I Shed No Tears For Notorious RBG


In this recent submission by Justin Smith, the title informs he sheds no tears for the passing of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg – NEITHER DO I.

 

Celebrated with awe by the transform America Left, I view Ginsburg as a Constitution-shredding Justice who was a judicial activist making the Constitution mean whatever the Left (now-a-days: Dem-Communists) decided it should mean regardless of the jot and tittle of the letter of the Constitution.

 

If you hear the Dem propaganda machine Mainstream Media (MSM) that these days includes Fox News claim RBG was a champion of Women’s rights, you should actually the “right” referenced was to legalize the murder of an UNBORN person.

 

NOPE! I do not shed one tear for the demise of Justice RBG. I encourage you to read Justin Smith’s elaboration.

 

JRH 9/22/20

Your generosity is always appreciated – various credit, check 

& debit cards are accepted by my PayPal account: 

Please Support NCCR

Or support by getting in the Coffee from home business – 

OR just buy some FEEL GOOD coffee, that includes immune boosting products.

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

I Shed No Tears For Notorious RBG

By Justin O. Smith

Sent 9/19/2020 11:05 PM

 

She just died? WOW. I didn’t know that. She led an amazing life. What else can you say? She was an amazing woman, whether you agree or not. She was an amazing woman who led an amazing life. I’m actually sad to hear that.”  ~ President Donald J. Trump, September 18th 2020

 

The woman considered by many Americans to be a national treasure, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, a history-making jurist born on March 15th 1933,in Brooklyn, New York, ushered in the Jewish holiday of the Days of Awe with her death on September 18th 2020, having served in the federal court and the Supreme Court for four decades. Ginsburg’s life was one of great accomplishment for a woman of her time, a remark she would appreciate if she heard it. Her life’s work was a mixed-bag and filled with many items, both ignoble and principled, that brought ultimate harm and good alike to American society, but too often it tore asunder the Constitution and the founding ideas and principles that best support true liberty.

 

In the days preceding her death from pancreatic cancer, at age 87, as her strength and her life slipped away, Ginsburg dictated the following words to her granddaughter Clara Spera: “My most fervent wish is that I will not be replaced until a new president is installed.”

 

If You’re listening, Ruth, we don’t always get what we want.

 

Chief Justice John Roberts stated: “Our nation has lost a jurist of historic stature. We at the Supreme Court have lost a cherished colleague. Today we mourn, but with confidence that future generations will remember Ruth Bader Ginsburg as we knew her — a tireless and resolute champion of justice.”

 

A 1954 graduate of Cornell University, Ginsburg was well remembered by all. Cornell President Martha Pollack stated: “Ruth Bader Ginsburg was a true hero and a giant of American jurisprudence. A relentless champion of equity, she dedicated her life to innumerable, honorable causes, always fighting for what was right. While the nation mourns her passing, we can find solace in the indelible imprint that she leaves on American society and on the lives of each of us who found inspiration from her actions and who will carry her spirit with us long into the future.”

 

Justice Ginsburg had to fight and scrap every step of the way to gain acceptance in a male dominated profession, in the first days of her career, from Harvard Law to Columbia University , first being rejected for a coveted Supreme Court clerkship with Justice Felix Frankfurter in 1960, who rejected her only for being a woman. But, her mentor, Professor Gerald Gunther finally secured her a clerk position, by telling U.S. District Judge Edmund Palmieri he would never recommend another Columbia student for Palmieri’s chambers if he refused to hire Ginsburg. Palmieri agreed with the stipulation he would fire her if she proved unsatisfactory.

 

Ginsburg became the first tenured woman on the law faculty at Columbia University. She coauthored the first casebook on sex discrimination, and she founded the Women’s Rights Project at the American Civil Liberties Union, a socialist/ communist front that hid behind its supposed fight for liberty for all Americans as it very often worked to subvert the Constitution and liberty in America. And, during her time at the ACLU, Ginsburg was the chief strategist of an insidious campaign to effect social and political change for women through the courts, by essentially “discovering” non-existent “rights” and steadily expanding the 14th Amendment’s equal protection clause to prohibit distinctions based on sex.

 

As an advocate at the Women’s Rights Project, through the ACLU, Ginsburg researched and argued six gender discrimination cases before the Supreme Court during the 1970s. She won five, earning acclaim as the Thurgood Marshall of the women’s rights movement from those who recall her early days as a litigator and director of the Women’s Rights Project.

 

Once she was asked who was the smartest person she ever knew, and she named he mother, Celia Amster Bader. During her Amherst talk, during a 2004 Holocaust remembrance ceremony, Ginsburg offered a truly striking observation that spoke volumes about what it really means to be an American, observing: “I had the good fortune to be a Jew born in the U.S.A. My father left Odessa bound for the New World in 1909, at age 13. My mother was first in her large family to be born here, in 1903 … What is the difference between a bookkeeper in New York’s Garment District and a Supreme Court Justice? Just one generation, my mother’s life and mine bear witness.”

 

Twenty years after her last argument before the Supreme Court, to Ginsburg’s credit and speaking as the father of two daughters, who I taught to be fiercely independent and to think things through, her explanation in the 1996 discrimination case of United States v. Virginia was excellent, correct, righteous and true, one of her best moments. In a moment of personal triumph, writing for the majority of a 7-1 decision, she stated that Virginia had failed to provide the “exceedingly persuasive justification” that the Constitution required for treating men and women differently, concluding: “Women seeking and fit for a V.M.I quality education cannot be offered anything less under the state’s obligation to afford them genuinely equal protection. Generalizations about ‘the way women are’, estimates of what is appropriate for most women, no longer justify denying opportunity to women whose talent and capacity place them outside the average description.”

 

Also to her credit, Ginsburg championed for the mentally disabled, as seen in Olmstead v. LC (1999). The ruling held that the Americans With Disabilities Act often requires people with mental disabilities to be placed in community settings and not institutions, with Ginsburg writing: “Institutional placement of persons who can handle and benefit from community settings perpetuates unwarranted assumptions that persons so isolated are incapable or unworthy of participating in community life.”

 

And, if there’s any ruling that can possibly move some forgiveness for all her other leftist rulings, perhaps it is M.L.B v. S.L.J and a parent’s “right” to be able to pursue their parental rights in court, despite being too poor to pay for the filing costs that normally are required before a case may proceed. Although the Supreme Court of Mississippi had ruled that the state had no obligation to pay for the filing, Ginsburg rejected their opinion in the majority ruling that stated “the state may not bolt the door to equal justice” when it comes to parental rights.

 

Adored by all the liberal, Marxist Socialists and communist women, and many men too, at barely 5 feet tall and a hundred pounds, Ginsburg’s powerful, dissenting opinions attracted a great deal of attention, as the Court moved farther towards the right. In June of 2013, a law student at New York University, Shana Knizhnik anointed Ginsburg with the nickname of the Notorious R.B.G, a play on the Notorious B.I.G, a famous rapper who was Brooklyn-born, just as Ginsburg was. The name stuck, and along with her serene yet severe expression, eyes framed by oversized glasses, a frilly lace collar adorning her black judicial robe, and a gold crown phot-shopped on her head at a rakish angle, R.B.G became an internet sensation.

 

Even more curiously, Notorious RBG’s politics did not affect her personal relationships. She was a very close friend of the extremely conservative Justice Antonin Scalia, before he passed.

 

However, to her shame, she fought intensely to protect “the right of abortion”, which has never been found in any U.S. legal code or anywhere in the U.S. Constitution, at any time prior to its magical appearance in 1973. After the Court upheld Congress’s Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003 in Gonzales v. Carhart (2007), Ginsburg wrote in her dissent, in part: (The majority ruling) “tolerates, indeed applauds, federal intervention to ban nationwide a procedure found necessary and proper in certain cases by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. In candor, the Act, and the Court’s defense of it, cannot be understood as anything other than an effort to chip away at a right declared again and again by this Court — and with increasing comprehension of its centrality to women’s lives.”

 

As a mother of a son and a daughter, one is left puzzled at how she could be such a staunch supporter of so heinous and evil an act, as abortion. And no matter how many times one calls it a “right” or attempts to justify it in some other manner, it’s still baby murder anyway one slices it.

 

In 1999, just a month after undergoing cancer surgery, Justice Ginsburg, suggested: “No door should be closed to people willing to spend the hours of effort to make dreams come true”. Well, I would offer that some people’s dreams are other people’s nightmares. Some people dream of committing mass murders, while others dream of being able to engage in deviant, unnatural, vile and evil sex acts with children and being able to marry people of the same sex. Some people dream of an authoritarian government where no Inalienable Rights exist and people all join in together in the service of the government and one’s Supreme Leader.

 

One must also note Ginsburg’s disdain for the U.S. Constitution, in 2012, as she told Egypt’s Al-Hayat TV, that the U.S. Constitution would not be the best model for post-revolution Egypt, stating: “I would not look to the U.S. Constitution, if I were drafting a Constitution in the year 2012. I might look at the Constitution of South Africa. That was a deliberate attempt to have a fundamental instrument of government that embraced basic human rights, had an independent judiciary. … It really is, I think, a great piece of work that was done. Much more recent than the U.S. Constitution.”

 

Someone should have objected to this bit of idiocy on her part, since a more recent time stamp on an idea doesn’t make it the best idea of one’s days. She was touting a constitution constructed by the communists of the black African National Congress primarily for South Africa’s black people, that largely restricts the white people of their country, and in the process, she erroneously asserted that it included “freedom from discrimination”. She also praised the constitutions of Canada and the European Union. Ginsburg was simply blinded by the positive rights they advanced, since she always has held via implication, that rights come from government, as seen through her opinions and dissents, rather than as being from God.

 

Of course, rights that are subject to the whims of men and women holding office on any particular day can easily be eradicated, whereas our Inalienable Rights exist despite the actions of any men and as granted by God. And for those of us who hold this as a fundamental truth, it is of the utmost importance that we help President Trump and this Congress affirm and seat Justice Ginsburg’s replacement, as soon as possible, with a true conservative American who will uphold the principles of freedom and liberty for all Americans.

 

In the meantime, I shed no tears for this woman whose views regarding life in the womb and the rights of the UnBorn Child were so vile and so flawed, in many respects, that she advocated and upheld the non-existent “right” of a woman to murder her child in the womb, at every opportunity, even at the point of birth itself. She saw it as a matter of equality, although her position negated equality for the UnBorn Child and his rights as a living being.

 

I shed no tears for a woman whose views on the constitution were so anti-American and sympathetic to those enemies from within, the socialists and communists, who would destroy Christianity and the nuclear family in this nation, through her affirmation of homosexual marriage, in Obergefell v. Hodges.

 

Now, Ginsburg’s demise will serve only to motivate the country’s domestic terrorists and intensify America’s culture war and shake the nation to its very core. Her death has already set the stage for what promises to be a nasty and fierce political battle over who will succeed her, and the vacancy on the Supreme Court is now a front and center focus of the presidential campaign. And by no means should Republicans hesitate for a second to move immediately to fill it.

 

President Trump has a constitutional obligation to act promptly, and he stated as much, at around 9:00 am this morning (September 19th): “We were put in this position of power to make decisions for the people who so proudly elected us, the most important of which has long been considered to be the selection of United States Supreme Court Justices. We have this obligation, without delay!”

 

Republicans won the election on November 3rd 2016. They hold the presidency. They hold the Senate. For Democrats to suggest that some unwritten rule exists that demands they must wait for the new election and a new president — hopefully a Democratic president in their way of thinking — is sheer double-standard lunacy. Whoever holds the seats of power when such openings occur have every right and authority to feel them under the Supreme Law of the Land, the U.S. Constitution.

 

As Dan McLaughlin wrote on August 7th for the National Review, anticipating this event: “Twenty-nine times in American history there has been an open Supreme Court vacancy in a presidential election year, or in a lame-duck session before the next presidential inauguration. (This counts vacancies created by new seats on the Court, but not vacancies for which there was a nomination already pending when the year began, such as happened in 1835-36 and 1987-88.) The president made a nomination in all twenty-nine cases. George Washington did it three times. John Adams did it. Abraham Lincoln did it. Ulysses S. Grant did it. Franklin D. Roosevelt did it. Barack Obama, of course, did it. Twenty-two of the 44 men to hold the office faced this situation, and all twenty-two made the decision to send up the nomination, whether or not they had the votes in the Senate.”

 

Not only is the leader of the Supreme Court’s Leftists gone, but Chief Justice John Roberts no longer holds the controlling vote in closely contested cases, which may be a blessing in disguise. Although Roberts has a fairly consistent conservative record, for the most part, he has split on crucial cases, such as the time he saved the so-called Dreamers from deportation, upheld a major abortion precedent and upheld bans on large church gatherings during the COVID plandemic. And now, with Ginsburg gone and no clear majority, the next few weeks offer to be a bare-knuckle political brawl, writ large, across the stage of the presidential election.

 

President Trump and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnel have already noted the hard reality of the necessity of taking advantage of this monumental opportunity. Whether or not President Trump wins in November, he will go down in history as one of the most significant presidents, if he can actually seat a third Justice to the Supreme Court, since the last Republican to install three Justices in his first term was Richard M. Nixon. And, we should all be hoping and praying that the President’s nominee is the incredibly intelligent, impeccable and honorable Judge Amy Coney Barrett, a Notre Dame University Law School graduate and a judge on the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, since Trump just hinted that he would pick a woman.

 

Ginsburg knew what was to come, and so she fought to remain as she attempted to set the terms of her own departure, in order to shape the election Her death will have profound consequences for the Court and America.

 

At every level and every segment of society imaginable, America is more volatile today than at any other time in history, and with the most significant election in decades so near, and such a monumental opening appearing on the U.S. Supreme Court, the country stands at the edge of a dangerous abyss and prepared to plunge into a prolonged conflict, marked by extreme and deadly violent civil upheaval, that promises to further damage and perhaps even end the republic. The stakes for the survival of America have never been higher.

 

By Justin O. Smith

_______________________________

John R. Houk is the Blog Editor. Typically I take steps to embed sources to info in blog submissions, but I am running a bit behind. So I am posting as is after running a spell check.

 

© Justin O. Smith

 

A Challenge to Point out Communism in Dem Party Platform PT 1


John R. Houk

© October 25, 2018

I recently received criticism on a MeWe group for sharing a Justin Smith post entitled “Liberty First and Foremost”. The beginning of Justin’s essay said this:

 

The Democratic Party has grown to be the enemy within our country, and the communist Democrats working in federal positions are the same as foreign agents infiltrated into federal agencies, seeking to do whatever is needed to end this republic.

 

Chris Worth at this MeWe group said something to the effect he read equating the Dems to a “Communist” and decided the post was worthless and hence encouraged readers there was no need to read further.

 

That kind of irked me. So, I quipped he should read the Dem Party Platform to see the Communism dripping from the words.

 

Essentially Chris Worth called bull and challenged me to show where Communism was found in the Dem Platform.

 

Ergo the purpose of this post.

 

Responding to Chris Worth of LEFT VS RIGHT~DEBATE IS ON! FIGHT FOR YOUR CAUSE! On MeWe

 

The Democratic Party Platform is updated every 4 years corresponding to Presidential elections. The 2016 Dem platform true to Socialist/Communist ideology to fool the people, disguises their words to sound appealing, yet when compared to the less likely to disguise Socialist/Marxist agenda of making decisions rather than offering choices is quite apparent. The DNC Platform is 50 pages of disguised flowery promises impossible for the most part to accomplish without bankrupting government and/or taxing “We The People” so heavily that no one will ever manage their own affairs without government –cough– guidance.

 

Here’s a summary of the 50-page platform with a little added commentary:

 

Bioethics Issues

 

Supports appointing judges who defend abortion rights.

 

Opposes efforts to limit or prohibit taxpayer funding of Planned Parenthood.

 

Opposes any laws that limit abortion.

 

Supports the repeal of the Hyde Amendment, which prohibits federal funds from being used for abortion services.

 

Supports free abortion and contraceptives for all women.

 

Supports “sexual and reproductive health and rights around the globe.”

 

Opposes the “global gag rule” and the Helms Amendment that bars American assistance to abortion throughout the developing world.

 

Here’s the Socialist/Marxist rub on “Abortion Rights”. There is NO WHERE in the U.S. Constitution guaranteeing a right to kill unborn babies for the primary purpose of exacting birth control for unwanted pregnancies. An “Abortion Right” was created by a majority decision of SCOTUS using a frankly UNCONSTITUTIONAL Living Constitution paradigm interpreting the Constitution NOT by what is written, instead ignoring what the Constitution should mean. The Living Constitution paradigm ensures an elite few rather than the Amendment/Convention of States process prescribed by the Constitution (See Also LexisNexus summary) to make the Rule of Law.

 

Dem Platform summary continued:

 

Criminal Justice Reform

 

Supports reforming mandatory minimum sentences and closing private prisons and detention centers.

 

Supports working with police chiefs to invest in training for officers on issues such as de-escalation and the creation of national guidelines for the appropriate use of force.

 

Encourages better police-community relations.

 

Supports requiring the use of body cameras.

 

Opposes the use of “weapons of war that have no place in our communities.”

 

Opposes racial profiling that targets individuals solely on the basis of race, religion, ethnicity, or national origin.

 

Supports a requirement to make the Department of Justice investigate all “questionable or suspicious police-involved shootings.”

 

Supports states and localities “who help make those investigations and prosecutions more transparent, including through reforming the grand jury process.”

 

Supports assisting states in providing a system of public defense that is adequately resourced and meets American Bar Association standards.

 

Supports reforming the civil asset forfeiture system to “protect people and remove perverse incentives for law enforcement to ‘police for a profit.’”

 

Supports removing barriers to help formerly incarcerated individuals successfully re-enter society by “banning the box” (persuading employers to remove from their hiring applications the check box that asks if applicants have a criminal record). Supports executive action to “ban the box for federal employers and contractors, so applicants have an opportunity to demonstrate their qualifications before being asked about their criminal records.”

 

Supports expanding re-entry programs, and restoring voting rights for felons.

 

Supports, whenever possible, prioritizing prevention and treatment over incarceration when tackling addiction and substance use disorder.

 

Endorses the use of effective models of drug courts, veterans’ courts, and other diversionary programs that “seek to give nonviolent offenders opportunities for rehabilitation as opposed to incarceration.”

 

Supports abolishing the death penalty.

 

This dreamy sounding police reform if read carefully, smacks of Big Government (i.e. The State, Big Brother, Comrade Leader, World Leader, Alphas, Chairman, Supreme Leader, Führer … Obama) control of local lives. Racism is bad, right? When race baiters begin victimizing the majority, who are the racists. What is the correct view of Social Justice? Is usurping or destroying property to mindlessly equalize a race or the poor for past wrongs of Justice or Injustice (socio-philosophy & Biblical  perspective)?

 

The Socialist/Communist/Democrat as evidenced by history and recent events spurred on by Dems and their acolytes (e.g. Antifa, Black Lives Matter, Militant LGBTQ, etc.). The so-called reforms for Criminal Justice are code words to enlist the disgruntled to control Americans that still respect the Constitution as the Rule of Law and remember sacrifices that has led America being a great nation.

 

Dem Platform Summary Continued:

 

Discrimination and Racial Issues

 

Supports ending discrimination on the basis of race, ethnicity, national origin, language, religion, gender, age, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability.

 

Supports promoting “racial justice through fair, just, and equitable governing of all public-serving institutions and in the formation of public policy.”

 

Supports removing the Confederate battle flag from public properties, “recognizing that it is a symbol of our nation’s racist past that has no place in our present or our future.”

 

Calls for a “societal transformation to make it clear that black lives matter and that there is no place for racism in our country.”

 

Supports U.S. ratification of the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women.

 

Supports adding the Equal Rights Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

 

Much of these flowery words are already covered by American Rule of Law. Key terms deceptively slipped in that probably most voters who agree that racism is bad and any form of discrimination against women is bad, probably don’t understand that “sexual orientation and gender identity” mean making the ungodly LGBTQ lifestyle normal ignoring the standard in Christian Morality noting such a life is NOT natural. The Left has used activist Courts for decades to AGAIN … transform society via the non-constitutional path of Leftist Judicial Activism and Leftist media brainwashing.

 

I’ve had a bit of trouble locating a web page charting American attitudes toward homosexuality. I suspect largely it is anathema to show how much Americans viewed the LGBTQ as a perverse lifestyle. Here is an article obviously supportive of homosexuality going through the “struggles” of being homosexual and the American Rule of Law: Being Gay Used to Be Illegal; 3/27/16.

 

I have mixed feelings on the old Confederate flag. While it is a symbol of America’s slavery past it is also a period in history which Americans deeply believed in their cause which divided America into its bloodiest war when American killed American (uncannily similar to the present – is there a Civil War emerging?).

 

Dem Platform Summary Continued:

 

Drugs and Drug Abuse

 

Supports the federal government removing marijuana from the list of “Schedule 1” federal controlled substances and to appropriately regulate it, “providing a reasoned pathway for future legalization.”

 

Supports states that want to decriminalize marijuana or provide access to medical marijuana.

 

Supports policies that will allow more research on marijuana, as well as reforming our laws to “allow legal marijuana businesses to exist without uncertainty.”

 

Supports expanding “access to prevention and treatment, supporting recovery, helping community organizations, and promoting better practices by prescribers.”

 

Supports expanding access to care for addiction services, and ensuring that insurance coverage is “equal to that for any other health conditions.”

 

Such legislation should be along a State’s Rights issue. This is a case that the Federal government observe:

 

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.

 

Dem Platform Summary Continued:

 

Education

 

Supports making community college free for all students.

 

Supports the federal government pushing “more colleges and universities to take quantifiable, affirmative steps in increasing the percentages of racial and ethnic minority, low-income, and first-generation students they enroll and graduate.”

 

Supports “ensuring the strength of our Historically Black Colleges and Universities and Minority-Serving Institutions.”

 

Supports refinancing of current student loan debt.

 

Supports simplifying and expanding “access to income-based repayment so that no student loan borrowers ever have to pay more than they can afford.”

 

Supports a student borrower bill of rights to “ensure borrowers get adequate information about options to avoid or get out of delinquency or default.”

 

Supports the Public Service Loan Forgiveness and loan discharge programs “begun by the Obama Administration.”

 

Supports the inclusion of student loans in bankruptcy.

 

Supports a moratorium on student loan payments to all federal loan borrowers.

 

Supports restoring year-round Pell funding.

 

Supports strengthening the gainful employment rule to ensure that for-profit schools enable students to complete their degrees and prepare them for work.

 

Supports the Department of Education using their oversight to “close down those for-profit schools that consistently engage in fraudulent and illegal conduct.”

 

Supports universal preschool for all children.

 

Supports efforts to “raise wages for childcare workers, and to ensure that early childhood educators are experienced and high-quality.”

 

Supports increased investments in afterschool and summer learning programs.

 

Encourages group mentoring programs.

 

Encourage states to develop a “multiple measures approach to assessment, and we believe that standardized tests must be reliable and valid.”

 

Opposes use of standardized tests that “falsely and unfairly label students of color, students with disabilities and English Language Learners as failing.”

 

Opposes the use of standardized test scores as basis for refusing to fund schools or to close schools.

 

Opposes the use of student test scores in teacher and principal evaluations.

 

Support enabling parents to opt their children out of standardized tests without penalty for either the student or their school.

 

Supports a national campaign to recruit and retain high-quality teachers.

 

Supports “high-quality STEAM classes, community schools, computer science education, arts education, and expand link learning models and career pathways.”

 

Supports ending end the “school-to-prison pipeline by opposing discipline policies which disproportionately affect African Americans and Latinos, Native Americans and Alaska Natives, students with disabilities, and youth who identify as LGBT.”

 

Supports the use of restorative justice practices that “help students and staff resolve conflicts peacefully and respectfully while helping to improve the teaching and learning environment.”

 

Supports improving “school culture” and combating “bullying of all kinds.”

 

Supports expanding Title I funding for schools that serve a large number or high concentration of children in poverty.

 

Supports charter schools but opposes for-profit charter schools.

 

Supports increasing sexual violence prevention education programs that “cover issues like consent and bystander intervention, not only in college, but also in secondary school.”

 

This huge Education summary can be boiled down to reality! For such Education Reforms to take place the classic Communist principle of Wealth Redistribution will be forced upon American taxpayers. For Education Reform in this platform Americans capable of paying taxes will be thrust into poverty. Then OOPS! No more money to steal from taxpayers for the unsustainable Education Reform. Then what? The only way the Dems could maintain control of the government is to terminate the Constitution and institute rule-by-force. Then boom! The Utopian lies turn America into a totalitarian regime giving more to the government telling people what to support, how to believe and ultimately terminate Faith (meaning Judeo-Christian Morality) in favor of a government managed Secular Humanism.

 

VIDEO: Obama’s “Spread the Wealth Around” Marxist Economics

 

DiscoverObamaDOTcom

Published on Oct 27, 2008

 

And voters put Obama in Office for 8 YEARS when his agenda was transparently Marxist! MIND BOGGLING!

 

Dem Platform Summary Continued:

 

Faith-Based Organizations

 

Says: “We believe in lifting up and valuing the good work of people of faith and religious organizations and finding ways to support that work where possible.”

 

Now that is a load of lying donkey dung. It is the Dems and Dem supporters that condemn traditional (NOT RADICAL) faith based organizations for standing for traditional Christian Moral Values derived from the Bible (See Also Manhattan Declaration). It is the Dems and Dem supporters that fell in line with Judicial activist Judges who extra-constitutionally changed Constitution of the First Amendment from Freedom of Religion to Freedom from Religion in all taxpayer supported venues (Of interest: The Establishment Clause, Civil Religion, and the Public Church).

 

Dem Party rejection of faith as the backbone of American culture is evidence of Marx’s Stage Development Theory dream of marching toward Socialism ending in Communism.

 

Dem Platform Summary Continued:

 

Human Trafficking

 

Supports the “full force of the law against those who engage in modern-day forms of slavery, including the commercial sexual exploitation and forced labor of men, women, and children.

 

Supports increasing diplomatic efforts with foreign governments to “root out complicit public officials who facilitate or perpetrate this evil.”

 

Supports increasing the “provision of services and protections for trafficking survivors.”

 

If the Dems could ever be trusted in sincerity, this stand would be awesome.

 

END OF PART ONE

 

JRH 10/25/18

In this current state of media censorship & defunding, consider chipping in a few bucks for enjoying (or even despising yet read) this Blog.

Please Support NCCR

The 9th Court Usurps Power!


Richard Clifton, Michelle Friedland, and William Canby.
Richard Clifton, Michelle Friedland, and William Canby.

9th Circuit Appellate Justices Richard Clifton, Michelle Friedland, and William Canby.

 

Justin Smith reasoning demonstrates the hypocrisy and idiocy of the American Left’s rabid reaction to President Trump temporarily banning immigration and refugees from seven nations that Islamic terrorism is a hotbed of death.

 

JRH 2/14/17

Please Support NCCR

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

The 9th Court Usurps Power!

 

By Justin O. Smith

Sent 2/13/2017 7:19 AM

 

President Trump doesn’t need to issue any new travel ban order, that may or may not please the anti-American activist judges of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeal or other supporters of Islam and Sharia law (see Justice Elena Kagan’s tenure at Harvard University), open borders and international communism in the Supreme Court and within America’s own population. His original order was well within the U.S. Constitution and the law, and, in order to stop this current intrusion on the President’s authority in areas of foreign policy and national security, a usurpation of power and a judicial coup d’état, President Trump should defy the 9th Court and set to work with the Republican majority and any agreeable Democrats to limit the Supreme Court’s jurisdiction under Article III, Section 2 of the Constitution and reclaim stolen legislative powers for Congress.

 

It has universally been acknowledged for over 230 years that the President, the United States Commander-in-Chief, has broad authority and great leeway in all matters of immigration and foreign policy and national security [Judge Napolitano & NRO], which places the recent ruling of leftist activist judges Michelle Friedland (Obama appointee) and William Canby Jr. (Carter appointee) on par with an act of treason. These two judges are so willing to give President Trump a political black eye, allowing Trump’s “Muslim ban” campaign statements to be used in the evaluation of his executive order, that they have ignored the law, circumvented the Constitution and violated the separation of powers clause between coequal branches of government; and, they have blatantly dismissed the reality  of refugees, who can’t prove who they are and whether or not they have any ties to Islamic terrorist groups, while allowing district judge James Robart, another leftist activist judge (notwithstanding being a Bush appointee), to absurdly overrule the President of the United States on border security during wartime.

 

There is not any manner of violation against the U.S. Constitution and the 1965 Immigration Act in President Trump’s travel ban. Trump isn’t discriminating against anyone, but rather, he is looking at seven nations from a security threat assessment, which were already determined to be state sponsors of terror by former President Obama and his advisors, addressed in Section 1187 (a) (12) of an Obama-era provision of the immigration law.

 

And also in his executive order, President Trump expressly cites 1182 (f), enacted in 1952, which states: “Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such time as he may deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants … “. [Blog Editor: bold-italics is Editor’s]

 

In 1893, America was detaining approximately 20 percent of all hopeful immigrants reaching Ellis Island, due to sickness and disabilities, and anarchists and the insane were automatically rejected [Blog Editor: History.com point 4-  Immigrants were subject to physical and mental exams to ensure they were fit for admittance to the United States]. About two percent of these immigrants were judged unfit to become U.S. citizens and sent home on the next ship. By the 1920s, our government established quotas based on nationality and skill. And the majority of Americans have always understood that just like anyone has the right to decide who enters their home, so too, our nation has that same sovereign right.

 

No “moral obligation” to these refugees exists that can compel us to allow them to enter without knowing for certain who they are. The moral obligation to open our doors, often mentioned by the Leftists and International Communists, doesn’t mean America must throw reason and caution to the wind.

 

People who do not share our values — Islamofascists seeking to reach America’s shores and murder Americans — and anti-American “refugees” seeking to transform America into a Balkanized hell are not welcome here.

 

Why weren’t all of these anti-American leftist judges evoking Emma Lazarus and Lady Liberty lifting her lamp “beside the golden door” when President Clinton sent little 6 year old Elian Gonzalez back to a communist dictatorship in Cuba, under the executive branch’s broad power? Or when President Obama turned away real refugees fleeing Castro’s oppression “yearning to breathe free“? [Blog Editor: See Also Breitbart & 100% Fed Up]

 

America doesn’t have to destroy its cultural identity by helping foreigners, but this is precisely what Democrat commie bastards such as President Johnson and Senator Ted Kennedy intended to accomplish through the 1965 Immigration Act. This one law has eroded our cultural identity severely and created extremely detrimental demographic changes over time. And most recently, former President Obama specifically brought in one million immigrants from Muslim majority countries like Kosovo, Somalia, Yemen, Afghanistan and Pakistan, even though these countries were the origin of terrorists that have already attacked America.

 

Many of America’s “progressive” Leftists consider the destruction of America, as we know it, to be a desirable goal, however, most Americans reject their fundamental change. Americans who love this country want a strong America, that will be able to defeat the dangerous ideologies currently threatening Western Civilization.

 

Rebuke the disingenuous pious progressives who decry those of us supporting the President’s executive order as anti-immigrant and issue flowery utterances on sanctuary, when sanctuary is for the truly persecuted innocents, like the Christians in the Middle East. Exercising our first responsibility to protect ourselves and Our Beloved America bears no shame.

 

Senator Tom Cotton (R-Ala) stated that Trump’s executive order was “plainly legal” under both statute and the Constitution, adding: “No foreigner has a constitutional right to enter the United States and courts ought not second-guess sensitive national security decisions of the President. This misguided ruling is from the 9th Circuit, the most notoriously left-wing court in America and the most reversed court at the Supreme Court.

 

Representative Mo Brooks (R-Ala) said, “Unfortunately, American lives are at risk until this unfounded and reckless [9th Court restraining] order is reversed by the Supreme Court.”

 

How can Americans trust unreliable and corrupt courts with our national security? The Supreme Court ruled Obamacare to be both constitutional and a tax, after Obama called it a “penalty” for years. The courts have overturned the will of ‘We the People’ in numerous referendums and centuries of traditions and hundreds of state and federal laws, so that they could manufacture non-existent rights to abortion and deviant, perverse homosexual “marriage” [coupling], rights that cannot and never will be found in Madison’s Constitution.

 

Judges and justices are not empowered by the Constitution to make U.S. law or govern the nation. Those duties fall solely to Congress and the President.

 

Pat Buchanan observed on February 10th that President Andrew Jackson defied Chief Justice John Marshall’s “prohibition” against moving the Cherokee Indians across the Mississippi and to the western frontier. He also noted President Lincoln considered sending U.S. troops to arrest Chief Justice Roger Taney, when Taney declared Lincoln’s suspension of habeas corpus unconstitutional.

 

President Trump must simply defy U.S. District Judge Robart’s overly broad and illegal restraining order, upheld by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeal. He must order Homeland Security and his State Department and Justice Department to continue executing his executive order which is in accordance with the U.S. Constitution and existing law, because his act is a rare and righteous moment in this war against terrorism, the Islamofascists, the Radical Left of America and the International Communists, who seek our demise. And a Constitutional crisis is much preferred over more murdered innocent Americans.

 

By Justin O. Smith

_____________

Edited by John R. Houk

Text embraced by brackets and source links are by the Editor.

 

© Justin O. Smith

One Liberal Justice Away


Dem Ass gun to American Uncle Sam

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

 

JRH 3/10/16

Please Support NCCR

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

One Liberal Justice Away

 

By Justin O. Smith

Sent: 3/10/2016 12:00 PM

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

By Justin O. Smith

____________________________

Edited by John R. Houk

Text embraced by brackets are the Editor’s.

 

© Justin O. Smith

 

 

America Rising


It is gratifying there are Patriots in America displeased with an unconstitutional SCOTUS. Justin Smiths shares some thoughts on the Obamacare subsidy ruling and the Same-Sex Marriage ruling.

JRH 6/28/15

Please Support NCCR

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

America Rising

By Justin O. Smith

Sent: 6/27/2015 9:30 PM

“The Liberties of Our Country … are worth defending at all hazards … We have received them as a fair inheritance from our worthy ancestors … purchased … with toil … and expense of treasure and blood. — It will bring a mark of everlasting infamy on the present generation … if we should … be cheated out of them by the artifices of designing men.” – Samuel Adams

Two-hundred and thirty-nine years of freedom and liberty and the American Heritage, as that “shining city on the hill,” a beacon and a place of safety for all peoples that offers a glimmer of hope for a better future and a better tomorrow, are coming to a grinding halt. With Congress moving America towards transnational fascism (TPA) and the Supreme Court acting in a lawless fashion concerning Obamacare – King v. Burwell – and the issue of same-sex marriage, the “land of liberty” is facing the greatest challenges of its entire history.

The majority of Americans stand for American interests to be first and foremost in our foreign policies, and we oppose globalism. We believe this country has the right and obligation to secure Her borders, Her sacred Heritage and Her values. And we believe in a small constrained federal government, with its inevitable corruption confined within the limited role set for it by the Founding Fathers.

When the Supreme Court can arbitrarily decide to provide alternative and false meanings to words written and passed by our elected representatives and ignore other laws, in order to align with the goals and agendas of whoever happens to be in power, we are on the road to tyranny, like it or not.

As noted on June 25th by Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia _ a true Son of Liberty:

(On Obamacare) “We should start calling this SCOTUSCare … this Court’s two decisions on the Act will surely be remembered through the years. The summersaults of statutory interpretation they have performed (‘penalty’ means tax … ‘established by the State’ means not established by the State) will be cited by litigants endlessly, to the confusion of honest jurisprudence.”

On June 26th Scalia stated his concerns regarding the Supreme Court’s 5-4 decision removing state bans on homosexual/gay marriage:

“I write separately to call attention to this Court’s threat to American democracy … Today’s decree says that … the ruler of 320 million Americans coast to coast is a majority of nine lawyers on the Supreme Court.”

In Katie Pavlich’s Gay Marriage is a Constitutional Right, the observation is made that Chief Justice John Roberts’ accusation that the Court acted “out of preference” is “an interesting description considering he did the same thing on King v. Burwell.”

Former Governor Mike Huckabee’s assessment on this egregious mess coincides with Chief Justice Roberts’ dissent. Huckabee said: “They [the Justices] didn’t rule on any existing law. They simply redefined marriage”; and Roberts stated: “The majority’s decision was an act of will, not legal judgment. The right it announces has no basis in the Constitution or this Court’s precedent.”

Marriage defined as a union between one man and one woman is a part of America’s core traditional value system. Our ancestors were mostly Christian, and, as such, the majority of Americans have understood marriage as set forth in the Bible. They also hold fast to God’s commandment in Leviticus 18:22 _ “Man shall not lie with man as with woman; it is an abomination.”

The Court’s ruling on homosexual marriage is nothing less than an attempt to force Christianity out of America’s public square and underground, as the Far Left moves to culturally transform America. Chief Justice Roberts pointedly observed: “As a result the Court invalidates the marriage laws of more than half the states and orders the transformation of a social institution that has formed the basis of human society for millennia, for the Kalahari Bushmen and the Han Chinese, the Carthaginians and the Aztecs. Just who do we think we are?”

All of these disgusting anti-liberty, anti-American developments moves me to tell the fascist Progressives of both parties “You don’t belong here.” Go find a place where the people welcome the idea of a permanent ruling class. There are plenty of them out there, but it’s not here.

Take your tools in the press, your sycophant followers, the poltroons and quislings, your socialist pipedreams and your Hell called “Utopia”. Take your self-serving transnational vision of one borderless world, united under your thumb. That might be fine for others, but it’s not for the Sons and Daughters of Liberty still living in America.

Whatever the motives of Obama and the five Progressive activist Justices, America cannot allow itself to be dragged down into the dung heap of totalitarianism, as a result of the majority’s misapplication of clauses like “due process”, aimed at affording substantive rights at the expense of ‘liberty’ and through a distortion of the principles on which this Nation was founded. Our path can only be up to man’s age-old dream and the ultimate in individual freedom consistent with law and order.

The sole thing tyranny fears is the truth, and therein lies a sworn mission for each of us. All who believe in liberty must do everything to convince their fellow Americans of the importance of a conservative path towards freedom. Tell the truth to the good people of the United States, and through that revelation, restore America to the greatness She was founded to attain.

There is a God, and this God of all Creation would prefer us to be free. That means He must love this country, not so much for what we’ve allowed it to become, but deeply for what it was once meant to be.

However, there is a never ending war being waged for the heart of America — because true Evil cannot be stopped and the truly Good will not be moved. [This] is a battle that must be won or lost every day, by one side or the other, and no less than the fate of free mankind hangs in the balance.

The outcome may still be in question, but I know where I stand. To those yet undecided, there’s a place here beside me or out there against me, once you’re moved to make up your mind.

Rise up America and let Liberty’s dimmed light once more burn bright. It awaits an awakening, so this one nation and the love of true Liberty at its heart can be restored to Her old glory. America demands much of those that hear the call, and the first hard thing it asks is courage.

By Justin O. Smith

_____________________

Edited by John R. Houk

Text enclosed by brackets and links are by the Editor.

 

© Justin O. Smith

USA in Trouble when SCOTUS Ignores Constitution


John R. Houk

© June 26, 2015

Yesterday SCOTUS ruled Obamacare subsidies are just fine. Remarkably Chief Justice John Roberts joined four Leftists and a Centrist to pat Barack Hussein Obama to tell him it was just fine to keep screwing up America.

TODAY SCOTUS ruled that same-sex marriage must be legal in ALL 50 States in the Union based on the 14th Amendment that assured former slaves as equal citizens with equal rights. I wonder if those Northern States that ensured Freedom for Black-Americans would think that the 14th Amendment’s intent would be used to justify the ungodly abomination of homosexual marriage. This time Chief Justice Roberts went with the godly side but was a part of four losing Justices that lost out to four thumbing their noses Leftist Justices and Centrist Justice Anthony Kennedy placed the USA in a dangerous spiritual position in the eyes of God Almighty.

Late last night Robert Smith submitted a post expressing his displeasure with how the three constitutional Branches of our Federal government are forsaking the Constitution. Smith concludes that the unconstitutional government movement will lead to one of two actions: 1) America’s Constitution gets a reset button of Original Intent at the ballot box. 2) Barring the peaceful action of the ballot box, a Revolutionary War-style rebellion will occur with the Americans that are tired of the tyranny of the ungodly Left.

After the Robert Smith post I’m going to cross post the informative story I find most relevant to the Sodomizing of America by five ungodly Justices of the Supreme Court of the United States.

JRH 6/26/15

Please Support NCCR

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

Degrading OUR Constitution

By Robert G. Smith

Sent: 6/25/2015 11:07 PM

The Constitution is being ripped asunder by the POTUS and the SCOTUS. The POTUS is determined to destroy our country. This is so the Transnational Bankers, Global Politicians and Islamists will have an easier task of subjugating the people of our country and making them accept a NWO and Islam as the one true religion.

In the SCOTUS you have Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg who believes the Constitution has out lived its usefulness. [And we have] one Elena Kagan, who believes the Constitution should be supplemented by Sharia Law. And Chief Justice John Roberts who perceives himself as a member of the House of Representatives.

It is becoming clear that the American People must take matters into their own hands. Hopefully by the ballot box, but if necessary by armed intervention.

They have taken the most sought after health care in the world, emasculated it and made it so costly no one can afford it. The number of citizens who did not have health care prior to O-Bama Care was so small they could have been provided governmental health care paid for, many times over, by the billions already spent by O-Bama Care.

It makes me heartsick to see the country and the Constitution I fought for in three wars so maligned so corrupted by those who have never turned a finger to protect our country and our way of life. This must be corrected. How? I do not have the answers, but I hope it is by the ballots and not the bullets.

We have a Congress that is doing very little to better the situation. They must be replaced by true Conservatives, those who truly love our country.

Most of our voters do not comprehend the serious nature of the problems facing our country today. They are lackadaisical when it comes to checking the backgrounds of those we choose to represent us. They continue to send to Congress people who have only their own selfish interests in mind. This must be stopped!!

To vote for a Liberal only ensures the continuation of the situation we now have. The liberals must be replaced by true Conservatives and not by the many RINOs – Republican In Name Only – that we now have serving in Congress; i.e. Mitch McConnell, John Boehner, Lamar Alexander, Bob Corker, and the list goes on.

I hope to see a peaceful change in the direction our country is following but I do hope to see a change!!!!

PSG [ret.] R. G. Smith

________________________

Symposium: Judicial activism on marriage causes harm: What does the future hold?

By Ryan Anderson

June 26th, 2015 4:28 pm

SCOTUSblog

Ryan T. Anderson is the William E. Simon Senior Research Fellow at The Heritage Foundation and the author of the forthcoming book Truth Overruled: The Future of Marriage and Religious Freedom. His amicus brief was cited in Justice Clarence Thomas’s dissenting opinion in Obergefell.

As the four dissenting opinions make abundantly clear, today’s ruling in Obergefell v. Hodges had nothing to do with the Constitution. This ruling is perhaps as clear of an example of judicial activism as any we have seen in recent years – or are likely (hopefully) to see in the future. The majority of the Court simply replaced the people’s opinion about what marriage is with its own. Nothing in the Constitution supplies an answer to the question What Is Marriage? And none of the purported rationales can justify the Court redefining marriage everywhere.

This ruling will likely cause harm to the body politic: to constitutional democratic self-government, to marriage itself, to civil harmony, and to religious liberty. Because of space constraints, I highlight these four harms with quotations solely from Chief Justice John Roberts’s dissent. (Needless to say, they could be amplified with quotations from Justices Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, and Samuel Alito.)

First, the ruling will cause harm to constitutional democratic self-government. As Roberts notes, “this Court is not a legislature. Whether same-sex marriage is a good idea should be of no concern to us. Under the Constitution, judges have power to say what the law is, not what it should be. The people who ratified the Constitution authorized courts to exercise ‘neither force nor will but merely judgment.’” Roberts continues:

Although the policy arguments for extending marriage to same-sex couples may be compelling, the legal argu­ments for requiring such an extension are not. The fun­damental right to marry does not include a right to make a State change its definition of marriage. And a State’s decision to maintain the meaning of marriage that has persisted in every culture throughout human history can hardly be called irrational. In short, our Constitution does not enact any one theory of marriage. The people of a State are free to expand marriage to include same-sex couples, or to retain the historic definition.

Indeed, Roberts repeatedly argues that in Obergefell the Court has simply Lochner-ized – “the majority’s ap­proach has no basis in principle or tradition, except for the unprincipled tradition of judicial policymaking that char­acterized discredited decisions such as Lochner v. New York.”

Second, the ruling will cause harm to marriage itself. Roberts notes that marriage “arose in the nature of things to meet a vital need: ensuring that children are conceived by a mother and father committed to raising them in the stable conditions of a lifelong relationship.” But redefining marriage makes it more about the romantic desires of the consenting adults involved than about the needs or the rights of children involved to a relationship with their mother and father.

Indeed, the judicial redefinition of marriage to exclude the marital norm of male-female sexual complementarity raises the question of what other marital norms may be excluded. Roberts writes: “One immediate question invited by the majority’s posi­tion is whether States may retain the definition of mar­riage as a union of two people.” Roberts continues:

Although the majority randomly inserts the adjective “two” in various places, it offers no reason at all why the two-person element of the core definition of mar­riage may be preserved while the man-woman element may not. Indeed, from the standpoint of history and tradi­tion, a leap from opposite-sex marriage to same-sex mar­riage is much greater than one from a two-person union to plural unions, which have deep roots in some cultures around the world. If the majority is willing to take the big leap, it is hard to see how it can say no to the shorter one.

It is striking how much of the majority’s reasoning would apply with equal force to the claim of a fundamental right to plural marriage. If “[t]here is dignity in the bond between two men or two women who seek to marry and in their autonomy to make such profound choices,” why would there be any less dignity in the bond be­tween three people who, in exercising their autonomy, seek to make the profound choice to marry? If a same-sex couple has the constitutional right to marry because their children would otherwise “suffer the stigma of knowing their families are somehow lesser,” why wouldn’t the same reasoning apply to a family of three or more persons raising children? If not having the oppor­tunity to marry “serves to disrespect and subordinate” gay and lesbian couples, why wouldn’t the same “imposition of this disability,” serve to disrespect and subor­dinate people who find fulfillment in polyamorous rela­tionships?

For marriage policy to serve the common good it must reflect the truth that marriage unites a man and a woman as husband and wife so that children will have both a mother and a father. Marriage is based on the anthropological truth that men and woman are distinct and complementary, the biological fact that reproduction depends on a man and a woman, and the social reality that children deserve a mother and a father.

Redefining marriage to make it a genderless institution fundamentally changes marriage: It makes the relationship more about the desires of adults than about the needs – or rights – of children. It teaches the lie that mothers and fathers are interchangeable.

Third, the ruling will cause harm to civil harmony. When fundamental policy changes are made by Court rulings that have no basis in the Constitution, it makes change harder to accept – because it casts doubt on the change itself. As Chief Justice Roberts points out,

Supporters of same-sex marriage have achieved considerable success persuading their fellow citizens—through the democratic process—to adopt their view. That ends today. Five lawyers have closed the debate and enacted their own vision of marriage as a matter of constitutional law. Stealing this issue from the people will for many cast a cloud over same-sex mar­riage, making a dramatic social change that much more difficult to accept.

Yet in the middle of such a robust debate, the Court “seizes for itself a ques­tion the Constitution leaves to the people, at a time when the people are engaged in a vibrant debate on that ques­tion. And it answers that question based not on neutral principles of constitutional law, but on its own ‘under­standing of what freedom is and must become.’” This will make the redefinition of marriage less accepted – more contested – in the United States. Roberts elaborates:

The Court’s accumulation of power does not occur in a vacuum. It comes at the expense of the people. And they know it. Here and abroad, people are in the midst of a serious and thoughtful public debate on the issue of same-sex marriage. … This delib­erative process is making people take seriously questions that they may not have even regarded as questions before.

When decisions are reached through democratic means, some people will inevitably be disappointed with the re­sults. But those whose views do not prevail at least know that they have had their say, and accordingly are—in the tradition of our political culture—reconciled to the result of a fair and honest debate.

But today the Court puts a stop to all that.

The Court had no reason – no basis in the Constitution – to short-circuit the democratic process. No reason to put a stop to the national discussion we were having about the future of marriage. Roberts continues, “There will be consequences to shutting down the political process on an issue of such profound public significance. Closing debate tends to close minds. People denied a voice are less likely to accept the ruling of a court on an issue that does not seem to be the sort of thing courts usually decide.” Just so.

Fourth, the ruling will cause harm to religious liberty. As Roberts notes, the decision “creates serious questions about religious liberty. Many good and decent people oppose same-sex marriage as a tenet of faith, and their freedom to exercise religion is—unlike the right imagined by the majority—actually spelled out in the Constitution.” When marriage was redefined democratically, citizens could accompany it with religious liberty protections, but “the majority’s decision imposing same-sex marriage cannot, of course, create any such accommo­dations.”

Most alarmingly, the majority opinion never discusses the free exercise of religion. Roberts notes, “The majority graciously suggests that religious believers may continue to ‘advocate’ and ‘teach their views of marriage. The First Amendment guarantees, however, the freedom to ‘exercise’ religion. Ominously, that is not a word the majority uses.”

Indeed, as Roberts notes, “Unfortunately, people of faith can take no comfort in the treatment they receive from the majority today.” Why can they take no comfort? Because “the most discouraging aspect of today’s decision is the extent to which the majority feels compelled to sully those on the other side of the debate.” Over and over and over again, the majority attacks the Americans who stand for marriage as the union of husband and wife. And as Robert notes, “These apparent assaults on the character of fair minded people will have an effect, in society and in court. Moreover, they are entirely gratuitous.”

Indeed, “[i]t is one thing for the major­ity to conclude that the Constitution protects a right to same-sex marriage; it is something else to portray every­one who does not share the majority’s ‘better informed understanding’ as bigoted.”

In conclusion, because the Court has inappropriately redefined marriage everywhere, there is urgent need for policy to ensure that the government never penalizes anyone for standing up for marriage. As discussed in my new book, Truth Overruled: The Future of Marriage and Religious Freedom, we must work to protect the freedom of speech, association, and religion of those who continue to abide by the truth of marriage as union of man and woman.

At the federal level, the First Amendment Defense Act is a good place to start. It says that the federal government cannot discriminate against people and institutions that speak and act according to their belief that marriage is a union of one man and one woman. States need similar policies.

Recognizing the truth about marriage is good public policy. Today’s decision is a significant setback to achieving that goal. We must work to reverse it and recommit ourselves to building a strong marriage culture because so much of our future depends upon it.

Recommended Citation: Ryan Anderson, Symposium: Judicial activism on marriage causes harm: What does the future hold?, SCOTUSblog (Jun. 26, 2015, 4:28 PM), http://www.scotusblog.com/2015/06/symposium-ryan-anderson/

Further Reading on SCOTUS Homosexual Abomination Marriage

SUPREME COURT: ‘GAY MARRIAGE’ LEGAL NATIONWIDE – By BOB UNRUH; WND; 6/26/15

John-Henry Westen: U.S. Supreme Court rules against God and human natureLife Site News; 6/26/15 10:19 am EST

SCOTUS Endorses Same-Sex MarriageBy John J. Bastiat; The Patriot Post; 6-26-15

Gay ‘marriage’ ruling opens door to polygamy and religious persecution: Dissenting justicesBy Ben Johnson; Life Site News; 6/26/15 1:14 pm EST

SCALIA: MARRIAGE RULING ‘THREAT TO DEMOCRACY’ – By ART MOORE; WND; 6/26/15

___________________

USA in Trouble when SCOTUS Ignores Constitution

John R. Houk

© June 26, 2015

___________________________

Degrading OUR Constitution

 

© Robert G. Smith

______________________________

Symposium: Judicial activism on marriage causes harm: What does the future hold?

 

© 2015 SCOTUSblog

It’s Time to Find Money to Counter Gay and Leftist Propaganda


Gay Theology Propaganda

John R. Houk

© June 12, 2012

Here is a classic example of Leftist Mainstream Media (MSM) propagandizing the normalization of LGBT as in same-sex marriage. The New York Times has an editorial extolling growing support of same-sex marriage by Republicans to let the public know the GOP is no longer out of touch with American culture.

The fact is the percentage of actual homosexuals in America shows that the Left is out of touch with the American reality; which is that LESS THAN 5% of Americans claim to be living a homosexual lifestyle.

This means that the growing support among Republican politicians for the homosexual agenda of same-sex marriage is based entirely on Leftist and homosexual activist propaganda which is primarily being disseminated through the MSM, Hollywood and the small screen of TV. The homosexual agenda has been so successful in promoting homosexuality to the public that the more than 95% of Americans that do not live a homosexual lifestyle are made to feel like bigots by openly accepting the Biblical Moral view of homosexuality which is an abomination in the sight of God.

But what percentage of the population is actually gay or lesbian? With the debate over same-sex marriage again an emerging fault line in American political life, the answer comes as a surprise: A lower number than you might think — and a much, much, much lower one than most Americans believe.

In surveys conducted in 2002 and 2011, pollsters at Gallup found that members of the American public massively overestimated how many people are gay or lesbian. In 2002, a quarter of those surveyed guessed upwards of a quarter of Americans were gay or lesbian (or “homosexual,” the third option given). By 2011, that misperception had only grown, with more than a third of those surveyed now guessing that more than 25 percent of Americans are gay or lesbian. Women and young adults were most likely to provide high estimates, approximating that 30 percent of the population is gay. Overall, “U.S. adults, on average, estimate that 25 percent of Americans are gay or lesbian,” Gallup found. Only 4 percent of all those surveyed in 2011 and about 8 percent of those surveyed in 2002 correctly guessed that fewer than 5 percent of Americans identify as gay or lesbian. (Emphasis Mine)

Such a misunderstanding of the basic demographics of sexual behavior and identity in America has potentially profound implications for the acceptance of the gay-rights agenda.On the one hand, people who overestimate the percent of gay Americans by a factor of 12 seem likely to also wildly overestimate the cultural impact of same-sex marriage. On the other hand, the extraordinary confusion over the percentage of gay people may reflect a triumph of the gay and lesbian movement’s decades-long fight against invisibility and the closet. (Emphasis Mine)

“My first reaction to that, aside from a little chuckle, is that it’s actually a sign of the success of the movement for LGBT rights,” said Stuart Gaffney, a spokesman for the group Marriage Equality USA. “We are a small minority, and we will never have full equality without the support of the majority, and a poll like that suggests the majority is extremely aware of their gay neighbors, coworkers, and friends.”

In recent years, as homosexuality has become less stigmatized, pro-gay rights groups have come around to acknowledging that a smaller percent of people identify themselves as gay than some of the early gay rights rhetoric claimed, based on Alfred Kinsey’s 1948 report, “Sexuality in the Human Male.” His survey research on non-random populations in the immediate post-World War II period concludedthat 10 percent of men “were predominantly homosexual between the ages of 16 and 55” and that 37 percent had had at least one homosexual experience in their lives, but did not get into questions of identity per se. (Emphasis Mine)

Contemporary research in a less homophobic environment has counterintuitively resulted in lower estimates rather than higher ones. The Williams Institute at UCLA School of Law, a gay and lesbian think tank, released a study in April 2011 estimating based on its research that just 1.7 percent of Americans between 18 and 44 identify as gay or lesbian, while another 1.8 percent — predominantly women — identify as bisexual. Far from underestimating the ranks of gay people because of homophobia, these figures included a substantial number of people who remained deeply closeted, such as a quarter of the bisexuals. A Centers for Disease Control and Prevention survey of women between 22 and 44 that questioned more than 13,500 respondents between 2006 and 2008 found very similar numbers: Only 1 percent of the women identified themselves as gay, while 4 percent identified as bisexual. (Emphasis Mine)

Higher numbers can be obtained when asking about lifetime sexual experiences, rather than identity. The Williams Institute found that, overall, an estimated 8.2 percent of the population had engaged in some form same-sex sexual activity. Put another way, 4.7 percent of the population had wandered across the line without coming to think of themselves as either gay or bisexual. Other studies suggest those individuals are, like the bisexuals, mainly women: The same CDC study that found only 1 percent of women identify as lesbian, for example, found that 13 percent of women reported a history of some form of sexual contact with other women.

“Estimates of those who report any lifetime same-sex sexual behavior and any same-sex sexual attraction are substantially higher than estimates of those who identify as lesbian, gay, or bisexual,” the Williams Institute’s Gary J. Gates concluded.

One thing’s for sure: it’s hard to imagine the fact that so many think the country is more than a quarter gay or lesbian has no impact on our public policy. (Americans Have No Idea How Few Gay People There Are; by Garance Franke-Ruta; The Atlantic; May 31 2012, 2:17 PM ET)

Now if there are a growing amount of Republicans plugging into the Homosexual Activist and Leftist propaganda in order to bend our society into legitimizing homosexuality as normal, November 2012 is the time for Values Voters to make their voice even with the pressure of the propaganda the MSM exerts.

The NYT article I linked to in the first paragraph suggests that Paul Singer’s – homosexual Republican donor – brainiac creation of a Super PAC with the sole purpose of throwing money behind Congressional Republicans that support same-sex marriage will the homosexual agenda among Conservatives.

Sadly as long Social Values Conservatives continue to fail to counter the propaganda of the Left and Homosexual Activists that homosexuality is normal rather than a deviant sin in the sight of God Almighty, Singer may succeed with his millions of dollars to convince so-called moderate GOP to get on the same-sex train.

I know the MSM, Hollywood, and the small screen TV basically dominate streams of information toward the public; nonetheless we Values Conservatives need to find a way to neutralize the immoral grip of those propagandists that have convinced an overwhelming majority of non-homosexuals that homosexuality is normal.

Christians that have decided to marginalize Leftist control of the Media have developed their cable and non-cable Christian television networks. It is time for Conservatives to do so as well.

Kudos for the Fox Network that has developed the Fox News and Fox Business Channel; however Fox so far is of a singular outlet compared to the rest of the MSM. AND a host of the entertainment programming of the Fox Network and the cable FX network are not exactly developing serious programming promoting Conservative values. Indeed a significant amount of shows – unfortunately even shows that I like – are in the pro-homosexual category. There are issues even on Fox News that the pressure of Political Correctness vetoes reporting if it may rock the boat.

So what is the answer? The answer is obvious. Let’s get some Conservative millionaires and billionaires to invest in the creation of more hard hitting Conservative Networks or News Networks that not only compete with the Left leaning media but to also compete with Fox News to terminate the effects of Political Correctness across the airwaves.

Homosexuality is not normal. This is the case no matter the propaganda from the Bible-hating Left and Homosexual Activists.

Even though it is a bit off the subject here I have to add some other themes that the Mainstream Airwaves have influenced Americans over:

§  Islam is not compatible to the Rights and Liberties spelled out in the U.S. Constitution. Reject the accusation of Islamophobia as a stigma to compare Islamic culture with Constitutional Rights and Laws.

§  The globalist agenda of a One World Government under the auspices of the United Nations (as in Agenda 21 and enforced Multiculturalism) also is not compatible with the U.S. Constitution especially in the matter Sovereignty and the Rule of Law.

§  The Leftist agenda to make gun ownership illegal by American citizens is Unconstitutional. If Leftist desire a gun law change then go through the Amendment process and not cop out with the Living Constitution malarkey to use Activist Judges to make law from the bench concerning gun ownership (good luck with that).

§  Competing Conservative News agencies for that matter go after Judicial Activism that creates laws ex nihilo separate from the Constitution including:

o   Illegal Immigration

o   American Laws for American Courts (ALAC)

o   Overriding the Federalism of State Sovereignty when laws do not contradict the U.S. Constitution

o   I am sure my fellow Conservatives can add to a list of topics that competing Conservative News Networks could counter Leftist propaganda let alone homosexual propaganda.

JRH 6/12/12

Please Support NCCR

Obama says JESUS wants homosexual "marriage"


Yesterday President Barack Hussein Obama finally pulled up his Left Wing boot straps to say publicly what everyone already knows he believes; viz. that he supports same-sex marriage.

 

 

I am guessing Obama might be seeing the voter writing on the wall and is going full Left Wing tilt on homosexual marriage to inspire homosexuals and his Leftist base to hit the polls on Election Day in November 2012. The irony is BHO is also Conservative – especially Family Values – voters to hit the polls on Election Day as well.

 

Friends this is the kind of junk that Obama was really promising in 2008 when proclaimed he was bringing “Change” to America. That “Change” is really a Socialistic-Moral Relativity transformation that is in direct opposition to Christian principles that most Americans still feel an affinity toward.

 

Gordon James Klingenschmitt the former Chaplain given the boot from the U.S. Navy for daring to pray in the Name of Jesus is organizing a petition campaign to allow voters to express their thoughts on using the Office of the President to extend moral depravity to holy matrimony.

 

JRH 5/10/12

Please Support NCCR

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

Obama says JESUS wants homosexual “marriage”

 

By Gordon James Klingenschmitt, PhD

(Pray in Jesus in Jesus Name Project)

Sent: 5/10/2012 11:02 AM

Sent by Conservative Action Alert

 

HOT PETITION!  Defend DOMA & Constitutional Amendment defining Marriage between One Man, One Woman. Select, sign, WE WILL FAX your petition to 435 Congressmen & 100 Senators.  We delivered 87,000 fax petitions. Can you help reach 100,000?

Breaking:  Obama says JESUS wants sodomite “marriage”

President Obama fully endorsed sodomy today, blaming Jesus Christ for his new views, declaring homosexual “marriage” should become “legal.”  But sin will never be legal in the eyes of Almighty God.  It can be forgiven if we repent and believe in Jesus Christ, but sin cannot be made legal.  Obama said, in part:

“I’ve just concluded that for me personally it is important for me to go ahead and affirm that I think same sex couples should be able to get married…you know, I, you know, we are both practicing Christians and obviously this position may be considered to put us at odds with the views of others but, you know, when we think about our faith, the thing at root that we think about is, not only Christ sacrificing himself on our behalf, but it’s also the Golden Rule, you know, treat others the way you would want to be treated.”

In other words, Obama believes Jesus wants homosexual marriage for America.  His words, not mine.  Read his words again, slowly. 

Does the Golden Rule mean Jesus endorsed sodomy?  Of course not.  In Matthew 19:4-6, Jesus clearly defined marriage as only valid between one man and one woman:  “Have you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female, and said, ‘Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’?  So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate.”  In context of Matthew 18:6, Jesus said of those who recruit children into sexual sin:  “whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea.”  1 Cor 6:9 makes it clear:  “Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral…nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders…will inherit the kingdom of God.”  Obama is a false Bible teacher.

I predicted one year ago that Obama would fully endorse “marriage” for homosexuals, and I repeated that two days ago (as you see below).  Obama now makes sin equal to holiness, which is impossible in the eyes of God.

Obama’s bad move comes just hours after Colorado legislators, North Carolina voters, and Indiana primary voters ALL REJECTED PRO-HOMOSEXUAL ballot initiatives or candidates.  North Carolina voters passed 61 to 39% an amendment to their state Constitution rejecting not only homosexual “marriage” but also rejecting civil unions.   Indiana RINO Senator Dick Lugar routinely supported pro-homosexual judges, and was rejected by Church voters last night.

In good news, my own neighbor and friend, Colorado state representative Mark Waller (R-Colorado Springs) stalled and stopped homosexual “civil unions” bill in the Colorado state house last night, and was featured in the today’s New York Times, thank God.   Reports suggested if a vote were allowed, civil unions may have passed in Colorado, but now they must wait another year, when hopefully Christians will re-take the state senate..

What can be done?  Let’s continue to petition Congress to defend traditional marriage.

Please select here to SIGN URGENT PETITION to PASS THE FEDERAL MARRIAGE AMENDMENT defining marriage between ONE MAN and ONE WOMAN.  Vote against S.598 that would repeal DOMA, and protect DOMA in court, and we will auto-fax your petition to all 100 Senators and 435 Congressmen (saving you much time!)

VP Joe Biden:  Obama agrees with me on Homosexual Marriage

In an interview on NBC’s “Meet the Press,” Vice President Joe Biden described himself as “absolutely comfortable” with gay couples having the same rights as straight couples.   Then both Biden and senior advisor David Axelrod BOTH claimed President Obama has also personally and fully endorsed homosexual ‘marriage.’

“Look. I am vice president of the United States of America,” Biden said. “The president sets the policy. I am absolutely comfortable with the fact that men marrying men, women marrying women and heterosexual – men and women marrying – are entitled to the same exact rights, all the civil rights, all the civil liberties. And quite frankly, I don’t see much of a distinction beyond that.”

Asked whether the Obama administration in a second term would come out in favor of same-sex marriage, Biden replied:  “I can’t speak to that. I don’t know the answer to that,” he said.

Biden’s office then claimed Obama COMPLETELY AGREES with Biden for sodomy.  The Washington Post reports that immediately after that interview, a Biden spokesperson said that the vice president “was saying what the President has said previously — that committed and loving same-sex couples deserve the same rights and protections enjoyed by all Americans, and that we oppose any effort to rollback those rights.”

“That’s why we stopped defending the constitutionality of section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act in legal challenges and support legislation to repeal it,” the aide said. “Beyond that, the Vice President was expressing that he too is evolving on the issue, after meeting so many committed couples and families in this country.”

And Obama senior adviser David Axelrod said via Twitter shortly after Biden spoke: “What VP said-that all married couples should have exactly the same legal rights-is precisely POTUS’s position.”

[Dr. Chaps’ comment:  This is proof Obama’s “evolving” views of homosexual marriage have completely matured into full endorsement of sodomy.  Obama is no longer evolving.  His spokesman Axelrod said there is no daylight between Obama himself and “total equality” of sin with holiness.]

Let’s all petition Congress today to OPPOSE sodomite ‘marriage,’ defend the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act, and pass an amendment to the Constitution defining marriage in all 50 states as only valid between one man and one woman. . .

Please select here to SIGN URGENT PETITION to PASS THE FEDERAL MARRIAGE AMENDMENT defining marriage between ONE MAN and ONE WOMAN.  Vote against S.598 that would repeal DOMA, and protect DOMA in court, and we will auto-fax your petition to all 100 Senators and 435 Congressmen (saving you much time!)

Obama’s lawyer says Court should homosexualize ‘marriage’ in all 50 states

The Obama Administration argued last month that homosexual ‘marriage’ was written into the Constitution by our founding fathers, and actually argued against the First Circuit Court of Appeals’ duty to enforce the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act.

President Obama is now openly trying to force homosexual ‘marriage’ upon all 50 states.   Eyewitnesses report Obama’s twisted court-room arguments in National Review:

“It’s hard to describe how odd it is to hear a Department of Justice lawyer argue in court that a law passed by Congress should be struck down as unconstitutional. It is, after all, the DOJ’s job to defend laws passed by Congress. But as I sat at the First Circuit Court of Appeals in Boston on Wednesday listening to the appellate arguments for the Federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) cases, that’s exactly what I heard for 20 minutes from the DOJ lawyer.

“The administration’s abdication does have a silver lining: The House of Representatives retained former solicitor general Paul Clement to defend the law in DOJ’s place. And Clement’s well-earned reputation as advocate extraordinaire was on display Wednesday, as he deftly defended the law and Congress’s prerogative in recognizing the opposite-sex definition of marriage for federal purposes…

“Ultimately, it’s much better that Paul Clement is defending these cases rather than the DOJ, which only pretended to defend DOMA before deciding to jump ship and join the opposition. But still, you have to wonder how the DOJ’s unprecedented decision to attack the constitutionality of a law that it has a constitutional duty to defend will impact the Department in the long-term…

“Does DOMA deserve anything less? It was enacted by huge, bipartisan majorities in both houses (85–14 in the Senate, 342–67 in the House), its constitutionality was affirmed by the DOJ, and it was signed by President Clinton…

“The administration’s stated reason for abandoning DOMA’s defense is that it believes that sexual orientation should be entitled to heightened protection, despite the avalanche of precedent to the contrary. That was [Obama’s] main argument at the First Circuit… (incidentally, the First Circuit is one of the eleven to have already decided the issue).

“Such an odd litigation position can’t be justified by legitimate legal theory. But then again, it seems clear that the administration’s decision didn’t have anything to do with law. At the end of the day, the administration’s decision was pure politics. And that is unfortunate in a nation that is supposed to be of laws, not men. Marriage deserves better, and so do the American people.”  –Dale Schowengerdt

[DR. CHAPS COMMENT:  I couldn’t have said it better.  Obama is now openly trying to force homosexual ‘marriage’ upon all 50 states, through his court-room argument that our founding fathers somehow established sodomy as a civil right in our Constitution.]

Let’s take action now, to demand Congress act to protect traditional marriage.

Please select here to SIGN URGENT PETITION to PASS THE FEDERAL MARRIAGE AMENDMENT defining marriage between ONE MAN and ONE WOMAN.  Vote against S.598 that would repeal DOMA, and protect DOMA in court, and we will auto-fax your petition to all 100 Senators and 435 Congressmen (saving you much time!)

New York Gov. demands Homosexual Marriage in all 50 States.

The Governor of New York Andrew Cuomo demanded homosexual “marriage” be allowed in all 50 states, in a speech to the “Empire State Pride Agenda” activist group this week.   Receiving a standing ovation for more than a minute, Cuomo prepared to run for President in 2016, issuing “a passionate plea on Thursday for other states to follow New York’s lead and allow gay couples to wed,” reports the New York Times.

“Mr. Cuomo demanded that the federal Defense of Marriage Act [DOMA] be repealed. His voice rising in intensity as he spoke, he also called for federal legislation that would bar discrimination against gay men and lesbians…in his most forceful terms to date, Mr. Cuomo called for his counterparts [the other 49 state governors] across the country…to push for the legalization of same-sex marriage in their own statehouses.”

The U.S. Senate Judiciary committee voted to repeal DOMA, and homosexualize the institution of marriage in all 50 states.  The full Senate may vote this week.

ABC News reported:  “the legislation [was] supported by all ten Democrats on the committee.  After that the legislation will go to the full Senate for consideration.” 

Please take action today, by calling both your U.S. Senators and asking them “Please vote NO AND FILIBUSTER the bill S.598 the mislabeled ‘Respect for Marriage Act’ which actually disrespects and homosexualizes the institution of marriage.  Traditional marriage should be protected as defined by God: only valid between one man and one woman.” 

You can reach all 100 Senators by dialing 202-225-3121, and requesting your state.


Don’t have time to make 100 phone calls?  You can fax all 100 Senators and all 435 Congressmen instantly by signing our fax petition (saving you much time) and delivering real faxes to 535 Members.

Please select here to SIGN URGENT PETITION to PASS THE FEDERAL MARRIAGE AMENDMENT defining marriage between ONE MAN and ONE WOMAN.  Vote against S.598 that would repeal DOMA, and protect DOMA in court, and we will auto-fax your petition to all 100 Senators and 435 Congressmen (saving you much time!)

NEW YORK SUES U.S.A. TO FORCE GAY “MARRIAGE” IN ALL 50 STATES

The attorney general of New York State has sued the rest the USA in federal court, to overturn the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act, claiming homosexuals have a right to sodomy under the 14th Amendment of the United States Constitution.  Laws in 44 other states that define marriage between one man and one woman could be overturned by one federal court in Manhattan.  

Reuters reports:  “In court papers filed on Tuesday in U.S. federal court in Manhattan, New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman said the Defense of Marriage Act, or DOMA, violates same-sex couples’ right to equal protection under the U.S. Constitution… Schneiderman wrote: ‘By discriminating among married couples based on sexual orientation and sex, DOMA deprives New York of the ability to extend true equality to all marriages valid in the State.'” 

In other words, New York wants the federal law overturned in all 50 states, forcing Texas, Mississippi, Oklahoma, and every state to embrace homosexual “marriage” just so that New York lesbians and gays can receive federal “homosexual bonus pay” by taxing heterosexuals more.  

Reuters explained how homosexual bonus pay scheme would work:  “Schneiderman made his arguments in support of a case brought by Edie Windsor, a woman who sued the United States last year after an inheritance from her former partner was taxed. Windsor, who was married in Canada in 2007, said she had to pay $350,000 in inheritance tax in 2009 after the federal government refused to recognize her marriage.”  [If her lesbian marriage were honored, heterosexuals would be taxed the $350,000 to pay Windsor’s bill.]

Windsor argued she “was forced to pay in violation of the constitutional guarantee of equal protection of the law.”  But our founding fathers punished sodomy as a crime, and never dreamed the Constitution protected homosexual sin.  Furthermore homosexuals already have the equal right to marry, so long as they repent and marry heterosexually as law defines traditional marriage.  This proves they now seek special rights, not equal rights.  

Bottom line:  We need a Constitutional Marriage Amendment to whip New York back into line.  Let’s defend the 1996 DOMA law, and support Michele Bachmann’s call for a Constitutional Amendment to define marriage nationwide, as one man + one woman. 

Please select here to SIGN URGENT PETITION to PASS THE FEDERAL MARRIAGE AMENDMENT defining marriage between ONE MAN and ONE WOMAN.  Vote against S.598 that would repeal DOMA, and protect DOMA in court, and we will auto-fax your petition to all 100 Senators and 435 Congressmen (saving you much time!)
 
DEMOCRATS IN U.S. SENATE INTRODUCE BILL TO REPEAL 1996 DOMA LAW

While the national media covers only the debt crisis, Democrats in the Senate are attacking traditional marriage between one man and one woman, by attempting to repeal the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA).  Not satisfied with homosexualizing the military, or forcing gay “marriage” in states like New York, radical homosexuals testified on Capitol Hill today demanding homosexual “bonus pay” with more than 1,100 federal benefits that reward their acts of sodomy in all 50 states, taxing heterosexuals more to pay homosexuals to engage in immorality. 

On Tuesday Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) introduced, and President Obama quickly  endorsed a new bill S.598 to promote homosexual marriage, mislabeled the “Respect for Marriage Act” (RFMA) to end federal law that defines traditional marriage between one man and one woman.  White House press secretary Jay Carney told reporters Tuesday “President Obama is proud to support the Respect for Marriage Act,” which disrespects traditional marriage by enforcing homosexual marriage upon all 50 states. His views are no longer “evolving” rather
Obama is now fully out of the closet promoting gay marriage nationwide.

At last week’s hearings 5 pro-homosexual witnesses and just 3 conservatives argued for and against repealing DOMA, and passing RFMA, including 2 high-profile gay activists, Joe Solmonese, president of the Human Rights Campaign, and Evan Wolfson, founder and executive director of Freedom to Marry. Joining them will be Susan Murray, an activist attorney from Vermont, and complainers Ron Wallen of California and Andrew Sorbo of Connecticut, both of whom were denied homosexual bonus pay, and bonus Social Security checks (funded by heterosexual tax-payers) when their homosexual “marriage” partners died. 

Testifying in favor of keeping DOMA intact were pro-marriage heroes Ed Whelan, president of the Ethics and Public Policy Center, Austin Nimocks, senior legal counsel for the Alliance Defense Fund, and Tom Minnery, senior vice president of government and public policy for Focus on the Family.

44 States have passed laws like DOMA defining marriage between one man and one woman, but if RFMA is passed and the federal DOMA law repealed, all 44 state laws could be in danger of being overturned in court.  Just imagine Texas, Oklahoma, Kentucky, Mississippi, etc. being forced to issue homosexual “marriage” licenses, or forced to recognize and pay your tax benefits to homosexuals “married” in New York.  

Let’s take a stand, by petitioning all 100 Senators to defend DOMA, and reject RFMA. 

Please select here to SIGN URGENT PETITION to PASS THE FEDERAL MARRIAGE AMENDMENT defining marriage between ONE MAN and ONE WOMAN.  Vote against S.598 that would repeal DOMA, and protect DOMA in court, and we will auto-fax your petition to all 100 Senators and 435 Congressmen (saving you much time!)
 
Friends, our nation will soon endorse homosexual “marriage” in all 50 states, if your Senator doesn’t take a stand to defend DOMA, since Obama won’t.  Let’s take a stand today, and demand Senators defend the 1996 DOMA law in court.

 

God Bless you, in Jesus’ name,

Chaplain Gordon James Klingenschmitt, PhD

 

P.S. Time is urgent!  Court cases in Connecticut, Massachusetts, and elsewhere are already failing because Obama and AG Holder refuse to defend the law.  Please sign our petition today!   Prefer to donate by mail?  Please mail paper check or money orders to:   The Pray In Jesus Name Project, PO Box 77077, Colorado Springs, CO  80970.

Please select here to SIGN URGENT PETITION to PASS THE FEDERAL MARRIAGE AMENDMENT defining marriage between ONE MAN and ONE WOMAN.  Vote against S.598 that would repeal DOMA, and protect DOMA in court, and we will auto-fax your petition to all 100 Senators and 435 Congressmen (saving you much time!)

________________________

Forward This Message to Your Email Friends List

 

NCCR Editor: This email used all kinds of color highlighting. I am omitting those and if appropriate will replace the coloring with bold emphasis.