The Continuing Relevance of the Constitution


constitution-we-the-people

Most Conservatives (me included) voted for Trump primarily of the disaster a Crooked Hillary would present to the further depreciation of the U.S. Constitution corrupted incredibly by President Barack Hussein Obama. President-Elect Trump made a number of promises that I enjoyed hearing but kind of would like to see the proof of the promised pudding.

 

The Heritage Foundation is launching a back to the Constitution agenda which points to an article at the Daily Signal (a Heritage Foundation apparatus).

 

JRH 11/30/16

Please Support NCCR

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

The Continuing Relevance of the Constitution

 

By Larry Arnn

November 28, 2016

The Daily Signal

 

Public policy is often exciting and urgent. When a war begins or ends, when votes are counted in an election, or when a major bill is passed, everyone senses the magnitude of the event.

 

Some struggles end and new struggles begin. Consequences carry far into the future. Compared to this, and especially given the way we think today, the Constitution seems like a boring subject.

 

But how do we know whether the public policies we adopt are good? How do we know whether the results of the election will be happy? How even do we know if the war we have fought was worth it?

 

Those questions cannot be answered except by reference to things that are outside the immediate excitement and even our immediate needs.

 

These larger and more enduring things cannot be understood without understanding what we are, how we should live, how best over the long term we can achieve a good life and be free. Somehow, urgent things have to be judged in light of ultimate things.

 

The profoundest example of this is in our famous Declaration of Independence. The people of America decided to form their own country. It was an act of rebellion. It would carry a death sentence for many if the revolution failed, and it did carry that sentence for many in the subsequent war.

 

How remarkable that in this urgent moment, they would base what they did upon the “laws of nature and of nature’s God.” They were looking upward toward the eternal as they began their battle. That is one of the essential reasons why they succeeded.

 

How can we remember to do this kind of thinking, when so many urgent things press upon us and when hundreds of millions of us participate?

 

The answer is given best of all in history by the Constitution of the United States, the partner of the declaration, prefigured in its middle passages.

 

The purpose of the Constitution is to ground the government in the people’s authority. It is also to make both we and our government thoughtful. “It is our reason alone,” writes James Madison, “that must be placed in control of the government. Our passions must be controlled by it.”

 

Under the Constitution, it takes time to do big things: We must think before we act. The Constitution divides power across the land and between levels and branches of government; the people and the parts of the government must cooperate if anything is to be done.

 

To get a majority, they must give reasons—out loud and in front of millions. This encourages candor and discourages the rankest forms of partisanship.

 

Yes, it is still partisan, but at our best moments we are better than anywhere else. Moreover, the Constitution limits what we can do to each other, teaching us self-restraint and independence.

 

In recent decades, our country has suffered public policy disasters. We have fought many wars without decisive victory. We have spent many trillions without removing the problems they were designed to remove. We have become a great debtor nation with fewer reserves, even if our reserves are still great.

 

These facts are connected to the compromising of our constitutional practices. We have changed the way we make laws. The government is less accountable, and the laws are more numerous and impossible to understand.

 

We have made government more centralized, and so its proper central functions—especially defense—are starved for resources.

 

As the government gets bigger, the people get smaller. They are regulated in their private lives, obstructed when they strive, subsidized in many cases into failure. This is just what the Constitution was designed to prevent.

 

No institution has done more to describe and promote public policy from the conservative point of view than The Heritage Foundation. It was born decades ago for specifically this purpose. It has always had an interest in the Constitution.

 

Now, it is bringing together all of its efforts relating to that great document into the Institute for Constitutional Government, launching Nov. 29, to achieve better focus. As a friend of the Constitution and of Heritage, I am proud of this.

 

It can only be good. Our freedom is at stake. We will not save it without restoring our Constitution.

 

___________________

Larry Arnn is the president of Hillsdale College and a professor of politics and history, teaching courses on Aristotle, on Winston Churchill, and on the American Constitution. He is also a trustee at The Heritage Foundation.

 

Your donation will support The Daily Signal’s investigative journalism, groundbreaking reporting, and conservative policy analysis on today’s most critical issues. Donate to support us today.

 

About The Daily Signal

 

The Daily Signal delivers investigative and feature reporting and the most important political news and commentary. The team is committed to truth and unmatched in knowledge of Washington’s politics and policy debates. We tell these stories in formats that respect your time and intelligence.

 

 

The Daily Signal provides policy and political news as well as conservative commentary and policy analysis—in a fresh, visually rich, readable format for your desktop, tablet or phone.

 

 

We are committed to news coverage that is accurate, fair and trustworthy. As we surveyed the media landscape, it became clear to us that the need for honest, thorough, responsible reporting has never been more critical. That’s a challenge in today’s fast-moving world. And it’s a READ ENTIRETY

 

Do YOU Choose U.S. Constitution or Islam?


constitution-vs-quran

John R. Houk

© October 28, 2016

 

I have lived in the great State of Oklahoma off and on since I came to attend a Bible school (now a Bible college) since 1981. In those days Oklahoma was known as the buckle of Bible belt. Without much coverage by the Leftist Mainstream Media, Oklahoma now has a huge infiltration of Radical Islamic theopolitical ideology. The first part of this post addresses my concerns about Islam in general. The second part of this is a cross post of a Counter Jihad Report reposting of a FrontPageMag.com title, “REALISM ABOUT THE JIHAD THREAT IN OKLAHOMA”.

 

I find this a bit disturbing. And yes, I still stand by 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.

 

The thing is that I am a constitutional Originalist. This means I give more weight to the Founding Fathers’ Original Intent of America’s Constitution than to the Living Constitution transmutations of a more activist SCOTUS. As such a Founding Father – whether Christian, Deist or Atheist – believed at the very least the principles of morality and societal action in the Bible was the best pattern for a good America focused on people rather than the power of government.

 

Quite contrary from the U.S. Constitution’s Bill of Rights, Islamic principles demand an active supremacism over all religions and ideologies separate from Islam which must be suppressed first by peace, failing peace then with violence even lethal if the need arises.

 

Hence on a political level I find the Islam of the Quran, Hadith and Sira to be quite contrary to American Constitutional Liberty and Freedom. On a personal level Islam’s tenets in its Quran, Hadith and Sira are both Anti-Christian and Anti-Semitic justifying the murder of those adherents specifically who do not submit to the supremacy of Islam. If or when a Muslim or Islamic Cleric tells that I am lying and then quotes the Quran about Islam is peace or Muslims are instructed to respect the People of the Book (i.e. Jews and Christians) or that there is no compulsion of religion in Islam; that Muslim is either ignorant of their own theology or are cognizant and are out right deceiving you. The key to Muslim ignorance or deception is the Islamic tenet of Abrogation. The term Abrogation simply means the words in the Quran attributed to Muhammad during the early Mecca preaching days can be ruled inapplicable to situation that requires the understanding Muhammad had after fleeing to Medina. It was in and after Medina that Muhammad became a murderous plundering sex-slaving pedophile. Those Medina suras abrogate the early Mecca suras when a theopolitical decision is required that benefits Islam.

 

And so my fellow Oklahomans (AND Americans) wake-up to the danger that Islam represents!

islam-koran-not-peaceful

JRH 10/28/16

Please Support NCCR

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

Realism About the Jihad Threat in Oklahoma

 

By Robert Spencer

Originally: Front Page Magazine

October 27, 2016

The Counter Jihad Report

 

oklahoma-state-rep-john-bennett

Oklahoma State Rep. John Bennett ventures where few dare to tread.

 

In an age of near-universal denial and willful ignorance at the highest levels about the ideological roots, nature and magnitude of the jihad threat, it is as unusual as it is refreshing to find lawmakers at any level who are willing to approach the problem honestly. State Representative John Bennett of Oklahoma, a Marine and combat veteran of Iraq and Afghanistan, is one of an all-too-rare breed.

 

On Tuesday, Bennett held an “Interim Study” on “the current threat posed by radical Islam and the effect that Shariah Law, the Muslim Brotherhood and jihadist indoctrination have in the radicalization process in Oklahoma and America.” In his request to hold this study, he explained: “This will be a study of the current threat posed by radical Islam and the effect that Shariah Law, the Muslim Brotherhood and jihadist indoctrination have in the radicalization process in Oklahoma and America.”

 

This kind of study should have been held not just in the Oklahoma House of Representatives, but in the U.S. House, and Senate as well. That such an idea is inconceivable is an indication of the fix we’re in. And the situation is only marginally better in Oklahoma: nowadays the misinformation and disinformation about what we’re up against is so universal that anywhere the truth is told about this threat, there is significant pushback from the allies and enablers of jihad and Islamic supremacism.

 

And so it was in Tulsa on Tuesday. The interim study featured testimony by former FBI agent John Guandolo and Chris Gaubatz, whose exploits as an undercover agent infiltrating the Hamas-linked Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) are chronicled in the eye-opening book Muslim Mafia.

 

Gaubatz and Guandolo presented evidence, including land records, showing that the Islamic Society of Greater Oklahoma City (ISGOC) is owned by the Muslim Brotherhood group the North American Islamic Trust (NAIT), that both CAIR, which has an active chapter in Oklahoma City, and ISGOC are Muslim Brotherhood organizations, and that CAIR has extensive ties to the jihad terror group Hamas, which styles itself the Muslim Brotherhood for Palestine. They pointed out that since Imad Enchassi, the imam of ISGOC, is a Palestinian and has all these ties to the Muslim Brotherhood, he likely also has links to Hamas.

 

Guandolo and Gaubatz did not base their case on innuendo and hearsay. They laid out FBI evidence, Muslim Brotherhood documents, and more, demonstrating that the claims they were making were based on solid evidence.

 

Predictably, however, the mainstream media, which we now know beyond any shadow of a doubt is simply and solely a propaganda arm for the Left and the Democratic Party, focused entirely on the presence of Adam Soltani of CAIR-OK and Enchassi. The Tulsa World ran a piece with the hysterical headline “State representative brands CAIR-OK, its director and a local imam as terrorists.” It quoted Soltani raging against Bennett: “Rep. Bennett is shamefully wasting taxpayer money to promote his own biased agenda. This hearing was a new low for Rep. Bennett, as his guests presented a biased narrative that achieves nothing more than demonizing and marginalizing the Oklahoma Muslim community.”

 

The World magisterially told its readers that “CAIR is a Muslim civil liberties and advocacy group working to enhance the understanding of Islam.” It didn’t see fit to mention that CAIR is an unindicted co-conspirator in a Hamas terror funding case — so named by the Justice Department. There was not a word in the World report about how CAIR officials have repeatedly refused to denounce Hamas and Hizballah as terrorist groups. Several former CAIR officials have been convicted of various crimes related to jihad terror. CAIR’s cofounder and longtime Board chairman (Omar Ahmad), as well as its chief spokesman (Ibrahim Hooper), have made Islamic supremacist statements. (Ahmad denies this, but the original reporter stands by her story.) A California chapter distributed a poster telling Muslims not to talk to the FBI, and a Florida chapter distributed pamphlets with the same message. CAIR has opposed virtually every anti-terror measure that has been proposed or implemented and has been declared a terror organization by the United Arab Emirates.

 

But the Tulsa World and other mainstream media outlets that covered Bennett’s study did not see fit to inform their readers of any of that; instead, predictably enough, they portrayed the hearing as a baseless exercise in race-baiting and fearmongering conducted by a politician up for reelection.

 

John Bennett, and the people of Oklahoma, deserve better. There are legitimate questions about CAIR and ISGOC; Bennett dared to raise them Tuesday; for that, he is being subjected to a media lynching that is cynically designed to obscure the genuine concerns he raised – yet ever since a member of ISGOC beheaded a coworker in 2014, these concerns are more urgent than ever.

 

The media enablers of jihad must be decisively repudiated. Please email the Speaker of the Oklahoma House, Jeff W. Hickman, politely and courteously expressing your support for John Bennett and requesting that his hearing be just the first of a series. His email is jwhickman@okhouse.gov and his phone number is (405) 557-7339.

 

John Bennett has yet again stuck his neck out for freedom. In these hard times, those who are willing to do that have to hang together.

 

_________________

Do YOU Choose U.S. Constitution or Islam?

John R. Houk

© October 28, 2016

___________________

Realism About the Jihad Threat in Oklahoma

 

About The Counter Jihad Report

 

There is an urgent need for the public to become informed about the Global Islamic Jihad Movement. We must demand from our leaders that they become familiar with Islamic Law and jihadist ideology so that our counterterrorism policies can better protect us from this growing threat.

 

This blog is mainly a news aggregating site but also includes an extensive library of resources for studying Islam and networking with other Counter Jihad activists. My goal has been to pull from a variety of the most trusted and reliable sources to educate the public on the counter jihad movement. The many RSS feeds and counterjihad twitter feed in the sidebar are meant to provide a time saving jumping off point to access all the headlines and breaking news.

 

My Interest in Islamic Jihad stems from the 1983 Hezbollah truck bombing of the U.S. Embassy in Beirut in which my cousin, Ken Haas, was killed. Ken left a career as a philosophy professor to work for the CIA and was the Station Chief in Beirut. He and his wife of one year had READ THE REST

A Frightening Preview of Hillary’s America


crooked-hillary

The David Horowitz Freedom Center sent a for insightful essay by Daniel Greenfield that demonstrates what life probably will be like in Crooked Hillary’s America.

 

The essay is not linked, but I’m confident a simple Google search would find many locations for the essay.

 

JRH 10/20/16

Please Support NCCR

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

A Frightening Preview of Hillary’s America 

Dark and unaccountable

 

By Daniel Greenfield

Dated: October 20, 2016

Sent: 10/21/2016 8:00 AM

Sent by: David Horowitz Freedom Center

 

Hillary Clinton, of all people, summed up this debate and this election best.

“What kind of country are we going to be?”

The Evita of Arkansas is a compulsive liar who has never told the truth in her life. But this time around she was right. This election does not come down to the personalities. It comes down to the kind of country we are going to have. And in the third debate, the one that took a break from the petty haranguing of media lackeys like Lester Holt and Martha Raddatz, the issues took center stage.

The core issue came into focus with the very first question asked by Chris Wallace. Wallace asked Hillary and Trump if their vision for the Supreme Court was based on the Constitution or not. Hillary launched into a spiel about a Supreme Court that would stand for class warfare and gay rights. The only time she mentioned the Constitution was when she insisted that the Senate was constitutionally obligated to confirm Obama’s nominee. That is her vision of the Constitution; a document that grants her power to reshape the country without regard to the Founders or any previously existing rights or freedoms.

It fell to Trump to speak of justices who would “interpret the Constitution the way the founders wanted it interpreted”. And that is the core issue. Personalities and politicians come and go. Today’s trending topic has been forgotten a day later. Outrages explode like fireworks and then fizzle out.

The weapons of mass distraction have been deployed and detonated. They keep going off in blasts of media gunpowder to divert our attention from whether we will live under the Constitution or under the Hillary. Will we have the rights and freedom bound into the Constitution or corruption justified with cant about the need to defend the oppressed by giving unlimited power to the oppressors.

The final debate finally focused on the issues. Instead of leading with the scandals, it asked about gun control, amnesty and open borders. It asked what kind of country are we going to be?

And, are we going to be a country at all or an open border weeping undocumented migrants destroying what’s left of the middle class as the masterminds rob the country blind while preaching piously to us about all the poor Syrians, Mexicans and LGBT youth they want to protect?

Americans have had a preview of the country that Hillary Clinton would create under Obama. They received yet another preview of it at a final debate in which Hillary echoed Obama’s Orwellian language in which endless spending was dubbed “investing” and in which government would save the middle class by regulating and taxing it out of existence for the greater good of the officially oppressed.

Hillary Clinton promised free college and cradle to grave education that would be debt free. Americans would be the ones plummeting deeper and deeper into debt to pay for degrees in gender studies. She promised viewers pie in the sky to be paid for by higher taxes on the rich. But as Trump pointed out, that’s the class that her donors come from. Did Warren Buffett and George Soros invest all that money into her victory just to pay higher taxes? Did they do it right after they bought the Brooklyn Bridge?

Or will Americans buy the bridge believing Hillary’s promise that she “will not add a penny to the debt”?

The only way Hillary can hope to do that is to appoint Bernie Madoff to be her Treasury Secretary.

When Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump wrangled over tax hikes or tax cuts, the debate is whether crooks like the Clintons should have a massive pot of taxpayer money to “invest” into their donors.

But beneath it is the same big question; do we live under the Constitution or under the Hillary?

In Hillary Country, just like in Obama Country, there are always more “investments” to make and you had better pay your “fair share”. There are always special identity group interests that need money. There are always more regulations, taxes, fines and fees. And it’s all for the children.

The ones that Hillary will grimace at when the cameras are on her and nudge away with the point of her shoe when the little red light turns off.

But there is no lie that Hillary Clinton will not tell and no lie that her pet media fact checkers will not back her up on. Obama doubled the national debt and yet Hillary insists that, “We’re actually on the path to eliminating the national debt”. That might be true only insofar as we’re approaching the point that no one will lend us any money. We’re headed toward a $20 trillion national debt.

And Hillary’s plans won’t add a penny to the national debt. They’ll add hundreds of trillions of pennies.

Hillary talked of bringing “our country together” and not “pitting of people one against the other” and instead “we celebrate our diversity”. If she does half as good a job as Obama, these celebrations of diversity will climax with race riots across America. How exactly does Hillary plan to unite with the “deplorables” of the country? How has Hillary united anyone in the country except in disdain?

Hillary Clinton’s entire campaign pitch is based on demonizing Trump and his supporters. She believes that if she convinces enough voters that Trump is the devil, they may hold their noses and accept the return of the corrupt Clinton dynasty and everything that it represents. That gamble is what we are seeing on the news. It is what we heard at the debate. Hillary cannot win on her own merits.

She warned at the final debate of the “dark, unaccountable money to come into our electoral system”. It’s hard to imagine a bigger source of dark, accountable money than a foundation being used as an international slush fund that has been beyond unaccountable.

But it’s Hillary’s vision of government that is dark and unaccountable. From the beginning of the debate, she made it clear that she does not wish to be accountable to the Constitution. Her email cover up made it painfully clear that she does not want to be accountable to the American people. Instead Hillary would like everyone in the country to be accountable to her. A mass of regulations and enforcers will force everyone to be accountable to the dark and unaccountable force in the White House.

“It really does come down to what kind of country we are going to have,” Hillary repeated.

It does indeed. Americans have had a preview of the kind of country that Hillary would bring into being.

 

________________

Daniel Greenfield, a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the Freedom Center, is a New York writer focusing on radical Islam.

 

DONATE to DH Freedom Center

 

About David Horowitz Freedom Center

 

OUR MISSION: The DHFC is dedicated to the defense of free societies whose moral, cultural and economic foundations are under attack by enemies both secular and religious, at home and abroad.

 

The David Horowitz Freedom Center combats the efforts of the radical left and its Islamist allies to destroy American values and disarm this country as it attempts to defend itself in a time of terror.  The leftist offensive is most obvious on our nation’s campuses, where the Freedom Center protects students from indoctrination and intimidation and works to give conservative students a place in the marketplace of ideas from which they are otherwise excluded.  Combining forceful analysis and bold activism, the Freedom Center provides strong insight into today’s most pressing issue on its family of websites and in the activist campaigns it wages on campus, in the news media, and in national politics throughout the year.

 

VIDEO: Our Mission – Updated June 2013

 

David Horowitz began the Center for the Study of Popular Culture in 1988 to establish a conservative presence in Hollywood and show how popular culture had become a political battleground. Over the next 18 years, CSPC attracted 50,000 contributing supporters and established programs such as The Wednesday Morning Club, the Individual Rights Foundation, and Students for Academic Freedom.

 

FrontPage Magazine, the Center’s online journal of news and political commentary has 1.5 million visitors and over 870,000 unique visitors a month (65 million hits) and is READ THE REST

 

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