Congressional Republi-Nazis Propose Marriage Unequality

RepubliNaziCurrently, there are twenty-nine Republi-Nazis in the US House who have proposed that only certain individuals, one man and one woman, are worthy of the pursuit of happiness using a contract of marriage:


This joint resolution may be cited as the `Marriage Protection Amendment’.


The following article is proposed as an amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which shall be valid to all intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States within seven years after the date of its submission for ratification:


`Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. Neither this Constitution, nor the constitution of any State, shall be construed to require that marriage or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon any union other than the union of a man and a woman.’.

  • Rep Tim Huelskamp [R-KS]
  • Rep Barton, Joe [TX-6]
  • Rep Bridenstine, Jim [OK-1]
  • Rep Brooks, Mo [AL-5]
  • Rep Broun, Paul C. [GA-10]
  • Rep Duncan, Jeff [SC-3]
  • Rep Fleming, John [LA-4]
  • Rep Franks, Trent [AZ-8]
  • Rep Gohmert, Louie [TX-1]
  • Rep Hall, Ralph M. [TX-4]
  • Rep Harris, Andy [MD-1]
  • Rep Hultgren, Randy [IL-14]
  • Rep Johnson, Sam [TX-3]
  • Rep Jones Jr., Walter B. [NC-3]
  • Rep Jordan, Jim [OH-4]
  • Rep Lankford, James [OK-5]
  • Rep Meadows, Mark [NC-11]
  • Rep Neugebauer, Randy [TX-19]
  • Rep Palazzo, Steven M. [MS-4]
  • Rep Pearce, Stevan [NM-2]
  • Rep Pittenger, Robert [NC-9]
  • Rep Pitts, Joseph R. [PA-16]
  • Rep Schweikert, David [AZ-6]
  • Rep Shuster, Bill [PA-9]
  • Rep Smith, Christopher H. [NJ-4]
  • Rep Stockman, Steve [TX-36]
  • Rep Walberg, Tim [MI-7]
  • Rep Westmoreland, Lynn  [GA-3]
  • Rep Wolf, Frank R. [VA-10]

Now, you may think I’m being a bit harsh by calling these 29, angry white men, “Republi-Nazis,” but their variant of the original Nazism is real and totally in opposition to the principles our founding fathers espoused.  Nazism is an ideology that claimed the “Aryan Master Race” was superior to all other races.  The Republi-Nazis believe that we do not live in a Democracy, but instead live in some fantasy Theocracy—that our founding fathers, in their infinite wisdom, created our constitution based on the “Christian” bible  (whatever that is, because their interpretations of what they call the “bible” tend to differ vastly from mine).  Further, they believe that only heterosexual men and women are the chosen few who deserve a “pursuit of happiness” and who deserve abundant tax breaks at the expense of all others with which to pursue their every whim.  They believe that all “Christian(?)” heterosexual members of our society should cooperate for national unity against the heinous hoards who would be the demise of our society.  Somehow, I do not believe Jesus would make or endorse  such an argument.  And frankly, since GOD created all of mankind, not just the heterosexual members of mankind, I do not believe GOD would be making or endorsing that argument either.  And please note, that I’m not even scratching the surface yet—and that I’m not going to stray into the area of their feelings of superiority over women and their needs to regulate the uses of various women’s body parts in this piece.

It is time to take a stand and call this errant behavior what it is.  Whether you call it a variation of Nazism or Fascism, it’s NOT Americanism and it needs to stop!  Take the time to write your Congressmen and let them know what you think and where you stand on this issue.  If you’re in Nevada, you can go to the LINKS page (above in the header) to find links to email or to tweet your opposition to Nevada’s members of Congress.  You can also find this bill on POPVOX where you can OPPOSE and send an email to your designated members of Congress (based on your address).

Here’s a copy of my email to Rep. Mark Amodei using POPVOX:

I oppose H.J.Res. 51 which proposes an amendment to the Constitution of the United States declaring that marriage can be only between one man and one woman. Really, one man can only be married to one woman? If marriage is between only one man and one woman, does that outlaw divorce?

We don’t live in a “theocracy” as too many of the currently elected members of the REPUBLIBAN believe. It is NEVER acceptable to treat some members of our society in a preferential manner, while essentially levying a penalty tax on others. If you believe “marriage” is only a religious thing for the preferential few, then why does a state have to issue a license? Why does the couple have to go to court to obtain a dissolutionment of that marriage? Because, it’s NOT just a religious thing.

— It’s a LEGAL thing. That’s why they call it a CONTRACT of marriage.

— It’s a TAX thing. Married people benefit from TAX DEDUCTIONS.

It is NOT appropriate for members of our U.S. government to act like Hitler’s Nazis, branding certain individuals as acceptable and therefore, endowed with certain rights, and declare others as unacceptable and not entitled to the same pursuits as the chosen few.

Supreme Court Bombshell: No Right to Remain Silent


Related articles - by F. Kaskais

The Supreme Court handed down a decision on June 17 that has been ignored by most media outlets, despite its devastating effect on one of the most fundamental rights protected by the Constitution.
In a 5-4 ruling, the justices ruled that a person no longer has the right to remain silent as guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment. In relevant part, the Fifth Amendment mandates that no one “shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself.”
Thanks to the Supreme Court’s decision in Salinas v. Texas, that part of the Bill of Rights has been excised — and has joined the list of so many other fundamental liberties that now lay on the scrap heap of history.
Here’s a little background of the circumstances of the Salinas case, as told by Slate:
Two brothers were shot at home in Houston. There were no witnesses — only…

View original post 93 more words

It’s Official — Fox News Just Hit Rock Bottom. Hard And Repeatedly

by Rollie Williams, on Upworthy

I’m not sure which show makes more sense to be on Comedy Central. Jon Stewart is a pretty funny dude, but smart money says the real comedic geniuses are working at Fox News (buried deep inside the subconsciouses of the Fox anchors).


For reference, the first 10 amendments are:
  1. Protects freedom of speech, freedom of religion, and freedom of the press, as well as the right to assemble and petition the government.
  2. Protects a militia’s and an individual’s right to bear arms.
  3. Prohibits the forced quartering of soldiers during peacetime.
  4. Prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures and sets out requirements for search warrants based on probable cause.
  5. Sets out rules for indictment by grand jury and eminent domain, protects the right to due process, and prohibits self-incrimination and double jeopardy.
  6. Protects the right to a fair and speedy public trial by jury, including the rights to be notified of the accusations, to confront the accuser, to obtain witnesses and to retain counsel.
  7. Provides for the right to trial by jury in certain civil cases, according to common law.
  8. Prohibits excessive fines and excessive bail, as well as cruel and unusual punishment.
  9. Protects rights not enumerated in the Constitution.
  10. Limits the powers of the federal government to those delegated to it by the Constitution.

Rights Extended by the Constitution are Rights of Natural Persons Only

As a form of Valentine to the U.S. public, Rep. Richard Nolan [D-MN8], introduced H.J.Res. 29, which proposes an amendment to the U.S. Constitution (overturning the Citizens United ruling by) providing that rights extended by the Constitution, are rights of  “natural” persons only:

Section 1. [Artificial Entities Such as Corporations Do Not Have Constitutional Rights]

The rights protected by the Constitution of the United States are the rights of natural persons only.

Artificial entities established by the laws of any State, the United States, or any foreign state shall have no rights under this Constitution and are subject to regulation by the People, through Federal, State, or local law.

The privileges of artificial entities shall be determined by the People, through Federal, State, or local law, and shall not be construed to be inherent or inalienable.

Section 2. [Money is Not Free Speech]

Federal, State, and local government shall regulate, limit, or prohibit contributions and expenditures, including a candidate’s own contributions and expenditures, to ensure that all citizens, regardless of their economic status, have access to the political process, and that no person gains, as a result of their money, substantially more access or ability to influence in any way the election of any candidate for public office or any ballot measure.

Federal, State, and local government shall require that any permissible contributions and expenditures be publicly disclosed.

The judiciary shall not construe the spending of money to influence elections to be speech under the First Amendment.

H.J.Res. 29 has been referred to the Judiciary committee and is facing a serious uphill battle to make it out of committee as  well as to the floor for a vote. From 2011-2013, only 12% of House joint resolutions made it past committee and only 5% were enacted or passed.

twitter (2)Rep. Mark Amodei, our representative to Congress from Nevada’s CD2, sits on the Judiciary committee.  It’s time for us to twitter-mob Amodei with tweets to pass #HJRes29 out of committee and then demand that it receive a vote of the House.  We need to get that Citizens United ruling overturned, and to do that we have to amend the U.S. Constitution.  We can’t do that until we can get an amendment passed by Congress and sent to the states for ratification.  Here’s a sample tweet:

@MarkAmodeiNV2 #HJRes29 referred to Judiciary cmtee upon which YOU sit—expect you to work to pass it out of cmtee for vote by House!