RE: your point: “Citizens need to read American history” ….that is asking for alot, considering that American history is no longer taught in public schools, and that is by design and intent , not accident. BEST to keep the slaves stupid, in this country , I would have to say , (to paraphrase puppy george while wearing his jet pilot flight suit) “Mission Acomplished”

sigh……;

A supporting opinion on how Obama and Holder are intent on pushing as far as possible the Congress and the Constitution.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2014/02/27/the-moment-a-prof-warned-that-america-is-at-a-constitutional-tipping-point/

They are a different kind / flavor of American politician combining all four of those labels, able to operate in a unique way because of their color and because of the unusual anomalous and polarized politics of the day.

You realize that the questions you are asking are the fundamental questions philosophers have been asking about the nature of freedom and government for thousands of years, beginning in our Western Civilization with Plato and Aristotle.

Deciding when a law is morally repugnant is of course a difficult but very basic question. For me, it is decided by whether the law restricts the freedom of someone who is not doing anything morally wrong.

The distinction of a law that effects those in the employ of government vs the population at larger is enlightening.

And I have much more respect for politicians who spend time trying to repeal bad laws, than those busy writing new ones because “something must be done”.

I would like to delve a little deeper into the case of individual citizens disobeying the law.

You state that contempt for the law may be justified if the law is “morally repugnant”. What is and isn’t morally acceptable and to what degree will vary from person to person. If this is the guidepost then what level of tolerance should we have for those who disobey the law but hold true to their own moral code?

This is a message I sent to a radio show host who was talking about the subject this morning, I think it illustrates my point.

“I listened to your show this morning 2/26/14, you were discussing the Arizona religious freedom law. I have argued this point before related to this subject, keep in mind that I consider myself a sane Conservative and that our only hope of moving into the American future is by properly reconnecting with the Constitution. The Constitution being the counter balance to the nature of man as it relates to one mans power over another man (government).

I believe that you have argued that the retailer has the right to refuse service to any person that is determined to be at odds with the religious beliefs of that retailer. In this case specifically a gay individual.

First I think that we both can agree that each individual has the right under our Constitution to religious freedom, freedom of speech and freedom of association, as individuals under our Constitution. At the point that the entrepreneur decides to rent or build a store front and offer his services or wares to the public the entrepreneur has freely decided to change this paradigm. The now business owner, by their own choice has chosen to do business with the general public and in addition by extension is now an agent of the city and state by being required to collect sales taxes. The city being the city and the state being the state can not promote discrimination. Do you agree with me so far?

First the two party’s are equal and then one of the party’s decides to become more equal and have the power to decide who they will and who they will not choose to do business with in regards to their open to the general public business. A customer is a customer. Where does this all end?

I have to believe that you agree that to this point there is a fundamental logic problem with the proposed Arizona law. What the individual solutions might be for individuals conducting public business and not wanting to do business with certain individuals that are not to there personal liking I am not sure, but laws like the proposed Arizona law are not appropriate and only serve to distance the public from the party that embraces such thinking. Again, keep in mind that I am a Conservative.”

As far as me characterizing Mr. Obama and Mr Holder as being “Libertarian, Marxist, socialist, black reparations kind of philosophy”, where do I begin?

They interpret law quite literally and subjectively to the consternation of the Congress and 50% of the people.

1. Libertarian- They believe that people should be able to do as they please. Everyone is literally equal not related to their capability but just because they exist. Libertarianism is a general philosophy that when taken literally must end in chaos. Chaos serves Obama and Holder well.

2. Marxist- Who else in history also spoke endlessly about redistribution of wealth? Marx. (That was easy.)

3. Socialist- Obamacare.

4. Black reparations- Obama is consumed with racism, his own. If you understand his history and where he comes from and the history of the black side of his family you will come to understand his powerful motivations. When you combine his Saul Alinski community organizer study’s, the fact that his grand father was tortured by the British. Remember the first thing that he did when “installed” as president? He symbolically returned the bust of Winston Churchill and he disrespected the queen by giving her an Ipod I think it was. These were the symbols of colonialism that wronged his grand father (not that I could blame him). Again Obamacare which is the real world manifestation of the redistribution of wealth as well as the ultimate controller of the people. I can go on.

The point is that Obama is a new kind of American politician and he is really unable to separate himself from being black, he is required to push as hard as he can for these things just based on where he comes from and what he is. He can not be “the” president of all of the people of America first, being the first “black” president he is obligated to to do these things. It would be a Herculian job for the best of us to rise above our own selves, he is not among the best of us. He is a man that finds himself in a position of great power (for two terms) by an anomaly of history, the push back to the abuses of power of the Bush administrations and other perversions. How would you feel given the opportunity and the power to right the wrongs of history? His power is basically locked up and when he leaves office he has to be able to say that he fought the good fight for “his” people.

I just heard that the governor of Arizona vetoed the bill that we are discussing. She made the correct decision.

I agree, people discriminate all the time. And they should be allowed to. If it offends their religious beliefs to sell goods to, or employ, or even look at homosexuals, why should they be forced to do so? And if it offends their religious beliefs to sell goods to, or employ, or even look at somebody of another race or another religion, why should they be forced to do so? Let the market sort that out. Them people can take their business elsewhere.

Everyone “discriminates” on a daily basis. It touches all aspects of life including where we live, where we work, where/if we worship, what we watch for entertainment, who our friends are and so on. Having free will and the ability to act on it is a fundamental civil right and “discrimination” is perfectly legal in the vast majority of social interactions. The Arizona law is a manifestation the government attempting to find the balance on where one individual’s civil rights begins and another individual’s civil rights end. Obviously, the line has be drawn somewhere and different communities will choose where the line is drawn. The issue is much more subtle and isn’t nearly as black and white (or “good” and “bad”) as you attempt to paint it.

Also, your attempt to paint Obama and Holder agenda as “Libertarian, Marxist, socialist, black reparations kind of philosophy” is a non-sequitur. Please elaborate.

Obama and Eric Holder are intent on pushing presidential power and the ability of the Congress to counter balance that power to the max, get use to it. Their agenda is a kind of Libertarian, Marxist, socialist, black reparations kind of philosophy.

There really are consequences to elections and these is them. Now let the Republican party competently represent a different alternative for the American people. Looking at the Arizona Republicans and their attempt to basically legalize discrimination based on religious rights, I do not see that happening. Very bad PR.

Obamacare is something, that’s like choosing the devil that you know. You have still chosen the devil.

Sometimes doing nothing is the solution, nothing also being an action. An intelligent man may be smart but being smart does not indicate wisdom.The Founders were smart and they had wisdom and they fully understood the nature of man related to power and what was needed to counter act that nature.