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.

Religion and the Constitution


One Nation Under God. John McNaughton

A Precursor to ‘OUR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS’

 

John R. Houk

© March 4, 2015

(Read ‘Our Constitutional Rights’ by Robert Smith below)

 

Robert Smith stipulates that the U.S. Constitution does not validate any rights for those who practice a homosexual lifestyle. And he is correct. Smith’s reasoning by correctly stating God Almighty considers the practice of homosexuality an abomination.

 

Homosexual Activists and Leftist believers of a Living Constitution (as opposed to an Original Intent Constitution) stick to the position that the Constitution updates itself according to the cultural times we exist in. Hence, homosexuals are entitled to the same Rights as heterosexuals because culture accepts homosexuality as normal.

 

Supporters of Original Intent combined with Biblical Christians take the stand that America’s Founding Documents are highly influenced by Colonial America’s dedication to the Christian faith. The Original Intent/Biblical Christian block point to the dedication to God through Jesus Christ by a majority of America’s earliest colonialists to the influence of America’s Christian heritage. Ergo, since America’s foundations are Christian, Constitutional Rights and Liberties are assured via a Judeo-Christian mindset.

 

Separation of Church/State Leftists and unfortunately a few Conservatives demand the First Amendment forbids government to define the Rule of Law through the eyes of religion meaning Christianity. Actually the First Amendment says NO SUCH THING. The First Amendment doesn’t even use the words that Church and State must be separated. What specifically does the First Amendment say?

 

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances. (First Amendment; Legal Information Institute [LII] – Cornell University Law School)

 

The Supreme Court decides Constitutional issues. The Supreme Court has too often read the First Amendment as religion cannot be a criteria in any fashion within the framework of any government entity: Local, State and Federal. In the case of separation of Church and State the Supreme Court has used the horrible decision of a past Supreme Court to enlist and misinterpret a letter written by Thomas Jefferson to a Baptist Church which did not enjoy the benefits of an individual State that institutionalized a specific Protestant Denomination which was not Baptist. To be clear in the early days of our Constitutional government individual States did have State Churches supported by the State government. The Supreme Court NEVER ended the State practice, rather on a State by State basis individual States joined the U.S. (i.e. Federal government) Constitution First Amendment prohibition of government (i.e. Federal government) establish a State Church. It was duly recognized that the Federal government could not establish a State Church but in a Tenth Amendment fashion each individual State decided the Church/State issue. Further the First Amendment speaks to nothing pertaining to religion (and everybody understood religion to mean Christianity) influencing government but ONLY that government cannot interfere in religious activities whatsoever.

 

Who was that Justice that wrote the majority opinion that prohibited religion from all things government which in effect extra-constitutionally enshrined separation of Church and State? It was Justice Hugo Black in the SCOTUS decision of 1947 in Everson vs. the Board of Education. Just to be clear. Did your read the year? It was 1947 two years after WWII. Before Hugo Black, religious activity within public (i.e. government locations, schools and even legislative bodies) functions of various Christian Denominations including the Catholic Church was a common occurrence.

 

New Hampshire became the required 9th State needed to ratify the U.S. Constitution on 6/21/1788. The constitutional Federal government began operation on 3/4/1789. In doing the math that means religion and government interacted freely for 158 years with the Federal Government forbidden to tell religious practitioners how to worship or practice their faith.

 

Daniel L. Dreisbach lays out the false reasoning of Justice Hugo Black which began a Case Law foundation to keep religion from influencing or contributing to government:

 

 

In our own time, the judiciary has embraced this figurative phrase as a virtual rule of constitutional law and as the organizing theme of church-state jurisprudence, even though the metaphor is nowhere to be found in the U.S. Constitution. In Everson v. Board of Education (1947), the United States Supreme Court was asked to interpret the First Amendment’s prohibition on laws “respecting an establishment of religion.” …

 

 

… At the dawn of the 19th century, Jefferson’s Federalist opponents, led by John Adams, dominated New England politics, and the Congregationalist church was legally established in Massachusetts and Connecticut. The Baptists, who supported Jefferson, were outsiders–a beleaguered religious and political minority in a region where a Congregationalist-Federalist axis dominated political life.

 

On New Year’s Day, 1802, President Jefferson penned a missive to the Baptist Association of Danbury, Connecticut. The Baptists had written the President a “fan” letter in October 1801, congratulating him on his election to the “chief Magistracy in the United States.” They celebrated Jefferson’s zealous advocacy for religious liberty and chastised those who had criticized him “as an enemy of religion[,] Law & good order because he will not, dares not assume the prerogative of Jehovah and make Laws to govern the Kingdom of Christ.”

 

In a carefully crafted reply, Jefferson endorsed the persecuted Baptists’ aspirations for religious liberty:

 

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should “make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,” thus building a wall of separation between Church & State.[3]

 

 

Jefferson’s Understanding of the “Wall”

 

Throughout his public career, including two terms as President, Jefferson pursued policies incompatible with the “high and impregnable” wall the modern Supreme Court has erroneously attributed to him. For example, he endorsed the use of federal funds to build churches and to support Christian missionaries working among the Indians. The absurd conclusion that countless courts and commentators would have us reach is that Jefferson routinely pursued policies that violated his own “wall of separation.”

 

Jefferson’s wall, as a matter of federalism, was erected between the national and state governments on matters pertaining to religion and not, more generally, between the church and all civil government. In other words, Jefferson placed the federal government on one side of his wall and state governments and churches on the other. …

 

 

The Wall That Black Built

 

The phrase “wall of separation” entered the lexicon of American constitutional law in 1879. In Reynolds v. United States, the U.S. Supreme Court opined that the Danbury letter “may be accepted almost as an authoritative declaration of the scope and effect of the [first] amendment thus secured.”[6] Although the Court reprinted the entire second paragraph of Jefferson’s letter containing the metaphorical phrase, Jefferson’s language is generally characterized as obiter dictum. [Blog Editor: The obiter dictum link is by this blog Editor]

 

Nearly seven decades later, in the landmark case of Everson v. Board of Education(1947), the Supreme Court rediscovered the metaphor: “In the words of Jefferson, the [First Amendment] clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect ‘a wall of separation between church and State’…. That wall,” the justices concluded in a sweeping separationist declaration, “must be kept high and impregnable.  …

 

Justice Hugo L. Black, who authored the Court’s ruling, likely encountered the metaphor in briefs filed in Everson. In an extended discussion of American history that highlighted Virginia’s disestablishment battles and supported the proposition that “separation of church and state is a fundamental American principle,” attorneys for the American Civil Liberties Union quoted the single clause in the Danbury letter that contains the “wall of separation” image. …

 

The trope’s current fame and pervasive influence in popular, political, and legal discourse date from its rediscovery by the Everson Court. The Danbury letter was also cited frequently and favorably in the cases that followed Everson. In McCollum v. Board of Education (1948), the following term, and in subsequent cases, the Court essentially constitutionalized the Jeffersonian phrase, subtly and blithely substituting Jefferson’s figurative language for the literal text of the First Amendment.[9] In the last half of the 20th century, it became the defining motif for church-state jurisprudence.

 

The “high and impregnable” wall central to the past 50 years of church-state jurisprudence is not Jefferson’s wall; rather, it is the wall that Black–Justice Hugo Black–built in 1947 in Everson v. Board of Education.

 

 

Jefferson’s wall separated church and the federal government only. By incorporating the First Amendment non-establishment provision into the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, Black’s wall separates religion and civil government at all levels–federal, state, and local.

 

By extending its prohibitions to state and local jurisdictions, Black turned the First Amendment, as ratified in 1791, on its head. A barrier originally designed, as a matter of federalism, to separate the national and state governments, and thereby to preserve state jurisdiction in matters pertaining to religion, was transformed into an instrument of the federal judiciary to invalidate policies and programs of state and local authorities. As the normative constitutional rule applicable to all relationships between religion and the civil state, the wall that Black built has become the defining structure of a putatively secular polity.

 

… It would behoove you to READ this article in Entirety (The Mythical “Wall of Separation”: How a Misused Metaphor Changed Church–State Law, Policy, and Discourse; By Daniel L. Dreisbach; Heritage Foundation; 6/23/06)

 

Now I went through all this legal rigmarole to demonstrate how America’s Judiciary has become dominated by Leftist-minded activist or has fallen into the Living Constitution fallacy that essentially placed a wall of separation between America’s Christian Heritage and Lady Liberty’s secular paradigm. This forced divorce from the Left has eroded America’s moral principles as a nation in which the abomination of homosexuality has been normalized, adultery-fornication has become a cultural eye-wink, violence in schools is something to watch out for, pornography is distasteful but not aberrant, it becomes risky business to allow your children to walk home from school or play in their neighborhoods and on and on.

 

I started this post as an introduction to Robert Smith’s thoughts on homosexuality and the U.S. Constitution. Now I completely agree with Smith’s thoughts; however I think his tone is a bit harsh. The kind of harshness that might inspire violence by those disgusted by homosexuality and inspire violence by homosexuals offended by Christian morality.

 

For me the thing about defending Christian morality and criticizing a homosexual lifestyle is NOT to inspire violence. Rather my goal as to add a voice to the Good News of Jesus Christ delivering humanity from the evil hold of Satan’s kingdom leased to slew-foot by Adam’s betrayal. The Deliverance in Christ occurs when one believes that Jesus died on the Cross for Adam’s bequeathed sin-nature, that Jesus was in a tomb for three days and on the Third Day Jesus arose in a glorified but bodily form and currently sits at the Right Hand of the Father awaiting the right time to complete and seal the task of human beings be restored to God Almighty spirit, soul and body. Rejection in this faith in the Risen Christ leads to a very uncomfortable eternal living consequence separated from God’s Presence.

 

16 For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life. 17 For God did not send His Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world through Him might be saved.

 

18 “He who believes in Him is not condemned; but he who does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. 19 And this is the condemnation, that the light has come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil. 20 For everyone practicing evil hates the light and does not come to the light, lest his deeds should be exposed. 21 But he who does the truth comes to the light, that his deeds may be clearly seen, that they have been done in God.” (John 3: 16-21 NKJV)

 

See Also:

 

Annotation 13 – Article III: JUDICIAL REVIEW; FindLaw.com.

 

What It Means to “Interpret” the US Constitution; Lawyers.com.

 

Judicial Activism: Everson v. Board of Ed. of Ewing Tp.; Heritage FoundationRule of Law.

 

SELECTED CONSTITUTIONAL LAW DECISIONS OF THE U.S. SUPREME COURT; LII – Cornell University Law School.

 

JRH 3/4/15

Please Support NCCR

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

OUR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS

 

By Robert Smith

Sent: 3/3/2015 2:05 AM

 

The President and several federal judges are violating our Constitutional rights.

 

The Bible, both Old and New Testaments, teaches that homosexuality is an abomination. It also teaches us that we must not associate with homosexuals and their associates or those who associate with associates of homosexuals.

 

The President has allowed openly homosexual individuals to enlist in the armed services, which forces those of us who believe as I do into close contact with homosexuals and to take orders from any higher ranking homosexuals appointed over us, thus violating our constitutional rights, our freedom of association.

 

Nowhere in the U.S. Constitution is there any mention of homosexuals or same sex marriage. Why? It was due to the fact that homosexuals and homosexuality was not tolerated then, nor were any homosexuals of the time flaunting their predilection for such perverse behavior, and as such, there was not any problem or controversy over homosexuals in that era of our history.

 

It is now to be seen precisely how our Supreme Court views my Constitutional rights and the rights of those who believe as I do.

 

The Constitution of the USA was written to protect our God given rights mentioned in the Declaration of Independence.

 

Read these verses of The Bible and it will show why our forefathers saw no need to mention homosexuality in The Constitution of The USA.

 

Leviticus 18:22; 20:13

 

Chapter 18

 

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

 

Chapter 20

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. (NKJV)

 

1 Corinthians 6:9-11

 

9 Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals,[a] nor sodomites, 10 nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God. 11 And such were some of you. But you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus and by the Spirit of our God. (NKJV)

 

Romans 1:26-29; 13:8-10

 

Chapter 1

 

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.

 

28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a debased mind, to do those things which are not fitting; 29 being filled with all unrighteousness, sexual immorality,[a] wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, evil-mindedness; they are whisperers,

 

Chapter 13

 

8 Owe no one anything except to love one another, for he who loves another has fulfilled the law. 9 For the commandments, “You shall not commit adultery,” “You shall not murder,” “You shall not steal,” “You shall not bear false witness,”[a] “You shall not covet,”[b] and if there is any other commandment, are all summed up in this saying, namely, “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.”[c] 10 Love does no harm to a neighbor; therefore love is the fulfillment of the law. (NKJV)

 

1 Timothy 1:10-11

 

10 for fornicators, for sodomites, for kidnappers, for liars, for perjurers, and if there is any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine, 11 according to the glorious gospel of the blessed God which was committed to my trust. (NKJV)

 

Mark 10:6-9

 

6 But from the beginning of the creation, God ‘made them male and female.’[a]7 ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, 8 and the two shall become one flesh’; [b] so then they are no longer two, but one flesh. 9 Therefore what God has joined together, let not man separate.” (NKJV)

 

What does God give to homosexuals in Leviticus? DEATH and no chance for salvation.

 

In the New Testament if they ask Jesus to be forgiven and show they have truly repented and give up their evil life styles they then can be saved.

 

This is the reason they are not mentioned in the constitution.

___________________________

Religion and the Constitution

John R. Houk

© March 4, 2015

_______________________

OUR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS

© Robert Smith

 

Edited by John R. Houk

Scripture references by Robert Smith and the Scripture quotes added by the Editor.

 

F.C.C. TAKES OVER THE INTERNET


Net Neutrality Lie


Here is an essay that demonstrates the political side of the Obama/Democratic Party inspired FCC rules changing the Internet from a truly Free Speech zone into a government controlled entity that will be regulated according to which Political Party dominates the FCC federal bureaucracy. Jonathan Emord shows us how the FCC can regulate its displeasure with how an Internet Provider deals with its customers. The government’s pitch of net neutrality is double-speak for Big Brother Internet despotism.
 
JRH 3/4/15
***************************
F.C.C. TAKES OVER THE INTERNET
 
 
At the behest of President Barack Obama, the Federal Communications Commission voted this past Thursday, 3-2, on party lines, to impose FCC control over access to and charges by internet service providers. This is the beginning of the end of freedom over the internet. So-called net neutrality is not neutral at all, but is a regulatory schema that imposes federal oversight and control over what was but a moment ago the last remaining example of largely unfettered freedom and free enterprise left in the world.
 
Longing for the power to force internet service providers to bend to the will of government masters, the Obama Administration aimed to get the proverbial camel’s nose into the tent, anticipating that its whole body would come next. Using the pretext of ensuring consumers had more rapid internet connections, the new regulations promise to do much more, essentially rendering all internet service providers common carriers subject to the same kind of innovation and competition stultifying regulations that made the old Bell system such an archaic, byzantine bureaucratic mess.
 
On the road to a better internet, now architects of systems and markets will have to stop at a government toll booth. There they must satisfy the subjective dictates of FCC commissioners or else they will not be allowed to proceed. One of the greatest, most powerful and far reaching technological achievements of the Twentieth and Twenty-First Centuries is now to be but another utility where rates, service plans, and technological advances will not be allowed unless first approved by the politicians who populate the Federal Communications Commission.
 
The FCC has just denied liberty and free enterprise its essential place in that medium which holds out more promise for the advancement of mankind than any other. The FCC has learned through broadcast, cable, and telephone regulation that structural controls beget in time near total control over a medium. By lording it over on the internet service providers in the years to come, the FCC will coerce and cajole them into implementing the political dictates of FCC Commissioners in a manner akin to FCC’s long and sordid history of control over the broadcast media.
 
Displeasing a regulator who has subjective power over the structure of media invites retaliation. What former FCC Chairman Newton Norman Minow referred to as “regulation by raised eyebrow” in broadcast regulation is now applicable in the internet context. The mere hint of an FCC Commissioner’s dissatisfaction with the operations of an Internet Service Provider will cause that provider to appreciate all too well that the regulator’s displeasure makes essential approvals far more difficult to obtain. Instead, most will alter their business plans to avoid regulatory payback, even if that means constricting access to some in favor of others, thereby affecting who may speak and what may be said.
 
In that single instance, the First Amendment’s command that government be disarmed of power over speech and press is eviscerated. The ultimate control over the structure and content of the medium has passed from private to public hands. Now the politically appointed, unelected heads of the FCC, will call the shots over the internet. In this one vote of the FCC, everyone in America, indeed in the world, has lost freedom and opportunity. February 26, 2015, is the blackest day so far in the history of the internet.
_____________________________
Click here to visit NewsWithViews.com home page.
© 2015 Jonathan W. Emord – All Rights Reserved
 
Jonathan W. Emord is an attorney who practices constitutional and administrative law before the federal courts and agencies. Ron Paul calls Jonathan “a hero of the health freedom revolution” and says “all freedom-loving Americans are in [his] debt . . . for his courtroom [victories] on behalf of health freedom.” He has defeated the FDA in federal court a remarkable eight times, seven on First Amendment grounds, and is the author of the Amazon bestsellers The Rise of Tyranny, Global Censorship of Health Information, and Restore the Republic. He is the American Justice columnist for U.S.A. Today Magazine and joins Robert Scott Bell weekly for “Jonathan Emord’s Sacred Fire of Liberty,” an hour long radio program on government threats to individual liberty. For more info visit Emord.com, join the Emord FDA/FTC Law Group on Linkedin, and follow Jonathan on twitter (@jonathanwemord).
 
Website: Emord.com
 
 
 
NewsWithViews.com is dedicated to revealing lies, innuendo and agendas – wherever they may be.  Our political affiliations are not to the left or the right, but to “what is right and true.”
 
Our goal is to bring you the best news and commentaries on current events that may be manipulated or controlled by the mainstream media.
 
Our aim is to enlighten, educate and awaken people to the real issues facing this country and the world today.
 
NewsWithViews.com started publishing June of 2001. We noticed that there were websites that were the mouthpieces for the Republican party, the Democratic party, the feminist movement, the environmental movement, the Christian Right, etc., Everyone was in someone’s corner. The Left points a finger at the right, the right points a finger at the left. Neither side sees their own evil and hypocrisy, they escape the truth about themselves by blaming and pointing a finger at the other.
 
It’s not a Jewish, Christian, or a Muslim issue, neither is it a conservative or a liberal issue, nor a Republican or a Democrat issue, it’s a Right or Wrong issue. Truth is UNIVERSAL. Everyone can recognize it but, some reject it. Truth and honesty unite, lies and deception divide. Bare in mind that Truth is hate to those that hate the Truth.
 
NewsWithViews.com is NOT affiliated with any religious organizations or groups. We believe in God and our Lord Jesus Christ the Savior of mankind.
We run a small operation with a dedicated unpaid staff. All donations are appreciated. Click here if you wish to donate.
 
Disclaimer:

The views and opinions held by our writers and contributors are their own, and not necessarily the views of our advertisers, NewsWithViews.com or its staff.
 

Assimilate or Leave


John R. Houk
© January 14, 2015
 
 
Posted by iizthatiiz
Published on Jan 14, 2015
 
January 14th, 2015 • Muslim enclaves that are hostile to surrounding communities are springing up across America. Funded by Pakistani radicals, 22 villages in 9 states have been established that are teaching terrorist tactics to members of their compounds.
 
The above video is an interview between Brian Kilmeade and Martin Mawyer of the Christian Action Network. On The Kelly File last night Martin Mawyer was on with sub-host Shannon Bream showing nearly the exact footage of a Christian Action Network expose of Muslim terrorist enclaves operating apparently indiscriminately in U.S. soil. I say “apparently” because the FBI and Homeland Security are acting as if their hands are tied because of the First Amendment rights of Free Speech, Religious Freedom and I’m guessing free assembly. That sounds like a lame excuse especially with so-called lone-wolf terrorist attacks on our soil and let’s use the Charlie Hebdo example of organized terrorism that three terrorists had given  credit al Qaeda and ISIS.
 
No-Go-Zones are a common place occurrence in Europe (including the UK – Emerson apologizes too soon) but especially in France. As an American you may be out of the loop concerning No-Go-Zones (NGZ). As it relates to Islam, a NGZ is an area in a non-Muslim nation in which Muslims are so dominant that a Non-Muslim is prohibited from entry due local restriction or outright fear of Muslim attack. In case you haven’t realized it there are NGZs in the USA; however unlike Europe where Muslims find an urban area to overtake, Muslims in America develop NGZs in rural or out of the way locations. The Martin Mawyer video clips demonstrate the ruralness of NGZs.
 
There are some notable urban areas in the USA in which Muslim immigrants and next-gen Muslim-Americans have begun asserting of a NGZ mentality. The most noted place in my mind is Dearborn (suburb of Detroit), Michigan.
 
VIDEO: American Muslims Stone Christians in Dearborn, MI (Original edit) Nearly 23 minutes but you’ll get the idea early
 
Published by J. Mark Campbell
Published on Published on Jun 26, 2012
 
Like video? Show support here: The United West Support Page
 
Stay informed, Volunteer, or Send us news story here: http://www.TheUnitedWest.org 

Read full story of stoning here: American Muslims Stone ChristiansIf this extremely disturbing video does not result in a Federal investigation into the human rights violations of those Christians physically attacked at the 2012 Dearborn Arab Festival then we are watching the beginning of a new America, a MUSLIM AMERICA.

In this new America, a MUSLIM AMERICA, shariah-compliant Muslims have succeeded in striking fear into the hearts of the infidels. In the case of the Dearborn Arab Festival, you will see that the infidels are NOT the few, brave Christians who withstood the physical attacks by the blood-thirsty Muslims, but the fearful are those who have taken an oath to protect Americans. The fearful, are the Dearborn Sheriff and Police. Sadly, you will see the Police fearful of confronting the criminals and enforcing the law as they stand by watching “Muslims Gone Wild,” attack the helpless Christians.

The United West predicts that success of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt combined with the mounting fury of the “Arab Spring,” coupled with the support of President Obama will result in an expansive, “strong-horse” onslaught of Muslim physical aggression, similar to this Dearborn disaster, all across the new, MUSLIM AMERICA.

 
Our glorious President Barack Hussein Obama has allowed massive immigration of Muslims from volatile Muslim nations with the predilection to embrace radicalism. America is a nation in which immigrants have us the great melting pot of the world with the best constitutional government that has existed to date. Multicultural Leftist thinking often reminds Conservatives of the USA’s history of immigration but blatantly neglect the “melting pot” element of immigration. America’s Left has spent decades warping the Original Intent of the U.S. Constitution. This is particularly the case with the First Amendment.
 
The thing is in America the First Amendment does not give a right to plan or execute violence in the name of Free Speech nor Religious Freedom. When there is any kind of assembly in which the topic is to plan violence or do acts of violence, it is specifically prohibited by the First Amendment. The First Amendment attaches “assembly” with “peaceable”. Muslim enclaves, Leftist political terrorist cells (Weather Underground, SLA, ELF, Black Panther Party, NBPP and etc.), the extreme Right Wing (e.g. KKK, Aryan Nation, White Supremacists in general, violent Nazi organizations [although Right Wing is a misnomer with Hitler’s Nazism]) or whatever political or religious (American Islamic organizations associated with Muslim Brotherhood, Wahhabist or Salafist violence; Phineas Priesthood, Army of God and Christian Identity terrorism in general) organizations that are violent by the nature of their advocacy is not – or at least should not – be protected by the First Amendment.
 
The No-Go-Zone phenomena that has already infected Europe will increase in the USA largely due to the Islamic Culture friendly President BHO. I found an editorial on Right Wing News that places in perspective allowing Muslim immigrants into America that have no intention of following the melting pot assimilation paradigm that has made us the most coveted nation to live at in the world:
 
No-go areas are a frightening aspect of the ongoing Islamic conquest of Europe. Local authorities have ceded control of these to Muslims, who live by their own laws and sneer at those of the country they have invaded. Welfare payments go into the no-go areas; nothing except violence comes out. Emergency vehicles require police escorts, as they are often attacked by hostile savages.
 
Europe has a much larger Muslim population than the USA. But already we have no-go areas too:
 
 
There goes the neighborhood.
 
In the U.S., Dearborn, Michigan: Over 100,000 Muslims, 45% of the city has settled into their first ‘no-go’ zone. The city and police officials have been sued in many cases that allege discrimination “against Christians” effectively by the authorities applying Sharia law. Dearborn-Dar-al-Islam, (a place governed by Islamic Sharia law). …
 
If Americans don’t wake up and get their heads out of the sand fast, what’s quickly overtaking Europe will consume the United States. Muslim religious beliefs do not supersede state and federal laws; the Constitution is the law of the land. And yet, we are being invaded, and nothing is being done to stop them.
 
On the contrary, the federal government is aggressively promoting Islamic colonization. The Obama Regime imported nearly 300,000 colonists from Muslim countries in 2013 alone.
 
Unless reversed decisively, this immigration jihad will inevitably lead to more violence inflicted by the so-called Religion of Peace. (Muslim No-Go Zones in the USA; By Dave Blount; Right Wing News; 1/13/15)
 
Brigitte Gabriel of ACT for America was on The Kelly File with Megyn Kelly moderating between Ms. Gabriel and Muslim apologist Khaled Beydoun of Barry University School of Law.
 
 
Published by act4america
Published on Jan 9, 2015
 
JRH 1/14/15

Please Support NCCR