'D' And 'D': Our Ingrate Aliens

[PoliticalChic]

7. When one searches for the basis of the affrontery of these two Canadian ingrates, the two Ds, one discovers their alignment with the American totalitarian D.....the Democrat Party.

"According to the Preamble, the Charter is “founded on principles that recognize the supremacy of God and the rule of law,” not on the sport of a politician or the megrim of a judge. On any honest assessment, the Charter does not permit such breaches and infringements as we have endured during the COVID interregnum. Yet the government gets away with it—with the approval of a significant majority, many of whom would deny the unvaccinated publicly funded health care and some of whom would favor “a short jail sentence” for these supposed miscreants. Conscience and data are in short supply with such zealots, just as they are with the government in power, for whom the Charter is a scrap of forgotten paper lying about somewhere in the archives."

Giving Up on Canada

pjmedia.com

Just this week, a poll revealed the Nazi leaning of American Democrats....

“Poll: Democrat Voters Want to Punish Unvaccinated

• 59% of Democrats support the government forcing confinement for unvaccinated Americans in their homes.
• 78% of Democrats support Joe Biden’s shot mandate for businesses with more than 100 employees.
• 55% of Democrats support fines for Americans who refuse the shots.
• 48% of Democrats say the government should fine or imprison Americans who question the efficacy of COVID shots on social media, on radio/TV or in publications.
• 47% of Democrats support government tracking to ensure quarantines or social distancing.
• 29% of Democrats say parents should lose custody of their children if they refuse the COVID vaccine.”

https://www.lc.org › full-article › 0118poll-democrat-voters-want-to-punish-unvaccinated

 

[Donald H]

Not necessary in the slightest.

I have no interest in attacking you hon, so I'll only conclude from from quick attempt to better understand the situation, it is an issue that will influence our further discussions.

 

[PoliticalChic]

I have no interest in attacking you hon, so I'll only conclude from from quick attempt to better understand the situation, it is an issue that will influence our further discussions.

"....it is an issue that will influence our further discussions."

Must there be any???????

It appears to me to be a threat.

 

[Donald H]

"According to the Preamble, the Charter is “founded on principles that recognize the supremacy of God ..................."

I'm curious to be able to understand from my atheist POV, the belief in some god could have any bearing on the Charter?
Doesn't the separation of church and state have to suggest that the god is any generic god?

• Brahma: the god responsible for the creation of the world and all living things.
• Vishnu: the god that preserves and protects the universe.
• Shiva: the god that destroys the universe in order to recreate it.
• Devi: the goddess that fights to restore dharma.
• Krishna: etc.

If your avatar you display is in fact you, I find it not to be unattractive in any way. Just maybe somewhat plain for my preferences.
edit: also expressing a hint of anger.

 

[PoliticalChic]

I'm curious to be able to understand from my atheist POV, the belief in some god could have any bearing on the Charter?
Doesn't the separation of church and state have to suggest that the god is any generic god?

• Brahma: the god responsible for the creation of the world and all living things.
• Vishnu: the god that preserves and protects the universe.
• Shiva: the god that destroys the universe in order to recreate it.
• Devi: the goddess that fights to restore dharma.
• Krishna: etc.

If your avatar you display is in fact you, I find it not to be unattractive in any way. Just maybe somewhat plain for my preferences.
edit: also expressing a hint of anger.

There is no...nor never was there.....any 'separataion of church and state.'


The Judeo-Christian ethic is the basis for Western Civilization.

The ethic at the center of Bolshevism, Nazism, the socialist basis of the Democrat Party....and the Canadian copy, resulted in the Century of Slaughter, the 20th Century.

 

[shoshi]

Does the idea of separation of church and state come from Thomas Jefferson who said there should be a wall of separation between them? or from the US constitution where it says no state religion can be established?

 

[PoliticalChic]

Does the idea of separation of church and state come from Thomas Jefferson who said there should be a wall of separation between them? or from the US constitution where it says no state religion can be established?

Pay attention, as you have a totally wrong view:


As for the famous “separation of church and state,” the phrase appears in no federal document. In fact, at the time of ratification of the Constitution, ten of the thirteen colonies had some provision recognizing Christianity as either the official, or the recommended religion in their state constitutions.

From the 1790 Massachusetts Constitution, written by John Adams, includes: [the] good order and preservation of civil government essentially depend(s) upon piety, religion, and morality…by the institution of public worship of God and of the public instruction in piety, religion, and morality…”Constitution of Massachusetts - Wikipedia


North Carolina Constitution, article 32, 1776: “That no person who shall deny the being of God, or the truth of the Protestant religion, or the divine authority of either the Old or New Testaments, or who shall hold religious principles incompatible with the freedom and safety of the State, shall b e capable of holding any office, or place of trust or profit, in the civil department, within this State.”
Constitution of North Carolina, 1776



So, the Founders intention was to be sure that the federal government didn’t do the same, and mandate a national religion. And when Jefferson wrote to the Danbury Baptists in 1802, it was to reassure them the federal government could not interfere in their religious observations, i.e., there is “a wall of separation between church and state.”
A one-way wall that stops government but allow each the liberty of their religious belieffs.


He wasn’t speaking of religion contaminating the government, but of the government contaminating religious observance.




The emasculation of America’s history and heritage can be traced directly to the 32nd President, who wedded America to the world’s greatest homicidal psychopath, and made America comfortable to the neo-Marxism from which we suffer today.

More directly, Franklin Roosevelt made, as his first Supreme Court nominee, KKKer Hugo Black who is responsible for inserting the phrase ‘separation of church and state’ into our judicial protocol.




“…where does that phrase come from? It comes from one brief letter that Thomas Jefferson wrote to the Danbury Baptist Association in 1802.At the end of a very long sentence in which Jefferson affirms his conviction that religious belief should be a private matter, and that the government should not interfere with such matters, he uses the phrase “building a wall of separation between Church & State.” And that’s where the phrase lived, undisturbed—lost in Jefferson’s voluminous correspondence—for almost 150 years.”



For context, a Connecticut community of Baptists, admirers of Jefferson, wrote to him about their fear that a federal government would ban their form of worship. The Founders intention was to be sure that the federal government didn’t do that, and mandate a national religion. And when Jefferson wrote to the Danbury Baptists in 1802, it was to reassure them the federal government could not interfere in their religious observations, i.e., there is “a wall of separation between church and state.” That is a one-way wall: separating government from religion, but not religion from government.

 

[shoshi]

Pay attention, as you have a totally wrong view:


As for the famous “separation of church and state,” the phrase appears in no federal document. In fact, at the time of ratification of the Constitution, ten of the thirteen colonies had some provision recognizing Christianity as either the official, or the recommended religion in their state constitutions.

From the 1790 Massachusetts Constitution, written by John Adams, includes: [the] good order and preservation of civil government essentially depend(s) upon piety, religion, and morality…by the institution of public worship of God and of the public instruction in piety, religion, and morality…”Constitution of Massachusetts - Wikipedia


North Carolina Constitution, article 32, 1776: “That no person who shall deny the being of God, or the truth of the Protestant religion, or the divine authority of either the Old or New Testaments, or who shall hold religious principles incompatible with the freedom and safety of the State, shall b e capable of holding any office, or place of trust or profit, in the civil department, within this State.”
Constitution of North Carolina, 1776



So, the Founders intention was to be sure that the federal government didn’t do the same, and mandate a national religion. And when Jefferson wrote to the Danbury Baptists in 1802, it was to reassure them the federal government could not interfere in their religious observations, i.e., there is “a wall of separation between church and state.”
A one-way wall that stops government but allow each the liberty of their religious belieffs.


He wasn’t speaking of religion contaminating the government, but of the government contaminating religious observance.




The emasculation of America’s history and heritage can be traced directly to the 32nd President, who wedded America to the world’s greatest homicidal psychopath, and made America comfortable to the neo-Marxism from which we suffer today.

More directly, Franklin Roosevelt made, as his first Supreme Court nominee, KKKer Hugo Black who is responsible for inserting the phrase ‘separation of church and state’ into our judicial protocol.




“…where does that phrase come from? It comes from one brief letter that Thomas Jefferson wrote to the Danbury Baptist Association in 1802.At the end of a very long sentence in which Jefferson affirms his conviction that religious belief should be a private matter, and that the government should not interfere with such matters, he uses the phrase “building a wall of separation between Church & State.” And that’s where the phrase lived, undisturbed—lost in Jefferson’s voluminous correspondence—for almost 150 years.”



For context, a Connecticut community of Baptists, admirers of Jefferson, wrote to him about their fear that a federal government would ban their form of worship. The Founders intention was to be sure that the federal government didn’t do that, and mandate a national religion. And when Jefferson wrote to the Danbury Baptists in 1802, it was to reassure them the federal government could not interfere in their religious observations, i.e., there is “a wall of separation between church and state.” That is a one-way wall: separating government from religion, but not religion from government.

yes you have freedom of religion. I know that. I was saying America was never meant to be a theocracy.

 

[PoliticalChic]

yes you have freedom of religion. I know that. I was saying America was never meant to be a theocracy.

Why would you even bring that up?

It is a lie, a talking point by the atheist Bolsheviks of the Democrat Party.

 

[shoshi]

Why would you even bring that up?

It is a lie, a talking point by the atheist Bolsheviks of the Democrat Party.

Freedom of religion is a basic right. That is what I was saying. And I was asking where did the idea of separation come from. English is not my first language sometimes I do not get my point across.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Freedom of religion is a basic right. That is what I was saying. And I was asking where did the idea of separation come from. English is not my first language sometimes I do not get my point across.

It came from the Leftists who demand atheism.

. It is no accident that government school has replaced real education with something very different, indoctrination.
It has removed student’s ability to judge politics via an understanding of history, of literature, and even of language, and replaced it with social engineering designed to splinter the populace and keep grievances and victimology front and center. And what was most important for the secularists was the removal of any reference to morality and religion from government school. In 1962, Justice Hugo Black wrote the majority opinion in Engel v. Vitale, the landmark Establishment Clause Supreme Court decision that outlawed prayer in public schools.



Justice Black wrote:

"The petitioners contend among other things that the state laws requiring or permitting use of the Regents' prayer must be struck down as a violation of the Establishment Clause because that prayer was composed by governmental officials as a part of a governmental program to further religious beliefs. For this reason, petitioners argue, the State's use of the Regents' prayer in its public school system breaches the constitutional wall of separation between Church and State."


Of course, there is no such 'constitutional wall of separation between Church and State'...especially when prayer is voluntary. That was from KKKer Hugo Black.

This, from Founder John Adams: Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.

 

[Zincwarrior]

You sure are ranting a lot about a small extremely polite country. Are you jealous of their moose's (Meese?).

 

[PoliticalChic]

You sure are ranting a lot about a small extremely polite country. Are you jealous of their moose's (Meese?).

'Ranting' is far from the correct term.

Instructing.

Clearly, you are in dire need of same.

 

[Zincwarrior]

'Ranting' is far from the correct term.

Instructing.

Clearly, you are in dire need of same.

Aren't you sweet! You're a bit of a hot mess though because you've forgotten the multiple different religions groups that founded colonies. Plus Canada has no Jim Crow monuments to worry about.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Aren't you sweet! You're a bit of a hot mess though because you've forgotten the multiple different religions groups that founded colonies. Plus Canada has no Jim Crow monuments to worry about.

Why do you fear monuments???

 

[Zincwarrior]

Why do you fear monuments???

Why do you like monuments to Jim Crow? Again not an issue for Canadians.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Why do you like monuments to Jim Crow? Again not an issue for Canadians.

If you fear monuments or Jim Crow.....just avoid the Democrats, the ones who taught the Nazis.

• First, the Nazis copied the Progressives/Democrats Immigration Policies.
• Only the ‘right races’ welcomed.
  
  “Progressives opposed immigration and enacted several immigration restrictions during the 1920s. Progressives also tried to force immigrants to adopt Progressive moral beliefs.” Progressive Movement - Ohio History Central
  
  And… Immigrant Restrictions During the Progressive Era | Synonym
  
  Hitler lauded the Progressives’ immigration policies.
  
  “By refusing immigration on principle to elements in poor health, by simply excluding certain racesfrom naturalization, it professes in slow beginnings a view which is peculiar to the folkish state concept.”
  “Mein Kampf,” chapter three
• 
  
• 
  
• “Hitler also appealed to the racially exclusionary provisions of U.S. immigration laws, specifically the 1924 Immigration Act that had been pushed by American progressives as a model of enlightened eugenic legislation. “There is today one state,” Hitler noted, “in which at least weak beginning toward a better conception are noticeable. Of course it is not our German Republic but the American union. By refusing immigration on principle to elements in poor health, by simply excluding certain races from naturalization, it professes in slow beginnings a view which is peculiar to the Volkish state concept.” Dinesh D’Souza: What Hitler Learned from the Democrats
  
  How about Franklin Roosevelt's attitude toward other races....?
  "This attitude dovetails with what is known about FDR's views regarding immigrants in general and Asian immigrants in particular.... He recommended that future immigration should be limited to those who had "blood of the right sort." FDR's troubling view of Jews
  
  Sieg Heil, Franklin????
  
  
• 
  
• Know what else the Nazis learned from the Progressives/Democrats?
  
  “…history of laws against miscegenation—interracial marriage or procreation—in the United States.
  
  Under the influence of Darwinism, racial science and an associated eugenics movement emerged in the late nineteenth century, grew with the Progressive movement, peaked in the 1920s, and disappeared during World War II. (Its enthusiastic embrace by Hitler did not help it…” The Race Against Race
  
  “The Germanic inhabitant of the American continent, who has remained racially pure and unmixed, rose to be master of the continent; he will remain the master as long as he does not fall a victim to defilement of the blood.”
  Adolph Hitler
  Untitled Document
  
  
• “At Nuremberg, the Nazis sought to preserve Nordic racial purity by outlawing racial intermarriage with Jews in much the same manner that Democratic anti-miscegenation laws outlawed racial intermarriage with blacks.” Dinesh D’Souza: What Hitler Learned from the Democrats
  
  
  
  3. Guess were Adolph got the idea for sterilization of ‘undesireables’???

“…Hitler learned from progressive sterilization laws that had been enacted in America through the influence of activists like Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood. “I have studied with great interest the laws of several American states concerning prevention of reproduction by people whose progeny would in all probability be of no value or be injurious to the racial stock.”

Hitler’s views—which closely parallel Sanger’s—provided the basis for the Nazi sterilization laws of 1933 which began by targeting “imbeciles” and the mentally retarded, and later expanded to cover Jews, gypsies, and other social undesirables.” Dinesh D’Souza: What Hitler Learned from the Democrats

• 
  
  
  Hitler wrote to the president of the American Eugenics Society to ask for a copy of his “The Case for Sterilization.”
  (Margaret Sanger and Sterilization)
  
  German race science stood on American progressive’s shoulders.
• 
  
• The Nazi Nuremberg Laws were taken nearly wholly from the Jim Crow Laws of the Democrat controlled South.
  
  In “Hitler's American Model: The United States and the Making of Nazi Race Law ,” by James Whitman, he shows how the Nazis took the Democrats’ Jim Crow Laws, simply changed the word ‘black’ and inserted the word ‘Jew.’
  

“Let’s remember that every segregation law in the South was passed by a Democratic legislature, signed by a Democratic governor, and enforced by Democratic officials. The Nuremberg team carefully studied these laws that were mainly aimed at blacks and used them to formulate their own racist legislation mainly aimed at Jews.” Dinesh D’Souza: What Hitler Learned from the Democrats




See all the efforts I've saved you?


Say thank you.

 

[Concerned American]

Guests from the Bolshevik North who don't show the proper appreciation for America!!!
I bet you can guess who they are.



1.These two posters from a second rate gas station masquerading as a nation, never miss an opportunity to insult this nation, generally, or Republicans, specifically.

One ‘D’ is a reptile, and the other ‘D,’ a reprobate, devotee of communism and genocide….and these two escapees from the spearhead of Progressivism in North America, have the nerve to reproach the nation that maintains their survival.



2. The time has come to return the favor, quoting that very principality.

“Giving Up on Canada

There’s an old joke about the typical Canadian who is nudged off the sidewalk by a passerby and immediately apologizes, a humorously rueful sign of the national character.

Of course, such attitudes presume that we still have a national character, which Prime Minister Justin Trudeau believes we do not, having told the New York Times that Canada has no “core identity” and is the world’s “first post-national state.” Trudeau may be right. We have become, apparently, citizens of the world, which means we are stakeholders in nothing tangibly visceral, that we have no civic identity, that we are political ciphers.



3. As Victor Davis Hanson writes, the concept of the citizen is dying. This is certainly the case in Canada, thanks to a moribund education system—Education Zero seems to be the aim—and a massive influx of immigrants from mainly impoverished, Third-World, and autocratic countries who have little interest in the usages, customs, and history of the nation they have come to settle in. Indeed, the city I live in is 40% from elsewhere. There is no longer a continuity of tradition here, merely a superposition of alien narratives: the “superior” culture of the native peoples, the pastoral nostalgia of landscape, the persistence of immigrant loyalties, the ethereal fantasy of a socialist utopia as championed by Trudeau père in Federalism and the French-Canadians.

4. … several “generations” of students and spoken with innumerable people in all walks of life, not a single one of whom knows anything about the British North America Act of 1867, which established the Canadian Confederation. No less alarming, they are entirely ignorant of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms of 1981 and the Constitution Act of 1982 that entrenched the Charter. Nor do most people recognize how power has devolved from provincial First Ministers and the Federal Parliament to the vast bureaucratic apparatus presided over by the current prime minister. They do not see how democracy has eroded almost beyond any possibility of restoration, how the country is rapidly slipping away from them—and, what is even more distressing, many do not seem to care.” Giving Up on Canada



I bet you have seen the absurd, and blatantly jealous posts by these two D-named posters, hiding their enviousness behind slaps at this bastion of freedom and the party that most closely represents American values and heritage!

Shocking!!!

They should be shown the (digital) back of our hands!!

I bet one of them is a duck and the other is a fictional female reptile.

 

[Concerned American]

I'm trying to find something relevant in each of your posts as a courtesy to you, but my patience is wearing thin hon.

As to 'better red than dead', that can be seen by you as an example of my losing patience. But you can consider it in it's proper context too!
You interpret anything left of America's establishment way as being 'red'. And in actual fact, nearly everything Canadian is left of America.

Hence, the 'red' accusation is accepted. We both know better don't we?

Triggered again, duck?

 

[Concerned American]

I've quite satisfactorily provided facts in links

Where would those be, duck? I just reviewed the thread from the beginning to your post ^^^ and as usual, no links are in evidence. Doesn't it ever tire you to lie so blatantly? Go Canadian truckers.