Christian Rights Protected from LGBTQ Impositions


John R. Houk

© June 23, 2017

 

I received an update yesterday from the American Family Association (AFA) celebrating the 5th Circuit Appellate Court spanking an earlier Federal Court decision to strike down a Mississippi State law protecting the Rights and Liberties of Christians against the ungodly LGBTQ militants who enjoy forcing their homosexual beliefs down the throats of Christians.

 

I avoid reading the Leftist-oriented Mainstream Media (MSM) reports because of their hatred of Conservative America values. Actually, when I Googled confirmation of the AFA alert, I was not at all surprised at the majority of MSM links deriding the 5th Circuit Appellate Court for damning the poor ungodly homosexuals of the militant LGBTQ.

 

This is what I am going to do. I am going to cross post the brief AFA email alert followed by a Daily Signal article on the 5th Circuit Appellate Court decision. In my humble opinion, The Daily Signal had the best report. Many other Conservative-oriented news sites even referenced The Daily Signal analysis. Nonetheless, here are a few titles from Conservative media also reporting on the victory for Christian religious Freedom in Mississippi:

 

 

 

 

Let us pray the many more States follow suit and declare Religious Freedom outweighs homosexuals forcing their ungodly beliefs on Bible observing Christians. Perhaps the U.S. Congress passing a Bill protecting the Freedom and Liberty of ALL Christian American citizens.

 

JRH 6/23/17

Please Support NCCR

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

Mississippi Religious Freedom bill upheld by court!

 

Sent by Tim Wildmon, President
Sent 6/22/2017 3:21 PM

Sent from American Family Association

 

Great news! This afternoon, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals (federal court in New Orleans) upheld the Mississippi “Protecting Freedom of Conscience from Government Discrimination Act” or HB 1523. This law protects people of faith – including Christians – from being forced to participate in a wedding ceremony between two homosexuals, along with other protections. I interviewed Mississippi Governor Phil Bryant a little while ago. You can hear that short conversation here.

 

Religious freedom has been under assault in our country, especially against Christians. This decision is another reason to give thanks to the Lord today! AFA thanks our friends at the Alliance Defending Freedom for taking this case up on behalf of the people of Mississippi.

 

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

 

Tim Wildmon, President
American Family Association

 

+++

Circuit Court Win for Religious Freedom on Gay Marriage

 

By Ryan T. Anderson

June 22, 2017

The Daily Signal

 

Blind Justice Statue

 

The 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled unanimously on Thursday that a Mississippi law that protects religious liberty and the rights of conscience in light of the redefinition of marriage may go into effect.

 

In the decision, the circuit court overruled a previous judgment from a district court judge who had declared the Mississippi law unconstitutional for violating the Establishment Clause and the Equal Protection Clause.

 

But as the circuit court pointed out, the challengers to Mississippi’s law lack standing because they “have not clearly shown injury-in-fact.” In other words, they did not show how the Mississippi law protecting liberty for people who hold to the pre-Obergefell v. Hodges definition of marriage harmed them.

 

The court explained that the “failure” of the “plaintiffs to assert anything more than a general stigmatic injury dooms their claim.”

 

While the ruling focused on the lack of standing of the plaintiffs, there are plenty of reasons to rule in favor of the constitutionality of laws like Mississippi’s on the merits.

 

As Sherif Girgis and I explain in our new book, “Debating Religious Liberty and Discrimination,” there is nothing scandalous about protections for particular views that are at odds with those on which the government acts.

 

When the government takes Americans to war, exceptions cover pacifists. When the government guarantees abortion, exceptions cover pro-lifers. These exemptions don’t amount to establishments of any religion, and neither do laws protecting dissenters after Obergefell.

 

Indeed, as law professor Richard Epstein explains, the Establishment Clause—meant to “knock down state coercion for religion”—can’t be used to invalidate “a statute whose whole purpose was to insulate private parties from any form of coercion.”

 

So, what does the Mississippi law do? As previously explained at The Daily Signal:

 

  • Religious organizations, like churches, cannot be forced to use their facilities to celebrate or solemnize weddings that violate their beliefs.

 

  • Religious convents, universities, and social service organizations can continue to maintain personnel and housing policies that reflect their beliefs.

 

  • Religious adoption agencies can continue to operate by their conviction that every child they serve deserves to be placed with a married mom and dad.

 

  • Bakersphotographersflorists, and similar wedding-specific vendors cannot be forced to use their talents to celebrate same-sex weddings if they cannot do so in good conscience.

 

 

 

 

 

This is a reasonable bill. It protects the consciences of people who hold to the historic definition of marriage in the aftermath of the Supreme Court redefining marriage, and it does so while avoiding the awful outcomes that critics fear. The bill provides that the government cannot punish, fine, or coerce specific people and organizations, in specific contexts. It doesn’t harm anyone.

 

Other states should follow Mississippi’s lead in protecting religious liberty and the rights of conscience after the redefinition of marriage. So, too, should Congress pass protections at the federal level.

 

Longstanding Precedent on Abortion

 

There is great precedent for such protections on the abortion issue, as Girgis and I explain in “Debating Religious Liberty and Discrimination.”

 

In 1973, just months after Roe v. Wade was handed down, Congress passed the Church Amendment, named for Sen. Frank Church, a Democrat from Idaho.

 

While Roe shielded the choice to have an abortion, the Church Amendment protected doctors’ and nurses’ choices not to perform one. It provided that health care organizations receiving federal funds could not force their doctors or nurses to perform or assist abortions.

 

Some 20 years later, Congress passed and President Bill Clinton signed the Coats–Snowe Amendment. It prohibits the government from discriminating against medical students who refuse to perform abortions and medical residency programs that leave out abortion training.

 

And in 2004, Congress passed the Hyde-Weldon Amendment, which keeps the government from discriminating against health care institutions that don’t offer abortions.

 

Since 1973, then, U.S. policy has protected a right to choose an abortion right alongside an individual and institutional right to choose against facilitating one.

 

Our law should now do the same on marriage. It needn’t and shouldn’t penalize private associations for their beliefs on this issue. Doing so would make no appreciable difference to the ability of same-sex couples to receive the goods and services they seek, but it would undermine conscience rights for some.

 

So lawmakers can and should grant a categorical accommodation.

 

Current Legislation

 

A proposed federal law would do that. Much like the Church, Coats-Snowe, and Hyde-Weldon amendments, the First Amendment Defense Act would protect the freedoms of citizens and organizations who hold a belief at odds with one enshrined by courts.

 

Protecting pro-life consciences did not violate the Constitution—by establishing a religion or engaging in viewpoint discrimination or otherwise. Nor do laws protecting pacifists. Their only aim is peaceful coexistence in the face of disagreement.

 

The same goes for the First Amendment Defense Act. It would enact a bright-line rule to keep government from penalizing someone just for acting on her belief that marriage is the union of husband and wife. It would protect people who hold that belief for religious or secular reasons, and it would shield organizations from losing nonprofit tax status, licensing, or accreditation for operating by these beliefs.

 

But even the First Amendment Defense Act’s categorical protections reflect a careful balance. They protect individuals, nonprofit charities, and privately held businesses, but not publicly traded corporations, or federal employees or contractors in the course of their work.

 

The First Amendment Defense Act makes clear that it does not relieve the federal government of its duty to provide services, medical care, or benefits to all who qualify. It must simply respect conscience in the course of doing so.

 

Mississippi has shown the way forward on this issue at the state level. And on Thursday, the 5th Circuit allowed that law to go into effect.

 

Other states should offer similar protections at the state level, and Congress should do the same at the federal level.

 

Protecting a New Minority

 

America is in a time of transition. The Supreme Court has redefined marriage, and beliefs about human sexuality are changing.

 

During this time, it is critical to protect the right to dissent and the civil liberties of those who speak and act in accord with what Americans had always previously believed about marriage—that it is the union of husband and wife.

 

Good public policy is needed at the local, state, and federal levels to protect cherished American values. Good policy would help achieve civil peace amid disagreement and protect pluralism and the rights of all Americans, regardless of what faith they may practice.

 

________________

Christian Rights Protected from LGBTQ Impositions

John R. Houk

© June 23, 2017

________________

Mississippi Religious Freedom bill upheld by court!

 

American Family Association
P O Drawer 2440  |  Tupelo, MS 38803  |  1-662-844-5036
Copyright ©2017 American Family Association. All Rights Reserved

 

Support AFA

_____________

Circuit Court Win for Religious Freedom on Gay Marriage

 

About The Daily Signal

 

Donate to support The Daily Signal and The Heritage Foundation

 

Pro-Life Journalists Seek Appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court in Free Speech, Baby Parts Case


I just finished posting about the extremely questionable prosecution, jailing and exorbitant bail against Sandra Merritt this morning. Then, I go to my email inbox. Lo and behold! I found an email from Operation Rescue reporting the Ninth Circuit of Appeals (located on the Left coast) ruled that the Center for Medical Progress (CMP) undercover obtained videos and recording cannot be turned over to the police EVEN if criminal conduct is reveal!!!!!!

 

“A three-member panel of the liberally activist Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that additional footage obtained through the CMP’s undercover investigations – even those recordings that contain evidence of criminal conduct committed by Planned Parenthood and National Abortion Federation officials – cannot be released to law enforcement personnel. A requested review by the full Ninth Circuit was denied.”

What is our nation coming to when even the Judicial Branch condones lawlessness in the name of protecting the Leftist transformative agenda that has hammered into American thought?

 

Here is the Operation Rescue article that was linked in my email alert.

 

JRH 5/9/17

Please Support NCCR

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

Pro-Life Journalists Seek Appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court in Free Speech, Baby Parts Case

 

By DeAnn Flanagan

May 8, 2017

Operation Rescue

 

San Francisco, CA – The Center for Medical Progress and its founding members, including Troy Newman, President of Operation Rescue, are seeking to appeal a draconian Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruling to the U.S. Supreme Court in order to protect the First Amendment Rights of journalists to report to law enforcement evidence of crimes contained in undercover recordings.

 

A three-member panel of the liberally activist Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that additional footage obtained through the CMP’s undercover investigations – even those recordings that contain evidence of criminal conduct committed by Planned Parenthood and National Abortion Federation officials – cannot be released to law enforcement personnel. A requested review by the full Ninth Circuit was denied.

 

The ruling is related to a federal lawsuit, National Abortion Federation v. CMP, et al, that was filed in 2015 after the CMP released several videos showing Planned Parenthood executives haggling over top dollar to illegally sell aborted baby organs and tissue. The NAF sought to block the further release of possibly incriminating videos.

 

Attorneys for the American Center for Law and Justice are representing Newman in that case.

 

A joint motion filed May 5, 2017, is seeking a stay of the Ninth Circuit’s mandate pending the filing of a certiorari petition with the U.S. Supreme Court.

 

The motion states that the court wrongly upheld a “prior restraint” on CMP’s First Amendment speech, which had captured great public interest. The undercover videos were also the subject of investigations by House and Senate panels that later referred Planned Parenthood organizations to the U.S. Department of Justice and state Attorneys General for further criminal investigation and prosecution.

 

“Prior restraints are ‘the most serious and least tolerable infringement of First Amendment Rights,’” stated the motion to stay.

 

So radical was the Ninth Circuit’s ruling that the pro-life leaders’ defense attorneys argued:

 

Outside the context of trade secrets and classified information, no federal court – other than now this Court – has upheld an order suppressing information of high public interest based simply on the agreement of the parties to do so. Other federal courts have declined to put the weight of their contempt power behind the enforcement of private agreements to defeat the public’s right to know.

 

“In a case of critical importance to free speech rights, the Ninth Circuit has wrongly barred pro-life citizen journalists from reporting crimes and submitting evidence to law enforcement. Instead, the Court has opted to protect the ability of the NAF and Planned Parenthood to conceal possible criminal activity,” said Cheryl Sullenger, Senior Vice President, Operation Rescue. “The rogue Ninth Circuit has showed their penchant for liberal, pro-abortion judicial activism once again, and we look forward to the U.S. Supreme Court once again overturning one of their grossly unconstitutional decisions.”

 

Order denying appeal to full Ninth Circuit.


Defense Motion to Stay Mandate pending SCOTUS filing.

 

_______________

Copyright © 2017 Operation Rescue, Inc. 

 

Who We Are

 

Operation Rescue® is one of the leading pro-life Christian activist organizations in the nation. Operation Rescue® recently made headlines when it bought and closed an abortion clinic in Wichita, Kansas and has become perhaps the most visible voice of the pro-life activist movement in America. Its activities are on the cutting edge of the abortion issue, taking direct action to restore legal personhood to the pre-born and stop abortion in obedience to biblical mandates.

 

Click here to donate.


Click here to contact.

 

READ: Operation Rescue’s Non-Violent History is a Matter of Public Record

 

Troy Newman, President

 

Adopted at birth and raised in San Diego, Troy Newman has more than 27 years of experience and leadership in business and pro-life ministry with great success growing Christian organizations. Troy is an accomplished strategist with remarkable insight.

 

His vision, expertise, and leadership have  READ THE REST

 

Florida College Turns Religious Liberty into Dhimmitude


John R. Houk

© March 28, 2017

 

On 3/24 I posted on how the Islamic revered writings of the Quran, Hadith and Sira (Sunna) are directly Antisemitic and Antichristian. This has become a problem and a challenge to the Religious Liberty of the First Amendment in relation to how these revered writings provoke Islamic Supremacist concepts that large private businesses and private institutions (such as colleges) are relegating themselves to dhimmitude.

 

Areej Zufari

 

Rollins College located in Florida suspended Marshall Polston for challenging the opinion of Middle Eastern Humanities Professor Areej Zufari that Jesus Christ was never Crucified nor was Jesus God – part of the co-equal personhood of Father, Son and Holy Spirit as ONE singular God.

 

Polston’s beliefs are a part of central tenets of Christianity. Professor Zufari’s beliefs are straight out of the Quran.

 

The Religious Liberty written in the blood Revolutionary War veterans in the First Amendment means both Polston and Zufari are entitled to their opinions.

 

However, when Rollins College suspended Polston for his Christian beliefs undoubtedly at the behest of the Muslim Professor Areej Zufari, robbed Polston of First Amendment Religious Liberty. In Contrast to the deference to Zufari, the college’s actions not only upheld the Professor’s Religious Liberty but also declared Islam supreme over all religious faiths making Christians and other non-Muslims into dhimmis on American soil.

JRH 3/28/17 (Hat Tip Liberty Headlines)

Please Support NCCR

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

Christian student suspended after challenging Muslim prof’s claim that Jesus wasn’t crucified

 

By WILLIAM NARDI – LIBERTY UNIVERSITY

MARCH 27, 2017

The College Fix

 

A student says he was suspended from Rollins College for challenging his Muslim professor’s anti-Christian assertions, including her claim that Jesus’ crucifixion never took place.

 

Twenty-year-old Marshall Polston, a sophomore at the private, Florida-based four-year college, said that the professor of his Middle Eastern Humanities class also told students that Jesus’ disciples did not believe he was God.

 

Polston, an avid traveler and self-described Christian, has toured the Middle East and is familiar with the Muslim culture.

 

“Honestly, it reminded me of some of the more radical groups I researched when abroad,” Polston told the Central Florida Postabout his professor’s comments on Jesus.

 

“Whether religious or not, I believe even those with limited knowledge of Christianity can agree that according to the text, Jesus was crucified and his followers did believe he was divine… that he was ‘God,’” he continued. “Regardless, to assert the contrary as academic fact is not supported by the evidence.”

 

Polston, in a message to The College Fix on Saturday, said he stands behind his assertions in the Post article. He said he is upset he was suspended and has hired an attorney.

 

“Our university should be a place where free-speech flashes and ideas can be spoken of without punishment or fear of retribution,” Polston told The College Fix. “In my case it was the total opposite. … I came forward with the story because I know so many other students like me suffer under today’s liberal academic elite.”

 

The professor, Areej Zufari, as well as a campus spokesperson, could not be reached by The College Fix late Sunday. However, the Central Florida Post reports that it tried numerous times to obtain comment from Rollins College and Professor Zufari to no avail.

 

Polston claims the situation began after he challenged Zufari’s assertions about Jesus and his disciples. Polston said this challenge led Zufari to file a complaint with a campus dean, claiming he made her feel “unsafe.”

 

Next, Polston received a 52 percent on a major essay.

 

“I was upset, understandably. I’ve never gotten anything less than straight A’s, so I was really interested in figuring out how to possibly improve or at least understand the grade,” Polston told the Post.

 

On another day during the course, Zufari led a discussion about the application of Sharia Law. Polston claims that during this discussion, a male Muslim student said gays and adulterers should be beheaded under Sharia Law.

 

“I spoke out to the professor about the grade and subsequently the decapitation comments made by the student,” Polston told The Fix. “The statement by the conservative Muslim student met such fear by some that one of the students reported it to the FBI. Later, I was reported by the professor to the dean of campus safety. The situation was surreal. We’ve already had one too many attacks in Orlando and as an avid traveler I realized this was the perfect example of ‘see something, say something.’”

 

Zufari, for her part, posted on Facebook to the ACLU of Florida, complaining about an unnamed student that is “making my life hell this semester. This one is spewing hatred at me, de-railing class, and just sent me a hateful email threatening me…I want to know if there is a way to hold the individual responsible for his harassment and hate speech. Any ideas? Thank you!”

 

According to the March 24 suspension letter, Polston’s “actions have constituted a threat of disruption within the operations of the College and jeopardize the safety and well-being of members of the College community and yourself.”

 

Those alleged actions are not spelled out within the document. Nonetheless, Polston was given strict directions not to set foot on campus or have any contact with Zufari in the letter.

 

However, claims that Polston violated the terms of his suspension and came to harass the class this past Thursday were lodged. A campus safety report obtained by The College Fix states:

 

“Student ______ stated to me that she looked out the back glass door of the classroom and saw Mr. Polston staring into the room. He briefly stopped then proceeded on his way. Campus safety was immediately notified and responded at 19:36 hours. A search was conducted but Mr. Polston was not found. Ms. Zufari’s students were upset and did not feel comfortable being in the class. Ms. Zufari dismissed her class early at 20:07 hours.”

 

Polston has completely refuted these claims, however, offering video footage of his whereabouts — at a restaurant over a half-hour away from the school.

 

As for Rollins College, this isn’t the first time its officials have acted unfavorably toward Christian students.

 

In 2013, college officials kicked a Christian group off of campus for their conservative beliefs and threatened to pull funding from Christian student groups that would not allow non-Christian students to be in the club’s leadership. Later that year students were told that they could not hold private Bible studies in their dorm rooms, Fox News reported.

_____________________

Florida College Turns Religious Liberty into Dhimmitude

John R. Houk

© March 28, 2017

___________________

Christian student suspended after challenging Muslim prof’s claim that Jesus wasn’t crucified

 

Zach Swaim contributed to this report.

 

Like The College Fix on Facebook / Follow us on Twitter

 

COPYRIGHT © 2017 THE COLLEGE FIX, ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

 

About the Fix

The Student Free Press Association is a nonprofit organization run by veteran journalists to help beginning journalists. With our higher-education news website, The College Fix, we work with college-aged writers, bloggers, tweeters, podcasters, and viral video makers for the purpose of identifying and supporting young people who seek to improve campus journalism, explore careers in the media, and commit themselves to the principles of a free society. We tell stories, spot talent and READ THE REST

 

On Defining Religion


nonie-darwish-2-i-will-not-submit

Ex-Muslim Nonie Darwish explains the reasons that Islam has absolutely NO harmony with the Western perception of values and religious freedom. The last sentence of this essay Darwish asks:

 

Is the First Amendment a suicide pact?

 

JRH 2/13/17

Please Support NCCR

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

On Defining Religion

 

By Nonie Darwish

February 12, 2017 5:00 am

Gatestone Institute

 

  • What the West does not understand is that Islam admits that government control is central to Islam and that Muslims must, sooner or later, demand to live under an Islamic government.

 

  • The majority of the world does not understand that much of the American media is in a propaganda war against the Trump administration simply because he names Islamic jihad and would prefer to see a strong and prosperous America as a world leader rather than to see a dictatorship — secular or theocratic — as a world leader.

 

  • Islam claims to be an Abrahamic religion, but in fact Islam came to the world 600 years after Christ, not to affirm the Bible but to discredit it; not to co-exist with “the people of the book” — Jews and Christians — but to replace them, after accusing them of intentionally falsifying the Bible.

 

  • Islam was created as a rebellion against the Bible and its values, and it relies on government enforcement to do so.

 

  • Political and legal (sharia) Islam is much more than a religion. Is the First Amendment a suicide pact?

 

Rep. Keith Ellison (D-Minn.) said that President Donald Trump’s 90-day ban on immigration from seven predominantly Muslim countries is “a religiously based ban,” and “if they can ban Muslims, why can’t they ban Mormons.” This has become the position of the Democratic Party and the mainstream media, which has influenced not only the American public but has convinced the majority of the world that America is “bad.” How can we blame the world, and even a good segment of American citizens, for hating America when such disingenuous and misleading claims are aired to the world from US officials and broadcast by American television channels?

 

The majority of the world does not understand that much of the American media is in a propaganda war against the Trump Administration simply because he names Islamic jihad and would prefer to see a strong and prosperous America as a world leader, rather than to see a dictatorship — secular or theocratic — as a world leader. He ran as a Republican; meanwhile, Democrats and the mainstream media refuse to engage in respectful and legitimate debate on the most vital threat to Western civilization in the twenty-first century: Islam. Truth has become irrelevant; people seem to prefer a political game of tug-of-war to sway public opinion against the Trump Administration, and, presumably, to elect Democrats forever. That is how the system is set up.

 

Political discussions on television have become extremely frustrating; they have turned into shouting matches and name-calling at the least informative levels. Television hosts often become instigators and participants in the shouting matches. The thinking is apparently that the louder they get, the more attractive the program will be. Meanwhile everyone is talking at once; the viewer cannot hear anyone, so the program could not be more boring.

 

Under the US Constitution, freedom of religion is protected. and Islam has been welcomed inside the West on that basis as one of the three Abrahamic religions. According to Western values and the Western understanding of the word, “religion” is supposed to be a personal relationship with God, where free will is of utmost importance; the believer has authority only over himself or herself when it comes to religious laws or punishing sins (such as leaving the religion or committing adultery) — quite different from criminal laws intended to protect society. Western values also allow followers of a religion the freedom to proselytize, but never by resorting to government enforcement.

 

Bottom line, the Western definition of religion is in harmony with the Biblical values of the human rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, and that all human beings are created equal under the law. It is considered a basic Western value to view God, family and country as a top priority.

 

Now let us compare these values to Islamic values:

 

  • Muslim citizens have the right to punish other citizens with humiliating, severe, cruel and unusual punishments such as death, flogging and amputation, for sinning against Allah, the Quran or Islam. Those “crimes” include leaving Islam, being a homosexual, or committing adultery. And if the Islamic government does not enforce such punishments, any Muslim on the street has the right to apply the punishment against another Muslim and not be prosecuted. That is why apostates, such as myself, cannot visit any Muslim county; the fear is not only from Islamic governments but from anyone on the street.

 

  • Being a Muslim is not a personal relationship with God, as it is under the Bible, but is enforced by the state at birth. When a child is born in Egypt to a Muslim father, the birth certificate is stamped “Muslim” and all government-issued documents as well. A child must learn Islamic studies in school and practice Islam throughout his life. In Egypt, the twin sons of a Christian divorced mother were forced to take Islamic studies and become Muslim just because their originally-Christian father converted to Islam. Today, in Egypt, I am still considered Muslim and such a status could never change if I ever lived there again.

 

  • Islamic law and leaders rely on government enforcement — under penalty of death — to keep Muslims within Islam and to convert the minority Christian population into Islam. Islamic sharia law, obliges Islamic states to enforce religious law, and if the Muslim head of state refuses to follow religious law, sharia permits the public to use force to remove the head of state from office.

 

  • Islam claims to be an Abrahamic religion, but in fact Islam came to the world 600 years after Christ, not to affirm the Bible but to discredit it; not to co-exist with “the people of the book,” Jews and Christians, but to replace them — after accusing them of intentionally falsifying the Bible. Islam was created as a rebellion against the Bible and its values, and relies on government enforcement to do so.

 

The tenets above are just a few of the differences in values between Islam, the Bible and the Western concept of religion. What the West does not understand is that Islam admits that government control is central to Islam, and Muslims must demand to live under an Islamic government sooner or later. That might explain the reason for the eternal violence in nearly all Muslim countries, between government being in the hands of a religious theocracy or of the military. Islam, as it is practiced today, has violated all Western definitions of religion and values.

 

Political and legal (sharia) Islam is much more than a religion. Is the First Amendment a suicide pact?

 

THE FIRST AMENDMENT

1st-amendment-image-source-brent-payne-flickr

 

___________________

Nonie Darwish, born and raised in Egypt, is the author of “Wholly Different; Why I chose Biblical Values over Islamic Values.”

 

© 2017 Gatestone Institute. All rights reserved. The articles printed here do not necessarily reflect the views of the Editors or of Gatestone Institute. No part of the Gatestone website or any of its contents may be reproduced, copied or modified, without the prior written consent of Gatestone Institute. [Blog Editor: I did not ask for permission to re-blog this essay from the Gatestone Institute. If requested I will remove the post.]

 

About Gatestone Institute

 

“Let us tenderly and kindly cherish, therefore, the means of knowledge. Let us dare to read, think, speak, and write.” — John Adams

 

Gatestone Institute, a non-partisan, not-for-profit international policy council and think tank is dedicated to educating the public about what the mainstream media fails to report in promoting:

 

  • Institutions of Democracy and the Rule of Law;

 

  • Human Rights

 

  • A free and strong economy

 

  • A military capable of ensuring peace at home and in the free world

 

  • Energy independence

 

  • Ensuring the public stay informed of threats to our individual liberty, sovereignty and free speech.

 

Gatestone Institute conducts national and international conferences, briefings and events for its members and others, with world leaders, journalists and experts — analyzing, strategizing, and keeping them informed on current issues, and where possible recommending solutions.

 

Gatestone Institute will be publishing books, and continues to publish an online daily report, www.gatestoneinstitute.org, that features topics such as military and diplomatic threats to the United States and our allies; events in the Middle East and READ THE REST

 

Fake News Accusations is About Silencing My Voice & Your Voice


internet-censorship

John R. Houk

© December 10, 2016

 

The American Left as represented by the Left Stream Media and Democrats particularly the sore loser Crooked Hillary, have been doing their best to frame President-Elect Trump’s victory with a crushing 306 awarded Electoral Votes is the result of “Fake News”.

 

In my book the Left is doing its best to delegitimize Donald Trump as President of the United States. And since the Left is trying to persuade their clueless voters to be angry against Trump’s voters, you must ask – WHY?

 

I haven’t heard or read anyone come to the conclusion I have arrived at, but hear is my simple Conservative voter reasoning. The Dems are setting the groundwork to censor Conservative Social Media and Conservative bloggers who do not tow the Leftist public agenda that is pushed by the Left Stream Media as “Real News”.

 

I have a couple of articles for you to read that I am certain the American Left will step up to the stump and holler Fake News with the sole purpose of influencing people to not consider an alternative view that Hillary Clinton is CROOKED.

crooked-hillary-cries-about-fake-news

JRH 12/10/16

Please Support NCCR

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

The Queen of the Benghazi Video Lie Calls for Censoring of “Fake News” because “Lives are at Risk”

 

By TIM BROWN

DECEMBER 9, 2016

Freedom Outpost

 

A pathetic looking Hillary Clinton came out of hiding after the “most devastating loss in the history of American politics” to chime in on the brouhaha surrounding alleged “fake news,” saying that “lives are at risk.”

 

I have no idea who would want to actually attend a meeting where this woman is speaking. However, she spoke on Capitol Hill and urged Congress to pass legislation that would “boost the government’s response to foreign propaganda.”

 

She also showed her support for censoring whatever the government wants to label “fake news” on social media, which has already been touted as “sophisticated Russian propaganda tools.”

 

VIDEO: Hillary Clinton on Fake News Dangers

 

Posted by ABC News

Published on Dec 8, 2016

 

Hillary Clinton on Fake News Dangers | Hillary Clinton says fake news can have “real world consequences”: “This isn’t about politics or partnership. Lives are at risk.”

 

“It’s a danger that must be addressed and addressed quickly,” Clinton said.

 

“Let me just mention briefly one threat in particular that should concern all Americans — Democrats, Republicans, and Independents alike — especially those who serve in our Congress: the epidemic of malicious fake news and false propaganda that flooded social media over the past year,” Clinton said.

 

“It’s now clear that so-called fake news can have real-world consequences,” she said. “This isn’t about politics or partisanship. Lives are at risk. Lives of ordinary people just trying to go about their days to do their jobs, contribute to their communities.”

 

“It’s a danger that must be addressed and addressed quickly. Bipartisan legislation is making its way through Congress to boost the government’s response to foreign propaganda, and Silicon Valley is starting to grapple with the challenge and threat of fake news,” Clinton added. “It’s imperative that leaders in both the private sector and the public sector step up to protect our democracy, and innocent lives.”

 

The irony of what Clinton is saying is utterly unbelievable! First, we are not a democracy. We’re a Republic.

 

Wasn’t it this witch that went out in front of the American people, conspired with Obama lackeys and sent out a spokesperson to blatantly lie to the American people about a fabricated story as the catalyst for the September 11, 2012 Benghazi attack that resulted in four real American lives being lost? Why, yes, yes it was.

 

VIDEO: Obama and Hillary Blame Youtube Video for Benghazi Terrorist Attack as Coffins Arrive

 

Posted by Hayes Thomas

Published on May 9, 2013

 

Obama said he would stand with the Muslims should the political winds shift in a ugly direction and he was not kidding. The bodies of Americans coming home in coffins after a terrorist attack on the anniversary of 9/11 and his administration takes the opportunity to go after Coptic Christians and critics of Islam in a anti free speech political stance.

 

Susan Rice, Barack Hussein Obama Soetoro Sobarkah and Clinton all stood behind the lie about the video, even though Gregory Hicks, a Benghazi eyewitness, said the video was a “nonevent,” that the CIA knew from the start that Benghazi was a jihadist attack and had nothing to do with a video, and that more than likely Obama speech writer Ben Rhodes had something to do with changing the talking points that were provided to the administration. Even Clinton’s own State Department were involved in altering the talking points and emails prove this. State Department emails also confirm that Clinton and the White House knew within two hours that Benghazi was not a protest gone bad, but was a full blown jihad attack. Emails even show that the Tripoli embassy urged the criminals in DC to “not conflate” the video with the Benghazi attack.

 

Not only did she do that, but she then said she never lied about it, even though she spent $75,000 of tax payer dollars to apologize the people of Pakistan for the video. Let’s not even get into the lies concerning her illegal email server, which has resulted in at least one death.

 

Perhaps we should start censoring her every time she opens her mouth with real fake news, since she is obviously not telling the truth. Remember the time she lied about escaping sniper fire in Bosnia?

 

We could go on and on with the crimes of Mrs. Clinton, her husband Bill, her daughter Chelsea and the Clinton Foundation, all of which there is evidence to bear out that their crimes are real, but are being covered up by their conspirators in the state-controlled media. However, they also have accomplices in Congress, too.

 

Representative Devin Nunes (R-CA) and Representative Adam Schiff (D-CA) have put forth  H.R 6393: Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017, which is in response to the real fake news mainstream media‘s claims that alternative media putting forth “fake news” are nothing more than agents of “Russian propaganda.”

 

It’s time the American people had enough of America’s own propaganda and demand their representatives and unelected people like Hillary Clinton stop attempting to infringe on the rights that are protected under the First Amendment concerning free speech, and freedom of the press.

 

+++

Hillary Clinton: ‘It is Now Clear That So-called Fake News can Have Real-world Consequences’ [VIDEO]

 

By Philip Hodges

December 9, 2016

Eagle Rising

 

Democratic Senator Harry Reid of Nevada is throwing in the towel. He’s retiring at the end of this year.

 

Hillary Clinton was invited to speak at an event honoring the outgoing Senator, in which she praised Reid. Placed awkwardly in her speech without any segue was a brief segment about “malicious fake news” which can have “real-world consequences” – no doubt referencing the actor who barged in to a D.C. pizza joint to “investigate” a child prostitution ring thought to involve the Clintons, the Podestas, and many others.

 

Apparently, according to one of Hillary Clinton’s aides, the former Democratic nominee did stop by Comet Ping Pong – the pizza place in question – to meet with the owner.

 

In her speech celebrating Senator Reid’s career and life, she mentioned the story about Ben Franklin being asked following the Constitutional Convention what kind of government they had formed, to which Franklin replied, “A Republic. If you can keep it.” Then, she said something about “standing up for our democracy,” and went straight into “fake news.” From RCP:

 

Let me mention briefly one threat in particular that should concern all Americans. Democrats, Republicans and Independents alike, especially those who serve in our Congress:  The epidemic of malicious fake news and false propaganda that flooded social media over the past year. It is now clear that so-called fake news can have real-world consequences.

 

This isn’t about politics or partisanship. Lives are at risk. Lives of ordinary people just trying to go about their days, to do their jobs, contribute to their communities. It’s a danger that must be addressed and addressed quickly.

 

Bipartisan legislation is making its way through Congress to boost the government’s response to foreign propaganda, and Silicon Valley is starting to grapple with the challenge and threat of fake news. 

 

It’s imperative that leaders in both the private sector and the public sector step up to protect our democracy and innocent lives. Harry Reid and Vice President Biden may be stepping back from the daily scrum of politics and governing, but I know I speak for them as well as tens of millions of Americans when I say that we are all counting on those of you who remain.

 

Her comments start around halfway in:

 

VIDEO: WOW: In RARE Post-Election Appearance, HILLARY CLINTON Pays Tribute to Harry Reid

 

Posted by FOX 10 Phoenix

Published on Dec 8, 2016

 

Brought to you by Desert Diamond: http://ddcaz.com
Vice President Biden joins Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi & Senator Chuck Schumer for the unveiling of Reid’s leader portrait from the Kennedy Caucus Room at the U.S. Capitol.

 

The media were so quick to draw conclusions about the ‘fake news’ story “pizzagate” and the actor who fired a shot at the pizza place. If the same guy had gone in and yelled, “Allahu Akbar!” and killed a few people, the media would make sure no one jumped to any conclusions. “Just because he said ‘Allahu Akbar’ doesn’t mean that he must be a Muslim. It doesn’t mean it’s terrorism. Maybe it was just a disgruntled ex-employee, you Islamophobes!”

 

But since a guy waltzed in claiming to be investigating an underground child prostitution ring, the media and political establishment are falling over themselves, trying to shut down every conservative and libertarian site for spreading “malicious fake news” – created by a “sophisticated Russian propaganda campaign” conspiracy – that’s had “real-world consequences.”

 

The views expressed in this opinion article are solely those of their author and are not necessarily either shared or endorsed by EagleRising.com

_______________

Fake News Accusations is About Silencing My Voice & Your Voice

John R. Houk

© December 10, 2016

_____________

The Queen of the Benghazi Video Lie Calls for Censoring of “Fake News” because “Lives are at Risk”

 

About Tim Brown

 

Tim Brown is an author and Editor at FreedomOutpost.com, SonsOfLibertyMedia.comGunsInTheNews.com and TheWashingtonStandard.com. He is husband to his “more precious than rubies” wife, father of 10 “mighty arrows”, jack of all trades, Christian and lover of liberty. He resides in the U.S. occupied Great State of South Carolina. Tim is also an affiliate for the Joshua Mark 5 AR/AK hybrid semi-automatic rifle. Follow Tim on Twitter.

 

Copyright © 2016 FreedomOutpost.com

______________

Hillary Clinton: ‘It is Now Clear That So-called Fake News can Have Real-world Consequences’ [VIDEO]

 

About Philip Hodges

 

Phil has been writing about outrageous news and politics since 2012. He is the Editor at EagleRising.com and has written for Constitution.com, Last Resistance, Political Outcast, and Godfather Politics.

 

Copyright © 2016. EagleRising.com. All rights reserved

 

 

Disestablishmentarianism, Constitution, SCOTUS & UN


Flag, Constitution & Bible

John R. Houk

© July 4, 2016

 

I’m not a huge believer in the American’s Left interpretation of the Disestablishmentarian Clause of the First Amendment:

 

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or … (Amendment I: FREEDOM OF RELIGION, SPEECH, PRESS, ASSEMBLY, AND PETITION; National Constitution Center)

 

The Left and Secular Humanists interpret this clause as meaning religion (Founding Fathers meant Christian Church) and State must be absolutely separated from each other. No government in the Church and no Church in the government. But you can read the clause. Tell me where it is written that a separation must exist. YOU CANNOT because there is no such wording!

 

All the clause says is that the Congressional Branch of the Federal government shall make NO LAW establishing a state religion or as the Founders understood, no state Church established by the Federal government.

 

In fact, did you know that several of the original 13 States retained their Established Christian Church for some time after the U.S. Constitution became the law of the land for the United States of America? The Federal government was constitutionally forbidden from enacting any law pertaining to religion on State level because of the Disestablishmentarian Clause in the 1st Amendment and the 10th Amendment which states:

 

 “The Tenth Amendment was intended to confirm the understanding of the people at the time the Constitution was adopted, that powers not granted to the United States were reserved to the States or to the people. It added nothing to the instrument as originally ratified.” – United States v. Sprague, 282 U.S. 716, 733 ([SCOTUS Decision of 2/14] 1931). – “About the Tenth Amendment”; Tenth Amendment Center)

 

It is a bit interesting that the Tenth Amendment Center in the quote above, that a 1931 SCOTUS decision is used as an affirmation of the purpose of the 10th Amendment. Why is it interesting? Because SCOTUS is the very reason that the Left has successfully utilized the term Living Constitution to make laws not authorized by the Original Intent of the U.S. Constitution.

 

Of the Thirteen Original States after the Constitution was ratified in 1789, several had Established Churches even after the Civil War. Here is post-ratification State Established Churches with the year Establishment ended:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

  • South Carolina – 1868 (Actually a SCOTUS decision ended all State support of Christian institutions in 1925 to be retroactive to 1868: “14th Amendment to US Constitution was ratified by South Carolina in July 1868. The US Supreme Court ruled that this amendment ended state support of religion in all US states in ruling of Gitlow v. New York, 1925” [The link within the quote is by the Blog Editor])

 

 

 

… (Religion in the Original 13 Colonies: ProCon.org; Last updated on 1/6/2009 7:26:00 AM PST)

 

I believe most of these states disestablished soon after the Constitution was ratified but was involved in some kind Church oriented support via organizations until the end date list above. In all cases it was the state legislature that ended Church Establishment and not SCOTUS. Primarily in the early 20th century SCOTUS began extra-constitutionally whittling away at the religious freedoms of the Christian Church influencing government on the local, state and federal level.

 

Here is an excerpted short scope on how SCOTUS evolved to acquire more power than intended by the Framers of the Constitution:

 

Marbury v. Madison, 1803

A law repugnant to the Constitution is void.”

 

With these words, Chief Justice John Marshall established the Supreme Court’s role in the new government. Hereafter, the Court was recognized as having the power to review all acts of Congress where constitutionality was at issue, and judge whether they abide by the Constitution.

 

 

Dred Scott v. Sandford, 1857

The Constitution does not consider slaves to be U.S. citizens. Rather, they are constitutionally protected property of their masters.”

 

Chief Justice Roger Taney authored this opinion— one of the most important and scorned in the nation’s history. Dred Scott, a slave, had moved with his master to Illinois, a free state. He moved again to a slave state, Missouri, and filed suit to gain freedom, under that state’s law of “Once free, always free.” Taney held that Scott had never been free at all, and cited Constitutional grounds for placing the slavery decision in the hands of the states. In trying to put an end to the slavery controversy, Taney instead sped the nation toward civil war. The decision was later overturned by the Thirteenth Amendment.

 

 

Roe v. Wade, 1973

The Constitutionally implied right to privacy protects a woman’s choice in matters of abortion.

 

Norma McCorvey sought an abortion in Texas, but was denied under state law. The Court struck down that law, on grounds that it unconstitutionally restricted the woman’s right to choose. The opinion set forth guidelines for state abortion regulations; states could restrict a woman’s right to choose only in the later stages of the pregnancy. Later modified but not overruled, the decision stands as one of the Court’s most controversial.

 

(Twenty-Five Landmark Cases in Supreme Court History; ConstitutionFacts.com)

 

Specific to throwing out Original Intent Disestablishmentarian Clause:

 

Everson v. Board of Education, 330 U.S. 1 (1947)

Court finds that a New Jersey law which included students of Catholic schools in reimbursements to parents who sent their children to school on buses operated by the public transportation system does not violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.

 

 

McCollum v. Board of Education Dist. 71, 333 U.S. 203 (1948)

Court finds religious instruction in public schools a violation of the establishment clause and therefore unconstitutional.

 

 

Engel v. Vitale, 82 S. Ct. 1261 (1962)

Any kind of prayer, composed by public school districts, even nondenominational prayer, is unconstitutional government sponsorship of religion.

 

Abington School District v. Schempp, 374 U.S. 203 (1963)

Court finds Bible reading over school intercom unconstitutional and Murray v. Curlett, 374 U.S. 203 (1963) – Court finds forcing a child to participate in Bible reading and prayer unconstitutional.

 

 

Lemon v. Kurtzman, 91 S. Ct. 2105 (1971)

Established the three part test for determining if an action of government violates First Amendment’s separation of church and state:

1) the government action must have a secular purpose;

2) its primary purpose must not be to inhibit or to advance religion;

3) there must be no excessive entanglement between government and religion.

 

Stone v. Graham, 449 U.S. 39 (1980)

Court finds posting of the Ten Commandments in schools unconstitutional.

 

Wallace v. Jaffree, 105 S. Ct. 2479 (1985)

State’s moment of silence at public school statute is unconstitutional where legislative record reveals that motivation for statute was the encouragement of prayer. Court majority silent on whether “pure” moment of silence scheme, with no bias in favor of prayer or any other mental process, would be constitutional.

 

Edwards v. Aquillard, 107 S. Ct. 2573 (1987) Unconstitutional for state to require teaching of “creation science” in all instances in which Uncons[titutional] evolution is taught. Statute had a clear religious motivation.

 

Allegheny County v. ACLU, 492 U.S. 573 (1989)

Court finds that a nativity scene displayed inside a government building violates the Establishment Clause.

 

Lee v. Weisman, 112 S. Ct. 2649 (1992)

Unconstitutional for a school district to provide any clergy to perform nondenominational prayer at elementary or secondary school graduation. It involves government sponsorship of worship. Court majority was particularly concerned about psychological coercion to which children, as opposed to adults, would be subjected, by having prayers that may violate their beliefs recited at their graduation ceremonies.

 

(U.S. Supreme Court Decisions (arranged by date); Secular Web – Internet Infidels)

 

I find it ironic that an atheistic group like the Secular Web provided the information I needed to demonstrate the manipulation by SCOTUS of the 1st Amendment Disestablishmentarian Clause away from the Founding Fathers’ Original Intent.

 

You have to realize that the Leftist transformation agenda implemented strongly by Obama would continue if Crooked Hillary is elected by either adoring Dem voters and/or duped anti-Trump voters. A Crooked Hillary Administration would certainly nominate more SCOTUS Justices that would adhere to the Living Constitution principles over Original Intent principles. It is the Living Constitution principles is what has allowed SCOTUS to successfully erode the U.S. Constitution as the Founding Fathers intended it as a tool of limited government by We The People as opposed to the ruling elites of the Establishment from both the Democratic Party and the Republican Party.

 

The elitist Establishment is very supportive of the globalist agenda of the United Nations. It is my humble opinion the Left of America and the globalist Left of the UN is using Islam as a tool to completely disenfranchise Christianity as the moral influence of the Western World. This is the reason the Multiculturalists of Europe, the American Left and the UN is hot to encourage Muslim migration to Western nations. The Leftist gamble to use Islam as a tool is dangerous to the point of idiocy.

 

The purists of Islam – often called Radical Islam by blind PC Westerners – have their own agenda. These adherents of the literal wording of the Quran, Hadith and Sira desire to establish a global Caliphate under the submission principles of Sharia Law. There is no room for Western Liberty or the U.S. Bill of Rights in Islam. Western principles of Liberty and the rule of Law are absolutely contrary to Islamic principles of submission. By the way, the Arab to English of Islam is peace is a lie. The phrase is better rendered Islam is submission is the more accurate translation.

 

So when I read that the UN is giving special privileges to Islamic worshippers over Christian worshipper (as well as excluding other non-Muslim religions), it chaps my hide a bit.

 

In case you don’t follow the duplicitous hypocrisy of the United Nations, that world body has elevated “radical” Muslims to high positions. Notoriously Saudi citizens are on the United Nations’ Human Rights Council (UNHRC) in leadership positions.

 

And more recently I discovered from Eagle Rising that the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC). Evidently UN globalism is dictating to sovereign nations how they teach Christianity to children in private and public schools. In this report on the UNCRC is saying children experiencing compulsory Christian rituals is violating their freedom of conscience:

 

… the CRC said that demanding that children engage in daily acts of Christian worship at school may go against their “freedom of thought, conscience and religion.”

 

 

“The Committee is concerned that pupils are required by law to take part in a daily religious worship which is ‘wholly or mainly of a broadly Christian character’ in publicly funded schools in England and Wales, and that children do not have the right to withdraw from such worship without parental permission before entering the sixth form,”

 

Here’s the full article.

 

JRH 7/4/16

Please Support NCCR

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

The United Nations Said Teaching Christianity to Kids is Wrong for This Reason

United-Nations- logo 

By Tim Brown

July 1, 2016

Eagle Rising

 

Here is just another in a long line of examples of why the United States needs to not only defund the United Nations, but remove ourselves from it and the organization from our soil. In a recent paper put out by the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child (CRC), the CRC said that demanding that children engage in daily acts of Christian worship at school may go against their “freedom of thought, conscience and religion.”

 

The Telegraph reports:

 

Britain must stop forcing children to attend Christian school assemblies because it undermines their human rights, a United Nations committee has said in a controversial new report.

 

The authors called on ministers to repeal a law demanding a daily act of Christian worship at schools because it may contradict a child’s “freedom of thought, conscience and religion”.

 

The report was produced by an 18-person group of “independent experts” of “high moral character” including representatives from Bahrain, Russia and Egypt.

 

Critics dubbed the demand “ludicrous” and said the government should responded by “respectfully” putting the report “in the bin”.

 

It was just one of 150 recommendations about where Britain could be contravening the UN Charter on the Rights of the Child.

 

“The Committee is concerned that pupils are required by law to take part in a daily religious worship which is ‘wholly or mainly of a broadly Christian character’ in publicly funded schools in England and Wales, and that children do not have the right to withdraw from such worship without parental permission before entering the sixth form,” reads a portion of the report.

 

Surely, Oliver Cromwell is rolling over in his grave as he was one who defended Protestant Britain from King Charles’ tyranny and treason.

 

“The Committee recommends that the State party repeal legal provisions for compulsory attendance at collective worship in publicly funded schools and ensure that children can independently exercise the right to withdraw from religious worship at school,” the report added.

 

Britons called the report “ludicrous” and “mad.”

 

“The collective act of worship is not an indoctrination exercise,” Parliament Minister David Burrowes told The Telegraph. “It is recognizing and respecting the Christian heritage of the country and giving people an opportunity to reflect before the beginning of the day. The UN should spend more time doing its main job of preventing war and genocide rather than poking its nose in other countries’ classrooms. We can respectfully put those kind of reports in the bin where they belong.”

 

However, some in the UK were all too happy with the report, namely anti-theists.

 

The British Humanist Association Director Pavan Dhaliwal said, “The UK state fails its young people in far too many ways today. Almost uniquely among economically developed countries, it segregates them in schools along religious lines. We are pleased to see the UN agree with us that UK law needs to change.”

 

So, parents have been sending their kids to school knowing full well that this has been going on, but don’t have a problem with it because they hold to Christianity, right? On what authority does the UN act to even recommend interfering or giving advice or counsel to anyone regarding children, Christianity, education or parenting? They just simply are attempting to usurp authority.

 

Parents have a duty before God, apart from any law being enforced on them, to train up their children and teach them the Law of God. They should be doing this at home, in my opinion. I have constantly encouraged parents to take advantage of free homeschool curriculum and remove their children from public indoctrination centers. While I agree that if there is going to be schooling like in Britain that having the Bible taught and expounded upon is a good thing, I do not agree that it somehow violates a child’s human rights. In fact, leaving a child without a worldview based on the teachings of the Bible leaves them open for all sorts of faulty thinking, much like those of the British Humanist Association. They forget that true liberty only exists under the Lawgiver, and that only tyranny exists apart from Him.

 

Reposted With Permission From Freedom Outpost.

 

The views expressed in this opinion article are solely those of their author and are not necessarily either shared or endorsed by EagleRising.com

______________________

Disestablishmentarianism, Constitution, SCOTUS & UN

John R. Houk

© July 4, 2016

____________________

The United Nations Said Teaching Christianity to Kids is Wrong for This Reason

 

About Tim Brown

 

Tim Brown is an author and Editor at FreedomOutpost.com, husband to his wife, father of 10, jack of all trades, Christian and lover of liberty. He resides in the U.S. occupied Great State of South Carolina. Tim is also an affiliate for the brand new Joshua Mark 5 AR/AK hybrid semi-automatic rifle.

 

Copyright © 2016. EagleRising.com is a member of Liberty Alliance. All rights reserved. 

 

About Eagle Rising

 

Eagle Rising seeks to share breaking news about culture, media, politics, etc., from a Christian perspective.

 

Eagle Rising is a division of Bravera Holdings, LLC. Founded in 2013 by Gary DeMar and Brandon Vallorani.

 

READ THE REST

 

Looking at Nilsson Comment to Army Vet Threatened by Muslims


John R. Houk

© April 10, 2016

 

Robert Nilsson posted this as a comment to “Muslims Threaten an Army Vet in Minnesota”:

 

Did you see this?
https://youtu.be/ra45nX9JmW4

 

VIDEO: ‘Sharia Patrols’ Harassing Citizens in London, Belgium, Sweden

 

 

Posted by LthlWepon

Published on Mar 21, 2015

 

And this was my thoughts on this video:

 

The Sharia being forced upon British citizens MUST NOT be allowed to take root in America. If those Sharia patrols emerge on American soil, then those forcing Sharia need to be arrested for breaking the Free Speech and Religious Freedom portions of the First Amendment. OTHERWISE American vigilantism will arise again in America to beat down this multicultural lunacy.

 

I don’t know about you, this irritated me enough to make it a standalone post.

 

JRH 4/10/16

Please Support NCCR