Category Archives: Courts
John R. Houk
© October 30, 2013
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. (Amendment IV – U.S. Constitution)
I have been a huge supporter of the Patriot Act (Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act of 2001) due to the reason that this law came into existence; viz. an Islamic terrorist attack on September 11, 2001 (911) on American soil that resulted in the deaths of about 5,000 people. To the extent that the Patriot Act is a tool to examine foreign activity that results in the nefarious acts of terrorism or is a supply line monetarily to foreign terrorism is something I still support. The key is the term “foreign.”
Since 911 the Islamic terrorist paradigm has an adaptive agenda to circumvent the nature of “foreign” as related to the American Homeland. Foreign Radical Islamic global Caliphate-minded Muslims have been working for years to plant their theopolitical ideology as a homegrown paradigm. The more homegrown a Radical Islamic organization or Mosque the less the claim of ties to foreign terrorism. Currently most Islamic organizations in the USA can be traced to a foreign Saudi or Muslim Brotherhood hand in a large degree. There are actually lesser known Radical Islamic organizations associated with foreign Islamic terrorism that are not Saudi or Muslim Brotherhood; however it is less likely that those organization will separate from their parent foreign Radical Islamic connection. Inevitably the Radical Islamic homegrown planted organizations will attain a self-sufficient operation independent of foreign ties. When that happens use of the Patriot Act laws would legally be ineffective to monitor domestic criminality and will be subject to the traditional ingrained Constitutional framework of the Fourth Amendment that protects Americans from unwarranted searches of private property including snail-mail, email, telephone, Internet and so on. A Radical Muslim network divorced from their foreign founders will essentially operate mafia-style to Islamize America using the U.S. Constitution to terminate Constitutional Law in favor of Sharia Law.
I am certain the Patriot Act has been abused by stretching the reach of its mandate in protecting Americans from foreign terrorism. The Patriot Act must be updated to better accommodate the Fourth Amendment especially on a domestic level. For one thing the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) needs more precise language so that relating information, broad undefined information or just plain no defined information cannot be used to acquire a FISA Court Search Warrant. The lack of specificity in legal language has made the marriage of the Patriot Act and the FISA Courts a Law Enforcement and Intelligence Agencies, a paradigm of an abuse-of-power waiting to happen. Such abuse is in direct violation of the Fourth Amendment. If Congress fails to add specificity in the Patriot Act and the Courts based on FISA, then those tools need to be scraped OR just plain be ruled unconstitutional due to the Fourth Amendment.
The ability of the devotees of Radical Islam to use the Constitution to undermine the Constitution is a reason for some kind of Surveillance Act on a foreign and domestic level to exist. In the past I have favored Security to trump Civil Rights directly in the aftermath of 911; however it has become evident the truism of ‘power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely’ has swayed me back to emphasize Civil Rights. Again, I am still a supporter of the Patriot Act, BUT not as it is codified today. There must be a balance in the use of security and Civil Rights with any erring to come down on the side of constitutionally mandated Civil Rights. Check out Judge Andrew Napolitano:
Here is an excerpt from the article by Judge Napolitano in which the above video was located:
The case or controversy requirement demands that there be real adversity between two or more distinct entities each of which has a stake in the outcome of a dispute before a federal court can exercise any jurisdiction. Federal courts can only resolve disputes; they cannot rule with finality in the abstract or when approached by only one party. They can grant preliminary temporary relief to one party — in order to freeze the status quo and in anticipation of an adversarial contest on the merits — but they cannot rule when only one party is noticed and shows up.
This is precisely how the FISA court functions, and yet we have no merit-based ruling by the Supreme Court on its constitutionality. …
But this is just what Congress did with FISA. In the FISA court, only the government appears, seeking a generalized search warrant without regard to the facts of any specific case. There is no case or controversy in the constitutional sense as there is no adversariness: No plaintiff is suing a defendant, and no defendant is being prosecuted by the government. Absent adversariness, the federal courts have no jurisdiction to do anything.
This flawed system is complicated even further by the fact that should the FISA court deny an application for a general warrant because it believes the government’s procedures to be illegal or unconstitutional, those court orders are non-binding and the government has ignored them. Unenforceable rulings that may be disregarded by another branch of the government are not judicial decisions at all, but impermissible advisory opinions prohibited by the Framers.
When a FISA court judge rules that the NSA has the constitutional power to spy on Americans about whom it has no evidence of wrongdoing, as one judge did two weeks ago, because that ruling did not emanate out of a case or controversy — no one was in court to dispute it — the court is without authority to hear the matter, and thus the ruling is meaningless.
By altering the constitutionally mandated requirement of the existence of a case or controversy before the jurisdiction of the federal courts may be invoked, Congress has lessened the protection of the right to be left alone that the Framers intentionally sought to enshrine. But don’t expect the government to wake up to this threat to our freedom. Its consistent behavior has demonstrated that it doesn’t care whether it violates the Constitution. Instead, expect the president’s secret agents and the politicians who support them to hide their wrongdoing behind more layers of secrecy. (Is the FISA Court constitutional? By Judge Andrew P. Napolitano; FoxNews.com; 9/26/13)
Marxist principles as espoused by Russia’s Lenin and Stalin and China’s Mao Zedong (or Mao Tse Tung) is a Communism that overthrows the government by means of a transforming ideological revolution. Early American Communists were enamored by Lenin’s revolution that overthrew Czarist Russia that transformed Russia into the illusory delusion of a utopia. The reality is Russia was transformed from an elitist oligarchy of nobles in which huge amounts of citizens were regarded in low estate into a Leninist-Communist oligarchy of top-down transformist police state. In Russia’s case the removal of a royal oligarchic autocracy to a Communist dictatorship did not produce individual Civil Rights. Conformity was the centrality of Russian culture under the Czars and the new Communist government. That Russian Revolution which affected American Constitutional government was the desire of Russian/Soviet Marxists to export their transformational revolution to the entire world. In America’s case too many closet Communists became a part of positions of influence in both government and culture.
Senator Joseph McCarthy in the beginnings of the Cold War went from a hero exposing Communists and/or Soviet-Communist sympathizers in these places of influence to being painted as a nut-job witch-hunter that ruined lives more than protecting the government and Americans from Marxist transformationism. History has shown that Joe McCarthy was closer to being correct than being a witch hunter that destroyed innocent lives. Bipartisan powerful politicians and Executive Branch Establishment-minded leadership began to fear the stigma of hiring Communist sympathizing functionaries. A Left oriented Mainstream Media sympathetic to a Socialist paradigm also began assaulting McCarthy. A better a truism might drove McCarthy to alcoholism thus ruining a patriot’s life.
There are bad people who desire to destroy America and our way of life initiated in the great experiment of a Constitutional Republic initiated by our Founding Fathers. The primary assault on America in the 20th and 21st centuries has been interpretations of Marxism and Caliphate-minded Muslims. We as Americans need to get behind some kind of balance between National Security and Constitutional protections we call our Civil Rights. Since 911 the government has evolved from a protective nature to ignoring the Rights ingrained in the U.S. Constitution. I believe government abuse caused by a misplaced enthusiasm to hunt down Islamic Terrorists (I guess our fearless leader would call them Enemy Combatants). That government abuse has filtered into policing domestic criminals such as thieves, bank robbers, various levels illicit drug distribution, murderers and so on.
Domestic policing ALSO has led to ignoring the Constitution’s Fourth Amendment pertaining warranting search, seizure and attacking personal property. Yesterday I managed to get to an old email from the Rutherford Institute written by John W. Whitehead. The email begins by relating true incidents in which police have erroneously invaded homes of innocent citizens which resulted in deaths. I am not talking about police officer deaths. I am talking about police officers shooting to death citizens who believed their home was being invaded by criminals.
And this is how I am going to end my thoughts on the Fourth Amendment. Read Whitehead’s article and be prepared to be outraged by the abuse of power.
John R. Houk
© October 12, 2013
There has been an open war by Leftists and atheists on Christianity for some time in the USA. Thanks to Madalyn Murray O’Hair (focus on Communist Connection), the Supreme Court reinterpreted the Establishment (or is it Disestablishment [Full PDF of link]) Clause of the First Amendment to go beyond preventing the government from establishing a State Church but to include that anything representative of taxpayer money must exclude Christianity. The annual Christmas period of the year is when this war on Christianity seems to rear up on a national basis in the media. Hence the war on Christianity becomes the war on Christmas.
Too many Corporations (AFA 2012 Naughty or Nice List) operate stores that have fallen prey to the concept that it is politically incorrect to promote Christmas because it promotes Christianity. AND any promotion of Christianity might be offensive to a minority of people in the USA that would prefer to distant themselves from any open association with Christianity; e.g. atheists, Muslims, Jews and perhaps other identifiable anti/non-Christian entities. This PC marketing is idiotic and an insult to the majority of Americans that relish the Christmas season as a time of giving, compassion and just a downright period of joy. I mean Americans who are not particularly religiously observant of the Christian faith still make this a time of family get together and enjoy an interruption from the daily tasks of the old J-O-B.
Corporations do have a Constitutional right to utilize whatever marketing strategy they deem fit; however as a Christian I find it nauseating when Christianity is the focus of diminishment to accommodate some foolish PC concept of multicultural diversity. Even more nauseating though is when Leftists and atheists impose their sanitized and/or ungodly beliefs on those that embrace Christianity via the taxpayer support Public venues. The imposition is exacted by using “Living Constitution” (Constitutionalist Criticism) parameters rather than “Original Intent” (In support of Original Intent – Neutral Explanation) parameters in the Constitution to make sure the bedrock of America’s morality is not supported whatsoever. The result of this legal ploy of redefining the meaning of the Constitution has successfully turned America into which families are divided, single parent families are as common as heterosexual families, homosexuals are allowed to raise children further warping the societal fabric and a host of other deviations I am certain you can think of that escape my memory as of this writing.
The result of this moral dilution in America’s family unit has led to a society in which public dishonesty overrules the decency of honesty, children need protected on their routes to and from school, armed guards are becoming common place on Public School grounds, children bring weapons to harm others singularly or on a multiple basis, children are told they cannot play traditional play acting any longer (such as cops and robbers, cowboys and Indians, etc.) because imaginary weapons may inspire real weapons, childhood aggression is increasingly common (such as bullying – physical or cyber), underage children – most often teenagers – are increasingly enabled on a parental level to participate in rabble-rousing partying that includes drinking, sex, property destruction, drugs, teen pregnancy and MORE.
These societal behaviors are a direct result of the Leftist and atheistic assault to prevent Christianity from being an integral part of American Culture in the name of Multicultural Diversity.
The first anti-Christmas story I heard this was a Public School imposing restrictions on an annual High School Christmas Carol Concert due to concerns of a phrase that is found NO WHERE in the Constitution called Separation of Church and State. Here is a good synopsis of how this anti-Christmas story developed:
The state of Wisconsin once again sits center stage in the War on Christmas. The Wausau School District has issued an edict about Christmas music that has caused several school associated music groups to either disband or cancel December performances.
Phil Buch, who has directed Wausau West High School’s choral programs since 1981, said the decision to halt rehearsals for the Master Singers was made after a meeting Thursday with district officials and Frank Sutherland, an attorney who represents the school district.
Buch said district administrators gave music educators at Wausau schools three options for December concerts, which typically contain a significant amount of religious music: choose five secular, or non-religious, songs for each religious song performed; hold a concert and have no holiday music whatsoever; or postpone any concerts in December. Because the 20-member Master Singers group is invited to sing at nearly a dozen holiday concerts each year, Buch said, those options were unacceptable.
“This group sings at Christmas programs,” Buch said. “We sing for nursing homes, grade schools, businesses. To do that without Christmas music doesn’t make sense.”
District administrators did not return calls Friday seeking information about the rules, but Wausau School Board President Michelle Schaefer said the change in direction stems from legal concerns over the amount of religious music performed in the schools. The decision will not eliminate religious music altogether but will give teachers a better idea as to how much religious music is “too much,” Schaefer said.
“From a School Board perspective, we look for music that is balanced,” Schaefer said. “Yes, we are a predominantly Christian society, but we are also a society of many faiths, and we want to respect that.”
I actually first heard this story on Fox News but the below story is an excellent synopsis. This first shot over the bow against Christmas has an early victorious ending. Evidently once this story went viral the School Board relented on this attack on the Christian faith. Here is a story I found about this victory in Jesus.
Wisconsin Christmas Music Battle Goes Viral; Students Claim Victory
By Kallsign Snoopy
October 11, 2013
We reported the story last Sunday — the media ran with it Tuesday. By Wednesday Freedom From Religion Foundation got in on the act. It appears to be the first big national story in the War on Christmas 2013.
In an update after a late Thursday meeting with the school district students and parents are claiming victory and that the Christmas concerts are now back on — with traditional Christmas music put back in place.
Here’s the issue: without warning the choir director at West High School in Wausau, Wisconsin was called to discuss plans for the upcoming music events to be held in December. It was reported early on that Wausau schools three options for December concerts, which typically contain a significant amount of religious music: choose five secular, or non-religious, songs for each religious song performed; hold a concert and have no holiday music whatsoever; or postpone any concerts in December. The choir director was outraged and in response he opted not only to cancel concerts — he disbanded the music groups who would traditionally perform.
The school district claims it is merely making sure they don’t violate the establishment clause of the U.S. Constitution (because educators in Wisconsin have SUCH a great track record with constitutional issues). They also say now they never came up with the plan to perform a certain amount of secular songs for every religious song performed. They claim that was a “misunderstanding”.
Needless to say, as with many battles we’ve seen before about Christmas in public schools, this one too will end with someone being very unhappy.
Freedom from Religion Foundation president Annie Laurie Gaylor claims no responsibility in this latest fight but was quick to pitch in with FFRF’s support of the school district:
“There can be a fine line, and we understand in some instances there can be sacred classical music in the schools, but it’s so easy for something like this to turn into a message of indoctrination. When you have a chorus going out to 15 places to sing religious music, it really does give the appearance that the school is celebrating Christianity.”
Yes, Christianity as gained so many converts over the decades by going to nursing homes to sing “Silent Night”.
The tip off of a problem was that the school choir director met with school district officials with an attorney present. In other words, they were ready for a fight.
According to a story on The Blaze tonight, the choir director at West High is known for his religious nature.
All this intense attention to the issue appears to have been resolved as of late Thursday. The Wausau School District has backed off on the requirements and have left the decision of local program content to school principals.
The crux of the issue comes down to this: when a school group performs Christmas music with religious themes does it in fact constitute promotion of that religion? The “establishment clause” prohibits the “establishment”…does a school group singing actually do that?
Oh, and by the way, where exactly in the Constitution is the establishment clause?
Another silly chapter in the War on Christmas.
(I am glad that this all got cleared up but I really wish people would get it through their heads that there is no such thing as an “establishment” clause. There is a “Government shall make no law” clause. And it only applies to the Congress. Leave my Christmas alone! If you don’t like it, don’t celebrate it. Just don’t ruin it for everyone else!
The Season is Emerging to Battle Against Christianity
John R. Houk
© October 12, 2013
Wisconsin Christmas Music Battle Goes Viral; Students Claim Victory
Retired warrior, Full time pilot, Part time political blogger. Always a Patriot. Amateur Radio Operator - MORE
Intro to ‘Stand and Oppose Obamacare’
Intro by John R. Houk
Justin Smith writes an excellent essay on repealing or actually defunding Obamacare. I truly approve of Smith’s activist call for the States to use Article V of the U.S. Constitution to take the issue out of the hands of the President, Congress and the Supreme Court. Congress does seem to buckle more often than to withstand Obama’s Executive despotism. SCOTUS’s 5-4 decision making Obamacare Constitutional if the funding is declared a tax rather than using the Commerce Clause to ram the beginnings of Socialistic healthcare down the throats of Americans.
Chief Justice Roberts tried to make a compromise by ruling that reference to the Commerce Clause was unconstitutional; however compelling people to pay for Obamacare insurance is valid as a tax:
However, according to the majority decision by John Roberts, the Supreme Court’s conservative chief justice, the mandate cannot be justified on commerce-clause grounds. Indeed, Mr. Roberts wholly affirms the argument that the commerce clause cannot regulate economic inactivity. From the syllabus of the decision:
Construing the Commerce Clause to permit Congress to regulate individuals precisely because they are doing nothing would open a new and potentially vast domain to congressional authority. Congress already possesses expansive power to regulate what people do. Upholding the Affordable Care Act under the Commerce Clause would give Congress the same license to regulate what people do not do. The Framers knew the difference between doing something and doing nothing. They gave Congress the power to regulate commerce, not to compel it. Ignoring that distinction would undermine the principle that the Federal Government is a government of limited and enumerated powers. The individual mandate thus cannot be sustained under Congress’s power to “regulate Commerce.” (John Roberts’s art of war; By W.W.; The Economist; 6/28/12 21:01)
So mysteriously SCOTUS transferred Individual Mandated funding from regulating Commerce to Taxation.
Commerce Clause: Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3 of the U.S. Constitution:
The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
To borrow money on the credit of the United States;
To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes;
To establish a … (Bold Emphasis Mine)
So here is the appearance the Dem controlled Executive Branch and SCOTUS colluded to circumvent the U.S. Constitution. By a two to one act of despotism the Constitution became irrelevant. However there is still a remedy in the Constitution to overcome two-branch despotism. That remedy is 2/3 of the fifty several states unite to have a Constitutional Convention to propose Amendments that must a 3/4 several state ratification to overcome the political despotism of the Dem Party controlled Executive Branch and SCOTUS subverting the Constitution.
The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress; provided that no amendment which may be made prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any manner affect the first and fourth clauses in the ninth section of the first article; and that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate. (Bold Emphasis Mine - The Constitution of the United States: Article V; National Archives – Federal Register)
The Constitution has never been amended by the initiation of “the several states”. An Amendment Constitutional Convention might be the last legal vestige to overcome political intransience of a polarized Executive Branch and Congress. AND a divided SCOTUS could not overrule any Amendment designed by a Constitutional Convention convened by “the several states”.
Justin Smith’s essay should inspire you to participate in an activism on the grassroots level to overcome Federal despotism.
Stand and Oppose Obamacare
By Justin O. Smith
September 19, 2013 11:58 am
In 2010, the Democratic controlled House passed the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, 219 to 212, even though there had not been any great advocacy from the public on this issue. To the contrary, most Americans saw only a need in some health care sectors for slight reforms, and most Americans know now, just as they did then, that this misnamed legislation (“affordable”) will make matters worse for all America, rather than better; the Affordable Care Act is recognized by the majority of Americans as an egalitarian system based on Marxist principles, redistribution of the wealth, and the scarcity that accompanies such a system, as opposed to conservative free-market capitalist principles, tried and true, that have always yielded a great benefit to all; the PPACA is the worse piece of unConstitutional legislation in U.S. history, and Democrats and Republicans alike must recognize the negative impact of implementing the PPACA, and they must immediately defund it this month, as they also set in motion the repeal of the PPACA!
The PPACA/Obamacare has begun underfunded, and the system is ripe for corruption, bribery and abuses that will cost all Americans a great deal more than they are currently paying for health care. Whether one supports Obamacare or not, our tax-dollars, as prescribed by the PPACA, are now funding advertisements that excitedly explain just how wonderful Obamacare will be; those same collective tax-dollars will fund abortions and violate the conscience, religious beliefs and First Amendment rights of U.S. citizens who stand in opposition to abortion. And eventually, Obamacare’s poorly organized funding and implementation will force us all into a single-payer system, which will become the principle instrument of social control of the Progressive Democrats or any other unethical and immoral future administrations.
The flaws in Obamacare will become more apparent, and Americans will find themselves standing in long health care queues and provided medical services of dubious quality, because the more proficient medical professionals are already leaving medicine or planning to serve outside of Obamacare, until this is made illegal. Americans will necessarily need to join private medical groups comprised of citizens, who pool their resources in order to ensure the care of their members, which also leaves their freedom of choices and their privacy rights in place, because Obamacare has already shown itself to be a pipe-dream that will significantly increase the cost of a rationed health care system, kill jobs and the economy and still leave 30 million Americans un-insured!
“There are very few issues that are as personal and as tangible as health care, and implementation of the law over the next year is going to reveal a lot of kinks, a lot of red-tape, a lot of taxes, a lot of price increases and a lot of people forced into health care that they didn’t anticipate,” Brad Dayspring (Republican Senatorial Campaign Committee) recently stated.
Due to all the aforementioned, Obamacare is going to be an issue of critical importance in both the 2014 and 2016 elections, and it is beyond damned disgusting to watch Progressive “Republicans in name only”, such as Senator Bob Corker, Senator Lamar Alexander and Speaker John Boehner, pretend that they cannot stop Obamacare. Corker, in his slow drawl, laments, “Well, it’s the law now,” as if Congress has never before rescinded a U.S federal law. Boehner, feckless and pretentious, presides over one vote after another to repeal Obamacare, when he has known all along that the House can remove the government mechanisms that implement Obamacare from the appropriations part of the continuing resolution and essentially kill Obamacare. And, while Alexander says he has voted 23 times to repeal Obamacare, he voted extra funds for Obamacare during a shortfall of funds for the state exchanges.
These Progressive RINOs are no more anxious for the repeal of Obamacare than the Progressive Democrats, due to the power and wealth they look to gain in association with this Obamacare behemoth; these people are also representative of the status quo Republicans, who simply content themselves to work within the framework of any defeat the Progressive Democrats hand them, as they genuflect, lift their petticoats and await whatever favor Obama grants them!
The stage was set for this when the Progressive majority rammed Obamacare into law, and the U.S. Supreme Court did the bidding of the most extreme and radical U.S. President in history and found Obamacare “constitutional” in a fit of judicial activism aimed against our U.S. Constitution and against the will of the people. Americans witnessed firsthand tyranny, as described by James Madison in ‘Federalist Paper #47′:
“The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive and judiciary, in the same hands, whether of one, a few, or many, and whether hereditary, self-appointed, or elective, may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny.”
Just imagine if past leaders had adopted the attitude of today’s Progressives concerning the Dredd Scott v. Sanford case (1857), and they never fought to abolish slavery, or they never passed the 13th and 14th Amendments to the U.S. Constitution. One must take a strong stand in opposition to any bad law of the magnitude of the Dredd Scott Decision or Obamacare, either one.
It is our responsibility and duty to defend the U.S. Constitution and our individual liberty in order that our children will live more free than now and, at the very least, as free as America’s Founders. This demands that we fight to our last dying breath to defund and repeal Obamacare. Those of you, so enamored with “Obama bucks”, Obamacare’s “free health care” give-away programs and “hope and change,” that you willingly give up your freedom to the State in exchange for the promise of “equality for all” in poverty, have wrapped yourselves in the cold embrace of the Statists’ chains. As for the remainder … the True American Patriots… demand that Congress remove Obamacare from the appropriations part of the continuing resolution before September 30, regardless of the imagined or real pitfalls that they envision; it’s better to lose a battle standing on one’s feet as a Free Man than to lose it on one’s knees…a coward!
If Congress fails America in this one simple task due to any fear that guides it, everyone should organize, in some form or fashion, and contact all their state legislators in every single state, blue and red alike, to start the process of involving each of their respective states in a States’ Convention for the purpose of proposing Amendments to the U.S. Constitution, that repeal Obamacare and halt several other aspects of government overreach in the manner described in Article V of the U.S. Constitution: “The Congress… on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which… shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States…”. This process trumps the President, Congress and the U.S. Supreme Court!
By Justin O. Smith
© Justin O. Smith
Intro and Edited by John R. Houk
Should Biblically-minded Christians just lighten up and go about their merry way by looking the other way relating to Homosexual Activism and Left Wing Secular Humanism? I mean this is the modern world and the Living Constitution advocates state culture is ever evolving; thus Christian Morality and Christian cultural morays are outdated in this new age of tolerance and diversity, right?
Even if it is the minority stand, I say that is a bunch of Leftist green-bull-pie propaganda attempting to denigrate Jesus Christ the Son of God and Savior of humankind.
Below is Dr. Gary L. Cass showing that Christians do not have to be in submission to moral depravity as defined by the Word of God.
Seriously, just lighten up…
By Dr. Gary L. Cass
September 5, 2013
I recently had a conversation with a church-going friend who was helping me with a home remodeling project. He mentioned that we needed to go to Home Depot in order to get some supplies. I replied that I didn’t frequent Home Depot because I didn’t like their politics. He asked what I meant, to which I responded that they promote the homosexual agenda to children. My church-going friend looked at me and said “You need to lighten up.”
Is this true? Should Christians be indifferent to the homosexual agenda? Or are homosexual activists a real threat to our faith, liberties and our children?
With the newest Supreme Court decision denying hearings on California’s Proposition 8, the amendment that defined marriage as between one man and one woman, religious liberties are under attack in the state. As predicted, homosexual activists are seeking to legitimize their sinful behavior by forcing Christian businesses to participate in their faux marriages.
Recently Defend Christians was contacted by a Christian businessman who was approached by a homosexual “couple” wanting to use the Christian’s privately owned facilities to conduct a wedding. His property has multiple uses, one of which includes a wedding venue. This wedding business brings in around $400,000 a year.
After referring this businessman to a Christian attorney, the businessman decided to close the wedding business down. The respected attorney informed the businessman that he had two choices: accommodate homosexuals or get sued for discrimination and then be forced to accommodate homosexuals AND pay damages. The only other option was to get out of the wedding business altogether. So, rather than participate in homosexual marriages, this Christian decided to close down his lucrative business in order to protect his conscience.
In Oregon, a bakery owned by a Christian couple recently shut its doors after it was threatened with a lawsuit for refusing to make a wedding cake for a lesbian couple. Melissa and Aaron Klein, owners of “Sweet Cakes” bakery in Gresham, Oregon were the victims of an economic war when homosexual activists harassed and badgered their business for months. The business also came under investigation by Oregon state officials for violating the Equality Act of 2007 which states that people cannot be denied services due to their sexual orientation.
Below is a list of similar attacks on Christian businesses and even churches who have been forced to either compromise or to stop offering any kind of wedding services. Some have even been fined for not participating in illicit homosexual marriage.
o Vermont 2005: The Christian owners of the Wildflower Inn were sued for refusing to host a homosexual wedding. In a settlement, owners ended up paying the homosexual couple $30,000 and agreeing to no longer host any weddings at their inn.
o New Mexico 2006: Elane Photography declined to photograph a homosexual civil union ceremony. The company was sued under the state’s anti-discrimination laws. A judge held the company in violation. The New Mexico Supreme Court upheld this ruling last month.
o Hawaii 2012: A same-sex couple from California sued a Hawaiian bed and breakfast privately owned by a Christian woman for not allowing them to rent a room. A recent ruling held that the bed and breakfast violated the state public accommodations law and was ordered to stop discriminating against same-sex couples.
o Illinois 2011: Another bed and breakfast in Alton, privately owned by a Christian couple, was sued when they would not host a same-sex civil union ceremony.
o Kentucky 2012: A T-shirt company, Hands On Originals, was approached by the Gay and Lesbian Services Organization about printing shirts for the group. When they politely declined, referring the organization to another t-shirt company instead, they were promptly sued by the group under Lexington’s anti-discriminatory laws.
o New Jersey 2008: A Methodist church was sued for not offering its facility for use during same-sex weddings. A judge ruled against the church.
o Massachusetts, Washington, D.C. and Illinois 2011: Catholic Charities was prohibited from assisting in adoptions and excluded from future state contracts because it declined to consider same-sex couples.
o Washington 2013: A lawsuit was brought against a florist by the state for refusing to provide flowers for a same-sex marriage. The florist, Barronelle Stutzman, simply said “I could not do it because of my relationship with Jesus Christ.”
So, was my church-going friend right? Do Christians just need to lighten up?
I believe that this is a true threat that Christians must be serious about. Are you prepared to answer when someone asks you why are a “bigot” or “unloving”?
Click here to read my commentary “Twisted Scripture: Overcoming the Lies of Homosexuality.”
Copyright © 2010 Christian Anti-Defamation Commission.
Christian Anti-Defamation Commission | PO Box 1115 | Vista | CA | 92085
The Christian Anti-Defamation Commission (CADC) is a not-for-profit 501(c) (3) Education Corporation whose purpose it is to become the first-in-mind champion of Christian religious liberty, domestically and internationally, and a national clearing house and first line of response to anti-Christian defamation, bigotry, and discrimination. More
The idea of the Christian Anti-defamation Commission (CADC) is not new. It has been publicly discussed since at least 1996, and perhaps as early as the 1980s. In October of 1999, General William Hollis, J.D., Ph.D., incorporated the Christian Anti-Defamation Commission. More
I live in Oklahoma. Under former Governor Brad Henry (D) a bipartisan effort was successful to reform the State Law pertaining to frivolous. A State Judge has recently ruled that law unconstitutional. Governor Mary Fallin (R) vehemently disagreed with the State Court’s ruling. She is taking steps to rectify Oklahoma Court reversal by calling State legislators to address the State Court’s ruling by addressing each ruling individually thus reinstating Civil Suit reform.
Lawsuit Reform must be Addressed Now
By Governor Mary Fallin
Sent: 9/5/2013 1:23 PM
Beginning this week, I have asked legislators to return to the state Capitol to address an issue of great importance to the state, our medical community and our prospects for economic growth and job creation. That issue is lawsuit reform.
My goal during this special session is to work with lawmakers, as quickly and efficiently as possible, to restore the protections against frivolous lawsuits that have served small businesses and doctors well for the past four years.
To understand the urgency of the situation and the need for immediate action, it is important to remember the recent history of this issue.
Before 2009, Oklahoma faced a legal climate hostile to businesses and ripe with frivolous lawsuits. These lawsuits were particularly damaging to doctors and medical professionals, who were frequent targets of medical malpractice claims.
The results were predictable. Businesses were afraid to invest in a state where they were likely to spend vast sums to protect themselves in court. Oklahoma lost good doctors to neighboring states with stronger legal protections. Lawsuits also helped to drive up the cost of medical treatment, hurting Oklahoma families.
To fix this problem, Democratic Gov. Brad Henry worked with Republicans and Democrats in the Legislature to pass comprehensive lawsuit reform. The law they passed made it easier for judges to dismiss lawsuits without merit and made a variety of reforms meant to deliver a fairer system. It allowed those with legitimate grievances to seek compensation through the courts, without encouraging frivolous claims or unfairly punishing businesses and doctors.
The reforms worked. In the two years after enacting the new laws, the number of malpractice payments declined by 39 percent, reaching an all-time low.
As a result, small business owners and doctors saw greater stability and fairness in our legal system, giving them more confidence to invest and stay in Oklahoma. These reforms were part of a winning formula that has given us one of the lowest unemployment rates in the nation.
Unfortunately, these laws are now under attack. Earlier this year, the Oklahoma Supreme Court ruled the reform package unconstitutional, citing the “single subject” rule. Essentially, the court said each provision of the law needs to be passed in a separate bill rather than one large all-encompassing measure.
I disagree with that ruling, but at this time, the best thing to do is follow the court’s lead. To do that, our Legislature must reinstate Oklahoma’s lawsuit reform measures by passing a series of smaller, “single subject” bills that address the court’s concerns.
Some have suggested that we simply wait until next year to address this issue. If we do that, the likelihood is that lawsuit reform will not be reinstated until August of 2014, perhaps even November. While we wait, Oklahoma will move backward. Inaction means opening our doctors and businesses to lawsuits that could drive jobs out of state or drive up the cost of medical care.
I will not watch Oklahoma regress or stand by while we lose jobs. Lawsuit reform is too important for our economy, our small businesses and our medical community to wait until next year.
The time to act is now.
(This opinion editorial was authored by Governor Mary Fallin and appeared in the September 4, 2013 edition of the Tulsa World.)
Paid for by Fallin for Governor 2014
John R. Houk
© August 22, 2013
Federal Court Judge suspended Oklahoma’s SQ755 which was approved overwhelmingly to prevent Sharia Law from being recognized as any kind of law of the land in the State. U.S. District Court Judge Vicki Miles-LaGrange officially ruled SQ755 unconstitutional (This source link is a tongue-in-cheek article about separation of Mosque and State) on August 15, 2013.
Because organization like the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) have pretended (You can read about CAIR skullduggery at the watchdog website Anti-CAIR) to be a moderate Muslim organization and vehemently have protested that Islam’s First Amendment Rights of Religious Liberty was being singled out by a government legislature. Indeed an understanding as presented by a CAIR-like organization would be correct since the First Amendment specifies that Congress shall make no law establishing or curbing the actions of a religion.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances. (Bold Emphasis Mine – 1st Amendment)
Unfortunately for CAIR-like organizations the Oklahoma Congress thought ahead of the Judge’s ruling and joined a growing number States using the template of American Laws for American Courts (ALAC). ALAC goes around the religious standard that Radical Muslim groups in the USA have been decrying by focusing on one principle; i.e. the State Congresses or legislatures have centered their law that foreign laws may not be used as a precedent in American Courts. Guess what Sharia Law is? Sharia and the U.S. Constitution are not compatible in execution hence the foreign nature of Sharia as used in Muslim nations CANNOT be used as a legal precedent in State Courts. And keep in mind some State Courts have ruled according to the stipulations of Islamic Sharia when it comes to civil matters and marriage. That will not happen in Oklahoma where I reside.
Oklahoma has passed their version of an ALAC that a huge majority in both Houses of the State legislature approved of and then promptly signed by Oklahoma Governor Mary Fallin.
The bill signed into law by Governor Fallin passed the House of Representatives by an 85-7 margin and in the Senate by a 40-3 margin. (American Law for American Courts Enacted in Oklahoma Moves Ahead in Florida; By Jerry Gordon; WatchDogWire.com; 4/20/13 – Read the Whole Article)
From an article by Rebekah Maxwell (link above) Sharia is messed up when compared to American Law:
In her book, Cruel and Unusual Punishment, former Muslim Nonie Darwish outlines the incongruities of Sharia law and American law, including:
1. Death penalties for anyone leaving Islam
2. Death penalties for adultery
3. Death penalties for homosexuality
4. Special taxes imposed on non-Muslims
5. Institutionalized inequality; Muslims are respected over non-Muslims, as are men over women, the wealthy over the working class.
6. Allowance for slavery
7. Allowance for polygamy
8. No minimum age for marriage
9. Harsh penalties, like flogging, dismemberment, and beheading, for speaking against Islam and specifically Mohammed.
And just for the ladies,
1. Your testimony is only worth half that of a man’s
2. It’s not rape without four male witnesses. Otherwise it’s adultery. See #2 above.
3. High burdens of proof for divorce (while husbands merely have to speak a phrase)
4. Forced marriages
5. No protection against domestic violence
6. Losing custody of your children if you remarry
7. Strict clothing/modesty laws…you can be imprisoned for forgoing a veil or showing your ankles
According to the email from American Public Policy Alliance Governor Fallin signed the bill into law on April 22, 2013. So take that Muslim Brotherhood loving and Radical Muslim CAIR and U.S. District Judge Vicki Miles-LaGrange. OK-LA-H-O-M-A is not bowing to foreign laws including Sharia if they contradict the State and Federal Constitution.
Oklahoma: American Laws for American Courts protects constitutional rights against foreign laws
By Stephen Gele
Sent: August 19, 2013 2:28 PM
Sent From: American Public Policy Alliance
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
For more information contact:
Stephen M. Gelé, American Public Policy Alliance
Oklahoma: American Laws for American Courts protects constitutional rights against foreign laws
On Thursday, 15 August, US District Judge Vicki Miles-LaGrange struck down an Oklahoma state constitutional amendment (known as SQ755) that forbade Oklahoma’s courts from considering Islamic law (Shariah) in judicial decisions.
SQ755 had overwhelmingly passed a vote of the people in Oklahoma in November 2010.
This decision was not a surprise and echoed an earlier ruling by the Tenth US Circuit Court of Appeals back in 2010. As detailed in this article, SQ755 contained several flaws which rendered it counterproductive:
Fortunately, there is an effective and constitutional alternative to measures such as SQ755 and Oklahoma joined a host of other states this spring in passing it into law. That law is called American Laws for American Courts (ALAC).
Authored by Representative Sally Kern and Senator Gary Stanislawski of Oklahoma, ALAC passed the Oklahoma House of Representatives 85-7 and the Oklahoma Senate 40-3. The bill was signed into law by Governor Mary Fallin on 22 April, 2013.
Versions of ALAC have now been signed into law in Tennessee, Louisiana, Arizona, Kansas, and Oklahoma. A version of ALAC passed the Alabama legislature overwhelmingly as a constitutional amendment and goes to a vote of the people on the ballot in the next statewide election. A version of ALAC also passed both houses of the Missouri legislature but was vetoed by the governor; an override session is scheduled for September. Most recently, a version of ALAC passed the North Carolina Senate and House by a wide, bi-partisan margin and is awaiting the governor’s signature there.
ALAC remedies the flaws in Oklahoma’s SQ 755, and in many ways takes a diametrically opposite approach to SQ 755:
• ALAC is facially neutral. In an honest debate, it cannot be accused of discriminating against any religion or protected class.
• ALAC is based on a completely different legal premise from SQ 755′s. Rather than seeking a ban on foreign or international law, ALAC seeks to preserve the constitutional rights and state public policy protections of American citizens and legal residents, in cases involving foreign laws in the particular dispute being adjudicated. If a case arises in which a foreign law or foreign legal doctrine is involved in a dispute in a state court, ALAC prevents the use of that foreign law or foreign legal doctrine if any of the parties’ fundamental constitutional rights or state public policy would be violated in the process. This is very different from a blanket ban on foreign laws.
• ALAC is not vague. It provides specific guidance for judges on complex legal issues involving comity, choice of law, choice of forum, conflict of laws and forum non conveniens, protecting fundamental constitutional rights.
Because of the careful planning and thought behind ALAC’s wording, in contrast to SQ 755, from a practical standpoint, it is effective in preventing the enforcement of any foreign law — including in many cases, shariah law — that would violate U.S. and state constitutional liberties or state public policy.
And the need for an effective law preserving constitutional rights against the enforcement of unconstitutional foreign law is both real and urgent: an independent study conducted by the Center for Security Policy found fifty cases in 23 states where shariah law had been introduced into state court cases, including many appellate and trial court cases where the judges ruled for shariah law over U.S. law. Most victims of foreign laws in these cases had come to America for freedom and individual liberty – including American Muslims seeking to escape shariah laws.
Oklahoma Prepared for SQ755 Unconstitutional Judicial Ruling
John R. Houk
© August 22, 2013
Oklahoma: American Laws for American Courts protects constitutional rights against foreign laws
The American Public Policy Alliance (APPA), a non-partisan advocacy organization dedicated to government transparency, government accountability and the constitutionality of U.S. and state laws and policies, is working with legislators nationwide on policies and initiatives. Along with allied organizations, APPA is working to defend free speech, preserve and promote human rights, maintain the strength of our U.S. and state constitutions, and aid and promote public safety.
One of the greatest threats to American values and liberties today comes from foreign laws and foreign legal doctrines which have been influencing our legal system at the municipal, state and federal levels. This phenomenon is known as “transnationalism” and includes the increasingly frequent appearance of Islamic Shariah law. APPA focuses largely on combating this process across a broad variety of issues.
For more information visit http://www.publicpolicyalliance.org
Here is an email from pseudonym Solid Snake that exposes homosexual perfidy usually in NY State; however this time he finds a cross section of American Media writing on moral issues primarily relation to Homosexual Activism. The last article is about a Wheaton College professor that got caught with kiddie porn. In case you didn’t know Wheaton College is a Christian University. Wheaton correctly fired this professor shortly after his arrest.
Military Grants Leave to Marry SSM Couples
Sent by Solid Snake
Sent: August 8, 2013 3:31 PM
They [i.e. Homosexual Activists] are outraging over this. Even the parasite ol’ Joe Jervis [gag] hasn’t shut up about it.
San Bernardino Man Says He Was Fired After Marrying Same-Sex Partner
CBS Los Angeles
July 31, 2013 8:34 PM
GLENDORA (CBSLA.com) — A San Bernardino man says he was fired from his job less than two weeks after he celebrated his marriage to his same-sex partner.
Reporting for CBS2, Andrea Fujii said Ken Bencomo and Christopher Persky were one of the first same-sex couples to get married in San Bernardino. Their announcement and subsequent nuptials were announced in local papers like the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin.
The couple got married days after the Supreme Court overturned Prop 8.
Less than two weeks after saying “I do,” Bencomo says he was terminated from his teaching job at St. Lucy’s Priory High School, an all-girls Catholic school, in Glendora.
Fujii spoke to Bencomo’s attorney by phone.
Patrick McGarrigle, the attorney, said the school … (READ THE REST)
[Editor: Good for St. Lucy’s Catholic School for sticking with Biblical Morality rather than Secular Humanistic Homosexual Activism that will criminalize Christianity.]
Pentagon grants leave to same sex soldiers to marry in other states.
PENTAGON TO PERMIT BENEFITS FOR SAME-SEX SPOUSES
By ROBERT BURNS
AP NATIONAL SECURITY WRITER
Aug 14, 1:26 PM EDT
WASHINGTON (AP) — Same-sex spouses of military members will be eligible for the same health care, housing and other benefits enjoyed by opposite-sex spouses starting Sept. 3, the Pentagon said Wednesday.
The decision follows consultation with the Justice Department and the Supreme Court’s ruling in June on the constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act.
“It is now the department’s policy to treat all married military personnel equally,” Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel said in memo Wednesday to … [READ THE REST]
[Editor; Thanks to the Supreme Court of the United States the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) was made illegal regardless of Christian Morality that describes Homosexuality as an abomination. (See Leviticus 18:22; Leviticus 20:13 and Romans 1:24-27)]
DOMA got tossed out the window on this one. Dutch lesbian given green card to marry “lover”.
Green Card Granted: Victory over DOMA for Becky and Sanne in North Carolina
AUGUST 5, 2013
The DOMA Project
Late Sunday night, DOMA Project co-founder, immigration attorney Lavi Soloway, boarded a red eye flight from Los Angeles to Charlotte, North Carolina, to witness the equal protection guarantee of the U.S. Constitution work its magic for a married binational lesbian couple, Becky and Sanne, and their beautiful daughter, Willow.
Although North Carolina voters passed the infamous anti-gay state constitutional “Amendment 1″ in May 2012 that bars The Tar Heel State from recognizing and performing marriages or civil unions of same-sex couples, Masliah & Soloway clients, Becky and Sanne, who married in the Netherlands, were treated just as any other married couple as they arrived at their green card interview on Monday, August 5th, at 10 a.m. at the USCIS office in Charlotte. The Officer thoroughly reviewed the journey of their relationship which began in India and included time spent in Belgium and the Netherlands as well as Africa. The Officer was satisfied that they had provided sufficient evidence of the bona fides of their marriage and officially re-opened the denied green card application (the Board of Immigration Appeals had already ordered the green card petition to be re-opened) and adjudicated it at … (READ THE REST)
[Editor: The pro-homosexual DOMA Project is probably ecstatic that they validated an abominable same-sex marriage in North Carolina where the voters have stood up for Biblical Morality making Gay marriage illegal to procure or to be recognized. Thanks again to SCOTUS for validating moral depravity.]
John Kerry threw DOMA out the window with this one as well.
John Kerry announces post-DOMA visa policy for same-sex couples
Posted by Justin Snow
August 2, 2013 1:23 PM
Metro Weekly – Polyglot: a queer spin on politics
In a policy change announced Friday by Secretary of State John Kerry, the United States will begin processing visa applications for same-sex couples effective immediately.
“If you are the spouse of a U.S. citizen, your visa application will be treated equally. If you are the spouse of a non-citizen, your visa application will be treated equally. And if you are in a country that doesn’t recognize your same-sex marriage, then your visa application will still be treated equally at every single one of our 222 visa processing centers around the world,” Kerry said during an appearance at the U.S. embassy in London.
The announcement is the latest repercussion following the Supreme Court’s June decision striking down Section 3 of the federal Defense of Marriage Act, defining marriage as between a man and a woman.
“Now, as long as a marriage has been performed in a jurisdiction that recognizes it so that it is legal, then … (READ THE REST)
[Editor: Leftist Secretary of State John Kerry has wasted no time in importing the homosexual abomination from overseas.]
College professor convicted of child porn from a christian college.
Former Wheaton College prof pleads guilty to child porn charge
By Clifford Ward – Special to the Tribune
7:51 p.m. CDT, August 5, 2013
A former Wheaton College professor pleaded guilty Monday to a charge of aggravated child pornography possession and could be sent to prison.
Donald Ratcliff, 62, admitted guilt to the felony in DuPage County court before Judge John Kinsella, who set an Oct. 9 sentencing date. Ratcliff could face a three- to seven-year prison term, though probation is an option.
In exchange for his guilty plea, prosecutors dropped nine other pornography counts against him.
Ratcliff, who had been a professor of Christian education at the college since 2006, was arrested at his Carol Stream residence in March 2012 after police executed a search warrant. They found 500 illegal images on a computer they took from his home office, Assistant State’s Attorney Louisa Nuckolls said.
Police said Ratcliff was making child pornography images available for download over the Internet. Police obtained the warrant after tracing the images to Ratcliff’s computer address, Nuckolls said.
Ratcliff admitted to police that he had acquired the child pornography, Nuckolls said.
He was fired from his job at the college about two weeks after his arrest.
Copyright © 2013 Chicago Tribune Company, LLC
© Solid Snake
Edited by John R. Houk
Everything within brackets are by the Editor
John R. Houk
August 12, 2013
Congress is too polarized on both sides of the political spectrum to initiate an Amendment process to settle issues that prevents an activist Judiciary from touching the amended law. HOWEVER, there is another Amendment process that can exclude the U.S. Congress. That process is spelled out in Article V:
The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress; provided that no amendment which may be made prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any manner affect the first and fourth clauses in the ninth section of the first article; and that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate. (Bold Emphasis Mine)
In Justin Smith’s essay below he refers to Article IV as a part of the Constitution calling for a Convention; however I am certain he was referring to Article V. I agree with Justin that a Constitutional Convention might be the only way to preserve the Union of the United States without chaos dividing our nation by another Civil War.
It is not the first time that Conservatives have suggested a Constitutional Convention. A Convention has never happened except for the one that established our current Constitution and a Union of States under one Republic. The modern reasons for fearing a Constitution is that the nature of the Constitution could change radically favoring either side of the American political spectrum. In such a case a Civil War might still occur.
Justin’s central theme is the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act – aka Obamacare.
America’s Ailment/ or Elective Despotism
By Justin Smith
Sent: 8/12/2013 10:41 AM
The continuing resolution that now funds the U.S. government, in place of a real budget, will require a new vote on September 30, 2013, and this represents the best opportunity Americans may ever have to free themselves from a burdensome, dangerous and unconstitutional piece of legislation called the Affordable Health Care Act or Obamacare. If we do not want our children and future generations to become slaves of government and their rights subject to arbitrary curtailment, then all Americans, who understand and recognize this piece of legislation and Obama’s “fundamental transformation” agenda as one huge step on the path towards tyranny, are bound by duty and conscience to support the total defunding of Obamacare, as emphatically and forcibly as possible within the U.S. House and Senate!
In his 1796 Farewell Address, George Washington warned of dangers associated with political parties: “… sooner or later the chief of some prevailing faction, more able or more fortunate than his competitors, turns this disposition to the purposes of his own elevation, on the ruins of public liberty.”
Recently, with only an imperial and utopian declaration, Obama delayed the business mandate section of Obamacare, scheduled for full implementation in 2014 by law, until 2015; however, he left the individual mandate in place by design. Obama hopes that the difficulties in repealing Obamacare will become insurmountable, as increasing numbers of people become dependent on receiving the subsidies associated with Obamacare. This is only the last in a long list of unconstitutional acts by Obama the despot.
Since May 2013, Americans have witnessed Kathleen Sebelius, Secretary of Health and Human Services, attempt to coerce businesses and insurance companies into contributing millions of dollars towards the organization and implementation costs of Obamacare, which many officials, such as Speaker John Boehner and Senator Harry Reid, are now recognizing to be “a train wreck” waiting to happen, as described by Senator Max Baucus, if more funding and better administrative and functional structures are not in place by 2014. Insurers have spurned Sebelius’ efforts, because they are already facing $100 billion in new taxes over a decade under Obamacare.
And to add insult to injury, the Obama administration will be placing advertisements through Obama’s Organizing for Action “grass-roots” network in order to “educate people about the law.” Funding for this sort of campaign was actually written into Obamacare, and you and I… the taxpayer… pay for these advertisements, even when we oppose this legislation. This year the Obama administration will steal $780 million more for these ads!
Last month, Senator Tom Harkin stated, “The sooner we get back to a good, progressive, populist message, the better off we’re going to be as Democrats.” But this is just one more symptom in America’s ailment, inasmuch as, too many Democrats and Republicans alike are Progressives, synonymous with statist, utopian and communist.
Entire sections of Obamacare have their origins in the early 20th century Progressive Era eugenics movement (approx. 1899-1939) and “The Passing of the Great Race” by Madison Grant, which was translated to German in 1925. It’s not any misrepresentation or hyperbole to state that many modern day Progressives still hold to the views and beliefs of the early Progressives, when we have a sitting President who voted for partial-birth abortion. We gain further insight into Progressive views, as we read Grant’s work: “The laws of nature require the obliteration of the unfit and human life is valuable only when it is of use to the community or race.” Reconcile that with “Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness”, if you can!
While Americans are already receiving “refund checks” for the initial purchase of the first month of health care insurance under Obamacare, various areas of the United States, according to the Heritage Foundation, are experiencing between 80% and 200% cost increases, depending on one’s location. And, it gets worse next year, when a new sales tax on health insurance goes into effect with an annual $8 billion price-tag.
Along with Obama’s ignoble lies and distortions regarding health-care reform, we have watched Kathleen Sebelius double-count funds cut from Medicare in order to present $500 billion in fictitious savings. America has also heard the Congressional Budget Office report that 800,000 people will lose their jobs directly due to Obamacare, and start-up costs over-budget are now known to be $2.8 trillion!
Obamacare is designed to fail, and, in the process, this will force Americans into a single-payer system, which will give the government complete control over the individual through numerous avenues of coercion. Senator Harry Reid admitted as much last week on the PBS Round Table, when he stated, “Obamacare is just a stepping-stone to a single-payer system.”
Senator Bob Corker has called continued talk of repeal “just plain silliness.” So, are we to simply lie down and surrender? Are we really going to do nothing to stop Obamacare and its destruction of individual liberty, as government bureaucrats make life and death decisions for us all? HELL NO!
No matter that Congress voted for Obamacare, the President signed it, and Chief Justice John Roberts manipulated and mangled the English language to be certain that he could declare it “constitutional”, it is beyond obvious to so many newly elected Congressmen and Senators, such as Ted Cruz and Mike Lee, and so many ordinary Americans that Obamacare is in fact unconstitutional. Therefore, over the course of the long haul, all good, freedom-loving, patriotic Americans must start working towards a Constitutional Convention, as outlined under Article IV of the U.S. Constitution, and proposed amendments to halt this very type of government abuse and “ELECTIVE DESPOTISM”, that Thomas Jefferson described in his “Notes on the State of Virginia”, which James Madison quoted in Federalist Paper #48; too many great Americans died, on the beachhead of Normandy, near the Yalu River and on the Ho Chi Minh Trail, fighting the very ideology Obama holds dear for Americans to allow this administration, or any like it, to continue unchecked and unrestrained!
To date the House has successfully, if only symbolically, voted to repeal Obamacare 38 times. Of course the Senate refused to do likewise due to the Democrat majority within it, which brings us back to the real and viable act of defunding Obamacare.
Speaker John Boehner often observes that “the House represents only one-half of one-third of the government”, but this should not give him reason to pause at such a critical juncture of history. Congress and the true will of the people have been ignored by the Senate, Obama and the U.S. Supreme Court, and, since all spending must be authorized by the U.S. House of Representatives in accordance with the U.S. Constitution, the Republican House majority must not be afraid to use the power that they now hold; they must not fail to defund Obamacare out of fear that an Obama/Reid initiated government shutdown will cost them the 2014 election: Remember, the Progressive Democrats had no qualms or pangs of conscience when they used every parliamentarian maneuver and dirty trick imaginable to foist this piece of tyranny upon America!
By Justin O. Smith
© Justin O. Smith
Edited by John R. Houk
John R. Houk
© July 28, 2013
Senator Rand Paul explains how Roe v Wade Supreme Court decision allows for legislators – State level and Federal level – to define when life begins for an unborn baby. Thus defining life beginning at conception effectively ends abortion murder. Why? Because the 14th Amendment protects life.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Representatives shall be apportioned among the several states according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each state, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the executive and judicial officers of a state, or the members of the legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such state, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such state.
No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any state, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any state legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any state, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.
The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any state shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.
The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.
Section 1 is the reference giving rights to humans. I highlighted the relevant portions in bold print above, but for the sake of brevity below is the highlighted bold print of Section 1:
No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
In the matter of Texas disallowing abortions after the 20th week of pregnancy when the kid is fully formed and recognized as a human, you can see the outrage I feel toward Leftists that feel a woman’s Right of Choice outweighs a human being’s Right to Live.
Here is a link to the petition Senator Rand Paul is talking about.
John R. Houk
© July 16, 2013
George Zimmerman was acquitted by a Florida jury of murdering Trayvon Martin. I agree with that verdict. There should be NOTHING controversial about Zimmerman defending himself from a scrappy 17 year old teenager (DEFINITELY NOT A CHILD) one year away from being an enfranchised voting citizen that if so chosen could have entered military service.
I was not there when Martin and Zimmerman became combatants; however I did watch a significant amount of the trial on TV as I am sure many of you did. The Prosecution was NOT even close to proving that Zimmerman was guilty of a racist murder.
Nonetheless Black advocacy groups and individuals – including the President of the United States – could not handle the evidence (or would that be the truth). Black advocacy and Leftist interests insist a civil rights violation must have occurred because Martin was a Black-American. The intentional blindness even went so far as to suggest that Hispanic-American (The Zimmerman boys have a Peruvian mother) George Zimmerman was a White-Hispanic.
Now I am fully aware there are Hispanic people that display a Caucasian color tone. I am not a biological anthropologist, ethnologist, eugenicist or whatever-cist; nonetheless when the MSM creates genetic name of an individual to stir up racist anger among Blacks and Leftists it is definitely reprehensible. If there is racial description based on color in the confrontation between Martin and Zimmerman, it would be Black vs. Brown. If the MSM really wanted to be egalitarian in the Martin-Zimmerman case they should have stirred up racist hate between both Black-Americans and Hispanic-American. Al Sharpton and Barack Obama should be having Civil Rights condemnation speeches with Justice Sonia Maria Sotomayor (oops she’s a Leftist) and Raul Yzaguirre (La Raza – The Race).
That’s not going to happen though. Democrats are cultivating Hispanics – legal and illegal – to strengthen their voter base. AND Obama needs a National debate to hoodwink Americans to the Leftist line of thinking to shut-up Conservatives pertaining to the real problem in American government; i.e. the Obama Administration’s multitudinous scandals such as Fast & Furious, Benghazigate, the IRS tool to attack Conservative organizations, the NSA snooping on ALL Americans contrary to the 4th Amendment and probably some scandals I can’t think of as I am writing this.
As long as Obama can keep the focus on George Zimmerman with the help of the MSM, Conservative Media, Black Organization and Black Activists, and Leftist Democrats – Obama has longer to figure how to cover his unconstitutional and illegal activities with the scandals that were making a dent in his legitimacy as POTUS.
Black-American Attorney General Eric Holder is doing his part because he is involved in potential illegalities along with Obama.
Earlier today Robert Zimmerman, brother of George Zimmerman, told Bill Hemmer on America’s Newsroom that the Zimmerman family has concerns that their phones may be tapped by this administration due to the ongoing investigation of George Zimmerman after his acquittal last week. Robert said the family is texting George and not calling him so that they don’t give away his location.
This afternoon during his speech to the NAACP Attorney General Eric Holder told the audience that the Zimmerman case was still open and the investigation was ongoing.
“I want to assure you of two things, I as a parent, am concerned about this case. And, as we confirmed last spring, the Justice Department has an open investigation into it. While that inquiry is ongoing, I can assure you the Department of Justice will consider all available information before determining what action to take.”
(ERIC HOLDER: George Zimmerman Case Is Still Open – Investigation Is Ongoing (Video); By Jim Hoft; Gateway Pundit; 7/16/13 4:00 PM)
Hoft is on to something and I am uncertain if he even realizes because of Zimmerman focus.