Choose Pro-Life for Justice Kennedy’s Replacement


Justin Smith makes an excellent case for President Trump to nominate a Pro-Life and Constitutional Originalist to SCOTUS. Justin specifically posits the nomination to be Appellate Justice Amy Coney Barrett.

 

JRH 7/9/18

Please Support NCCR

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

Choose Pro-Life for Justice Kennedy’s Replacement

 

By Justin O. Smith

Sent 7/8/2018 8:41 PM

 

Under our God-given rights, Our Founders saw the law as a tool to preserve liberty and freedom for all, through the Western and Judeo-Christian principles and virtues that made the U.S. Constitution and our bicameral system possible. They did not see liberty under the law as anybody’s right to do anything, regardless of its reprehensible nature, and they certainly never intended to place America on a path where evil is called “good”, as the nation witnessed with the Supreme Court’s ruling on Roe v Wade. The Court was never supposed to be the final arbiter of law, becoming a tyrannical entity that seemingly answers to no one and places itself above all.

 

In this sense and in conjunction with Justice Anthony Kennedy’s impending retirement, President Trump is wrong not to question potential Supreme Court nominees regarding their position on Roe v Wade and whether or not they would overturn it, if given the opportunity. Any reluctance to do so is from a political concern and ignores the fact that Roe v Wade was given the force of de facto law by a Supreme Court that enforced its will and did not judge the case on any actual constitution basis, since the so-called “right” to abortion did not exist in the Constitution and they manufactured it out of thin air.

 

President Trump suggested that it somehow wouldn’t be “appropriate” to question his nominees on this. So, is murdering over 60 million unborn children since 1973 appropriate?

 

Senator Susan Collins (R-Maine), an overt progressive, stated that she could not support any candidate who might be willing to overturn the despicable Roe v Wade Supreme Court ruling. She suggested that many years of “precedents” must somehow be viewed as “set law” as she parroted Democrat talking points and the likes of progressive Democrat activist Justices, such as Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan.

 

What about the hundreds of years of precedents that upheld the sanctity of life and protected life well prior to Roe V Wade?

 

Any person who views overturning the activist decision of Roe v Wade as a “big mistake is essentially willing to usurp an unborn child’s right to “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness”. They are either horribly ignorant or terribly callous in turning a blind-eye to the murder of a human person, committed in each abortion; but in either case, they are taking the position that protecting innocent life is not a moral good.

 

If Supreme Court precedents are set law, why isn’t Plessy v Ferguson and Lum v Rice still the law of the land? If these cases had not been overturned, America would still have segregation under the “law”. These were overturned by a later Court, because the Supreme Court is fallible.

 

However, ever since Marbury v Madison (1803) and the Court’s assumption that it was the primary interpreter of the Constitution, America has seen the Supreme Court define its own power, and increasingly and regularly, America has seen the Supreme Court usurp power and act as if it is dominant over Congress and the Office of the President, which is contrary to the Founders’ Original Intent. Marbury has been cited by the Court to invalidate laws in over 200 cases, even though Marbury v Madison does not contain any actual assertion that the Court has exclusive authority to bind other parts of government.

 

Thomas Paine, one of our Founders, once noted, “All power exercised over a nation … must be either delegated, or assumed … All delegated power is trust, and all assumed power is usurpation.”

 

The rights Thomas Jefferson lists in the Declaration of Independence are certainly open to interpretation, but according to our Founders, their metaphysical basis, found in nature itself, is not. However, activist Justices have now long impressed their notions of what they believe the Constitution should say, upon all America. As a result, America was handed rulings that removed prayer and the Ten Commandments from schools, pornography on demand, abortion and homosexual “marriage”.

 

Some call retiring Justice Kennedy a “moderate” because he voted along conservative lines fifty-seven percent of the time, but how anyone reaches this conclusion is disturbing, especially once one looks at some major cases. Kennedy voted too often to advance the deviant and perverted homosexual agenda in America, although this segment of society represents only a mere 3 to 4 percent of the population. Kennedy knocked down Texas’s sodomy laws, the upheld Roe v Wade twice and he voted in favor of homosexual “marriage”, aiding in making a mockery of traditional marriage and the only true meaning of marriage — the union between one man and one woman in Holy Matrimony before God. This is not a “conservative” or a “moderate”.

 

By the time this is released, Pres. Trump will have made his pick for the Supreme Court. Let us all pray that he chooses Amy Coney Barrett, the 46 year old Justice of the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals,  who is a pro-life Catholic mother of seven and a strong Constitutionalist. Ms. Barrett was also awarded the top student award from Notre Dame Law School in 1997.

 

President Trump cannot deny, that these illiberal anti-Constitution proponents of abortion stand firmly opposed to the conservative philosophy, which is the protector of America’s founding ideas, those ideas of life and liberty so many American patriots have died defending. As such, President Trump and Congress should unabashedly state that they will move to place a pro-life nominee on the Supreme Court, such as Amy Barrett, because modern Justices no longer seem capable of just determining the constitutionality of any particular law, in accordance with the Founders’ Original Intent; rather, they seek to wield the Supreme Court like a club to meet the demands of whatever political agenda at hand at any given moment, during a time that the anti-Constitution progressive Democrats have certainly made no secret that defending baby murder is an integral part of their fight to accept or reject any candidate for the Supreme Court.

 

As Christians, we are bound to speak for those who cannot speak for themselves and to reject the lies and the evil of an abortion industry that murders the image of God approximately 1.5 million times a year in America. No one should ever call such a heinous crime a “right”.

 

And in the meantime, America must put forth the necessary effort and work to reign in an out-of-control Supreme Court, as the admonishment and prophesy of Brutus, one of the great anti-Federalists guiding the Constitution’s ratification debate, has become our present-day reality: “The Supreme Court under this Constitution would be exalted above all other power in the government, and subject to no controul … There is no power above them, to controul any of their decisions. There is no authority that can remove them, and they cannot be controuled by the laws of the legislature. In short, they are independent of the people, of the legislature, and of every power under Heaven. Men placed in this situation will generally soon feel themselves independent of Heaven itself.” [Italic bold by Editor]

 

America must stop un-elected Supreme Court Justices from arbitrarily exercising power over the entire nation, our federal and state governments, in a manner that abrogates part of the Constitution itself, as it sets forth to define good and evil from the high court. And America must stop the reprehensible abortion industry and overturn Roe v Wade, and right the historic wrong that has perpetrated the worst mass murder in history, upon a nation that purportedly seeks to be blessed by God.

 

By Justin O. Smith

____________________

Edited by John R. Houk

All source links as well as text embraced 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

 

Arise Christians against SCOTUS Violations


Bible-- Homosexuality Ungodly Abomination

John R. Houk

© April 8, 2015

 

What do Public Advocate of the U.S., Joyce Meyer Ministries, the Lincoln Institute, the Abraham Lincoln Foundation, Institute on the Constitution, Conservative Legal Defense and Education Fund and Pastor Chuck Baldwin have in common? Include in that commonality these organizations and Ministries: National Religious Broadcasters, the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association, Samaritan’s Purse, In Touch Ministries, Pathway to Victory, The Chuck Colson Center for Christian Worldview, Dallas Theological Seminary, The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary, Daniel L. Akin, Mark L. Bailey, Francis J. Beckwith, Robert A.J. Gagnon, Robert Jeffress, Byron R. Johnson, Eric Metaxas, Albert Mohler Jr., Charles F. Stanley, John Stonestreet and Owen Strachan.

 

What they ALL do have in common are the U.S. Appellate, Supreme Court and Traditional Marriage. They all are taking a stand against homosexual same-sex legally mandated marriage ESPECIALLY as the Judicial Branch making it legal as opposed to State legislatures and people’s State Initiatives.

 

ONLY a handful of American States have made same-sex marriage legal by legislative action or a voter’s Initiative. A significant majority of American States have been forced to recognize same-sex marriage at the hands of the Federal Judicial system on every level. 

 

SO, I have to wonder. What Constitutional Article or Amendment gives the Judicial Branch to legislate laws? My understanding of the U.S. Constitution is that only the Amendment process of the U.S. Congress and/or each individual American State has that authority. All the Courts should be involved with is ruling if a law is constitutional or not. Then order the appropriate action from Congress to correct any unconstitutional provisions of a law. AND if the U.S. Constitution does not address an issue each individual State has the Liberty enact a law pertaining to its jurisdiction.

 

Amendment X

 

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

 

Here is a pretty good picture of the Original Intent of the 10th Amendment which includes the legal marriage of the 9th Amendment:

 

Ninth Amendment: “The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”

 

Tenth Amendment: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

 

What was the original purpose of these two Amendments? … The truth of the matter is that the two Amendments were intended to be a pair that would secure the rights of the people by ensuring a federal government of limited powers. The original purpose of what became the Ninth and Tenth Amendments is embodied in a letter from James Madison to George Washington in 1789. Madison wrote, “If a line can be drawn between the [federal] powers granted and the rights retained, it would seem to be the same thing, whether the latter be secured by declaring that they shall not be abridged, or that the former shall not be extended.” In other words, what became the Ninth and Tenth Amendments serve virtually identical and reciprocal purposes. (Bold-Italic text added by this Editor)

 

… The Tenth plainly says that there is a federal government only of limited enumerated powers. This is of course a most important principle to announce and clearly enshrine in the Constitution, but it alone is not enough precisely because those powers can always be interpreted to be limitless. … The Ninth was therefore also included to say that in applying those federal enumerated powers, it is forbidden to construe them to the point where everything conceivable falls within those powers so long as they do not violate a right specified in the previous listed Amendments to the Constitution that became the Bill of Rights. The Tenth Amendment stands for the proposition that there is only an enumeration of powers and no more, and the Ninth stands for the proposition that the notion of limited and defined powers is to be taken seriously.

 

Federalist (those who argued for the ratification of the Constitution) Governor Edmund Randolph clearly expressed this intent behind what would later became the Ninth and Tenth Amendments at the Virginia Ratifying Convention of 1788. He asked, “If it would not fatigue the house too far, I would go back to the question of reserved rights. The gentleman supposes that complete and unlimited legislation is vested in the Congress of the United States. This supposition is founded on false reasoning… [I]n the general [federal] Constitution, its powers are enumerated. Is it not, then, fairly deducible, that it has no power but what is expressly given it?–for if its powers were to be general, an enumeration would be needless… [Regarding a government] body arising from a compact, and with certain delineated powers…a bill of rights…would not be [necessary]… for the best security that can be…is the express enumeration of its powers” (emphasis added). The “retained rights” of the Ninth Amendment are reserved by the Tenth Amendment’s making clear there is an enumeration of powers. It is in making sure that the federal government is one of limited and defined powers, and that these limitations are taken seriously, that the reserved rights of the people are protected.

 

Nonetheless, this concern underlying the Ninth and Tenth Amendments is in contravention with Supreme Court jurisprudence. The principles announced in the Ninth and Tenth Amendments has been intentionally gutted by the modern Supreme Court since the New Deal.  … The Court stated in the most famous footnote of Constitutional law, in Footnote 4 of the US v. Carolene Products (1938) decision, that there is a “narrower scope for operation of the presumption of Constitutionality when legislation appears on its face to be within a specific prohibition of the Constitution, such as those of the first ten amendments.” The idea expressed by the Supreme Court is the most famous footnote precisely because it is still the framework for much of Supreme Court jurisprudence today. The footnote states that there is a “presumption of Constitutionality” given to federal laws unless a right enumerated in the first ten amendments is at issue. This specifically turns the original meaning of the Ninth Amendment on its head, it contradicts the very purpose of the Ninth Amendment’s inclusion at the end of the Bill of Rights. SHOULD READ ENTIRETY (Original Purpose Of The Most Significant Ignored Amendments To The Constitution: The 9th And 10th; By Steve Lackner; Free Republic; 6/30/11 [at SteveLackner.com – dead link at time of posting] and 7/1/11 3:32:19 AM [at Free Republic])

 

Undoubtedly a little more research will uncover more SCOTUS overreach, but I want to draw attention to a report by Bob Unruh writing for WND. Unruh’s post is the source of the organizations and Ministries I listed above that are taking a stand for Religious Liberty and a stand against the moral abomination of homosexual same-sex marriage.

 

Those great Christians are confronting the SCOTUS Justices with the Word of God and the fact that SCOTUS rulings are infringing on the Rights of individual States to define what marriage is.

 

Unfortunately the Unruh article only focuses on First Amendment violations forced on We The People rather including the imperative of the 10th Amendment and I discovered in reading up on this issue, the significance of the 9th Amendment.

 

JRH 4/8/15

Please Support NCCR

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

SUPREMES WARNED: ‘GOD’S JUDGMENT’ NOW LOOMING

‘Scripture attests that perversions violate the law of the land’

By BOB UNRUH

April 7, 2015

WND

 

In a stunningly blunt brief, a team of lawyers acting on behalf of a number of Christian and liberty-focused organizations has told the U.S. Supreme Court that to mandate same-sex marriage is to invite God’s judgment.

 

And that’s probably not going to turn out well.

 

The brief was filed by the William J. Olson law firm and the U.S. Justice Foundation on behalf of Public Advocate of the U.S., Joyce Meyer Ministries, the Lincoln Institute, the Abraham Lincoln Foundation, Institute on the Constitution, Conservative Legal Defense and Education Fund and pastor Chuck Baldwin.

 

The Supreme Court is to hear arguments later this month in a case coming from the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in which judges said state residents are allowed to define marriage in their state. The appeal to the Supreme Court contends barring same-sex marriage violates the U.S. Constitution.

 

Other briefs already have pointed out that marriage existed before any government, law or constitution, so the judiciary doesn’t have the authority to allow people to simply change the definition.

 

The new brief goes much further.

 

“Should the court require the states and the people to ‘ritualize’ sodomite behavior by government issuance of a state marriage license, it could bring God’s judgment on the nation,” the brief warns. “Holy Scripture attests that homosexual behavior and other sexual perversions violate the law of the land, and when the land is ‘defiled,’ the people have been cast out of their homes.”

 

The brief cites Leviticus 18:22 and 24-30, a biblical passages that seldom finds its way into popular discourse.

 

Verse 22 states, “Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable.”

 

And the subsequent section warns against such defilement.

 

“If you defile the land, it will vomit you out as it vomited out the nations that were before you. … Keep my requirements and do not follow any of the detestable customs that were practiced before you came and do not defile yourselves with them,” the Old Testament passage states.

 

Conservative icon Phyllis Schlafly doesn’t mince words in her astounding new book, “Who Killed the American Family?” blaming “feminists, judges, lawmakers, psychologists, school districts” and others.

 

The court filing, citing the book of 2nd Peter, continues: “Although some would assert that these rules apply only to the theocracy of ancient Israel, the Apostle Peter rejects that view: ‘For if God … turning the cities of Sodom and Gomorrha (sic) into ashes condemned them with an overthrow, making them an ensample unto those that after should live ungodly’” (King James Version).

 

The brief says the “continuing application of this Levitical prohibition is confirmed by the Book of Jude: ‘Even as Sodom and Gomorrha (sic), and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.”

 

The brief argues: “Whatever justification any judge may believe compels a state to define marriage to include same-sex couples, it is not found in the Constitution, nor is it based in any constitutional principles. For any judge to require a state to define marriage to include same-sex couples is an usurpation of authority that he does not have under the laws of man or God, and is thus illegal.”

 

Christian evangelist Franklin Graham defended traditional marriage on his Facebook page Tuesday.

 

“God’s Word doesn’t need a majority vote. God’s Word is true regardless of the winds of moral change, and we must stand up for biblical truth in the midst of a depraved society.”

 

WND previously reported some of the top names in Christian ministry – including the National Religious Broadcasters, the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association, the Chuck Colson Center, Southern Baptists, Albert Mohler and Charles Stanley – asked the U.S. Supreme Court to protect marriage as God defined it.

 

Their brief also was filed in the Obergefell v. Hodges case, where the 6th Circuit ruled residents of Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio and Tennessee can define marriage for themselves.

 

That brief was filed by Liberty Institute on behalf of the National Religious Broadcasters, the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association, Samaritan’s Purse, In Touch Ministries, Pathway to Victory, The Chuck Colson Center for Christian Worldview, Dallas Theological Seminary, The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary, Daniel L. Akin, Mark L. Bailey, Francis J. Beckwith, Robert A.J. Gagnon, Robert Jeffress, Byron R. Johnson, Eric Metaxas, Albert Mohler Jr., Charles F. Stanley, John Stonestreet and Owen Strachan.

 

“In reaching its decision, this court should reaffirm that the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment protects religious dissenters who disagree with state-recognized same-sex marriage and to reaffirm the importance of free debate and free inquiry in this democratic republic,” the brief states.

 

Liberty Institute President Kelly Shackelford said religious liberty and free speech “are our first American freedoms.”

 

“We hope the Supreme Court will use this opportunity to affirm the Sixth Circuit and reaffirm the constitutional rights of all Americans to speak and act according to their beliefs,” he said.

 

When the Alabama Supreme Court prevented a federal judge from imposing same-sex marriage there earlier this year, it argued the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed the right of states to decide the issue when it overturned the federal Defense of Marriage Act in the Windsor case.

 

In its order, the Alabama court wrote: “An open question exists as to whether Windsor’s ‘equal dignity’ notion works in the same direction toward state laws concerning marriage as it did toward DOMA. The Windsor court stated that ‘the history of DOMA’s enactment and its own text demonstrate that interference with the equal dignity of same-sex marriages, a dignity conferred by the states in the exercise of their sovereign power, was more than an incidental effect of the federal statute.’”

 

The Alabama court noted that in Windsor, New York’s law allowed same-sex couples to obtain marriage licenses.

 

“Thus, the ‘dignity’ was conferred by the state’s own choice, a choice that was ‘without doubt a proper exercise of its sovereign authority within our federal system, all in the way that the Framers of the Constitution intended.’”

 

The Alabama court thus asked: Why, if New York could make that choice, would Alabama be deprived of exactly the same choice?

 

“The problem with DOMA was that it interfered with New York’s ‘sovereign’ choice,” the Alabama court said. “Alabama ‘used its historic and essential authority to define the marital relations’ and made a different ‘sovereign’ choice than New York. If New York was free to make that choice, it would seem inconsistent to say that Alabama is not free to make its own choice, especially given that ‘the recognition of civil marriages is central to state domestic relations law applicable to its residents and citizens.’”

 

The new brief makes several other points, including that the “constitutional foundation” for the “‘right’ to marry any person of one’s choice” is simply fabricated.

 

“The same-sex advocates have posited that their right to marry is an evolutionary one, having gradually emerged from the dark ages of the common law into the full bloom of a social science consensus of marriage equality,” the brief explained.

 

But to travel that path would be to “ignore what [the court] clearly acknowledged in Marbury v. Madison – that the power of judicial review is limited by the words of the Constitution, and by its original purpose – to secure the right of the people to limit future governments by principles designed to be permanent, not to empower this court to change the Constitution to fit the changing times.”

 

On the issue of homosexuality, the American people “have seen a flurry of judicial opinions with ‘no foundation in American constitutional law’ overturning laws which were ‘designed to prevent piecemeal deterioration of the sexual morality’ desired by the people.”

 

“These opinions together constitute what [was] described as ‘an act, not of judicial judgment, but of political will.’”

 

The problem is social science isn’t static, the document said.

 

“Prior to 1973, the American Psychiatric Association consensus was that homosexuality was a mental disorder. Now the consensus is that homosexuality is a positive virtue. Who knows what tomorrow may bring.”

 

The brief said today people are being told that marriage cannot constitutionally be based on “a divinely revealed moral foundation, but only according to the secular reasons of men.”

 

Beware, the brief says.

 

“The nation was not so founded. The Declaration of Independence, the nation’s charter, grounded our nation on the biblical ‘Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God,’ embracing the principle that all men ‘are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights,’ putting its case for liberty before ‘the Supreme Judge of the world,’ and acting in ‘firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence.’”

 

Such a change would require the “entire revision” of every family law in the country, closure of adoption agencies and government persecution of those who preach against homosexuality, the brief warns.

 

And there would be no logical barrier to three men or three women marrying: “Why not an uncle and a niece as in New York?”

 

“The current accepted vernacular is said to be “lgbttqqiiaa+,” standing for “lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, transsexual, queer, questioning, intersex, intergender, asexual, ally and beyond,” the brief notes. “Indeed, some consider pedophilia to be a legitimate sexual orientation, returning us to the pagan pederasty of ancient Greece.”

 

Nearly all orders for states to recognize same-sex marriage have come from federal judges. The judges have simply overridden the will of the state’s residents who voted, often overwhelmingly, to define marriage as the union of one man and one woman.

 

That was the scenario in California, where the fight over marriage ended up at the U.S. Supreme Court, which ruled only on a technicality – the standing of those supporting the state constitution – and not the merits of the case.

Of the three dozen states that now have been forced to recognize same-sex marriage, only a handful enacted it through their own legislative or administrative procedures.

 

The Alabama court noted: “Only 12 states have accepted same-sex marriage as a result of choices made by the people or their elected representatives. The 25 other states that now have same-sex marriage do so because it has been imposed on them by a federal court.”

 

California Supreme Court Justice Marvin Baxter warned of the fallout from approving same-sex marriage in 2008.

 

Baxter said the court’s decision to overturn a “deeprooted” standard for marriage opened a Pandora’s box.

 

“Who can say that, in 10, 15 or 20 years, an activist court might not rely on the majority’s analysis to conclude, on the basis of a perceived evolution in community values, that the laws prohibiting polygamous and incestuous marriages were no longer constitutionally justified?”

Two justices of the U. S. Supreme Court already have made a public stand for same-sex marriage, having performed ceremonies.

 

The actions by Elena Kagan and Ruth Ginsburg have prompted citizens groups to call for them to recuse themselves from the coming decision, but they have declined to do so.

 

Kagan performed a Sept. 21 same-sex marriage for her former law clerk, Mitchell Reich, and his partner in Maryland. Ginsburg performed a same-sex marriage at the Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts in Washington, D.C., in August 2013.

 

“Both of these justices’ personal and private actions actively endorsing gay marriage clearly indicate how they would vote on same-sex marriage cases already before the Supreme Court,” the American Family Association said.

__________________________________________

Arise Christians against SCOTUS Violations

John R. Houk

© April 8, 2015

_________________________________

SUPREMES WARNED: ‘GOD’S JUDGMENT’ NOW LOOMING

 

Bob Unruh joined WND in 2006 after nearly three decades with the Associated Press, as well as several Upper Midwest newspapers, where he covered everything from legislative battles and sports to tornadoes and homicidal survivalists. He is also a photographer whose scenic work has been used commercially.

© Copyright 1997-2015. All Rights Reserved. WND.com

Top Ten Anti-Christian Acts of 2014


Romans Persecuting Christians

Do you have your head in the sand believing the Left there is no war on Christianity in America?

 

JRH 1/7/15

Please Support NCCR

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

Top Ten Anti-Christian Acts of 2014

 

Link sent by Gary L Cass, D. Min.

January 6, 2015

DefendChristians.org

 

2014 was another wild and frustrating year for American Christians as the threats to our liberties and values are increasing. Here are the results of our online poll of the Top Ten Anti-Christian Acts of 2014. It’s not as predicable as you might think.

 

Rather than getting lost in the trees and not recognizing the forest, lets (sic) look at the larger trends revealed in the poll, and they are disconcerting.

 

Political correctness about social issues, (sexual deviancy and abortion) has been institutionalized publicly and privately. Biblically faithful Christians and their institutions are being pressured to compromise their values and accept arbitrary, tyrannical, secular ethics or feel the wrath of politicians, the courts, the academy, the media, and business.

 

Churches are being coerced to subsidize abortions, a pastor is on trial for telling the truth, ministers are bullied by a tyrannical mayor, and Christ is continuing to be blasphemed on network TV.

 

This is a sobering set of facts, but ones that ought to stir us to action, not resignation. As we pray and act, we do so in faith that God can turn us back to him. The means He uses our bold, counter-cultural voices of Truth. Christ calls us back to reality and to respect for His ordained institution of marriage and the sanctity of life created in His image and freedom to declare the whole counsel of God’s Word.

 

Share this list with your family and friends. We MUST engage in concerted prayer, evangelism and seek FIRST God’s Kingdom and His righteousness. America is ripe for either God’s justice or a heaven sent revival.

 

1. Christian colleges are now facing a new threat to their institutions… allow homosexual behavior or be stripped of accreditation. The New England Association of Schools and Colleges is threatening to strip Gordon College, of their accreditation unless the college accepts “homosexual practice” by it’s students. More here.

 

2. Federal Judge, Michael Posner, ignored Supreme Court precedence and allowed a frivolous lawsuit to move forward against American minster, Scott Lively. Lively is a minister and an attorney and was invited by the Ugandan legislature to help them create laws to protect their society from the homosexual movement. Sexual Minorities Uganda (SMUG), hauled Rev. Lively to US Federal Court under international law accusing him of “crimes against humanity.” More here.

 

3. Annise Parker, the lesbian Houston mayor, ordered city’s churches to turn over sermons, any e-mails, text messages, and other communications that talk about homosexuality, gender identity issues, or Annise Parker herself. The pastors were targeted after organizing descent against a bill passed by the city council that allowed transgender individuals to use the bathroom of their choice. After news spread throughout the Country, Parker’s attorney’s dropped the subpoenas. More here.

 

4. HGTV canceled a new program, “Flip It Forward”, because of the stars support of traditional marriage. The series followed the life of two brothers, David and Jason Benham, as they helped struggling families buy fixer-upper homes and transform them into forever homes. Both brothers have been vocal about their support for traditional marriage. More here.

 

5. The Girl Scouts USA introduced family planning into their curriculum in partnership with Planned Parenthood. The Girls Scouts also tout the founder of Planned Parenthood, Margaret Sanger, as an “eloquent woman”. More here. [Blog Editor: Sanger favored eugenics and abortion to rid America of Black Americans, the intellectually challenged and those deformed by birth defects.]

 

6. California churches are now required to cover the costs of abortions as “basic health care.” The state legislature is trying to exploit a “loop-hole” in the national healthcare law for the pro-abortion agenda. More here.

 

7. Mozilla CEO, Brendan Eich, was forced to resign from the huge tech company he founded after it was discovered he donated $1,000 towards legislation to uphold traditional marriage in California. Proposition 8 was a ballet initiative in support of traditional marriage that was approved by a majority of California voters, but was later ruled unconstitutional by the California Supreme Court. More here.

 

8. American tax dollars are still being used to pay for abortions. The Government Accountability Office (GAO) in Washington, found that at least 1,036 plans use your tax dollars to fund abortion-on-demand. More here.

 

9. A California male high school teacher returned as a woman from spring break. 56 year-old married father, Gary Sconce, has been a teacher at the rural Yosemite High School for 24 years. But after a letter was sent to the parents, he returned from the break as “Karen Adell Scot.” More here.

 

10. “I only wish the Virgin would’ve had an abortion,” was belted out in a song by musical guest, Kristeen Young, on CBS’s The Late Late Show with Craig Ferguson. “The song,” according to Young, “is about the centuries of religious persecution of women.” More here.

__________________________________

Copyright © Christian Anti-Defamation Commission.

 

About DefendChristians.org

 

Our Mission

 

The Christian Anti-Defamation Commission (CADC) is a not-for-profit 501(c) (3) Education Corporation whose purpose it is to become the first-in-mind champion of Christian religious liberty, domestically and internationally, and a national clearing house and first line of response to anti-Christian defamation, bigotry, and discrimination. More

 

History

 

The idea of the Christian Anti-defamation Commission (CADC) is not new. It has been publicly discussed since at least 1996, and perhaps as early as the 1980s. In October of 1999, General William Hollis, J.D., Ph.D., incorporated the Christian Anti-Defamation Commission. More

 

See also:

 

Founders

 

Advisory Board

 

Make a Donation – DefendChristians.org

MASSACHUSETTS FAMILY CAMPAIGN GETTING GLOBAL ATTENTION


Brian Camenker 2

Brian Comenker – MassResistance

 

Bob Unruh writing for WorldNetDaily lets Americans (especially Biblical-Christian Americans) become aware of the activist work of MassResistance. MassResistance actively fights the Homosexual Agenda (AFA explanation) on normalizing the unbiblical lifestyle. Largely thanks to President Barack Hussein Obama and activist Left Wing Courts homosexuality has been jammed down the throat of Americans. Today all across the media (News and Entertainment) Biblical Christian beliefs are disparaged particularly referencing homosexuality.

 

Rather than being upheld as people of high moral virtues Biblical Christians are now stigmatized as homophobic bigots that should be villainized rather than praised. I encourage Biblical Christians to visit MassResistance.org and invest in supporting the activist work going on to combat the Homosexual Agenda (a different link from AFA above).

 

JRH 6/2/14

Please Support NCCR

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

MASSACHUSETTS FAMILY CAMPAIGN GETTING GLOBAL ATTENTION

Hong Kong, Estonia, Finland, Sweden, Australia learn how to fight ‘gay’ agenda

By Bob Unruh

May 31, 2014

WorldNetDaily

 

The few workaholics at the pro-family MassResistance long have been fighting for traditional values, parental involvement in schools, and responsible education system decisions.

 

Until now, they’ve focused much of their attention on Massachusetts, which has provided no lack of work.

 

But now their outreach is touching those who want to pull the reins on “gay-straight” clubs, promotions of books like “King and King” to children, and other components of a strategy pursued by homosexuals to make those lifestyle choices mainstream in Estonia.

 

And Hong Kong.

 

And Finland.

 

And more.

 

The organization created a straightforward video presentation a few months ago simply describing the changes in their state because of the advance of homosexual “marriage” and more.

 

For example, people getting fired for their personal beliefs about lifestyle choices:

WND Video excerpt of MassResistance Youtube Video

 

Or that lawyers can fail their bar exam if they don’t know the proper way to deal with “gay marriage,” and its inevitable breakup:

WND Video excerpt of MassResistance Youtube Video

 

Or that the taxpayers, through their state and local health departments, are teaching children “how to perform sex acts on other males” and giving them a list of “bars in Boston where men can meet for anonymous sex.”

 

And taxpayers are distributing the “black book.”

 

WND Video excerpt of MassResistance Youtube Video

 

Word started spreading.

 

Officials with Mass Resistance soon were contacted by activists in Australia, and now the group’s report is being produced on a DVD in order to provide to churches and other organizations trying to enlighten the nation about the impact of making the lifestyle choice mainstream.

 

“Simply put, its designed to be a tool for individuals, activist groups, and churches to help show the unvarnished and disturbing consequences of ‘gay marriage’ on a society once it’s forced on the population,” the organization reported.

 

“The video is packed with not only descriptions, but actual first-hand documents, photos, and footage. Much of it exclusively shot by MassResistance or gathered in our undercover research, as well as from public documents.”

 

It addresses the impact on schools, the legal and judicial system, politics and government, hospitals and public health, churches and “the slippery slope – further consequences affecting children and society.”

 

“At the beginning of the year the well-funded international homosexual lobby began their lobbying push in Hong Kong to legalize “gay marriage,’” MassResistance said. “Pro-family activists there began working with MassResistance in February.

 

The result? A Cantonese version of the video.

 

“It is now being widely shown in Hong Kong. They told us that they are very pleased that now people can watch the video and it will ‘help them to understand’ what they are really facing,” MassResistance reported.

 

“On Monday, we received the following message from one of the Hong Kong activists: ‘The issue on gender recognition is creeping in as there is a recent court ruling to recognize the reassigned gender after sex reassignment surgery. I saw that transgenderism is also forcing its way to school education at your side. The battle is getting increasingly tough…’”

 

Then when the Finnish parliament began debating “gay marriage,” religious leaders wanted help.

 

“They began using our materials to educate their people. A few days ago they posted a version of our MassResistance video with Finnish sub-titles and began promoting it across the country,” the report said.

 

“We have also just been informed that Swedish and Estonian language versions of the MassResistance video are being prepared for broadcast on national TV in those countries,” the report said.

 

The material also is being used to fight various state campaigns in the U.S. to institutionalize “gay marriage.”

 

“For many across the country and around the world, MassResistance is the go-to place for pro-family activism and information. In addition to the above, in just the last several months we’ve worked with pro-family activists in Australia, Croatia, Jamaica, England, France, Ghana, Uganda, and Canada. And here in the U.S. we’ve worked with activists in Hawaii, Minnesota, Illinois, Utah, Idaho, Louisiana. We get more calls every week.”

 

See the full video:

 

[Blog Editor WND used their video format to share the MassResistance video; however below is the Youtube version.]

 

VIDEO: What ‘gay marriage’ did to Massachusetts — Update!

 

 

Posted by MassResistance

Published: Oct 18, 2013

 

This is the update to the blockbuster report and video done previously by MassResistance. Most people don’t know what REALLY happens when same-sex “marriage” is imposed. The effects on society are outrageous and far-reaching.

__________________________________

© Copyright 1997-2014. All Rights Reserved. WND.com.

Bob Unruh joined WND in 2006 after nearly three decades with the Associated Press, as well as several Upper Midwest newspapers, where he covered everything from legislative battles and sports to tornadoes and homicidal survivalists. He is also a photographer whose scenic work has been used commercially.

Ducking from the Truth


Agenda- Homo Plan Change America

Mark Alexander of The Patriot Post tackles the Left Wing usage of the tool of the Homosexual Agenda used to depreciate Christianity and Biblical Morality in order to transform society into a Leftist Utopia. This is a subject that is nearly if not totally ignored by the Mainstream Media and unfortunately the leading Conservative pundits in America. Why? The ungodly union of Leftist Transformationism and the Homosexual Agenda have successfully managed the narrative that defending Biblical Morality is bigotry as well as giving Homosexual activism the aegis of the destruction of Religious Liberty.

 

JRH 1/10/14

Please Support NCCR

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

Ducking from the Truth

The ‘Gay Agenda’ v. Liberty

 

By Mark Alexander

January 8, 2014

The Patriot Post

 

Let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.” –George Washington (Farewell Address, 1796)

 

For five decades, a relentless and insidious campaign to undermine faith and family, the foundational tenets of our Republic, has been on the rise. With the 2008 election of Barack Hussein Obama, the most faith-intolerant regime in the history of our Republic, the growth of that campaign has become a malignant battle for the hearts and minds of American voters.

 

Most of the participants in this battle are unwitting pawns of the political Left, believing that they are simply supporting individual rights. In reality, they are systematically eroding the ground beneath the two most critical pillars of Liberty: faith and family. In the end, the inevitable and irrevocable terminus of these actions is tyranny.

 

Though social research organizations consistently find that those with gender identity issues make up less than 3% of the population, that tiny minority has become the most vociferous enemy of faith and family – and has rallied a substantial political constituency. For that reason, few social and political commentators will even venture into this arena, fearing public vilification and removal of their public platform by Leftmedia print and TV outlets under pressure from weak-kneed advertisers.

 

No such fear here, but as a prerequisite for this analysis, let it be stated clearly that the central government has no constitutional authority to regulate sexual activity between consenting adults. However, our Republic most assuredly has a stake in protecting religious Liberty, and marriage as defined by the Laws of Nature.

 

The first target of the Left and their homosexual agenda constituency is the first clause of the First Amendment to our Constitution, which states simply, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…”

 

That succinct proscription notwithstanding, Leftist judicial supremacists, who occupy what Thomas Jefferson called “the Despotic Branch,” have adulterated the plain language of that clause to greatly suppress the free exercise of Liberty across the nation. They have succeeded in large measure to supplant Rule of Law with the rule of men – the rule of egocentric executives and legislators who believe they are the font of wisdom sufficient for ruling over their subjects.

 

The second pillar of Liberty targeted by the Left is the family – beginning with marriage. In the words of Justice Joseph Story, “Marriage is … in its origin, a contract of natural law. … It is the parent, and not the child of society; the source of civility and a sort of seminary of the republic.”

 

Comment | Share

 

As you recall, in 2008 candidate Obama himself feigned disdain for same-sex marriage and asserted a pretense of faith: “I believe that marriage is the union between a man and a woman. Now, for me as a Christian … it is also a sacred union. God’s in the mix. … I am not somebody who promotes same-sex marriage.” Of course, that was just another bald-faced election-year lie. A full 12 years earlier, while running for Illinois State Senate, Obama said this: “I favor legalizing same-sex marriages, and would fight efforts to prohibit such marriages.”

 

Obama’s expressed sentiment therefore lasted only as long as the campaign. No sooner had he been elected than he began a concerted effort to undermine marriage by promoting “gay rights.” Most notably in 2010, just weeks before the “Tea Party Republicans” who had decimated the Democrats in the 2010 midterm elections took control of the House, Obama signed last-minute legislation overturning the Clinton-era policy of “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell,” thus subjecting military ranks to overt homosexuality.

 

What Leftist politicos understand, but most of their constituents do not, is that the deconstruction of religious Liberty and the family, starting with the redefinition of marriage, will ultimately result in the rise of an oppressive and dictatorial successor.

 

Occasionally, the Left attempts to merge both its assault on religious Liberty and upon the family into one battle, endeavoring to kill two birds with one stone – the first being the “Natural Law” contract of marriage, and the second being the objection to homosexuality by every religion on the planet.

 

Such was the case in May 2012, when homosexual advocates managed a successful coup d’état against one of the most faith- and family-centered organizations in the nation – the Boy Scouts of America – opening the door for homosexual members in order to open the next door for homosexual leaders.

 

Emboldened by that success, they began a national campaign to target Christian-owned pro-family businesses – small and large – endeavoring to break their support for marriage by way of legal injunctions against their expression of their faith. Finally, the coercive “gay lobby” campaign met its match.

 

A very high-profile failure was the homosexual assault on Chick-fil-A due to CEO Dan Cathy, and his very vocal Christian affirmation of faith and family. Cathy’s rejection of so-called “gay marriage” was the catalyst for an attempted national boycott against the restaurant chain, but the result was an outpouring of support for Chick-fil-A.

 

But homosexual advocates suffered a far more spectacular defeat just last month, as you undoubtedly heard, when the Arts and Entertainment network attempted to expel the patriarch of one of the most successful cable television programs in history, solely due to his expression of faith and support for marriage and family in a GQ magazine profile.

 

Comment | Share

 

The details of the A&E defeat provide a useful case study in “David and Goliath” politics – grassroots activism versus huge media and political adversaries.

 

Phil Robertson, who heads the popular Duck Dynasty clan featured on A&E, was asked by GQ editors about sin and repentance, and he responded with a paraphrase from 1 Corinthians 6: “Don’t be deceived. Neither the adulterers, the idolaters, the male prostitutes, the homosexual offenders, the greedy, the drunkards, the slanderers, the swindlers – they won’t inherit the kingdom of God. Don’t deceive yourself. It’s not right.” Robertson added a few comments considered crude by “cultured” leftists, but reflective of the provincial language of his Louisiana culture.

 

As soon as the article was published online, Robertson was attacked by the two most influential national homosexual advocacy organizations – the Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation and the so-called “Human Rights” Campaign – for making “anti-gay remarks” in the GQ magazine profile. Typical of how Robertson’s remarks were framed are these pathetic pontifications from GLAAD spokesman Wilson Cruz: “Phil and his family claim to be Christian, but Phil’s lies about an entire community fly in the face of what true Christians believe. Phil’s decision to push vile and extreme stereotypes is a stain on A&E and his sponsors who now need to re-examine their ties to someone with such public disdain for LGBT people and families.”

 

A&E, which previously asked the Robertson family to reduce its show’s references to guns and closing with prayer – requests the Robertsons refused – swiftly expelled Phil, noting, “His personal views in no way reflect those of A&E Networks, who have always been strong supporters and champions of the LGBT community.”

 

Within days of A&E’s decision, Sandra Cochran, CEO of Cracker Barrel, one of the largest family restaurant chains in the nation, announced with much fanfare that she was ordering merchandise connected to Phil Robertson removed from their shelves. Cochran noted, “We operate within the ideals of fairness, mutual respect and equal treatment of all people. These ideals are the core of our corporate culture.”

 

As I wrote Cochran, “Nothing Phil Robertson said offends your ‘corporate culture,’ unless you are offended by the foundational sacrament of marriage between man and woman as defined in the Old and New Testaments of Christian Scripture – and every other major world religion.”

 

The nation’s largest retailer, Walmart, wisely kept its shelves loaded with Duck Dynasty products.

 

The execs of A&E, Cracker Barrel and the highest profile homosexual advocacy organizations assumed the rest of the Robertson clan was more invested in their lucrative contracts with A&E than their faith, and their viewers were more invested in the asinine antics of reality shows than the substance and world view of the characters in this particular show.

 

Bad assumptions. Neither the Robertsons, nor their fans, duck the truth.

 

In less than 48 hours, Cracker Barrel issued one of the most stunning corporate apologies on record. “When we made the decision to remove and evaluate certain Duck Dynasty items, we offended many of our loyal customers. Our intent was to avoid offending, but that’s just what we’ve done. You flat out told us we were wrong. We listened. Today, we are putting all our Duck Dynasty products back in our stores, and, we apologize for offending you.”

 

Comment | Share

 

Days later, after Phil Robertson’s family advised the network that they would not go on without their patriarch, A&E folded its hand. Apparently the network execs were more invested in their viewer share revenue than being “strong supporters and champions of the LGBT community.” As some sort of recompense for their gender-confused audience, they announced, “We will use this moment to launch a national public service campaign (PSA) promoting unity, tolerance and acceptance among all people, a message that supports our core values as a company, and the values found in Duck Dynasty.”

 

This week, the Robertson family announced their new endorsement line of firearms, undoubtedly a source of additional heartburn for A&E.

 

This resounding defeat of the homosexual lobby is a case study in how grassroots Americans can successfully confront and crush the Left elite. By extension, it is also a strong indication that Patriots across the nation are poised to deliver the same humiliating defeat to leftists in 2014 that they did in 2010.

 

The bottom line is that a growing number of grassroots Americans recognize that the Chick-fil-A and Duck Dynasty showdowns are not about homosexuals, chickens or ducks, but about the suppression of faith expression and the undermining of Liberty. Phil Robertson is not a bigot, but those who suppress religious Liberty in the name of “tolerance and diversity” certainly are.

 

Those who support the “gay agenda” certainly think they do so for the right reasons. But they’ve been lulled into thinking that this issue has no overarching implications for the Liberty of future generations. They are wrong.

 

Send a courteous message for those who would undermine faith and family:

 

o   Contact A&E: feedbackaetv@aenetworks.com

 

o   Contact the so-called “Human Rights” Campaign: http://www.hrc.org/the-hrc-story/contact-us

 

o   Contact the Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation: http://www.glaad.org/contact

 

o   (Recommended Reading: Gender Identity, The Homosexual Agenda and The Christian Response)

 

Pro Deo et Constitutione – Libertas aut Mors
Semper Fortis Vigilate Paratus et Fidelis

________________________________

© 2014, The Patriot Post.

 

From the bottom of Patriot Post Email

 

*PUBLIUS*

 

The Patriot Post is protected speech pursuant to the “unalienable rights” of all men, and the First (and Second) Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America. In God we trust. Copyright © 2014 The Patriot Post. All Rights Reserved.

 

REPRINTING, FORWARDING AND POSTING: Subscribers may reprint, forward or post original content from The Patriot Post, in whole or part, in accordance with our Terms of Use, with the following citation: “The Patriot Post (http://www.patriotpost.us/subscribe/ )”

 

Validate Homosexuality – Look for the Plains of Sodom


Escape---Sodom-and-Gomorrah---Joachim-Patinir

John R. Houk

© July 2, 2013

 

Yesterday I posted an exposé from a pro-Catholic and traditional morality Vlog site called ChurchMilitantTV about a closet homosexual lobby within the Vatican itself. Homosexuality spoken about was actually a problem that has plagued the Catholic Church for some time. That moral plague is predator Priests enticing and/or forcing minor boys to have sex with them. The crime of pedophilia is an act that most Americans find disgustingly abhorrent that a man would defile a male child in such a cruel fashion. In Christianity the Clergy of Catholics, Protestants and Eastern Orthodox Churches are supposed to be a paradigm of morality as established by the Holy Scriptures.

 

Indeed Christian-hating Leftists and homosexual activists have gone to great lengths to exploit this small lobby contagion of homosexuals within the Catholic Church as hypocrites. These Christian-haters use Pedophile Priests as a good reason to nullify the morality of Christianity to be replaced by Moral Relativity.

 

Leftists and homosexual activists of course are quite selective in heaping Christian-hating epithets at the Roman Catholic Church. These same Christian-haters will turn around and heap praise on Protestant Denominations that have invalidated Biblical Morality to grasp at Moral Relativity. I found a Wikipedia table diagram of Churches that are accepting of homosexuality in four categories: membership, Ordination, blessing same-sex unions and marrying same-sex couples. I am uncertain on how up to date the diagram is. Below is a list of mainline Protestant Denominations from that list that are accepting of homosexuality regardless of the Word of God condemning the vulgar lifestyle:

 

Christian Church-Disciples of Christ:

 

1)    Membership  

 

Reformed Church in America

 

1)    Membership

 

Episcopal Church

 

1)    Membership

 

2)   Ordination

 

Evangelical Lutheran Church of America-ELCA

 

1)    Membership

 

2)   Ordination

 

Presbyterian Church USA

 

1)    Membership

 

2)   Ordination

 

Religious Society of Friends-Quakers  

 

1)    Membership

 

United Church of Christ-UCC

 

1)    Membership

 

2)   Ordination

 

3)   Same-Sex Unions

 

The United Methodist Church (UMC) was not on that Wikipedia table diagram; however the UMC is amenable to homosexual membership while condemning the homosexual lifestyle. Also the UMC will probably formerly accept ordination and same-sex marriage because both aspects exist even though UMC rules says no to both.

 

If I missed any Denominations that have tossed out the Bible when it comes to homosexuality I am confident someone will point it out to me.

 

The Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) recently drove America further into Moral Relativity and away from Biblical Morality by destroying the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) that mandated that marriage is a union between a man and a woman. Then SCOTUS overturned the will of California State voters by essentially affirming a District Court ruling in California that Proposition 8 – which like DOMA declared marriage a union between a man and a woman – was unconstitutional. SCOTUS said the legal team defending Proposition 8 had no standing in Court because it was a private organization doing the California State government’s job. Of course old Governor Moonbeam and the State legislation are dominated by Christian-Morality-Hating Democrats; thus the State government refused to defend the will of the California State voters.

 

I am rehashing the SCOTUS anti-Christian activism in the last near hundred years over the Original Intent of the Constitution because now further moral degradation will be in America’s future. The pedophilia in the Roman Catholic Church could become legalized as the next step in Moral Relativity. If America becomes propagandized into totally accepting the moral depravity of homosexuality, Man/Boy sexual relations will not be far behind in the legal acceptance in the rule of law.

 

After Moral Relativism mandates Man/Boy NAMBLA style acceptance of sexual relationships then it will be illegal in the USA for the majority Roman Catholic hierarchy to discipline pederast Priests that will claim those boys voluntarily engaged in sex with adult Priests. Incidents described in this article will longer be scandalous.

 

Italian investigators have opened an inquiry into claims by a convicted paedophile priest that an underage prostitution ring has been operating inside the Holy Roman Church with clergymen hiring rentboys for sex inside churches.

 

Don Patrizio Poggi, 46, told Italian authorities that a former Carabinieri pimped boys for nine clergymen.

 

Poggi, who served a five-year sentence for abusing teenage boys while he was a parish priest at the San Filippo Neri church in Rome, said he made the allegations to “protect the Holy Church and the Christian community.”

 

The boys were chosen because they were starving and desperate, he claimed, according to Il Messaggero newspaper.

 

The former policeman used to recruit the boys, mostly eastern European immigrants, outside a gay bar named Twink near Rome’s Termini train station. He reportedly sat in his Fiat Panda – marked “Emergency Blood” to avoid parking fines – to make his selection.

 

He was helped in the recruitment process by a friend who ran a modelling agency. He lured underage boys into prostitution through “false work offers for modelling and acting roles”, Poggi said.

 

The agent also looked for rentboys at gay discos, saunas and gyms across Rome. An accountant was also said to be involved.

 

The boys were paid 150-500 (£130-£425) to perform sex acts in church premises across the capital.

 

Poggi also accused the former Carabinieri of selling consecrated hosts for satanic rites.

 

Poggi reportedly presented documentary and photographic evidence to police in the company of two senior Vatican clergymen who vouched for his credibility.

 

Poggi identified the nine clergymen, including two senior church officials and a religion lecturer. Three people have been placed under formal investigation.

 

The allegations were rejected by the Vatican. Cardinal Agostino Vallini, head of the Catholic Vicariate of Rome, said the priest made false claims out of a desire for vengeance and personal resentment.

 

The Vatican refused to reinstate Poggi after he served his term.

 

“The cardinal expresses his full confidence in the magistracy and declares himself full convinced that this slander will be demolished, demonstrating Poggi’s claims to be untrue,” Vallini said.

 

“God will hold everyone accountable for their deeds.” (Vatican Rentboy and Satanism Claims Revealed by Paedophile Priest Don Patrizio Poggi; By Umberto Bacchi; IBT; 6/27/13 11:35 AM GMT)

 

And check this out from Leftist website Right Wing Watch. The irony is the post is meant as an indictment against Conservatives and Biblical Morality yet the article is informative of the path SCOTUS is taking Christianity in America.

 

Gary Bauer is joining other anti-gay activists in warning that they should prepare to face jail time as a result of gay rights victories at the Supreme Court. In the Washington Times today, Bauer claims that people who oppose same-sex marriage will “find themselves in court” and religious people may soon be “fined or jailed” because of their views.

 

The ultimate goal of homosexual-rights activists is not to legalize same-sex marriage. Rather, it is to silence those who disagree with them and, if necessary, to throw them in jail. In a world in which the biblical viewpoint of marriage is demonized, it does not take a constitutional scholar to predict that soon those who hold that view will find themselves in court.

How did we get to the point where homosexual-rights activists would be clamoring to redefine society’s oldest and most reliable institution and people of faith would be worried about being fined or jailed for teaching their faith?

A lot had to happen, and it’s not all the left’s fault. It took the breakdown of traditional marriage. It took churches deciding that they could accommodate the homosexual culture or ignore it altogether. It took businesses placing their bottom lines ahead of morality. It took politicians who assured voters on the campaign trail that they would protect marriage and then did nothing to keep their promises once they arrived in Washington.

As a society, we have lost the understanding of what marriage is and what the consequences will be if we redefine it. Nobody has the right to redefine marriage. Doing so ignores research that makes clear that children do best when raised by a mother and a father. Nobody has the right to force children to grow up without the unique contributions that a mother and a father provide.

 

Not to be outdone, Joseph Farah of WorldNetDaily claims the Supreme Court may take away Christians’ right to vote:

 

Now where do we go from here?

What’s next?

It’s obvious, isn’t it?

The Supreme Court virtually declared an open season on those with whom the 5-4 majority disagree.

We are no longer relevant. What we think no longer counts. We are, after all, bigots who only want to demean homosexuals.

So when does the persecution begin?

When are we stripped of our citizen status, the right to vote, the right to bear arms and other constitutionally guaranteed liberties? Isn’t that next?

If not, why not?

It was just 10 years ago to the day of this decision that the Supreme Court issued another sweeping ruling in the Lawrence v. Texas case. It struck down anti-sodomy laws in that state and, effectively, across the country.

Justice Antonin Scalia wrote in his dissent in that case that the ruling would inevitably lead to same-sex marriage and polygamy. The cultural establishment scoffed at that opinion. It mocked Scalia. Why?

Because only 10 years ago, the notion of same-sex marriage was practically unheard of. It was a laughable proposition.

That’s how quickly the 6,000-year-old institution of marriage was officially and arbitrarily redefined with the imprimatur of five high priests and priestesses wearing black robes.

Will it take another 10 years for the retribution against marriage defenders to begin? I doubt it. My guess is the plans are already being drafted.

As for me and my house, however, we will continue to serve the Lord – the author of marriage and everything else. (Bauer: Anti-Gay Activists May Be Thrown in Jail Following DOMA; Posted by Brian Tashman; Right Wing Watch; 6/27/2013 12:30 pm)

 

Be sure to thank SCOTUS, Leftists and Homosexual Activists when Christianity becomes illegal or speaking Biblical Truths places a Christian in jail and American society devolves into a land like the Biblical Sodom and Gomorrah.

 

JRH 7/2/13 (Hat Tip: Solid Snake)

Please Support NCCR