Democrats Protect Illegal Alien Criminals


Why do you think the Dems are so supportive of ILLEGAL Aliens invading the USA? How does such an influx of criminals by virtue of being here illegally benefit the objectives of the Democratic Party?

 

Answer: a future voting base to further transform America away from its founding roots and heritage of Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness in the land of entrepreneurial opportunity.

JRH 7/17/19

Your generosity is always appreciated:

Please Support NCCR

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

Democrats Protect Illegal Alien Criminals 

Open to Every Stranger Under the Sun – Disgusting and Shameful

 

By Justin O. Smith

Sent  7/16/2019 8:48 PM

 

Today in America, there isn’t any other issue more dangerous to all Americans and poised to completely ruin America and tear Her asunder than the necessity of stopping the anti-American, communist inspired globalist and Democratic Party initiatives and policies, that advocate and facilitate Open Borders, free healthcare, voting rights and U.S. citizenship for ILLEGAL Aliens. America is either a nation of laws and the rule of law or it isn’t. America and Her people either stop this madness or Americans will watch as we lose our culture and our American heritage, and indeed, America as She has stood for over 200 years. [Bold Text by Blog Editor]

 

Over a year and a half ago, President Trump called for American’s to set aside their differences and “to seek out common ground, and to summon the unity we need to deliver for the people … the people we are elected to serve.”

 

I’m pretty damned certain President Trump was speaking about the American people and not the Illegal Alien invaders now attempting to force their way into the nation and even demanding entrance. There isn’t any common ground to be found today between the Democratic Party, who represents Illegal Aliens’ interests over those of actual citizens and the Conservatives of America, who are fighting to save the Republic from their Open Borders policy and their flagrant flaunting of the law.

 

Recently, in response to an ICE operation aimed at carrying out thousands of deportation orders on July 14th, some two thousand protesters gathered outside of the GEO Group’s federal immigration detention center in Aurora, Colorado on July 12th, voicing their anger over Illegal Aliens being held in “cages”, in the same manner seen in at least ten other U.S. cities over this particular weekend. In what has become all too common place a display of Anti-American sentiment, shocking and despicable nevertheless, these protesters defaced an American flag with spray painted words “Abolish ICE” and the raised it upside down and alongside the Mexican flag.

 

Flag Desecration at GEO Group Federal immigration detention center Aurora CO 7/12/19 

 

One young toddler of obvious European descent was pictured in a stroller carrying a sign that read, “Would you steal me from my mother and lock me in a Filthy Cage?”

 

They seem to have forgotten, or they simply choose to ignore, the fact that rivers of blood have been spilled under the American Flag to defend and preserve the freedom they enjoy today, as they use their “rights” to abuse the nation in such a vile, despicable and reprehensible fashion, placing their hatred for America on full display.

 

Claudia Castillo, a former U.S. Army Major and an intelligence officer, was there as a representative for the Colorado Immigrant Rights Coalition. She told the Denver Post that those who took part in the disrespect of the American Flag shoved her, cursed her and spit on her when she tried to stop them. Castillo said, “It was disgusting and shameful”. And many Americans agree with you Major.

 

Meanwhile, at approximately 4:00 a.m. on Saturday, July 13th, Willem Van Spronsen, an Antifa member, attacked the Northwest Detention Center, the local ICE facility in Tacoma, Washington. According to the Tacoma Police Department, Spronsen was throwing incendiary devices, setting cars ablaze, and armed with a “homemade” AR15 when they stopped him, killing him, before he could detonate the facility’s propane tank, which could have resulted in the mass murder of the facilities guards and those in detention.

 

Willem Van Spronsen Antifa terrorist killed police Tacoma WA

 

In his manifesto [Blog Editor: Manifesto text on pro-Antifa website actually eulogizing the terrorist as a hero. Can you say seeds of Civil War?], released by KIRO7, Spronsen said he wanted to make a statement at the facility, writing: “I regret that I will miss the rest of the revolution. Doing what I can to help defend my precious and wondrous people is an experience too rich to describe. I am Antifa.” If he was truly interested in defending his “precious people”, he would have been defending them against being robbed, raped and murdered by illegal aliens every day, every week and each year.

 

While Spronsen was attacking an ICE facility, New York’s Marxist Mayor Bill de Blasio was telling Illegal Aliens, “we will do everything we can to protect you.” DeBlasio and others have essentially announced that they are openly violating federal immigration laws.

 

Speaker Nancy Pelosi urged Illegal Aliens to resist deportation on July 11th. She suggested that they have the right to refuse to open their doors to ICE agents who try to apprehend them in any national sweep aimed at their deportation. In similar fashion, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s campaign sent out a mass email, that said the same thing, except with a lot more detail on how to interact with ICE, and in seventeen different languages.

 

What a load of Bull Manure. It is this sort of Commie Lunacy that aids criminal Illegal Aliens over the good and decent Americans. These nuts in our society and even Congress are protecting Illegal Alien criminals.

 

Thankfully, on July 12th, acting ICE director Thomas Homan gave a compelling and emotionally charged accounting for his actions, before Congress, and put AOC in her place, when she castigated him on separating children from families, by noting that even U.S. citizens are separated from their children when they commit a crime. AOC countered that seeking asylum isn’t illegal, but was shown her error and left speechless and fumbling with her papers, when Homan stated: “if you want to seek asylum, then go to a port of entry. Do it the legal way. The Attorney General (Barr} of the United States has made that clear.”

 

https://youtu.be/BRvaqcgbx8k

 

In connection with their report on July 12th, Immigration and Customs Enforcement confirmed to the Prairie State Wire in Illinois, that Jose Rodriguez, who struck and killed Corey Cottrell on June 22nd, is an illegal alien. And, according to ICE, Rodriguez had an expedited removal order dating all the way back to April 17th 2013.

 

 Corey Cottrell (left), Jose Rodriguez (right)  

 

Breitbart reports that there are 1.7 million people from Central America and Mexico living in the United States who have been issued final deportation orders. Breitbart also noted that Illinois became a sanctuary state in 2017 and currently harbors 400,000 illegal aliens from being detained and deported. Rodriguez was even granted bail by Illinois despite his deportation order.

 

Engulfing our country with their outrageous and dangerous crap, the blood of thousands of maimed and murdered Americans is on the hands of the corrupt and criminal Congressmen and their supporters, who are obstructing good immigration law and securing our borders. Every damn day more Americans die at the hands of Illegal Aliens and Congress does nothing other than continue their protection of criminal Illegal Aliens.

 

From the first day of the 1965 Immigration Act, the law has been utilized by Democrat administrations to single-handedly alter the face of America forever, and rather than do their duty to America and the Constitution, we see political prostitutes in Congress, represent the antithesis of America’s Founding and openly defy the intelligent enforcement of more than four hundred federal statutes aimed at preventing illegal aliens, drugs and terrorists and weapons of mass destruction from crossing our borders. They have turned the nation into a flaming cauldron of cultural and ethnic differences, in the name of multiculturalism and diversity, and their efforts are resulting in the erosion and destruction of our entire Founding, through mass migrations of people with little respect or love for America’s Western and Judeo-Christian Principles, much less our Constitution.

 

Article IV, Section 4 of the U.S. Constitution reads: “The United States shall guarantee to every state in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence.”

 

And yet, mass legal immigration into America isn’t adequate enough for the red, radical, communist Democrats, who scream “racist” at the very mention of the border wall, calling it a “monument to white supremacists”. However, anyone paying attention understands this is all theater in their fight to ensure their power and control of the U.S. government for the rest of the century.

 

Today, rather than throw America’s doors wide open forever to hordes of the Ungrateful and despite Emma Lazarus’ words, “Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free …”, America should take sound counsel and allow entry to only those hopeful immigrants who support our principles and Constitution and come not to subvert and overthrow our republic as aliens and enemies.

 

No nation can last forever when its borders are open to every stranger under the sun.

 

By Justin O. Smith

___________________________

Edited by John R. Houk

Source links and text enclosed by brackets are by the Editor.

 

© Justin O. Smith

 

The UN, Globalist Multiculturalism & Islam One World Despotism


John R. Houk

© July 11, 2019

 

After WWII the image of the United Nations was an international organization that the Allied victors would utilize to prevent another nation to pull any conquest objectives ala Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy and Imperial Japan. After the war and the public emerging of atrocities committed by Nazis and the Japanese war machine populations of Western nations breathed a sigh of relief that a UN would prevent global despotic atrocities.

 

The first dent in this relief was the Communist international revolutionary agenda of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR – essentially Russia) and Communist (Red) China. Those Communist giants used their satellite vassal yet officially independent nations to fill the UN with Marxist opposition to everything Western especially to the USA.

 

The USSR and Red China in their efforts to woo global Communism began to assist Third World nations willing to be anti-Western (with anti-Americanism as the focus) in their development. Hence Communist revolutionaries began to emerge in newly independent nations formerly dominated as Western Colonies primarily of European nations.

 

The Muslim world advanced despots as monarchs and dictators who nationalized the Western control of the oil industries managed by Multinational Corporations (MNC). Islam is inherently antagonistic to all things non-Muslim inspired by Islamic revered writings.

 

The USSR tried to use this Islamic antipathy to export Communist principles to the Muslim world. However, Islam-alone brainwashing ultimately meant the Muslim despots used the USSR support to offset the power of Western supported MNCs. Essentially Muslim despots played an international game of pitting the USA and the USSR against each other to shore up their own Islamic authoritarian regimes.

 

THEN the unthinkable according to Islamic doctrine occurred. Jews abused for centuries in the West gained sympathy due to Nazi genocide resulting in a gradual reclamation of the Jewish Homeland. A homeland that had been under one form or another of Islamic control due to conquest since the mid-600s AD.

 

A Jewish Homeland is unthinkable because in intolerant doctrine, once conquered by Islam a land must remain Islamic forever. The Islamic vision of conquest domination in three opinions:

 

 

 

 

Five Stages of Islamic Conquest

The absence of Communist satellite nations due to the collapse of the USSR led to the domination of two groups in the UN: Nations dominated by Leftist Globalist Multiculturalism and Nations dominated by Islamic Thought.

 

Since I’m not really an erudite writer let’s look at some quotes relating to Leftist (perhaps Marxist) Globalist Multiculturalism (all from essays or opinions that should be read in full at your leisure):

 

The Pox of Multiculturalism; By Bruce Walker; American Thinker; 5/19/18:

 

What the left calls “multiculturalism” is actually the systematic destruction of cultures and the replacement of these cultures by a synthetic, artificial, and meaningless global culture.  When the left talks about “diversity,” it really means the crushing of differences in thought, values, and art into a sort of baby food which neither nourishes the soul or elevates the mind.

 

 

Multiculturalism is an effort to destroy culture in the name of harmonizing cultures.  It is, at best, gross globalist imperialism.  It is, at worst, the Orwellian deconstruction of all societal values and beliefs.

 

Multiculturalism: As A Tool To Divide And Conquer – The Layman’s Primer; By Louis Beam; LouisBeam.com:

 

No nation is born multicultured. Multiculturalism is an unnatural as well as unhealthy condition that can only afflict states in national decline. A multicultural state carries in it’s [sic] geneses the seeds of eventual national destruction.

All multicultural nations will be found to be in a state of political, moral, economic and social decay. Greed and corruption will characterize the government coupled with oppressive measures directed against citizens. Lies and deceit will be stock and trade of media, politicians, and educational institutions. Such are the bellwethers of a multiculturalist advent.

In modern times multiculturalism is instituted from the top down as an elitist ruling class tool used to play one or more racial or ethnic groups against another. The ensuing cultural melee serves the political designs, economic goals and power needs of elitist rulers and their sponsors. This technique was developed by Marxist ideologues who used multiculturalism in Russia to divide and conquer resistance to the institution of a communist state. The end result of their successful takeover was the murder of thirty million humans in the Soviet Union alone. Many more elsewhere.

The same internationalist cabals who sponsored Lenin, Trotsky, and Stalin as the multicultural leaders of the Soviet state from their banking houses in New York, similarly sponsor the multicultural leaders of the United States, Canada, and Europe today. An interlocking network of foundations such as Ford and Carnegie, international banking empires such as Rockefeller and Rothschild, and government agencies firmly in their control work in tandem with controlled propaganda outlets such as the New York Times, CBS, and Hollywood, to promote, foster, and institute multiculturalism today. While the examples used in this essay deal primarily with the United States the same process with the same methods is being employed elsewhere. This of itself is prima facie evidence of a cabal which promotes multiculturalism as a tool to achieve its objectives.

Multiculturalism is being used as a hammer to forge the compliant people who will compose the obedient states of the New World Order. As a weapon of post modern political warfare multiculturalism has few equals, which, thus explains its use currently against all of Western Europe, the United States, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand. Deliberate fragmentation of these nations and the resultant loss of national identity and purpose into politically disharmonious units, serves as a stepping stone to world government. And who will compose that world government? A ruling class consisting of an “economic hierarchy” that replaces the philosophy of the nineteenth century “natural hierarchy.” A force that views countries and the people that live in them first as economic targets to be exploited, and second as military targets to be defeated if they resist.

 

 

Social instability, caused by a steady erosion of standards and values, coupled with a scramble over dwindling economic opportunities by conflicting ethnic groups, produces precisely the alienation and conflict needed to implement a multicultural state. Further, the lack of common standards and values leads to personal disorganization, resulting in unsociable behavior. This is the life support system of a multicultural state. In a word: anomie.

As a political tool multiculturalism has several applications. It is used to prevent a national consensus among the electorate. The confluence of divergent life views, cultures, beliefs, religions, ethnic habits, etc. insures a swirling river of discontent upon which the multiculturalist rides. It is a perfect method of ensuring that there can never in the future be accord, unity, and a common agreed upon destiny among those ruled. Multiculturalism represents a basic form of divide and conquer, to the benefit of corrupt government and its sponsors.

Multiculturalism is likewise a financial tool used to socially and economically level a targeted population. When implemented, it becomes in fact a battle over scarce resources and shrinking economic opportunities, with government weighing in on the side of cheap labour. A continual flow of impoverished workers is insured through immigration (both legal and illegal), who by working for less compensation continually drive wages down. For the vast majority of citizens the standard of living will not increase, but rather constantly decrease.

 

As a general rule:

 

The amount of multiculturalism in any society is directly proportional to the corruption at the top of a political system and inversely proportional to national unity.

This means: multiculturalism will have succeeded in so much as the country has failed.

 

Multiculturalism can further be used as “transitional tool” to take a targeted population from one form of government to another. When a political condition of greed, massive corruption, and diversity of objective is coupled to a social condition of drugs, violence, and discontent, therein exists the perfect environment for governmental change to a system that more closely serves long term interests of ruling elitists. Seeing that both the problem and solution are provided by the same people makes the CIA’s importation of some one hundred billion dollars worth of cocaine and other drugs into the United States understandable. While at the same time explaining FBI, ATF, and other, more secretive federal government agencies involvement in domestic terrorism or its cover-up. Suddenly, that which erroneously was previously thought to be unrelated events show their common thread and purpose.

Within the deleterious milieu of multiculturalism exists the propaganda opportunity for re-education of the people into a more malleable entity. A targeted population will be shaped mentally by new forms of public education in the schools, media indoctrination, and by elitist pronouncements. Thus placed in a crucible of economic necessity and social pressure, once free citizens become despondent masses, adjusting to and accepting fundamentally changing national circumstances as a matter of expedient survival. For the reticent, conformity by force will ensue in the form of legal penalties disguised as ant-drug, anti-terrorism, or anti-hate laws. All of this leading toward what George Orwell so aptly predicted in his book 1984:

 

“Almost certainly we are moving into an age of totalitarian dictatorships. An age in which freedom of thought will be at first a deadly sin and later on a meaningless abstraction.”

A society is being spawned where those with the most unsociable behavior, deviant lifestyle, or personal failures are given the most by government. This is TRUST ME READ ENTIRE ESSAY

 

The Globalism Threat – Socialism’s New World Order; By Jeff Carlson, CFA; TheMarketsWork.com; 2/24/17:

 

 

Globalism is often clad in free trade garb but in fact there is a hindrance of free trade with globalism. Globalism, through its attempt to erase national borders (and identities), applies a broad economic brush to varying problems and economic conditions of differing regions and as a result fails by definition. Globalism tends to exacerbate economic problems rather than fixing them, and hinders free trade by distorting market responses.

Globalism initiates with talk of open borders and free trade but inevitably leads to concentrated government and centralized planning. …

 

 

Although the terms are often used interchangeably, Globalization is NOT the same as Globalism. They are very different things. Globalization is a natural economic outgrowth of trade. Globalism is a political goal – plain and simple.

 

 

Globalism differs from Capitalism in several distinct aspects. Globalism promotes globally centralized control of laws, foreign policy and monetary policy. Unlike Capitalism, Globalism inherently blends rule of law with rule of man. Globalism comes into existence through the ownership of laws. And through the ownership of law, Globalism gains ownership of nations.

 

If you refer back to Gramsci, Alinsky and the Left, you will recall I introduced several concepts – Counter Hegemony, Critical Theory and Gradualism. Antonio Gramsci created the Theory of Cultural Hegemony – the way in which nations use cultural institutions to maintain power in capitalist societies. Gramsci felt that in order to change society, the entire value systems of Societal Institutions must be overturned. This would require the introduction of an entirely new set of values and beliefs – Counter Hegemony. Gradualism – along with Critical Theory – were the processes used to achieve Counter Hegemony. Marxist/Socialist philosophers – led by the Frankfurt School – picked up where Gramsci left off and brought these ideas to America. They refined Gramsci’s Marxist ideas – they reshaped them.

 

 

If Culture is the true source of Capitalism – how do you truly change Culture? You change it by removing the identities of Culture. As Theodor Adorno stated, you create a “genuine liberal” – an individual “free of all groups, including race, family and institutions”. A Global Citizen.

 

The tool used to accomplish this goal? Political Correctness – or “same thinking”. Raymond V. Raehn put it this way; “Political Correctness seeks to impose a uniformity of thought and behavior on all Americans and is therefore totalitarian in nature”. Political Correctness is Cultural Marxism – also known as multiculturalism. Political Correctness is the translation of Marxism from economic to cultural terms. And once you’ve changed the culture you can change the laws.

 

The end game of Political Correctness – its ultimate goal – is Globalism.

 

And it is here we must be careful. For Globalization has opened a pathway to Globalism. This is the very reason the two are so often presented as the same. An economic process – Globalization – has been altered and repackaged to further a goal of societal change. This is why Globalists so often dress Globalization as Globalism. Globalization is required for Globalism to become a reality. But Globalism is NOT a necessary prerequisite for Globalization.

 

 

… Just as Communists first seek to impose Socialism on their way to Communism, so do Globalists seek to turn Globalization into a stepping stone towards Globalism. Their goal is to convince citizens they are one and the same. Using Gradualism.

 

But there is a distinct difference – and an obstacle. Globalization can lead to benefits for all while still preserving the nation-state. Which means the concept of national identity stands firmly in the way of Globalism. In order to maintain national identity you must first maintain self-governance and full sovereignty. Globalism seeks to break national identity by subsuming national laws. Ultimately, preservation of national or sovereign law is the key to preventing Globalism.

 

In 1995, the Commission on Global Governance issued a report titled Our Global Neighborhood. The report advanced the view that nations are interdependent and called for a strengthened United Nations. The Commission made a standard definition of global governance stating that;

 

“Governance is the sum of the many ways individuals and institutions, public and private, manage their common affairs. It is a continuing process through which conflicting or diverse interests may be accommodated and cooperative action may be taken. It includes formal institutions and regimes empowered to enforce compliance, as well as informal arrangements that people and institutions either have agreed to or perceive to be in their interest…It is our firm conclusion that the United Nations must continue to play a central role in global governance.”

 

It was the U.N.’s first real published step towards World Governance. Towards Globalism.

 

 

… Of particular note is the UN’s focus and treatment of Israel. Since the creation of the UN’s Human Rights Council in 2006, there have been 121 condemnations of nations for human rights violations. Of these, 62 condemnations were of Israel. Condemnations for the rest of the world’s nations combined equaled 59.

 

Corruption, fraud and mismanagement in U.N. procurement have been ongoing since the organization’s creation.

 

 

How is “piercing the shell of state sovereignty” accomplished? It is done slowly and incrementally. It is done through division – by undermining society through created rifts. It is accomplished through the application of Political Correctness. Society is slowly fractured into divisions of class, race and gender. Sub-groups are created within these divisions to further enhance societal stress. By lessening national identity the process of usurping national sovereignty becomes easier. There is a reason why George Soros, the self-avowed billionaire globalist, funds 150 different progressive organizations through his Open Society Foundation. Groups like the ACLU, Black Lives Matter, CAIR (Council on American-Islamic Relations), Human Rights Campaign, La Raza and the Women’s March. More importantly, this is why Globalists are in favor of unlimited immigration – and the national strife and divisions it creates.

 

… THIS MAY SEEM A LONG QUOTE BUT THE ESSAY IS MUCH LONGER AND WORTHY TO BE READ

 

I used a lot of posting space to understand the influence of Leftist Globalist Multiculturalism in the United Nations. The other influence in the UN is from Muslim dominated nations committed to Islamic Thought.

 

A rational person would think or wonder: How in the world can Marxist oriented Globalist Multiculturalism and those committed to Islamic thought be on the same page?

 

The simplistic answer is both concepts seek a global New World Order by dismantling the Old World Order.

 

The Old World Order is currently dominated a Western Christian Heritage that has developed governing institutions related to various forms of Representative Democracy. For clarity: Not absolute Democracy which degenerates into mob rule which is its own form of despotism. At present, the American Republic form of governance is the best paradigm of Representative Democracy.

 

The American Republic is the ideological enemy Globalist Multiculturalism and Islamic Thought.

 

What in the essence of the traditional sovereign American Republic bugs the crap out of Islamic Thought? For brevity’s sake here is a quick (meaning not exhaustive) comparison between Islam and guarantees in the U.S. Constitution courtesy of Bill Federer at WND:

 

The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution states that Congress shall make no law prohibiting the “free exercise” of religion, yet Mohammad said “Whoever changes his Islamic religion, kill him.” (Hadith Sahih al-Bukhari, Vol. 9, Book 84, No. 57). The Quran also states in Sura 4:89 “Those who reject Islam must be killed. If they turn back (from Islam), take hold of them and kill them wherever you find them.”

 

The First Amendment states Congress shall not abridge “the freedom of speech,” yet Islamic law enforces dhimmi status on non-Muslims, prohibiting them from observing their religious practices publicly, raising their voices during prayer, ringing church bells or say anything considered “insulting to Islam.” Islamic law relegates non-Muslims to “dhimmi” status, where they are not to propagate their customs among Muslims and cannot display a cross, Christmas decorations, or the Star of David.

 

The First Amendment states Congress cannot take away “the right of the people to peaceably assemble,” yet Islamic law states non-Muslims cannot repair places of worship or build new ones, they must allow Muslims to participate in their private meetings, they cannot bring their dead near the graveyards of Muslims or mourn their dead loudly.

 

The First Amendment states Congress cannot take away the right of the people “to petition the Government for a redress of grievances,” yet Islamic law states non-Muslims are not to harbor any hostility towards the Islamic state or give comfort to those who disagree with Islamic government.

 

The Second Amendment states “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed,” yet Islamic law states non-Muslims cannot possess arms, swords or weapons of any kind.

 

The Third Amendment states one cannot be forced to “quarter” someone in their house, yet Islamic law states non-Muslims must entertain and feed for three days any Muslim who wants to stay in their home, and for a longer period if the Muslim falls ill, and they cannot prevent Muslim travelers from staying in their places of worship.

 

The Fourth Amendment guarantees “the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures,” yet Islamic law states if a non-Muslim rides on a horse with a saddle and bridle, the horse can be taken away.

 

The Fifth Amendment states that “no person shall be held to answer for a capital or otherwise infamous crime … without due process of law,” yet Mohammad said “No Muslim should be killed for killing a Kafir (infidel).” (Hadith Sahih al-Bukhari, Vol. 9, No. 50).

 

The Sixth Amendment guarantees a “public trial by an impartial jury” and the Seventh Amendment states “the right of trial by jury shall be preserved,” yet Islamic law does not give non-Muslims equal legal standing with Muslims, even prohibiting them from testifying in court against Muslims.

 

The Eighth Amendment states there shall be no “cruel and unusual punishments inflicted,” yet the Quran states: “Cut off the hands of thieves, whether they are male or female, as punishment for what they have done – a deterrent from Allah.” (Sura 5:38) A woman who has been raped is also punished “with a hundred stripes.” (Sura 24:2) Women can be beaten: “If you experience rebellion from the women, you shall first talk to them, then (you may use negative incentives like) deserting them in bed, then you may (as a last alternative) beat them” (Sura 4:34). Honor killings of wives and daughters who have embarrassed their families have been reported by the United Nations in Muslim populations of Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon, Morocco, Pakistan, Syria, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Yemen and increasing in Western nations.

 

The 13th Amendment states there shall be no “slavery or involuntary servitude,” yet the Quran accommodates slavery as Mohammad owned slaves.

 

The 14th Amendment guarantees citizens “equal protection of the laws,” yet the Quran does not consider Jews, Christians and other non-Muslims as equal to Muslims before the law. Referring to Jews as “the People of the Book,” Mohammad said: “They are those whom Allah has cursed; who have been under his wrath; some of whom were turned into apes and swine” (Sura 5:60, 7:166, 2:65).

 

The 15th Amendment guarantees “the right of the citizens … to vote shall not be denied … on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude,” yet strict interpretation of Islamic law does not allow voting, as democracy is considered people setting themselves in the place of Allah by making the laws.

 

The 16th Amendment has some similarities with Islamic law, as “Congress shall have the power to lay and collect taxes on incomes from whatever source derived.” Mohammad said “Fight those who believe not in Allah … until they pay the jizya [tax] with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.” (Sura 9:29)

 

The 18th Amendment [Blog Editor: Repealed by 21st Amendment] has some similarities with Islamic law, as “the manufacture, sale, or transportation of intoxicating liquors … for beverage purposes is hereby prohibited.”

 

The 19th Amendment allows women to vote, yet in strict Islamic countries women cannot vote.

 

The 21st Amendment allows for the sale of liquor, yet Islamic law states non-Muslims are not to sell or drink wine and liquor openly. [Bold text by Blog Editor]

 

It is my humble opinion if the Globalist Multiculturalist Left and the Muslim World ended sovereignty nations, eradicated effective Representative Democracy and/or caused the demise of the American Republic; the Globalists and some kind of Muslim coalition would engage in a bloody war for global domination. You could count on genocides from both sides.

 

NOW! To the inspiration of these thoughts leading to global strife with unpredictable winners and losers. The Gatestone Institute has posted some news about how the United Nations intends to “War” on Free Speech at least as America knows it. Many UN speech restrictions have already affected Free Speech in the rest of the so-called Free World.

 

JRH 7/11/19

Your generosity is always appreciated:

Please Support NCCR

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

UN Launches All-out War on Free Speech

 

By Judith Bergman

July 10, 2019 at 5:00 am

Gatestone Institute

 

  • In other words, forget everything about the free exchange of ideas: the UN feels that its ‘values’ are being threatened and those who criticize those values must therefore be shut down.

 

  • Naturally, the UN assures everyone that, “Addressing hate speech does not mean limiting or prohibiting freedom of speech. It means keeping hate speech from escalating into something more dangerous, particularly incitement to discrimination, hostility and violence, which is prohibited under international law”.

 

  • Except the UN most definitely seeks to prohibit freedom of speech, especially the kind that challenges the UN’s agendas. This was evident with regard to the UN Global Compact on Migration, in which it was explicitly stated that public funding to “media outlets that systematically promote intolerance, xenophobia, racism and other forms of discrimination towards migrants” should be stopped.

 

  • In contrast to the UN Global Migration compact, the UN’s action plan against hate speech doescontain a definition of what the UN considers to be “hate” and it happens to be the broadest and vaguest of definitions possible: “Any kind of communication in speech, writing or behaviour, that attacks or uses pejorative or discriminatory language with reference to a person or a group on the basis of who they are, in other words, based on their religion, ethnicity, nationality, race, colour, descent, gender or other identity factor”. With a definition as broad as this, all speech could be labelled “hate”.

 

  • The new action plan plays straight into the OIC’s decades-long attempts to ban criticism of Islam as ‘hate speech’. In the wake of the launch of Guterres’ action plan, Pakistan has already presented a six-point plan “to address the new manifestations of racism and faith-based hatred, especially Islamophobia” at the United Nations headquarters. The presentation was organized by Pakistan along with Turkey, the Holy See and the UN.

 

In January, UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres commissioned “a global plan of action against hate speech and hate crimes on a fast-track basis,” and said that governments and institutions need “to mobilize solutions that respond to people’s fears and anxieties with answers…” One of those answers, Guterres appeared to suggest, is shutting down free speech. Pictured: Antonio Guterres. (Image source: Fiona Goodall/Getty Images)

 

In January, United Nations Secretary-General Antonio Guterres, tasked his Special Adviser for the Prevention of Genocide, Adama Dieng, to “present a global plan of action against hate speech and hate crimes on a fast-track basis”. Speaking at a press conference about the UN’s challenges for 2019, Guterres maintained, “The biggest challenge that governments and institutions face today is to show that we care — and to mobilize solutions that respond to people’s fears and anxieties with answers…”

 

One of those answers, Guterres appeared to suggest, is shutting down free speech.

 

“We need to enlist every segment of society in the battle for values that our world faces today – and, in particular, to tackle the rise of hate speech, xenophobia and intolerance. We hear troubling, hateful echoes of eras long past” Guterres said, “Poisonous views are penetrating political debates and polluting the mainstream. Let’s never forget the lessons of the 1930s. Hate speech and hate crimes are direct threats to human rights…”

 

Guterres added, “Words are not enough. We need to be effective in both asserting our universal values and in addressing the root causes of fear, mistrust, anxiety and anger. That is the key to bring people along in defence of those values that are under such grave threat today”.

 

In other words, forget everything about the free exchange of ideas: the UN feels that its ‘values’ are being threatened and those who criticize those values must therefore be shut down. Not only that, but — disingenuously — the UN is comparing dissent from its agendas with the rise of fascism and Nazism in the 1930s.

 

Now the action plan that Guterres spoke of in January is ready. On June 18, Guterres presented the United Nations Strategy and Plan of Action on Hate Speech:

 

“Hate speech is…an attack on tolerance, inclusion, diversity and the very essence of our human rights norms and principles,” Guterres said. He also wrote in an article on the subject, “To those who insist on using fear to divide communities, we must say: diversity is a richness, never a threat…We must never forget, after all, that each of us is an “other” to someone, somewhere”.

 

According to the action plan, “Hate is moving into the mainstream – in liberal democracies and authoritarian systems alike. And with each broken norm, the pillars of our common humanity are weakened”. The UN sees for itself a crucial role: “As a matter of principle, the United Nations must confront hate speech at every turn. Silence can signal indifference to bigotry and intolerance…”.

 

Naturally, the UN assures everyone that, “Addressing hate speech does not mean limiting or prohibiting freedom of speech. It means keeping hate speech from escalating into something more dangerous, particularly incitement to discrimination, hostility and violence, which is prohibited under international law”.

 

Except the UN most definitely seeks to limit freedom of speech, especially the kind that challenges the UN’s agendas. This was evident with regard to the Global Compact for Safe, Orderly and Regular Migration in which it was explicitly stated that public funding to “media outlets that systematically promote intolerance, xenophobia, racism and other forms of discrimination towards migrants” should be stopped.

 

Whatever constitutes intolerance, xenophobia, racism or discrimination was naturally left undefined, making the provision a convenient catchall for governments who wish to defund media that dissent from current political orthodoxy on migration.[1]

 

In contrast to the UN Global Migration compact, the UN’s action plan against hate speech does contain a definition of what the UN considers to be “hate” and it happens to be the broadest and vaguest of definitions possible:

 

“Any kind of communication in speech, writing or behaviour, that attacks or uses pejorative or discriminatory language with reference to a person or a group on the basis of who they are, in other words, based on their religion, ethnicity, nationality, race, colour, descent, gender or other identity factor”. With a definition as broad as this, all speech could be labelled “hate”.

 

The action plan, “aims to give to the United Nations the room and the resources to address hate speech, which poses a threat to United Nations principles, values and programmes. Measures taken will be in line with international human rights norms and standards, in particular the right to freedom of opinion and expression. The objectives are twofold: Enhance UN efforts to address root causes and drivers of hate speech [and] enable effective UN responses to the impact of hate speech on societies”.

 

The UN makes it clear in the plan that it “will implement actions at global and country level, as well as enhance internal cooperation among relevant UN entities” to fight hate speech. It considers that “Tackling hate speech is the responsibility of all – governments, societies, the private sector” and it envisages “a new generation of digital citizens, empowered to recognize, reject and stand up to hate speech”. What a brave new world.

 

In the plan, the UN sets up a number of areas of priority. Initially, the UN will “need to know more to act effectively” and it will therefore let “relevant UN entities… recognize, monitor, collect data and analyze hate speech trends”. It will also seek to “adopt a common understanding of the root causes and drivers of hate speech in order to take relevant action to best address and/or mitigate its impact”. In addition, the UN will “identify and support actors who challenge hate speech”.

 

UN entities will also “implement human rights-centred measures which aim at countering retaliatory hate speech and escalation of violence” and “promote measures to ensure that the rights of victims are upheld, and their needs addressed, including through advocacy for remedies, access to justice and psychological counselling”.

 

Disturbingly, the UN plans to put pressure directly on media and influence children through education:

 

“The UN system should establish and strengthen partnerships with new and traditional media to address hate speech narratives and promote the values of tolerance, non-discrimination, pluralism, and freedom of opinion and expression” and “take action in formal and informal education to … promote the values and skills of Global Citizenship Education, and enhance Media and Information Literacy”.

 

The UN is acutely aware that it needs to leverage strategic partnerships with an array of global and local, governmental and private actors in order to reach its goal. “The UN should establish/strengthen partnerships with relevant stakeholders, including those working in the tech industry. Most of the meaningful action against hate speech will not be taken by the UN alone, but by governments, regional and multilateral organizations, private companies, media, religious and other civil society actors” the action plan notes. “UN entities,” it adds, “should also engage private sector actors, including social media companies, on steps they can take to support UN principles and action to address and counter hate speech, encouraging partnerships between government, industry and civil society”. The UN also says that, “upon request” it will “provide support to Member States in the field of capacity building and policy development to address hate speech.”

 

The action plan also reveals that the first concrete initiative is already planned. It is an “international conference on Education for Prevention with focus on addressing and countering Hate Speech which would involve Ministers of Education”.

 

The new action plan plays straight into the decades-long attempts of the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) to ban criticism of Islam. In the wake of the launch of Guterres’ action plan, Pakistan has already presented a six-point plan “to address the new manifestations of racism and faith-based hatred, especially Islamophobia” at the United Nations headquarters. The presentation was organized by Pakistan along with Turkey, the Holy See and the UN.

 

According to news reports, the plan was proposed by Pakistan’s Permanent Representative to the UN, Ambassador Maleeha Lodhi at a session titled “Countering terrorism and other acts of violence based on religion or belief”.

 

“A particularly alarming development is the rise of Islamophobia which represents the recent manifestation of the age-old hatred that spawned anti-Semitism, racism, apartheid and many other forms of discrimination,” the ambassador said in her speech. She added, “My Prime Minister Imran Khan has recently again called for urgent action to counter Islamophobia, which is today the most prevalent expression of racism and hatred against ‘the other'”.

 

“We are fully committed to support the UN’s strategy on hate speech,” said the Pakistani ambassador, “This is a moment for all of us to come together to reverse the tide of hate and bigotry that threatens to undermine social solidarity and peaceful co-existence.”

 

In 2017, Facebook’s Vice President of Public Policy, Joel Kaplan, reportedly agreed to requests from Pakistan’s Interior Minister Nisar Ali Khan, to “remove fake accounts and explicit, hateful and provocative material that incites violence and terrorism” because “the entire Muslim Ummah was greatly disturbed and has serious concerns over the misuse of social media platforms to propagate blasphemous content”.

 

At the UN, Pakistan’s Ambassador Lodhi called for government interventions to fight hate speech, including national legislation, and reportedly “called for framing a more focused strategy to deal with the various expressions of Islamophobia. A ‘whole of government’ and a ‘whole of society’ approach was needed. In this regard, the Pakistani envoy urged the secretary-general to engage with a wide range of actors, including governments, civil society and social media companies to take action and stop social media users being funneled into online sources of radicalization”.

 

The UN’s all-out war on free speech is on.

 

Judith Bergman, a columnist, lawyer and political analyst, is a Distinguished Senior Fellow at Gatestone Institute.

 

NOTES:

 

[1] According to Objective 17 of the UN Global Compact on migration, member states commit to: “Promote independent, objective and quality reporting of media outlets, including internet-based information, including by sensitizing and educating media professionals on migration-related issues and terminology, investing in ethical reporting standards and advertising, and stopping allocation of public funding or material support to media outlets that systematically promote intolerance, xenophobia, racism and other forms of discrimination towards migrants, in full respect for the freedom of the media.” [Emphasis added.]

____________________

The UN, Globalist Multiculturalism & Islam One World Despotism

John R. Houk

© July 11, 2019

___________________

UN Launches All-out War on Free Speech

 

© 2019 Gatestone Institute. All rights reserved. The articles printed here do not necessarily reflect the views of the Editors or of Gatestone Institute. No part of the Gatestone website or any of its contents may be reproduced, copied or modified, without the prior written consent of Gatestone Institute. [Blog Editor: Permission was not acquired to cross post. Upon request the cross post will be removed.]

 

 

Next Step Church/State Separation Plague


John R. Houk

© July 3, 2019

Clearly California legislators either failed their civics classes or are viewing the First Amendment in a reverse Original Intent format:

 

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.  -First Amendment on ConstitutionCenter.org

 

Until activist Courts including SCOTUS began dismantling the Religious Liberty in the First Amendment in the mid-20th century, history CLEARLY illustrates the Founding Fathers intended the First Amendment to mean the government must stay out of all things related to the Christian Church yet Christianity was to be a moral influence on government.

 

Although legal scholars might use an earlier starting point, the big date for SCOTUS revisionism is 1947: Everson v. Board of Education. The SCOTUS decision 5 affirms and 4 dissents. Hugo Black wrote the majority decision and Justices Jackson and Rutledge wrote dissenting opinions. The point being ONE VOTE revised the First Amendment original understanding that stood 160 years of government out of Church but Church being a moral influence on government:

 

Since this ruling in 1947, courts throughout America have looked to this opinion as a watershed from its historical interpretation from the days of America’s Founding Fathers. Justice Black and those supporting his opinion on the Court introduced a completely new element that was and is at variance with the historical interpretation of the First Amendment. Justice Black and his colleagues inserted new law into the Constitution that the Supreme Court justices for nearly 160 years had never seen. The historic position of the Supreme Court and lower courts was summarized by Supreme Court Associate Justice, David Brewer, and his majority opinion (Holy Trinity vs. United States, 1892) and subsequently enlarged upon in his book, The United States a Christian Nation. (The Truth about Separation of Church and State: Error of Justice Hugo Black; By Stephen Flick; Christian Heritage Fellowship

 

A good read on the issue is Justin Smith’s ‘The Fallacy of “Separation of Church and State”’. Another good read is “How the Supreme Court Twisted the First Amendment and Banned Religion in Public Schools” by Zachary Garris at Teach Diligently.

 

The Dems are perpetuating this assault on Religious Liberty via the Dem sponsored Equality Act (H.R. 5) in the House. The aim of the Equality Act is to force Americans (undoubtedly aimed Biblical-minded Christians) to further accept the godless LGBTQ lifestyle. If the Republican majority Senate passes its version of the Equality Act (S. 788) introduced on March 13, God have mercy on America.

 

What brought these thoughts to fruition though is State legislation in Leftist haven of California. My July 3 news alert from Prophecy News Watch (PNW) informs me a California State bill would force Christian Pastors/Preachers to zip their lips on preaching the Bible about the godless homosexual lifestyle.

 

The California Bill is ACR 99 and it “… would FORBID pastors from saying homosexual acts are sinful? A bill REQUIRING them to affirm same-sex relationships and gender identity? It has been proposed!” (The bold text is my emphasis of the quote in the PNW article.)

 

If read or hear the Left (these days that includes some Churches who have abandoned the Word of God) tell you, “The Bible does not condemn homosexuality”; those sources are blatantly lying and maybe even twisting the original meaning of Scripture with completely faulty revisionist scholarship. (Just like activist Judges and Justices to the U.S. Constitution.) HuffPo is a classic example of twisted-lying Left-Wing sourcing. If you are a Bible-believing Christian belonging to this Wikipedia list (as of today last updated 7/3/19) of Churches accepting LGBTQ in one fashion or another, YOU are in danger of placing yourself in rebellion to God (choosing the same path of Adam and Eve [godless Adam & Steve or Adriana & Eve]). Rebellion causes God-Separation, aka the Second Death (Genesis 3: 1-9; 1 John 2: 15-17 HCSB):

 

Genesis – The Temptation and the Fall

1Now the serpent was the most cunning of all the wild animals that the Lord God had made. He said to the woman, “Did God really say, ‘You can’t eat from any tree in the garden’?”

The woman said to the serpent, “We may eat the fruit from the trees in the garden. But about the fruit of the tree in the middle of the garden, God said, ‘You must not eat it or touch it, or you will die.’”

“No! You will not die,” the serpent said to the woman. “In fact, God knows that when[a] you eat it your eyes will be opened and you will be like God,[b]knowing good and evil.” Then the woman saw that the tree was good for food and delightful to look at, and that it was desirable for obtaining wisdom. So she took some of its fruit and ate it; she also gave some to her husband, who was with her, and he ate it. Then the eyes of both of them were opened, and they knew they were naked; so they sewed fig leaves together and made loincloths for themselves.

 

Sin’s Consequences

Then the man and his wife heard the sound of the Lord God walking in the garden at the time of the evening breeze,[c] and they hid themselves from the Lord God among the trees of the garden. So the Lord God called out to the man and said to him, “Where are you?[Bold text Editor’s – Signifies God-Separation]

 

1 John 2

15 Do not love the world or the things that belong to[a] the world. If anyone loves the world, love for the Father is not in him. 16 For everything that belongs to[b] the world—the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes, and the pride in one’s lifestyle—is not from the Father, but is from the world. 17 And the world with its lust is passing away, but the one who does God’s will remains forever. [Bold text Editor’s – Homosexuality is only one of many sins of the world separating one from God.]

 

JRH 7/3/19

Your generosity is always appreciated:

Please Support NCCR

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

Why This New California Bill Is So Dangerous To The Church

 

Gay Church Flag

 

By MICHAEL BROWN/ASKDRBROWN.ORG

JULY 03, 2019

Prophecy News Watch

 

Last week, I put out a warning about a bill under consideration in California known as ACR 99. I explained “Why California Pastors Must Stand Up to Government Tyranny.”

 

I also tweeted about the bill. I asked: “What? A California bill that would FORBID pastors from saying homosexual acts are sinful? A bill REQUIRING them to affirm same-sex relationships and gender identity? It has been proposed!”

 

One of my Twitter followers, a younger Christian man, challenged my reading of the bill. He insisted that it did not infringe on Christian liberties. Is he right?

 

Let’s take a look at this bill more carefully. Once we do, you’ll understand why Christian legal organizations, along with pastors and ex-gay leaders in California, are so concerned.

 

The Bill is Bad

 

The final text of the bill states this: “This measure would call upon all Californians to embrace the individual and social benefits of family and community acceptance, upon religious leaders to counsel on LGBTQ matters from a place of love, compassion, and knowledge of the psychological and other harms of conversion therapy, and upon the people of California and the institutions of California with great moral influence to model equitable treatment of all people of the state.”

 

Is this really so bad? Yes.

 

First, who gave the government the right to issue a call like this? Who gave the government the right to tell religious leaders that they cannot help people with unwanted same-sex attractions pursue change? (Broadly speaking, that’s what “conversion therapy” ultimately refers to. The term, of course, is used in a derogatory way.) If ever there was an overstepping of the separation of Church and State, this would be it.

 

Second, what, exactly, is meant by “equitable treatment of all people of the state”? Based on the findings which form the foundation of this bill, it would mean affirming transgender identity and transgender “rights,” even when those “rights” infringed on the rights of others.

 

And this is not just idle talk. The bill passed it its committee vote and is heading to the California Senate for a full vote. Let’s dig in a little deeper to see exactly what California pastors and religious leaders are facing.

 

The Presuppositions

 

ACR 99 is based on a number of presuppositions, all introduced with the word WHEREAS. Here’s the first: “The California State Legislature has found that being lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgender (LGBTQ) is not a disease, disorder, illness, deficiency, or shortcoming.”

 

Based on this, it would be wrong to believe or teach that homosexual practice is sinful. Or that homosexual desires are disordered. Or that there is anything wrong with homosexual relationships. Or that a man who believes he is a woman has any type of deficiency. And this is just the first of the 9 “WHEREAS” clauses!

 

Another clause rejects any attempts to change a person’s LGBTQ identity. (This appears under the heading of “conversion therapy.”)

 

And another states that “the stigma associated with being LGBTQ often created by groups in society, including therapists and religious groups, has caused disproportionately high rates of suicide, attempted suicide, depression, rejection, and isolation amongst LGBTQ and questioning individuals.”

 

In other words, if you preach and teach what the Bible says about LGBTQ issues and people, no matter how loving and compassionate you are, you are guilty of stigmatizing them, thereby causing them emotional and even physical harm.

 

The intent of this bill is perfectly clear.

 

The Government Telling Pastors What to Preach

 

That’s why Liberty Counsel issued a warning, stating, “CA RESOLUTION THREATENS PASTORS AND COUNSELORS.”

 

Specifically, the resolution “calls on religious leaders and others with ‘moral influence’ to affirm homosexuality and ‘transgenderism’ and to accept that Christian efforts to help people with unwanted same-sex attraction or gender confusion are ‘ineffective, unethical and harmful.’ As a resolution, ACR 99 does not have the force of law but will be persuasive for some policymakers. It will now go to the state Senate for a vote.”

 

That’s why the California Family Council, which is on the front lines of this legislative battle, wrote that “CA Legislators to Tell Pastors What to Preach from their Pulpits on LGBT Behavior & Identities.”

 

Life and Hope

 

And that’s why ex-gay leaders Ken Williams and Elizabeth Woning protested the bill. As Woning wrote, “For us, walking out our faith with biblical conviction means life and hope. Our faith has saved us from suicide and given us freedom to live with clear consciences. We too would like to be acknowledged and affirmed. … Instead, activists attack our efforts to care for like-minded friends by promoting dangerous counseling restrictions and stifling our free speech.”

 

In short, this bill would state that pastors and Christian counselors do not have the right to walk out their faith and live out their biblical convictions.

 

It would stop them from offering the fullness of the Gospel to people with unwanted same-sex attractions and gender identity confusion. And it would constitute, in no uncertain terms, a frontal assault on their — and our — religious liberties.

 

That’s why it must be resisted.

 

Originally published at AskDrBrown.org – reposted with permission.

_______________________

Next Step Church/State Separation Plague

John R. Houk

© July 3, 2019

___________________

Why This New California Bill Is So Dangerous To The Church

 

© 2019 Prophecy News Watch. All Rights Reserved.
Located in Coeur D Alene, Idaho – USA.
Call Toll Free: 1-877-561-4442
Email: Info@ProphecyNewsWatch.com

 

DONATE to PNW

 

Liberty Suppressed


Justin Smith tackles the assault on American Liberty and a Free Market Economy. The threat: Left-Wing lies as truth and the slow criminalizing of what has made America Great.

 

They say sex without consent is rape. Then what is government by coercion and force upon those who do not consent to its authority over them?” ~ Neal Ross

 

JRH 6/29/19

Your generosity is always appreciated:

Please Support NCCR

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

Liberty Suppressed

Freedom and Liberty Are At Risk

 

By Justin O. Smith

Sent: 6/28/2019 9:18 PM

 

Independence Day is a now a day that has no real meaning for far too many Americans today, as nearly half the nation works tirelessly to destroy our republic and the principles it was founded upon, and the rest of us can barely believe that some who want to lead the nation, Democrat communists and Republican globalists (RINOs), hold a vision, that would reduce us all to serfs serving the government rather than the government serving the will of the people; and a good portion of both sides simply want a barbecue and a good time.  America’s domestic enemies see state power as paramount over individual liberty, and unless America’s youth starts standing up and remembering how much blood was shed for their freedom and the rights they so casually abuse as they trash America in so many ways, from their anti-American speeches to their attempts to destroy the basis of America and our Judeo-Christian principles, everyone, my children and grandchildren and yours too, face dangerous times ahead.

 

Anyone who listened to Presidential candidate Elizabeth Warren share her horror over states making gains in halting abortion understand that true liberty and individual rights, even states’ rights, mean nothing to the Democrats. Warren called for a federal law that codifies Roe v Wade, with the certain knowledge that the federal government treasury would be used to coerce states to fall in line, as has been done regarding so many other federal laws.

 

Even at the local city and county governments, citizens witness elected officials, claiming to be “conservatives”  — who think they know better than the people — go against the will of the people, just as the city council in Murfreesboro, TN and  also Rutherford County council did recently when they voted a thirty-five percent and six percent tax increase respectively to pay for services and pay raises and to preserve a government “savings account”.

 

Our republic uses democratic mechanisms to govern, while certain checks and balances and the Bill of Rights were also put in place to protect the individual’s rights. The principle of good governance as set forth by Thomas Jefferson and many of the Founding Fathers acknowledges that the rights of the individual are paramount over anything else one might consider in any government.

 

Read the unredacted parchment drafted by Thomas Jefferson. It presents an important distinction, in that it reads the “Unanimous Declaration of the Thirteen United States of America”, not the “Declaration of the United States of America.

These were thirteen independent states, on that hot summer day in 1776, not a “United” States in the singular, a State to be held together at gunpoint or through coercion, and these sovereign states were comprised of sovereign individuals who gave their consent to be governed, not ruled. However, today a stark contrast exists between the single State governed by the central authority of the federal government and the once sovereign states that have become nothing more than administrative districts.

 

Since 1865, “consent of the governed” has become a heretical phrase and must not be spoken of due to its implications. No one now living consented to such an all-powerful centralized government, and if consent is a moral prerequisite to legitimate government, the government of the United States — the singular behemoth, the Leviathan — is illegitimate on the face of it. And we have allowed ourselves to become subjects, not citizens, speaking holistically, since some of Us have fought government intrusions on individual liberty and states’ rights all our adult lives.

 

Think You’re “free”? Try not paying excessive taxes, as we recall that the War of Independence was fought, in part due to the Stamp Act of 1765 and the Tea Act of 1773 and three pennies added to the cost of a pound of tea.

 

The fact that government can levy an excessive tax against Us today and take any amount of our money it arbitrarily determines is “fair” belies the notion we are free. Whatever of our own finances we retain is only by sufferance and not by right.

 

Even though you are an adult, who is responsible for your own choices concerning your safety, try not fastening your seat-belt as you cruise down the highway on a sunny Saturday drive.

 

One never really owns their property either. No matter how much one paid for it or how many years it has been paid off in full, one is forced to continue paying money to a government whose exactions and existence were never consented to by him.

 

And for many Americans, such as President Trump and even myself, who have often stated, “America will never be a socialist country”, America is already well on its way to being just that, if not an authoritarian fascist state, noted by Italian dictator Benito Mussolini to be “corporatism” and the “merger of corporate and state power”. Think of “too big to fail“, Bear Stearns and American International Group and the 2008 economic collapse and today’s Big Tech subsidies.

 

America began a major slide into fascism around 1913, and from that point on, when America enacted many of the ideas enumerated in Marx’s ‘Communist Manifesto’,  like a progressive income tax, a national centralized bank,  government ownership of land, government ownership and control of communications and transportation, government schools, regulation of installment buying, price controls and farm subsidies (corporate farms), government housing, social security and “free” education, and several other items. This has essentially resulted from a convergence of capitalism and socialism, a bit at a time, and not only has it slowly destroyed our economy (note that the current economic “boom” won’t last) education and the nation’s moral compass, it gave rise to the utter corruption of our political system and the Deep State.

 

By contrast, in a true capitalist system an actual free-market exists that is unfettered by government interference, finding its own level as the market demands at any given time. Supply and demand are self-regulating, and government controls are unnecessary limitations on economic freedom.

 

Today, far too many Americans have come to see government as their “rescuer” in their longing to have every need met by someone else. They expect government to solve all their problems, and that’s a real problem, since everything the government “gives” us exacts a price from our individual liberty, not to mention that D.C. draws sociopaths to it like a pile of cow manure draws flies.

 

Just as in Venezuela, our Deep State actors, in cooperation with billionaire socialist George Soros, have been most thorough in representing the current economy as a “capitalist economy”, even though America has not had a truly free-market capitalist system in over a hundred years, and they have facilitated full socialism into the political realm. And, when our economy finally does collapse under the weight of the current out-of-control spending and the ever growing fascism and socialism, these anti-American, anti-freedom authoritarians will attempt to fool Americans that capitalism is the problem and socialism is the cure, laying the blame at the feet of capitalism.

 

The socialist Presidential candidates, such as Bernie Sanders, who wants to forgive all university tuition debt and make healthcare “FREE” also, argue that “capitalism” has failed, and while it is true that the gap between the rich and poor is greater today than it has ever been in modern times, and that the middle class is shrinking and the elite oligarchy of the upper class is growing wealthier, it is due to the insertion of socialist policies into the economy. Pointing to capitalism as the problem is based on more falsehoods and fallacies than I can list; such claims are undeniably false.

Capitalism has not failed, but rest assured that the socialists’ dream of making education and healthcare — the two largest rackets in America — “free” only further ensures that Americans will be turned into debt slaves and bankrupts; and, to date, socialism has always failed in the basic mission to prepare young minds for life’s reality and to “first do no harm.”

 

All of the socialists’ policies in education and healthcare would still do nothing to reform the patent idiocies of the gender studies departments and the current misinterpretation and application of Title IX that infringes on heterosexual rights. Those policies also cannot rescue the “victims” of self-inflicted obesity and diabetes from their toxic consumption of Big Macs, Frosty dairy desserts and fries, since these dynamics rest on the wheels of futility, often depression and self-loathing, for which there is no happy ending outside of drastic changes in behavior.

 

One must also fully understand governments, especially under Obama and even under President Trump, always move in a direction of more control; just look the politicization of the IRS, FBI and the DOJ and the passage of the FISA Reauthorization, bump stock regulation and various new bill proposals. Given enough time, governments always create a state of despotism, and historically, governments never voluntarily reverse their level of control and introduce greater liberty.

 

Although the number is disputed by some, even President Ronald Reagan once noted that there are roughly 20,000 laws regarding gun control alone, and that’s just the federal illegitimate “laws”. So many other “laws” exist that it’s been estimated the average American commits approximately three felonies each day, and this makes the authorities’ task very simple, if for any reason they wish to victimize you. Just ask the Bundy Family, Hammond father & son, LaVoy Finicum’s Family, Lt. General Michael Flynn and Michael Cohen and a few others.

 

Thomas Jefferson once stated: “Even under the best forms of government, those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny.”

 

God help America if the Democrats take the majority in the Congress and the Oval Office anytime in the near future and implement a more stringent and authoritarian form of the morally corrupt, economy destroying and de-civilizing ideology of socialism and the sick social system it embodies. Their system must be exposed for all the obnoxious, abhorrent and hellacious ideas it represents.

 

Too large a segment of America no longer cares for individualism, free markets, personal freedom and free minds, and in fact, they now mock the very virtues America was founded upon. They may have some ill-formed, nebulous notion on ethics that they borrowed from the Boy Scouts, but they basically assert that socialism and communism are as equally good as capitalism, while their reigning philosophy is a mixture of Marxism, identity politics, anti-male feminism and anti-white racism.

 

The institutional damage along the way has been epic, and the scene today is a debris field of broken ideas, that strayed far and away from the Founding Principles and the Original Intent of the U.S. Constitution. The far left still advocates the failed Marxist vision as having national support and purpose, as they rush to implement and organize a chaotic demolition of pretty rigorous American values and traditions and even historic monuments and paintings, in their insane desire to eradicate our republic, a country that still may be the “home of the brave” but is now barely recognizable as the “land of the free”.

 

America is the only country in the history of mankind that was founded on the principles of individualism and personal freedom, that manifested in the early rugged American independent nature of America’s people. America is still special, still unique and still that Oh So Exceptional nation that has millions across the globe rushing towards Her shores, even if it’s becoming harder to see the fact and the light of liberty shining from Lady Liberty’s torch is growing dimmer each day.

 

As the Founders’ spin in their graves, America is now rapidly nearing the point of the ultimate inversion, where the government is free to do anything it pleases and our individual liberty is suppressed and we must bow to the altar of the state and beg permission to act. And this is the stage of the darkest times of human history, the stage of total dominance and rule by violence and brute force.

 

Is it too late to restore and save our beloved America? Nothing is ever too late if it serves a righteous cause, and I defy anyone to name any better causes for Us to firmly stand together and defend than our God Given Rights, the Bill of Rights and individual liberty in America, even if it takes us into the streets of our nation in armed conflict and civil war.

 

A certain chapter in American history is closing and the future of America and freedom is at risk. Those of Us who love freedom and liberty and America must grab hold of the moment to seize the 21st century for our children’s children and their children and generations beyond to ensure their economic prosperity and liberty and a 21st century that becomes all the Founders envisioned, full of an appreciation for life and all America originally represented, God’s glory and grace.

 

By Justin O. Smith

__________________________

Edited by John R. Houk

Text embraced by brackets and source links are by the Editor.

 

© Justin O. Smith

 

The Cross Does Not Offend the Constitution


SCOTUS undoubtedly chapped the hide of Leftist Transformists everywhere with its 7-2 to keep the Bladensburg Peace Cross standing on taxpayer supported public land. Read Justin Smith’s thoughts.

JRH 6/23/19

Your generosity is always appreciated:

Please Support NCCR

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

The Cross Does Not Offend the Constitution

A Landmark Victory for Religious Freedom 

 

By Justin O. Smith

Sent 6/22/2019 11:22 PM

 

The Constitution as written, not the personal views of judges, should guide how the American people express their religious faith in the public square.” ~ Emilie Kao, Director of the DeVos Center for Religion and Civil Society

 

A fine blow was struck for religious freedom, when the United States Supreme Court handed down a 7 to 2 landmark victory in the case of the American Legion v. the American Humanist Organization, on June 20th 2019, as the majority opinion determined that the Peace Cross on public land in Bladensburg, Maryland, just outside of D.C., does not violate the Establishment Clause of the U.S. Constitution. The forty foot tall Peace Cross commemorating forty-nine of Prince George’s County men who died fighting in WWI can now remain on public land, property of the State of Maryland.

 

The American Humanist Organization originally filed suit in 2012, and modified the suit in 2014; they forged ahead to force the removal of the Peace Cross, suing the Park and Planning Commission and the American Legion, that originally paid for its erection, in part. The AHO alleged that the presence of the memorial on public land amounted to a government establishment of religion.

 

In the beautiful shape of the Cross, the Bladensburg World War I Veterans Memorial was erected between 1919 and 1925, by Gold Star Mothers and a local American Legion post. The Cross design was provided by the Gold Star Mothers in 1919 to recall the cross-shaped grave markers standing over the thousands of American graves on the Western Front of WWI, with one mother actually referring to this memorial as her son’s “grave stone”.

 

This surely had to be at the front of the majority’s mind, in making their decision, since particularly troubled by opposition’s Taliban-style proposal of chopping off the arms of the Cross, Justice Samuel Alito offered the following in the decision: “Many memorials for Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. make reference to his faith. These monuments honor men and women who have played an important role in the history of our country, and where religious symbols are included in monuments, their presence acknowledges the centrality of faith to those whose lives are commemorated.”

 

John Seaburn is the name of one of the soldier’s whose name is memorialized on the plaque at the base of the Peace Cross, having bravely marched off to join the Army in an all African American unit. His great-niece, Alvergia Guyton is one of the few people left with a personal connection to the Cross, stating “It’s been there all my life; it’s history”, and on June 20th seven Justices in America’s Supreme Court agreed with her, leaving John Seaburn’s sacrifice and those sacrifices of Prince George’s Native Sons intact and unsullied.

 

This case did little to untangle the confusion created by past Establishment Clause decisions, since two dissenters, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Justice Sonia Sotomayor, saw it as a clear violation, and those seven who did not, Justices John Roberts, Stephen Breyer, Elena Kagan, Clarence Thomas, Brett Kavanaugh, Neil Gorsuch and Alito all offered opinions that didn’t offer a fix to the underlying problem and the many different past interpretations regarding the intent of the Constitution. So, these sort of issues will continue to manifest themselves, and if anything, this case reveals the importance of Justices who view the Constitution through the prism of Original Intent.

 

And even though “separation of Church and State” is a fallacy and a gross misinterpretation of a passage written to the Danbury Baptist Church by Thomas Jefferson, the AHO vowed to fight on to “bolster the First Amendment” and to “(redouble their) works to strengthen the wall of separation between church and state, brick by brick.”

 

In her dissent, Justice Ginsberg stated: “Soldiers of all faiths ‘are united by their love of country, but they are not united by the cross … ‘ By maintaining the Peace Cross on a public highway, the Commission elevates Christianity over other faiths, and religion over nonreligion.”

 

America was founded as a Christian nation, and that’s just a historical fact and a matter of record, but it was founded to also be tolerant of all other religious beliefs. The Founding Fathers’ vision was a country that facilitated all Americans’ free expression of faith even if in the public square, and all across the span of our nation’s history, Americans have used religious symbols to commemorate a variety of meaningful events, whether one speaks of holidays, the Courts and sworn oaths or prayer in State legislatures.

 

[Blog Editor: Many Leftists, Secular Humanists, Separation of Church-State Ideologues and probably other Anti-Christian groups would strongly disagree with Justin’s belief, “America was founded as a Christian nation”. To justify their misguided Anti-Christian attitude you will read the Left-version of cherry picking that actually twist facts. The Left will accuse Christians of cherry picking as well, but the difference Leftist cherry picking often are quoting out of context or using a historical person who represented an absolute minority opinion as in the rare atheist or French-influenced Deist (AND there is quite a difference between a French Deist and an American Christian Deist). Here are some posts demonstrating America’s Christian heritage which trust is not exhaustive:

 

 

 

 

 

President Trump’s appointment to the Court, Justice Neil Gorsuch rightfully suggested that the Court shouldn’t have heard the case, because the plaintiffs could show no concrete injury other than they were “offended” by seeing it as they pass it. Gorsuch wrote: “This ‘offended observer’ theory of standing has no basis in law … What matters … to assessing a monument, symbol, or practice isn’t its age but its compliance with ageless principles. The Constitution’s meaning is fixed, not some good-for-this-day-only coupon, and a practice consistent with our nation’s traditions is permissible whether undertaken today or 94 years ago.”

 

Justice Samuel Alito, writing the Majority Opinion for the Court, noted: “(The Peace Cross) has become a prominent community landmark, and its removal or radical alteration at this date would be seen by many not as a neutral act but as the manifestation of ‘a hostility toward religion that has no place in our Establishment Clause traditions …  The Religion Clauses of the Constitution aim to foster a society in which people of all beliefs can live together harmoniously, and the presence of the Bladensburg Cross on the land where it has stood for so many years is fully consistent with that aim. The Cross is undoubtedly a Christian symbol, but that fact should not blind us to everything else that the Bladensburg Cross has come to represent … For all these reasons, the Cross does not offend the Constitution.”

 

Kelly Shackelford, president of  First Liberty law firm and a defender of religious freedom, who defended the case, exclaimed: “This is a landmark victory for religious freedom. The days of illegitimately weaponizing the Establishment Clause and attacking religious symbols in public are over.”

 

Forever memorialized, these men were regular, ordinary Americans, doctors, farmers and laborers, educators, some in their prime and one in his fifties — already wounded — who probably shouldn’t have been on the front lines. They all had one thing in common. They never came home and they were much loved and sorely missed by those who waited for their return. And one-hundred years after WWI, Americans are still fighting for the concrete ideas these fine American patriots died to give us, the foundation of the First Amendment and its manifested inherent Freedom.

 

Many descendants of these fine men have lived with the Peace Cross all their lives, as it has stood gracing the skyline one mile from D.C. for nearly a century, and they are shocked to their very core that any American would challenge its right to exist, regardless of its placement on public land. Their memories include the story of the mothers who slowly pulled the American Flag from the base of the Cross ninety-four years ago to reveal the names of forty-nine soldiers, American heroes, who made the final sacrifice of their lives in World War I. It’s survived all this time, through WWII, Korea, Vietnam, Desert Storm and 9/11 and Enduring Freedom, and now, Thanks to God and the Supreme Court, it has survived its most dire threat and a terrible battle with radical, extreme atheists intent and determined to destroy this much respected and greatly loved memorial simply because it was in the shape of the Cross.

 

By Justin O. Smith

________________________________

Edited by John R. Houk

Source links and text enclosed by brackets are by the /editor.

 

Justin O. Smith

 

Bible on LGBTQ Lifestyle


Only in Jesus is There Good News

 

John R. Houk

© June 9, 2019

 

There is a war going on right now by Secular Humanist Multicultural (let’s call them) Transformists AGAINST Christian faith derived from the Holy Bible. Media (including Entertainment – Big Screen and TV), major corporations, LGBTQ activists, college professors AND school teachers (including school district administrative personnel) are propagandizing (i.e. brainwashing) society against Christian Morality. These people who are influential in shaping the opinion of society at large are purposely transforming a society once dedicated to respect Christian principles into denigrating Christian Morality.

 

If you are a Church goer and the preaching you listen to tells you Biblical principles (i.e. the God-Inspired Word of God) are archaic and out of step with modern humanity, that preacher is spewing godless transformative thought. God have mercy! That Transformist preacher may even share so-called alternative scholarly beliefs that delegitimizes the original meaning of Holy Scripture. That’s what the Devil did to Adam and Eve to transform them from obedience to God to allegiance to the old serpent Satan.

 

1 Now the serpent was more subtle and crafty than any living creature of the field which the Lord God had made. And he [Satan] said to the woman, Can it really be that God has said, You shall not eat from every tree of the garden?

And the woman said to the serpent, We may eat the fruit from the trees of the garden,

Except the fruit from the tree which is in the middle of the garden. God has said, You shall not eat of it, neither shall you touch it, lest you die.

But the serpent said to the woman, You shall not surely die,

For God knows that in the day you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing the difference between good and evil and blessing and calamity.

And when the woman saw that the tree was good (suitable, pleasant) for food and that it was delightful to look at, and a tree to be desired in order to make one wise, she took of its fruit and ate; and she gave some also to her husband, and he ate. (Genesis 3: 1-6 AMPC)

 

Satan twisted God’s Words twisting the intent to make God appear the liar. Did Adam and Eve die physically after eating the forbidden fruit? NO! But they did die spiritually separating themselves from the Presence of God.

 

And they heard the sound of the Lord God walking in the garden in the cool of the day, and Adam and his wife hid themselves from the presence of the Lord God among the trees of the garden.

But the Lord God called to Adam and said to him, Where are you? (Genesis 3: 8-9 AMPC)

 

That separation from the Presence of God is what sends people to hell when they die physically. Believing in the sacrificial price paid by Jesus and His Resurrection from death to life restores one to the Presence of God spiritually with the promise of a new body clothed in God’s Glory in the Return of Christ Jesus and the resurrection of all dead in the Last Judgement. I believe these Scripture reference illustrate my point:

 

Acts 16: 30-31; Romans 10: 8-13; 1 Corinthians 15: 45-49, 52-57; Jude 18-23; Revelation 21: 8 (AMPC):

 

Acts 16:30-31

30 And he brought them out [of the dungeon] and said, Men, what is it necessary for me to do that I may be saved?

31 And they answered, Believe in the Lord Jesus Christ [[a]give yourself up to Him, [b] take yourself out of your own keeping and entrust yourself into His keeping] and you will be saved, [and this applies both to] you and your household as well.

 

Romans 10:8-13

But what does it say? The Word (God’s message in Christ) is near you, on your lips and in your heart; that is, the Word (the message, the basis and object) of faith which we preach,

Because if you acknowledge and confess with your lips that Jesus is Lord and in your heart believe (adhere to, trust in, and rely on the truth) that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved.

10 For with the heart a person believes (adheres to, trusts in, and relies on Christ) and so is justified (declared righteous, acceptable to God), and with the mouth he confesses (declares openly and speaks out freely his faith) and confirms [his] salvation.

11 The Scripture says, No man who believes in Him [who adheres to, relies on, and trusts in Him] will [ever] be put to shame or be disappointed.

12 [No one] for there is no distinction between Jew and Greek. The same Lord is Lord over all [of us] and He generously bestows His riches upon all who call upon Him [in faith].

13 For everyone who calls upon the name of the Lord [invoking Him as Lord] will be saved.

 

1 Corinthians 15:45-49

45 Thus it is written, The first man Adam became a living being (an individual personality); the last Adam (Christ) became a life-giving Spirit [restoring the dead to life].

46 But it is not the spiritual life which came first, but the physical and then the spiritual.

47 The first man [was] from out of earth, made of dust (earthly-minded); the second Man [is] the Lord from out of heaven.

48 Now those who are made of the dust are like him who was first made of the dust (earthly-minded); and as is [the Man] from heaven, so also [are those] who are of heaven (heavenly-minded).

49 And just as we have borne the image [of the man] of dust, so shall we and so [a]let us also bear the image [of the Man] of heaven.

 

1 Corinthians 15:52-57

52 In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the [sound of the] last trumpet call. For a trumpet will sound, and the dead [in Christ] will be raised imperishable (free and immune from decay), and we shall be changed (transformed).

53 For this perishable [part of us] must put on the imperishable [nature], and this mortal [part of us, this nature that is capable of dying] must put on immortality (freedom from death).

54 And when this perishable puts on the imperishable and this that was capable of dying puts on freedom from death, then shall be fulfilled the Scripture that says, Death is swallowed up (utterly vanquished [a]forever) in and unto victory.

55 O death, where is your victory? O death, where is your sting?

56 Now sin is the sting of death, and sin exercises its power [b][upon the soul] through [c][the abuse of] the Law.

57 But thanks be to God, Who gives us the victory [making us conquerors] through our Lord Jesus Christ.

 

Jude 18-23

18 They told you beforehand, In the last days (in the end time) there will be scoffers [who seek to gratify their own unholy desires], following after their own ungodly passions.

19 It is these who are [agitators] setting up distinctions and causing divisions—merely sensual [creatures, carnal, worldly-minded people], devoid of the [Holy] Spirit and destitute of any higher spiritual life.

20 But you, beloved, build yourselves up [founded] on your most holy faith [[a]make progress, rise like an edifice higher and higher], praying in the Holy Spirit;

21 Guard and keep yourselves in the love of God; expect and patiently wait for the mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ (the Messiah)—[which will bring you] unto life eternal.

22 And refute [so as to] convict some who dispute with you, and on some have mercy who waver and doubt.

23 [Strive to] save others, snatching [them] out of [the] fire; on others take pity [but] with fear, loathing even the garment spotted by the flesh and polluted by their sensuality.

 

Revelation 21:8

But as for the cowards and the ignoble and the contemptible and the cravenly lacking in courage and the cowardly submissive, and as for the unbelieving and faithless, and as for the depraved and defiled with abominations, and as for murderers and the lewd and adulterous and the practicers of magic arts and the idolaters (those who give supreme devotion to anyone or anything other than God) and all liars (those who knowingly convey untruth by word or deed)—[all of these shall have] their part in the lake that blazes with fire and brimstone. This is the second death.

 

The above Scriptures apply to all manner of people receiving Salvation in Christ or the opposite rejecting the Saving Grace of faith in the birth, death and bodily Resurrection of Jesus the Christ.

 

But for the purpose of the inspiration of these thoughts, let’s examine what the Word of God tells us about all things unnatural with the Transformists pushing acceptance of the immorality of the Lesbian-Gay-Bisexual-Transgender-Queer (LGBTQ) Agenda (my sense is “Queer” takes care of the perversions sympathetic to LGBT).

 

The LGBTQ perversion is so pervasive I will probably receive tons of criticism from their ungodly militant activists labeling me with the epithet of homophobe to project me as a bigot which essentially condemns my Christian faith and thus by extension criticizes the Creator of all that exists that that lifestyle an abomination (the Amplified Bible, Classic Edition uses more descriptive words to replace KJV “abomination”):

 

Leviticus 20: 13; Romans 1: 21, 24-28 (AMPC):

 

Leviticus 20: 13

13 If a man lies with a male as if he were a woman, both men have committed an offense (something perverse, unnatural, abhorrent, and detestable); they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.

 

Romans 1: 21, 24-28

21 Because when they knew and recognized Him as God, they did not honor and glorify Him as God or give Him thanks. But instead they became futile and [a]godless in their thinking [with vain imaginings, foolish reasoning, and stupid speculations] and their senseless minds were darkened.

 

24 Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their [own] hearts to sexual impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves [abandoning them to the degrading power of sin],

25 Because they exchanged the truth of God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, Who is blessed forever! Amen (so be it).

26 For this reason God gave them over and abandoned them to vile affections and degrading passions. For their women exchanged their natural function for an unnatural and abnormal one,

27 And the men also turned from natural relations with women and were set ablaze (burning out, consumed) with lust for one another—men committing shameful acts with men and suffering in their own [a]bodies and personalities the inevitable consequences and penalty of their wrong-doing and going astray, which was [their] fitting retribution.

28 And so, since they did not see fit to acknowledge God or approve of Him or consider Him worth the knowing, God gave them over to a base and condemned mind to do things not proper or decent but loathsome,

 

Did you know your Public School system just might be so anti-Christian that it may punish their Christian students standing with God’s Word when offended by LGBTQ brainwashing? Lebanon High School in Ohio is punishing High School student Gabby Helsinger for plastering Bible verses by homosexual organization Gay-Straight Alliance (GSA) promoting gay pride month informing readers on God’s thoughts on the homosexual lifestyle. The Lebanon High School Principal (listed as Scott Butler on the LHS website – his email: butler.scott@lebanonschools.org) proceeded to suspend Helsinger. Mommy Underground has the story.

 

JRH 6/9/19

Your generosity is always appreciated:

Please Support NCCR

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

Teen Suspended For Posting Bible Verses In Response To Gay Pride Exhibit

 

Jennifer Roberts, Editor

Email Alert Date: 6/9/2019 9:08 AM

Mommy Underground

 

Gabby Helsinger

 

Being in a country where we have the freedom to express ourselves is a blessing.

 

A luxury not many countries have, openly advocating our point of view is something people have taken to soapboxes all over the nation.

 

But what happens when a backward society stifles morality, while exploiting anti-family and anti-God stances?

 

You get people who praise the wicked, while condemning those who do good.

 

An Ohio high school student is feeling the brunt of skewed liberal thinking after she was suspended by the principal for expressing her faith.

 

Fox News reported:

 

A high school student in Ohio is speaking out after she was suspended for posting Bible verses in her school in response to LGBT pride flags displayed in hallways.”

 

The Gay-Straight Alliance (GSA) was letting Lebanon High School know that they had a presence there by hanging LGBT flags around the building.

 

This seemingly innocuous action, as seen by the liberal population, is far from innocent. The GSA has long been known to coerce children into becoming a part of the LGBT community, as Mommy Underground has previously reported.

 

Gabby Helsinger was empathetic towards all the lost kids who get caught up in the confusion of the LGBT community, so she felt led to put up Bible verses around the school after seeing all the flags.

 

On Thursday when I got to school, I see that there were pride flags, posters around my school,” Gabby said in a now popular Facebook video. “And I felt the need to write down some Bible verses so I could put them around my school. And I wrote them down and I put them around the lockers, the walls.”

 

The video continues, explaining why she did this thoughtful act:

 

Seeing that there [were] people in my school that needed help …,” said Helsinger. “They don’t need to be living in the confusion of wondering if they should be gay, bi, lesbian, trans — anything like that. And I know that God is the only way that they can be healed by that, and that’s why I did it…”

 

Unfortunately, that is not how Lebanon High School is seeing Helsinger’s actions, and without notice suspended her for targeting the schools GSA club.

 

Gabby Helsinger, a Lebanon High School student, posted a video on Facebook Friday claiming she is being punished for “targeting” the school’s Gay-Straight Alliance (GSA) club.

 

The same day the verses were put up, sharing a little inspiration with the hopeless students at the high school, a teacher was seen by Helsinger taking the verses down.

 

Despite the inappropriate action taken by the teacher, and the clear bias of representation in the school, Helsinger did not engage the teacher or start any conflict.

 

Thinking the peaceful attempt at expressing her faith at school was over, Helsinger came to school the following day as usual.

 

However, she explains on Facebook how her day took a turn for the worse. She states:

 

The next day, I got called to the office and there is a letter that says that I have an ISS, which is an in-school suspension, and the reason why I have it is because ‘abuse of others, disrespect, rudeness’ because I put Bible verses up ‘targeting the GSA organization,’”

 

This is impossible, seeing that Helsinger “did not know what the GSA organization was or meant.”

 

A Bible verse is not rude, disrespectful, or abusive.

 

Helsinger was questioned by the principal, according to her video, asking her why she did what she did, in which she replied that she wanted “to spread the word of God.”

 

Then the principal wanted to know if she had “permission” to put up Bible verses. She responded that she didn’t know you needed permission, because students put notes on lockers all the time.

 

It is wrong that this principal targeted a Bible believing student for something that is not against school policy, reprimanding her and taking away her right to express her faith.

 

Faithwire reports on Lebanon City School superintendent’s response to the event, stating how the school’s Code of Conduct “does not prohibit the sharing or posting of religious text or imagery at school.”

 

Bring your bible.org specializes in the laws that pertain to religious freedoms in public schools, and they report:

 

In general, students can voluntarily express their personal and religious beliefs to their classmates through verbal or written expressions, as long as they follow school policy and do not engage in these activities during classroom or instruction time. Schools can enforce reasonable limits on times and locations for where students are allowed to distribute materials. But these regulations must be applied equally to all students. That means schools cannot impose an outright ban on religious-themed materials if they already allow students to distribute non-religious materials.”

 

Fox News tried to get a comment from Scott Butler, the principal who unjustly sentenced Helsinger to suspension. He simply responded:

 

“We do not publicly discuss the discipline of individual students. In general, when a student violates the Student Code of Conduct, there are consequences for those actions.”

 

But as we know, the superintendent already verified that the Code of Conduct was not broken.

 

Butler is not facing any repercussion that has been reported since bullying a girl for believing in something different than him.

 

This kind of bias and persecution of religious expression in public schools is widespread and inexcusable.

 

Don’t fall victim to liberal bullying, and let your state officials know when your child’s freedoms are violated.

 

Please let us know in the comments section if you have a child who has been targeted for believing in the Bible.

________________________

Bible on LGBTQ Lifestyle

Only in Jesus is There Good News

 

John R. Houk

© June 9, 2019

________________________

Teen Suspended For Posting Bible Verses In Response To Gay Pride Exhibit

 

© 2018 Rising Media News Network, LLC. All Rights Reserved. All materials contained on this site are protected by United States copyright law and may not be reproduced, distributed, transmitted, displayed, published or broadcast, in whole or part, without the prior written permission of Rising Media News Network, LLC. [Blog Editor: I did not get that permission. If RMNN, LLC or Mommy Underground asks to remove post I will comply]

 

MommyUnderground.com

 

Be Aware the Left Lies to Justify Means to a Deluded End


John R. Houk, Blog Editor

June 8, 2019

 

I am quite annoyed with the Dems and Left Stream Media doing their utmost to convict and/or impeach President Trump for crimes he did not commit. In that spirit here are some articles that provide a vastly different picture than the lies disseminated by the Left.

 

JRH 6/8/19

Your generosity is always appreciated:

Please Support NCCR

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

EXCLUSIVE: Another Key Witness Noted Over 100 Times in Mueller Report, Felix Sater, Is a Clinton and Loretta Lynch Linked Deep State Spy

 

By Joe Hoft

June 7, 2019

The Gateway Pundit

 

Bill Clinton & Felix Sater

 

Felix Sater is a deep state Democrat with ties to the Clintons and the Mueller gang.  He’s mentioned over 100 times in the Mueller report but not one mention refers to these connections with Deep State Democrats.

 

In March, the far left and dishonest Democrat leader Adam Schiff announced that he had invited Felix Sater to provide a testimony before Congress.  Sater eventually did not testify as Schiff and his party realized that Sater’s testimony would be detrimental to their Russia-Collusion sham.

 

 

A few weeks before Schiff’s announcement on Sater, far Left Buzzfeed released another bogus report stating President Trump’s attorney Michael Cohen was following President Trump’s orders to lie about an unsupported story on Russia.

 

Mueller’s team in an attempt to prevent a leak investigation into its operations came out 24 hours later and said the story was false.

 

Now we know that the entire junk report was provided to Buzzfeed by Clinton and Mueller lackey, Felix Sater.

 

 

Paul Sperry reported that the individual behind the Buzzfeed fake news story lying about President Trump was none other than Sater, a deep state dirt-bag close to the Clintons and Mueller and his gang of crooks:

 

 

Sperry was right. Sater was seen in pictures with Bill Clinton – (see above). Sater has also been pictured with far left media reporters pushing the Trump-Russia collusion fairy tale:

 

Felix Sater with News

 

Most shocking is Sater’s connections to the Clintons and the Mueller gang of corrupt and criminal attorneys and investigators.

 

It was reported that Sater’s connections began in 1998 [emphasis added]:

 

Sater pleaded guilty to racketeering in December 1998. But instead of being sentenced, Sater, like 16 other defendants in the case, signed a cooperation agreement with the US government, and his entire case file was sealed.

 

Signing Sater’s cooperation agreement for the Department of Justice was Andrew Weissmann, then an assistant US attorney and now a key member of the special counsel’s team. Mueller himself would be the FBI director for most of the time Sater served as a source.

 

The US attorney who oversaw Sater’s pump-and-dump case was Loretta Lynch, later the attorney general under President Barack Obama. While the Senate was considering her confirmation, Sen. Orrin Hatch asked Lynch about how her office handled Sater’s fraud case. In a written response, she said:

 

“The defendant in question, Felix Sater, provided valuable and sensitive information to the government during the course of his cooperation, which began in or about December 1998. For more than 10 years, he worked with prosecutors providing information crucial to national security and the conviction of over 20 individuals, including those responsible for committing massive financial fraud and members of La Cosa Nostra. For that reason, his case was initially sealed.”

 

To the government, he was no longer Felix Sater; in public he was referred to as John Doe, while in hundreds of pages of FBI interview reports, his code name was “The Quarterback.”

 

None of this stopped the Mueller gang from using Sater as a material witness in their Russia collusion sham.

 

In the Mueller report Sater is mentioned in the text and footnotes more than 100 times!  The Mueller team introduces Sater in the report as a New York based real estate adviser:

 

In the late summer of 2015, the Trump Organization received a new inquiry about pursuing a Trump Tower project in Moscow. In approximately September 2015, Felix Sater, a New York based real estate advisor, contacted Michael Cohen, then-executive vice president of the Trump Organization and special counsel to Donald J. Trump.

 

Not once in the Mueller report does the Mueller gang refer to Sater’s connections with the Clintons, Loretta Lynch or with Andrew Weissmann, the suspected drafter of the Mueller report. 

 

Today John Sullivan from the Hill released information that another key witness referred to as a Russian is not even Russian:

 

In Mueller’s report, Ukrainian businessman, Konstantin Kilimnik — the so-called Russian who Paul Manafort shared internal polling data with (gasp) isn’t a Russian, he’s actually as a “sensitive” intelligence source for the U.S. State Department who informed on Ukrainian and Russian matters, reported Solomon.

 

It looks like Kilimnik is not the only source the Mueller team used to frame President Trump!

 

The entire Clinton-Mueller cabal is coming undone. The Mueller Report is a joke as more and more lies are unveiled in the Democrats’ attempted coup to remove President Trump from office.

 

Hat Tip D. Manny

++++++++++++++++

Trump-Russia Hysteria: Oh Look, Another Glaring Omission In The Mueller Report

 

By Matt Vespa

Jun 07, 2019 6:10 PM

Townhall.com

 

Bob Mueller Source: AP Photo/Carolyn Kaster

 

The House Democrats’ ongoing debate about whether to push for a full-blown impeachment proceeding may be dominating the news, along with President Trump’s visit to the UK, but the Mueller report isn’t going away, especially after more tidbits about the investigation itself are coming to light. Special Counsel Robert Mueller is gone. His investigation is over. And yet, we have stories about key witness’s child porn charges being ignored. The Federalist’s Sean Davis did not mince words. He feels that the Mueller report that debunked Russian collusion showed that the special counsel and his team of die-hard Democrats tried to prove that there was such a conspiracy. For two years, they dug and found nothing. Now, after being unable to give Democrats the impeachment ammunition the needed, Mueller, in his exiting presser, all but gave the green light to start such proceedings. It’s that presser that many saw this whole investigation as nothing more than a political hit job and a perversion of a basic tenet of our legal system: innocent until proven guilty. Granted, a lot of us already knew there was no collusion.

 

I mean after the 456th bombshell on this story that had zero evidence to back it up—because there was none—the writing was on the wall months ago. The liberal media continued to peddle it, however, because Trump Derangement Syndrome is real and the Left is desperate to get rid of the president. As for the FBI, well, did they even verify the Trump dossier that was compiled by ex-MI6 spy Christopher Steele and used reportedly as credible evidence to secure a FISA spy warrant against Carter Page, a former foreign policy adviser for the Trump campaign? Based on these glaring errors in the report, don’t bet the mortgage on it. Also, the State Department knew this document, funded by the Democrats and the Clinton campaign, was biased political opposition research. John Solomon of The Hill has been doing excellent work tracking the sordid details of this investigation. So, while the focus is on the DOJ/FBI for their alleged misdeed with this investigation, the State Department could be yanked into this storm:

 

Donald Trump’s campaign, it sat buried for more than 2 1/2 years in the files of a high-ranking State Department official.

 

Deputy Assistant Secretary of State Kathleen Kavalec’s written account of her Oct. 11, 2016, meeting with FBI informant Christopher Steele shows the Hillary Clinton campaign-funded British intelligence operative admitted that his research was political and facing an Election Day deadline.

 

And that confession occurred 10 days before the FBI used Steele’s now-discredited dossier to justify securing a Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA warrant to surveil former Trump campaign adviser Carter Page and the campaign’s ties to Russia.

 

And now we have this omission about a Russian who was actually a State Department intelligence source, though he’s portrayed as some nefarious Kremlin operative working with Paul Manafort. Solomon detailed this “deception by omission” in a lengthy piece (via The Hill) [emphasis mine]:

 

In a key finding of the Mueller report, Ukrainian businessman Konstantin Kilimnik, who worked for Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort, is tied to Russian intelligence.

 

But hundreds of pages of government documents — which special counsel Robert Mueller possessed since 2018 — describe Kilimnik as a “sensitive” intelligence source for the U.S. State Department who informed on Ukrainian and Russian matters.

 

Why Mueller’s team omitted that part of the Kilimnik narrative from its report and related court filings is not known. But the revelation of it comes as the accuracy of Mueller’s Russia conclusions face increased scrutiny.

 

[…]

 

Kilimnik was not just any run-of-the-mill source, either.

 

He interacted with the chief political officer at the U.S. Embassy in Kiev, sometimes meeting several times a week to provide information on the Ukraine government. He relayed messages back to Ukraine’s leaders and delivered written reports to U.S. officials via emails that stretched on for thousands of words, the memos show.

 

The FBI knew all of this, well before the Mueller investigation concluded.

 

Alan Purcell, the chief political officer at the Kiev embassy from 2014 to 2017, told FBI agents that State officials, including senior embassy officials Alexander Kasanof and Eric Schultz, deemed Kilimnik to be such a valuable asset that they kept his name out of cables for fear he would be compromised by leaks to WikiLeaks.

 

[…]

 

Three sources with direct knowledge of the inner workings of Mueller’s office confirmed to me that the special prosecutor’s team had all of the FBI interviews with State officials, as well as Kilimnik’s intelligence reports to the U.S. Embassy, well before they portrayed him as a Russian sympathizer tied to Moscow intelligence or charged Kilimnik with participating with Manafort in a scheme to obstruct the Russia investigation.

 

Kasanof’s and Purcell’s interviews are corroborated by scores of State Department emails I reviewed that contain regular intelligence from Kilimnik on happenings inside the Yanukovych administration, the Crimea conflict and Ukrainian and Russian politics. For example, the memos show Kilimnik provided real-time intelligence on everything from whose star in the administration was rising or falling to efforts at stuffing ballot boxes in Ukrainian elections.

 

Those emails raise further doubt about the Mueller report’s portrayal of Kilimnik as a Russian agent. They show Kilimnik was allowed to visit the United States twice in 2016 to meet with State officials, a clear sign he wasn’t flagged in visa databases as a foreign intelligence threat.

 

The emails also show how misleading, by omission, the Mueller report’s public portrayal of Kilimnik turns out to be.

 

For instance, the report makes a big deal about Kilimnik’s meeting with Manafort in August 2016 at the Trump Tower in New York.

 

By that time, Manafort had served as Trump’s campaign chairman for several months but was about to resign because of a growing controversy about the millions of dollars Manafort accepted as a foreign lobbyist for Yanukovych’s party.

 

Specifically, the Mueller report flagged Kilimnik’s delivery of a peace plan to the Trump campaign for settling the two-year-old Crimea conflict between Russia and Ukraine.

 

“Kilimnik requested the meeting to deliver in person a peace plan for Ukraine that Manafort acknowledged to the Special Counsel’s Office was a ‘backdoor’ way for Russia to control part of eastern Ukraine,” the Mueller report stated.

 

But State emails showed Kilimnik first delivered a version of his peace plan in May 2016 to the Obama administration during a visit to Washington. Kasanof, his former handler at the U.S. Embassy in Ukraine, had been promoted to a top policy position at State, and the two met for dinner on May 5, 2016.

 

[…]

 

So Kilimnik’s delivery of the peace plan to the Trump campaign in August 2016 was flagged by Mueller as potentially nefarious, but its earlier delivery to the Obama administration wasn’t mentioned. That’s what many in the intelligence world might call “deception by omission.”

 

Yeah, sounds like “deception by omission” indeed. I’ll let you debate among yourselves, but this sounds like another example that the Mueller team tried to twist the fact in order to prove that Trump-Russia myth was real. At the same time, while the staff was loaded with liberal Democrats, I see that as a positive. There was nothing to this investigation and that fact that only partisan lefties were digging and still found nothing only adds more credibility to the conclusion: no collusion. There’s no way to pivot away from this. No wonder why Attorney General Barr is investigating the investigators who conducted this circus.

 

+++++++++++++++++++

Judicial Watch: FBI Docs Show Notes about Meeting with Intelligence Community Inspector General about Clinton Emails are ‘Missing’ and CD Containing Notes Is Likely ‘Damaged’ Irreparably

 

JW Press Room

JUNE 07, 2019

Judicial Watch

 

(Washington, DC) – Judicial Watch announced today that the FBI released 277 pages of redacted records in response to a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit that show the FBI failed to produce information from an August 2015 meeting with Intelligence Community Inspector General about Hillary Clinton’s email server. The FBI claimed that notes are “missing” and the CD containing notes from meeting is likely “damaged” irreparably.

 

The records, which were posted on the FBI’s website, are the 32nd release of documents in response to  a Judicial Watch 2016 Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit Judicial Watch v. U.S. Department of Justice (No. 1:16-cv-02046). Judicial Watch filed the lawsuit after the Justice Department failed to comply with a July 7, 2016, FOIA request for:

 

  • All FD-302 forms prepared pursuant to the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s investigation of former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s use of a private e-mail server during her tenure.

 

  • All records of communications between any agent, employee, or representative of the Federal Bureau of Investigation regarding, concerning, or related to the aforementioned investigation. This request includes, but is not limited to, any related communications with any official, employee, or representative of the Department of Justice, the Executive Office of the President, the Democratic National Committee, and/or the presidential campaign of Hillary Clinton.

 

  • All records related to the meeting between Attorney General Lynch and former President Bill Clinton on June 27, 2016.

 

Included in the documents are February 2019 FBI electronic communications documenting the damaged CD and the missing notes from the August 3, 2015, meeting between FBI special agents and the ICIG about Clinton’s server:

 

For reference, Special Agents (SAs) [redacted] have been gathering and copying materials from the captioned case located in the Washington Field Office (WFO) CI-13 Workbox in response to a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) tasking from Information Management Division (IMD; formerly known as Records Management Division).

 

On or about February 6, 2019, SAs [redacted] opened [redacted]-CYBER-1A27, which contained a CD with a crack on it (a damaged CD). SA [redacted] attempted to copy the damaged CD at the WFO Computer Analysis Response Team (CART) self-service area, but was not able to do so. SA [redacted] spoke with FBI information technology specialists on the ground floor of WFO regarding the damaged CD, who indicated it was unlikely the CD could be copied.

 

The electronic communication regarding the missing “Notes from Meeting” says:

 

On or about February 4, 2016, Special Agents (SAs) [redacted] attempted to locate [redacted] 1A4, described as “Notes from Meeting” acquired by [redacted] (see referenced serial). The SAs looked through all case materials in the CI-13 file and workbox area, however they were not able to locate this item.

 

SA [redacted] inquired with Supervisory Intelligence Analyst (SIA) [redacted] regarding the item, as he was previously the IA assigned to the case. SIA [redacted] contacted [redacted] regarding the item, who indicated he remembered handing over his case notes to SA [redacted] (see attached email).

 

On February 6, 2019, SA [redacted] contacted SA [redacted] regarding the notes.  SA [redacted] explained he documented all relevant case materials before leaving the case and did not retain any notes or other case materials.

 

As such, WFO CI-13 considers the item missing and will enclose this document into 1A4 as a placeholder until the missing item is located.

 

The email referred to in the electronic communication on the missing “Notes from Meeting” reads as follows:

 

From: [Redacted]
To: [Redacted]
CC: [Redacted] [Redacted] [Redacted]
Subject: RE: MYE Serial #??
Date: Tuesday, February 05, 2019 10:43:14 AM

 

I actually remember turning over my original notes for the file for this (it was right at the beginning of the case). I gave them to [redacted] who was running the file then. The only question will be whether or not I kept a copy for myself. I’ll look and see what I have.

 

Republican Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-TX) said during a hearing with Strzok that in 2015 ICIG investigator Fred Rucker advised Strzok of an “anomaly” on Hillary Clinton’s emails going through the private server. The forensic analysis found that all of those emails except four – over 30,000 – “were going to an address that was not on the distribution list.” It was later reported that it was a “Chinese state-owned company” that hacked Clinton’s server. The ICIG referred the Clinton email investigation to the FBI on July 6, 2015, just under a month before the meeting for which the notes were “lost.”

 

The document production contains emails between Justin Cooper (the former close aide to Bill Clinton, who helped set up Hillary Clinton’s email system) and Huma Abedin regarding an attempted breach of the Clinton email server. On January 9, 2011, Cooper emailed Abedin: “I had to shut down the server Someone was trying to hack us and while they did not get in i didnt [sic] want to let them have the chance to. I will restart it in the morning.” Despite Abedin’s having explicitly warned Sullivan and Mills that Clinton’s unsecure non-government server had been attacked, the documents contain handwritten FBI notes of Abedin’s 2016 FBI interview in which she told agents she didn’t recall any hacking attempts.

 

“The Obama FBI was frantic to target then-candidate Trump while magically losing or destroying important evidence in the sham investigation of Hillary Clinton’s illicit email system,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. “This new information underscores the need for a fresh, unbiased investigation into the Clinton email scandal.”

 

In a related case, Judicial Watch recently obtained documents from the DOJ showing that on August 5, 2016 – a month after Comey’s exoneration of Clinton – FBI officials Lisa Page and Peter Strzok and Jonathan Moffa were notified by a FBI assistant general counsel from the national security law branch that several FBI 302 interview reports were in need of processing:

 

Today [Redacted] brought over additional 302s from the WFO [Washington Field Office]. Are those supposed to go through the redaction process for production to DOJ on Monday? We’re trying to figure out what needs to be completed this weekend.

 

Page responded by writing to Strzok, Moffa and others that four FBI 302 reports of interviews related to the Clinton “Midyear Exam” investigation had never even been written:

 

[Redacted] to the best of my knowledge, yes they will when Pete identified for [redacted] the DOJ edits that needed to be made to the 302s [redacted] discovered that there were four (I think) 302s that had never been written. What I don’t know is whose 302s they are but unless Pete or Jon are able to respond in short order, I would throw them on the pile for redactions. Thanks so much.

 

Additionally, Judicial Watch recently filed a lawsuit against the Office of the Director of National Intelligence for details of a meeting with the FBI regarding national security threats associated with former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s “private” email system.

 

+++++++++++++++++

“The Supreme Court will nix a House Impeachment”

 

By Mark Langfan, INN

June 7, 2019

Israpundit

 

President Donald Trump can and will successfully apply to the Supreme Court the moment the US House of Representatives passes any Impeachment resolution, if that occurs. Legal luminaries such as Professor Alan Dershowitz wrote an article positively treating President Trump’s Supreme Court Impeachment claims. Other constitutional scholars and articles have hysterically panned President Trump’s likely Supreme Court Gambit.

 

Both sides have referenced the 1993 impeachment case of “Nixon v. US” as their legal authority. No, not that “Nixon” as in President Richard M. Nixon of Watergate fame, but one Walter L. Nixon, Jr. a disgraced Federal judge who was actually convicted by a jury “beyond a reasonable doubt” of two separate counts of making false statements before a federal Grand Jury, and actually sentenced to prison.

 

Walter Nixon refused to “resign” his federal judgeship, and was collecting a federal judicial salary in prison. So, the government had to “impeach” him to stop his federal paycheck. The Judge Nixon Supreme Court majority’s legal reasoning is actually the very legal basis for President Trump’s applying to the Supreme Court, and defeating his Impeachment: not on the House “procedures” of Impeachment, but on the substance of the constitutional term of art “high crimes and misdemeanors.”

 

The Nixon v. US case involved claims by the then-Judge Nixon that the Senate’s impeachment “procedures” were somehow infirm, and therefore, the Senate’s finding him guilty of impeachment was infirm. The specific details of Judge Nixon’s claims about the Senate’s procedures aren’t really important for purposes of this article. What is important is that Judge Nixon only claimed the Senate’s impeachment procedures were infirm, not that the substance of the charges against him were somehow not “high crimes and misdemeanors.” Since, Judge Nixon was actually found guilty by a federal jury that he was “beyond a reasonable doubt” guilty of making false statements to a Federal Grand Jury, Judge Nixon’s actually adjudicated felony crimes clearly hurdled the definitional constitutional requirement of “high crimes.”

 

In President Trump’s case, President Trump will not seek the Supreme Court’s adjudication of a veto over the House’s impeachment procedures. Rather, President Trump will attack the likely legally lightweight factually alleged claims as not raising to the substantive level of “high crimes and misdemeanors.”

 

And it is on the turn of the very question of Impeachment “procedure” as opposed to Impeachment “substance” that the Supreme Court, based on Nixon v US, will find the definitional substance of “high crimes and misdemeanors” “justiciable” and rule for President Trump, and void a House impeachment.

 

To understand the coming Trump v. House-based legal arguments better, one has to look a little deeper at the actual US Constitution itself. The key aspect of the US Constitution itself that will be determinative for a Trump v. House Supreme Court determination is not the Impeachment procedures that are empowered to the Congress in Article 1, or the “Legislative Article” of the Constitution.

 

But rather President Trump will challenge the House under the constitutional Impeachment definitional substance of “high crimes and misdemeanors” found in Article 2, or the “Executive Article” of the US Constitution. As we will see, this Legislative Article 1 versus Executive Article 2 distinction will be determinative in the Supreme Court’s ultimate finding for President Trump.

 

In Nixon v. US, Chief Justice Rehnquist writing for the majority stated the legal standard for the Nixon v US decision as:

 

“A controversy is nonjusticiable—i. e., involves a political question—where there is “a textually demonstrable constitutional commitment of the issue to a coordinate political department; or a lack of judicially discoverable and manageable standards for resolving it . . . .” Baker v. Carr, 369 U. S. 186, 217 (1962).” Nixon v. US, 506 U.S. 224, at 228 (1993)

 

This sounds complicated, but it isn’t. It means to be a too hot potato “political question” for the Supreme Court to rule on, the issue has to be either

 

1) One where the US Constitution specifically relegates the issue at issue as one solely of one of the three branches of government, or,

 

2) One where the claimed constitutional issue is susceptible to meaningful legal interpretation. President Trump will satisfy both of these Nixon “political question” prongs, and will defeat the House on its impeachment definition of “high crimes and misdemeanors.”

 

On the first Nixon “solely one branch” constitutional prong, unlike Nixon v US, where Judge Nixon solely raised a question on just the text of an Article 1 “Legislative” Article procedural constitutional infirmity, President Trump will be raising an Article 2, “Executive” Article substance constitutional infirmity of the House definition of the Article 2 “high crimes and misdemeanors.”

 

By the very definition of President Trump’s claim, the Supreme Court will have to look outside of the text and constitutional authority of the Legislative Article 1, and into the heart of the powers and obligations of the Executive Article 2.

 

Therefore, by definition, President Trump’s case “textually demonstrates” it is not solely a Legislatively based Article 1 issue, but really an Article 2 Executive question. Therefore, President Trump will not satisfy the first Nixon prong for being characterized as a “political question.”

 

On the second Nixon “judicially discoverable” constitutional prong, President Trump will receive help from a very unlikely source: the Democrat majority House Judiciary Committee of 1974. The Democratic House Judiciary Impeachment Report of 1974, issued in the wake of the Nixon Watergate scandal, was issued under the Democrat Chairman Peter Rodino, Jr. and entered into the record by the Democrat Zoe Lofgren of California. The report stated that:

“High Crimes and Misdemeanors” has traditionally been considered a ‘term of art,’ like such other constitutional phrases as ‘levying war’ and ‘due process.’

 

“The Supreme Court has held that such phrases must be construed, not according to modern usage, but according to what the framers meant when they adopted them,” Chief Justice Marshall wrote of another such phrase:

 

“It is a technical term. It is used in a very old statute of that country whose language is our language, and whose laws form the substratum of our laws. It is scarcely conceivable that the term was not employed by the framers of our constitution in the sense which had been affixed to it by those from whom we borrowed it.57”

 

Therefore, the Democrat House Judiciary is on record as stating that “high crimes and misdemeanors” is a “term of art”, and hence, is completely susceptible to “judicially discoverable and manageable standards for resolving” its meaning. And secondly, the Supreme Court has already ruled on similar questions because, “The Supreme Court has held that such phrases must be construed, not according to modern usage, but according to what the framers meant when they adopted them.” Hence, the House Committee has stated that the Supreme Court “must” construe legal “terms of art” found in the US Constitution. Thirdly, they specifically cite Chief Justice Marshall for finding that a constitutional “term of art” “judicially discoverable” and capable of “manageable standards.”

 

In conclusion, President Trump has only begun to fight, and fight he will. Be prepared for many other legal claims that will throw the House Democrats into hysteria and will surely win President Trump a second term.

 

Author: Mark Langfan is Chairman of Americans for a Safe Israel (AFSI). He specializes in security issues, and has created an original, educational 3D Topographic Map System of Israel to facilitate clear understanding of the dangers facing Israel and its water supply. It has been studied by U.S. lawmakers and can be seen at www.MarkLangfan.com.

___________________

EXCLUSIVE: Another Key Witness Noted Over 100 Times in Mueller Report, Felix Sater, Is a Clinton and Loretta Lynch Linked Deep State Spy

 

© 2019 The Gateway Pundit – All Rights Reserved.

___________________

Trump-Russia Hysteria: Oh Look, Another Glaring Omission In The Mueller Report

 

Townhall.com is the leading source for conservative news and political commentary and analysis.


Copyright © Townhall.com/Salem Media. All Rights Reserved.

___________________

Judicial Watch: FBI Docs Show Notes about Meeting with Intelligence Community Inspector General about Clinton Emails are ‘Missing’ and CD Containing Notes Is Likely ‘Damaged’ Irreparably

 

© 2019 Judicial Watch, Inc.

_________________

“The Supreme Court will nix a House Impeachment”

 

Copyright © 2017- Israpundit – All Rights Reserved