HUGE Free Speech Victory for SIOA


You do realize Left Wing Multiculturalist thinking has hampered Counterjihad writers and/or organizations to utilize proper legal protections for their brand, right? Well, that might actually be ending soon.

Simon Shiao Tam won his appellate case that will force the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) to register trademarks for organizations that may have a name that a race or group of people may find offensive. In Mr. Tam’s case it was to register the trademark “Slant” as representative of his Asian-American dance rock band. A whole slew of Conservative civil rights organizations joined Mr. Tam’s suit because the outcome affected many others denied a trademark by the USPTO under a Federal Law prohibiting trademarked names to include disparaging words as defined by the government.

One of those beneficiaries of the suit won by Tam was Pamela Geller who was a bit miffed when the USPTO rejected the SIOA and AFDI registered trademark names fighting the civil rights abuses that Islam’s Sharia Law does to Western Rights and the American Constitution in particular. Below is Geller’s victory dance post celebrating the Tam decision in a Federal Circuit Court.

JRH 12/24/15 (Hat Tip: Marlene of Out Spoken Patriots Google + Group)

Please Support NCCR

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

HUGE Free Speech Victory for SIOA: Federal Circuit Court Reverses 70-Year “Unconstitutional”

By Pamela Geller

December 22, 2015

PamelaGeller.comAtlas Shrugs

Longtime Atlas readers are quite familiar with our First Amendment trademark case. We have been fighting to trademark SIOA (Stop Islamization of America) but were repeatedly refused because it considered “disparaging” to Muslims. It was, in effect, an application of sharia law (‘do not criticize Islam.’)

Today we had a big victory against this fascist-style ban. The Federal Circuit Court of Appeals just reversed 70 years of holdings that said there is no First Amendment protection in trademark cases. In reversing, it held as unconstitutional the “disparaging” prohibition, citing SIOA first and frequently.

What a wonderful Christmas miracle :)

The government cannot refuse to register disparaging marks because it disapproves of the expressive messages conveyed by the marks. It cannot refuse to register marks because it concludes that such marks will be disparaging to others. The government regulation at issue amounts to viewpoint discrimination, and under the strict scrutiny review appropriate for government regulation of message or viewpoint, we conclude that the disparagement pro- scription of § 2(a) is unconstitutional.

The USPTO had rejected AFDI’s trademark application [bad link] based on the following analysis:

“Islamisation” means converting to Islam or “to make Islamic;” and (2), “Stop” would be understood to mean that “action must be taken to cease, or put an end to, converting or making people in America conform to Islam.” Thus, the trademark, according to the “Office Action” ruling, disparaged Muslims and linked them to terrorism. (AFLC)

The court concludes that “Stop the Islamization of America” mark, as used by its promoters, is likely to be understood as “disparaging to a substantial composite” of Muslims, whether “Islamization” refers to conversion to Islam or to “a political movement to replace man-made laws with the religious laws of Islam.”

Now that Federal Circuit Court of Appeals has held as “unconstitutional” the disparaging prohibition we are going to move forward with getting our trademark.

government enacted this law—and defends it today— because it disapproves of the messages conveyed by disparaging marks. It is a bedrock principle underlying the First Amendment that the government may not penalize private speech merely because it disapproves of the message it conveys. That principle governs even when the government’s message-discriminatory penalty is less than a prohibition.

Courts have been slow to appreciate the expressive power of trademarks. Words—even a single word—can be powerful. Mr. Simon Shiao Tam named his band THE SLANTS to make a statement about racial and cultural issues in this country. With his band name, Mr. Tam conveys more about our society than many volumes of undisputedly protected speech. Another rejected mark, STOP THE ISLAMISATION OF AMERICA, proclaims that Islamisation is undesirable and should be stopped. Many of the marks rejected as disparaging convey hurtful speech that harms members of oft-stigmatized communi- ties. But the First Amendment protects even hurtful speech.

The government cannot refuse to register disparaging marks because it disapproves of the expressive messages conveyed by the marks. It cannot refuse to register marks because it concludes that such marks will be disparaging to others. The government regulation at issue amounts to viewpoint discrimination, and under the strict scrutiny review appropriate for government regulation of message or viewpoint, we conclude that the disparagement pro- scription of § 2(a) is unconstitutional. Because the gov- ernment has offered no legitimate interests justifying § 2(a), we conclude that it would also be unconstitutional under the intermediate scrutiny traditionally applied to regulation of the commercial aspects of speech.

This is a big case – and it won’t only affect us but the Washington Redskins, the rock band

Here are some of the salient pssages in the finding:

Importantly, every time the PTO refuses to register a mark under § 2(a), it does so because it believes the mark conveys an expressive message—a message that is dis- paraging to certain groups. STOP THE ISLAMISATION OF AMERICA is expressive. In refusing to register the mark, the Board explained that the “mark’s admonition to ‘STOP’ Islamisation in America ‘sets a negative tone and signals that Islamization is undesirable and is something that must be brought to an end in America.’” Geller, 751 F.3d at 1361.

We limit our holding in this case to the constitu- tionality of the § 2(a) disparagement provision. Recogniz- ing, however, that other portions of § 2 may likewise constitute government regulation of expression based on message, such as the exclusions of immoral or scandalous marks, we leave to future panels the consideration of the § 2 provisions other than the disparagement provision at issue here. To be clear, we overrule In re McGinley, 660 F.2d 481 (C.C.P.A. 1981), and other precedent insofar as they could be argued to prevent a future panel from considering the constitutionality of other portions of § 2 in light of the present decision.

A disparaging mark is a mark which “dishonors by comparison with what is inferior, slights, deprecates, degrades, or affects or injures by unjust comparison.” Geller, 751 F.3d at 1358 (alterations omitted). To deter- mine if a mark is disparaging under § 2(a), a trademark examiner of the PTO considers:

Trademark Manual of Exam. Proc. (“TMEP”) § 1203.03(b)(i) (Jan. 2015 ed.) (citing Geller, 751 F.3d at 1358). If the examiner “make[s] a prima facie showing that a substantial composite, although not necessarily a majority, of the referenced group would find the proposed mark, as used on or in connection with the relevant goods or services, to be disparaging in the context of contempo- rary attitudes,” the burden shifts to the applicant for rebuttal. Id. If the applicant fails to rebut the prima facie case of disparagement, the examiner refuses to register the mark. The Trademark Manual of Examining Procedure does not require an examiner who finds a mark disparaging to consult her supervisor or take any further steps to ensure the provision is applied fairly and consist- ently across the agency. Compare TMEP § 1203.03 (no discussion of action to take if examiner finds mark dis- paraging), with TMEP § 1203.01 (requiring examiner who finds a mark scandalous or immoral to consult his super- visor). A single examiner, with no input from her super- visor, can reject a mark as disparaging by determining that it would be disparaging to a substantial composite of the referenced group.

Second, the disparagement provision at issue is view- point discriminatory on its face. The PTO rejects marks under § 2(a) when it finds the marks refer to a group in a negative way, but it permits the registration of marks that refer to a group in a positive, non-disparaging man- ner. In this case the PTO refused to register Mr. Tam’s mark because it found the mark “disparaging” and “objec- tionable” to people of Asian descent. Tam, 2013 WL 5498164, at *6. But the PTO has registered marks that refer positively to people of Asian descent. See, e.g., CELEBRASIANS, ASIAN EFFICIENCY. Similarly, the PTO has prohibited the registration of marks that it found disparaged other groups. See, e.g., Pro-Football, 2015 WL 4096277 (affirming cancellation of REDSKINS); Geller, 751 F.3d 1355 (affirming rejection of STOP THE ISLAMISATION OF AMERICA); Lebanese Arak Corp., 94 U.S.P.Q.2d 1215 (refusing to register KHORAN for wine); Heeb Media, 89 U.S.P.Q.2d 1071 (refusing to register HEEB); Squaw Valley Dev. Co., 80 U.S.P.Q.2d 1264 (refusing to register SQUAW VALLEY for one class of goods, but registering it for another). Yet the government registers marks that refer to particular ethnic groups or religions in positive or neutral ways—for example,

NAACP, THINK ISLAM, NEW MUSLIM COOL, MORMON SAVINGS, JEWISHSTAR, and PROUD 2 B CATHOLIC.

Federal Circuit Court of Appeals on First Amendment Protection on Trademarks by Pamela Geller

[Blog Editor: The above link is to the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals decision entitled, “Federal Circuit en banc opinion In re Simon Shao Tam rejecting 2(a) trademark disparagement”. Below is the embed from Scribd of that decision.]

 

In re Tam Fed Circuit en Banc Opinion by Jennifer Elgin

https://www.scribd.com/embeds/293858228/content?start_page=1&view_mode=scroll&access_key=key-O7jMDbriKAQhSbs24JVn&show_recommendations=true

UPDATE: Here’s our law firm’s take:

Federal Circuit Court of Appeals Finds First Amendment Applies to Trademarks and Rules that “Disparaging” Cannot Be Used to Deny Expressive Trademarks Like “Stop Islamisation of America”

As a kind of Christmas present to liberty and the U.S. Constitution, the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals, sitting en banc (the entire court), today reversed more than 30-years of jurisprudence by holding that trademark registration under the Lanham Act deserves First Amendment protection. The import of this holding is that trademarks may no longer be rejected by the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) just because the USPTO believes the mark to be disparaging.

In the case In re Tam, the federal court, which specializes in patent and trademark cases, found that the USPTO’s rejection of the musical group name “The Slants” because it disparaged Asians was unconstitutional because there was no “compelling state interest” to censure the viewpoint of the trademark owner. As a result, Simon Tam will now be able to register his band name as a federal trademark, thus allowing him to protect the name and products and services sold using that name against encroachers and counterfeiters.

What made this decision possible was the recent litigation waged by the American Freedom Law Center (“AFLC”) on behalf of Pamela Geller and Robert Spencer to register their trademark, “Stop the Islamisation of America” (“SIOA”). Like the Slants trademark, the USPTO rejected the SIOA trademark on the ground that it disparaged Muslims and even Islamists by suggesting they should be “stopped.” AFLC argued the case before a three-judge panel of the Federal Circuit Court, which upheld the USPTO ruling of disparagement.

However, on the heels of the SIOA decision, by the time the Slants case found its way to the important Federal Circuit Court, the appellate judges were apparently ready to reverse their prior rulings which rejected any First Amendment arguments. Indeed, the court’s opinion starts off referencing the USPTO’s rejection of the SIOA trademark as a rejection aimed improperly at censuring important expressive speech. The court went on to reference SIOA, and the underlying case of In re Geller, no less than seven times.

 

David Yerushalmi, AFLC co-founder and Senior Counsel, noted:

 

“This demonstrates an important adage about good lawfare and good lawyering.  Even when you lose initially you may still ultimately prevail because good, hard-fought lawfare has a way of exposing bad law and bad judgments.  This is one of those rare instances where a federal court has emphatically and quite properly reversed itself.  You can be certain that our clients will now proudly seek federal trademark registration.”

 

Robert Muise, AFLC co-founder and Senior Counsel, added:

 

“At the end of the day, this was a complete victory for the First Amendment and an absolute defeat for political correctness.  Our SIOA trademark case paved the way for this important decision, reaffirming that hard work, determination, and some good lawyering can create a favorable sea change in the law.”

 

___________________________

Pamela Geller Biography

 

Pamela Geller is the founder, editor and publisher of Atlas Shrugs.com and President of the American Freedom Defense Initiative (AFDI) and Stop Islamization of America (SIOA). She is the author of The Post-American Presidency: The Obama Administration’s War on America, with Robert Spencer (foreword by Ambassador John Bolton) (Simon & Schuster) and Stop the Islamization of America: A Practical Guide to the Resistance (WND Books). She is also a regular columnist for World Net Dailythe American ThinkerBreitbart.com and other publications.

 

Geller’s activism on behalf of human rights has won international notice. She is a foremost defender of the freedom of speech against attempts to force the West to accept Sharia blasphemy laws, and against Sharia self-censorship by Western media outlets. Her First Amendment lawsuits filed nationwide have rolled back attempts to limit Americans’ free speech rights and limit speech to only one political perspective, and exposed attempts to make an end-run around the First Amendment by illegitimately restricting access to public fora. Her free speech event in Garland, Texas led to the capture or killing of several murderous jihadists, smoking out terror cells, leading to an increase in the threat level to BRAVO and to the consequent arrests of jihadists in several states.

 

Geller has also led awareness campaigns in READ THE REST

 

Contribute to the fight!

Racism Is the Excuse


Justin Smith attacks the idiocy of false accusations of racism in connection to the University of Missouri and Vanderbilt University.

Source and background links are by me the Editor.

JRH 11/16/15

Please Support NCCR

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

Racism Is the Excuse

By Justin O. Smith

Sent: 11/14/2015 1:38 PM

Racism Is the Excuse

On November 9th 2015, the president of the University of Missouri, Tim Wolfe [Bustle], resigned amid student protesters’ allegations that he had not done enough to combat racism on campus. This same day, Vanderbilt University students renewed demands that Professor Carol Swain [Daily Signal and Carol Swain About Page] be suspended or forced to resign, because they claim that many of her past statements are “hate-speech.” A coincidence, one might ask. Not hardly.

Freedom and Liberty, Justice for All and the First Amendment are under assault at the University of Missouri and Vanderbilt University — universities across America in fact, such as Purdue and Yale University and Ithaca, Smith and Williams College — and leading the charge are some of America’s children, who have been brainwashed and indoctrinated through false anti-American narratives by white Commie inspired vermin, such as Melissa Click [PowerLine], a non-tenured professor in the Univ. of Missouri’s School of Journalism. Unable to accept any refutation of their beliefs, the intolerance of this new breed of white commies, black nationalist fascists, Muslim fascists and groups like Anonymous and Concerned Student 1950 [Bustle] is not really concerned about stopping “racism” and “hate-speech.” Their intent is to seize power and control at every opportunity and force our nation to abandon the very principles that make America great.

Carol Swain, a Professor of Law and Professor of Political Science at Vanderbilt University, became a target for illiberal Progressive students, members of Coexist and the Muslim Student Association (a Muslim Brotherhood affiliate [Shariah – The Threat to America and DTN]), when she made a statement that is true and factual in any context. On January 15th 2015, she wrote a piece for the ‘Tennessean’ [Tennessean – might ask for subscription], addressing the ‘Charlie Hebdo’ attack on Jan. 7th, that stated, “Islam is not like other religions in the United States (and) it poses an absolute danger to us and our children, unless it is monitored better than it has been under the Obama administration.”

Some Muslim students called Prof. Swain’s piece “hate-speech” [Inside Higher Ed] and claimed that recent political events had made them feel “scared and unwelcome”; they state that this new protest is focused on “making this university (Vanderbilt) a welcoming and safe place for everyone.”

If Vandy’s Muslim students want all Americans to feel better about their presence in America and to feel safe and unafraid, they should expend their energy towards forcing Islam’s leaders, the ayatollahs and mullahs, to reform Islam, cease using mayhem and murder to subjugate others and cease bombing Europe’s and America’s cities.

And now, ludicrous calls are being made by these sad, pathetic close-minded “students” for Prof. Swain to stop using her title “to further broadcast her personal agenda … at the expense of our University’s Community Creed.” Carol Swain is an extremely educated (five degrees) successful black woman, who was formerly tenured at Princeton. She would not lose her title “professor” if she lost her job at Vandy today, and she did not lose her First Amendment rights when she accepted her position at Vandy. She is Professor Carol Swain, and she has the unequivocal right to use her title.

Responding to the students’ demand that she undergo “a period of diversity training” during her potential suspension, Professor Swain said [Facebook], “Only an idiot would think a 61 year old black woman who has spent much of her life in academia would benefit from sensitivity training.”

Bottom line — there is no such thing as “hate-speech”. There exists only free speech in America.

While the protesters at universities across America have their right to peacefully assemble, Professor Swain and President Wolfe also retain their right to freedom of speech and expression. No U.S. citizen should be silent in the face of intimidation, because if you do not assert your First Amendment rights, you are failing in the solemn duty of all citizens to uphold the entire Bill of Rights.

The “peaceful” protest at the University of Missouri had undertones of violence, with students angrily shouting down anyone with a different or opposing viewpoint. Prof. Melissa Click called for fellow protesters/fascist agitators to forcibly remove a student journalist [Youtube – 2:10], violating his Civil Rights as he tried to document the protest on November 10th. Many of the Concerned Student 1950 [Daily Caller] protesters had also taken part in the violent riots in Ferguson, MO., and they are of the same ilk as the Black Muslims, the Black Panthers, Students for a Democratic Society (1960s radicals) and Black Lives Matter — all too willing to call for the murders of policemen. And one of their leaders, Jonathan Butler [Daily Wire, Breitbart, Breitbart and PowerLine], is a graduate student who also protested in Ferguson.

Butler made it clear that there was much more at stake in this protest, their mockery of democratic principles, than simply addressing “race tensions”. After Tim Wolfe resigned, Butler told his cheering cohorts that their push against racism was part of a larger cause, like censoring and censuring anything and anyone that makes them feel unhappy or uncomfortable, extorting free tuition from universities and forcing innocent university officials to write apology letters, in a manner reminiscent of Chairman Mao.

If racism has been so prevalent at the University of Missouri over the years, as alleged, why has Jonathan Butler, a young black man from a wealthy family, attended classes there for 7 years?

One should seriously doubt the protesters’ depiction of a prevalent environment of racism at the Univ. of Missouri. While a few serious and heinous acts of racism have been documented between October and November 8th — feces used to draw swastikas in Gateway Hall, a criminal act of vandalism, and unidentified despicable cowards shouting “nigger” from the back of a moving truck [Fox Sports, WND and WND] — the protesters are some of the same people who turned a blind-eye to the truth of Michael Brown’s thuggery [Truth Revolt and Political Insider]; these agitators burned down the town of Ferguson in the name of a lie.

Is this where our culture is headed?

Peter Kinder, the current Lt Governor of Missouri, told Fox News [America’s News Room and Breitbart] on November 12th that racism has rarely occurred at the University of Missouri over the past few decades. He strongly stated that “the good people of Missouri are not racists.”

During the weekend of Nov. 7th, it became apparent that these agitators did not really desire the easing of racial tensions through an honest discussion. They surrounded and intimidated Tim Wolfe, and they repeatedly demanded that Tim Wolfe define “systematic oppression”, which implied some official wrongdoing; then they grew angry over his response: “Systematic oppression is because you don’t believe that you have an equal opportunity for success.” [Breitbart and The Federalist]

These protesters do not want an honest discussion on race relations and initiatives and solutions that diminish racist attitudes, leading by example and teaching all America the importance of one’s good character. They do not seek “social justice”; they want numerous unreasonable demands to be met and victory for their authoritarian and intolerant ideology, and racism is the excuse they use to tear apart the system.

The Progressive fascist students of Vanderbilt University and the University of Missouri, a large percentage of students at other schools, and the far left commie intelligentsia across America are similar to the 1930s Nazis who burned books and liked to control speech. As they speak of “micro-aggressions” that need to be eradicated, they do not understand that apprehension over any potential disturbance or being made uncomfortable is not enough to overcome the right of freedom of speech. Any word spoken in class or on campus that offends someone might cause a disturbance. But Americans do not ban words or criminalize certain forms of speech, because our Constitution and our history teaches us that our kind of hazardous freedom and openness is the basis for our national strength and the independence of Americans, who grow up and live in this great nation.

By Justin O Smith

_______________________________

Edited by John R. Houk

Text and links enclosed by brackets are by the Editor.

 

© Justin O. Smith

Christianity Attacked by School District in Washington


John R. Houk

© October 30, 2015

Did you happen to catch a 20 second blurb on any TV news about a Bremerton High School (Washington State) football coach that got in trouble because his School District told him he couldn’t exercise his First Amendment right to pray on the fifty yard line after a game because some idiot probably complained it violated a myth that the Constitution says there is a Separation of Church and State clause in said Constitution?

 

Here is an excerpt from gopusa.com that was acquired from the Seattle Times:

 

BREMERTON — Surrounded by members of his team, players from the rival Centralia High School and scores of supporters from Kitsap County and beyond, Bremerton High assistant coach Joe Kennedy knelt on the 50-yard line after Friday night’s game and prayed.

 

It was some version of the basic prayer he’s said for years, he said afterward.

 

“Lord, I thank you for these kids and the blessing you’ve given me with them. We believe in the game, we believe in competition and we can come into it as rivals and leave as brothers.” (Crowd prays with football coach as he defies school district; By Seattle Times; GOPUSA.com; 10/19/15 6:55 am)

 

image00217
Joe Kennedy-Media-Half Time. 10-29-30

 

I’ll be honest I was a bit amazed to hear of a coach in Washington State, especially west of the Cascade Mountain Range, in which a huge part of the population are Leftist or have Leftist sympathies. I grew up in Washington State. However I grew up east of the Cascades. The difference between Eastern and Western Washington is like night and day.

 

Most of the State’s population live on the Western side. Probably a little less than a third live on the Eastern side which consists of two-thirds of the State area. The East side is more Conservative but the dispersion of various State Universities on the East side injects the draw of students brainwashed by Left oriented professors. The dynamics of people going to college and work for the college has injected West side Left think in significant voting areas on the East side.

 

But getting back to Bremerton High Schools Coach Joe Kennedy, that Christian man is smack dab in the middle of the powers that be that are hot to enforce the Separation of Church and State concept. That concept NEVER existed in America’s rule of law until SCOTUS opinion handed down by Justice Hugo Black wrote the majority decision fabricating the myth exists in the First Amendment in disestablishment clause:

 

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion”

 

This is the ONLY place in the Constitution addressing the relationship of government to religious faith in America.

 

While the concept of separation of church and state might be implied by the First Amendment which states that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof….”, it says nothing about the “separation of church and state.” And, even if you accept the principle of the separation of church and state being implied by the First Amendment, it’s implication is not there to protect Americans from religion, it is there to protect religious Americans from the government.

In their desire to promote their secular humanist philosophy using the power of government, many liberals today want to alter America’s Christian heritage and replace it with the 10 Planks of Communism. They want to remove religion from our history and replace it with the Soviet doctrine of the separation of Church and State. They don’t want to safeguard denominational neutrality by the state as the Founders intended, rather they want to eradicate every vestige of religion from our public institutions. (The bold emphasis is mine. America’s Godly Heritage; Jeremiah Project)

 

Hugo Black wrote the majority 5/4 decision that created extra constitutional law by fiat in the case of Everson v. Board of Education of the Township of Ewing on February 10, 1947. Even after 1947 the Black decision did not go into immediate effect until America’s Left began whittling the Christian faith out of the taxpayer public forum for a good twenty years or via judicial case law after case law. Black’s wording created ex nihilo from a Jefferson letter to a Baptist Church concerned about the state government establishing a Church became the foundation for Leftist case law.

 

Although I am surprised about a man like Joe Kennedy taking a stand for Christ and the Original Intent of the Bill of Rights. I am not surprised that anything west of the Cascades is pushing an extra constitutional concept against a Christian man devoted to Christ.

image0038
Asst. Coach Joe Kennedy

 

AFA Petition: Stand With Coach Kennedy and His Right to Pray

 

JRH 10/30/15

Please Support NCCR

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

Praying football coach placed on paid leave by district

 

By Associated Press

October 29, 2015

One News Now

 

SEATTLE (October 29, 2015) — The coach of a Washington state high school football team who prayed at games despite orders from the school district to stop was placed on paid administrative leave Wednesday.

 

Bremerton School District officials said in a statement that assistant football coach Joe Kennedy’s leave was necessitated because of his refusal to comply with district directives that he refrain from engaging in overt, public religious displays on the football field while on duty as a coach.

 

Kennedy has vocally engaged in pregame and postgame prayers, sometimes joined by students, since 2008. But the practice recently came to the district’s attention, and it asked him to stop.

 

He initially agreed to the ban, but then, with support from the Texas-based Liberty Institute, a religious-freedom organization, he resumed the postgame prayers, silently taking a knee for 15 to 20 seconds at midfield after shaking hands with the opposing coaches. His lawyers insist he is not leading students in prayer, just praying himself.

 

“While the district appreciates Kennedy’s many positive contributions to the BHS football program, and therefore regrets the necessity of this action, Kennedy’s conduct poses a genuine risk that the District will be liable for violating the federal and state constitutional rights of students or others. For this reason, Kennedy will not be allowed to further violate the District’s directives,” the statement said.

 

The district said Kennedy remains employed by the district and unless his status changes, will be paid through the remainder of his contract term. He won’t be allowed to participate in any activities related to the Bremerton football program although the district said he can attend games as a member of the public.

 

The controversy has focused attention on Bremerton, across the Puget Sound west of Seattle, and on the role of religion in public schools. On Tuesday, dozens of lawmakers in the Congressional Prayer Caucus sent a letter to the superintendent expressing support for the coach.

 

Also this week, The Satanic Temple, which has 42 members in its Seattle chapter, announced that its members were open to being invited to a game, and a few students and teachers extended such invitations. The organization doesn’t believe in Satan except as “a potent symbol of rebellion against tyranny,” it says on its website. It’s an atheist group that rejects the notion of supernatural deities and espouses values such as scientific inquiry and compassion, it says.

 

The group suggested that by allowing the coach to continue praying, the district has created a forum for religious expression open to all groups. It requested permission to perform an invocation on the field after the game. The district had not responded as of Wednesday and did not respond to a request for comment regarding the group.

 

On Wednesday night, Kennedy’s lawyer, Hiram Sasser, called the paid leave a hostile employment action.

 

“It’s surprising and shocking,” Sasser said.

 

He said they plan to file a charge of discrimination with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, which he said is a next step.

+++

[Blog Editor: Below is a side story on the same One News Now article. I find it creepy that Seattle Satanist atheists attend Bremerton High School football game exerting their First Amendment rights. Atheists don’t really pray so the Left doesn’t go after them. Creepy Halloween in Bremerton Washington.]

 

Sr. class president: I invited Satanic group

 

(Associated Press) – A student leader at a Washington state high school says he invited a self-described group of Satanists to protest a Christian football coach’s postgame prayers.

 

Bremerton High School senior class President Abe Bartlett says he was one of a few students who invited The Satanic Temple of Seattle to attend today’s game. He called it an effort to get the school district to clarify its policy: While officials last month asked assistant coach Joe Kennedy to stop praying at the 50-yard line, he has continued the practice.

 

The Satanic Temple wants to hold an invocation on the field. The group says the district, by tolerating Kennedy’s actions, has created a forum for religious expression that should be open to all groups.

 

Kennedy’s lawyers, who are with the Texas-based Liberty Institute, say allowing Kennedy to pray silently doesn’t create a public forum.

__________________________

Christianity Attacked by School District in Washington

John R. Houk

© October 30, 2015

_________________________

Praying football coach placed on paid leave by district

 

All Original Content Copyright ©2006-2015 American Family News Network – All Rights Reserved. “OneNewsNow”, “OneNewsNow.com“, and the “OneNewsNow World” logo, are Trademarks of the American Family News Network – All Rights Reserved.

 

About One News Now

 

Your Latest News from a Christian perspective

 

Whether it’s a story about prayer in public schools, workplace restrictions on Christians, or battles for biblical truth within our denominations, the American Family News Network (AFN) is here to tell you what the newsmakers are saying.

 

AFN is a Christian news service – with more than 1,200 broadcast, print, and online affiliates in 45 states and 11 foreign countries – that exists to present the day’s stories from a biblical perspective. We not only feature the latest breaking stories from across the United States and around the world, but also news of the challenges facing Christians in today’s society.

 

At OneNewsNow.com, you will get your news from reporters you can trust to give the latest news without the liberal bias that characterizes so much of the “mainstream” media.

 

For a refreshing and READ THE REST

 

Explaining ‘End/Telos’ of Romans 10:4


Christ is the End of the Law

 

More Thoughts on SCOTUS and Same-Sex Marriage

John R. Houk

© May 30, 2015

 

I belong to a secret Facebook group pertaining the First Amendment. A comment was left on this group pertaining a SlantRight 2.0 post entitled “Arise Christians against SCOTUS Violations”. Since the group is listed as “secret” I am hesitant to reveal the exact Facebook name or the name of the commenter. My sense is that those who post there may not wish to be harassed for their opinions. Thus I will identify the commenter as JP for anonymity reasons.

 

Just as a brief synopsis of “Arise Christians against SCOTUS Violations” that post was about then future oral arguments pertaining to homosexual same-sex marriage being a States’ Rights issue rather than a Federal Government issue. If the supporters of Family and Biblical Values are to win validation of their arguments before SCOTUS then Leftists and homosexual activists will be prohibited from making same-sex marriage a Federally mandated national law and would place that decision in the hands of each individual State of America’s Union. This would reinstate State Laws that made it a matter of the rule of law that marriage would be defined as between man and a woman rather than Adam and Steve or Adriana and Eve.

 

With that in mind here is JP’s comment edited with spellcheck because comments made on the fly are often grammatically flawed (and even though I also I am guilty of on the fly grammatically flawed comments it is a pet peeve of mine):

 

I don’t understand why you reference the Old Testament for Christian Canon. Romans 10:4 – “For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth.” KJV (Comment by JP)

 

The common mistake people make is that the Scriptures preached on by Early Christians and Jesus Himself were based on the Old Testament. And another comment mistake by Jim within Romans 10:4 is the word “end”. The Koine Greek word used in the days of the Apostle Paul was “telos”. That word has a more versatile meaning than just “end”. The explanation I found on the Denominational website from the United Church of God – an International Association:

 

In Romans 10:4, Paul’s words are translated: “For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes.” Regrettably, most translators render the Greek word telos simply as “end” instead of giving Paul’s intended meaning of that word in this context. Reasoning incorrectly that faith makes the law void, they have adopted an illogical assumption that Paul plainly rejected in Romans 3:31. This passage reads: “Do we then make void the law through faith? Certainly not! On the contrary, we establish the law.”

 

To discover the proper translation of a word that can be used in more than one way, its context has to be understood correctly before any effort is made to determine the right nuance of meaning that the author intended. Here is a simple example. One might ask a college student, “To what end are you attending college?” The word “end” in that context would refer to the “objective” or “goal” the student has in mind. Receiving a degree would be only the “end result” of his college years of learning, not the end to his ability or desire to learn.

 

The Greek word telos, translated “end” in Romans 10:4, can convey variations in meaning, including “’the aim or purpose’ of a thing” (Vine’s Complete Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words, 1985, “End, Ending”). This is very clear in the New King James Version’s rendering of 1 Timothy 1:5, where telos is properly translated as purpose in the clause “the purpose of the commandment is love.” In this same verse the NRSV translates telos as “aim” and the NIV renders it as “goal.”

 

Paul uses telos in Romans 10:4 to convey that the objective or goal of the law—the “aim or purpose” of it—is to point us to the mind and character of Jesus Christ (Galatians 4:19; Philippians 2:5).

 

Jesus Christ, the living Word of God, is a perfect replica of what God’s law teaches. Pointing us to His character and work is the aim” of the law. Rendering of telos as “end” in Romans 10:4 distorts Paul’s intended meaning—something Peter forcefully warns us not to do (2 Peter 3:15-16).

 

[What Did Paul Mean by ‘Christ Is the End of the Law’? From UCG.org; 2/2/11]

 

The point is “the end” does not convey termination but rather the goal as in completeness. Christ completes the Law of the Old Testament by His Blood shed in death convicted under false accusations and human greed and arose from death three days later fulfilling the reasons for the existence of the Law. This does not make the commands of the irrelevant but encompassed in Blood bought Redemption which eliminates the penalties for breaking the Law.

 

In full disclosure about the secret Facebook group, at the time I posted these thoughts on this First Amendment group I had forgotten the secret group’s purpose was a bit more specific than all the aspects of the First Amendment. When I shared these Christian concepts to the secret Facebook group the main focus of this group was Islam in relation to the First Amendment. I posted Arise Christians against SCOTUS Violations” straying from the groups designed purpose. I chose the First Amendment issue of Free Speech and the Religious Freedom to my opinion allowing Christian Americans to practice their Biblical faith which finds the homosexual lifestyle abhorrent before the sight of God Almighty. Thus on a State to State basis a plurality of Americans could vote individually as a Tenth Amendment Right on the definition of Marriage since the subject is not specifically addressed by the U.S. Constitution.

 

Tenth Amendment

 

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

 

As I shared the secret group I posted on focused on Islam described in the right hand column as:

 

DESCRIPTION

For the creation & promotion of an amendment of the First Amendment which will permit proscribing Islam by law.

First Rough:

Any institution which recruits or retains members by force, seeks to supplant this constitution with its canon law, promotes offensive warfare or was created for the personal emolument of its founder is not protected under the free exercise clause of the first amendment and may be proscribed by law.

 

There is very little chance of congressional passage and state ratification, but if properly publicized, the proposal will cause Muslims to s**t bricks, exposing themselves and their cult to full scrutiny.

 

On a personal level I have no problems with Muslims practicing a peaceful Islam that excises the portions of the Quran regarded as the very words of their Allah deity that commands violent Jihad in the present time forcing non-Muslims to submit to Islam by conversion. OR if choosing not to convert then submitting to the superiority of Islam over one’s own religious beliefs on penalty of offending Islam, the Allah deity or Mohammed resulting in a death sentence, violent punishment or imprisonment. Also Muslims should endeavor to transform (as opposed to the current purist Islamic reform flowing globally) the Hadith and Sira that supports the violent portions of the Quran advocating present time death, physical punishment or imprisonment for rejecting and thus offending Islam. Also Christians and Americans in general should realize that the Quran recorded in Mecca prior to Mohammed fleeing to Medina are peaceful and tolerant of non-Muslim faiths especially calling for an appreciation for Jews and Christians, BUT from Medina onward the Quran recorded is violently hostile toward non-Muslims which singles out forced submission of Jews and Christians who don’t convert with an OR ELSE caveat in the Medina suras. AND Christians and Americans should be aware that the Quran IS NOT recorded in chronological order – the Mecca and Medina suras are interspersed according to size rather than time frame.

 

In moving along back to the homosexual lifestyle pertaining to same-sex marriage vs. Traditional Marriage let it be known I probably should not have shared that particular post to the secret Facebook group focused on Islam in relation to the First Amendment; ergo I must say to my fellow members of the group I say, “Oops”.

 

This is an apology to the secret group, but I stand with God Almighty to assert a homosexual lifestyle is an abomination to His Presence. This is when I typically a homosexual activist claim something idiotic like, “God made me Gay and hence I was born Gay.” I find the homosexual activist assertion idiotic not based on science, but rather based on the God inspired Word in the Holy Bible.

 

Homosexuality condemned in both the Old and New Testaments. Thank God the Father emptied His Divine characteristics to be born as a man from a woman in Jesus Christ the Son of God. In Christ the penalty of the Law that is in the Old Testament has been rendered complete in Jesus. The penalty is not terminated but postponed in this life. The Last Judgment determines each person’s final eternity based on the heart-faith in following the Way of the Risen Savior thus determining if their name is in the Book of Life or not. Since Christ rose from the dead the final penalty or blessing occurs in that Last Judgment. That which is important that God finds homosexuality an abomination in the old covenant and the new covenant sealed in Christ’s Blood:

 

Leviticus

 

22 You shall not lie with a male as with a woman. It is an abomination.

 

13 If a man lies with a male as he lies with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination. They shall surely be put to death. Their blood shall be upon them.

 

Romans

 

18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, 19 because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them.

 

24 Therefore God also gave them up to uncleanness, in the lusts of their hearts, to dishonor their bodies among themselves, 25 who exchanged the truth of God for the lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen.

 

26 For this reason God gave them up to vile passions. For even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature. 27 Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due. (Leviticus 18: 22; 20: 13; Romans 1: 18-19 NKJV)

 

If SCOTUS rules in favor of homosexual activism making same-sex marriage a part of the rule of law without the path set forth in the U.S. Constitution, then SCOTUS is unconstitutionally enacting a law that should either be left to the described Amendment process through the vehicle of Congress and/or the States.

 

Article V

 

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress; provided that no amendment which may be made prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any manner affect the first and fourth clauses in the ninth section of the first article; and that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate.

 

TAKE NOTE that the Supreme Court of the United States and the Executive Branch are not a part of Article V of the U.S. Constitution.

 

The only way that SCOTUS can act constitutionally to assuage the lot of homosexuals is to rule that it is more than a lifestyle but is a genetic occurrence. Even though you will homosexuals claim biological science is in their favor the actual science is hardly concrete in people being genetically born a homosexual. And ironically committed homosexuals are not even united on the OPINION of genetics.

 

If clear cut genetics is ever proven then science might be created by the heterosexuals that are actually needed to make children to engineer genes or the workings of inner anatomical organs responsible for sexual preference to eradicate the homosexual gene. Such genetic engineering would not fall under the category of murder but on the medical procedures that Leftists so often demand for women called “Choice”.

 

Homosexual activists point to the Fourteenth Amendment as the basis for claiming specific rights for homosexuals just as any other citizen of the United States. I’m not a lawyer but it seems if homosexuality is a choice rather than a genetic occurrence then how can the Fourteenth Amendment be applied to assign specific rights as equal to genetically born individuals?

 

People are not born a Democrat or Republican. People are not a Communist or a Capitalist.

 

People born into a human race is mentioned into the Constitution. Ironically people are not into a specific genetic religion, but they choose a religion or atheism or I could care less. BUT the Constitution specifically gives genetically born human beings the Constitutional Freedom to choose a religion or no religion.

 

NO WHERE in the Constitution are people who choose to be a homosexual have named specific rights for choosing that as a lifestyle to be respected by race, creed, religion or lack of religion.

 

The Constitution does provide for independent ideology in the First Amendment with Free Speech. The Constitution does not provide marriage between a same religion, a different religion, a religious person and an atheist, only Democrats can marry, only Republicans can and I think you get the idea. People marry as people.

 

If a majority of people in a given State view male/female marriage as natural law then marriage can so be entered. Frankly if homosexuals choose to enter into some kind of contractual mutual obligations and expectations I don’t see anything unconstitutional with that choice. But defining same-sex marriage a natural part of nature is ungodly in the sight of God. How do I know that? HE SAID SO IN THE HOLY BIBLE.

 

America is a secular nation founded under the platform of Christian Religious Liberty. Forcing a Christian to accept something as lawful is unconscionable and according to the First Amendment infringes on the right of a Christian to practice their faith which is unconstitutional.

 

The Fourteenth Amendment was enacted to after the Civil War to ensure liberated African-American slaves had the same protections and rights as pre-Civil War free non-slaves. In other words the Fourteenth Amendment dealt with civil protections and civil rights based on the genetics of human beings not on the choices of aberrant lifestyles.

 

Here are insightful words about the Original Intent of the Fourteenth Amendment:

 

The most decisive of these reasons is the fact that when the 14th Amendment was passed in 1868, homosexual behavior was a felony in every state in the union. So if the 14th Amendment was intended to require same-sex marriage, then every state in the union intended to throw the new couple into prison as soon as the marriage was consummated!

 

Some may say, “Who cares what they believed in 1868 about homosexuality? We’ve evolved since then.”

 

That’s addressed by the second reason: laws and words have specific scopes and meanings. They don’t have unlimited flexibility as liberal justices tend to think. Neither the intent nor the text of the Constitution requires the states to redefine marriage. If the people of the United States have “evolved” on the issue, then the Constitution provides them with a very clear and fair way for the document to intelligently “evolve”—they need to convince a supermajority of federal and state legislatures to amend the Constitution. That’s the very reason our Constitution has an amendment process!

 

 

… the 14th Amendment was intended to prevent states from discriminating against newly freed slaves. At that time blacks and women didn’t even have the right to vote, yet no court ever thought it could use the “equal protection” clause to change state voting laws. So why do some district courts think they can use it now to change state marriage laws? Are we to believe that “equal protection” does not guarantee a woman’s right to vote but does guarantee a woman’s right to marry another woman?

 

 

… Every person has the same equal right to marry someone of the opposite sex. That law treats all people equally, but not every behavior they may desire equally. If people with homosexual desires do not have equal rights, then people with desires to marry their relatives or more than one person don’t have equal rights. The “born that way” justification doesn’t work either because that same justification could make any desired arrangement “marriage,” which means the logic behind it is absurd. …

 

 

Does the U.S. Constitution require same-sex marriage? No, the U.S. Constitution requires the Court to leave this issue to the states. If you believe otherwise, then amend the Constitution. READ ENTIRETY (Why the 14th Amendment Can’t Possibly Require Same-Sex Marriage; By Frank Turek; Townhall.com; 3/17/15)

 

Here is the Fourteenth Amendment of which SCOTUS will issue an opinion on same-sex marriage:

 

Passed by Congress June 13, 1866. Ratified July 9, 1868.

 

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

 

Section 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.

 

Section 3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

 

Section 4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.

 

Section 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article. (The US Constitution: 14th Amendment; website author – Fred Elbel; 14thAmendment.us; Copyright 2007-2014 – all rights reserved.)

 

Here is some truth to read pertaining the homosexual activist propaganda that a majority of American voters support same-sex marriage:

 

The headlines of most opinion polls and news stories say the same thing: Gay marriage is inevitable, by the people’s choice.

 

In February, a CNN/ORC survey of more than 1,000 people found 63 percent support for same-sex marriage.

 

This “supermajority of Americans” reflects the constant growing and widening support for the nuptials, said Evan Wolfson, president of Freedom to Marry.

 

In recent days, USA Today, The Washington Post and ABC News also have declared an end to the national battle on marriage.

 

“There’s no turning back,” said an April 19 article in USA Today, citing its poll of 1,000 adults taken with Suffolk University. Some 51 percent of those adults said they favored allowing gay couples to marry, with 35 percent opposed and 14 percent undecided.

 

An ABC News/Washington Post poll released Thursday found 61 percent support for same-sex marriage — with 78 percent support in the under-30 age group.

 

A Public Religion Research Institute survey of 40,000 Americans — which also found majority support for same-sex marriage — revealed …

 

 

In contrast, an amicus brief filed at the Supreme Court says it is “simply not true” that large majorities of Americans support a redefinition of marriage.

 

Real opinions are made at voting booths, and in 39 elections, in which nearly 85 million votes were cast in 35 states, more than 51 million people voted to keep marriage as a man-woman union, campaign and polling analyst Frank Schubert and the National Organization for Marriage said in their brief in Obergefell v. Hodges.

 

With a margin of 60.9 percent to 39.1 percent for traditional marriage, that is “an overwhelming landslide in American politics,” they wrote.

 

Although some polls indicate wide support for same-sex marriage, others show majority opposition to it or public support starting to drop, the brief said.

 

Also, many polls showing support for same-sex marriage may be worded to catch a “yes.”

 

“People generally want to be ‘for’ something, rather than ‘against’ something,” the National Organization for Marriage brief said.

 

Another factor, intended or not, is the “priming” of people with questions about legal rights before asking them about the right to marry. Without such priming, the Gallup Poll’s support for same-sex marriage dipped by an average of 6 to 7 points, the brief said.

READ ENTIRETY (Gay marriage defies opinions of American majority, legal brief tells Supreme Court; By Cheryl Wetzstein; Washington Times; 4/23/15)

 

What you should notice in that Washington Times article is that polls controlled by a Left-oriented Mainstream Media supports the agenda to restructure Family Values in America to reflect a decimation of Biblical Morality to be replaced with a Secular Humanism in which a mercurial humanity decides which morals have value and which morals are pointlessly archaic.

 

When a majority of American voters lean to defining American culture to an antichrist motif rendering Christianity irrelevantly archaic that will be the real beginning of the end of Constitutional Liberty America’s Founding Fathers intended for the United States of America.

 

JRH 5/30/15

Please Support NCCR

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

See Also: “Focus on the Family President Reacts to Oral Arguments in SCOTUS Marriage Case

 
Historical Analysis of the Meaning of the 14th Amendment’s First Section

Genetics and Homosexuality: Are People Born Gay?

The Biological Basis for Sexual Orientation

Nobody is ‘born that way,’ gay historians say

 

Homosexuality & Choice: Are Gay People ‘Born This Way?

 

ACLJ – Mr. President, Name the Enemy


Islam a Totalitarian Political Party

John R. Houk

© May 9, 2015

 

The American Center for Law and Justice (ACLJ) has been running a petition campaign called “Mr. President, Name the Enemy”. The last time I checked the campaign was just over 90,000 signatures. Now I realize such petition campaigns are typically fund raising programs. But eh … In this case I am pleased that nearly ONE HUNDRED THOUSAND Americans have expressed their displeasure that President Barack Hussein Obama REFUSES to acknowledge America’s most current national enemy at the very least is the Islam interpreted in its purist form called Radical Islam by those who believe that there are Moderate Muslims who don’t believe the Quran is the express word of Allah.

 

Cartoonist Gary Varvel: ISIS self portrait

 

So this is what I’m going to do to encourage people to bring those signatures way over 100K, I going to cross post two ACLJ posts about the ISIS-Garland attack on American Free Speech followed by the wording of the petition. Then click on petition link I’ll provide at the end (or click HERE if you want to forego the actually pertinent information).

 

After you sign you will be taken to the typical donation page. It is not necessary to donate for your petition signature to count. NONETHELESS, the ACLJ is a very good Christian Civil Rights activist organization to support.

 

JRH 5/9/15

Please Support NCCR

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

Jihad Struck Texas But Will the Obama Administration Continue to Bury Its Head in the Sand

 

By Matthew Clark

May 5, 2015

ACLJ

 

Jihad struck Texas last night.  It’s just the latest skirmish in a global radical Islamic assault on free speech – on freedom.

 

It’s a war.  ISIS, Boko Haram, Al Shabaab, and al Qaeda are just a few of the named brigades in this radical Islamic jihadist army.

 

The two Islamic terrorists who opened fire on a free speech art exhibit in Texas are merely the latest casualties in this war.  But they are a reminder of who the enemy is.

 

These radical Islamists are clear on who their enemy is.  To them, free speech is the enemy.  Islamic radicals made this clear through their murderous rampage at Charlie Hebdo in Paris and the free speech exhibit in Texas.  To them, Christians are the enemy, evidenced by the mass murders, propaganda beheadings, and vile statements carried out by ISIS, Boko Haram and other terrorist groups.

 

The terrorists who attacked free speech in Texas last night made it clear what their goal was, what they were fighting for, and who their enemy is.  One tweeted just moments before the attack.

 

Sharia is Light Tweet

Sharia is Light Tweet

 

That twitter account has now been suspended, but it contained a litany of jihadists tweets, pro-ISIS retweets, and radical Islamic propaganda.

 

In short, to the jihadists, we are the enemy.  They have named their enemy. And by doing so they have inspired the Tsarnaev brothers, the Texas attack, Nidal Hasan, and many others to carry out deadly terrorist attacks throughout America.

 

Yet the Obama Administration still only references these as “extremists.”  President Obama time and time again refuses to acknowledge that these vicious and targeted attacks on freedom are carried out by one ideologically bonded group of people – radical Islamists, jihadists.  Last night was no exception, as the White House has merely referred to the jihadist attack on free speech in Texas as “an act of violence.”

 

In short, President Obama refuses to name the enemy.  And the consequences build every day.

 

The contrast could not be more stark.

 

The jihadists are crystal clear about their enemy.  Tens of thousands of radical Islamists have flocked to join ISIS and other terrorist groups – including attempts by at least one of the militants who carried out last night’s attack.  At the same time, America’s response to jihad, under President Obama’s (lack of) leadership, has weakened the cause of freedom.

 

This must end.  America must demand accountability from our leaders.  We the people must demand that our next President (and there are a lot of people vying for the job right now) is willing to name our enemy and committed to defeating them wherever they train, plot, and carry out jihad.

 

America must never back down.  We must never surrender our First Amendment freedoms.  The local authorities in Texas showed the resolve that we must all exhibit.

 

Free speech, even speech you and I might disagree with, must be protected.  But now it’s time for America’s leaders to speak out – to name the enemy – and engage the jihadists on the battlefields they are creating.  The only way to stop the threat of terror is to overwhelmingly defeat the jihadists who inspire it.

 

This article is crossposted on Red State.

 

++++

Radical Islam In Conflict With Free Speech

 

By Edward White

May 7, 2015

ACLJ

 

A terrorist attack took place in Garland, Texas, this week in response to a free speech conference that took issue with the Islamic prohibition against creating images of the Prophet Muhammad. The event awarded a financial prize to the person who drew the best cartoon of Muhammad.

 

The terrorist attack (ISIS has taken credit for it) points out the stark difference between the American view of speech that offends some people and the radical Muslim’s view of such speech. We allow it; they don’t.

 

Americans have broad free speech rights. Our rights, however, are not unlimited. For example, we cannot falsely shout fire in a crowded theater to cause a panic. (This statement is often wrongly uttered by failing to include the word falsely; of course, we can shout fire in a crowded theater that is on fire.)

 

The main idea behind our free speech rights is to allow an array of speech that is robust. Our free speech rights allow us the room to decide whether to say something (or hold a free speech conference) that is provocative. Our freedom allows for satire and debate, which allows ideas to be explored, and, possibly, allows for minds to be changed.

 

Deciding to engage in such speech at a particular time and place comes down to prudence and effectiveness. Such restrictions are not imposed by the First Amendment, just by a person’s sensibilities. Whether we like it or not, our First Amendment allows a group the freedom to hold a conference that may be considered blasphemous.

 

In contrast, sharia (the moral code and religious law of Islam) does not allow the same freedoms as does our First Amendment. It is restrictive. It allows little, if any, room for self-expression, satire, or dissent from orthodoxy. The consequences for holding a free speech conference, such as the one in Garland, under sharia are severe. The punishments for blasphemy include imprisonment, flogging, and death.

 

The terrorist attack over cartoons about Muhammad illustrates the extreme views of the radical Muslim. No one likes to see his religion blasphemed, but the proper response to blasphemy is debate, boycott, prayer, or protest—not killing those with whom you disagree to silence the speech you do not like.

 

+++++++++++

Mr. President, Name the Enemy

The ACLJ Petition

 

Here’s what the Obama Administration believes:

 

The Taliban aren’t terrorists.

 

ISIS—the Islamic State—isn’t Islamic.

 

America isn’t at war with radical Muslims, merely with “extremists.”

 

It’s hard to believe, but the Obama Administration is afraid to name our enemies.

 

This makes no sense.

 

The Muslim world knows the Taliban are terrorists. The Muslim world knows ISIS is Islamic.

 

It’s time for the truth. It’s time to level with the American people. At the ACLJ, we speak the truth. We name the enemy. Why can’t the President?

 

Mr. President, Name the Enemy

 

President Obama,

 

By refusing to name the enemy, you’re choosing weakness over strength. By refusing to name the enemy, you’re hiding the true threat from the American people. Speak the truth and name the enemy. Americans deserve the truth.

 

CLICK HERE TO GO TO THE END OF THE ACLJ PETION & SIGN

 

_______________________

Mr. President, Name the Enemy

John R. Houk

© May 9, 2015

_____________________

Jihad Struck Texas But Will the Obama Administration Continue to Bury Its Head in the Sand

 

Radical Islam In Conflict With Free Speech

 

Mr. President, Name the Enemy

 

American Center for Law and Justice | Washington D.C. | Copyright © 2015, ACLJ

 

About the American Center for Law and Justice

 

Founded in 1990 with the mandate to protect religious and constitutional freedoms, the American Center for Law and Justice (ACLJ) engages legal, legislative, and cultural issues by implementing an effective strategy of advocacy, education, and litigation that includes representing clients before the Supreme Court of the United States and international tribunals around the globe.

 

As ACLJ Chief Counsel Jay Sekulow continued to build his legal and legislative team, the ACLJ experienced tremendous success in litigating cases at all levels of the judiciary – from the federal district court level to the Supreme Court of the United States.

 

Over the last two decades, Sekulow has appeared before the Supreme Court of the United States on numerous occasions, successfully arguing precedent-setting cases before the high Court: Protecting the READ THE REST

 

MAKE A TAX-DEDUCTIBLE CONTRIBUTION TO ACLJ

Insulting Islam is a GREAT 1st Amendment Right


 
 
Published by PJ Media
Published on May 5, 2015
 
Chris Matthews said that the Texas incident was a mousetrap for terrorism, and that event organizers crossed a line. The Trifecta Gang rips this apart.
 
Insulting Islam is a GREAT 1st Amendment Right
John R. Houk
© May 7, 2015
 
On May 4th I posted on the attack by a couple of Muslims dedicated to Sharia Law and thus felt obligated to shoot up a Muslim Cartoon Contest (officially: Muhammad Art Exhibit) in Garland Texas. Amidst all the details I was aware of only one shooter’s name – Elton Simpson. I have since discovered that Simpson’s buddy was Nadir Soofi who also was born in the USA.
 
I mentioned in that May 4 post that the American Left and Muslim apologists (See Also Hot Air) lambasted Pamela Geller as the primary organizer of the Muhammad Art Exhibit held at Curtis Culwell Center located at Garland TX. In listening to my favorite Conservative source Fox News, I began to realize that a large amount of Conservatives are also throwing Ms. Geller under the bus. (See Also American Thinker)
 
Now I realize Ms. Geller is a bit brassy in her communication skills but I always attributed that to the NYC culture her accent intoned. I was a member of the dreaded telemarketing industry for a number of years where I discovered calling people in NYC was a bit challenging. Even New Yorkers trying to be polite had a tendency toward a bit of harsh language.
 
In my opinion Geller’s brassiness makes her a target of uncomplimentary remarks about her political stands and her Counterjihad activism. Add this to the fact Geller is on the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) hit list of venom against Biblical Christians, Conservatives and Counterjihadists. If you are a member of any of those groups the SPLC will label you a racist. Leftists and Muslim Apologists love to use the SPLC as a source in denigrating Pamela Geller.
 
Evidently people all across the political and religious spectrum that support Free Speech are accusing Geller of crude incitement inviting violence to come her way and against all those that share Geller’s sentiments about Islam. So the question is: Does exposing the vile nature of a self-described religion with writings considered holy by that religion’s adherents which calls to hate non-members even to kill them if they don’t submit, incitement to commit violence and murder?
 
One thing I have wrestled with on a personal level as a Born Again Charismatic Christian Right kind-of-guy is how to get along with adherents of Islam who consider the Quran the divine revealed word of Allah. Islam’s history against Christianity is much more horrific than Christianity’s history against Islam. From the time Islam came into existence under the direction of Mohammed, Muslims have conquered Christian lands which included raping, pillaging, stealing, enslavement and forced cultural submission or death. Christianity’s horrific history against Muslims was horribly violent and often times led to Muslim deaths; however the Christian heinous acts against Muslims for the few hundred years that were the Crusades and the Spanish Inquisition. BUT even with the indictment of the Crusades and the Spanish Inquisition those originated from the brutal assaults by Muslim invaders and the retaking of Christian lands stolen by Muslims. AND YET Muslims are still attacking and slaughtering Christians in horrific manners in the 21st century. So what am I wrestling with such hypocrisy from Muslims that do acts of violence for just insulting Mo and Allah in harmless ways?
 
Unlike Mo, Jesus Christ the Son of God tells Believers to turn the other cheek when stricken:
 
38 “You have heard that it was said, ‘An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.’[a] 39 But I tell you not to resist an evil person. But whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn the other to him also.
 
43 “You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall love your neighbor[a] and hate your enemy.’ 44 But I say to you, love your enemies, bless those who curse you, do good to those who hate you, and pray for those who spitefully use you and persecute you,[b] 45 that you may be sons of your Father in heaven; for He makes His sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust. (Matthew 5: 38-39, 43-45 NKJV)
 
Mo told his believer to kill the unbelievers (kafir) until they submit or die:
 
Sahih International
Fight those who do not believe in Allah or in the Last Day and who do not consider unlawful what Allah and His Messenger have made unlawful and who do not adopt the religion of truth from those who were given the Scripture – [fight] until they give the jizyah willingly while they are humbled.
 
Muhsin Khan
Fight against those who (1) believe not in Allah, (2) nor in the Last Day, (3) nor forbid that which has been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger (4) and those who acknowledge not the religion of truth (i.e. Islam) among the people of the Scripture (Jews and Christians), until they pay the Jizyah with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.
 
Yusuf Ali
Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued. (Quran 9:29 [3 English Translations])
 
On the other hand Jesus did not tolerate hypocrisy:
 
13 Now the Passover of the Jews was at hand, and Jesus went up to Jerusalem.14 And He found in the temple those who sold oxen and sheep and doves, and the money changers doing business. 15 When He had made a whip of cords, He drove them all out of the temple, with the sheep and the oxen, and poured out the changers’ money and overturned the tables. 16 And He said to those who sold doves, “Take these things away! Do not make My Father’s house a house of merchandise!” (John 2: 13-16 NKJV)
 

 
 
It was the height of hypocrisy that the Chief Priests allowed the Temple Court to be a money-making enterprise rather than a placed of devotion to God Almighty. It is also the height of hypocrisy in Islam to place such a high pedestal of adoration for the same man who had a revelation of a merciful Allah in Mecca then transformed into a murderous, pillaging, sex-slaving head of an organized military operation using a merciful Allah as an excuse to impose Mo’s will first on Arab polytheists, then Jews and then planting a vision against Christians.
 
Mohammed organized a religion that is specifically an antichrist religion that attacks the very essence of who Jesus Christ is as the resurrected fully human as the son of Mary and fully God as the Son of God the Father who died and rose again to give humanity an opportunity to end its rebellious nature established under Adam’s sell-out and re-embrace Life in the Presence of God through the sacrifice of Jesus Christ.
 
For this reason I have no problem with Pamela Geller and like-minded people organizing an essentially peaceful protest against a religion that advocates killing non-Muslims for refusing to submit to Allah and the set of rules of submission derived from the Quran, Hadith and Sira. My God! In a Muslim dominated nation if a Christian demands that Muslims respect his beliefs that Jesus is the Son of God who died on the Cross and Arose again to life, that Christian will be killed either on the spot by an enraged mob or via a Sharia legal system that tells Christians that such beliefs are blasphemy to Mo and Allah. Condemning Pamela Geller for poking fun at the reality of Mohammed’s insane intolerance and hatred is idiotic in comparison to the suffering Christians experience for simply being faithful!  
 
With that in mind I received an interesting email from DefendChristians.org’s Dr. Gary L. Cass that tells Americans not to blame the victims of the object of Muslim intolerance but rather blame the religion Islam for its inherent violence promoted by its considered holy writings. Unfortunately Dr. Cass did not specifically stick up for Pamela Geller as an organizer but he does stick up for the intended victims of the Mohammed Cartoon Contest.
 
Before proceeding to Dr. Cass allow me to leave you with a paraphrased from memory quote from Robert O’Neil a retired Navy SEAL involved in taking out Osama bin Laden:
 
“Two Muslims came to Garland to stop the First Amendment and met Texans armed with the Second Amendment”. (I wish I could remember the exact wording so I have to admit to a paraphrase which I heard sometime on May 6th on the Fox News channel.)
 
JRH 5/7/15

Please Support NCCR

*****************************
Stop Bullying Mohammed!
 
Sent by Dr. Gary L. Cass
Sent: 5/5/2015 3:35 PM
 
On Sunday two Muslim-Americans were shot and killed after they opened fire on a group in Dallas, Texas viewing an exhibition of cartoon depictions of the Prophet Mohammed. Thankfully the security was armed and ready and responded immediately to protect the innocent bystanders.
 
Now, The Islamic State (ISIS) is claiming responsibility for the attack and threatening more. When he was alive, insecure Mohammed had two people assassinated for writing satirical poems about him. ISIS are simply following the murderous Mohammed’s example.
 
But blasphemy is a sin that can only be directed towards God. Mohammed was not God, therefore there is no blasphemy in depicting him.
 
Not to be outdone, the liberal media is placing the blame on the exhibition viewers. According to the politically correct liberals, drawing Mohammed makes you a bully. The truth about Islam continues to be underplayed and reduced to random extremists. The reality is that these “extremists” are simply following the example of their leader, Mohammed.
 
TAKE ACTION:
 
Stay informed! DefendChristians.org is committed to exposing the truth about Mohammed and Islam.
 
Watch our recent video forums on Islam:
 


Broadcast live streaming video on Ustream

 
 


Broadcast live streaming video on Ustream

 
 


Broadcast live streaming video on Ustream

 
 
 
Read our book and articles on Islam:
 
 
[Kindle Edition]
Gary Cass (Author), Steve Klein (Author)
 
Book Description
 
Publication Date: May 20, 2013
 
A provocative look at the sex life of Mohammed, the founder of Islam, from Islam’s own sources. Learn the shocking truth about Mohammed’s bizarre sexual practices and how it impacts the world today.
 
 
 
DefendChristians.org Commentary
4/21/15
 
We are seeing the ugly specter of Islam as it follows the murderous example of their “prophet” Mohammed in its violent march to dominate the world by the sword of Allah. Just this past few days we’ve witnessed Muslims throwing Christians refugees overboard in the Mediterranean Sea to drown, or murdering 30 Christian men in Ethiopia, the persecution goes on unabated.
 
For years we’ve documented the wholesale murder of Christians by Muslims across the world and now the world is starting to awaken. This week Franklin Graham called what ISIS in the Middle East and Boko Harem in Nigeria are doing a holocaust of Christians. Even the Pope is speaking out.
 
Just last month in March, there have been 244 documented Jihad attacks in 25 countries with 38 suicide bombings that killed 1,975 and critically injured 2,076. For the record, the number of bombings by Baptists in the same period- 0, the same for Presbyterians, Lutherans and Catholics.
 
We’ve been urging Christians to demand that their elected officials protect Christians around the world and READ THE REST
 
 
 
DefendChristians.org Commentary
2/18/15
 
With all the horrific news coming out around the world about Islamic violence against Christians, Jews and even other Muslims, I’m grateful more ministers are speaking out. As those commissioned to bear witness to the truth, we need to be biblically bold and accurate. Some of the things that are being said are true as far as they go, but they don’t tell the whole story.
 
One minister recently pointed out that Mohammed is dead and buried in Medina, but that Jesus is risen from the dead. The question is asked, “Who do you want to follow, the living Christ or dead Mohammed.” This is true and yet might be a bit biblically confusing.
 
CHRIST MUST BE ALIVE OR ELSE
 
 
Christ’s resurrection is not a peripheral doctrine you can take or leave and still be considered a Christian. It is so essential to our faith that without it, according the New Testament itself, Christianity is worthless. “And if Christ be not raised, your faith is vain; you are yet in your sins.” I Corinthians 15:17.  
 
 
I WOULDN’T WANT TO BE MOHAMMED
 
Mohammed is very much alive. He did not cease to exist upon physical death, nor is he in his imaginary celestial brothel. He is NOT experiencing the unspeakable and unimaginable joys of eternal life in heaven with Christ, rather he is suffering in the unspeakable and unimaginable torments of eternal death.
  
Mohammed, like all mortal men, is accountable to God. Sadly for Mohammed, his legacy is that of being Christ’s sworn enemy.  Mohammed has READ THE REST
 
 
DefendChristians.org Commentary
9/4/14
 
I confess, I’m “Islamaphobic,” but for very good reasons.
 
My fear is not an irrational fear based on uniformed prejudice; rather it’s an historic, clear eyed, informed, rational fear. ISSA is doing to America journalists what every true follower of Mohammed wants to do to you and yours; subjugate or murder you. They believe they have been given a mandate by Allah (Satan) to dominate the world.
 
Fourteen hundred years of history, both ancient and modern (i.e. the 1 to 1.5 million dead Armenians at the hands of the Muslim Turks in 1915) tell us that Muslims are deadly serious about their infernal goals. Now we get to watch their violent, demonic fanaticism on Youtube videos.
 
History shows where Muslims get the power and means to subjugate and behead Christians, Jews, et al, they do it. Why? It’s really very simple: its what Mohammed did and taught. So READ THE REST
 
Dr. Cass Explains his Islamophobia
 
DefendChristians.org Commentary
9/9/14
 
 
In my article, “I’m Islamaphobic, Are You?,” I advocated for the right and duty of Christians to defend themselves against the vicious attacks of Islam. To some I am a prophet, to others a heretic that ought to be brought up on charges.
 
Some of the criticisms are from the usual suspects, like the totally discredited liberal activists from the Southern Poverty Law Center. They will always twist and take what I say in the worst possible way. That’s to be expected and taken with a huge grain of salt.
 
Other concerns come from sincere people with honest questions. So, here’s an attempt at “splainin” my position to my fellow Christians and friends. I don’t expect people who are not constrained by the authority of God’s Word to care or agree. …
 
 
“Phobia” means fear. It is a tactic of the advocates of political correctness to demonize people by calling them a “homophobe,” “xenophobe,” etc. as if just calling the opponents a name ending in “phobe” defines them as irrational or prejudiced.
 
 
A true follower of Mohammed is one who takes what Mohammed did and taught seriously, just as a sincere follower of Christ takes Christ’s example and words seriously. Mohammed declared that it was Allah’s will for Muslims to rule the world and subjugate all non-Muslims. They are to accomplish this not simply by an appeal to hearts and minds, as Christianity ought to grow, but by the sword of Allah, or Jihad.
 
Allah is not the God of the Bible. Anyone who says we worship the same God is simply wrong or intentionally deceitful. Christians confess there is READ THE REST
 
______________________________________
Insulting Islam is a GREAT 1st Amendment Right
John R. Houk
© May 7, 2015
_____________________________
Stop Bullying Mohammed!
 
Christian Anti-Defamation Commission | PO Box 1115 | Vista | CA | 92085
 
 
The Christian Anti-Defamation Commission (CADC) is a not-for-profit 501(c) (3) Education Corporation READ MORE
 
The idea of the Christian Anti-defamation Commission (CADC) is not new. It has been publicly discussed since at least 1996, and perhaps as early as the 1980s. In October of 1999, General William Hollis, J.D., Ph.D., incorporated the Christian Anti-Defamation Commission.
 
 

Because of extenuating circumstances in the General’s life, the CADC was largely inactive until the summer of 2007. After serving three years as the Executive Director of the Center for Reclaiming America for Christ, an outreach of Coral Ridge Ministries, founded by the late Dr. D. James Kennedy, Reverend Gary Cass, M.A., D.Min., was made the Chairman and CEO of the Christian Anti-Defamation Commission. Dr. Cass has been a pastor, missionary, pro-life, pro-family advocate, and elected official for over twenty years, speaking out and acting on behalf of the Christian faith and Christian values. READ ENTIRETY 

US Government Moves to Force Churches to Deny Christian Sexual Morality!


Obama-Gay-Fascist NWO Flag


Matt Barber has written a very perceptive editorial on how America’s Leftists and homosexual activists have begun Orwellian Newspeak a la the novel “1984”. Dipping into ye ole Newspeak legislation is being pushed to FORCE Christians to acceptance ungodly morals whether they like it or not. Barber implies a fascinating yet horrifying illustration the future of Christianity might be that of wearing special sown on garment indicating the Christians as societal pariahs. Look back in history to what Jews endured during the Nazi German reign of terror.
 
JRH 5/1/15

Please Support NCCR

*************************
US Government Moves to Force Churches to Deny Christian Sexual Morality!
 
27 April 2015

Amid the cross-country race to election 2016, the secular left’s utter disdain for both our Creator Christ and His faithful followers is fast approaching critical mass. Self-styled “progressives” – that is, America’s cultural Marxist agents of ruin – typically disguise their designs on despotism in the flowery and euphemistic language of “reproductive health,” “anti-discrimination” and “multiculturalism.”
 
We see this Orwellian newspeak at play right now in Washington, D.C., where congressional Republicans endeavor to prevent, if only timorously, two unconstitutional pieces of legislation from taking effect. The first, the District of Columbia’s so-called “Reproductive Health Non-Discrimination Act,” would force pro-life groups, including churches and para-church organizations, to hire pro-abortion zealots and other godless rabble-rousers with worldviews and socio-political agendas overtly hostile to the express mission of those churches and organizations.
 
The second, the farcically mislabeled “Human Rights Amendment Act,” would jettison the longstanding “Armstrong Amendment,” which, as notes the Daily Signal, “was enacted by Congress in 1989 to exempt religious schools in D.C. from being forced into violating their beliefs about human sexuality by ‘promoting, encouraging, or condoning any homosexual act, lifestyle, orientation, or belief.’”
 
In other words, under this new legislation churches and religious schools will be forced, under penalty of law, to deny the Christian sexual ethic and, instead, promote, encourage and condone homosexual behavior and other pagan sexual immorality.
 
So much for “human rights.”
Still, while most on the left are careful to mask their totalitarian goals and anti-Christian animus by coating these poison pills in sugar sweet jargon, on occasion one of these God-denying goose-steppers will let down his guard, drop the euphemistic BS, and vomit forth that acidic bile, unfiltered “progressivism.”
 
The Atlantic’s Jeffrey Tayler is one such goose-stepper. In an April 19 Salon.com screed headlined, “Marco Rubio’s deranged religion, Ted Cruz’s bizarre faith: Our would-be presidents are God-fearing clowns,” “freethinking” Jeffrey, a paragon of paganism, ably puts the “bigot” in anti-Christian bigotry.
 
In reference to the 2016 presidential candidates who call themselves Christian, Tayler bemoans that these “God-fearing clowns and faith-mongering nitwits [are] groveling before Evangelicals.” He further protests Christians’ “nattering on about their belief in the Almighty and their certainty that if we just looked, we could find answers to many of our ills in the Good Book.”
 
Right, it’s called the Gospel, Jeffrey. It’s the only hope that either you or any of us has.
 
“There will almost certainly be no (declared) atheist or even agnostic among the candidates,” he laments. “This is scandalous, given the electorate’s gradual, relentless ditching of religion.”
 
Gradual? That’s a gaping understatement when one considers that even today over 80 percent of Americans identify as Christian with the vast majority of those who don’t nevertheless acknowledging the transcendent reality of a Creator God. Every man, woman and child understands through both general revelation and human reason that this unfathomably intricate, staggeringly fine-tuned universe didn’t create and fine-tune itself. It’s a tiny minority of angry, self-deluded materialists like Jeffrey Tayler who deny this self-evident truth. Scandalous? Hardly.
 
Continues Tayler: “With the dapper Florida Sen. Marco Rubio we move into the more disturbing category of Republicans we might charitably diagnose as ‘faith-deranged’ – in other words, as likely to do fine among the unwashed ‘crazies’ in the red-state primaries, but whose religious beliefs would (or should) render them unfit for civilized company anywhere else.”

Sound familiar? Such hubristic elitism is so 1939. It was similarly “faith-deranged,” “unwashed crazies” in Germany who, at that time, were numerically branded “unfit for civilized company.” Shall we Christians be fitted with yellow crosses, Herr Tayler?
 
Our Darwinian disbeliever then distills the timeless Christian faith to “far-fetched fiction and foolish figments” before launching into a tirade against the left’s favorite candidate to hate, Texas Sen. Ted Cruz, while, likewise, knifing twixt the shoulder blades, the richly diverse, 100 thousand-plus student body at Liberty University.
 
“Cruz pandered fulsomely to the faith-deranged by choosing to announce at Liberty University, that bastion of darkness located in Lynchburg, Virginia. Once administered by the late Jerry Falwell, Liberty promises a ‘World Class Christian education’ and boasts that it has been ‘training champions for Christ since 1971′ – grounds enough, in my view, to revoke the institution’s charter and subject it to immediate quarantine until sanity breaks out.”
 
Are you getting this? Tayler’s not joking about revoking Liberty’s accreditation and otherwise consigning all faithful Christians to a constructive encampment beyond the margins of functional society. That’s their end-game. That’s the way their boxcars roll.
 
Neither do our papist friends escape unscathed. Tayler smears the Catholic Church as a “fanatical homophobic cult,” while blaspheming his own Creator. He inquires in litmus of some obscure atheist candidate, “[I]f you are indeed an atheist, will you come out of the closet about it? Will you utter that vilest of stock phrases ‘God bless America!’ to close speeches, thereby lending undue credence to the nonsense notion that an invisible tyrant rules us from on high?”
 
“Atheists can dream,” he pines. “They can dream of a candidate (and future president) who will, one day, say ‘I do not believe in God. I do not believe in a hereafter.’”
 
And why not? Russia had its Stalin and China its Mao. Who needs an “invisible tyrant” when we can elect one at the ballot box?

Or didn’t we already do that.
_____________________________
About the author: Matt Barber
 
Matt Barber (@jmattbarber on Twitter) is an author, columnist, cultural analyst and an attorney concentrating in constitutional law. Having retired as an undefeated heavyweight professional boxer, Matt has taken his fight from the ring to the culture war.

Copyright © 2015 Eagle Rising. All Rights Reserved.