Where Is Trump On The Constitution?

[emilynghiem]

If I am reading Trump correctly he thinks he can make the country great again without any help from the U.S. Constitution.

Listen closely to what Trump says whenever he dives into the deep end of the pool:

​

Trump: Screw The Constitution, I'll Allow Churches Into Politics And Let Them Stay Tax-Exempt​

Trump obviously believes that allowing priests into government as well as enriching them further is a winning strategy. He clearly thinks Christian clerics will make America great again. Whether or not he believes it, Trump advocates passing organized religion’s tax exemption onto the backs of everybody. Clearly, he lacks an understanding of the First-Amendment-cum-the-separation-of-church-and-state.

More importantly, does Trump really believe he can let churches keep their tax exempt status and stop coerced charity everywhere else? or is he simply laying down a smokescreen in order to leave such a flagrant violation of the First Amendment in place?

Charity is either voluntary or involuntary. Parasites believe in coerced charity. That exact belief system is the foundation for every organized religion. So if the First Amendment is enforced it follows that coerced charity is unconstitutional. It is as simple as that.

XXXXX​

The SCOTUS should rule in such a way that says involuntary charity is unconstitutional, while voluntary is settled law. My point. If the First Amendment continues to protect freedom-loving Americans from the evils of theocracy, it must also protect them from coerced charity.

Unconnected To Common Decency​

And if Trump is serious about defeating ISIS with Christmas decorations he needs a crash course in the average American’s revulsion for theocracy of every stripe.

Ever since 9-11-2001 I’ve been saying that Islam should be legally defined as a political movement which it is, while Socialism/Communism should be defined as a religion which it is. In that way both are denied First Amendment protection. In short: Socialists would lose access to the public purse because it is a religion, while the war against Islam could be fought as a political movement.

Tweaking Trump​

Perhaps Trump is convinced he can talk Americans into fighting for Christianity because the Chicago sewer rat forced Americans NOT to fight their enemies. If Trump does believes that he better come up with a plan to defeat another religion that is infinitely more dangerous than Islam —— Socialism/Communism. He can start with this:

Frankly, the way things are stacking up it looks like worldwide Socialism is taking the best of it. Socialists cannot be unhappy about Christians and Muslims killing each other. Us poor schmucks in the middle who do not want to see any religion win, including Socialism/Communism, are getting all the worst of it.

XXXXX​

p.s. As I’ve said many times, I have no objection to killing priesthoods who want to kill me, but it makes no sense for a free people to surrender their freedoms by replacing one religion with another, and that includes Socialism-cum-global-government.

Muslims Made Occupation Obsolete​

Dear Flanders I agree with your statements somewhat. In that I would argue that Constitutionalism, is a political belief in limited govt. And so are Democratic platforms on believing health care is a right, abortion is a choice, and same sex marriage is equal to traditional marriage. None of these beliefs as creeds should be treated preferentially or punished for conflicts with others, but if right to life is kept out of govt so should right to health care be voluntary and practiced by free choice.

Do you want to help coauthor a resolution declaring political beliefs as creeds? And demanding mediation and correction to laws and ruling 's that establish beliefs that are faith based.

Thanks Flander!

 

[Flanders]

Dear Flanders I agree with your statements somewhat. In that I would argue that Constitutionalism, is a political belief in limited govt. And so are Democratic platforms on believing health care is a right, abortion is a choice, and same sex marriage is equal to traditional marriage. None of these beliefs as creeds should be treated preferentially or punished for conflicts with others, but if right to life is kept out of govt so should right to health care be voluntary and practiced by free choice.

To emilyngheim: Limited government was codified in the Constitution. Democrat beliefs is a political agenda that forces those beliefs on people who disagree. Worse still, Democrats use tax dollars to force everybody to fund their beliefs.

Do you want to help coauthor a resolution declaring political beliefs as creeds? And demanding mediation and correction to laws and ruling 's that establish beliefs that are faith based.

To emilyngheim: Asking me those questions is absurd in light of:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; . . .​

The only flaw in the excerpt is that the Founders could not envision the public purse paying for political causes.

Put it in perspective this way:

Islam should be legally defined as a political movement which it is, while Socialism/Communism should be defined as a religion which it is. In that way both are denied First Amendment protection. In short: Socialism violates the First Amendment because it is a religion implementing the tax collector’s morality, while Islam is NOT entitled to First Amendment protection because it is a political movement.

 

[emilynghiem]

Dear Flanders I agree with your statements somewhat. In that I would argue that Constitutionalism, is a political belief in limited govt. And so are Democratic platforms on believing health care is a right, abortion is a choice, and same sex marriage is equal to traditional marriage. None of these beliefs as creeds should be treated preferentially or punished for conflicts with others, but if right to life is kept out of govt so should right to health care be voluntary and practiced by free choice.

To emilyngheim: Limited government was codified in the Constitution. Democrat beliefs is a political agenda that forces those beliefs on people who disagree. Worse still, Democrats use tax dollars to force everybody to fund their beliefs.

Do you want to help coauthor a resolution declaring political beliefs as creeds? And demanding mediation and correction to laws and ruling 's that establish beliefs that are faith based.

To emilyngheim: Asking me those questions is absurd in light of:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; . . .​

The only flaw in the excerpt is that the Founders could not envision the public purse paying for political causes.

Put it in perspective this way:

Islam should be legally defined as a political movement which it is, while Socialism/Communism should be defined as a religion which it is. In that way both are denied First Amendment protection. In short: Socialism violates the First Amendment because it is a religion implementing the tax collector’s morality, while Islam is NOT entitled to First Amendment protection because it is a political movement.

Okay so since the IRS allows a box to be checked for donations to political campaigns, why not set up boxes where social programs can be opted into by party. So if you agree to fund benefits welfare and health care by liberal policies you can check Democrat and manage your resources through that, if you believe in free market you check Republican. Etc.

Could we use this to separate beliefs by platform of choice?

Or should it be done by tax deduction? The parties each set up private programs for their members, you donate or invest, then write it off?

Note Flanders some ppl make Constitutionality a political religion some do not. Same with Christians who stay out of pushing agenda thru govt. And Zionists who do combine church and state agenda. Islamist combine religion with govt, nation of Islam gets political, but many Muslims don't so their beliefs are different than the Islamic politics that impose and oppress

 

[Flanders]

Okay so since the IRS allows a box to be checked for donations to political campaigns, why not set up boxes where social programs can be opted into by party. So if you agree to fund benefits welfare and health care by liberal policies you can check Democrat and manage your resources through that, if you believe in free market you check Republican. Etc.

Could we use this to separate beliefs by platform of choice?

Or should it be done by tax deduction? The parties each set up private programs for their members, you donate or invest, then write it off?

Note Flanders some ppl make Constitutionality a political religion some do not. Same with Christians who stay out of pushing agenda thru govt. And Zionists who do combine church and state agenda. Islamist combine religion with govt, nation of Islam gets political, but many Muslims don't so their beliefs are different than the Islamic politics that impose and oppress

To emilyngheim: The public purse should never be involved in anything except necessary government that benefits everybody; the judicial system, the military defending the country, etc. So here is a better idea:

Repeal the XVI Amendment. Everybody could then donate to anything they please. As a matter of fact organized religions did that before 1913 —— when America was the envy of the world. Today, organized religions get tens of millions from taxpayers in violation of the First Amendment, but nowhere near the amount the Socialist religion rakes in.

If your suggestion is implemented the entire Democrat party agenda would evaporate overnight without coerced tax dollars because nobody with a lick of sense would voluntary give a penny to Socialism regardless of how a program is sold.

You should work on your suggestion because the result is a consummation devoutly to be wished.

 

[emilynghiem]

Okay so since the IRS allows a box to be checked for donations to political campaigns, why not set up boxes where social programs can be opted into by party. So if you agree to fund benefits welfare and health care by liberal policies you can check Democrat and manage your resources through that, if you believe in free market you check Republican. Etc.

Could we use this to separate beliefs by platform of choice?

Or should it be done by tax deduction? The parties each set up private programs for their members, you donate or invest, then write it off?

Note Flanders some ppl make Constitutionality a political religion some do not. Same with Christians who stay out of pushing agenda thru govt. And Zionists who do combine church and state agenda. Islamist combine religion with govt, nation of Islam gets political, but many Muslims don't so their beliefs are different than the Islamic politics that impose and oppress

To emilyngheim: The public purse should never be involved in anything except necessary government that benefits everybody; the judicial system, the military defending the country, etc. So here is a better idea:

Repeal the XVI Amendment. Everybody could then donate to anything they please. As a matter of fact organized religions did that before 1913 —— when America was the envy of the world. Today, organized religions get tens of millions from taxpayers in violation of the First Amendment, but nowhere near the amount the Socialist religion rakes in.

If your suggestion is implemented the entire Democrat party agenda would evaporate overnight without coerced tax dollars because nobody with a lick of sense would voluntary give a penny to Socialism regardless of how a program is sold.

You should work on your suggestion because the result is a consummation devoutly to be wished.

Thank you Flanders you remind me of Steve Stockman when I called and asked him on air what if both parties had to pay for their own programs. He laughed and said simple, liberals would turn into conservatives overnight!
(A friend at work added all wars would end if ppl had to send their own sons and pay the costs themselves , and not rely on other ppls sons or tax dollars.)

The way it could work is to set it up as a school. Let the Democrats take on the job of fixing their own prisons, schools and health care programs, using restitution from drug and human trafficking to convert prisons and sweatshops into educational service and housing facilities as a campus.

The Republicans can be in charge of reforming the VA and setting up military hospitals and bases along the border. Then let investors and taxpayers choose where to invest, lend or donate money for tax breaks. Workers and shareholders can claim ownership as collateral on loans. Ppl with prison or trafficking recirds, or certain politicians and officials who owe restitution or penalties can pay back taxpayers by investing in the campus programs to replace welfare and turn prisons and mental health wards into teaching hospitals providing medical education and training in exchange for serving in public health.

So the Democrats who owe for constitutional violations, such as ACA that cost trilions paid to private insurance and 24 billion over the govt shutdown over the bill, can raise money or lend credit to pay back by building universal single payer for members under this party plan.

And Republicans can raise trillions to pay back any illicit war spending that we all agree is better spent helping vets who still suffer the consequences of serving overseas .

Sound like a plan?

Why not ask candidates to set up teams, plans and budgets for this conversion to audition for office? Campuses like this would provide training for any leaders who want to serve in business, law, or govt. So Republicans can mentor Democrats in Constitutional self governance and get tax breaks while choosing where to invest loans that are secure and paid back, instead of being forced to pay for endless handouts wasting taxes.

Even the gap in time while funds are assessed collected and reimbursed to taxpayers can be managed by a credit system, holding the programs property and land as collateral valued at t he cost of the debt and the jobs it will take to repair the damage done by crime and corruption.

Taxpayers should form a union, and lobby both parties collectively to reimburse all the costs deemed unconstitutunal. Issue notes against these debts to set up jobs and schools to reform govt. back to standard, and either charge the account to wrongdoers to pay back over time plus interest and legal fees, or sell their shares to citizens and investors to own the programs and property. The govt can pay the taxpayers to rent office space where we hire them, not vice versa where they control our taxes for these social programs. Turn the tables on govt, and take back charge!

 

[regent]

When they wrote the Constitution they made a much stronger government with considerably more power. It was basically a liberal document for that period based on the Age of Enlightenment.