The Fallacy of “Separation of Church and State”


The best intro to this essay submission from Justin Smith can be summed up from an excerpt:

 

Any attack against Christianity and Judaism in America using the fallacy of “separation of Church and State” is simply an attempt to further undermine, not only Our U.S. Constitution and Religious Liberty, but Our entire traditional American way of life. Do not accept the Fallacy.

 

JRH 8/6/17

Please Support NCCR

***************

The Fallacy of “Separation of Church and State”

 

By Justin O. Smith

Sent 8/5/2017 3:36 PM

 

The Founding Fathers believed that government’s role in religion should be limited. We cannot discount that the First Amendment begins “Congress shall make no law” either establishing a state religion or prohibiting the free exercise of religion. Rather than articulate an affirmative responsibility for government to protect religion, the Founding Fathers felt it was enough to keep the government out. If nothing else, the language of the First Amendment makes it clear the goal was to restrain government when it came to religion. There is no suggestion the Founders felt the establishment clause and the free exercise clause were in any way competing. Otherwise, why would the Founders include the two clauses together?

 

The point was to keep government out of both realms. Both clauses were needed because it was not sufficient to restrain government from establishing a state religion; government also had to be restrained from any attempt to interfere with religious practices and beliefs. The negative language of the First Amendment does not prohibit Congress from passing a law that promotes religion, provided the judgement does not promote one religion over others.

Before the bad law and judicial activism that started with the abuse of the Constitution by Justice Hugo Black in Everson v Board of Education (1947), the states were not prohibited under the First Amendment from establishing religion, and nowhere in the debate on freedom of religion in the first Congress is there any mention of “separation of church and state.” Our Founders own writings clearly show that they never intended for public officials to check their convictions and beliefs at the door to their offices. They would have been shocked by the Court’s excessively broad interpretation of the First Amendment, given the language the Founders crafted with the belief it would protect open expression of religious beliefs in America.

 

The Founders most certainly would have rebelled against the idea of an absolute “separation of church and state” and the use of the First and Fourteenth Amendments to eradicate all Judeo-Christian references to God from the public square, because these ideas are incompatible with the Original Intent and unalienable rights granted to each of us by our Creator, thus making them erroneous and historically unsupportable.

 

[Blog Editor: Here’s an interesting thought on how the Left and Activist Judges misused the 14th Amendment to rob the Original Intent of the First Amendment:

 

When did things change?

 

Charles Darwin theory’s that species could evolve inspired a political theorist named Herbert Spencer to suggest that laws could evolve. This influenced Harvard Law Dean Christopher Columbus Langdell to develop the “case precedent” method of practicing law, which influenced his student, Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr.

 

This occurred near the same time the 14th Amendment was passed in 1868, introduced by Republicans in Congress to guarantee rights to freed slaves in the Democrat South. The evolutionary “case-precedent” method provided a way to side-step the Constitutional means of changing the Constitution through the Amendment process.

 

Activist Justices began to creatively use the 14th Amendment to take jurisdiction away from the states over issues such as unions, strikes, railroads, farming, polygamy, freedom of speech, freedom of the press, and freedom of assembly.

 

Freedom of religion was still under each individual state’s jurisdiction until Franklin D. Roosevelt.

 

 

In 1937, FDR nominated Justice Hugo Black to the Supreme Court, who also concentrated power by writing decisions taking jurisdiction away from the states in the area of religion. He did this by simply inserting the phrase “Neither a state” in his 1947 Everson v Board of Education decision: “The ‘establishment of religion’ clause of the First Amendment means at least this: Neither a state nor the federal government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions or prefer one religion over another.” READ ENTIRE ARTICLE (THIS IS HOW ATHEISM BECAME OUR OFFICIAL ‘RELIGION’; By BILL FEDERER; WND; 1/15/16 9:01 PM)

 

Now I can’t vouch for this being Justin Smith’s thought on the 14th Amendment, but using the effect of Darwinism in the development of Case Law to have more authority than Original Intent is enlightening to me.]

On New Year’s Day 1802, Thomas Jefferson wrote to the Danbury Baptists to assuage their fear that the federal government might one day attempt to condition religious freedom as a right granted by the state. Jefferson, an anti-Federalist [Blog Editor: Federalist/Anti-Federalist Perspectives – HERE, HERE & HERE], clearly stated his intention to keep government out of religious affairs rather than empower it to remove religion from the public arena: “Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in the behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural rights in opposition to his social duties.”

The First Amendment compels government not to eradicate religion from the public arena. If the expression of religious beliefs is an inherent God-designed part of human nature, as the Declaration of Independence proclaimed, then government acting to remove religion from the public sphere would have seemed to Our Founding Fathers to be acting in a manner antithetical to Our Founding Principles.

It is almost as if Justice Black decided the First Amendment was equivalent to the biblical admonition to render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s and unto God what is God’s, under the assumption that a discernible distinction could be made without conflict between what was Caesar’s and what was God’s. The whole point of the First Amendment’s attempt to protect freedom of religion is that over time Caesar tends to intrude upon God.

 

In 1948, the Supreme Court ruled in McCollom v Board of Education, 333 U.S. 203 (1948) that religious education provided by churches on public school grounds in Illinois during the school day was unconstitutional. Then in 1952, in Zorach v Clauson, 343 U.S. 306 (1952), the Supreme Court found that allowing New York students to leave school grounds for religious education was constitutional. Dissenting in Zorach, Justice Black wrote, “I see no significant difference between the invalid Illinois system and that of New York here sustained.” If Justice Black, the author of the court’s majority opinion in Everson, could not distinguish these cases, how could state, county, city or municipal school officials be expected to make the distinction reliably?

 

A Godless public square could not be more antithetical to what Our Founding Fathers thought they were achieving when drafting the First Amendment, and the Courts distort precedent whenever they use the Establishment Clause to crush all things religious Ironically, the very language crafted to protect religious freedom has now reached the point at which Americans can only be assured freedom from religion in all places within this nation, with the possible exceptions of prayer confined to church and free expression of religion confined to the privacy of one’s home.

Jefferson made a poignant remark in Notes on the State of Virginia, which clarifies his thinking: “And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure if we have lost the only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are the gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with His wrath?[Blog Editor’s Emphasis]

 

Why didn’t the Supreme Court choose this text for their ruling? [Blog Editor’s Emphasis] Or his use of “natural rights” in other documents? Justice Clarence Thomas once stated: “… this Court’s nebulous Establishment Clause analyses, turn on little more than “judicial predilections … It should be noted that the extent to which traditional Judeo-Christian religion is removed from the public square and the public schools, it is replaced by other religions, including Secular Humanism, which is specifically recognized as a religion by the Supreme Court.”
In order to combat this assault on religious freedom and religious liberty, to date, twenty-one states have enacted Religious Freedom Restoration Acts since 1993. Currently, ten states [5/4/17 – 9 States] are considering legislation on the topic this year, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures. Virginia amended their state RFRA, but otherwise no states have passed their legislation.
For eight decades, the ACLU has been America’s leading religious censor, waging a largely uncontested war, until recently, against America’s core values, utilizing every fallacy, piece of misinformation and outright LIE imaginable in its war against religious liberty, with the support of much of the current Marxist media; both are intent on destroying traditional America, including the nuclear family. We now live in a country where our traditional Christian and Jewish faith and religion — civilizing forces in any society — are openly mocked and increasingly pushed to the margins, and our weapon to stop them is the Founding Fathers’ own words and their Original Intent regarding the U.S. Constitution.
Ultimately, two very diverse thinkers, Thomas Jefferson and John Adams concluded, that without virtue based on a solid belief in God, Liberty was inevitably lost. In other words, if the Supreme Court, through the efforts of Communists, atheists and fools and ACLU prompting, succeeds in removing the Judeo-Christian God from American public life, a foundation pillar upon which American liberty has depended will have been removed, perhaps irretrievably. Without the open expression of religious freedom so fundamental to American liberty that it is written into the First Amendment of the Bill of Rights, American Liberty will not long persist.

 

Americans cannot and must not allow the Communists and atheists of this nation and the ACLU to secularize America to the point where our tolerance is turned into silencing and punishing religious speech. Life is valuable; marriage is a God-ordained institution between one man and one woman, and families are comprised of a male father and a female mother with any number of children. Any attack against Christianity and Judaism in America using the fallacy of “separation of Church and State” is simply an attempt to further undermine, not only Our U.S. Constitution and Religious Liberty, but Our entire traditional American way of life. Do not accept the Fallacy.

 

By Justin O. Smith

__________________

Edited by John R. Houk

All links and any text embraced by brackets are by the Editor.

 

© Justin O. Smith

 

King Calls For Wider Investigations of Obama, Clinton…


Rep. Steve King (R-IA) just became one of my new political heroes. He berated Congress in session (7/27/17) over ignoring ALL the Dem Party corruption while being hot to sick Robert Mueller on witch hunt to take down the Trump Administration.

 

Check it out:

 

VIDEO: BREAKING: [VIDEO] CONGRESS DEMANDS THE INVESTIGATION OF HILLARY CLINTON

 

Posted by Trumpet News

Published on Aug 1, 2017

 

The Gateway Pundit summarizes King’s message this way:

 

Rep. Steve King (R-IA) addressed Congress last Thursday in support of legislation that requires the Attorney General to turn over documents regarding former FBI Director James Comey’s involvement in various controversial cases.

 

The legislation passed 16-13 with King voting in favor of it. King addressed Congress with an impassioned and detailed inquiry/speech. … (Rep. Steve King Calls for Full Investigations Into Obama, Clinton, Comey, Soros, Lynch, and Others (VIDEO); By Carter; Gateway Pundit; 8/1/17 4:36 pm)

 

Below are the talking points in the AWESOME video you just watched from Rep. Steve King’s website.

 

JRH 8/4/17

Please Support NCCR

***************

King Calls For Wider Investigations of Obama, Clinton, Comey, Soros, Lynch, Abedin, and Weiner Scandals

 

Jul 27, 2017

Press Release

SteveKing.House.gov

 

Congressman Steve King released the following video of statements he made during Judiciary Committee debate of legislation requiring the Attorney General to provide copies of any document, record, audio recording, memo, correspondence, or other communication that refers or relates to a number of troubling aspects of James Comey’s tenure as FBI director.

 

In the course of his remarks, Congressman King recounted a litany of facts and events that reveal the corruption that surrounds many of the nation’s most prominent Democrats, as well as their disturbing pattern of using American taxpayer money to interfere in foreign elections. King’s entire remarks can be viewed here.

 

King concluded his remarks by asserting the trail of Democratic election corruption leads to Barack Obama, and that the examples he cites should be investigated fully.

 

Excerpted remarks:

 

On Barack Obama’s election interference in other countries:

 

“It’s pretty clear the Obama administration sent their people over to Israel to work against Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Pretty much openly. Significant dollars invested in that campaign over there. The President of the United States, with at least the moral support of the people that had worked for him, in the country of Israel, [sought] to shift the results of the election against the seated Prime Minister, Bibi Netanyahu.”

 

 

“The Obama administration is a long ways from clean on this, as far as being involved in elections in other countries.”

 

On George Soros’ Use of Taxpayer Money to interfere in election in the Balkans:

 

learned the United States government, borrowing money from China and Saudi Arabia, had handed over at least $5,000,000 in contracts transferred through USAID into George Soros’s organizations that were used to manipulate elections in the Balkans.”

 

On the need to reopen investigations into Huma Abedin and Anthony Weiner:

 

The long string that we should be looking at with this investigation and special counsel that is our request here goes a long ways back. It goes clear back to Huma Abedin, Anthony Weiner, 650,000 emails, which we still have access to.”

 

On James Comey’s sham investigation of Hillary Clinton:

 

This [Comey’s Investigation of Clinton] is what looks like, on its face, a sham investigation. Plus, they destroyed a tremendous amount of information: at least 30,000 emails, crushed hard drives, bought bleach bit, hired outside contractors to scrub emails up. And we’re to take James Comey’s word for this, that there wasn’t enough substance there to bring a prosecution, even though a year ago, July 5th, James Comey delivered 15 minutes of a summary of prosecution that was completely convincing to me until we got down to the last couple sentences of that presentation which was, ‘well, we can’t prove intent.’ Well, curiously there is no requirement for intent in the two statutes that appear to be violated.”

 

I look back in the records to the previous October and previous April, Barack Obama stated into the news media record ‘Hillary Clinton would never intend to put our national security at risk; Hillary Clinton would never intend to harm America’s security. That’s the previous October and April. Well, James Comey latched onto that word, ‘intend’, and they made up new law and gave Hillary Clinton an exemption for this intent that they said they couldn’t prove which is absolutely proven by the facts [Comey] delivered to us in the summary that day.”

 

On Loretta Lynch:

 

“Not only does this trail lead through Hillary Clinton and James Comey, but the Loretta Lynch component of this as well. When you put this in place, and look at the example of them on the tarmac, it’s hard to imagine they sat there for 45 minutes and discussed grandchildren.”

 

On allegations Democratic Operatives went to the Ukraine to get dirt on Candidate Trump:

 

“That brings me to Alexandra Chalupa who went off as a DNC contractor to Ukraine to try to gather dirt on the Trump people. So, bringing this around, Mr. Chairman, I’ll conclude with this: the trail leads also to Barack Obama and we need to investigate all of this.”

 

________________

Steve King Bio on House Page

 

Steve King grew up in a law enforcement family in Storm Lake, Iowa. He attended Denison Community High School, where he met Marilyn Kelly, whom he married in 1972. They have lived in Kiron since 1976 and are members of St. Martin’s Church in Odebolt. Steve and Marilyn have three grown sons and seven grandchildren.

King studied math and science at Northwest Missouri State University. He started King Construction in 1975 and built the business up from one bulldozer. He brings valuable knowledge to Congress as an agribusinessman and a small business owner for 28 years. King’s oldest son now owns the construction business.

He served in the Iowa State Senate for six years. He was a member of the Senate Appropriations Committee, Judiciary Committee, Business and Labor Committee, the Commerce Committees, and chair of the State Government Committee. He worked in the State Senate to successfully eliminate the inheritance tax, enforce workplace drug testing, enforce parenting rights, including parental notification of abortions, pass tax cuts for working Iowans, and pass the law that made English the official language in Iowa.

King was elected to Congress in 2002 to represent Iowa’s Fifth Congressional District. During the 2012 election cycle, Iowa was redistricted to four districts. King now represents the Fourth Congressional District in the 114th Congress which includes: Ames, Fort Dodge, Mason City, Sioux City and Spencer. He brings personal experience, Constitutional principles, traditional marriage and family values and the perspective of representing one of the top producing agriculture districts in the nation to the people of Iowa’s Fourth Congressional District.

King serves on the Agriculture Committee. He has long been dedicated to adding value as close to the corn stalk and bean stem as possible, as …

 

 

King is also a member of the House Judiciary Committee, where he sits on the Constitution and Civil Justice Subcommittee and the Immigration and Border Security Subcommittee. He believes the Constitution means what it says and that it should be read with the intent of our Founding Fathers in mind. King is never caught without a copy of the Constitution in his coat pocket. He is a strong advocate of the Rule of Law and enforcing our borders. King is a full-spectrum, Constitutional Conservative.

 

King, for more than a decade, has chaired the Conservative Opportunity Society, a powerful and legendary House caucus that has become the conscience of Constitutional conservatives in the U.S. Congress. (READ ENTIRETY)


 

 

Faux 28th Amendment, Yet Still Need Convention


John R. Houk

© July 25, 2017

 

I became a recipient of a Chain Email that has been circulating for some years. The Leftist fact checkers who have I have little trust for have debunking posts circa 2011. As far as the Conservative perspective goes I trust TruthORFiction.com. Truth or Fiction purposely presents their website in a retro format for reasons I am unclear.

 

The purpose of the Chain Email I received is to promote a 28th Amendment that makes members of Congress accountable to the same rule of law as every American citizen is. Before a reading of a single paragraph of this 28th Amendment the email provides examples of alleged improprieties that members of Congress and their families receive that Americans do not receive.

 

According to Truth Or Fiction the Chain Email is total poppycock. Here is a debunking excerpt:

 

Summary of eRumor: 

 

A chain email says that children of members of Congress and their staffers have their student loans forgiven.

The email also says that 35 governors have sued for a 28th amendment to the U.S. Constitution that would limit federal power.

 

The Truth: 

 

Both of these claims are false.

There is a Student Loan Repayment Program in place to help attract and retain federal employees, but it does not extend to family members. Elected officials, uniform service members and other government employees are eligible under the law.

 

Federal employees can have up to $10,000 in federally insured student loans repaid each year, and up to $60,000 repaid over their career, the Office of Personnel Management reports.

 

And the federal government does not forgive these loans, as the eRumor claims. The loans are repaid. That’s important because it means federal employees have to pay taxes on loan payments just like the rest of their salaries.

 

In 2013, $52.9 million in student loan repayments were made for 7,314 federal employees, the Office of Personnel and Management reports.

 

The email’s claim that 35 governors had sued the U.S. government for a 28th amendment is also false. The email says that the proposed 28th amendment would state:

 

“Congress shall make no law that applies to the citizens of the United States that does not apply equally to the Senators, Representatives of Congress; and, Congress shall make no law that applies to the Senators and/or Representatives that does not apply equally to the citizens of the United States

 

That same language was used in an eRumor that TruthorFiction.com found to be false in 2013. Click here for that story.

 

Both versions of the eRumor said that 35 governors had signed onto a petition for a constitutional convention to create the 28th amendment, but that’s not true.

 

At last count, three states had tried to force a constitutional convention. Resolutions in Kansas, Georgia and Indiana sought to balance state and federal power, the Huffington Post reports.

 

And under Article V of the U.S. Constitution, 34 states have to pass a resolution on the same subject to force a constitutional convention — not 38 states, as the eRumor claims.

 

READ THE REST (Children of Congress Members Don’t Pay Back Student Loans-Fiction! 35 Governors Have Sued the Federal Government to Create 28th Amendment-Fiction!)

 

And yet there are actual special benefits for members of Congress that the rest of us American citizens are not privy to. All the perks of the chain email simply don’t exist especially in 2017. Even though members of Congress make less than the private sector with more responsibilities, retirement benefits kick in according to time served and when reach a certain age:

 

Members of Congress are not eligible for a pension until they reach the age of 50, but only if they’ve completed 20 years of service. Members are eligible at any age after completing 25 years of service or after they reach the age of 62. Please also note that Members of Congress have to serve at least 5 years to even receive a pension.

 

The amount of a congressperson’s pension depends on the years of service and the average of the highest 3 years of his or her salary. By law, the starting amount of a Member’s retirement annuity may not exceed 80% of his or her final salary. (Salaries and Benefits of US Congress Members: The Truth; By Robert Longley; ThoughtCo.com; Updated 3/12/17)

 

As of 2014 members of Congress are tied into the same Obamacare health insurance rules as all of us according to Thoughtco.com (Ibid.). Read the CNN explanation of how Obamacare insurance exchanges works for Congress and their staff: How do Congress’ lawmakers get health care? By Ashley Killough; CNN [aka Communist News Network]; 7/18/17 Updated 7:19 AM ET)

 

Too bad the chain email didn’t address actual Congressional perks that We the People do not receive.

 

Senate Expense Account

 

 The Senators’ Official Personnel and Office Expense Account (SOPOEA) is available to assist Senators in their official and representational duties. The allowance is provided for the fiscal year. The preliminary list of SOPOEA levels contained in the Senate report accompanying the FY2017 legislative branch appropriations bill shows an average allowance $3,306,570 per Senator. (Screw Obamacare, ‘We the People’ Want Everything Congress Has; By Lori; GlenBeck.com; 7/25/17)

 

Senate Furniture Expense

 

Each Senator is authorized $40,000 for state office furniture and furnishings for one or more offices, if the aggregate square footage of office space does not exceed 5,000 square feet. The base authorization is increased by $1,000 for each authorized additional incremental increase in office space of 200 square feet. (Ibid.)

 

House Personnel and Office Expense

 

$1,200,000.00

 

Members of the House receive a $250,000 budget for travel and office expenses. (Ibid.)

 

Special Class Beneficial Treatment

 

Members of Congress have long been treated as a special class with lifelong access to members-only parking spaces, elevators, dining rooms and exercise facilities (unless they become a lobbyist).

 

Grooming and Fitness Amenities

 

  • Taxpayer-funded, members-only gym

 

  • Taxpayer-funded, members-only salon

 

  • Taxpayer-funded, members-only barbershop

 

  • Taxpayer-funded, members-only tennis court (Ibid.)

Travel Privileges

 

Staff schedulers often times make reservations for members of Congress via dedicated phone lines that Delta and other major airlines have reportedly set up for Capitol Hill customers. Airlines also permit members to reserve seats on multiple flights but only pay for the trips they take.

Free parking at the two Washington-area airports (At a rate of $22 per day, that represents almost $740,000 in forgone revenue annually for Reagan National). (Ibid.)

 

If Congress Member dies, Family Benefit

 

Family members of those in Congress who die, typically receive a full year’s salary as compensation ($174K). (Ibid.)

 

As to the 28th Amendment in the Chain Email, no such Amendment has even proposed in Congress nor has any State every tried to suggest a convened Constitutional Convention on the matter of equalizing Congressional benefits with American citizen benefits.

 

Some discerning Conservatives believe the Federal usurpation of power has exceeded the design of the Framers of the Constitution. These Conservatives believe Congress is too hamstringed to reverse the despotism of excessive Federal power over the We the People where the Founding Fathers believed power should reside. In this view the best Constitutional method of restoring power to the people is based in Article 5 of 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.

 

– Article V, U.S. Constitution (From ConventionOfStates.com/Solution)

 

I as well lean toward a Constitutional Convention. But there is no surprise the American Left is not in big favor of a Convention. There are also Conservatives that fear a Convention not because they don’t recognize the problem of excessive Federal Power, rather these Conservatives fear an out of control Convention which the American Left may prevail potentially making the threat to American Liberty worse than the Dems and Leftist activist Courts already have.

 

This excerpt relays the fears:

 

Many people have voiced concern over the convention method of amending the Constitution. Our only experience with a national constitutional convention took place 200 years ago. At that time the delegates took it upon themselves to ignore the reason for calling the convention, which was merely to improve the Articles of Confederation. The Founding Fathers also violated the procedure for changing the Articles of Confederation. Instead of requiring approval of all the state legislatures, the signers of the Constitution called for ratification by elected state conventions in only nine of the 13 states.

 

Another point of anxiety is that Article V of the Constitution says nothing about what a convention may or may not do. If a convention is held, must it deal with only one proposed amendment? Or could the delegates vote on any number of amendments that were introduced? The Constitution itself provides no answers to these questions.

 

Howard Jarvis, the late leader of the conservative tax revolt in California during the 1970s, opposed a convention. He stated that a convention “would put the Constitution back on the drawing board, where every radical crackpot or special interest group would have the chance to write the supreme law of the land.”

 

Others, like Republican Senator Orrin Hatch of Utah, disagree with this viewpoint. Senator Hatch has said it is ironic when the people attempt to engage in “participatory democracy set forth by the Constitution, we are subject to doomsday rhetoric and dire predictions of domestic and international disaster.”

 

Of course, any amendments produced by a convention would still have to be ratified by three-fourths of the states. We may soon see how this never-used method works if the balanced budget people swing two more states over to their side. (Do We Need a New Constitutional Convention; Constitutional Rights Foundation)

 

Here is the Convention of States rebuttal to the fears:

 

Much of the opposition to an Article V convention hinges on fears of a “runaway convention.” Convention opponents frequently argue that a convention is inherently unlimited and once it convenes it cannot be restricted in any way. …

 

The text of the Constitution itself clearly indicates that a convention can be limited in at least some ways. For instance, a convention under Article V is limited to “proposing amendments.” It is essentially a recommendatory body: it cannot ratify its own proposals. Thus, even an “unlimited” convention is limited in this critical respect, which prevents rash or unpopular amendments from becoming part of the Constitution.

 

Further, Article V specifies that certain topics are off-limits for a convention (and for Congress) to consider. The last portion of the article takes certain provisions relating to the import of slaves off the table until 1808, and forbids any amendment that deprives the states of equal representation in the Senate. There can be no question that certain topics are off-limits for a convention, since Article V itself imposes those limitations. That states legislatures may further limit the authority of a convention is shown by the historical practice and purpose behind Article V.

 

 

In short, the text of Article V, the history and purpose behind it, plus Congress’s own inaction, all indicate that an Article V convention can be limited to a particular topic or set of topics. Our Founders knew what they were doing when they voted unanimously to put the convention provision in Article V.10 A convention is not some all-powerful body with authority to unilaterally scrap our Constitution, though convention opponents often represent it in that light. It is a limited-purpose committee intended to give the states the ability to propose particular amendments that Congress never would. As such, the state legislatures can impose binding subject-matter restraints on the convention to ensure that it does not run away. (A Single-Subject Convention; By Robert Kelly, J.D.1 [1. Mr. Kelly is a practicing attorney and a member of the California Bar. He currently serves as General Counsel for Citizens for Self-Governance.]; Convention of States pdf)

 

Frankly I can think of some more important issues for the 28th Amendment of the Chain Email. The Left must submit to what made America great. The Left has done such an effective job of propagandizing their agenda that most Americans are not even aware of the Liberty and Freedom our Founding Fathers fought for against the British Crown despotism of the 1760s and 1770s. The witless supporters of the American Left have been slowly restoring Americans to the same despotism that led Thirteen British Colonies to demand Independence that eventually led to the U.S. Constitution of laws of We the People.

For those interested in the debunked Chain Email on the faux 28th Amendment, it is below.

 

JRH 7/25/17

Please Support NCCR

****************

Proposed 28th Amendment and Congress

Chain Email

Editor Received 7/25/17

 

Please read 28th amendment

 

Please Read, and forward.   This will only take 1 minute to read!

28th Amendment, 35 States and Counting.

 

It will take you less than a minute to read this. If you agree, please pass it on. It’s an idea whose time has come to deal with this self-serving situation:

 

OUR PRESENT SITUATION!

 

Children of Congress members do not have to pay back their college student loans.

 

Staffers of Congress family members are also exempt from having to pay back student loans.

 

Members of Congress can retire at full pay after only one term.

 

Members of Congress have exempted themselves from many of the laws they have passed, under which ordinary citizens must live.

For example, they are exempt from any fear of prosecution for sexual harassment.

 

And as the latest example, they have exempted themselves from Healthcare Reform, in all of its aspects.

 

We must not tolerate an elite class of such people, elected as public servants and then putting themselves above the law.

 

I truly don’t care if they are Democrat, Republican, Independent, or whatever. The self-serving must stop.

 

Governors of 35 states have filed suit against the Federal Government for imposing unlawful burdens upon their states. It only takes 38 (of the 50) States to convene a Constitutional Convention.

 

IF???

 

Each person that receives this will forward it on to 20 people, in three days most people in The United States of America will have the message.

 

Proposed 28th Amendment to the United States Constitution:

 

Congress shall make no law that applies to the citizens of the United States that does not apply equally to the Senators and/or Representatives; and, Congress shall make no law that applies to the Senators and/or Representatives that does not apply equally to the Citizens of the United States …

 

You are one of my 20.

 

Americans Demand Full Repeal


 

Obamacare (mislabeled the Affordable Care Act) is a debacle on affordable healthcare that was based on lies to gullible Americans ready to believe any Dem propaganda coming from the likes of the un-American President Barack Hussein Obama.

Justin Smith shows why Obamacare should be completely scrapped with a true affordable healthcare reform to replace the Obama debacle. Here are some intro words from Justin to me in submitting this editorial:

 

There is an expanse of convoluted information on even the limited scope of this piece, which looks at repealing the ACA, rather than replacing it. All the double talk these politicians are doing is going to have to catch them one day. Soon I hope.

 

JRH 7/24/17

Please Support NCCR

****************

Americans Demand Full Repeal

 

By Justin O. Smith

Sent: 7/23/2017 10:55 AM

 

Experience hath shown that, even under the best forms of government, those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny.” — President Thomas Jefferson

 

Americans elected a Republican majority to Congress in 2016, in large part, to repeal Obamacare and find solutions that would make health care more affordable for all. We didn’t send Republicans to D.C. to give concessions to Democrats, who advocate for a single-payer communist system and didn’t care two-cents about Republican concerns in 2009. We didn’t vote for Obamacare-lite and more bailouts for insurance companies, or earmarks for special interests. We don’t want “repeal and replace”. Americans want to reduce the cost of health care for all Americans, and Americans demand a full repeal.

 

One might think that repealing the corrupt, failed Obamacare racket would be a fairly straightforward and necessary matter. However, on July 17th, many Republicans, such as Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, proved themselves to be no better than con-men and liars, along the same lines of Democrats, who promised Americans an affordable health care system that allowed them to keep their doctors, when Republicans attempted to bring a bill to the floor, that left much of Obamacare intact and the Medicaid expansion in place through 2024. They also created a $50 billion market stability fund nearly identical to the Obamacare “risk corridors”, rightly described as “bailouts” by some conservative Republicans, such as Senators Mike Lee and Rand Paul.

 

Senator Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) demanded $1.32 billion from the Stability Fund for Alaska in exchange for her vote on the 17th. And, the South Dakota Purchase guarantees Indian Health services clients a 100 percent federal Medicaid match, which is currently only allowed through the Indian Health Service Department.

Shortly after Senator Mitch McConnell decided to pull this bill, Senator Rand Paul stated: “… the new bill is the same as the old bill except for it leaves in place more taxes, increases taxpayers subsidies to buy insurance, and adds $70 billion to the insurance bailout superfund. I don’t see anything in here remotely resembling repeal. And I’ve said for some time now that the bill has to look more like repeal to get my vote. I can’t support it at this point.”

 

One is left wondering, about the Republican’s political will to do the right thing and set America’s health care system back on a free choice, free market path, that will allow it to succeed. The House passed a Senate repeal bill by a vote of 219 to 212 in March 2010, which Obama didn’t sign; and yet, the Republicans chose not to defunded Obamacare, when they could have.

 

Senators Rob Portman (R-OH) and Shelley Capito (R-WV) both voted for a pure repeal bill in 2015, but now object to voting for a similar bill. Senator Susan Collins (R-ME) also stated that she wouldn’t vote to advance a pure repeal.

 

What health care legislation and reforms would these Senators support, if they had to live under it too, without their current exemptions?

 

On July 19th, President Trump called on the U.S. Senate to “repeal and replace” Obamacare once again, when he should have been giving a speech on the wonderful virtues of the free market. He missed a key opportunity to explain that communism fails every time.

 

America’s health care left the free market after the 1929 Baylor University experiment with some Dallas, TX school teachers and Blue Cross, and by the end of the 1930s, a health insurance model that swept away excellent cost effective health care arrangements was created by the American Medical Association, which called those arrangements “commercial” and “unethical”. This AMA creation evolved into a miserable mixture of government and private sector power for insurers, that drove costs sky-high, even before Obamacare, because federal tax policy and subsidies encouraged doctors to charge exorbitant rates and rewarded companies for providing employees with medical insurance.

 

Both the 1965 Medicare program and the 2010 ACA incorporate the misguided logic of extending the influence of health insurance companies over health care, supervising physicians and regulating medical care, all in the name of controlling costs. This is a socialist and crony-capitalist model that has failed Americans, and it must be eradicated, while immediately implementing structural changes that create a real world free market for both health insurance and health care.

 

A U.S. Department of Health and Human Services study released on May 23rd, 2017 revealed average annual premiums increased from $2784 in 2013 to $5712 on Healthcare.gov in 2017. This is a 105 percent increase.

 

Too many Americans mistakenly believe that they can take more money out of the system, while receiving top-of-the-line treatment and care, with minimal wait times and less money going into the system in the form of premiums, co-pays and deductibles. They seek a fantasy, rather than real solutions that provide the most good for all Americans.

 

When Senate Republicans sought negotiations with the Democrats this spring, Senators Tim Kaine of Virginia and Tom Carper of Delaware wanted funding (tax payer dollars) to offset larger than expected insurance claims for health insurance companies participating in the state and federal insurance exchanges. Senator Heidi Heitkamp (D-ND) wouldn’t even agree to a meeting, without an upfront Republican agreement to no per capita Medicaid block grants to the states and no rollback in Obamacare’s Medicaid expansion.

 

Senate Majority Whip John Cornyn (R-TX) told NBC (Tues-July 18th) that he was “not interested in bailouts for insurance companies alone without reforms”. He specifically dismissed any plan for guaranteed cost sharing reduction payments, which are considered to be insurers most important demand.

 

During the first GOP debate, candidate Donald Trump said, “What I’d like to see is a private system without the artificial lines around every state. … Get rid of the artificial lines (50 state insurance commissions) and you will have yourself great plans. And then we have to take care of the people that can’t take care of themselves … through a different system.”

 

Of course, the President and Congress should take a few more actions to lower costs and create a real health care free market. It must be made legal again for a person to buy any health insurance plan suited to one’s specific needs and choices, because people shouldn’t have to pay for items they don’t need, like abortions, addictions and sex change operations, in order to fund other people’s health care. Congress must end all federal government subsidies to health insurance companies, doctors and medical facilities, and also start tort reform. And a strong free market will emerge to provide and guarantee great health care at good prices.

 

Most importantly, anyone who really loves their family must fight with every last ounce of their intestinal fortitude to ensure our healthcare is maintained in a free environment, free from the arbitrary high-handed authoritarian decisions of some Washington bureaucrat. Cost becomes irrelevant, if a bureaucrat under a government operated system can deny a person treatment, like the U.K. did in little baby Charlie Gard’s life and death case. Let’s keep all health care services attainable for all Americans.

 

America is at a crossroads, and the Republican fight to repeal Obamacare is worth having, in order to halt any movement towards a catastrophic single payer system, by Democrats who are unwilling to accept any significant conservative reforms. Republicans have a brief window in time, to undo the damage to our health care system and stop Americans from being hurt further by the ACA, and great legislative leaders would not hesitate in the face of a hard task.

 

Failure to fully repeal Obamacare is unacceptable and a crime against America.

 

By Justin O. Smith

______________________

Edited by John R. Houk

All source links are by the Editor

 

© Justin O. Smith

 

OK Dems Target YOUR Privacy


John R. Houk

© May 2, 2017

 

I am on the FreedomWorks email list. They know I live in Oklahoma. As such FreedomWorks tracks legislation in my fair State. When the legislation is antithetical to Conservative principles, they get the ball rolling to stiffen opposition to the Left-Wing agenda.

 

I have discovered the Oklahoma State House is preparing to vote on a Bill if passed, would make ALL your donation history a matter of public knowledge.

 

I don’t know about you, but I don’t Left Wing Nuts – like violent the anti-Trump rioters – to know where I live giving them the opportunity to harass me potentially violently to intimidate my Conservative stand, DO YOU?

 

The Bill is SB 579. A brief reading of the Bill indicates it is aimed at PACs, the State Dems (the Bill author is a Dem State Senator) want to know who and what every Joe-citizen is giving to. If you ask, “Why?” The possible answers lead to Big Brother monitoring of politically active citizens. I HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THAT!

 

Being a Joe-citizen myself, I am unsure of the proper citation Bill sections or sub-paragraphs or whatever. I think you can figure out from the labelling I have below:

 

SB 579; Section 2; B (1)

 

B (1) The name, address, occupation and employer of any person other than a political action committee making a contribution or contributions exceeding Fifty Dollars ($50.00) in value in the aggregate, the date and amount of any monetary or in-kind contributions made during the time period covered by the report, and the aggregate total of all contributions accepted from the person during the calendar year of the time period covered by the report;

 

Section 2; C (5)

 

(5) The name, address, occupation and employer of any Oklahoma resident making a contribution or contributions exceeding Fifty Dollars ($50.00) in value in the aggregate, the date and amount of any monetary or in-kind contributions made during the time period covered by the report, and the aggregate total of all contributions accepted from the person during the calendar year of the time period covered by the report.

 

NOT GOOD MY FELLOW OKLAHOMANS!

 

The FreedomWorks email provides a link for individuals to participate in emailing an Oklahoman’s State District Representative. Unfortunately, the form does not provide the name of your Representative according to the District you vote in.

 

Also in my personal search for my District and Representative, I discovered the dot-gov does not provide the Representative’s personal email.

 

What I did then was locate my District, find my Representative and then use the dot-gov email form with the FreedomWorks wording for the mass email to the dot-gov form with the proper information to get to my Representative.

 

To find the State District you live in, GO HERE to find the map you wish to use.

 

After you get your District number, you can GO HERE to find your current OK State Rep.

 

When you find your OK State Rep, simply click the email button and a form email will come up for you to enter your info and the FreedomWorks text to protest SB 579.

 

Below is the FreedomWorks email alert.

 

JRH 5/2/17

Please Support NCCR

**************

Liberal Extremists

 

By Jason Pye

Sent 5/1/2017 5:00 PM

FreedomWorks

 

For weeks, the radical left has terrorized Berkeley, California, turning that city into a war zone. They’ve smashed windows, hurled Molotov cocktails to set fires, and violently attacked conservatives like you, all to silence conservatives’ voices.

 

But if that’s not bad enough, several liberals in the Oklahoma House of Representatives want to make it easier for these extremists to target YOU! Don’t let that happen. Contact these state representatives right now. Tell them to protect your privacy rights. Tell them to stop SB 579 today.

 

John, if enacted, this bill will put your donation history online for the world to see, making you and your family an easy target for these extremists.

 

Don’t let them put your family at risk. Don’t let them pass this bill!

 

Send these state representatives a message right now. Tell them to protect your privacy rights. Tell them to stop SB 579 today.

 

For Freedom,

 

Jason Pye
Director of Public Policy, FreedomWorks

 

________________

400 North Capitol Street, NW Suite 765 Washington, DC 20001

 

http://www.freedomworks.org/

 

Toll Free 1.888.564.6273

Local 202.783.3870

 

Yurki Shares AFA & NPLA Emails


Yurki1000 sent a cross post to a Stand4Life email that was supportive David Daleiden and Sandra Merritt who are being prosecuted in California for exposing Planned Parenthood use of live birth killing of babies to use their body parts for research.

 

Since then Yurki1000 has commented twice on the post.

 

The first comment is AFA alert on boycotting Target on their support for Transgender bathroom rights and homosexual marriage.

 

The last comment is a Pro-Life issue sent out by NPLA. The issue an unborn child, two-days before his due date, was killed by a drunk driver. There was no prosecution because the baby was not considered a person. Hence the NPLA supports the Life at Conception Act. An unborn child is as much a person as any man or woman.

 

Below are two comment he has posted to date.

 

JRH 4/13/17

Please Support NCCR

*************

Yurki Shares AFA & NPLA Emails

Posted April 12, 2017

 

April 11, 2017 at 9:11 AM

 

Thanks John 😊

 

AFA sends me email:

 

– Dear Jyrki,

 

In April 2016, Target Corporation announced its stores would begin allowing men free access to the same restrooms and changing rooms as little girls. American Family Association immediately launched a boycott Target pledge which has garnered nearly 1.4 million signatures.

 

Target’s decision is unacceptable for families, and their dangerous and misguided policy continues to put women and children in harm’s way.

 

It is urgent the Target boycott reach 1.5 million signers by the end of April. At that point, I will personally return to Minneapolis with an additional 500,000 names. I will then discuss how Target can invite 1.5 million AFA supporters back to their stores by having a common sense bathroom and dressing room policy that links use of these rooms to a person’s biological sex.

 

Help us reach the 1.5 million signature mark.

 

If you haven’t signed the boycott pledge, please sign it today!

 

If you have signed the pledge, please forward this email to your family and friends.

 

Most important: Share this information with your Sunday School class and encourage them to sign the pledge at http://www.afa.net/target.

 

If our mission resonates with you, please consider supporting our work financially with a tax-deductible donation. The easiest way to do that is through online giving. It is easy to use, and most of all, it is secure.

 

Tim Wildmon, President
American Family Association –

https://www.afa.net/target

 

More:

 

http://ubiquitous8thoughts.over-blog.com/article-massachusetts-family-campaign-getting-global-attention-123801053.html

 

http://www.massresistance.org/

 

https://afajournal.org/2007/july/0707agenda.asp

 

http://www.bibleprobe.com/homosexuality.htm

 

VIDEO: “What ‘gay marriage’ did to Massachusetts — Update!”

 

Posted by MassResistance

Published on Oct 18, 2013

 

This is the update to the blockbuster report and video done previously by MassResistance. Most people don’t know what REALLY happens when same-sex “marriage” is imposed. The effects on society are outrageous and far-reaching.

 

Blessings
Jyrki

+++

April 12, 2017 at 4:36 PM

 

From NPLA:

 

– Dear Jyrki,

 

Little Brady Surovik was the long awaited 8 pound 2 oz. child of Heather Surovik, but tragically little Brady’s life was suddenly snuffed out by a drunk driver in Colorado on July 5th, 2012.

 

Under Colorado law the drunk driver would normally be charged with vehicular homicide.

 

Yet Colorado prosecutors refused to bring any charges against the driver.

 

Why you ask?

 

You see Brady was two days away from birth.

 

Colorado state law prevented charging the drunk driver because the law stated Brady was not yet “a person.”

 

For the lack of a mere two days, the drunk driver literally got away scot-free.

 

You and I know there is no difference between an unborn and a born baby; just differences in size and weight.

 

Though this drunk driver may have got away with taking one innocent life; abortionists have been getting away with taking over a million lives every year for 44 years.

 

Of course laws against drunk driving will never completely end the slaughter on the highways. But together you and I can end the long lived slaughter that is abortion.

 

That is why your National Pro-Life Alliance is committed to passing a Life at Conception Act in Congress to overturn Roe v. Wade and define that life begins at conception.

 

Again I thank you for all you do.

 

For Life,
Martin Fox, President
National Pro-Life Alliance –

http://www.prolifealliance.com/

 

More:

https://oneway2day.wordpress.com/tag/npla/

 

True – Crooked Hillary, so also Crooked Obama


John R. Houk

© April 12, 2017

 

President Trump clearly and accurately branded Hillary Clinton as “Crooked Hillary” during his winning campaign for POTUS. Then voters in a majority of States were wise enough to understand Crooked Hillary cover-ups of Classified data on a private email server was occurring. I am convinced the FBI, the Intel Community and Obama Administration operatives aided in that cover-up.

 

THEN Wikileakswhether with Russian help, private hackers or insider whistleblowers – exposed the crookedness of the Hillary campaign in her staff and in the Dem Party itself.

 

Then a release of a book exposing Pay for Play money scandal from foreign donors to Clinton family charitable foundation for political favors while Crooked Hillary was Secretary of State.

 

One could also meld all the scandals that slipped mysteriously away like Teflon associated with both Bill and Crooked Hillary as a taint to her 2016 candidacy.

 

ALL this put together I find it incredulous that the popular vote spread (officially yet suspiciously) favored Crooked Hillary! Thank God for the Founding Fathers’ wisdom of the Electoral College levelling the play field between populous States and less populous States!

 

AND SO, it is also becoming clearer – to the horrified denial of Dem rank-and-file – that President Barack Hussein was also spying on pre-election Trump, post-election (lame duck period) and on other Americans. To what end? OBVIOUSLY to manipulate a Crooked Hillary victory to maintain the nefarious fundamental Obama-transformation of America into an unconstitutional Leftist Living Constitution nation with socially liberal values.

Obama/Trump Photo @ Palin Facebook Alert

 

Fox News’ Adam Housley brings the clarity on Obama spying. I first read of Housley’s report from a Sarah Palin Facebook alert and then I found some added info from the Young Conservatives website that has similar yet expanded info of SarahPalin.com. Both sites use a video of Housley on the O’Reilly Factor. In the cross post (of both) I am only using the Palin version of the video and Housley Tweet.

 

JRH 4/12/17

Please Support NCCR

**************

Obama Spying Investigation Just Took A STUNNING Turn

 

By Andrew Mark Miller

April 12, 2017 10:06am

SarahPalin.com

 

It appears that Congress has expanded the Obama spying investigation and they are possibly looking into whether or not Obama spied on more people than just the Trump team.

 

Adam Housley

@adamhousley

 

House sources say investigation into unmasking is looking into the possibility that more evidence than just the Trump Team was collected

 

8:34 PM – 11 Apr 2017

 

Here is Housley with more information…

 

VIDEO: What Is The Status Of The Susan Rice Investigation?


 

Posted by Tea Partier

Published on Apr 11, 2017

 

The O’Reilly Factor’ examines the surveillance controversy latest. Adam Housley, Malia Zimmerman.
BillOReilly.com
http://www.billoreilly.com/
Fox News: The O’Reilly Factor
http://www.foxnews.com/shows/the-oreilly-factor.html
Fox News
http://www.foxnews.com/
Fox Nation
http://nation.foxnews.com/

 

This story seems to get worse and worse for the Obama Administration as each day goes by.

 

H/T Weasel Zippers 

+++

Report: Congress EXPANDING Obama Spying Case, Looking If People Other Than Trump Team Spied On

 

 

 

By Nickarama

April 12, 2017 12:43am

Young Conservatives

 

Adam Housley, who broke the major Fox report on the surveillance of the Trump team by the Obama administration, is now dropping some more information.

 

Check this tweet out.

 

What he’s saying is that Congress is investigating whether other people, and not just the Trump team, were being spied on by the Obama administration.

 

Who might that include?

 

Adam Housley was on The O’Reilly Factor this evening. He said that the Congressional investigation is expanding. He said they are looking into who else the Obama administration may have unmasked, “Including politicians,” and how their information may have been collected.

 

O’Reilly Video: What Is The Status Of The Susan Rice Investigation?

 

Housley reported that Congress is upset with the FBI and the NSA because they haven’t been turning over the information that Congress has requested. It’s been four weeks and they have not responded to 100 questions submitted to both FBI Director James Comey and NSA Director Mike Rogers. Nor has Comey returned to the Congress to testify.

 

He also noted the Congress members are saying that the FBI and the other intelligence agencies better comply or the 702 program which allows them to be able to do surveillance is not going to be authorized by Congress.

 

_______________

True – Crooked Hillary, so also Crooked Obama

John R. Houk

© April 12, 2017

______________

Obama Spying Investigation Just Took A STUNNING Turn

 

Copyright ©2017. SarahPalin.com. All rights reserved.

______________

Report: Congress EXPANDING Obama Spying Case, Looking If People Other Than Trump Team Spied On

 

Copyright © Young Conservatives LLC – All Rights Reserved

 

Young Conservatives About Page

 

Founding

 

YoungCons.com was created by David Rufful and Josh Riddle in their freshmen dorm room at Dartmouth College in May 2009.

 

Without any funding or support, Josh and David have built one of the largest websites in the world through their hard work and determination. The site receives 75 million page views per month and 25 million unique visitors per month. The site is consistently ranked among the Top 100 Desktop Sites and Top 25 Mobile Sites, according to Quantcast rankings.

 

 

Josh and David maintain exclusive ownership and control of the website as well as their company, Young Conservatives LLC. YoungCons.com has been profitable throughout its entire history.

 

Mission

 

As defenders of freedom in our constitutional republic, it is our mission and duty to steer the country away from the false promises of progressivism and advocate a smaller government of moral absolutes and individual responsibility.

 

In a technological era driven fiercely by the mainstream media, we believe that those who vocalize a true conservative message are slanted as intolerant, racist, bible and gun clinging, corporate fat cats who could not care less about the environment nor the well being of their fellow man. Young Conservatives offers articles and videos that prove otherwise. We have a mission to spread the love and logic surrounding true conservatism.

 

In a day where conservatives are seen as close-minded and archaic, Young Conservatives bring a new perspective to a long-standing philosophy. Our generation will — one way or another — make decisions that will directly affect a rapidly aging and needy population and an exploding, unsustainable national debt.

 

We feel the moral obligation to intervene against those who abandon our founding principles and embrace the comfortable, but deceptive ideals of moral relativism, victim identification and outcome equivalence. Instead of sinking into the assemblage of the self-satisfied, Young Conservatives challenges the hearts and minds of Americans with content that exposes the false promises of progressivism and the utopian state. This problem is real, and the fight for freedom has READ THE REST