Pro-Life Rights & SOPRA


Jim Bridenstine

John R. Houk

© August 4, 2016

 

Rep. Jim Bridenstine (R) was elected to Congress in 2012 by first defeating the GOP incumbent in the Primary then winning the seat to the 1st Congressional District of Oklahoma in the November 2012 vote. He came in as a Tea Party candidate supporting less government and less taxes. He is my Congressional Representative.

 

I set this up because I received an email update that highlights two very bills that I suspect if it makes the Leftist-in-Chief’s desk they will be vetoed. At any rate they still represent the civil rights of Pro-Life medical professionals and the other bill more specifically defines what each branch of government can and cannot do pre-empting bureaucratic rules as laws that are not enacted by Congress,

 

Rep. Bridenstine first highlights the Conscience Protection Act which enables a medical professional or hospital to NOT be forced to perform abortions if it violates their conscience. This would not only undercut Obama’s Executive Orders that instruct the Obama Administration bureaucrats to force otherwise BUT ALSO prevent a State apparatus under the thumb of Leftists from forcing conscience violations.

 

The next Congressional Rep. Bridenstine looks at is Separation of Powers Restoration Act. SCOTUS is case law oriented more than interpreting the Constitution with Original Intent standards. The result has led to the slow watering down of the intended Liberties and Rights of the U.S. Constitution, the Bill of Rights and Amendments ratified after the Bill of Rights. Thus the unconstitutional doctrine of the Living Constitution has superseded Original Intent that has led to Executive Branch superiority in a system in which Legislative, Executive and Judicial branches were originally arranged as separate but equal with a concept of Checks and Balances institutionalized in the Constitution.

 

The Separation of Powers Act (SOPRA) is specifically designed to reverse the course of Federal Bureaucratic Agencies from turning regulations into the force of law without action from Congress. SOPRA would eliminate the case law that established the Chevron Deference (1984) standards in which Courts would uphold bureaucratic regulatory interpretation of legislation as the force of law.

 

The Bridenstine email below is editorially focused on the two Acts mentioned above. The Congressman addresses other issues as well but these two piqued my interest.

 

Of SOPRA Interest

 

“YES” ON SEPARATION OF POWERS RESTORATION ACT (H.R. 4768); Heritage Action for America; 6/22/16

 

FreedomWorks Applauds Passage of the Separation of Powers Restoration Act; Freedom Works; 7/12/16

 

H.R.4768: Separation of Powers Restoration Act of 2016; ProjectsProPublica.org

 

How To Fight The Fourth Branch Of Government; Economics21.org; 7/19/16

 

Who Will Regulate the Regulators? Administrative Agencies, the Separation of Powers, and Chevron Deference; Heritage.org; 5/2015

 

JRH 8.4/16

Please Support NCCR

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

Protecting Those Who Refuse To Perform Abortions

Conscience Protection Act - Bridenstine 

By Jim Bridenstine

Sent 8/3/2016 5:02 PM

 

The House recently passed landmark pro-life legislation to stop abortion coercion. The Conscience Protection Act prohibits government from penalizing or retaliating against any health care provider who refuses to participate in abortion activities, or insurers who refuse to provide coverage. The bill also creates a right to sue for anybody forced to violate their consciences on abortion.

I believe that abortion takes the life of an unborn child and harms women. Even if some disagree with that, we can all agree that government should respect everyone’s freedom to NOT participate in abortions. Government should not require hospitals, doctors, nurses and insurances plans to carry out, assist in, or pay for abortions. The Conscience Protection Act enhances important protections against abortion coercion. The Senate should waste no time in getting this bill to the President’s desk.

Federal law has protected conscience rights on abortion since the 1970s across the private sector.  In 2005, the “Weldon Amendment” expanded these rights to cover institutions receiving government funds. Now, state and local governments, including California and New York, are increasingly threatening to withhold funding to coerce insurers to provide abortion coverage and pro-life hospitals, doctors, and nurses to participate in abortion activities.

When government engages in abortion coercion, the only available remedy is filing complaints to the Department of Health and Human Services. Predictably, HHS has slow-rolled its response. That’s why the Conscience Protection Act is so important: the pro-life community needs standing to sue, not more paperwork to fill out.

 

VIDEO: Conscience Protection Act

 

 

Posted by Congressman Jim Bridenstine

Published on Jul 14, 2016

 

Today, the House passed landmark pro-life legislation to stop abortion coercion. The Conscience Protection Act prohibits government from penalizing or retaliating against any health care provider who refuses to participate in abortion activities, or insurers who refuse to provide coverage. The bill also creates a right to sue for anybody forced to violate their consciences on abortion. – Read More at: http://bridenstine.house.gov/blog/?postid=741

 

+++

VIDEO: Seperation [sic] of Powers Act

 

 

 

Posted by Congressman Jim Bridenstine

Published on Aug 3, 2016

 

Recently, the House passed the Separation of Powers Restoration Act (SOPRA), a bill that aims to take back Congress’s legislative power. President Obama has consistently used bureaucratic rules and regulations to bypass Congress and implement his liberal agenda.

The Separation of Powers Restoration Act is a good step towards reining in the executive branch’s ability to essentially create laws through regulations, however, more must be done. Congress must use the power of the purse to defund harmful rules and regulations when the executive branch steps outside its Constitutional authority.

_______________

Pro-Life Rights & SOPRA

John R. Houk

© August 4, 2016

__________________

Protecting Those Who Refuse To Perform Abortions

 

About Rep. Jim Bridenstine

 

 

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

 

Obama’s Path to Perdition


Obamanation 2016 - Save Children

Intro to Justin Smith’s ‘Obama’s Path to Perdition

Edited by John R. Houk

June 2, 2016

 

The Leftist elite, major corporations devoted to the concept of Multicultural Diversity and most of the Mainstream Media (MSM) that they are ramming ungodly transgenderism down the throat of Americans that still express Biblical Christianity as normative rather than aberrant. The thing is Americans have been brainwashed for about fifty years to accept ungodliness as a normalized Rights issue. We Christians do not recognize something that is an ungodly choice as a Civil Right. Unalienable Rights are those that can be traced to the Creator of the heavens, the earth and all that exists.

 

I do realize that choose not to recognize the existence of God Almighty. That Right to choose is the unalienable Right not the choice itself. “Choice” is the Right, not what is chosen – unless what is chosen is godliness. It is a Right to choose ungodliness. Adam was given the inherent Right of Choice when God commanded him NOT to eat of the fruit of the knowledge of good and evil. Adam and Eve were deceived into believing a lie above God’s Command. BUT the choice is a free will act guaranteed by God. When freely chooses darkness over God’s Light there is a penalty that must be paid:

 

Genesis 1:1; 2:7, 9, 15-18

 

In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.

 

Chapter 2

 

And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being.

 

And out of the ground the Lord God made every tree grow that is pleasant to the sight and good for food. The tree of life was also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.

 

15 Then the Lord God took the man and put him in the garden of Eden to tend and keep it. 16 And the Lord God commanded the man, saying, “Of every tree of the garden you may freely eat; 17 but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die.”

 

18 And the Lord God said, “It is not good that man should be alone; I will make him a helper comparable to him.” (NKJV)

 

THE LIE and THE PENALTY Chapter 3

 

Genesis 3:1, 4-7, 9-13, 16-19

 

Now the serpent was more cunning than any beast of the field which the Lord God had made. And he said to the woman, “Has God indeed said, ‘You shall not eat of every tree of the garden’?”

 

Then the serpent said to the woman, “You will not surely die. For God knows that in the day you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.”

 

So when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree desirable to make one wise, she took of its fruit and ate. She also gave to her husband with her, and he ate.Then the eyes of both of them were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together and made themselves coverings.

 

Then the Lord God called to Adam and said to him, “Where are you?”

 

10 So he said, “I heard Your voice in the garden, and I was afraid because I was naked; and I hid myself.”

 

11 And He said, “Who told you that you were naked? Have you eaten from the tree of which I commanded you that you should not eat?”

 

12 Then the man said, “The woman whom You gave to be with me, she gave me of the tree, and I ate.”

 

13 And the Lord God said to the woman, “What is this you have done?”

The woman said, “The serpent deceived me, and I ate.”

 

16 To the woman He said:

 

“I will greatly multiply your sorrow and your conception;
In pain you shall bring forth children;
Your desire shall be for your husband,
And he shall rule over you.”

 

17 Then to Adam He said, “Because you have heeded the voice of your wife, and have eaten from the tree of which I commanded you, saying, ‘You shall not eat of it’:

 

“Cursed is the ground for your sake;
In toil you shall eat of it
All the days of your life.
18 Both thorns and thistles it shall bring forth for you,
And you shall eat the herb of the field.
19 In the sweat of your face you shall eat bread
Till you return to the ground,
For out of it you were taken;
For dust you are,
And to dust you shall return.” (NKJV)

 

God said the penalty was death. Did Adam and Eve physically die? No. Does that make God a liar? No. Death in the account of creation is separation from God’s Presence rather than physical death. When God asked, “Where are you?” It was not because the Almighty did not know their location. Rather it was because Adam and Eve died by separation from God’s Presence. Adam’s free will choice of darkness over Light led to his AND Adam’s future descendants’ separation from God’s Presence.

 

Romans 5:12, 15-19

 

12 Therefore, just as through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men, because all sinned—

 

15 But the free gift is not like the offense. For if by the one man’s offense many died, much more the grace of God and the gift by the grace of the one Man, Jesus Christ, abounded to many. 16 And the gift is not like that which came through the one who sinned. For the judgment which came from one offense resulted in condemnation, but the free gift which came from many offenses resulted in justification. 17 For if by the one man’s offense death reigned through the one, much more those who receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness will reign in life through the One, Jesus Christ.)

 

18 Therefore, as through one man’s offense judgment came to all men, resulting in condemnation, even so through one Man’s righteous act the free gift came to all men, resulting in justification of life. 19 For as by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners, so also by one Man’s obedience many will be made righteous. (NKJV)

 

Only choosing Life in Christ restores Humanity to God’s Presence. Transgenderism is choosing to live in Adam’s bad choice of believing lie rather than the Truth of the Creator.

 

If you are a Biblical Christian at least in your belief system, then being told by humanity to accept ungodly lifestyles should rub you the wrong way. THAT is what the Obama Administration is telling you to do! Obama’s Administration, the Leftist Elite, Multiculturalist corporations and the MSM are telling YOU – a believing Biblical Christian – that you must be a bigot for choosing God’s Values over Humanistic Multiculturalist values.

 

Justin Smith addresses how the Obama Administration is forsaking the U.S. Constitution by telling each individual State and individual citizens to believe the Obama darkness way rather than God’s way or face the unrelenting power of the American Executive Branch. THAT is UNCONSTITUTIONAL, UNGODLY and WRONG!

Keep locker rooms safe

JRH 6/2/16

Please Support NCCR

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

Obama’s Path to Perdition

A Far Left Delusion

 

By Justin O. Smith

Sent: 5/31/2016 10:31 AM

 

Pursuing a path to perdition in the service of the radical homosexual agenda and on a civil rights pretext, President Obama would have us believe that all Americans, men and women alike, do not have the same rights under the U.S. Constitution, the Civil Rights Act, Title VII and Title IX. His May 13th “guidance letter” to the States, regarding transgender people’s use of the bathroom, violates the rights of women and girls, who do not want to be forced to use the restrooms alongside sexually deviant, confused and delusional men wanting to be women. He is conferring rights that do not exist upon the transgendered, granting privilege above all and superseding the rights of Americans, who object to this sexually aberrant behavior being granted “entitlement” status as a matter of one’s sense of common decency and religious conscience.

 

Lawsuits and counter-lawsuits are now flying, since the Department of Justice civil rights lawyer Vanita Gupta [Pertaining to NC HB2], Attorney General Loretta Lynch and the Obama administration have sued North Carolina for enacting HB2, which they describe as “facially discriminating against transgender employees.” On May 4th, fifty-one families (Students and Parents for Privacy) filed a lawsuit against the Department of Education, the Justice Dept., AG Lynch and School District 211 in Illinois, in order to stop school officials from “forcing 14 to 17 year old girls to use locker rooms and restrooms with biological males.” And on May 25th, Tennessee joined ten other states in a Texas led suit that defends North Carolina and the States’ Rights to set restroom guidelines without federal interference; at the very least, they want such matters decided by Congress, as the Founders intended, rather than by a despot’s decree aimed at “fundamentally transforming” American culture.

 

AG Lynch compared North Carolina’s HB2 to policies of racial segregation and efforts to deny homosexual couples the “right” to marry in typical illogical and incoherent fashion. She was wrong on multiple levels.

 

Separate bathrooms for men and women are moral and rational, but separate bathrooms for races are not, because one race’s nature is not inherently different from another race’s nature. The same is not true of males and females, who are inherently different from one another, and laws that recognize only sexually complementary unions as marriages are based on the true belief that men and women are different by nature, a truth that even homosexuals recognize.

 

Even though the guidance letter doesn’t change existing law, it does coerce and threaten to withhold federal funds from all States refusing to comply. Education Secretary John King also explained that once a student’s parents notify a school district that the student identifies differently from their birth records, they must be given equal access, even if it makes others uncomfortable.

 

Rodney Cavness, Port Neches-Grove Superintendent of Schools in Texas, said (FoxNews), “When I get that letter, I’ll throw it away.”

 

Title IX reads in part: “… to eliminate discrimination on the basis of sex … A recipient [of federal funds] may provide separate toilet, locker room, and shower facilities on the basis of sex, but such facilities for … one sex shall be comparable to such facilities provided for … the other sex.”

 

Focusing on the Far Left’s delusional thinking, Laurie Higgins noted on May 7th, that the lawsuit filed by the Alliance Defending Freedom and the Thomas More Society, against School District 211, was sparked by a boy’s demand for unrestricted access to change clothes and go to the restroom with only girls, denying actual girls the right to change clothes and go to the restroom with only girls. Higgins countered ACLU spokesman Ed Yohnka’s angry words “that they don’t even fundamentally acknowledge our client is a girl,” with a comic and fiery retort of her own: “I regret being so graphic, but Yohnka’s idiotic statement makes it necessary: Girls don’t have penises.”

 

At high noon on May 13th, Alabama Attorney General Luther Strange stated:

 

“School bathroom use is an issue that should be decided by parents, teachers and principals — not federal bureaucrats. The DOJ guidance document is also wrong on the law. Title IX allows schools to have separate facilities for separate sexes. The law says ‘sex’, not ‘gender identity’.”

 

Never failing to support Leftist lunacy, the New York Times quoted the one lone girl they could find, 14-year-old Valerie Martinez from Los Angeles, who said, “I’m totally fine with it — it’s who they are.”

 

Certainly there are hundreds of thousands, even millions, of students who are not comfortable sharing restrooms and locker rooms with an opposite-sex transgender student. If “gender-dysphoric” [Secular Humanist – “Gender Dysphoria Symptoms”; Christian Perspective – “Dr. Mark Yarhouse’s Transgenderized Christianity” and “Gender ideology harms children” (very clinical but very Christian Ministry of Parakaleo)] students have the “right” to use the restroom with only those whose gender identity they share, then certainly “non-gender-dysphoric” students have the right to privacy and must be allowed to use the restrooms with only those whose sex they share.

 

In Marion County, Florida, the schools are embroiled in a similar civil rights complaint by the ACLU, but one board member, Nancy Stacy, who believes sex is determined by anatomy and chromosomes, put the matter in proper perspective, when she stated: “It’s easy. Every student that comes to school says ‘I’m Cinderella’ — should we give them a carriage to ride around in?”

 

Texas Lt Governor Dan Patrick angrily stated on May 13th: “Parents are not going to send their 14-year old daughters into the shower or bathroom with 14-year old boys. It’s not going to happen … ” (and he has since stated) … “We will not be blackmailed by the president’s 30 pieces of silver.” He also says that Texas is prepared to forfeit billions of dollars rather than let Obama dictate bathroom policy for their five million students. Hopefully, a majority of the States will follow Dan Patrick’s lead.

 

Americans must not allow Obama, the ACLU and sexual deviants to dictate conscience on this matter, denying our unalienable rights and undermining those principles which are the bedrock of freedom and individual rights. We must stop the Dept. of Education from creating an intimidating and hostile environment for our children, and we must protect our children from Obama’s unlawful interpretation of Title IX that shreds their dignity and robs them of their privacy and innocence. Ultimately, we must reject the Far Left LGBT/homoerotic and ACLU vision of a social destiny where every form of sexually aberrant behavior is defined as a personal entitlement.

 

By Justin O Smith

_________________________

Blog Editor: Further Reading (Because the major search engines support Multiculturalism)

 

Black Pastors Say Unequivocally – ‘Transgender Agenda is not Civil Rights’; Christian Action League; 5/27/16

 

Target, Transgenderism, and Transformation; Accuracy in Media; 5/16/16

 

Putting the brakes on ‘fundamental transformation’; One News Now; 5/26/16

 

Feds Bully North Carolina, Cite Inapplicable Laws; Fulcrum7; 5/5/16

 

Parents Sue Obama Over Illinois School’s Pro-Transgender Bathroom Rules; Breitbart.com; 5/5/16

 

______________________

Edited by John R. Houk

All links or text enclosed by brackets are by the Editor.

 

© Justin O. Smith

 

Homosexual Agenda Not Synonymous With Civil Rights For Blacks


Gay Agenda Attack Plan Results

 

Intro to ‘Homosexual Agenda Not Synonymous With Civil Rights For Blacks

Edited by John R. Houk

Essay by Mychal Massie

May 13, 2016

 

As a Christian Right kind of guy I usually condemn homosexuality and same-sex marriage as a Biblical ungodly act. God’s Word settles that for me regardless of how many Leftists, Multiculturalists and homosexual activists call me a bigot.

 

Leviticus 18:22New King James Version (NKJV)

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

 

Leviticus 20:13New King James Version (NKJV)

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 1:26-27New King James Version (NKJV)

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.

 

1 Corinthians 6:9New King James Version (NKJV)

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,

 

1 Timothy 1:9-10New King James Version (NKJV)

knowing this: that the law is not made for a righteous person, but for the lawless and insubordinate, for the ungodly and for sinners, for the unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers, 10 for fornicators, for sodomites, for kidnappers, for liars, for perjurers, and if there is any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine, (Leviticus 18: 22; 20: 13; Romans 1: 26-27; 1 Corinthians 6: 9; 1 Timothy 1: 9-10 NKJV – h/t Homosexuality is Condemned in the Bible!)

 

Like I said, the Word of God works for me.

 

Thanks to Donald Moore of the Blind Conservative private group, I found a fantastic essay that goes beyond the Word of God. Mychal Massie analyzes the Civil Rights Act showing how he disagrees with homosexual activists that the Constitution AND the Civil Rights Act guarantees civil rights for homosexuals (a lifestyle choice not biology). The Civil Rights Act secures equal rights for American citizens of women, creed, race and/or religion.

 

JRH 5/13/16

Please Support NCCR

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

Homosexual Agenda Not Synonymous With Civil Rights For Blacks

Civil Rights Movement banner 

By Mychal Massie

May 12, 2016

The Daily Rant

 

The following is my [i.e. Mychal Massie] syndicated column dated June 5, 2013. I present it again as a favor to a subscriber. It is also a reminder that the battle is ongoing.
**************************

 

Homosexuals try to pawn their perceived struggle for complete and total acceptance of their chosen lifestyle as being synonymous with what blacks went through to achieve civil rights. But their attempts to equate their radical agenda with discrimination as defined in The Civil Rights Act of 1964 is blatantly false and without merit.

 

Blacks were prevented based on the color of their skin alone in many domiciles because of prejudice and by codification of segregation, to vote, to purchase property where they chose, eat wherever they desired, attend events, ad nauseum.

 

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 specifically defines the act as same. It reads:

“An Act: To enforce the constitutional right to vote, to confer jurisdiction upon the district courts of the United States to provide injunctive relief against discrimination in public accommodations, to authorize the Attorney General to institute suits to protect constitutional rights in public facilities and public education, to extend the Commission on Civil Rights, to prevent discrimination in federally assisted programs, to establish a Commission on Equal Employment Opportunity, and for other purposes.”

 

The Act was intended to put “teeth,” if you will, into the 14th Amendment.

 

Homosexual activists are dishonest when they attempt to convince the public that rejection of homosexual marriage is tantamount to the culture of apartheid that opposed interracial dating and marriage. It is not.

 

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 was intended to end, prevent, and address discrimination – discrimination against men and women regardless of their race and/or color.

 

While discrimination based on sexual preference is not specifically mentioned, I believe it is logically included in the Act. A woman cannot be discriminated against because she has a dating preference for gargantuanly obese men. A person cannot be discriminated against because they have an attraction to short people. A person’s choice of sexual interest as long as it is legal is protected, and it should be.

 

But I believe and argue that the Act is an appliance that guards against discrimination, its [sic] not to be used as cover for a malicious agenda that prescribes the redefining of our social construct. Christian organizations must hire homosexuals and I find that fair (after all what better place for those in need of Christ). But being employed by a Christian organization doesn’t give the employee the constitutional right to change the policies and dogma of said employer. The employee had a choice to seek employment elsewhere.

 

There are logical exceptions. A morbidly obese person cannot favorably present the image of certain companies, but a person’s color does not affect same (allowing the employer isn’t the Ku Klux Klan). A church has the right to have strict, inflexible standards for ordination and for licensing of their clergy.

 

Homosexuals argue they are denied certain other entitlements that everyone else enjoys, and they cite the inability to make life and death decisions for those they co-habit with, etc. This too is a specious and fallacious argument. Heterosexuals co-habiting outside the bonds of marriage do not have the right to make such decisions either.

 

That is why responsible people living outside the bonds of marriage make living wills. They take responsible measures to ensure their wishes are carried out and to allow for the person of their choice to make decisions for them in the event of one or the other becoming unable to make the decision for themselves.

 

Two men can purchase a property together; they can get health insurance and life insurance policies naming one another as beneficiaries, and so on. Their sexual preference doesn’t matter. Their ability to repay a mortgage, etc., isn’t affected by their sexual preference any more than that of heterosexuals.

 

I could go on, but suffice it to say the homosexual agenda isn’t about civil rights; it is about their desire to change the social construct by redefining marriage and family.

 

Legislating an employment and social environment that codifies the ability of an employee to present themselves in ways that are detrimental to the welfare and health of the company is ludicrous. I speak specifically of cross-dressing and exhibiting inappropriate behavior.

 

It is maddening that a person can be discriminated against pursuant to employment and home renting because they smoke cigarettes. But nothing is said to address the fact that the Centers for Disease Control paint a horrifyingly high incidence for deadly disease with respect to the practice of homosexuality – including a staggeringly high rate of breast cancer incidences among lesbian women juxtaposed to heterosexual women.

 

According to the Centers for Disease Control report on HIV incidence, men who have sex with men accounted for 63 percent of the estimated new HIV infections in 2010. That rate means that as 1-4 percent total of the population they’re as much as 86 times more likely to be diagnosed with HIV. Women with a history of sex with women may be a marker for increased risk of adverse sexual, reproductive, and general health outcomes compared with women who reported sex exclusively with men. (American Journal of Public Health; ajph.aphapublications.org/cgi/content/abstract/97/6/1126)

 

I would submit it makes more sense for homosexual activists to tell people to flea [sic] the practice than it does to claim they are being denied civil rights.

_____________________

About Mychal Massie

 

Mychal S. Massie is an ordained minister who spent 13 years in full-time Christian Ministry. Today he serves as founder and Chairman of the Racial Policy Center (RPC), a think tank he officially founded in September 2015. RPC advocates for a colorblind society. He was founder and president of the non-profit “In His Name Ministries.” He is the former National Chairman of the conservative black think tank, Project 21-The National Leadership Network of Black Conservatives and a former member of its parent think tank, the National Center for Public Policy Research. … Read the entire Bio here

 

The Daily Rant – A Mychal S. Massie Publication

 

Support Link for The Daily Rant 2016

 

One Liberal Justice Away


Dem Ass gun to American Uncle Sam

Justin Smith writes of the dangers to America’s Constitutional Republic as created by our Founding Fathers, if Obama successfully places another Left Wing Activist Justice on the Supreme Court. This is an awesome Editorial!

 

JRH 3/10/16

Please Support NCCR

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

One Liberal Justice Away

 

By Justin O. Smith

Sent: 3/10/2016 12:00 PM

 

Scarcely any political question arises in the United States that is not resolved, sooner or later, into a judicial question.”  – Alexis de Tocqueville, 1835

 

So much more than the Office of the U.S. President is at stake in the November election. The direction of a partisan U.S. Supreme Court is also a consideration, since the next president will quite likely select two or three of the next Justices; and if the Progressive Democrats and their unconstitutional and anti-constitution agenda control the Court, the future for our children will be damaged and liberty in America will be in grave danger.

 

Too many Justices from years past to the present have abandoned objective reason and impartial arbitration concerning our fundamental law, and they have consistently produced rulings that were distorted by their own personal feelings and prejudices, especially in cases seen as representing some aspect of “social justice.” This has resulted in the Supreme Court overstepping its own Constitutional authority by creating new de facto law through its rulings. And, when the Justices of the U.S. Supreme Court cannot read the same law in the same way on the same day from the same Constitution and U.S. legal code, splitting along party lines in almost every case, we no longer have a court of law — we have an elitist body politic.

 

For thirty years, Justice Antonin Scalia opposed the judicial activists of the Supreme Court, until his death in February. He rigorously defended the U.S. Constitution in all areas, irrespective of the issue. His strong adherence to the fundamental law of the Constitution stood in stark contrast to those who viewed the Constitution as an infinitely malleable “living document”, and he opposed all who attempted to turn the latest left wing fads into the law of the land.

 

In past years, Democrats have called on Supreme Court nominees to accept Roe v. Wade as a super-precedent more fundamental than the Constitution itself. But in a 2009 interview, Scalia suggested that state constitutional amendments may take precedence to prevent abortions, effectively overruling Roe v. Wade; he also noted that nothing in the Constitution, especially in light of the 9th and 10th Amendments, specifically delegates the power to fund abortions to the federal government. So under what constitutional authority does the federal government mandate abortion policies over the states?

 

To paraphrase Senator Ted Cruz, America is one liberal justice away from having Her religious liberties erased and from the Supreme Court forcing us to violate our religious conscience upon pain of a fine or imprisonment. America is one liberal justice away from open abortion on demand — one liberal justice away from the Ten Commandments being erased from the countryside and from every government building wherever they are found — one liberal justice away from our Second Amendment being eradicated and one liberal justice away from U.S. law becoming subservient to The Hague and international law. [Bold Italic emphasis is Blog Editor’s]

 

Under the Leftist agenda, homosexual “marriage” is sanctioned by unelected judges, the innocent unborn can be murdered, gun ownership is only for the government, healthcare penalties to coerce behavior are taxes, religious liberty only protects private belief and the president can rewrite U.S. law at will.

 

In this political environment, the Republicans are well within their rights to reject all of Obama’s nominations to the Supreme Court, since Obama treats jurisprudence as a weapon of political warfare. In 2006 and well before the midterm elections, Obama, then a Senator, filibustered Justice Samuel Alito and demanded a 60-vote threshold; and, since his election in 2008, Obama has brazenly abused executive power and ignored Congress, in his race to embed his hard-left agenda within our American culture and force a fundamental transformation away from our Founding Principles.

 

Let’s not forget that then-Senators John Kerry, Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden and 21 colleagues joined Obama against Alito. Let’s not forget Obama’s explanation that the Constitution requires “an examination of a judge’s philosophy, ideology and record”, as he criticized Alito as “somebody who is contrary to core American values.”

 

Nobody is more “contrary to core American values” than Justice Elena Kagan, an Obama nominee, who advocated for the acceptance of the integration of some aspects of Sharia law into the U.S. jurisprudence in 2006 when she was the Dean of the Harvard School of Law.

 

Does anyone really believe that Justice Sotomayor exemplifies “core American values”?

 

The Democrats are two-faced, when it concerns the Supreme Court, they fight dirty and they fight for keeps. They have two standards for judicial appointments – one for themselves and another for Republicans, but now they are crying “foul.”

 

So what if the Democrat controlled Senate under Pres. Ronald Reagan confirmed Justice Anthony Kennedy on February 3,1988? They only did so after excoriating and brutally impugning the honorable reputations of Robert Bork and Douglas Ginsburg.

 

Obsessed with identity politics and social justice, make no mistake, the brawlers in the Democratic Party, such as Senators Schumer and Reid, would be blocking Republican nominations, if the situation was reversed. In fact, they did filibuster one of Bush’s federal court nominees, Miguel Estrada, in 2003, simply because they thought he might make it to the Supreme Court one day. And more significantly, Obama voted against John Robert’s nomination because of Robert’s “overarching political philosophy.”

 

It is also worth noting that despite the Democrats’ insistence that Justice Scalia’s seat must be filled quickly, the Court is designed to function with very few Justices, if necessary, and it has throughout history. In 1789 there were only six Justices, but a quorum of four was required to do the Court’s business. In 1801 there were five Justices; ten existed in 1863 and Court held seven in 1866: There is no such thing as a rule of nine.

 

Think of all the narrow 5-4 decisions in recent history that upheld fundamental rights such as religious liberty, freedom of speech and the Second Amendment, and one will see this 2016 election to be an historic juncture of the utmost importance to America. Therefore, U.S. Senators have the obligation to the American people to prevent the confirmation of any liberal justice to the U.S. Supreme Court, who would use the Court like a continuing constitutional convention. They are obligated to defend the U.S. Constitution against all who would dismiss our rule of law in favor of their own arbitrary, arrogant and authoritarian rule of men, and this requires U.S. Senators to reject any of Obama’s radical judicial activists for a lifetime on the Supreme Court: Senators have the duty to advise and consent, not to say “yes.”

 

By Justin O. Smith

____________________________

Edited by John R. Houk

Text embraced by brackets are the Editor’s.

 

© Justin O. Smith

 

 

The Totalitarian Blueprint: William J. Murray’s New Book Documents the Horrors Unleashed by Utopian Dreamers


Utopian Road to Hell bk jk

To my readers: I have been overcoming a horrible cold which is still lingers but is thankfully departing. Ergo I am a bit behind in my daily blog studying and posting. In an effort to reboot my posting let me share an interesting book plug email I received from WND today.

 

WND Books is plugging “Utopian Road to Hell: Enslaving America and the World with Central Planning” By William J. Murray, son of former atheist apologist Madalyn Murray O’Hair. O’Hare is the gal responsible for contributing to the Left Wing transformationist agenda of removing Christianity from America’s public forum in which the Supreme Court found a case to reinterpret the Original Intent of the First Amendment.

 

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 – U.S. Constitution; FindLaw.com)

 

Atheists like Madalyn Murray O’Hair convinced a majority of Living Constitution-believing Justices that “… make no law respecting an establishment of religion” meant a government/public forum separate and without religion. Incidentally, “religion” as understood by the Founding Fathers meant “Christianity”. The word “separate” or “separation” is NO Where found in the U.S. Constitution in relation to faith.

 

Phrasing was originally and should be now, the People shall not have the government impose a religion (specifically – establish a State Church) but the People shall be free to exercise their faith in private OR public as in and on the auspices of government.

 

Consider this my intro to the WND Books plug for William J. Murray’s book “Utopian Road to Hell: Enslaving America and the World with Central Planning”.

 

JRH 3/7/16

Please Support NCCR

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

The Totalitarian Blueprint: William J. Murray’s New Book
Documents the Horrors Unleashed by Utopian Dreamers

 

WND Books

Sent: 3/7/2016 11:45 AM

 

WASHINGTON — Utopian dreamers are deceived and deceiving. Their “fight for the people” rhetoric may sound good at first, but history proves the egalitarian governments and cultures they try to create destroy freedom, destroy creativity, destroy human lives, create poverty and misery and often spread beyond their borders to bring others under slavery. They believe that through their own personal brilliance a better society can be created on earth. When the belief in man as a creation in the image of God is completely rejected, the use of slavery and mass execution can be justified in the name of the creation of a utopian state for the masses. Pol Pot, Vladimir Lenin, Adolf Hitler, Joseph Stalin, Mao Zedong, together these so-called visionaries through their fanciful policies are responsible for the death of millions of people.

In Utopian Road to Hell: Enslaving America and the World with Central Planning, William J. Murray, son of former atheist apologist Madalyn Murray O’Hair, describes the totalitarians throughout history and the current utopians who are determined to engage in social engineering to control the lives of every person on earth. From Marx to Hitler, Murray explains the progression of socialist engineering from its occultist roots to the extreme madness of the Nazi’s nationalistic racism. From Margaret Sanger’s Planned Parenthood and Saul Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals, the rebellious desire to be free from morality drives the “at-any-cost” campaigns such as abortion on demand, no-fault divorce, same-sex marriage, overreaching government provisions. From Woodrow Wilson’s “living document” distortion of the Constitution and his income tax to FDR’s New Deal to Obama’s executive orders, those who seek centralized power typically do so by proclaiming some utopian scheme that they claim will perfect mankind and eliminate competition, greed, poverty, and war.

To be released by WND Books on March 8, 2015, Murray’s Utopian Road to Hell masterfully educates us of the utopians’ swath of destruction in history and warns us of the dangers of present-day utopians fighting to hold power today. We must heed the warning of George Washington when he said in his 1796 Farewell Address that it is important for those entrusted with the administration of this great and free nation, “to confine themselves within their respective constitutional spheres, avoiding in the exercise of the powers of one department to encroach upon another.” We must reclaim the freedom of the individual to avoid the continued path down the utopian road to hell.
William J. Murray is the chairman of the Religious Freedom Coalition in Washington, DC. For more than three decades he has been at the forefront of social conservatism. He has appeared on ABC, CBS, Fox News, and NBC News and has authored hundreds of columns, which have appeared online and in print. William J. Murray continues to work for the rights of Christians in America and persecuted Christians around the world and is the author of eight books.

Utopian Road to Hell will be in bookstores nationwide on March 8, 2016.

_____________

WND | 2020 Pennsylvania Ave NW, #351 | Washington, DC 20006 | 571-612-8600

 

ABOUT WND BOOKS

 

Welcome to WND Books.

 

Founded in 2002 by WND’s Joseph and Elizabeth Farah, WND Books made an immediate impact with its first No. 1 New York Times bestseller, Michael Savage’s The Savage Nation. Several more bestsellers from the upstart rocked the publishing world. Within two years of its launch, every major U.S. publisher had created imprints to compete head-to-head with WND Books in its niche for edgy, controversial current events titles. After partnerships with Thomas Nelson and Cumberland Press, WND Books established a strategic alliance with Los Angeles-based World Ahead Publishing. In early 2008 WND acquired World Ahead, bringing WND Books in-house, as a wholly-owned subsidiary.

 

WND Books specializes in adult nonfiction titles with an emphasis on current events, politics, and history. Like WND, WND Books is “fiercely independent,” telling the stories that other publishers won’t.

 

With multiple New York Times bestsellers to its credit, including The Late Great U.S.A: The Coming Merger with Mexico and Canada by Dr. Jerome Corsi and Manchurian President: Barack Obama’s Ties to Communists, Socialists, and Other Anti-American Extremists, WND Books prides itself on providing to the reading public important, timely, and entertaining books that impact the public debate.

 

WND Books are distributed to the trade through Midpoint Trade Books and are available at major bookstores, online, and at WND*SUPERSTORE.

To Article V or not to Article V


US Map- Reagan on Convention of States

John R. Houk

© February 19, 2016

 

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. (Bold Text by Editor:  U.S. Constitution – Article V; National Archives, Federal Register)

 

When an Originalist talks about preserving the U.S. Constitution from the Leftist ideology of a “Living Constitution” you will rarely hear the subject of an Article V States originated Constitutional Convention. The reason for that is the interpretation of the parameters of an Article V Convention are a matter of controversial disagreement between the pros and the cons.

 

The pros from my perspective: Politics are too polarized for Congress to propose Amendments that shore up more completely the Rights of the Bill of Rights Amendments. Thus litigation and an Activist Court primarily of the Living Constitution interpretation has diluted what I believe is the Original Intent of America’s Founding Fathers’ vision for a limited Constitutional Republic. Such political gridlock thus can only be effective with a States called Constitutional Convention circumventing Leftist ideology and Special Interests money.

 

The cons as I understand them: There is a huge concern that a Constitutional Convention would rewrite a new Constitution rather than specific Amendments to the current Constitution that will eradicate America’s foundations that have made America an exceptional and great nation. Part of that concern is that Special Interest groups will vie for Left Wing change and Right Wing preservation or too far to the Right change that will still transform the American political process that will still be unrecognizable to the Founding Fathers’ original vision.

 

Now that Justice Antonin Scalia has died under what I consider to be mysterious circumstances, Obama’s seven years of Executive Order abuse that legislative processes have failed to challenge in a Constitutional manner and the Dems demonstrating a propensity to fix the election process to allow an obvious crooked politician as Hillary Clinton to win the Dem nomination via Superdelegates; it is my humble opinion that the only shot to save America as a Christian influenced nation under a limited government is by a Constitutional Convention. Otherwise, another bloody civil war is in America’s future between America’s Conservatives who wish to preserve the Founding Fathers’ vision with Christian morality as the foundation for the government standard AND Liberals-Leftists-Progressives who believe the eradication of Christian influences in favor a Living Constitution social and political transformation. The Leftist vision will lead to Big Brother top-to-bottom management of the lives of Americans.

 

The inspiration for these thoughts are based on an email I received from the Oklahoma State version of the National Council for Freedom and Enterprise (NCFE) called the Oklahoma Council for Freedom and Enterprise (OCFE). The OCFE email I received is definitely against an Article 5 Constitutional Convention fearing some of the “cons” I wrote above. I am cross posting the email below so you can take an honest look. But first let’s look at a cross post from the Convention of States website.

 

JRH 2/19/16

Please Support NCCR

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

THE CASE FOR A CONVENTION OF STATES

 

  1. The Problem

 

VIDEO: The Convention of States Project is Here!

 

Posted by Convention of States Project

Published on Oct 11, 2013

 

Michael Farris, head of the Convention of States Project, explains why the federal government is broken and how a Convention of States can fix it.

 

http://www.conventionofstates.com

 

We see four major abuses perpetrated by the federal government.

 

These abuses are not mere instances of bad policy. They are driving us towards an age of “soft tyranny” in which the government does not shatter men’s wills but “softens, bends, and guides” them. If we do nothing to halt these abuses, we run the risk of becoming nothing more than “a flock of timid and industrious animals, of which the government is the shepherd.” (Alexis de Tocqueville, Democracy in America, 1840)

 

  1. The Spending and Debt Crisis

 

The $17 trillion national debt is staggering, but it only tells a part of the story. Under standard accounting practices, the federal government owes around $100 trillion more in vested Social Security benefits and other programs. This is why the government cannot tax its way out of debt. Even if it confiscated everything, it would not cover the debt.

 

  1. The Regulatory Crisis

 

The federal bureaucracy has placed a regulatory burden upon businesses that is complex, conflicted, and crushing. Little accountability exists when agencies—rather than Congress—enact the real substance of the law. Research from the American Enterprise Institute shows that since 1949, federal regulations have lowered the real GDP growth by 2% and made America 72% poorer.

 

  1. Congressional Attacks on State Sovereignty

 

For years, Congress has been using federal grants to keep the states under its control. Combining these grants with federal mandates (which are rarely fully funded), Congress has turned state legislatures into their regional agencies rather than respecting them as truly independent republican governments.

 

A radical social agenda and an invasion of the rights of the people accompany all of this. While significant efforts have been made to combat this social erosion, these trends defy some of the most important principles.

 

  1. Federal Takeover of the Decision-Making Process

 

The Founders believed that the structures of a limited government would provide the greatest protection of liberty. Not only were there to be checks and balances between the branches of the federal government, power was to be shared between the states and federal government, with the latter only exercising those powers specifically granted in the Constitution.

 

Collusion among decision-makers in Washington, D.C., has replaced these checks and balances. The federal judiciary supports Congress and the White House in their ever-escalating attack upon the jurisdiction of the fifty states.

 

We need to realize that the structure of decision-making matters. Who decides what the law shall be is as important as what is decided. The protection of liberty requires a strict adherence to the principle that power is limited and delegated.

 

Washington, D.C., does not believe this principle, as evidenced by an unbroken practice of expanding the boundaries of federal power. In a remarkably frank admission, the Supreme Court rebuffed a challenge to the federal spending power despite acknowledging that power had grown far beyond the bounds envisioned by the Founders:

 

This framework has been sufficiently flexible over the past two centuries to allow for enormous changes in the nature of government. The Federal Government undertakes activities today that would have been unimaginable to the Framers in two senses; first, because the Framers would not have conceived that any government would conduct such activities; and second, because the Framers would not have believed that the Federal Government, rather than the States, would assume such responsibilities. Yet the powers conferred upon the Federal Government by the Constitution were phrased in language broad enough to allow for the expansion of the Federal Government’s role.  –New York v. United States, 505 U.S. 144, 157 (1992).

What Does this Mean?

 

This is not a partisan issue. Washington, D.C., will never voluntarily relinquish meaningful power—no matter who is elected. The only rational conclusion is this: unless some political force outside of Washington, D.C., intervenes, the federal government will continue to bankrupt this nation, embezzle the legitimate authority of the states, and destroy the liberty of the people. Rather than securing the blessings of liberty for future generations, Washington, D.C., is on a path that will enslave our children and grandchildren to the debts of the past.

 

The problem is big, but we have a solution.  Article V gives us a tool to fix the mess in D.C.

 

II. The Solution

We are approaching a crossroads.

 

One path leads to the escalating power of an irresponsible centralized government, ultimately resulting in the financial ruin of generations of Americans. The other path leads to the restoration of liberty and an American renaissance.

 

The correct path can be found within Article V of the United States Constitution.

 

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

 

Watch the video below, created by our Convention of States team in Alabama, for an excellent overview of the Article V process.

 

VIDEO: Convention of States – Alabama

 

Posted by Convention of States Project

Published on Dec 31, 2013

 

Check out this awesome video from our COS team in Alabama! If you live in Alabama, check out their Facebook page at http://www.facebook.com/COSProjectAL

 

Written by Amanda Read (www.amandaread.com)

Produced by Matthew Perdie (www.perdie.com)

 

Like Article V says, there are two methods to propose amendments to the Constitution.

 

  1. Congress can propose amendments to the Constitution at any time if 2/3 of both houses of Congress agree.

 

  1. A Convention of States can propose amendments if 2/3 of states submit applications for such a convention. These applications must all deal with the same issue (i.e., limiting the power and jurisdiction of the federal government).

The Founders knew the federal government might one day become drunk with the abuses of power. The most important check to this power is Article V. Article V gives states the power to call a convention for the purpose of proposing amendments to the Constitution.

 

By calling a convention of the states, we can stop the federal spending and debt spree, the power grabs of the federal courts, and other misuses of federal power. The current situation is precisely what the Founders feared, and they gave us a solution we have a duty to use.

 

After the states propose, debate, and vote upon the proposed amendments, they will be sent to the 50 states for ratification. Three-quarters of the states must agree for any of the proposed amendments to be ratified.

 

Congress has no authority to stop such a process. The Founders made sure of that.

 

We are approaching a crossroads.

 

Which path will we choose?

 

III. The Strategy

Two goals separate our plan from all other Article V organizations:

 

  1. We want to call a convention for a particular subject rather than a particular amendment. Instead of calling a convention for a balanced budget amendment (though we are entirely supportive of such an amendment), we want to call a convention for the purpose of limiting the power and jurisdiction of the federal government.

 

  1. We believe the grassroots is the key to calling a successful convention. The goal is to build a political operation in a minimum of 40 states, getting 100 people to volunteer in at least 75% of the state’s legislative districts. We believe this is very doable. But only through the support of the American people will this project have a chance to succeed.
Our Solution is Big Enough to Solve the Problem

 

Rather than calling a convention for a specific amendment, Citizens for Self-Governance (CSG) has launched the Convention of the States Project to urge state legislatures to properly use Article V to call a convention for a particular subject—reducing the power of Washington, D.C. It is important to note that a convention for an individual amendment (e.g. a Balanced Budget Amendment) would be limited to that single idea. Requiring a balanced budget is a great idea that CSG fully supports. Congress, however, could comply with a Balanced Budget Amendment by simply raising taxes. We need spending restraints as well. We need restraints on taxation. We need prohibitions against improper federal regulation. We need to stop unfunded mandates.

 

A convention of states needs to be called to ensure that we are able to debate and impose a complete package of restraints on the misuse of power by all branches of the federal government.

What Sorts of Amendments Could be Passed?

 

The following are examples of amendment topics that could be discussed at a convention of states:

 

  • A balanced budget amendment

 

  • A redefinition of the General Welfare Clause (the original view was the federal government could not spend money on any topic within the jurisdiction of the states)

 

  • A redefinition of the Commerce Clause (the original view was that Congress was granted a narrow and exclusive power to regulate shipments across state lines–not all the economic activity of the nation)

 

  • A prohibition of using international treaties and law to govern the domestic law of the United States

 

  • A limitation on using Executive Orders and federal regulations to enact laws (since Congress is supposed to be the exclusive agency to enact laws)

 

  • Imposing term limits on Congress and the Supreme Court

 

  • Placing an upper limit on federal taxation

 

  • Requiring the sunset of all existing federal taxes and a super-majority vote to replace them with new, fairer taxes

 

Of course, these are merely examples of what would be up for discussion. The convention of states itself would determine which ideas deserve serious consideration, and it will take a majority of votes from the states to formally propose any amendments.

 

The Founders gave us a legitimate path to save our liberty by using our state governments to impose binding restraints on the federal government. We must use the power granted to the states in the Constitution.

The Grassroots

 

The leadership of the COS Project believes the success of a convention of states depends to a large extent on the American citizens. Our plan is as follows:

 

  1. We seek to have a viable political operation that is active in a minimum of 40 states.

 

  1. Our goal is to have local leaders–District Captains–in at least 75% of the districts in these states.

 

  1. District captains will organize at least 100 people in each of these districts to contact their legislator to support a convention of the states, and turn out at least 25 people per district at legislative hearings.

 

Legislators must know that our grassroots team will have their backs if they support a convention of the states. A widespread grassroots organization has been missing from the Article V movement. CSG’s President, Mark Meckler, was the co-founder of the Tea Party Patriots—one of the largest tea party groups in the country. Michael Farris is the founder of the Home School Legal Defense Association. As such, he brings with him over 30 years of grassroots leadership and activism in all 50 states. We are rapidly building both a staff and a network of like-minded coalition members who will support this project once they see it up and running.

 

We believe that our unique application strategy combined with strong grassroots support will guarantee the success of this Project.

 

Only one question remains. Will you help us?

 

+++

Stop the MADNESS in Oklahoma

02/16/2016 04:09:51 GMT

Email Sent by: Oklahoma Council for Freedom and Enterprise

 

Dear Concerned American,

 

Several bills calling for a dangerous Article V Convention could soon come up for debate in the Oklahoma Legislature.

 

These bills put the Constitution at extreme risk and I need your help to stop them.

 

Some well-meaning Article V supporters think calling a constitutional convention will help create new “limits” on the federal government.

 

And many believe a constitutional convention can be limited to certain types or categories of changes.

 

But that simply is not true. Article V itself does not back up any assertions that a convention can be limited — and noted constitutional scholars agree.

 

It’s critically important you call your state representative and state senator and tell them to oppose ALL Article V Convention bills.

 

Did you know the various special interest groups pushing different Article V Convention measures have formed a coalition?

 

All of these special interest groups claim to be working toward a convention limited to their own issue, yet they are working together behind the scenes.

 

Groups like Convention of States — who claim to want a convention to limit the federal government — are working with groups like Wolf PAC — who want to limit YOU.

 

Lawrence Lessig — a friend to Wolf PAC and former advisor to the Obama campaign — is also on the list of people pushing hard for an Article V Convention.

 

Lawrence Lessig advocates for legislation forcing you to fund the campaigns of candidates you don’t support by making campaign financing a mandatory, taxpayer obligation.

 

Like Wolf PAC, he wants a constitutional convention to pass an amendment that would limit your political speech rights protected by the First Amendment.

 

The Congressional Research Service quoted Lawrence Lessig in a recent report on Article V:

 

“The beauty of a convention is that it would provide a forum of possibility for conservative Tea Party types… as well as progressives.

 

The only requirement is that two-thirds of the states apply, and then begins the drama of an unscripted national convention to debate questions of fundamental law. It would be a grand circus of democracy at its best.”

 

A “grand circus” indeed!

 

Concerned American, it’s critically important you take action to stop this train wreck before it’s too late.

 

Call your state representative and state senator and tell them to oppose ALL Article V Convention bills; then be sure to forward this email to your contacts in Oklahoma.

 

Elected governments at all levels are trampling on your rights every day and it’s up to you and me to stop them.

 

But an Article V Convention would only add fuel to the fire.

 

As pointed out above — a convention CANNOT be limited, so proposals from the likes of Lawrence Lessig would be fair game.

 

And once everything is said and done, every existing amendment could be utterly dismantled.

 

Even if “conservatives” managed to propose an idea or two, it would be open season on the Constitution — nothing would be off-limits.

 

And what “conservative” victory could possibly justify new restrictions on your First or Second Amendment rights?

 

You’d think with views like Lessig’s, conservatives wouldn’t even be caught in the same room with him.

 

But he’s spoken at multiple conferences alongside conservative “leaders” in the movement — all promoting an Article V Convention.

 

These “conservatives” are working with liberals like Lessig, who want to use an Article V Convention to restrict your rights, yet they claim there is no reason for you to oppose a convention!

 

Literally hundreds of progressive organizations, such as Sierra Club, Code Pink, Alliance for Progressive Values, MoveOn, and “Occupy,” have been pushing for a convention since 2009.

 

Do you trust THEM to fall in line and rein in the government?

 

It’s critically important you call your state representative and state senator and tell them to oppose ALL Article V Convention bills; then forward this email to your contacts in Oklahoma.

 

Some argue if a convention results in proposals to gut our Constitution, it would still take 3/4 of the state legislatures to ratify.

 

We can’t even get 1/4 of the states to stand against Common Core.

 

Politicians involved in the convention process will be working double time behind the scenes to ensure their pet amendments get ratified.

 

And there’s no predetermined time limit for the states to ratify amendments unless the U.S. Congress proposes one, so politicians could have an untold number of legislative sessions to work toward their goal.

 

Don’t fall for it. Those holding power will stop at nothing to get what they want.

 

These bills simply MUST be stopped; please take action right away!

 

For Freedom,

 

Theodore A. Patterson

Executive Director

Oklahoma Council for Freedom and Enterprise

 

P.S. Several bills calling for a dangerous Article V Convention could soon come up for debate in the Oklahoma Legislature. These bills put the Constitution at extreme risk.

 

It’s critically important you call your state representative and state senator and tell them to oppose ALL Article V Convention bills; then forward this email to your contacts in Oklahoma.

 

And after you call your state legislators, please help us mobilize a rapid defense against these bills by chipping in an emergency donation of $10 or $25 right away.

 

__________________

To Article V or not to Article V

John R. Houk

© February 19, 2016

________________

THE CASE FOR A CONVENTION OF STATES

 

National Leadership

 

Michael P. Farris

 

Citizens for Self-GovernanceSenior Fellow for Constitutional Studies, head of Convention of the States Project

 

Michael Farris is the Chancellor of Patrick Henry College and Chairman of the Home School Legal Defense Association. He was the founding president of each organization. During his career as a constitutional appellate litigator, he has served as lead counsel in the United States Supreme Court, eight federal circuit courts, and the appellate courts of thirteen states.

 

Farris has been a leader on Capitol Hill for over thirty years and is widely respected for his leadership in the defense of homeschooling, religious freedom, and the preservation of American sovereignty. A prolific author, Farris has been recognized with numerous awards, including the Salvatori Prize for American Citizenship by the Heritage Foundation and as one of the “Top 100 Faces in Education for the 20th Century” by Education Week magazine.

 

Farris received his B.A. in Political Science from Western Washington University. He later went on to earn his J.D. from Gonzaga University School of Law, and his LL.M. in Public International Law, from the University of London.

 

Mike and his wife Vickie, have ten children and 17 grandchildren.

 

Mark Meckler

 

Citizens for Self-GovernancePresident

 

Mark is one of the nation’s most effective grassroots activists. After he co-founded and was the national coordinator of the Tea Party Patriots, he founded Citizens for Self-Governance to revolutionize American government. Founded in February 2012, this grassroots initiative expands and directs the ever-growing, bipartisan self-governance movement. Mark appears regularly on wide variety of television outlets, including MSNBC, ABC, NBC, Fox News, CNN, Bloomberg, Fox Business and the BBC. He is the co-author of “Tea Party Patriots: The Second American Revolution,” and writes regularly on Breitbart, the American Spectator, and SelfGovern.com. He also is an attorney who specializes in internet privacy law.

 

Mark and his wife live in Northern California with their two teenage children where they share their love of the outdoors, mountain-biking, soccer and horses.

______________________

Stop the MADNESS in Oklahoma

 

Please note: Oklahoma Council for Freedom and Enterprise (OkCFE), paid for this communication and is solely responsible for its content. OkCFE is a project of the National Council for Freedom and Enterprise (NCFE), an IRS 501(c)4 non-profit organization. Donations are not tax deductible as charitable contributions or as business deductions.

 

101 Washington Street Falmouth, VA 22405 | (540)693-0737

www.NationalCouncilforFreedom.org

 

Not produced or e-mailed at taxpayer expense.

 

About NCFE

 

The National Council for Freedom and Enterprise is a 501c(4) dedicated to preserving the American way of life through defending the Constitution and free market system.

 

Americans are frustrated with an out-of-control federal government that treats the Constitution as a suggestion, and acts as though our liberties and freedoms are privileges granted by government that can be revoked at any time for any reason.

 

The American public understands that a government that governs least, governs best. And a government that is restrained and limited in scope allows for the free market system to flourish, creating liberty and prosperity for all.

 

We are tired of a government that taxes too much, spends even more and threatens our liberty at every turn.

 

Through educating every day Americans about the political process and the virtue of liberty and constitutional government, NCFE will affect real change.