote it so we can all be enlightened.

    I hope you are not referring to the SCOTUS OPINION though since it is taught in any civics class that Congress MAKES law and the SCOTUS merely interprets law and issues opinions.

  • [2] September 4, 2015 at 12:27pm

    What law is she not following?

    Actually, in truth, she IS following the LAW, The Constitution, as it is WRITTEN, not as it is interpreted by those with a personal agenda.

    The Constitution contains NOTHING giving the federal government the power to have anything to do with marriage. It is NOT included in the enumerated powers given to the federal government BY THE STATES, when THEY created the federal government, at the wishes of the people of those respective States.

    I CAN show proof of what I say based on the words of those that wrote the Constitution.

    Can YOU show proof of this law you say she is breaking? Remember, the SCOTUS merely gives opinions, Congress makes law. We await your proof.

  • [2] September 4, 2015 at 12:20pm

    You might want to do a little more research about true Christianity. There is really only one rule, to believe on Christ as your personal savior by asking forgiveness for your sins. Once that is done in a real, true, heartfelt manner,as evidenced by your future actions, the past no longer matters. Christ says it is put away and forgotten and you strive not to repeat it.

    The “church” controls nothing, it is but the messenger and not something the Christian is supposed to answer to. The Christian answers only to God.

    ALL humans are set up for failure at birth since we are all sinful creatures, it’s not just Christians. However, according to scripture, only Christians have the answer to that problem of sin.

    As in all of life, failure only happens when you stop trying. Christians don’t fail as long as they are continuing to strive to life their lives as Christ would.

  • September 4, 2015 at 11:55am

    So just what is “un-Christian?” Disagreeing with you? Pointing out sin? Pointing out lies and half-truths? It would appear that is the case with many leftist.

    Yet, it’s ok for leftist to call us names, dig into our personal history and make it public, belittle us, jail us, persecute us. All that is OK though right?

  • [-1] September 4, 2015 at 11:48am

    What does her personal life have to do with this issue? Except for the fact that the left has no facts or truth to back them up and must use personal attacks, name calling, playing on emotions, etc as the only possible way to accomplish anything. Pretty pathetic intellectually really.

  • [2] September 4, 2015 at 11:43am

    What law?

  • [-2] September 4, 2015 at 11:42am

    What law?

  • [1] September 4, 2015 at 11:41am

    It’s a very short step from where we as a Country are now to where ISIS and others who persecute people of faith different from their beliefs are. That’s how tyranny works and history is full of examples.

    I’m sure many said, well the Nazi’s aren’t killing anybody in the early 1930′s but we all know how that developed and at the time they were a VERY small group of people in Germany. So it can and does happen.

  • [-4] September 4, 2015 at 11:19am

    So, what is your point? That doesn’t make the statement any less true. The statement has nothing to do with the person but the situation and the principles involved.

    If you were truly interested in the principles you would deal with that issue so it’s obvious that is not your intent but rather to attack the person instead.

    He who is without sin, let him cast the first stone.

    Responses (1) +
  • [1] September 4, 2015 at 11:14am

    Strange how it appears you can’t carry on a conversion without name calling and belittling. That’s such a predictable and overused leftist tactic. You can’t provide facts and truth so attack the person, name call, play on the emotions, etc.

    Where is this law you speak of? Or is it that because you say it is so, THAT is the law?

    Doesn’t work that way which is why we won’t “move elsewhere,” ever.

  • September 4, 2015 at 11:08am

    It’s so easy to pick and choose passages when all you are concerned with is tearing something down instead of the truth.

    It has also never been DISPROVEN, so what is your real point? That you don’t choose to believe in it? That is your choice but it in no way makes someone elses choice to believe in it any less viable or important than your choice.

    In fact, known history in almost all ways actually supports Biblical accounts.

    What this sounds like is that you believe it ok for you to believe or not believe something but if anyone disagrees with you, they don’t have the same rights as you and must comply with what you think they should believe. Sounds pretty tyrannical to me.

123 To page: Go
Restoring Love