Sir Thomas More: Since the Court has determined to condemn me, God knoweth how, I will now discharge my mind concerning the indictment and the King's title. The indictment is grounded in an act of Parliament which is directly repugnant to the law of God, and his Holy Church, the Supreme Government of which no temporal person may by any law presume to take upon him. This was granted by the mouth of our Savior, Christ himself, to Saint Peter and the Bishops of Rome whilst He lived and was personally present here on earth. It is, therefore, insufficient in law to charge any Christian to obey it. And more to this, the immunity of the Church is promised both in Magna Carta and in the king's own coronation oath
21 comments:
I saw a piece a couple of days ago where somebody on the same sex marriage side was a little leery of making Mrs Davis a martyr.
Good thinking, whomever you are, but a little late.
Now there's a judge in OR being "investigated" because he didn't perform a same sex marriage (he referred them to another judge).
The Gaystapo wants total compliance (obeisance, really) and must have its way.
I'm giving this new "right" 10 years at the outside before the public demands its repeal.
She is a social conscientious objector.
Ed, it isn't obeisance, it's total and utter supplication.
What a presumptuous and historically inaccurately incoherent declaration. Whoever said that is impossible.
What precisely did the Lord Savior Himself say directly to Peter who was no saint at the time of his living and to bishops of Rome who exist hundreds of years in the future to His presence while living? What is this, Back to the Future IV written in the past?
There are some very good pieces on this, what it says about progressives generally what it says of what's become of the liberals generally. The obsessive mindset that doesn't care about much even the things that it says.
The woman is in jail for doing the exact thing in the opposite direction the Mayor of San Francisco was lauded for. She's held to the law with words from the mouths of the same people who urge the president and others to ignore it when breaking and ignoring and suing for upholding works for you.
Laws for thee but not for me, well fuck you and your incoherence whose single consistency is they favor you present bias. We're sick of you.
Yesterday the bartender was set up oddly in the main bedroom, the circular layout flow and the size of it that divides nicely into two very large areas pretty much demanded it. That part of the bedroom is decorated with a framed official White House document, the top left 1/4 is a photo of John F. Kennedy, and next to the framed document is another picture of the White House itself, the same size of the document, both large.
This association with the Democratic party, specifically with John Kennedy is exceedingly important to this couple. And I am so f'n sick of it I can shit politics right out my asshole in streams of explosive diarrhea until my whole body shrivels to the size of a deflated balloon.
I keep thinking the whole time, because now everyone is treated to this exceedingly important to have known political association every single time they want to refreshen their drink.
Picture it [ ], you go to an evening party the whole place is achingly set up like a museum of all important pieces with their own little penlights and most important of all is framed official documents with the picture of Ronald Reagan and the White House leaving it to visitor to guess how close the association, work on project? Work there directly? Donate cash? Buy the frames at auction? If I would ask I'd probably get a real and sincere answer but it would be all about the importance of association with Reagan.
How does that look? How did you feel seeing that?
Everyone I know would be impressed with the John Kennedy thing and likewise repulsed by the very strong tendency to canonize Reagan the way a saint is made of Kennedy, that came after the shine of King Author became faded by overuse. I guess. I hear the word "Camelot" or "Shining City on the Hill" and my impulse is saw off their heads with a giant cartoon inflatable hammer then drill right through their teeth with a giant black cartoon 1 Ton anvil, obviously the wrong tools for the job.
That's the thing with impulses they don't always make sense.
If the owners had any real sense of how closely John F. Kennedy's actual policies as written comport with modern conservatism, and how far his stinking ass party departed from Kennedy so important to his pantheon of American Democrat saints then he'd feel shame and not pride and no sense loyalty whatsoever, so old, so wrong, so dearly departed and so fiercely and sorely displaced such ragged loyalty.
The woman is in jail for doing the exact thing in the opposite direction the Mayor of San Francisco was lauded for. <-- This
I remember agreeing with a commenter named "revenant" at TOP regarding the wrongfulness of Newsome's actions. I think to be consistent, you either have to laud them both or condemn them both. If you don't, you've chosen sides.
It gets down to, do you want the rule of law to apply, or don't you?
If so, then certainly of State agents.
There are no two ways about it. Yet there are. Multiple ways about it. I meant to say no two tenable ways about it. Something is going to give even it it appears a complete reversal of things, say, conservatives give up on adherence to law when it suits them, it will not continue where one side at least attempts to obey new unfortunate unhappy laws while the other side does so only when it suits them and advances their aims, and disregards it when it's not using your money to actively fight it when it doesn't suit their aims. They demand and get overarching Federal law and then disregard it for local and personal reasoning and that will not work.
So are you a lauder or a condemner, chickelit?
This is rich, a person who's publicly compromised their integrity, questioning someone who has consistently revealed theirs, as though integrity matters.
Then again it's a holiday weekend, when grilling, splooging and stooging takes place.
Speaking of a woman for all seasonings, I asked Rose if she has a garden this year. I hadn't recognized her. I know her as a giggling light-hearted girl easily given to laughter and now I'm seeing a proper matron with upright posture and commanding presence. She threw me off when she grabbed me and I couldn't tell who she was until she spoke. For awhile even. The change is that dramatic. She said dismissively, "Well yeah, of herbs I have basil and sage and marjoram and thyme, mint, some rosemary...
I was waiting for that one. She listed all the herbs you can think of
... chives, dill, and tarragon. And flowers I have all of John's irises. Have you seen them? She sorts through rapidly and deftly shows one of the photos spread out, a frame full of irises in John's garden, not hers. And for vegetables there's a hundred foot..."
Come on!
Neither a lauder nor a condemner be. But, I would have admired Newsom (or at least respected) as I do Davis had he gone to prison for his convictions as well. But he didn't which is another inconsistency.
Sir Thomas More: [hands on hips] Well, he can't.
Meade's rhetoric also implies that the Catholic church should marry non catholics which just goes to show that he would like to dictate both rights and rites.
I'm not sure where Meade pulls his anti-Catholic bigotry from -- he must not have known many growing up.
Growing up in my corner of Wisconsin, catholics were either my best friends or my worst enemies. The friendly ones took me to church once up North and even let me eat one of those wafers once.
Leisure Suit Larry will be deleted in any of my posts. Tit for tat. Just sayn'
Troop, if you're doing the tat for tit thing it should an Amy's Garden.
Good thought but I am going to let Amy rest in peace.
Unless things change.
I don't think she is a saint.
I think she is a witness.
When laws are selectively enforced at the very top and at the lower levels of government such as here it creates a very natural tension of where to punish when and at what level. Is POTUS high enough to be immune? Was Jerry Brown immune enough as CA Attorney General when he chose not to enforce Prop 8? Obviously, Obama is going to get away with every bit of his own law non enforcement and perhaps Hillary will as well. These facts, juxtaposed against this rather humble woman, are what drives the droves to Trump.
I wish the woman were thinner and more attractive. There's no movie in her travails. Edward Snowden looks thin and idealistic. It's an easier sell when someone photogenic claims the higher moral ground.
@William: She could hunger strike in jail. If successful, win-win!
Post a Comment