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

What is the Actual Dem Resistance to Kavanaugh?


Phone, FAX or Email your Senator to CONFIRM!

 

John R. Houk

© September 26, 2018

 

Breaking News as I was constructing this post

 

Julie Swetnick

 

A “Julie Swetnick” is now accusing Brett Kavanaugh not of sexual assault but of being one of many High School contemporaries of Kavanaugh of being a member of gang rape gangs.

 

AGAIN no corroboration or witnesses just Switnick’s word who is being represented by lawyer sleaze Michael Avenatti. The same Avenatti losing legal battles representing Stormy Daniels the porn actress who broke her nondisclosure agreement which she pocketed Trump cash. The same Avenatti who has his own legal and financial problems.

 

Even CNN (should be acronym for Communist New Network) brings up Avenatti’s criminal past in a story to potential financial involving $$$ MILLIONS:

He’s a convicted felon whose rap sheet is 15 pages long and spans four decades, according to court records. He served time in prison in the early 90s and was arrested on domestic violence charges as recently as February. (He pleaded not guilty and the case is awaiting trial). (Exclusive: How a ‘nobody’ ex-con pushed Avenatti law firm into bankruptcy; By Maeve RestonScott GloverSara Sidner and Traci Tamura; CNN; 6/1/18 Updated 8:12 PM ET)

And now as the Dems & Leftist MSM hops on the crucify Kavanaugh Train, Swetnick’s propensity for mental illness is being brought up:

In the wake of the 3rd Kavanaugh accuser Julie Swetnick’s identity becoming public through her lawyer, Michael Avenatti, The Kuhner Report received a call from a man who identified himself as “Thomas in Boston,”  whose family knew the Swetnicks “Well” in Maryland, and discussed the known “Issues of Substance abuse,” and “Mental Issues from Julie.”   He detailed a phone call from his sister this morning, who still lives in Maryland, where she said “Can you imagine a more delusional whack job is the one that came forward against Kavanaugh?”

“Thomas” also went on to describe the[y] are where they grew up in Montgomery Village, “Quite a distance from Bethesda” and that the “Social circles” would not have interacted.  He refutes that during High School “No way that she would have encountered these same social circles, certainly not during High School.”

He did say the information he received was “Second hand,” as it came from family members, but, he also offered details of the Swetnicks and his own family that lend credence to his story.

You can hear “Thomas in Boston” below: [i.e. on WRKO-AM 680 – The Voice of Boston page toward bottom] (Family Friend” of Julie Swetnick Details Her “Issues”; posted by Kuhner Report; WRKO-AM 680; 9/26/18)

 

What we have going on here is lie after lie by Dems trying to prevent Kavanaugh’s Confirmation.

 

+++****+++++****

Steven Ahle writing at DavidHarrisJr.com, lists 10 Republican Senators who have not committed to vote for Judge Brett Kavanaugh’s  confirmation to SCOTUS.

 

The Republican Party is supposed to stand for Conservative principles of governing. AND YET these GOP Senators will not go on the record to confirm Kavanaugh. Kavanaugh represents an Originalist view of the U.S. Constitution. This is as opposed to the official stand of the Dem Party that places its political principles on the so-called Living Conservative.

 

A brief description of Living Constitution:

 

In United States constitutional interpretation, the Living Constitution is the claim that the Constitution has a dynamic meaning or that it has the properties of an animate being in the sense that it changes. The controversial idea is associated with views that contemporaneous society should be taken into account when interpreting key constitutional phrases. While the arguments for the Living Constitution vary, they can generally be broken into two categories. First, the pragmatist view contends that interpreting the Constitution in accordance with its original meaning or intent is sometimes unacceptable as a policy matter, and thus that an evolving interpretation is necessary. The second, relating to intent, contends that the constitutional framers specifically wrote the Constitution in broad and flexible terms to create such a dynamic, “living” document. Opponents of the idea often argue that the Constitution should be changed through the amendment process, and that allowing judges to determine an ever-changing meaning of the constitution undermines democracy. The primary alternative to the Living Constitution is most commonly described as originalism. [Bold text Editor’s]

 

A brief description of the Originalist Constitution or Originalism:

 

In the context of United States constitutional interpretation, originalism is a principle of interpretation that tries to discover the original meaning or intent of the constitution. It is based on the principle that the judiciary is not supposed to create, amend or repeal laws but only to uphold them. The term originated in the 1980s but the concept is a formalist theory of law and a corollary of textualism. Today, originalism is popular among some political conservatives in the U.S., and is most prominently associated with Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas and Robert Bork. However, some liberals, such as Justice Hugo Black and Akhil Amar, have also subscribed to the theory. Originalism is an umbrella term for two major theories, principally: ⁕The original intent theory, which holds that interpretation of a written constitution is consistent with what was meant by those who drafted and ratified it. ⁕The original meaning theory, which is closely related to textualism, is the view that interpretation of a written constitution or law should be based on what reasonable persons living at the time of its adoption would have declared the ordinary meaning of the text to be. It is with this view that most originalists, such as Justice Scalia, are associated. [Bold Text Editor’s]

 

Both descriptions are from Definitions.net. It may be my imagination but it seems Definitions.net interpretation of Originalism though accurate in my opinion, is slightly dismissive. That annoys me. And so an affirmative analysis of Originalism comes Conservapedia:

 

Originalism is a method of constitutional interpretation that focuses on how a provision of a constitution would have been understood at the time of its ratification.[1]

 

The most common form is so-called “original meaning” originalism. This form that focuses on how ordinary people at the time would have understood the language of the constitutional provision. A largely-discarded form of orginalism [sic] is so-called “original intent” originalism, which focuses on what the authors of the constitution might have meant.

 

The philosophical basis of originalism is that a constitution only has force because it was approved by the people when it was ratified. Thus, the understanding of the constitution by the people who ratified it is the only valid interpretation.

 

Originalists reject the “evolving standards of decency” approach to constitutional interpretation that allows judges to effectively amend the constitution based on their own views of what the constitution “should” say. Instead, originalism is anchored in one certain interpretation. READ THE REST for even more details

 

Hmm… The concept of “evolving standards of decency” rather than a concept of “We The People” decide the rule of law by the vote is the fear that a Kavanaugh confirmation will ignore. Since Dems and Leftists in generals cannot stand that THE PEOPLE can comprehend what is good for them, Dems and Leftists would rather decide what is good for PEOPLE and what is good for society in general.

 

AND THAT IS WHY Dems in the Senate will do ANYTHING – lie, fabricate and/or rewrite laws via judicial activism – to prevent an Originalist to become a Justice on the Supreme Court of the United States.

 

OBVIOUSLY fabricating accusations of rape on Judge Brett Kavanaugh is the Dem process of doing ANYTHING to transform Constitutional Interpretation away from Originalism to Living Constitution is the purpose of the incredulous character assassination happening now.

 

Kavanaugh has already gone through SIX FBI investigations in his Federal journey of working for WE THE PEOPLE. In the confirmation process Kavanaugh experienced for the Federal Judiciary and Appellate Judiciary met hardly any Dem resistance. THEN he is nominated for SCOTUS and suddenly and mysteriously a couple of ladies with a sudden memory resurgence think it might have been teen Kavanaugh in High School and his Freshman year in college involved in their sexual assault that neither women reported to the police OVER 35 FREAK’IN YEARS AGO!

 

Only an idiot or an infected Leftist ideologue could believe such accusations. Are you an idiot are a mind-diseased Leftist Ideologue?

 

Think about your state of mind when you realize that there are actually TEN Republican Senators who haven’t made up their own minds on confirming Kavanaugh for SCOTUS.

 

Below Steven Ahle lists those ten Senators including their official phone numbers. MY GOD! If you are a constituent of one of these Senators call their office to demand Kavanaugh’s confirmation!

 

  1. Susan Collins:

 

Collins Contact:

 

ph: (202) 224-2523

fax: (202) 224-2693

Constituency Contact Form: https://www.collins.senate.gov/contact

 

  1. Senator Bill Cassidy:

 

Cassidy Contact:

 

Ph. 202-224-5824

Constituency Contact Form: https://www.cassidy.senate.gov/contact

 

  1. Senator Bob Corker:

 

Corker Contact:

Main: 202-224-3344
Fax: 202-228-0566

Constituency Contact Form: https://www.corker.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/emailme

 

  1. Senator Jeff Flake:

 

Flake Contact:

P: 202-224-4521
F: 202-228-0515

Constituency Contact Form: https://www.flake.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/contact-jeff

 

  1. Wyoming Senator Michael Enzi:

 

Enzi Contact:

Phone: (202) 224-3424
Fax: (202) 228-0359
Toll-Free: (888) 250-1879

Constituency Contact Form: https://www.enzi.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/e-mail-senator-enzi

 

  1. Senator John Kennedy:

 

Kennedy Contact:

 

Phone: (202) 224-4623

Constituency Contact Form: https://www.kennedy.senate.gov/public/email-me

 

  1. Senator James Lankford:

 

Lankford Contact:

 

Phone: (202) 224-5754

Constituency Contact Form: https://www.lankford.senate.gov/contact/email

 

  1. Senator Jerry Moran:

 

Moran Contact:

 

Phone: (202) 224-6521
Fax: (202) 228-6966

Constituency Contact Form: https://www.moran.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/e-mail-jerry

 

  1. Senator Lisa Murkowski:

 

Murkowski Contact:

 

Phone: (202)-224-6665
Fax: (202)-224-5301

Constituency Contact Form: https://www.murkowski.senate.gov/contact/email

 

  1. Senator Ben Sasse:

 

Sasse Contact:

 

Phone: 202-224-4224

Constituency Contact Form: https://www.sasse.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/email-ben

 

Here is an example email from what I sent to my Senator in Oklahoma according to the Steven Ahle list:

 

Senator Lankford,

It has come to my attention that you as a Conservative Republican have not committed to confirm Judge Kavanaugh to SCOTUS (https://davidharrisjr.com/politics/ten-senators-who-havent-committed-to-kavanaugh-yet/). I find this quite shocking as a Conservative! The only basis I can think of for any hesitation are the alleged sexual assault claims from ladies with very vague memories from over 35 years ago. AND IF Kavanaugh was a frisky teenage boy in High School and as a Freshman at Yale, can you not remember you were once a teenage boy. Even the most stellarly behaved teenage boy at very least has raging hormones that as more responsibility arises in life, more focus on mature life issues grow.

Surely you recognize that the sudden memory recovery of ladies that never reported a heinous crime of sexual assault when the alleged incident occurred are untrustworthy in their accusations. I have been doing some reading on sexual assault on women. In spite of MSM and/or Democratic Party assertions otherwise, sexual assault leave an indelible memory of revulsion and personal violation. Are you seeing this from Judge Kavanaugh’s accusers?

Dear God in Heaven Senator Lankford as a Conservative from Oklahoma, you should feel compelled to honor your constituents and confirm Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court.

Sincerely,

John R. Houk

Feel free to amend and place your Senator and name to an email or FAX.

 

JRH 9/26/18

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

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

Ten Senators Who Haven’t Committed To Kavanaugh Yet

 

By STEVEN AHLE

SEPTEMBER 25, 2018

DavidHarrisJr.com

 

There is one thing you have to admire about Democratic Senators. They stick together and move forward, public opinion be damned. I really wish Republican Senators would do the same. If they mess up the Kavanaugh nomination, it will cost them on November sixth. They try to please the Democrat voters who will never vote for them regardless, so why do they even try? Currently, 10 out of 51 Republican Senators are not committed to Kavanaugh. They are:

 

  • Maine Senator Susan Collins -office number 202-224-2523

 

  • Louisiana Senator Bill Cassidy – office number 202-224-5824

 

  • Tennessee Senator Bob Corker office number 202-224-3344

 

  • Arizona Senator Jeff Flake – office number 202-224-4521

 

  • Wyoming Senator Michael Enzi – office number 202-224-3424

 

  • Louisiana Senator John Kennedy – office number 202-224-4623

 

  • Oklahoma Senator James Lankford – office number 202-224-5754

 

  • Kansas Senator Jerry Moran – office number 202-224-6521

 

  • Alaska Senator Lisa Murkowski – office number 202-224-6665

 

  • Nebraska Senator Ben Sasse office number 202-224-4224

 

Look at all the RINOs. Jeff Flake has already said that he may vote against Kavanaugh because of the bogus accusations against him. But the truth is, Flake hates Trump more than he likes his constituents.

 

From The Gateway Pundit

 

Creepy porn lawyer Michael Avenatti is set to roll out Kavanaugh’s 3rd alleged accuser in the next 48 hours–Michael Avenatti took his grotesque attacks to the next level and informed the Senate he is accusing Kavanaugh and witness Mark Judge of getting women intoxicated at parties with drugs and alcohol so they could be gang raped by a “train” of men.

 

Call these Republican Senators and tell them enough is enough!

 

Mitch McConnell blasted Democrats earlier Monday from the Senate floor.

 

McConnell said the resistance has become a smear campaign aided and abetted by members of the U.S. Senate.

 

 

 

To stay up to date with David’s No Nonsense News, make sure to subscribe to his news letter on his website at www.davidharrisjr.com and follow him on Facebook, Twitter, Instagram and YouTube @DavidJHarrisJr

 

He has also just announced that his book “Why I Couldn’t Stay Silent” is available for pre-order! Click the tab “Book” on the Home Page on his website. Over 600 books have already been ordered! He has increased the signed pre-orders to the first 700 books! Pre-order yours today and it will be signed by David!

________________________

What is the Actual Dem Resistance to Kavanaugh?

Phone, FAX or Email your Senator to CONFIRM!

 

John R. Houk

© September 26, 2018

_____________________

Ten Senators Who Haven’t Committed To Kavanaugh Yet

 

Copyright © David Harris Jr. All Rights Reserved.

 

ABOUT DAVID

David James Harris Jr & Wife Jennifer

 

David James Harris Jr is a passionate pursuer of life, love and hope and seeks to use his platform as Founder/CEO of Uncorked Health. Wellness, Inc. to help as many individuals as possible. David has been an entrepreneur for over 20 years launching his first business at just 20 years old. It became a multi-million dollar company within two years. He’s also tasted of life’s setbacks and chooses to seek for growth opportunities in every downfall. David has overcame many of life’s obstacles, both personally and professionally.

 

David is crazy in love with his high school sweetheart, Jennifer… The girl of his dreams and often in his dreams. They are about to celebrate 23 years of marriage this year. They have two amazingly talented and beautiful daughters Corbin, 20 and Skyler, 18 who’s passion for life and love for others are contagious. They each chose to start off on the road to adulthood by attending Bethel School of Supernatural Ministry in Redding, Ca, seeking to lay down a spiritual foundation before tackling all that life has to offer.

 

He is openly a lover of God, having had an encounter that he describes like unto that of Saul in the bible. His perspective on life, himself, and his reason for existence was eternally altered from these encounters, which led to him referring to God as… “Daddy”. He seeks to be a light in a dark world, operate a business that helps people achieve their goals in mind and body, while bringing messages of hope and love that enhance the spirit. Join him on a journey through life, filled with hope and enduring love…

 

5 Justices Stick to Constitutional Originalism


John R. Houk

© June 26, 2018

 

Well-Well. It looks like five Justices of the Supreme Court still adhere to the U.S. Constitution. At the same time it is evident there are four Justices that take to the fallacy of a Living Constitution, meaning activist Judges can interpret the Constitution according Leftist ideology rather than the Original Intent of the letter of the law.

 

  1. SCOTUS rules Pro-Life facilities cannot be forced to share information of State options to kill unborn babies.

 

  1. SCOTUS rules that the Office of President has the Constitutional ability to limit travel from nations that a National Security issue is apparent.

 

Both decisions were decided by a 5-4 vote.

 

Below are two Fox News stories with the details.

 

JRH 6/26/18

Please Support NCCR

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

Supreme Court rules in favor of pro-life crisis pregnancy centers in fight over California law

 

By Adam Shaw

June 26, 2018

Fox News

 

The Supreme Court ruled Tuesday in favor of pro-life crisis pregnancy centers that counsel pregnant women to make choices other than abortion, invalidating a California law requiring them to prominently post information on how to obtain a state-funded abortion.

 

The court, in a 5-4 ruling, said the state law likely violates the First Amendment. The court also cast doubts on similar laws in Hawaii and Illinois.

 

The state regulations, targeting centers that provide counseling-related services with the goal of helping women make choices other than abortion, demanded such centers prominently post information on how to obtain abortion and contraception.

 

The law also required unlicensed, non-medical facilities to inform clients that they are not licensed medical providers. If pregnancy centers fail to comply with the law, they’re fined $500 for a first offense and $1,000 for each subsequent offense, according to the law.

 

Pro-life groups had challenged the regulations, arguing that they violated their free speech rights under the First Amendment. Supporters of the law said that it was necessary since many women were unaware of the options available to them.

 

The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals rejected both arguments and upheld the law — arguing that the state could regulate professional free speech and the law protects public health interests. The Supreme Court reversed that judgement.

 

Justice Clarence Thomas said in his majority opinion, “California cannot co-opt the licensed facilities to deliver its message for it.” He also called the regulations for unlicensed facilities “unjustified and unduly burdensome.”

 

Thomas was joined by fellow conservative justices John Roberts, Anthony Kennedy, Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch. Dissenting were liberal justices Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan.

 

Breyer, in his dissent, said among the reasons the law should be upheld is that the high court has previously upheld state laws requiring doctors to tell women seeking abortions about adoption services. “After all, the law must be evenhanded,” Breyer said.

 

California Attorney General Xavier Becerra called the ruling “unfortunate.”

 

“When it comes to making their health decisions, all California women — regardless of their economic background or zip code — deserve access to critical and non-biased information to make their own informed decisions,” Becerra said in a statement.

 

“Today’s Court ruling is unfortunate, but our work to ensure that Californians receive accurate information about their healthcare options will continue.”

 

Fox News’ Bill Mears, Madeline Farber and The Associated Press contributed to this report

Adam Shaw is a reporter covering U.S. and European politics for Fox News. He can be reached here.

 

++++++++++

Supreme Court upholds Trump travel ban on some Muslim-majority nations

 

By Bill Mears

June 26, 2018

Fox News

 

The Supreme Court on Tuesday upheld President Trump’s controversial travel ban affecting several mostly Muslim countries, offering a limited endorsement of the president’s executive authority on immigration in one of the hardest-fought battles of this term.

 

The 5-4 ruling marks the first major high court decision on a Trump administration policy. It upholds the selective travel restrictions, which critics called a discriminatory “Muslim ban” but the administration argued was needed for security reasons.

 

In a written statement, Trump called the ruling “a tremendous victory for the American People and the Constitution.” As critics continued to decry the policy as “xenophobic,” Trump described the court decision as “a moment of profound vindication following months of hysterical commentary from the media and Democratic politicians who refuse to do what it takes to secure our border and our country.”

 

 

At issue was whether the third and latest version of the administration’s policies affecting visitors from five majority Muslim nations – known as travel ban 3.0 – discriminates on the basis of nationality and religion, in the government’s issuance of immigrant visas.

 

CLICK TO READ THE DECISION

 

Chief Justice John Roberts, who authored the conservative majority opinion, wrote that the order was “squarely within the scope of presidential authority” under federal law.

 

“The sole prerequisite set forth in [federal law] is that the president find that the entry of the covered aliens would be detrimental to the interests of the United States. The president has undoubtedly fulfilled that requirement here,” he wrote.

 

Associate Justice Sonia Sotomayor was among the court’s four liberals that wrote a dissent.

 

“This repackaging does little to cleanse [the policy] of the appearance of discrimination that the president’s words have created,” she said. “Based on the evidence in the record, a reasonable observer would conclude that the proclamation was motivated by anti-Muslim animus.”

 

She and Justice Stephen Breyer took the unusual step of reading their dissents from the bench.

 

While the policy was upheld, the case was sent back to the lower courts, which were told to rely on the Supreme Court’s interpretation of executive authority.

 

It was the first significant legal test so far of Trump’s policies and power and could lead to a precedent-setting expansion on the limits of presidential authority, especially within the immigration context.

 

Federal appeals courts in Virginia and California in recent months had ruled against the administration. The San Francisco-based 9th Circuit Court last December concluded Trump’s proclamation, like the two previous executive orders, overstepped his powers to regulate the entry of immigrants and visitors.

 

But the justices had allowed the current restrictions to be enforced at the Justice Department’s request, at least until the case was fully litigated.

 

The Trump administration also seemed to enjoy a favorable reception before the court during arguments in April. Associate Justice Samuel Alito, during those April arguments, noted that of the 50 or so mostly Muslim majority countries, only five were on the current banned list.

 

The White House had framed the issue as a temporary move involving national security.

 

A coalition of groups in opposition called the order blatant religious discrimination, since the countries involved have mostly Muslim populations: Iran, Libya, Sudan, Syria and Yemen. Chad was recently removed from the list after the administration said that country had beefed up its information-sharing.

 

A major sticking point for the justices was navigating how much discretion the president really has over immigration. Courts have historically been deferential in this area, and recent presidents from Jimmy Carter to Ronald Reagan to Barack Obama have used it to deny entry to certain refugees and diplomats, including nations such as Iran, Cuba and North Korea.

 

A 1952 federal law — the Immigration and Nationality Act, passed in the midst of a Cold War fear over Communist influence — historically gives the chief executive broad authority.

 

It reads in part: “Whenever the president finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may, may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate.”

 

The administration strongly denies this is a “Muslim ban,” but federal judges across the country cited statements by then-presidential candidate Trump and his advisers, including a December 2015 campaign press release calling for such restrictions and citing “hatred” by “large segments of the Muslim population.”

 

The high court’s majority downplayed Trump’s campaign statements as a major factor in its decision.

 

“The issue before us is not whether to denounce the statements,” wrote Roberts. “It is instead the significance of those statements in reviewing a Presidential directive, neutral on its face, addressing a matter within the core of executive responsibility. In doing so, we must consider not only the statements of a particular President, but also the authority of the Presidency itself.”

 

Sixteen state leaders led by Texas were among a number of coalitions backing the Trump administration. But Hawaii officials, who filed the appeal contesting all of the president’s orders, said the president’s policies violate the Constitution’s guarantee of religious freedom:

 

“Any reasonable observer who heard the president’s campaign promises, read his thinly justified orders banning overwhelmingly Muslim populations, and observed his administration’s persistent statements linking the two, would view the order and each of its precursors as the fulfillment of the president’s promise to prohibit Muslim immigration to the United States.”

 

Trump’s first executive order was issued just a week after he took office, and was aimed at seven countries. It triggered chaos and protests across the U.S., as some travelers were stopped from boarding international flights and others detained at airports for hours. Trump modified the order after a federal appeals court refused to allow the ban to be enforced.

 

“This is not about religion — this is about terror and keeping our country safe,” the president said on Jan. 29, 2017.

 

The next version, unveiled weeks later, dropped Iraq from the list of covered countries and made it clear the 90-day ban covering Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen didn’t apply to those travelers who already had valid visas. It also got rid of language that would give priority to religious minorities. Critics said the changes did not erase the legal problems with the ban.

 

When that second temporary travel ban expired in Sept. 24, it was replaced with Proclamation 9645 — what the administration said was a country-by-country assessment of security and cooperation with the U.S.

 

The Associated Press contributed to this report. 

______________________

5 Justices Stick to Constitutional Originalism

John R. Houk

© June 26, 2018

____________________

Supreme Court rules in favor of pro-life crisis pregnancy centers in fight over California law

 

And

 

Supreme Court upholds Trump travel ban on some Muslim-majority nations

 

This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed. ©2018 FOX News Network, LLC. All rights reserved.

 

[Blog Editor: I did not ask permission to share the Fox News posts. If requested I will remove them.]

 

Judicial Tyranny or Constitutional Supremacy:


SCOTUS Travel Ban Ruling Decides

 

By John R. Houk

© June 4, 2017

 

Here is a quote that rings true about Lower Federal Courts striking down President Trump’s Executive Order travel ban from Islamic terrorist ridden nations or areas:

 

Lower federal court judges have struck down the executive orders as unconstitutional based on their ideology, not the rule of law”.

 

The quote comes from journalist author Douglas V. Gibbs at the Canada Free Press speculating with some positive certainty that SCOTUS will strike down the Lower Courts to President Trump’s favor.

 

Gibbs’ positivism comes from the plain English of the U.S. Constitution. Ergo Gibbs posits that SCOTUS will uphold the rule of law spelled out in ink in the Constitution.

 

I pray Gibbs is correct. We are about to find out of a Trump appointee to the Supreme Court was worth waiting to elect him as President.

 

There are roughly two trains of thought on Constitutional interpretation: Original Intent of the Founders and the Living Constitution which can loosely interpreted to fit the Secular Humanist’s view of what society is or will be.

 

President Trump’s EOs ran into Left-Wing Activist Judges committed to the Living Constitution interpretation.

 

The Activist Judges struck down President Trump’s Travel Ban Eos by interpreting Donald Trump’s campaign speeches as being anti-Islam and so the EOs were aimed at discriminating against Muslims rather protecting American citizens.

 

If a majority of SCOTUS Justices follow the Living Constitution methodology of interpretation you can kiss Separation of Powers goodbye in the separate but equal Checks and Balances that Civics so often affirmed as a constitutional doctrine of the U.S. Government.

 

WHY?

 

Because a Living Constitution Judicial Branch becomes the dictator of laws made by man rather than the rule of law. A Judicial dictatorship was one of the great concerns of the Founding Fathers of the constitutionally created Judicial Branch:

 

“[N]othing in the Constitution has given [the judiciary] a right to decide for the Executive, more than to the executive to decide for them. Both magistracies are equally independent in the sphere of action assigned to them… the opinion which gives to the judges the right to decide what laws are constitutional, and what are not, not only for themselves in their own sphere of action, but for the Legislature & Executive also, in their spheres, would make the judiciary a despotic branch.“- Thomas Jefferson [Undeniable Quotes: The Founding Fathers Warn About SCOTUS]

 

“[A] limited Constitution … can be preserved in practice no other way than through the medium of courts of justice, whose duty it must be to declare all acts contrary to the manifest tenor of the Constitution void. Without this, all the reservations of particular rights or privileges would amount to nothing … To deny this would be to affirm … that men acting by virtue of powers may do not only what their powers do not authorize, but what they forbid.” – Alexander Hamilton [Undeniable Quotes: The Founding Fathers Warn About SCOTUS]

 

Thomas Jefferson letter to Charles Hammond

Categories: Courts / Judiciary

Date: August 18, 1821

It has long, however, been my opinion, and I have never shrunk from its expression . . . that the germ of dissolution of our federal government is in the constitution of the federal judiciary; . . . working like gravity by night and by day, gaining a little today and a little tomorrow, and advancing its noiseless step like a thief, over the field of jurisdiction, until all shall be usurped. (Thomas Jefferson – It has longQuotes Database)

 

Alexander Hamilton The Federalist Papers Federalist No. 78

Categories: Courts / Judiciary

Date: June 14, 1788

The Judiciary . . . has no influence over either the sword or the purse; no direction either of the strength or of the wealth of the society, and can take no active resolution whatever. It may truly be said to have neither force nor will. (The JudiciaryQuotes Database)

 

Thomas Jefferson letter to Judge Spencer Roane

Categories: Courts / Judiciary

Date: September 6, 1819

The Constitution . . . is a mere thing of wax in the hands of the judiciary which they may twist and shape into any form they please. (The ConstitutionQuotes Database)

 

Alexander Hamilton The Federalist Papers Federalist No. 78

Categories: Courts / Judiciary

Date: June 14, 1788

And it proves, in the last place, that liberty can have nothing to fear from the judiciary alone, but would have everything to fear from its union with either of the other departments. (And it ProvesQuotes Database)

 

James Madison The Federalist Papers Federalist No. 47

Categories: Separation of Powers

Date: January 30, 1788

The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands, whether of one, a few, or many, and whether hereditary, self-appointed, or elective, may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny. (The Accumulation of all PowersQuotes Database)

 

These are just a few quotes by the Founding Fathers on concerns of one Branch dominating the others thus promoting tyranny. To do a little reading on your own about the concerns of dominant Branch tyranny go to Quotes Database category Separation of Powers Quotations.

 

My concern currently is Judicial Tyranny which the concept of the Living Constitution enables. And it was Judicial Tyranny stemming from Living Constitution ideology that struck down the Executive Orders of President Trump.

 

The President has asked SCOTUS to expedite a decision on those Executive Orders. How SCOTUS rules will either strengthen Living Constitution Judicial Tyranny a take an important step toward Constitutional Supremacy.

 

Here is some further reading:

 

Why Judicial Supremacy Isn’t Compatible with Constitutional Supremacy; By RAMESH PONNURU; National Review; 9/10/15 4:00 AM

 

Living Constitution, fancy words for judicial tyranny; Posted by Dstarr; News from the Northwoods; 2/15/16 3:22 PM

 

Thomas Jefferson on Judicial Tyranny; By Tenth Amendment Center; 6/4/12

 

A ‘Living Constitution’ for a Dying Republic; By Mark Alexander; The Patriot Post; 9/16/05

 

JRH 6/4/17

 Please Support NCCR

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

Supreme Court to Lift Ban on Travel Ban

 

By Douglas V. Gibbs

June 4, 2017

Canada Free Press

 

In Trump’s Travel Ban Executive Order, the laws he is executing with the order are listed.  Among them is a law that gives the President the ability to prohibit persons from entering the United States if he believes they may be a danger to the national security of this country.

 

Article I, Section 9 of the United States Constitution authorizes Congress to make laws prohibiting persons from “migrating” into the United States with legislation.

 

Based on the original intent of the United States Constitution, Trump’s travel ban regarding a few Muslim-majority countries who have proven they are sponsors of terrorism, and are willing to harbor terrorists, is completely constitutional.

 

Lower federal court judges have struck down the executive orders as unconstitutional based on their ideology, not the rule of law.

 

There is no authority granted to the courts to strike down executive orders in the U.S. Constitution, so the actions of these judges have no foundation in constitutional law.

 

If President Trump understood all of these things, then he would simply tell the lower court judges to kiss off, and he would execute his travel ban, anyway.  The courts have no enforcement arm, and have no authority over his executive branch agencies.

 

However, the president decided to let the courts decide, and the next stop within days will likely be the United States Supreme Court.  A ruling is expected soon that would, based on their “opinion” and the current misguided view of the Constitution, lift a temporary stay on President Trump’s revised executive order banning travel from six mostly Muslim countries.

Immigration in the sense of who can cross the border, as per Article I, Section 9, is a federal issue.  The 1st Amendment’s religious clauses only disallow the Congress from making law establishing a state religion, or writing laws prohibiting the free exercise of religion within our jurisdiction.  It has nothing to do with the religion of who is entering (if Islam is a religion at all in the first place), and Article I, Section 9 does not mention that a religious test cannot be used in connection with which migrants can be prohibited.  It also does not violate the Due Process Clause of the 5th and 14th Amendments because this is regarding people who aren’t even citizens of the United States.  As for the alleged ban on nationality discrimination in the issuance of immigrant visas contained in a 65-year-old congressional law, all Congress has to do is repeal that law, and replace it with a new one.

 

The Democrats have somehow equated the rejection of Islam by conservatives as being akin to how Germany treated the Jews while under the NAZI regime prior to, and during, World War II.  The reality is, Islam is not a religion, it is a political system and full way of life that calls itself a religion, and it has more in common with the NAZIs than it does with the persecuted Jews.

 

As Commander in Chief, among his primary functions, the President must protect the country (national security), and that is what his travel ban executive order seeks to accomplish.  Despite what one may think, the reality is that terrorism runs rampant in Islam, and in the countries listed.  If Islam doesn’t want us fearing them, and having the inclination that all Muslims are either terrorists, or support terrorist activity, then Islam needs to clean its own house (if that is even possible).  The problem is, like the Germans who were not NAZIs in Germany, the moderate Muslims are a moot point.  The violent jihadists are the ones driving the message of Islam, so that is what we have to address, despite the alleged notion that the poor moderate Muslims are not in agreement with the violence.

 

We, as a nation, have the right to protect ourselves from any potential enemy, no matter what they choose to call themselves (regime, government, or religion).

 

While there is no timetable on how quickly the Supreme Court will issue a final ruling in the case (again, I am not a supporter of the unconstitutional concept of judicial review, but as the system is thought to be now, this is the last resort the President has. . . aside from ignoring the courts, and carrying out his duties despite their opinions), there are other lower court decisions also brewing regarding the issue.  Two federal appeals courts are also currently considering the issue, and a ruling from the 9th Circus is still pending.  Trump’s Justice Department, however, has asked the Supreme Court to get involved in the issue now.

 

According to Fox News:

 

“The justices have the discretion to wait indefinitely to decide the broader merits of the case, but will issue an order in the meantime on whether the ban can be temporarily enforced. The federal government asked the high court to allow the order to go into effect now, and proposed oral arguments be held in October.”

 

The White House frames the issue as a temporary move involving national security, as they should.  Bureaucrats and men in black robes should not be able to interfere with the duties of the President as Commander in Chief.  His job to protect the United States, while on some fronts are dependent upon Congress (such as when it comes to funding), is his to prosecute, and for judges to abandon the rule of law and act in a manner based on ideology regardless of the law is disgusting, and unconstitutional.

 

The executive order is the second one.  Rather than fight for the first one, the language was changed in a manner that was considered to be “bullet proof,” and then was issued March 6.  The revision, in addition to the added “bullet proof” language, also removed Iraq from the list of countries.

 

Officials say the new executive order only applies to foreign nationals outside the U.S. without a valid visa.

 

The appeals court said its decision was based on what Trump said on the campaign trail about “banning Muslims.”

 

Chief Judge Roger Gregory called it an “executive order that in text speaks with vague words of national security, but in context drips with religious intolerance, animus, and discrimination.”

 

Intolerance?  The Islamic culture has declared war on the United States, and the liberal left Democrats are treating this like it is a slight misunderstanding.  What about Islamic intolerance?  How about we ban mosques in the United States until Muslim countries start welcoming the building of churches and synagogues on their lands.  Did you know if you fly into a Muslim country, if they search you and discover you have a Bible, it will be destroyed onsite?  What about the genocide against Christians occurring in Muslim-majority countries?  Is that tolerance?
During World War II, would these judges have considered a ban against persons from the axis powers intolerant?

 

By the way, the law that started this thing about the President’s authority to prohibit immigration began with the The Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 also known as the McCarran–Walter Act, which gives the president the allowance to restrict immigration into the United States if he believes the persons to be a danger to our national security.  It was passed during a time when we as a country were worried about communist infiltration.  Some Democrats weren’t too happy back then, either, despite the reality that it was a Democrat sponsored law.  Carter, Reagan and Obama all used it to deny entry to certain refugees and diplomats, including from nations such as Iran, Cuba, and North Korea, but you don’t remember the courts worried about Obama’s use of it, do you?

 

The court’s attacks against the executive order has nothing to do with the law, and everything to do with who wrote the executive order. Congress should drag these activist judges before Congress and make them answer to the legislative branch for their unconstitutional rulings, and then impeach each and every one of them for their bad constitutional behavior.  Congress should also pass law nullifying each and every one of those unconstitutional rulings (a power they have according to Article III’s “Exceptions Clause”).

 

The problem, in short, is not that the courts are misbehaving, but that Congress and the President are letting them.

 

The judicial branch is supposed to be the weakest of the three branches.  They are not supposed to be a check against Congress or the President, other checks exist (or existed) to take care of that.  The judicial branch’s job is clear.  Their job is simply to apply the law to the cases they hear.  If they believe the law is unconstitutional or unjust, then they can issue an opinion so that Congress may reconsider the law.  What they are doing now has nothing to do with applying the law, or the rule of law.  These leftist judges are simply ruling against the president for political reasons, and then are misinterpreting the law to make it sound like their rulings are within the law.

 

They all need to be thrown off their benches, and either replaced, or those particular inferior courts need to be dismantled and the regions absorbed by another court – again, an authority that Congress has, but has been unwilling to wield.

________________

Judicial Tyranny or Constitutional Supremacy:

SCOTUS Travel Ban Ruling Decides

 

By John R. Houk

© June 4, 2017

________________

Supreme Court to Lift Ban on Travel Ban

 

Douglas V. Gibbs of Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary, has been featured on “Hannity” and “Fox and Friends” on Fox News Channel, and other television shows and networks.  Doug is a Radio Host on KMET 1490-AM on Saturdays with his Constitution Radio program, as well as a longtime podcaster, conservative political activist, writer and commentator.  Doug can be reached at douglasvgibbs [at] yahoo.com or constitutionspeaker [at] yahoo.com.

 

Pursuant to Title 17 U.S.C. 107, other copyrighted work is provided for educational purposes, research, critical comment, or debate without profit or payment. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for your own purposes beyond the ‘fair use’ exception, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. Views are those of authors and not necessarily those of Canada Free Press. Content is Copyright 1997-2017 the individual authors. Site Copyright 1997-2017 Canada Free Press.Com

 

Guns or Bibles or Both


Is it Time to Consider?

John R. Houk

© June 27, 2015

Bible believing Christians must show their displeasure with SCOTUS, Congress and of course President Barack Hussein Obama. The only way to prevent the further threat to our Liberty to be practicing Christians is to call for an Amendment to the Constitution to reverse the curse that SCOTUS has placed on our nation. That a Leftist Congress has promoted. And that our Leftist-in-Chief President has sent in his so far successful agenda to fundamentally transform America.

VIDEO: Fundamentally Transform America- the Obama Promise

Posted by obamacare

Published on Jul 24, 2013

Remember 5 days before the 2008 Presidential Election? President Obama promised to fundamentally transform America? How’s He doing? Join the Fight against Obama and the Progressives’ attempt to destroy Individual Liberty at http://freedomist.com

Getting Congress to pass an Amendment to address Traditional Marriage may be a daunting task. I suspect not one Democrat would vote in favor of such an Amendment. ALSO I have a horrible feeling the Establishment Republican RINOs and pretend pseudo-Conservatives would join the Democrats in naysaying. Under those conditions I have serious doubts that Congress could muster even a simple majority in favor of Traditional Marriage with one man and one woman. A simple majority in favor of a Traditional Marriage Amendment isn’t enough since 2/3 of both Houses of Congress is required. And if a 2/3 majority passes both Houses still the Amendment to the States requires the ratification of 3/4 of States (currently 38 out of 50) to be a part of the Constitution. There is another way to constitutionally amend the Constitution that bypasses Congress, the President and SCOTUS.

If 2/3 (34) of each individual State passes a resolution petitioning for a Constitutional Convention to construct an Amendment for Traditional Marriage. This has never happened since the first Constitutional Convention that brought us our U.S. Constitution.

Critics of a Constitutional Convention on both the Left and the Right believe such a convention will rewrite the entirely new Constitution. However I have since learned that each State legislature can call for a Constitutional Convention with a specific mandate for a specific Amendment or specific Amendments or a whole new Constitution. The next convention which would only be the second since the 1787, can assign the delegates with specific instructions on what kind of Amendment or Amendments to work on. AND THEN still 3/4 of the States would be needed to ratify said Amendment or Amendments under a specified mandate; i.e. 38 out of 50.

Calling for such a convention only needs a simple majority of the legislature of each State OR if the State runs an Initiative law, a voters plebiscite can call for a convention. The U.S. Constitution does not actually lay out the framework on how each State issues a petition for a convention. That method is left to the devices of each State. The U.S. Constitution does issue one caveat for States calling an assembly of a national Constitutional Convention. After 34 States submit a Constitutional Convention petition, then the U.S. Congress must convene the Convention.

I have to wonder what happens if the U.S. Congress refuses to convene a Convention after 34 States validate such a petition. The next logical Constitutional path would that the several States have SCOTUS force Congress to convene a convention as per Article 5 of the Constitution. I perceive the problem with SCOTUS fulfilling its Constitutional duty is that the recent two rulings validating Obamacare and same-sex marriage contrary to Amendment 10 of the Constitution will continue a rogue Supreme Court thus ensuring political tyranny.

It is political tyranny that America’s Founding Fathers initiated a rebellion against British rule because the British Crown and the British Parliament ignored the Liberty and Freedom of their citizens in the 13 American colonies.

Declaration of Independence – July 4, 1776

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.–That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, –That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.–Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and … Dear God in Heaven you should READ THE REST (The Declaration of Independence: A Transcription IN CONGRESS [i.e. under Articles of Confederation], July 4, 1776; Charters of Freedom; Archives.gov)

It is my opinion that if all three Constitutional Branches of government form an oligarchy of despotism, then a new American Revolution may be necessary for WE the people to dissolve the political bands which have connected us to a political despotism that separates us from the “Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God”.

I suspect the Founding Fathers responsible for the Bill of Rights (viz. the Second Amendment) foresaw a future rogue National Government. Hello: rogue President, rogue SCOTUS and an indecisive Congress essentially the essence of a rogue legislature swayed by special interests and huge ideological divisions making statesman a 19th century concept.

It was there I took a couple of courses with Dr. J. Rufus Fears, professor of an incredibly manly subject: the history of freedom. One of the things the good professor emphasized to us captivated students was that a politician and a statesman are not the same thing. A statesman, Fears argues, is not a tyrant; he is the free leader of a free people and he must possess four critical qualities:

1. A bedrock of principles

2. A moral compass

3. A vision

4. The ability to build a consensus to achieve that vision

Let us now explore these four criteria of a democratic statesman in READ ENTIRETY (The 4 Qualities of a True Statesman; By Brett & Kate McKay; The Art of Manliness; 1/30/12)

The only moral compass among Obama-Democrats are the godless fallacies of Secular Humanism:

Theologically, Secular Humanists are atheists. Humanist Paul Kurtz, publisher of Prometheus Books and editor of Free Inquiry magazine, says that “Humanism cannot in any fair sense of the word apply to one who still believes in God as the source and creator of the universe.”[5] Corliss Lamont agrees, saying that “Humanism contends that instead of the gods creating the cosmos, the cosmos, in the individualized form of human beings giving rein to their imagination, created the gods.”[6]

Philosophically, Secular Humanists are naturalists. That is, they believe that nature is all that exists – the material world is all that exists. There is no God, no spiritual dimension, no afterlife. Carl Sagan said it best in the introduction to his Cosmos series: “The universe is all that is or ever was or ever will be.”[7] Roy Wood Sellars concurs. “Humanism is naturalistic,” he says, “and rejects the supernaturalistic stance with its postulated Creator-God and cosmic Ruler.”[8]

Secular Humanist beliefs in the area of biology are closely tied to both their atheistic theology and their naturalist philosophy. If there is no supernatural, then life, including human life, must be the result of a purely natural phenomenon. Hence, Secular Humanists must believe in evolution. Julian Huxley, for example, insists that “man … his body, his mind and his soul were not supernaturally created but are all products of evolution.”[9] Sagan, Lamont, Sellars, Kurtz—all Secular Humanists are in agreement on this.

Atheism leads most Secular Humanists to adopt ethical relativism – the belief that no absolute moral code exists, and therefore man must adjust his ethical standards in each situation according to his own judgment.[10] If God does not exist, then He cannot establish an absolute moral code. READ ENTIRETY (What is Secular Humanism? Adapted from Understanding the Times: The Religious Worldviews of our Day and the Search for Truth, and Clergy in the Classroom: The Religion of Secular Humanism by David A. Noebel, J.F. Baldwin and Kevin By water of Summit Ministries; ChristianAnswers.Net; Copyright © 1996, Summit Ministries, All Rights Reserved)

The SCOTUS decision on Same-Sex marriage has just about robbed me of all confidence that the operation of the current Federal Government will preserve an exceptional United States of America under God with Liberty and Justice for all. The “Justice” here is NOT the social justice advocated by a godless Secular Humanism. RATHER this “Justice” is Justice under God Almighty as displayed in the Holy Bible (and not the antichrist Quran of Islam).

In a cross post of Robert Smith’s email submission yesterday, he volunteered Americans have two choices to take back the Constitution of the Founding Fathers’ Original Intent:

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.

Robert had submitted his thoughts at about 11:00 PM on June 25 referencing the SCOTUS support for Obamacare subsidies which was a stretch on the Constitution. However his thoughts came to mind after listening to Fox News the morning of June 26 announcing the SCOTUS decision on same-sex marriage. AGAIN: the ballot box or armed intervention.

I always conceived an armed confrontation might occur between American citizens standing for Conservative-Christian principles and a rogue operating unconstitutional Federal government, BUT I really did not conceive such a situation viable in my lifetime. NOW I am not so sure.

The existence of a Rogue Presidency and a Rogue SCOTUS could be hard pressed for Americans to make their wishes be heard at the ballot box. SCOTUS has demonstrated that a disregard for the Constitution in which their mandate was to preserve when broken and to instruct Congress to make corrections to bad legislation unless that legislative purview belonged to each individual State of the Union.

A SCOTUS majority has embraced the Secular Humanist Leftist (Progressive, Liberal or whatever appellation) concept of a Living Constitution rather than the Original Intent (See Also HERE) of the Founding Fathers and the original intent of succeeding Amendments after the Bill of Rights. The Living Constitution theorists believe the U.S. Constitution must be interpreted according to the perceptions of modern culture and associated rules of law pertaining to the global legal environment.

It is my increasingly lack of confidence in all three branches of the Federal government that leads me to believe America’s last chance is in the never yet used Constitutional process of Amendment by State origin regardless of the potential to rewrite the entire Constitution. If a new Constitution favors a Left Wing perspective and is ratified by 38 States is America is lost to the past of insightful American Founding Fathers.

If THIRTYEIGHT American States choose a godless path to America’s future that means twelve States are willing to remember Liberty and Freedom under God.

Franklin Graham Facebook post 6/26/15 screen capture

If there are 38 States ratifying godlessness, I suspect there will be Conservative Christians who will be willing to participate in a Declaration of Independence-style rebellion throw the godless bands of tyranny off their necks by guns or Bibles or both.

JRH 627/15

Please Support NCCR

Religion and the Constitution


One Nation Under God. John McNaughton

A Precursor to ‘OUR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS’

 

John R. Houk

© March 4, 2015

(Read ‘Our Constitutional Rights’ by Robert Smith below)

 

Robert Smith stipulates that the U.S. Constitution does not validate any rights for those who practice a homosexual lifestyle. And he is correct. Smith’s reasoning by correctly stating God Almighty considers the practice of homosexuality an abomination.

 

Homosexual Activists and Leftist believers of a Living Constitution (as opposed to an Original Intent Constitution) stick to the position that the Constitution updates itself according to the cultural times we exist in. Hence, homosexuals are entitled to the same Rights as heterosexuals because culture accepts homosexuality as normal.

 

Supporters of Original Intent combined with Biblical Christians take the stand that America’s Founding Documents are highly influenced by Colonial America’s dedication to the Christian faith. The Original Intent/Biblical Christian block point to the dedication to God through Jesus Christ by a majority of America’s earliest colonialists to the influence of America’s Christian heritage. Ergo, since America’s foundations are Christian, Constitutional Rights and Liberties are assured via a Judeo-Christian mindset.

 

Separation of Church/State Leftists and unfortunately a few Conservatives demand the First Amendment forbids government to define the Rule of Law through the eyes of religion meaning Christianity. Actually the First Amendment says NO SUCH THING. The First Amendment doesn’t even use the words that Church and State must be separated. What specifically does the First Amendment say?

 

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances. (First Amendment; Legal Information Institute [LII] – Cornell University Law School)

 

The Supreme Court decides Constitutional issues. The Supreme Court has too often read the First Amendment as religion cannot be a criteria in any fashion within the framework of any government entity: Local, State and Federal. In the case of separation of Church and State the Supreme Court has used the horrible decision of a past Supreme Court to enlist and misinterpret a letter written by Thomas Jefferson to a Baptist Church which did not enjoy the benefits of an individual State that institutionalized a specific Protestant Denomination which was not Baptist. To be clear in the early days of our Constitutional government individual States did have State Churches supported by the State government. The Supreme Court NEVER ended the State practice, rather on a State by State basis individual States joined the U.S. (i.e. Federal government) Constitution First Amendment prohibition of government (i.e. Federal government) establish a State Church. It was duly recognized that the Federal government could not establish a State Church but in a Tenth Amendment fashion each individual State decided the Church/State issue. Further the First Amendment speaks to nothing pertaining to religion (and everybody understood religion to mean Christianity) influencing government but ONLY that government cannot interfere in religious activities whatsoever.

 

Who was that Justice that wrote the majority opinion that prohibited religion from all things government which in effect extra-constitutionally enshrined separation of Church and State? It was Justice Hugo Black in the SCOTUS decision of 1947 in Everson vs. the Board of Education. Just to be clear. Did your read the year? It was 1947 two years after WWII. Before Hugo Black, religious activity within public (i.e. government locations, schools and even legislative bodies) functions of various Christian Denominations including the Catholic Church was a common occurrence.

 

New Hampshire became the required 9th State needed to ratify the U.S. Constitution on 6/21/1788. The constitutional Federal government began operation on 3/4/1789. In doing the math that means religion and government interacted freely for 158 years with the Federal Government forbidden to tell religious practitioners how to worship or practice their faith.

 

Daniel L. Dreisbach lays out the false reasoning of Justice Hugo Black which began a Case Law foundation to keep religion from influencing or contributing to government:

 

 

In our own time, the judiciary has embraced this figurative phrase as a virtual rule of constitutional law and as the organizing theme of church-state jurisprudence, even though the metaphor is nowhere to be found in the U.S. Constitution. In Everson v. Board of Education (1947), the United States Supreme Court was asked to interpret the First Amendment’s prohibition on laws “respecting an establishment of religion.” …

 

 

… At the dawn of the 19th century, Jefferson’s Federalist opponents, led by John Adams, dominated New England politics, and the Congregationalist church was legally established in Massachusetts and Connecticut. The Baptists, who supported Jefferson, were outsiders–a beleaguered religious and political minority in a region where a Congregationalist-Federalist axis dominated political life.

 

On New Year’s Day, 1802, President Jefferson penned a missive to the Baptist Association of Danbury, Connecticut. The Baptists had written the President a “fan” letter in October 1801, congratulating him on his election to the “chief Magistracy in the United States.” They celebrated Jefferson’s zealous advocacy for religious liberty and chastised those who had criticized him “as an enemy of religion[,] Law & good order because he will not, dares not assume the prerogative of Jehovah and make Laws to govern the Kingdom of Christ.”

 

In a carefully crafted reply, Jefferson endorsed the persecuted Baptists’ aspirations for religious liberty:

 

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should “make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,” thus building a wall of separation between Church & State.[3]

 

 

Jefferson’s Understanding of the “Wall”

 

Throughout his public career, including two terms as President, Jefferson pursued policies incompatible with the “high and impregnable” wall the modern Supreme Court has erroneously attributed to him. For example, he endorsed the use of federal funds to build churches and to support Christian missionaries working among the Indians. The absurd conclusion that countless courts and commentators would have us reach is that Jefferson routinely pursued policies that violated his own “wall of separation.”

 

Jefferson’s wall, as a matter of federalism, was erected between the national and state governments on matters pertaining to religion and not, more generally, between the church and all civil government. In other words, Jefferson placed the federal government on one side of his wall and state governments and churches on the other. …

 

 

The Wall That Black Built

 

The phrase “wall of separation” entered the lexicon of American constitutional law in 1879. In Reynolds v. United States, the U.S. Supreme Court opined that the Danbury letter “may be accepted almost as an authoritative declaration of the scope and effect of the [first] amendment thus secured.”[6] Although the Court reprinted the entire second paragraph of Jefferson’s letter containing the metaphorical phrase, Jefferson’s language is generally characterized as obiter dictum. [Blog Editor: The obiter dictum link is by this blog Editor]

 

Nearly seven decades later, in the landmark case of Everson v. Board of Education(1947), the Supreme Court rediscovered the metaphor: “In the words of Jefferson, the [First Amendment] clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect ‘a wall of separation between church and State’…. That wall,” the justices concluded in a sweeping separationist declaration, “must be kept high and impregnable.  …

 

Justice Hugo L. Black, who authored the Court’s ruling, likely encountered the metaphor in briefs filed in Everson. In an extended discussion of American history that highlighted Virginia’s disestablishment battles and supported the proposition that “separation of church and state is a fundamental American principle,” attorneys for the American Civil Liberties Union quoted the single clause in the Danbury letter that contains the “wall of separation” image. …

 

The trope’s current fame and pervasive influence in popular, political, and legal discourse date from its rediscovery by the Everson Court. The Danbury letter was also cited frequently and favorably in the cases that followed Everson. In McCollum v. Board of Education (1948), the following term, and in subsequent cases, the Court essentially constitutionalized the Jeffersonian phrase, subtly and blithely substituting Jefferson’s figurative language for the literal text of the First Amendment.[9] In the last half of the 20th century, it became the defining motif for church-state jurisprudence.

 

The “high and impregnable” wall central to the past 50 years of church-state jurisprudence is not Jefferson’s wall; rather, it is the wall that Black–Justice Hugo Black–built in 1947 in Everson v. Board of Education.

 

 

Jefferson’s wall separated church and the federal government only. By incorporating the First Amendment non-establishment provision into the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, Black’s wall separates religion and civil government at all levels–federal, state, and local.

 

By extending its prohibitions to state and local jurisdictions, Black turned the First Amendment, as ratified in 1791, on its head. A barrier originally designed, as a matter of federalism, to separate the national and state governments, and thereby to preserve state jurisdiction in matters pertaining to religion, was transformed into an instrument of the federal judiciary to invalidate policies and programs of state and local authorities. As the normative constitutional rule applicable to all relationships between religion and the civil state, the wall that Black built has become the defining structure of a putatively secular polity.

 

… It would behoove you to READ this article in Entirety (The Mythical “Wall of Separation”: How a Misused Metaphor Changed Church–State Law, Policy, and Discourse; By Daniel L. Dreisbach; Heritage Foundation; 6/23/06)

 

Now I went through all this legal rigmarole to demonstrate how America’s Judiciary has become dominated by Leftist-minded activist or has fallen into the Living Constitution fallacy that essentially placed a wall of separation between America’s Christian Heritage and Lady Liberty’s secular paradigm. This forced divorce from the Left has eroded America’s moral principles as a nation in which the abomination of homosexuality has been normalized, adultery-fornication has become a cultural eye-wink, violence in schools is something to watch out for, pornography is distasteful but not aberrant, it becomes risky business to allow your children to walk home from school or play in their neighborhoods and on and on.

 

I started this post as an introduction to Robert Smith’s thoughts on homosexuality and the U.S. Constitution. Now I completely agree with Smith’s thoughts; however I think his tone is a bit harsh. The kind of harshness that might inspire violence by those disgusted by homosexuality and inspire violence by homosexuals offended by Christian morality.

 

For me the thing about defending Christian morality and criticizing a homosexual lifestyle is NOT to inspire violence. Rather my goal as to add a voice to the Good News of Jesus Christ delivering humanity from the evil hold of Satan’s kingdom leased to slew-foot by Adam’s betrayal. The Deliverance in Christ occurs when one believes that Jesus died on the Cross for Adam’s bequeathed sin-nature, that Jesus was in a tomb for three days and on the Third Day Jesus arose in a glorified but bodily form and currently sits at the Right Hand of the Father awaiting the right time to complete and seal the task of human beings be restored to God Almighty spirit, soul and body. Rejection in this faith in the Risen Christ leads to a very uncomfortable eternal living consequence separated from God’s Presence.

 

16 For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life. 17 For God did not send His Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world through Him might be saved.

 

18 “He who believes in Him is not condemned; but he who does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. 19 And this is the condemnation, that the light has come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil. 20 For everyone practicing evil hates the light and does not come to the light, lest his deeds should be exposed. 21 But he who does the truth comes to the light, that his deeds may be clearly seen, that they have been done in God.” (John 3: 16-21 NKJV)

 

See Also:

 

Annotation 13 – Article III: JUDICIAL REVIEW; FindLaw.com.

 

What It Means to “Interpret” the US Constitution; Lawyers.com.

 

Judicial Activism: Everson v. Board of Ed. of Ewing Tp.; Heritage FoundationRule of Law.

 

SELECTED CONSTITUTIONAL LAW DECISIONS OF THE U.S. SUPREME COURT; LII – Cornell University Law School.

 

JRH 3/4/15

Please Support NCCR

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

OUR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS

 

By Robert Smith

Sent: 3/3/2015 2:05 AM

 

The President and several federal judges are violating our Constitutional rights.

 

The Bible, both Old and New Testaments, teaches that homosexuality is an abomination. It also teaches us that we must not associate with homosexuals and their associates or those who associate with associates of homosexuals.

 

The President has allowed openly homosexual individuals to enlist in the armed services, which forces those of us who believe as I do into close contact with homosexuals and to take orders from any higher ranking homosexuals appointed over us, thus violating our constitutional rights, our freedom of association.

 

Nowhere in the U.S. Constitution is there any mention of homosexuals or same sex marriage. Why? It was due to the fact that homosexuals and homosexuality was not tolerated then, nor were any homosexuals of the time flaunting their predilection for such perverse behavior, and as such, there was not any problem or controversy over homosexuals in that era of our history.

 

It is now to be seen precisely how our Supreme Court views my Constitutional rights and the rights of those who believe as I do.

 

The Constitution of the USA was written to protect our God given rights mentioned in the Declaration of Independence.

 

Read these verses of The Bible and it will show why our forefathers saw no need to mention homosexuality in The Constitution of The USA.

 

Leviticus 18:22; 20:13

 

Chapter 18

 

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

 

Chapter 20

13 If a man lies with a male as he lies with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination. They shall surely be put to death. Their blood shall be upon them. (NKJV)

 

1 Corinthians 6:9-11

 

9 Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals,[a] nor sodomites, 10 nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God. 11 And such were some of you. But you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus and by the Spirit of our God. (NKJV)

 

Romans 1:26-29; 13:8-10

 

Chapter 1

 

26 For this reason God gave them up to vile passions. For even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature. 27 Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due.

 

28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a debased mind, to do those things which are not fitting; 29 being filled with all unrighteousness, sexual immorality,[a] wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, evil-mindedness; they are whisperers,

 

Chapter 13

 

8 Owe no one anything except to love one another, for he who loves another has fulfilled the law. 9 For the commandments, “You shall not commit adultery,” “You shall not murder,” “You shall not steal,” “You shall not bear false witness,”[a] “You shall not covet,”[b] and if there is any other commandment, are all summed up in this saying, namely, “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.”[c] 10 Love does no harm to a neighbor; therefore love is the fulfillment of the law. (NKJV)

 

1 Timothy 1:10-11

 

10 for fornicators, for sodomites, for kidnappers, for liars, for perjurers, and if there is any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine, 11 according to the glorious gospel of the blessed God which was committed to my trust. (NKJV)

 

Mark 10:6-9

 

6 But from the beginning of the creation, God ‘made them male and female.’[a]7 ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, 8 and the two shall become one flesh’; [b] so then they are no longer two, but one flesh. 9 Therefore what God has joined together, let not man separate.” (NKJV)

 

What does God give to homosexuals in Leviticus? DEATH and no chance for salvation.

 

In the New Testament if they ask Jesus to be forgiven and show they have truly repented and give up their evil life styles they then can be saved.

 

This is the reason they are not mentioned in the constitution.

___________________________

Religion and the Constitution

John R. Houk

© March 4, 2015

_______________________

OUR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS

© Robert Smith

 

Edited by John R. Houk

Scripture references by Robert Smith and the Scripture quotes added by the Editor.

 

Constitution, Judicial Tyranny and a Moral Society


James Madison on Tyranny

John R. Houk

© November 14, 2014

 

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances. (Bold text mine – Amendment I from Legal Information Institute of Cornel University Law School)

 

The controversy here is Original Intent vs. Living Constitution. Conservative prefer to err on the side of Original Intent while America’s Leftists prefer to err on the side of a Living Constitution.

 

Original Intent:

 

The theory of interpretation by which judges attempt to ascertain the meaning of a particular provision of a state or federal constitution by determining how the provision was understood at the time it was drafted and ratified.

 

Sometime called original understanding, originalism, or intentionalism, the theory of original intent is applied by judges when they are asked to exercise the power of Judicial Review during a legal proceeding. (The power of Judicial review is the power of state and federal courts to review and invalidate laws that have been passed by legislative and executive branches of government but violate a constitutional principle.)

 

Not every judge adheres to the theory of original intent, and many adherents fail to apply it in a uniform and faithful manner. Judges who attempt to apply this judicial philosophy generally agree that only through its application may courts be bound by the law and not their own views of what is desirable. They also generally agree that courts must apply original intent in order to preserve the representative democracy created by the federal Constitution.

 

Originalists observe that the democracy created by the U. S. Constitution is marked by three essential features: : a Separation of Powers, Federalism, and a Bill of Rights. The Constitution separates the powers of the federal government into three branches, which help foster what is known as a system of checks and … (Original Intent; The Free Dictionary)

 

… The phrase original intent usually means the subjective opinion of those who wrote the Constitution as to what a particular provision was supposed to communicate. Original intent also is called the intent of the Framers. Researchers try to deduce the original intent by examining both direct evidence (what the 55 drafters said during the Constitutional Convention), and indirect or circumstantial evidence. Examples of the latter include, among other things, what people said about the instrument during the ratification debates, the meaning of key words in common discourse and in contemporaneous dictionaries, and their meaning in legal and literary sources.

 

 

The original meaning (or original public meaning) is how a reasonably intelligent, involved member of the public would have interpreted a provision. Primary evidence of original meaning is how words were used in common discourse and the definitions in contemporaneous dictionaries and legal sources. Circumstantial evidence includes the drafting and ratification conventions, public debates, and so forth.

 

Obviously, the evidence used in prove each of the three concepts overlaps. In practice, moreover, the original intent of a provision is usually the same as the original understanding or original meaning.

 

In the event of a conflict between intent, understanding and meaning, which should control?

 

The key to answering that question is to answer another: “When the Constitution was adopted, what was its legal force? In other words, how would the courts of the time have interpreted it?

 

The Constitution is, of course, a legal document, so you can find the correct response to this question by investigating how judges, and other lawyers and public officials interpreted legal documents of the same general kind during the Founding Era. …

 

 

Thus, the original legal force of the Constitution—as it would have been applied by Founding-Era judges, lawyers, and officials—is based on the original understanding; if this is not recoverable, then you apply the original meaning. Original intent is useful only insofar as it tends to prove understanding or meaning. (Original Intent, Original Understanding, Original Meaning; By Rob Natelson; Tenth Amendment Center; 5/21/12)

 

Law School claims to teach Constitutional Law, but the Constitution is never opened. The entire concept of Constitutional Law in Law School is based on Case Law. The original writings, the original language, and the original intent of the U.S. Constitution is not even considered.

 

Those who wished to subvert the Constitution from the very beginning worked to use the courts, and “implied law,” to disarm the Constitution, so as to allow the federal government a greater opportunity to grow beyond the limitations placed on it by the specific language of the Constitution.

 

 

Along with studying the histories of Rome, Greece and Slovenia as examples of past republics, the primary research by the Founding Fathers was from their own Mother Country, England. The Anglo-Saxons provided the principles the founders needed to establish a lasting system of freedom, and liberty. They also recognized how easily statists could use the courts, or the living and breathing concept of Common Law, to change the Constitution, so the founders put into the Constitution strict standards, and a limited means for changing the Law of the Land (through amendments), while also making the Judicial Branch the weakest of the three branches of government.

 

 

Judicial Review allows the courts to review the law and determine if it is a just law, or even if it is a constitutional law. This is a commonly accepted concept, and it flies in the face of the original intent of the Founding Fathers, who wanted the States to be the final arbiters of the Constitution – not the courts.

 

… Judicial Review is indeed a sinister power for the courts to have. For the federal courts to decide if a law is constitutional is for the federal government to determine its own authorities. That, my friends, is hardly in line with the idea of limited government as originally prescribed by the founders.

 

The courts, through case law, have acted as an agent for the forces that are determined to bring down our system, and change it into a tyranny. Those who have bought into the case law myth, as has our female lawyer twitter friend of my friend, are accomplices in the effort to bring down our system of liberty, and limited government.

 

The damage is widespread, and the statist opinions are entrenched in our system.

 

READ ENTIRETY (U.S. Constitution, Original Intent; By DOUGLAS GIBBS; Conservative Action Alerts; 8/15/13)

 

See the CATO Institute’s panel discussion video “Originalism and the Good Constitution” in which the authors of said book (John O. McGinnis) are also member.

 

Living Constitution:

 

Living Constitution is a term used to describe the Constitution’s ability to change to meet the needs of each generation without major changes. This is a concept used in interpreting the Constitution of U.S. It is based on the notion that Constitution of the United States has relevant meaning beyond the original text and is an evolving and dynamic document that changes over time. Therefore the views of contemporaneous society should be taken into account when interpreting key constitutional phrases.

 

There are many views for and against the theory of Living Constitution. The pragmatist view contends … (Living Constitution Law & Legal Definition; USLegal.com)

 

 

 

… Mr. Obama found himself engaged in a subject that stirs up his leftwing passions. Below are some of his bombshell comments (emphasis added):

The Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth and sort of more basic issues of political and economic justice in this society.  And to that extent, as radical as I think people tried to characterize the Warren Court, it wasn’t that radical.  It didn’t break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the founding fathers in the Constitution, as least as it’s been interpreted, and [sic] Warren Court interpreted in the same way that, generally, the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties, says what the states can’t do to you, says what the federal government can’t do to you, but it doesn’t say what the federal government or the state government must do on your behalf.

That straightforward excerpt provides a clear window into the constitutional philosophy of Barack Hussein Obama, Jr. As radical as “people tried to characterize” the Warren Court, Mr. Obama hints that the Constitution may be interpreted even more radically: in a way which would give the federal government power to tell the people what the feds (and states) must do on their behalf.

 

… Mr. Obama believes he can “break free” from the additional “constraints” placed in the Constitution by the founders. Toward that end, Mr. Obama’s nominees to the federal judiciary share his leftist worldview. From his “wise Latina” and “gay rumor” appointments to the Supreme Court, to his legion of federal appellate and district court nominees, the common denominator is the idea of appointing high-ranking judges who see the Constitution as a “living document.”

In President Obama’s words from The Audacity of Hope, the Constitution “is not a static but rather a living document, and must be read in the context of an ever-changing world.”

 

In his co-authored book, Keeping Faith with the Constitution, Liu, in Obamian fashion, posits a new method of interpretation: constitutional fidelity. “Fidelity” has a nice ring to it, but unfortunately, “what we mean by fidelity,” clarifies Liu, “is that the Constitution should be interpreted in ways that adapt its principles and its text to the challenges and conditions of our society in every succeeding generation.”

 

In other words, Liu is a “living Constitution” theorist who, like Obama, uses conservative-sounding words to support his radical positions. A Constitution that is interpreted by a few robe-wearing elitists “in a way that adapts its principles” is effectively no Constitution at all.

 

After many decades of “living Constitution” interpretation, the people have READ ENTIRETY (A Clear Danger: Obama, a ‘Living Constitution,’ and ‘Positive Rights’; By Monte Kuligowski; American Thinker; 10/2/10)

 

In the Original Intent vs. Living Constitution debate is the issue of the folly known as Separation of Church and State; thus Leftists have brainwashed Americans to accept Judicial tyranny to mold the public question: Is allowing religion on tax supported institutions and/or property a government endorsement of religious faith?

 

If the courts were only allowed to use Originalism to validate or invalidate non-Amendment laws (legislative or executive regulations), the issue of Religion influencing government BUT NOT government influencing religion or religious practice would be understood as the intent of the Founding Fathers.

 

In effect American Leftists and atheists have managed to transform the Judicial Branch of the U.S. Government into the very tyranny that was intended to be avoided.

 

Alexander Hamilton in authoring Federalist #78 spells out the constitutional powers attributed to the Judicial Branch of government:

 

…the judiciary, from the nature of its functions, will always be the least dangerous to the political rights of the Constitution; because it will be least in a capacity to annoy or injure them. The Executive not only dispenses the honors, but holds the sword of the community. The legislature not only commands the purse, but prescribes the rules by which the duties and rights of every citizen are to be regulated. The judiciary, on the contrary, has no influence over either the sword or the purse; no direction either of the strength or of the wealth of the society; and can take no active resolution whatever. It may truly be said to have neither FORCE nor WILL, but merely judgment; and must ultimately depend upon the aid of the executive arm even for the efficacy of its judgments. [Emphasis added (by Faith and the Law blog).]

 

 

During the past 60 years, many federal judges (followed closely by their state counterparts) have gradually strayed from the constitutional role of interpreting the law – providing “judgment,” to use Hamilton’s word – to actively legislating from the bench, especially in controversial areas of social policy. In other words, activist judges at the federal and state level have abandoned the Founders’ understanding of the constitutionally limited judicial function and have usurped the legislative function (without admitting it, of course) in order to impose a radically liberal vision for America. That vision includes such things as creating previously unknown constitutional “rights” to abortion and same-sex marriage, for example.

 

Since federal judges are appointed for life, their lack of accountability to the democratic will of the people makes such judicial activism especially dangerous. Hamilton argued in Federalist #78 that the Constitution’s “good behavior” qualification on judges’ lifetime appointments would suffice to keep them in line, but in practice it has not been used to rein in activist judges. It is ironic that the Founders proposed lifetime appointments for federal judges because they most feared overreaching by the legislative branch, while considering the judiciary the “least dangerous” branch.

 

 

For judges to effectively bypass that procedure by creating new constitutional “rights” out of whole cloth is at once unconstitutional and anti-democratic. A “living Constitution” philosophy is nothing less than an excuse for activist judges to impose their personal preferences upon an unwilling citizenry in the name of “evolving standards,” which they alone are entitled to discern.

 

READ ENTIRETY (Judicial Philosophy of the Founding Fathers and the Constitution; posted at and by faithandthelaw; 5/11/10 – Derived from Focus on the Family, the updated link there: Judicial Philosophy Series)

 

The point I am attempting to drive home here is that Judicial Tyranny has usurped the Original Intent of the design of the Founding Fathers. In the realm of religion and politics Judicial Tyranny has become the despotic tool of America’s Left to transform America away from Christian morals. The Left has a vision of society/culture mirroring morality as dictated by a like-minded elitist few that feels people are not capable of leading a life that benefits what is good for humankind.

 

Founding Fathers viewed this mentality as statist tyranny; hence the common language in matters of dissolving any union with the British Crown and forming a rule of law under the authority of We The People constantly alluded to God’s superiority as the measuring stick for the morals of a good and effective government.

 

Leftists mindful of a societal paradigm shift realized the best way for people to depend morals established for the good of society rather than defined by the Creator of all that exists is to discredit the efficacy of the Judeo-Christian paradigm Western Society is based upon. ERGO Judicial Tyranny has step by step dissolved any effect Christian morals and culture has on government.

 

This whole exercise in a brief examination on the distortion of America’s Constitution at the hands of an activist-tyrannical judiciary is due to an excellent essay by Michelle Malkin about the systematic exercise of godlessness in America can be demonstrated in violent and inherent moral selfishness flowing from younger generations in America. Without a Christian infusion being allowed back into our culture without a tyrannical judiciary’s countermanding, this moral selfishness will be the moral fiber of America’s future.

 

JRH 11/14/14

Please Support NCCR

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

One Nation Under Godlessness

 

By Michelle Malkin

November 14, 2014

Townhall.com

 

Cheating. Bullying. Cybersexting. Hazing. Molestation. Suicide. Drug abuse. Murder. Scanning the headlines of the latest scandals in America’s schools, it’s quite clear that the problem is not that there’s too much God in students’ lives.

 

The problem is that there isn’t nearly enough of Him.

 

With the malfunction of moral seatbelts and the erosion of moral guardrails, too many kids have turned to a pantheon of false gods, crutches and palliatives. They’re obsessed with “Slender Man” and “Vampire Diaries.” Alex from Target’s hair and Rihanna’s tattoos. Overpriced basketball sneakers and underdressed reality stars. Choking games and YouTube games. Gossip and hookups. Facebook, Instagram, Snapchat.

 

It’s all about selfies over self-control, blurred lines over bright lines.

 

In a metastatic youth culture of soullessness and rootlessness, the idea of high school teens voluntarily using their free time to pray and sing hymns is not just a breath of fresh air. It’s salvation.

 

But leave it to secularists run amok to punish faithful young followers of Christ.

 

Last week, the Alliance Defending Freedom filed a religious freedom lawsuit against Pine Creek High School here in my adopted hometown of Colorado Springs. Chase Windebank, a senior at the District 20 school, had been convening an informal prayer group for the past three years “in a quiet area to sing Christian religious songs, pray, and to discuss issues of the day from a religious perspective.”

 

Windebank and his friends weren’t disrupting classroom time. They shared their Christian faith during an open period earned by high-achieving students. Other kids used the time to play on their phones, eat snacks, get fresh air outside, or schedule meetings for a wide variety of both official and unofficial school clubs.

 

A Pine Creek choir teacher had given permission to Windebank and his fellow worshipers to meet in an empty music practice room. No complaints ever ensued from other students or faculty. For three years, the group encountered no problems, according to ADF’s complaint. But in late September, Windebank was summoned to the assistant principal’s office and ordered to stop praying because of “the separation of church and state.”

 

The school singled out the young man of faith’s harmless activities and banned members of his group from discussing current issues of the day from a religious perspective during an open period in an unobtrusive meeting place.

 

As Todd Starnes of Fox News, who broke the story of the lawsuit last week, lamented: “Public school administrators and their lawyers have succeeded in suppressing and oppressing the Christian voice at Pine Creek High School.”

 

It defies common sense that in conservative-leaning Colorado Springs, home to a vibrant faith community and leading evangelical organizations, students would be reprimanded and deprived of basic constitutional rights. As a letter from local parents to the school district decried: “To what benefit does it serve a school to limit the ability for a student to pray with their friends, fellowship with their friends, or discuss daily events from a Christian perspective? It is obvious that School District 20 is taking a freedom FROM religion perspective, not a freedom OF religion perspective.”

 

Think about it: If the high-schoolers gathered in the cafeteria to listen to Billboard magazine’s No. 1 pop hit “Habits (Stay High)” — “You’re gone and I gotta stay high/ all the time/ to keep you off my mind” — school officials would have no issue.

 

If they lounged in a courtyard to joke about the latest girl-fight videos or off-color joke memes posted on Vine, no problem.

 

If they discussed the latest “Walking Dead” episode or napped in the library? All good.

 

But singing “Amazing Grace” and studying scripture? This subversion must be stopped!

 

How did we get here? And in Colorado Springs, of all places — not Berkeley or Boulder or Boston? Blame cowardice, ignorance and politically correct bureaucrats pledging allegiance to one nation, under godlessness, without religious liberty, and the occult of extreme secularism for all.

________________________

Constitution, Judicial Tyranny and a Moral Society

John R. Houk

© November 14, 2014

_______________________

One Nation Under Godlessness

 

Michelle Malkin

Michelle Malkin is the author of “Culture of Corruption: Obama and his Team of Tax Cheats, Crooks & Cronies” (Regnery 2010).

 

Copyright © Townhall.com. All Rights Reserved.

 

Townhall.com About Page

 

Townhall.com is the #1 conservative website. Townhall.com pulls together political commentary and analysis from over 100 leading columnists and opinion leaders, research from 100 partner organizations, conservative talk-radio and a community of millions of grassroots conservatives.

 

Townhall.com is designed to amplify those conservative voices in America’s political debates.

 

By uniting the nations’ top conservative radio hosts with their millions of listeners, Townhall.com breaks down the barriers between news and opinion, journalism and political participation — and enables conservatives to participate in the political process with unprecedented ease.

 

As a part of Salem Communications Corporation, Townhall.com features READ THE REST

 

The Season is Emerging to Battle Against Christianity


Birth of Christ - Nativity Scene

John R. Houk

© October 12, 2013

 

There has been an open war by Leftists and atheists on Christianity for some time in the USA. Thanks to Madalyn Murray O’Hair (focus on Communist Connection), the Supreme Court reinterpreted the Establishment (or is it Disestablishment [Full PDF of link]) Clause of the First Amendment to go beyond preventing the government from establishing a State Church but to include that anything representative of taxpayer money must exclude Christianity. The annual Christmas period of the year is when this war on Christianity seems to rear up on a national basis in the media. Hence the war on Christianity becomes the war on Christmas.

 

Too many Corporations (AFA 2012 Naughty or Nice List) operate stores that have fallen prey to the concept that it is politically incorrect to promote Christmas because it promotes Christianity. AND any promotion of Christianity might be offensive to a minority of people in the USA that would prefer to distant themselves from any open association with Christianity; e.g. atheists, Muslims, Jews and perhaps other identifiable anti/non-Christian entities. This PC marketing is idiotic and an insult to the majority of Americans that relish the Christmas season as a time of giving, compassion and just a downright period of joy. I mean Americans who are not particularly religiously observant of the Christian faith still make this a time of family get together and enjoy an interruption from the daily tasks of the old J-O-B.

 

Corporations do have a Constitutional right to utilize whatever marketing strategy they deem fit; however as a Christian I find it nauseating when Christianity is the focus of diminishment to accommodate some foolish PC concept of multicultural diversity. Even more nauseating though is when Leftists and atheists impose their sanitized and/or ungodly beliefs on those that embrace Christianity via the taxpayer support Public venues. The imposition is exacted by using “Living Constitution” (Constitutionalist Criticism) parameters rather than “Original Intent” (In support of Original IntentNeutral Explanation) parameters in the Constitution to make sure the bedrock of America’s morality is not supported whatsoever. The result of this legal ploy of redefining the meaning of the Constitution has successfully turned America into which families are divided, single parent families are as common as heterosexual families, homosexuals are allowed to raise children further warping the societal fabric and a host of other deviations I am certain you can think of that escape my memory as of this writing.

 

The result of this moral dilution in America’s family unit has led to a society in which public dishonesty overrules the decency of honesty, children need protected on their routes to and from school, armed guards are becoming common place on Public School grounds, children bring weapons to harm others singularly or on a multiple basis, children are told they cannot play traditional play acting any longer (such as cops and robbers, cowboys and Indians, etc.) because imaginary weapons may inspire real weapons, childhood aggression is increasingly common (such as bullying – physical or cyber), underage children – most often teenagers – are increasingly enabled on a parental level to participate in rabble-rousing partying that includes drinking, sex, property destruction, drugs, teen pregnancy and MORE.

 

These societal behaviors are a direct result of the Leftist and atheistic assault to prevent Christianity from being an integral part of American Culture in the name of Multicultural Diversity.

 

The first anti-Christmas story I heard this was a Public School imposing restrictions on an annual High School Christmas Carol Concert due to concerns of a phrase that is found NO WHERE in the Constitution called Separation of Church and State. Here is a good synopsis of how this anti-Christmas story developed:

 

The state of Wisconsin once again sits center stage in the War on Christmas. The Wausau School District has issued an edict about Christmas music that has caused several school associated music groups to either disband or cancel December performances.

 

Phil Buch, who has directed Wausau West High School’s choral programs since 1981, said the decision to halt rehearsals for the Master Singers was made after a meeting Thursday with district officials and Frank Sutherland, an attorney who represents the school district.

 

Buch said district administrators gave music educators at Wausau schools three options for December concerts, which typically contain a significant amount of religious music: choose five secular, or non-religious, songs for each religious song performed; hold a concert and have no holiday music whatsoever; or postpone any concerts in December. Because the 20-member Master Singers group is invited to sing at nearly a dozen holiday concerts each year, Buch said, those options were unacceptable.

 

“This group sings at Christmas programs,” Buch said. “We sing for nursing homes, grade schools, businesses. To do that without Christmas music doesn’t make sense.”

 

District administrators did not return calls Friday seeking information about the rules, but Wausau School Board President Michelle Schaefer said the change in direction stems from legal concerns over the amount of religious music performed in the schools. The decision will not eliminate religious music altogether but will give teachers a better idea as to how much religious music is “too much,” Schaefer said.

 

“From a School Board perspective, we look for music that is balanced,” Schaefer said. “Yes, we are a predominantly Christian society, but we are also a society of many faiths, and we want to respect that.”

 

(Wisconsin School District Cancels Christmas; By Editor; Defend Christmas; 10/6/13)

 

I actually first heard this story on Fox News but the below story is an excellent synopsis. This first shot over the bow against Christmas has an early victorious ending. Evidently once this story went viral the School Board relented on this attack on the Christian faith. Here is a story I found about this victory in Jesus.

 

JRH 10/12/13

Please Support NCCR

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

Wisconsin Christmas Music Battle Goes Viral; Students Claim Victory

 

By Kallsign Snoopy

October 11, 2013

Kallsign Snoopy’s Hamshack

 

We reported the story last Sunday — the media ran with it Tuesday. By Wednesday Freedom From Religion Foundation got in on the act. It appears to be the first big national story in the War on Christmas 2013.

 

In an update after a late Thursday meeting with the school district students and parents are claiming victory and that the Christmas concerts are now back on — with traditional Christmas music put back in place.

 

Here’s the issue: without warning the choir director at West High School in Wausau, Wisconsin was called to discuss plans for the upcoming music events to be held in December. It was reported early on that Wausau schools three options for December concerts, which typically contain a significant amount of religious music: choose five secular, or non-religious, songs for each religious song performed; hold a concert and have no holiday music whatsoever; or postpone any concerts in December. The choir director was outraged and in response he opted not only to cancel concerts — he disbanded the music groups who would traditionally perform.

 

The school district claims it is merely making sure they don’t violate the establishment clause of the U.S. Constitution (because educators in Wisconsin have SUCH a great track record with constitutional issues). They also say now they never came up with the plan to perform a certain amount of secular songs for every religious song performed. They claim that was a “misunderstanding”.

 

Needless to say, as with many battles we’ve seen before about Christmas in public schools, this one too will end with someone being very unhappy.

 

 

Freedom from Religion Foundation president Annie Laurie Gaylor claims no responsibility in this latest fight but was quick to pitch in with FFRF’s support of the school district:

 

“There can be a fine line, and we understand in some instances there can be sacred classical music in the schools, but it’s so easy for something like this to turn into a message of indoctrination. When you have a chorus going out to 15 places to sing religious music, it really does give the appearance that the school is celebrating Christianity.”

 

Yes, Christianity as gained so many converts over the decades by going to nursing homes to sing “Silent Night”.

 

The tip off of a problem was that the school choir director met with school district officials with an attorney present. In other words, they were ready for a fight.

 

According to a story on The Blaze tonight, the choir director at West High is known for his religious nature.

 

All this intense attention to the issue appears to have been resolved as of late Thursday. The Wausau School District has backed off on the requirements and have left the decision of local program content to school principals.

 

The crux of the issue comes down to this: when a school group performs Christmas music with religious themes does it in fact constitute promotion of that religion? The “establishment clause” prohibits the “establishment”…does a school group singing actually do that?

 

Oh, and by the way, where exactly in the Constitution is the establishment clause?

 

Another silly chapter in the War on Christmas.

 

(I am glad that this all got cleared up but I really wish people would get it through their heads that there is no such thing as an “establishment” clause. There is a “Government shall make no law” clause. And it only applies to the Congress. Leave my Christmas alone! If you don’t like it, don’t celebrate it. Just don’t ruin it for everyone else!

 

Publius)

___________________________

The Season is Emerging to Battle Against Christianity

John R. Houk

© October 12, 2013

________________________

Wisconsin Christmas Music Battle Goes Viral; Students Claim Victory

 

Retired warrior, Full time pilot, Part time political blogger. Always a Patriot. Amateur Radio Operator – MORE

 

The New Marxist Infiltration


Taking USA back from Hammer-Sickle-Swastika

John R. Houk

© April 1, 2013

 

There was a time in America that being a Communist or Marxist sympathizer was an expression of un-American treason. Senator Joseph McCarthy was initially looked upon as an American hero for exposing Soviet-Communism in the U.S. government. After McCarthy’s vigilance began to spill-over into the First Amendment protected Right to believe in Marxist ideology outside of the direct manipulation of the old Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR), then Liberal Democrats and Center-Left Republican began an agenda to smear the character and agenda of Senator Joe McCarthy. McCarthy was publically transformed from an American hero into an American witch hunter. Witch hunting of course is viewed as a profession of creating lies to convict people of crimes that really do not exist.

 

For example in the ‘real world’ there is no such thing as witches with supernatural powers to wiggle their noses and speak a few Latin words and create some evil ex nihilo. McCarthy’s agenda was painted as finding Communist spies ex nihilo from influential people that believed in the principles of Karl Marx or flirted with the idea Communist utopianism in their youth out of a dissatisfaction of a Free Market society favoring the opportunity of individuals utilizing hard work for prosperity while the less entrepreneurial and oft time poor people seemed stuck in lower income working class misery.

 

In defense of a Free Market society that experiences the Liberty guaranteed with a Bill of Rights; whether there is Marxist society or a Free Market society there will always be people stuck in low income working class situations. The reality is the low income people in a Free Market society usually have a better life than the Liberty-Less low income people of a Marxist-Socialist society. The innovative prosperity of the few more often provides a better income for the poor in a Free Market world than for the income of the poor in a Marxist-Socialist world.  Scarcity reigns for the poor of Marxist-Socialism and abundance reigns for the poor of Free Market Capitalism.

 

Painting McCarthy as a Communist witch hunter was the beginning of the slow acceptance of stealth Marxism in American society. Organizations like the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU – See Also HERE and HERE) used their Marxist sympathies to aid in the eradication of Christian morals in America which has paved the way to removing prayer from schools, making abortion-murder on demand as a birth control method normal, validating ungodly homosexuality as normal rather than as an abomination toward God, using the tax code to prevent Ministers of the Gospel from endorsing godly political candidates for Office and now the pervasive anti-Christian of entrenched Liberals has emboldened more attacks on Christianity in America.

 

Prayer at public sports events (as in Public Schools and Colleges) or City Council meetings is being attacked with the threat of litigation that Public Schools and small to medium sized cities cannot afford to litigate. In these cases Marxist ideals are infused into our Free Market society ironically because the financial clout of Leftist-minded organizations and individuals can out-fund the local Public Schools or the Local Governments. It is the use of the Free Market to destroy the Free Market Liberty society.

 

It is time to publicly rehabilitate the image of Joe McCarthy where he was correct and to criticize him where he was incorrect on a First Amendment basis. It was evil for the old Soviet Union to infiltrate our government to bring down the U.S. Constitutional government from within. It was wrong for McCarthy to brand people as a threat to the nation because of a mere belief in Marxism. As much as Marxism is against the Liberty principles of initiated by America’s Founding Fathers, it is a First Amendment Right to believe in Marxist principles.

 

And yet when dedicated Marxists utilize Liberty to terminate Liberty via deception to purposefully eradicate the Constitution, we who still believe in Liberty must begin to take a stand even if Marxists have convinced society it is politically incorrect to take public stands that contradict stealth Marxist principles.

 

For example preventing Christianity influencing government is our Constitutional Right. Marxists may take the words of Thomas Jefferson that he wrote to Danbury Baptists that the government has no Right to enfranchise or disenfranchise a Church in the Federal Government; those words are not in the Constitution. Not only that, but Jefferson was not one of the principle framers of the Constitution.

 

Another example is the use of a Left-minded Judiciary to redefine the Constitution as a Living parchment in which it can be interpreted according to what the Left find culturally relevant in the present. This kind of Judicial fiat creates Law unconstitutionally. The Constitution that frames the three branches of government that exist with checks and balances under the concept that not any government branch has absolute power limits the Judiciary to only interpreting Law and NOT Bench-Legislating Law.

 

The Constitution insures that a duly elected Congress and the sovereign States make the Law with the President signing off or vetoing legislation and with the duly elected Congress having the expanded privilege to override a Presidential veto. The sovereign State’s Right in this Constitutional process is the required percentage to ratify Constitutional Amendments that Amends a section of the Constitution or adds to the Constitution. In which the Judiciary has no power to terminate a State approved Amendment.

 

Marxist utopians such as our President Obama and the Dems intend to use the Living Constitution deception to terminate portions of the Constitution and current Amendments to mean something not Originally Intended (See Also HERE) as the Law.

 

And this is where the accusation that our President is a Manchurian Candidate comes into play:

 

The Manchurian Candidate (1959), by Richard Condon, is a political thriller novel about the son of a prominent US political family who is brainwashed into being an unwitting assassin for a Communist conspiracy.

 

The novel has been adapted twice into a feature film by the same title, in 1962 and again in 2004. (Wikipedia)

 

I am not such a Conspiracy Theorist that I believe President Obama is a brainwashed individual from a Communist nation. The international vision of Soviet-Communism collapsed at the dissolution of the USSR into separate sovereign nations shedding off the hegemony of a Russian dominated Communist government. The only other Communist Super Power that still exists is more interested in its National Interests that the global domination of Maoist-Marxist world. The People’s Republic of China (Red China) is interested in regional hegemony and confronting other powers that may conflict with those regional National Interests. For Red China that may include a wary eye on Russia as much as on the USA. It is only when Russia’s and China’s National Interest intersect in keeping the USA at bay do Russia and China appear as friends against the USA.

 

I am such a Conspiracy Theorist that President Obama is involved in some sort of nefarious Marxism to change American culture to seem closer to Marxist utopianism rather than our Founding Fathers’ concept of Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness based on a combination of Christian Morality and Greco-Roman political thought.

 

Whether or not Obama’s Marxist-Socialist utopianism is based on the individual precepts he developed from the Marxist influence of family and mentors OR from a network of stealth Marxist Global Elitists is something I cannot put my finger on. Whether Obama’s change agenda is individual or networked is irrelevant. That which is relevant is Obama has a Gramsci-like agenda to transform America away from its roots into a Communist utopia in the near future or to create a foundation for future Marxist-Elitist to build on.

 

That is what makes President Barack Hussein Obama a Manchuria Candidate.

 

VIDEO: The Manchurian President

 

The inspiration for these thoughts is an article by Kris Zane found at Western Center for Journalism (WCJ) entitled – you got it – The Manchurian Candidate.

 

JRH 4/1/13

Please Support NCCR

Criticizing the Current Interpretation of Disestablishment Clause


Fisher Ames Framer 1st Amendment

Fisher Ames

 

John R. Houk

© June 16, 2012

 

On my AC2C blog I posted this title: “Keep Govt. OUT of Church – NOT Church out Govt.” The main focus of the post was a Youtube video of excerpts of President Ronald Reagan speeches with a definite portrayal of Christianity on the U.S. government.

 

I wrote this as a little introduction to the Ronald Reagan excerpts:

 

The disestablishment clause of the First Amendment is a one-way action as far as Separation of Church and State is concerned. That one-way is that government must be separate and out of the religion business AND NOT that the Church be separate from the government.

 

Here are the limited comments on my AC2C blog pertaining to my introduction to the Reagan video:

 

Comment by CJ on Wednesday:

 

If they want to keep their tax exemptions they can’t preach it at the pulpit.  So, what? … they [can] go out in the political world. the church can interfere, influence government but government can’t interfere with the church…???????

 

I do believe the Founders wanted “religion” out of politics and politics out of ‘religion”.

 

Let’s just agree to disagree John.

 

Comment by John on Wednesday

 

I respectfully disagree CJ. The Church in various denominations can and should be an influence on government and the government should never interfere with the Church in its various denominations. Both sides of that coin can work and did in America until the 1960s.

 

Comment by CJ on Monday

 

[N]ot sure about this….can’t have it both ways…if you want government out of the church then let the church stay out of the government….

 

Now just for clarity’s sake I am not criticizing CJ. We are friends on AC2C. Indeed, at AC2C CJ is a big fish and I am just a little mackerel. I am thrilled when CJ reads my posts and comments on them. We are both Conservatives. You should also know Conservatives do not agree on all issues. On the Church/State issue I am all about the government needs to mind its business relating to the Church and the Church needs to be a moral foundation for the rule of law in America and thus the U.S. government.

 

As the moral foundation, I am not advocating that Christianity itself be the law of the land. I am advocating that Christian morality and principles be the measuring stick for the rule of law in Congress enacting laws and the Executive Branch enforcing those laws or appending rules in conjunction to Congressional enacted laws to define enforcement. Neither the President nor the Judiciary Branch should enact laws according to the U.S. Constitution that are outside the scope of duly enacted Constitutional Congressional laws. The Executive enforces or manages the rule of law and the Judicial Branch merely interprets the enacted law or the enforcement of an enacted law according to the U.S. Constitution and the duly State ratified Amendments.

 

As far as the Church, the State and the Constitution are related I like this statement on a Jeremiah Project article:

 

While the concept of separation of church and state might be implied by the First Amendment which states that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof….”, it says nothing about the “separation of church and state.” And, even if you accept the principle of the separation of church and state being implied by the First Amendment, it’s implication is not there to protect Americans from religion, it is there to protect religious Americans from the government.

In their desire to promote their secular humanist philosophy using the power of government, many liberals today want to alter America’s Christian heritage and replace it with the 10 Planks of Communism. They want to remove religion from our history and replace it with the Soviet doctrine of the separation of Church and State. They don’t want to safeguard denominational neutrality by the state as the Founders intended, rather they want to eradicate every vestige of religion from our public institutions. (The bold emphasis is mine. America’s Godly Heritage; Jeremiah Project)

 

For me the First Amendment in its Original Intent means that which I placed in bold print above: “it’s implication is not there to protect Americans from religion, it is there to protect religious Americans from the government.

 

This is what I meant by Church and State separation is a one-way street. This is why I disagree with CJ. In CJ’s reasoning there is no two-ways about it; i.e. if government cannot be involved Church then Church cannot be involved in government. There is one I can agree with CJ’s reasoning. That agreement is the Church cannot be a Branch of the government say like Islam is a part of the Iranian government making Iran a theocracy. In this line of thinking CJ is absolutely correct in keeping religion/Church separate from government.

 

The USA is a democratically representative Republic by the people and for the people. There is nothing theocratic about America. In promoting Christian principles in government Americans are doing that which keeps America great. The more God that is prohibited in American government the less America is great. So on government property whether it is Federal, State or local government the emblems of America’s heritage should remain to remind the government what the basis for the rule of law comes from. Part of that heritage is also Judeo-Greco-Roman influence. There is no shame for a secular government to emblemize reminders of our heritage following the Judeo-Christian-Greco-Roman line.

 

This is the one-way street: no government meddling in religion; however religious influence on government is needful for good government for the people and by the people.

 

The thing is most Democrats disagree with the one-way street paradigm I briefly stated because of the Living Constitution doctrine has allowed Left oriented activist Judges to begin slowly aligning the nation away from the Original Intent of the Founding Fathers to utilize Christian morality and love to be the foundation of the rule of law.

 

Here are some remarks that disfavor the Living Constitution doctrine from deceased Chief Justice William Rehnquist:

 

At least three serious difficulties flaw the brief writer’s version of the living Constitution. First, it misconceives the nature of the Constitution, which was designed to enable the popularly elected branches of government, not the judicial branch, to keep the country abreast of the times. Second, the brief writer’s version ignores the Supreme Court’s disastrous experiences when in the past it embraced contemporary, fashionable notions of what a living Constitution should contain. Third, however socially desirable the goals sought to be advanced by the brief writer’s version, advancing them through a freewheeling, nonelected judiciary is quite unacceptable in a democratic society.

 

 

The brief writer’s version of the living Constitution, in the last analysis, is a formula for an end run around popular government. To the extent that it makes possible an individual’s persuading one or more appointed federal judges to impose on other individuals a rule of conduct that the popularly elected branches of government would not have enacted and the voters have not and would not have embodied in the Constitution, the brief writer’s version of the living Constitution is genuinely corrosive of the fundamental values of our democratic society. (The Notion of a Living Constitution; by William H. Renquist – Read Entire PDF Document)

 

Here are some thoughts from Justice Antonin Scalia:

 

 

In a 35-minute speech Monday [2005], Scalia said unelected judges have no place deciding issues such as abortion and the death penalty. …

 

“If you think aficionados of a living Constitution want to bring you flexibility, think again,” Scalia told an audience at the Woodrow Wilson Center, a Washington think tank. “You think the death penalty is a good idea? Persuade your fellow citizens to adopt it. You want a right to abortion? Persuade your fellow citizens and enact it. That’s flexibility.”

 

“Why in the world would you have it interpreted by nine lawyers?” he said.

 

 

Citing the example of abortion, he said unelected justices too often choose to read new rights into the Constitution, at the expense of the democratic process.

 

“Abortion is off the democratic stage. Prohibiting it is unconstitutional, now and forever, coast to coast, until I guess we amend the Constitution,” said Scalia … (Scalia Slams ‘Living Constitution’ Theory; by AP on Fox News; 3/14/05 – Read Entirety)

 

Here is excerpted definition of Original Intent from The Free Dictionary:

 

The theory of interpretation by which judges attempt to ascertain the meaning of a particular provision of a state or federal constitution by determining how the provision was understood at the time it was drafted and ratified.

 

Sometimes called original understanding, originalism, or intentionalism, the theory of original intent is applied by judges when they are asked to exercise the power of Judicial Review during a legal proceeding. (The power of judicial review is the power of state and federal courts to review and invalidate laws that have been passed by the legislative and executive branches of government but violate a constitutional principle.)

 

… Judges who do attempt to apply this judicial philosophy generally agree that only through its application may courts be bound by the law and not their own views of what is desirable. They also generally agree that courts must apply original intent in order to preserve the representative democracy created by the federal Constitution.

 

 

… They argue that the interpretation of most written documents, legal or otherwise, involves a form of “communication” in which “the writer seeks to communicate with the reader”, Constitutional interpretation is no different, originalists say, because it involves the attempt of judges, as readers, to understand the meaning of a constitutional provision as conveyed by the Framers and ratifiers who authored it. Originalists believe that judges who fail to employ this method of interpretation transform courts into naked power organs.

 

Originalists contend that judges who deviate from the original understanding of a constitutional provision are forced to replace that understanding with their own subjective sympathies, social preferences, and notions of reasonableness. When judges substitute their own value choices for those actually written in the Constitution, federal courts become super-legislatures that make decisions based on the personal will of judges and not the law of the land (Day-Brite Lighting v. Missouri, 342 U.S. 421, 72 S. Ct. 405, 96 L. Ed. 469 [1952]).

 

Originalists assert that judges who legislate from the bench violate the separation of powers by making law rather than interpreting and applying it. These judges also violate the principles of federalism, the second essential feature of U.S. constitutional democracy identified by originalists. Under these principles, courts must strike an appropriate balance between the sovereignties of state and federal governments, not allowing the smaller state governments to be wholly consumed by the ubiquitous federal government. Originalists contend that this balance impermissibly tips in favor of the federal government when federal courts invent new constitutional rights that state governments are then required to enforce.

 

 

Respect for principles of federalism, then, is intimately connected with the third essential feature of U.S. Constitutional democracy identified by originalists, the Bill of Rights. The Bill of Rights protects certain freedoms from the popular will no matter how democratically the majority attempts to trample them. In all other areas, originalists assert, state and federal majorities are entitled to rule for no better reason than that they are majorities. Originalists explain that majority tyranny occurs if legislation invades areas properly left to individual freedom, and minority tyranny occurs if the majority is prevented from ruling where its power is legitimate.

 

Originalists argue that the judiciary facilitates minority tyranny by improperly interpreting the Bill of Rights to guarantee liberties not contemplated by the language and intent of the Framers. To avoid this pitfall, originalists believe, judges must safeguard only the liberties that can be clearly derived from the Constitution. Originalists cite a series of cases in which the Supreme Court recognized a right to privacy as the antithesis of proper constitutional interpretation.

 

… (Read Entire Definition)

 

That is stage I have attempted to refute on the so-called Separation of Church and State theory the courts have maintained since the mid-20th century to stop America’s Christian Heritage on or in anything that is supported by any kind of taxpayer money.

 

In 1947 a five to four decision in the Supreme Court ex nihilo added Thomas Jefferson’s letter to the Danbury Baptist Church assuring them that the Federal Government would not establish a National Church thus that Church would not have worry about its parishioners paying taxes to a State Church as the British citizens had to do to support the Church of England (Anglican Church – Episcopalian in USA). In that letter Thomas Jefferson promised a “Wall of Separation” between the Church and the State.  Justice Hugo Black wrote the opinion for the five Justices that egregiously added to the Constitution via a misinterpretation of Jefferson’s intent in his letter to the Danbury Baptist Church. (Dissenting Opinions of Everson v. Board of Education: Jackson and Rutledge)

 

Here is a great rendition of Original Intent pertaining to the First Amendment and the Disestablishment Clause.

 

JRH 6/16/12 (Thanks to CJ for inspiring me to ponder)

Please Support NCCR