An Intro to ‘A Clear Vision’


Intro by John R. Houk, Blog Editor

By Rick Joyner

Intro © March 10, 2020

 

Regardless if you have the opinion that Rick Joyner’s (Joyner bios: Believers Portal & Wikipedia) theology is way out there or right on, the insights I just read on Church/State separation are spot on. Pay particular attention to the facts that various State Constitutions incorporated on religion that were repealed but NOT struck down by SCOTUS to demonstrate the Original Intent of America’s Founders. IT IS NOT THE LIVING CONSTITUTION crap America’s Left (Dem-Marxists) are trying to brainwash you to believe.

Pro-Original Intent Constitution

 

 

 

 

 

Living Constitution Implies Tyranny of Majority or the Few

 

 

 

 

 

 

Living Constitution Rabble Tyranny

 

JRH 3/10/20

Your generosity is always appreciated – various credit, check 

& debit cards are accepted by my PayPal account: 

Please Support NCCR

Or support by getting in the Coffee from home business – 

OR just buy some FEEL GOOD coffee.

 

BLOG EDITOR (In Fascistbook jail since 1/20/20): I’ve apparently been placed in restricted Facebook Jail! The restriction was relegated after criticizing Democrats for supporting abortion in one post and criticizing Virginia Dems for gun-grabbing legislation and levying protester restrictions. Rather than capitulate to Facebook censorship by abandoning the platform, I choose to post and share until the Leftist censors ban me completely. Conservatives are a huge portion of Facebook. If more or all Conservatives are banned, it will affect the Facebook advertising revenue paradigm. SO FIGHT CENSORSHIP BY SHARE – SHARE – SHARE!!! Facebook notified me in pop-up on 1/20/20: “You’re temporarily restricted from joining and posting to groups that you do not manage until April 18 at 7:04 PM.”

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

A Clear Vision—Heritage Brief 10

Word of the Week

 

By Rick Joyner

March 10, 2020

MorningStar Ministries

 

Following up on the fact that nowhere in The United States Constitution does it state that there must be a separation between the church and the state, it only states that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” Because Congress was the Federal Government, this did not prohibit the states from establishing a recognized religion if they chose to, and many of them did.

 

For example, a couple of states made it a requirement to be of the Protestant faith to vote. Others required church attendance to vote. This did not make these laws right, and eventually they were all repealed, but that this was allowed proved that the states had authority to do such things under The Constitution. The Constitution only forbade Congress from establishing religion.

 

These religious test laws by some states were legal under The Constitution, but they were not right, and they did cause problems. The wisdom of how these matters could be worked out by the states while the whole country was not subjected to the turmoil they caused proved to be genius.

 

It has only been when the Federal Government started to exceed the authority given to it in The Constitution, and thereby encroach on the rights of the states and the people, that the turmoil and divisions this has caused became national and threatened to tear the nation apart. These unnecessary pressures will continue to grow until the Federal Government returns to its constitutional boundaries, and the rights of the states and the people that it has usurped is returned to them.

 

Concerning the proper and constitutional relationship between the church and the state, we have all likely witnessed men and women who were good friends ruin that friendship by getting married. It is a worthy goal for those who are married to be friends, but the love for each as friends may not work well in the more committed bonds of marriage. This is why many languages have different words for these two types of affection—friendship and romantic love. The point is that the church and the state should have a relationship as friends, but not marriage.

 

The church is called to be the bride of Christ, alone. In relation to the bride of Christ, the state is called to be like the eunuchs who provided security for the king and his bride. They defend her if necessary, but they can have no relationship with her beyond this.

 

When the relationship between church and state went beyond what it is supposed to be, it brought upon the earth the darkest of times—the Dark Ages. The abuses of the wrongful union of the church to the state was deeply impressed on the early Americans. Many had been witnesses to, or victims of, the horrible corruption that came from this wrongful union of the church and state in Europe, which culminated in the worst persecution in human history—The Inquisition.

 

The Inquisition was the persecution by Christians of other Christians and Jews. It was only possible by the institutional church being married to the state at that time. Christians and Jews who would not conform to the dogma of the institutional church of the time were slaughtered on an incomprehensible scale. Halley’s Bible Handbook estimates that up to 50 million of these non-conformist Christians and Jews were tortured and killed in The Inquisition. This number is corroborated by other historians. We can read in such works as Foxe’s Book of Martyrs the kind of demented and diabolical tortures used by The Inquisition. This was truly one of mankind’s darkest hours, and done in the name of Christ by the harlot church that had wrongfully married the state.

 

With many of the first colonists being victims of this persecution—and the leaders of the independence movement in America knowing their stories well—when The British imposed a law on the colonies that no minister of the gospel could be licensed except through The Church of England, it was intolerable to the colonists.

 

The Founders of the American Republic were resolute in ensuring that such a thing would never happen in America. To do this they established the government first and foremost on the freedom of religion, resolving to keep the Federal Government out of religion, but a protector of religious freedom.

 

As the Jews of Europe were persecuted along with the Protestants and other Christian movements, they also fled to America to escape. They were both welcomed and honored by their Christian fellow colonists. Those of other religions, or no religion, also found in America the tolerance and freedom they had not found anywhere else in the world. America was born as a haven for religiously persecuted people.

 

The American Founders were resolved to keep the church and state as separate entities, but it was clearly to keep the state out of the church’s business, not the other way around. We must then ask, how did The Supreme Court and many lower courts issue so many decisions prohibiting the free exercise of religion?  By blatantly violating The Constitution and The First Amendment. The leadership of Congress was too weak or inept to confront this tyrannical abuse by the judiciary.

 

If our Republic is to be preserved, we must recover the fact that The Supreme Court is not the “supreme law of the land”—The Constitution is. The Supreme Court has made many unconstitutional decisions in its history, some of which were reversed by later courts, but many have not. In recent times it is piling them up almost yearly because it has now departed so far from the lane The Constitution gave to the judiciary. If this is not corrected, it will soon cause the destruction of the Republic, just as Jefferson and other Founders warned.

 

We will cover these violations of The Constitution in more detail in future Briefs, along with the devastating impact they have had on the nation. The Judicial Branch may have been the biggest culprit in this, but all three branches are guilty of deviating from the clear and limited authority given to the Federal Government by The Constitution. The stress this has put on the entire country has us at the breaking point. Under The Constitution, the people are the sovereign. The longer we wait to demand that our Federal Government obey The Constitution, the greater the cost it will be to save our Republic.

 

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

I believe there are more instances of the abridgment of the freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments of those in power, than by violent and sudden usurpations.

– James Madison, author of The Constitution and fifth President of the United States

 

     We the People of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, ensure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

 –Preamble to the United States Constitution

+++++++++++++++++++++

BLOG EDITOR (In Fascistbook jail since 1/20/20): I’ve apparently been placed in restricted Facebook Jail! The restriction was relegated after criticizing Democrats for supporting abortion in one post and criticizing Virginia Dems for gun-grabbing legislation and levying protester restrictions. Rather than capitulate to Facebook censorship by abandoning the platform, I choose to post and share until the Leftist censors ban me completely. Conservatives are a huge portion of Facebook. If more or all Conservatives are banned, it will affect the Facebook advertising revenue paradigm. SO FIGHT CENSORSHIP BY SHARE – SHARE – SHARE!!! Facebook notified me in pop-up on 1/20/20: “You’re temporarily restricted from joining and posting to groups that you do not manage until April 18 at 7:04 PM.”

_____________________________

An Intro to ‘A Clear Vision’

Intro by John R. Houk, Blog Editor

Intro © March 10, 2020

__________________________

A Clear Vision—Heritage Brief 10

 

© 2020 by Rick Joyner. All rights reserved. 

 

MorningStar Ministries

 

Dem-Ukraine Impeachment Corruption


An intro by John R. Houk

Posted December 19, 2019

 

The Democratic Party is as corrupt as many of the Ukrainian oligarchs courted to depose President Trump. Giuliani ignored and vilified by the Dems and their propaganda machine MSM touches on some Dem-Ukrainian corruption. THEN Mark Alexander has some Original Intent thoughts on Impeachment.

 

JRH 12/19/19

Your generosity is always appreciated:

Please Support NCCR

Support this Blog HERE. Or support by getting in 

the Coffee from home business – OR just buy some healthy coffee.

 

Blog Editor: Rather than capitulate to Facebook censorship by abandoning the platform, I choose to post and share until the Leftist censors ban me. Recently, the Facebook censorship tactic I’ve experienced is a couple of Group shares then jailed under the false accusation of posting too fast. So I ask those that read this, to combat censorship by sharing blog and Facebook posts with your friends or Groups you belong to.

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

Giuliani Says He’s Uncovered ‘Two Major’ Money-Laundering/Bribery Schemes Involving Joe Biden, Obama Admin

 

By Megan Fox

December 17, 2019

PJ Media

 

From right to left, Vice President Joe Biden, Secretary of State John Kerry and Treasury Secretary Jacob Lew, Friday, Sept. 25, 2015, on the South Lawn of the White House in Washington. (AP Photo/Andrew Harnik)

 

Rudy Giuliani went on Fox News with Laura Ingraham on Monday and dropped a huge bomb onto former Ukranian Ambassador Marie Yovanovitch and Joe Biden.

 

“What I uncovered, there are two major schemes,” said Giuliani. “One for 7.5 billion and the other one for 5 billion in money laundering that went on all through the Obama administration, part of it involved Joe Biden, the bribery part.” Giuliani went on to implicate American law enforcement at the very top for not investigating what he says is corruption.

 

“It’s a disgrace that he’s not under investigation in America, maybe because our law enforcement is too afraid, but the reality is it’s a complete defense for the president. When the president of the United States was asking the president of the Ukraine to investigate, he was asking him to investigate crimes at the highest level of both governments….he’s being impeached for doing the right thing.”

 

Giuliani also tweeted on Tuesday that “Yovanovitch needed to be removed for many reasons most critical she was denying visas to Ukrainians who wanted to come to the US and explain Dem corruption in Ukraine. She was OBSTRUCTING JUSTICE and that’s not the only thing she was doing. She at minimum enabled Ukrainian collusion.”

 

 

Democrats have accused Giuliani of forcing Yovanovitch out for political reasons. He says that’s garbage. “I didn’t need her out of the way, I forced her out because she’s corrupt. I came back with a document that will show unequivocally that she committed perjury when she said she turned down the visa for [Ukrainian prosecutor] Mr. Shokin because of corruption. The fact is on the record…the reason given is because he’d had an operation and hadn’t recovered yet. The operation was two years before. There’s documented evidence that she committed perjury.”

 

These documents, according to Giuliani, were turned over to the State Department and included four other witness statements corroborating the allegations.

 

“I have 4 witnesses who will testify that she personally turned down their visas because they were going to come here and give evidence either against Biden or against the Democratic Party,” Giuliani told Ingraham. “There’s no question she that she was acting corruptly in that position and had to be removed. She should have been fired if the State Department weren’t part of the Deep State.”

 

Giuliani first heard about Yovanovitch’s deception from former Rep. Pete Sessions and a “number of congressman” who told him what Yovanovitch was up to. “When I interviewed witnesses they told me she was specifically holding up visas in order to obstruct the investigation of collusion in the Ukraine and specifically to obstruct the Biden investigation. I have that testimony under oath. I gave it to the State Department, they never investigated a single witness. When they say she’s innocent, it’s innocent without investigation. It is a cover-up.”

 

Giuliani says he has audio recordings to back up his story that also implicate Barack Obama in the scandal. “I also have tape recordings with Ukrainian officials including career prosecutors who say that during the Obama era the corruption in Ukraine became substantially worse and that she [Yovanovitch] was a contributor to the corruption.”

 

Senior officials in the White House are reportedly worried about Giuliani and his insistence on being vocal about Democrats’ involvement in Ukrainian corruption. He doesn’t care. “Joe Biden was involved in a multi-million dollar corrupt scheme along with a number of other Democrats. It’s never been resolved. They’ve never been held to account. As long as those issues remain between the U.S. and Ukraine we really can’t fight corruption in the Ukraine and the fact is that there are numerous Ukranian witnesses that want to come to the U.S. and explain how much during the Obama administration Ukraine was corrupted by Americans.”

 

The question now should be, why haven’t our State Department and Department of Justice launched an official investigation into what happened to billions of dollars of American aid money that was sent to Ukraine? Why doesn’t anyone in our government seem to want to know where it went? “I have a report from the Ukrainian accounting office in 2017 showing that 5.3 billion dollars in aid seems to have been wasted,” Giuliani said. “Our State Department under Yovanovitch went to the police and told them not to do the investigation… because our embassy was involved in wasting a great deal of that money by giving it to NGOs and when I was asked ‘do the NGOs have a political bent?’ They were left of left.”

 

Giuliani reports that he has been trying to get anyone in law enforcement to look at his evidence and no one will. “I am willing to show this to anybody who wants to pay attention to it. So far law enforcement has been afraid to look at it.” Obviously, it’s time for Giuliani to release the evidence to the press. PJ Media reached out to Giuliani’s office and offered to publish this evidence, but have not heard back yet.

 

Watch the interview below.

 

VIDEO: Giuliani admits to forcing out Yovanovitch: ‘She’s corrupt’

 

 

[Posted by Fox News

3.9M subscribers – Dec 16, 2019

 

Trump’s personal lawyer Rudy Giuliani returns to Fox News claiming he has proof that impeachment is a ‘cover-up’ and explains why he was recently in Ukraine. MORE TO READ]

 

Megan Fox is the author of “Believe Evidence; The Death of Due Process from Salome to #MeToo.” Follow on Twitter @MeganFoxWriter

+++++++++++++++++++

The Impeachment Theater of the Absurd

Ironically, by claiming he needs more witnesses, Schumer is admitting that the House impeachment case is insufficient!

 

By Mark Alexander

Dec. 18, 2019

The Patriot Post

 

“The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.” —U.S. Constitution, Article II, Section 4 (1789)

 

Dems Want Impeachment Cuz Don’t Trust Voters

 

In Federalist No. 65, Alexander Hamilton outlined the Senate’s powers of impeachment, noting: “Where else than in the Senate could have been found a tribunal sufficiently dignified, or sufficiently independent? What other body would be likely to feel confidence enough in its own situation, to preserve, unawed and uninfluenced, the necessary impartiality between an individual accused, and the representatives of the people, his accusers.”

 

In 1788, our Founders anticipated that future senators should possess at least a modicum of decency, such that they would be able to judge articles of impeachment on the merits of such charges.

 

But Hamilton also noted that impeachment would “agitate the passions of the whole community, and to divide it into parties more or less friendly or inimical to the accused.” He concluded, “In many cases it will connect itself with the pre-existing factions, and will enlist all their animosities, partialities, influence, and interest on one side or on the other; and in such cases there will always be the greatest danger that the decision will be regulated more by the comparative strength of parties, than by the real demonstrations of innocence or guilt.”

 

The partisanship that attended the impeachment of Bill Clinton for perjury (for which he was disbarred) was but a mere shadow of the all-consuming hatred the Democrat Party has for Donald Trump — a partisan hatred fanned and fueled nationwide by their shameless Leftmedia publicists.

 

And it’s within this disgraceful climate that the House of Representatives will vote today, on partisan lines, to refer articles of impeachment to the Senate for trial.

 

In preparation for that show trial, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell declared, “I think we’re going to get almost entirely partisan impeachment. I would anticipate an almost entirely partisan outcome in the Senate as well.”

 

He added, “Everything I do during this, I’m coordinating with the White House counsel. There will be no difference between the president’s position and our position as to how to handle this.”

 

Laughably, McConnell’s transparency led a demand from Sen. Chuck Schumer that he “recuse himself” from the entire impeachment proceeding: “Do the American people want Mitch McConnell not to be an impartial juror in this situation? I would ask every one of our Republican colleagues, ‘Do you want someone who proudly says they are not impartial to be on a jury, judging high crimes and misdemeanors, serious charges against the president of the United States?’ And I would ask every one of my Republican Senate colleagues, ‘Are you impartial jurors or are you like Mitch McConnell, proud not to be?’”

 

McConnell responded to Schumer, “I am not an impartial jury. This is a political process. There’s not anything judicial about it. Impeachment is a political decision.”

 

Of course, the list of those who most arguably should be recused because of conflict of interest or lack of impartiality starts with the most biased members of the Senate — those Demo candidates hoping to unseat Trump: Sens. Elizabeth Warren, Bernie Sanders, Amy Klobuchar, Cory Booker, and Michael Bennet.

 

Hypothetically, a non-voluntary recusal would require a motion by one senator and would be decided by Chief Justice John Roberts, presiding. His ruling would then be appealed for a full floor vote. But if such a dubious claim were made and a vote called, it would likely result in a domino effect — 99 more votes, with the Republican majority ultimately prevailing by recusing each minority member, one by one.

 

None of that should happen in the Senate.

 

Corrupt Dems Reason Electoral College Exists

 

But weeks before these howls for McConnell’s recusal, I contemplated this recusal issue as House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerrold Nadler displayed his historic, long-seething hatred for Trump while presiding over Rep. Adam Schiff’s contrived impeachment charges — charges that were devoid of any evidence of “treason, bribery or other high crimes and misdemeanors.”

 

By “historic,” I don’t mean since the 2016 election, but since Nadler was in the New York State Assembly 35 years ago.

 

Back then, their dispute started when Nadler opposed Trump’s development of blighted sections of New York, becoming his arch adversary. So contentious was their antipathy for each other that in Trump’s 2000 book, The America We Deserve, he singled out Nadler as “one of the most egregious hacks in contemporary politics.”

 

After Trump’s election, Nadler posted on his official website a manifesto for the resistance detailing a plan for how to dispose of Trump: “We cannot wait four years to vote Mr. Trump out of office, as members of the GOP Senate and House Majorities have already stated that they will facilitate the Trump agenda. … So we must do everything we can to stop Trump and his extreme agenda now.”

 

Nadler called for “fierce battles against every regressive action he takes — from personnel appointments to his legislative program — in order to thwart or at least slow them down [and expose] his Republican enablers in Congress, voting them out of office in 2018, with the goal of taking back either the House or the Senate for Democratic control.”

 

“To achieve this,” insisted Nadler, “we must keep our eyes on two important goals: depressing Trump’s public support and dividing the Congressional GOP from him and from each other.”

 

And Democrats want McConnell to recuse himself?

 

If the head of the Judiciary Committee were held to a standard even remotely similar to that of a judge, Nadler’s vitriolic animus toward Trump would have been grounds for recusal, or even impeachment if necessary. Indeed, a legitimate process would’ve seen Nadler ousted before the first day’s testimony.

 

In his opening statement last month, Nadler declared: “We cannot rely on an election to solve our problems.”

 

In other words, Nadler and his fellow congressional Democrats cannot rely on the will and the wisdom of the American people. Clearly, they had no intention of doing so — even before Trump took office.

 

The evidence of their slo-mo coup d’état to take down Trump is now emerging, most notably with the exposure last week of the felonious FBI/FISA fiasco. A handful of Demo deep-state operatives in the FBI and CIA used that subterfuge to seed the Mueller investigation charade, which led to the current double-standard impeachment inquisition parade.

 

And recall what Nadler said about the impeachment of Bill Clinton in 1998: “We must not overturn an election and remove a president from office … without an overwhelming consensus of the American people. There must never be a narrowly voted impeachment or an impeachment supported by one of our major political parties and opposed by the other.”

 

So, after Nadler’s predictable party-line committee vote, we now await the next episode of this political theater — a House vote that will most assuredly be a “narrowly voted impeachment … supported by one of our major political parties and opposed by the other.”

 

For his part, on the eve of the House vote, Trump issued a letter to Speaker Nancy Pelosi Tuesday that included the following key points in his typical rhetorical form:

 

“This impeachment represents an unprecedented and unconstitutional abuse of power by Democrat Lawmakers, unequaled in nearly two and a half centuries of American legislative history. The Articles of Impeachment introduced by the House Judiciary Committee are not recognizable under any standard of Constitutional theory, interpretation, or jurisprudence. They include no crimes, no misdemeanors, and no offenses… Your first claim, ‘Abuse of Power,’ is a completely disingenuous, meritless, and baseless… The second claim, so-called ‘Obstruction of Congress,’ is preposterous and dangerous. … Even worse than offending the Founding Fathers, you are offending Americans of faith by continually saying ‘I pray for the President,’ when you know this statement is not true… Speaker Pelosi, you admitted just last week at a public forum that your party’s impeachment effort has been going on for ‘two and a half years,’ long before you ever heard about a phone call with Ukraine. … Before the Impeachment Hoax, it was the Russian Witch Hunt. … You are the ones interfering in America’s elections. You are the ones subverting America’s Democracy. You are the ones Obstructing Justice.”

 

Mark Alexander Quote on Pelosipalooza

 

Trump continued: “By proceeding with your invalid impeachment, you are violating your oaths of office, you are breaking your allegiance to the Constitution, and you are declaring open war on American Democracy. … You and your party are desperate to distract from America’s extraordinary economy, incredible jobs boom, record stock market, soaring confidence, and flourishing citizens. Your party simply cannot compete with our record. … Any member of Congress who votes in support of impeachment — against every shred of truth, fact, evidence, and legal principle — is showing deeply they revile the voters and how truly they detest America’s Constitutional order. … Our Founders feared the tribalization of partisan politics, and you are bringing their worst fears to life.”

 

And that, fellow Patriots, adequately sums up this sorry affair. And the House vote comes in the same week we learned about the politically motivated FISA court abuses that seeded the whole effort to undermine Trump’s presidency.

 

The House of Representatives has initiated impeachment proceedings more than 60 times since 1789. Of the 19 federal officeholders or officials who’ve been brought up on impeachment charges, only eight have been convicted — all federal judges. Of the two presidents tried in the Senate — Andrew Johnson and Bill Clinton — both had the charges dismissed after the Senate failed to meet its two-thirds majority requirement for conviction.

 

The Demo charges against Trump will also be dismissed, for the reasons outlined by the president in his letter to Pelosi. But the trivialization of impeachment removes the already low bar on constitutional Rule of Law, creating a menacing threat to Liberty.

 

In order to keep the Demos’ Trump/Russia/Ukraine narrative on life support after the Senate vote, Schumer will continue to claim that Trump is guilty, but that Republicans wouldn’t allow his witnesses to prove it. Those would be the same witnesses that the House could have called in its hearings — but didn’t in order to provide Schumer his “witness denial” layup. Ironically, by claiming he needs more witnesses, Schumer is admitting that the House impeachment case is insufficient!

 

In Federalist No. 69, Alexander Hamilton described impeachment as a pressure release valve in order to avoid the “crisis of a national revolution.” But this round of impeachment, if it were to actually succeed, would most assuredly set up a “crisis of a national revolution.”

 

P.S. Patriots, the most cost-effective investment you can make to ensure the future of Liberty is to support The Patriot Post. We’re the Web’s most influential grassroots journal for promoting freedom and challenging the dominant Leftmedia narrative. We rely 100% on the voluntary financial support of Patriots like you, so please support our Year-End Campaign today. Thank you.

 

Semper Vigilans Fortis Paratus et Fidelis
Pro Deo et Libertate — 1776

++++++++++++++++++

Blog Editor: Rather than capitulate to Facebook censorship by abandoning the platform, I choose to post and share until the Leftist censors ban me. Recently, the Facebook censorship tactic I’ve experienced is a couple of Group shares then jailed under the false accusation of posting too fast. So I ask those that read this, to combat censorship by sharing blog and Facebook posts with your friends or Groups you belong to.

__________________________

Giuliani Says He’s Uncovered ‘Two Major’ Money-Laundering/Bribery Schemes Involving Joe Biden, Obama Admin

 

Copyright © 2005-2019 PJ Media All Rights Reserved.

_______________________

The Impeachment Theater of the Absurd

 

Copyright © 2019 The Patriot Post. All Rights Reserved.

 

Next Step Church/State Separation Plague


John R. Houk

© July 3, 2019

Clearly California legislators either failed their civics classes or are viewing the First Amendment in a reverse Original Intent format:

 

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 on ConstitutionCenter.org

 

Until activist Courts including SCOTUS began dismantling the Religious Liberty in the First Amendment in the mid-20th century, history CLEARLY illustrates the Founding Fathers intended the First Amendment to mean the government must stay out of all things related to the Christian Church yet Christianity was to be a moral influence on government.

 

Although legal scholars might use an earlier starting point, the big date for SCOTUS revisionism is 1947: Everson v. Board of Education. The SCOTUS decision 5 affirms and 4 dissents. Hugo Black wrote the majority decision and Justices Jackson and Rutledge wrote dissenting opinions. The point being ONE VOTE revised the First Amendment original understanding that stood 160 years of government out of Church but Church being a moral influence on government:

 

Since this ruling in 1947, courts throughout America have looked to this opinion as a watershed from its historical interpretation from the days of America’s Founding Fathers. Justice Black and those supporting his opinion on the Court introduced a completely new element that was and is at variance with the historical interpretation of the First Amendment. Justice Black and his colleagues inserted new law into the Constitution that the Supreme Court justices for nearly 160 years had never seen. The historic position of the Supreme Court and lower courts was summarized by Supreme Court Associate Justice, David Brewer, and his majority opinion (Holy Trinity vs. United States, 1892) and subsequently enlarged upon in his book, The United States a Christian Nation. (The Truth about Separation of Church and State: Error of Justice Hugo Black; By Stephen Flick; Christian Heritage Fellowship

 

A good read on the issue is Justin Smith’s ‘The Fallacy of “Separation of Church and State”’. Another good read is “How the Supreme Court Twisted the First Amendment and Banned Religion in Public Schools” by Zachary Garris at Teach Diligently.

 

The Dems are perpetuating this assault on Religious Liberty via the Dem sponsored Equality Act (H.R. 5) in the House. The aim of the Equality Act is to force Americans (undoubtedly aimed Biblical-minded Christians) to further accept the godless LGBTQ lifestyle. If the Republican majority Senate passes its version of the Equality Act (S. 788) introduced on March 13, God have mercy on America.

 

What brought these thoughts to fruition though is State legislation in Leftist haven of California. My July 3 news alert from Prophecy News Watch (PNW) informs me a California State bill would force Christian Pastors/Preachers to zip their lips on preaching the Bible about the godless homosexual lifestyle.

 

The California Bill is ACR 99 and it “… would FORBID pastors from saying homosexual acts are sinful? A bill REQUIRING them to affirm same-sex relationships and gender identity? It has been proposed!” (The bold text is my emphasis of the quote in the PNW article.)

 

If read or hear the Left (these days that includes some Churches who have abandoned the Word of God) tell you, “The Bible does not condemn homosexuality”; those sources are blatantly lying and maybe even twisting the original meaning of Scripture with completely faulty revisionist scholarship. (Just like activist Judges and Justices to the U.S. Constitution.) HuffPo is a classic example of twisted-lying Left-Wing sourcing. If you are a Bible-believing Christian belonging to this Wikipedia list (as of today last updated 7/3/19) of Churches accepting LGBTQ in one fashion or another, YOU are in danger of placing yourself in rebellion to God (choosing the same path of Adam and Eve [godless Adam & Steve or Adriana & Eve]). Rebellion causes God-Separation, aka the Second Death (Genesis 3: 1-9; 1 John 2: 15-17 HCSB):

 

Genesis – The Temptation and the Fall

1Now the serpent was the most cunning of all the wild animals that the Lord God had made. He said to the woman, “Did God really say, ‘You can’t eat from any tree in the garden’?”

The woman said to the serpent, “We may eat the fruit from the trees in the garden. But about the fruit of the tree in the middle of the garden, God said, ‘You must not eat it or touch it, or you will die.’”

“No! You will not die,” the serpent said to the woman. “In fact, God knows that when[a] you eat it your eyes will be opened and you will be like God,[b]knowing good and evil.” Then the woman saw that the tree was good for food and delightful to look at, and that it was desirable for obtaining wisdom. So she took some of its fruit and ate it; she also gave some to her husband, who was with her, and he ate it. Then the eyes of both of them were opened, and they knew they were naked; so they sewed fig leaves together and made loincloths for themselves.

 

Sin’s Consequences

Then the man and his wife heard the sound of the Lord God walking in the garden at the time of the evening breeze,[c] and they hid themselves from the Lord God among the trees of the garden. So the Lord God called out to the man and said to him, “Where are you?[Bold text Editor’s – Signifies God-Separation]

 

1 John 2

15 Do not love the world or the things that belong to[a] the world. If anyone loves the world, love for the Father is not in him. 16 For everything that belongs to[b] the world—the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes, and the pride in one’s lifestyle—is not from the Father, but is from the world. 17 And the world with its lust is passing away, but the one who does God’s will remains forever. [Bold text Editor’s – Homosexuality is only one of many sins of the world separating one from God.]

 

JRH 7/3/19

Your generosity is always appreciated:

Please Support NCCR

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

Why This New California Bill Is So Dangerous To The Church

 

Gay Church Flag

 

By MICHAEL BROWN/ASKDRBROWN.ORG

JULY 03, 2019

Prophecy News Watch

 

Last week, I put out a warning about a bill under consideration in California known as ACR 99. I explained “Why California Pastors Must Stand Up to Government Tyranny.”

 

I also tweeted about the bill. I asked: “What? A California bill that would FORBID pastors from saying homosexual acts are sinful? A bill REQUIRING them to affirm same-sex relationships and gender identity? It has been proposed!”

 

One of my Twitter followers, a younger Christian man, challenged my reading of the bill. He insisted that it did not infringe on Christian liberties. Is he right?

 

Let’s take a look at this bill more carefully. Once we do, you’ll understand why Christian legal organizations, along with pastors and ex-gay leaders in California, are so concerned.

 

The Bill is Bad

 

The final text of the bill states this: “This measure would call upon all Californians to embrace the individual and social benefits of family and community acceptance, upon religious leaders to counsel on LGBTQ matters from a place of love, compassion, and knowledge of the psychological and other harms of conversion therapy, and upon the people of California and the institutions of California with great moral influence to model equitable treatment of all people of the state.”

 

Is this really so bad? Yes.

 

First, who gave the government the right to issue a call like this? Who gave the government the right to tell religious leaders that they cannot help people with unwanted same-sex attractions pursue change? (Broadly speaking, that’s what “conversion therapy” ultimately refers to. The term, of course, is used in a derogatory way.) If ever there was an overstepping of the separation of Church and State, this would be it.

 

Second, what, exactly, is meant by “equitable treatment of all people of the state”? Based on the findings which form the foundation of this bill, it would mean affirming transgender identity and transgender “rights,” even when those “rights” infringed on the rights of others.

 

And this is not just idle talk. The bill passed it its committee vote and is heading to the California Senate for a full vote. Let’s dig in a little deeper to see exactly what California pastors and religious leaders are facing.

 

The Presuppositions

 

ACR 99 is based on a number of presuppositions, all introduced with the word WHEREAS. Here’s the first: “The California State Legislature has found that being lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgender (LGBTQ) is not a disease, disorder, illness, deficiency, or shortcoming.”

 

Based on this, it would be wrong to believe or teach that homosexual practice is sinful. Or that homosexual desires are disordered. Or that there is anything wrong with homosexual relationships. Or that a man who believes he is a woman has any type of deficiency. And this is just the first of the 9 “WHEREAS” clauses!

 

Another clause rejects any attempts to change a person’s LGBTQ identity. (This appears under the heading of “conversion therapy.”)

 

And another states that “the stigma associated with being LGBTQ often created by groups in society, including therapists and religious groups, has caused disproportionately high rates of suicide, attempted suicide, depression, rejection, and isolation amongst LGBTQ and questioning individuals.”

 

In other words, if you preach and teach what the Bible says about LGBTQ issues and people, no matter how loving and compassionate you are, you are guilty of stigmatizing them, thereby causing them emotional and even physical harm.

 

The intent of this bill is perfectly clear.

 

The Government Telling Pastors What to Preach

 

That’s why Liberty Counsel issued a warning, stating, “CA RESOLUTION THREATENS PASTORS AND COUNSELORS.”

 

Specifically, the resolution “calls on religious leaders and others with ‘moral influence’ to affirm homosexuality and ‘transgenderism’ and to accept that Christian efforts to help people with unwanted same-sex attraction or gender confusion are ‘ineffective, unethical and harmful.’ As a resolution, ACR 99 does not have the force of law but will be persuasive for some policymakers. It will now go to the state Senate for a vote.”

 

That’s why the California Family Council, which is on the front lines of this legislative battle, wrote that “CA Legislators to Tell Pastors What to Preach from their Pulpits on LGBT Behavior & Identities.”

 

Life and Hope

 

And that’s why ex-gay leaders Ken Williams and Elizabeth Woning protested the bill. As Woning wrote, “For us, walking out our faith with biblical conviction means life and hope. Our faith has saved us from suicide and given us freedom to live with clear consciences. We too would like to be acknowledged and affirmed. … Instead, activists attack our efforts to care for like-minded friends by promoting dangerous counseling restrictions and stifling our free speech.”

 

In short, this bill would state that pastors and Christian counselors do not have the right to walk out their faith and live out their biblical convictions.

 

It would stop them from offering the fullness of the Gospel to people with unwanted same-sex attractions and gender identity confusion. And it would constitute, in no uncertain terms, a frontal assault on their — and our — religious liberties.

 

That’s why it must be resisted.

 

Originally published at AskDrBrown.org – reposted with permission.

_______________________

Next Step Church/State Separation Plague

John R. Houk

© July 3, 2019

___________________

Why This New California Bill Is So Dangerous To The Church

 

© 2019 Prophecy News Watch. All Rights Reserved.
Located in Coeur D Alene, Idaho – USA.
Call Toll Free: 1-877-561-4442
Email: Info@ProphecyNewsWatch.com

 

DONATE to PNW

 

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…

 

The Fallacy of “Separation of Church and State”


The best intro to this essay submission from Justin Smith can be summed up from an excerpt:

 

Any attack against Christianity and Judaism in America using the fallacy of “separation of Church and State” is simply an attempt to further undermine, not only Our U.S. Constitution and Religious Liberty, but Our entire traditional American way of life. Do not accept the Fallacy.

 

JRH 8/6/17

Please Support NCCR

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

The Fallacy of “Separation of Church and State”

 

By Justin O. Smith

Sent 8/5/2017 3:36 PM

 

The Founding Fathers believed that government’s role in religion should be limited. We cannot discount that the First Amendment begins “Congress shall make no law” either establishing a state religion or prohibiting the free exercise of religion. Rather than articulate an affirmative responsibility for government to protect religion, the Founding Fathers felt it was enough to keep the government out. If nothing else, the language of the First Amendment makes it clear the goal was to restrain government when it came to religion. There is no suggestion the Founders felt the establishment clause and the free exercise clause were in any way competing. Otherwise, why would the Founders include the two clauses together?

 

The point was to keep government out of both realms. Both clauses were needed because it was not sufficient to restrain government from establishing a state religion; government also had to be restrained from any attempt to interfere with religious practices and beliefs. The negative language of the First Amendment does not prohibit Congress from passing a law that promotes religion, provided the judgement does not promote one religion over others.

Before the bad law and judicial activism that started with the abuse of the Constitution by Justice Hugo Black in Everson v Board of Education (1947), the states were not prohibited under the First Amendment from establishing religion, and nowhere in the debate on freedom of religion in the first Congress is there any mention of “separation of church and state.” Our Founders own writings clearly show that they never intended for public officials to check their convictions and beliefs at the door to their offices. They would have been shocked by the Court’s excessively broad interpretation of the First Amendment, given the language the Founders crafted with the belief it would protect open expression of religious beliefs in America.

 

The Founders most certainly would have rebelled against the idea of an absolute “separation of church and state” and the use of the First and Fourteenth Amendments to eradicate all Judeo-Christian references to God from the public square, because these ideas are incompatible with the Original Intent and unalienable rights granted to each of us by our Creator, thus making them erroneous and historically unsupportable.

 

[Blog Editor: Here’s an interesting thought on how the Left and Activist Judges misused the 14th Amendment to rob the Original Intent of the First Amendment:

 

When did things change?

 

Charles Darwin theory’s that species could evolve inspired a political theorist named Herbert Spencer to suggest that laws could evolve. This influenced Harvard Law Dean Christopher Columbus Langdell to develop the “case precedent” method of practicing law, which influenced his student, Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr.

 

This occurred near the same time the 14th Amendment was passed in 1868, introduced by Republicans in Congress to guarantee rights to freed slaves in the Democrat South. The evolutionary “case-precedent” method provided a way to side-step the Constitutional means of changing the Constitution through the Amendment process.

 

Activist Justices began to creatively use the 14th Amendment to take jurisdiction away from the states over issues such as unions, strikes, railroads, farming, polygamy, freedom of speech, freedom of the press, and freedom of assembly.

 

Freedom of religion was still under each individual state’s jurisdiction until Franklin D. Roosevelt.

 

 

In 1937, FDR nominated Justice Hugo Black to the Supreme Court, who also concentrated power by writing decisions taking jurisdiction away from the states in the area of religion. He did this by simply inserting the phrase “Neither a state” in his 1947 Everson v Board of Education decision: “The ‘establishment of religion’ clause of the First Amendment means at least this: Neither a state nor the federal government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions or prefer one religion over another.” READ ENTIRE ARTICLE (THIS IS HOW ATHEISM BECAME OUR OFFICIAL ‘RELIGION’; By BILL FEDERER; WND; 1/15/16 9:01 PM)

 

Now I can’t vouch for this being Justin Smith’s thought on the 14th Amendment, but using the effect of Darwinism in the development of Case Law to have more authority than Original Intent is enlightening to me.]

On New Year’s Day 1802, Thomas Jefferson wrote to the Danbury Baptists to assuage their fear that the federal government might one day attempt to condition religious freedom as a right granted by the state. Jefferson, an anti-Federalist [Blog Editor: Federalist/Anti-Federalist Perspectives – HERE, HERE & HERE], clearly stated his intention to keep government out of religious affairs rather than empower it to remove religion from the public arena: “Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in the behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural rights in opposition to his social duties.”

The First Amendment compels government not to eradicate religion from the public arena. If the expression of religious beliefs is an inherent God-designed part of human nature, as the Declaration of Independence proclaimed, then government acting to remove religion from the public sphere would have seemed to Our Founding Fathers to be acting in a manner antithetical to Our Founding Principles.

It is almost as if Justice Black decided the First Amendment was equivalent to the biblical admonition to render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s and unto God what is God’s, under the assumption that a discernible distinction could be made without conflict between what was Caesar’s and what was God’s. The whole point of the First Amendment’s attempt to protect freedom of religion is that over time Caesar tends to intrude upon God.

 

In 1948, the Supreme Court ruled in McCollom v Board of Education, 333 U.S. 203 (1948) that religious education provided by churches on public school grounds in Illinois during the school day was unconstitutional. Then in 1952, in Zorach v Clauson, 343 U.S. 306 (1952), the Supreme Court found that allowing New York students to leave school grounds for religious education was constitutional. Dissenting in Zorach, Justice Black wrote, “I see no significant difference between the invalid Illinois system and that of New York here sustained.” If Justice Black, the author of the court’s majority opinion in Everson, could not distinguish these cases, how could state, county, city or municipal school officials be expected to make the distinction reliably?

 

A Godless public square could not be more antithetical to what Our Founding Fathers thought they were achieving when drafting the First Amendment, and the Courts distort precedent whenever they use the Establishment Clause to crush all things religious Ironically, the very language crafted to protect religious freedom has now reached the point at which Americans can only be assured freedom from religion in all places within this nation, with the possible exceptions of prayer confined to church and free expression of religion confined to the privacy of one’s home.

Jefferson made a poignant remark in Notes on the State of Virginia, which clarifies his thinking: “And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure if we have lost the only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are the gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with His wrath?[Blog Editor’s Emphasis]

 

Why didn’t the Supreme Court choose this text for their ruling? [Blog Editor’s Emphasis] Or his use of “natural rights” in other documents? Justice Clarence Thomas once stated: “… this Court’s nebulous Establishment Clause analyses, turn on little more than “judicial predilections … It should be noted that the extent to which traditional Judeo-Christian religion is removed from the public square and the public schools, it is replaced by other religions, including Secular Humanism, which is specifically recognized as a religion by the Supreme Court.”
In order to combat this assault on religious freedom and religious liberty, to date, twenty-one states have enacted Religious Freedom Restoration Acts since 1993. Currently, ten states [5/4/17 – 9 States] are considering legislation on the topic this year, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures. Virginia amended their state RFRA, but otherwise no states have passed their legislation.
For eight decades, the ACLU has been America’s leading religious censor, waging a largely uncontested war, until recently, against America’s core values, utilizing every fallacy, piece of misinformation and outright LIE imaginable in its war against religious liberty, with the support of much of the current Marxist media; both are intent on destroying traditional America, including the nuclear family. We now live in a country where our traditional Christian and Jewish faith and religion — civilizing forces in any society — are openly mocked and increasingly pushed to the margins, and our weapon to stop them is the Founding Fathers’ own words and their Original Intent regarding the U.S. Constitution.
Ultimately, two very diverse thinkers, Thomas Jefferson and John Adams concluded, that without virtue based on a solid belief in God, Liberty was inevitably lost. In other words, if the Supreme Court, through the efforts of Communists, atheists and fools and ACLU prompting, succeeds in removing the Judeo-Christian God from American public life, a foundation pillar upon which American liberty has depended will have been removed, perhaps irretrievably. Without the open expression of religious freedom so fundamental to American liberty that it is written into the First Amendment of the Bill of Rights, American Liberty will not long persist.

 

Americans cannot and must not allow the Communists and atheists of this nation and the ACLU to secularize America to the point where our tolerance is turned into silencing and punishing religious speech. Life is valuable; marriage is a God-ordained institution between one man and one woman, and families are comprised of a male father and a female mother with any number of children. Any attack against Christianity and Judaism in America using the fallacy of “separation of Church and State” is simply an attempt to further undermine, not only Our U.S. Constitution and Religious Liberty, but Our entire traditional American way of life. Do not accept the Fallacy.

 

By Justin O. Smith

__________________

Edited by John R. Houk

All links and any text embraced by brackets are by the Editor.

 

© Justin O. Smith

 

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

 

At the Expense of Others


Justin Smith explains the original vision of the Founding Fathers’ Inalienable-Natural Rights and Liberty as opposed to the manipulative propaganda of man-made Rights currently being rammed down each American’s throat.

 

JRH 5/13/17

Please Support NCCR

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

At the Expense of Others

 

By Justin O. Smith

Sent 5/13/2017 10:56 AM

 

Any alleged ‘right’ of one man which necessitates the violation of the rights of another is not and cannot be a right.” – Ayn Rand

 

Americans and our society, by and large progressives of both parties and independents, have become a wilting, withering mass of weak, needy cry-babies, who have departed far and away from the strength of back, intellect and character of America’s Founders, who created a system that none other has ever equaled. Rather than follow along the path that made America a strong, economically thriving and prosperous nation, many Americans, especially Millennials, pursue petty and paltry pleasures, as would a sloth and a glutton, and claim their slightest whim to be a “right”.

 

Some things like food, shelter, clothing, water and healthcare are critical to our life, however, they are not “rights”. Even if they were made rights, this would set in motion a confiscatory requirement to satisfy that right at the expense of others, much as America currently chafes against our current welfare system.

 

Just as many of us witnessed Tennessee’s House Democrats release a collection of fifty bills called “The People’s Bill of Rights” in February 2017, more and more, America hears a clamor from their progressive countrymen of all rank and file, for wants and desires to be provided through government funds, the taxpayers’ dollars. Now, not only do many across the nation demand healthcare as a right, they also demand a $15 per hour minimum wage and free university educations among other items.

 

In March, Chris Enloe [The Blaze] reported Senator Kamala Harris’s (D-CA) tweet, which stated: “Healthcare is a right, not a privilege.”

 

My good friend, retired U.S. Army Colonel Kurt Schlicter, editor for Townhall, tweeted back: “Guns are in the Bill of Rights, but they aren’t one (according to Democrats). The right to have one pay for your healthcare is not (in the Bill of Rights), but it’s a right?”

 

In a study published by the Heritage Foundation, Robert Rector and Rachel Sheffield detail in the ranks of America’s contemporary poor, that eighty percent have air-conditioning, fifty percent own a personal computer and can access the internet and two-thirds have cable TV. A household receiving $50,000 in welfare benefits is still considered poor, if its pre-welfare income falls below the poverty line, even though they are living, in many respects, better than the middle class of 1964.

 

According to Rector and Sheffield, our government has spent $22 trillion of U.S. taxpayer dollars fighting poverty, since 1964 and President Johnson’s Great Society. The study also documented and charted $1 trillion spent annually on 90 means-tested welfare programs.

 

Over one hundred years of Marxist propaganda, the kind found in President Woodrow Wilson’s treatise entitled ‘Constitutional Government in the United States’ and President Franklin Roosevelt’s 1944 ‘Second Bill of Rights’, seems to have done its mischief well. Arguing for corrupting the Constitution, Wilson saw it as a vessel to further the progressives’ agenda, while FDR viewed it as a means to assure equality, “economic security” and the pursuit of happiness. Wilson spoke of our rights as “privilege”, and FDR framed them as “political rights”.

 

Our rights are God-given and natural [of interest from Conservapedia:Unalienable rights], and they exist simultaneously among all people. The rights of free speech, freedom of religion, trial by jury, freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures — to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness — are inalienable rights; and, they are not privileges to be granted or rescinded, in the manner some past presidents, Obama included, would transform them. And in the pursuit of “true individual freedom” through “economic security”, Roosevelt and Obama offered the antithesis of the right to one’s own private property.

 

A true right does not impose any obligation on another. One’s rights to free speech, religious liberty, self-defense and assembly. among others, impose no obligations on anyone else, except to allow each other to use these rights without interference.

 

Ayn Rand wrote in 1961 (‘Man’s Rights’) [PDF Version]:

 

If some men are entitled by right to the product of the work of others, it means that those others are deprived of rights and condemned to slave labor.”

 

Even if most Americans are willing to accept the theft of their labor, their wealth, to fund real healthcare, we already know that government is not a trustworthy guardian of such an enormous responsibility. What did America receive under Obamacare, other than $2 trillion more debt, the loss of doctors, a rise in premiums, a massive tax and a welfare law that contained 20 new taxes and a huge expansion of Medicaid? And so far, the Republican plan isn’t much better [American Health Care Act].

 

In the meantime, Americans rename privilege and benefits “their right”, while ignoring their own misguided lifestyle and poor choices. Too many Americans spend more than they save, and too many prefer the government security blanket over the pride of one’s own independence.

 

Some Americans bemoan the public corruption our country is suffering and the associated moral and constitutional crises. However, the country on the whole has failed to promote the values that would have prevented it. Corrupt leaders continue to advocate and implement measures that negatively impact businesses and families, that also limit individual liberty and true free-market capitalism, expanding government in the process.

 

Other Americans have become fanatics for their various causes. They are in the streets ironically, demanding their own demise, as they protest against their own self-determination and for ever more autocracy and authoritarianism. When they vote, they vote to enslave not only their fellow countrymen but themselves, however unwittingly. They accept the collectivization of rights, and soon they will accept the collectivization of property.

 

Friedrich Hayek, author of ‘The Road to Serfdom’ [Mises Institute Description. PDF version], puts this struggle in proper perspective:

 

Economics has from its origins been concerned with how an extended order of human interaction comes into existence through a process of variation, winnowing and sifting far surpassing our capacity to design … motivated by [our] needs and desires within the community.” [Quote from “Fatal Conceit: The Errors of Socialism” – PDF version. The quote can be easily located at Wikiquote; Fatal Conceit; Ch. 1: Between Instinct and Reason]

 

 

Sadly, this trend towards fascism, this malaise, has permeated the ranks of our country’s future leaders, our children, and it has left them with false expectations. Outside family, churches and communities, the marketplace is the vanguard for moral truths in a free market society, and positively influencing the community through clear decent and moral principles, Judeo-Christian principles, improves businesses and betters people’s lives. In asking the next generation to return to a true capitalist value-based society, America’s conservatives ask for something that has not existed in their lifetime, but it is necessary to avoid self-induced destruction, and to ask is righteous.

 

Freedom and moral truths and the strength of men’s will in a free society, unfettered by superfluous regulations, enabled America to succeed. They are the facilitators that fuel innovation, support free-thinkers and encourage people worldwide to become who they choose to be, not who the state demands they must be. When government guarantees equality and “economic security”, it suppresses creativity, ingenuity and reward systems that enable people and nations to grow and prosper. Have Americans learned nothing from history?

 

By Justin O. Smith

________________

Edited by John R. Houk

Linked text outside of brackets are by Justin Smith.

Bracketed links and text are by the Editor.

 

© Justin O. Smith

 

Where I Stand & Social Media


John R. Houk

© April 24, 2017

 

Have you ever been around people who you know you agree with much of what they believe? AND THEN you discover there are one or more issues you disagree with those same people. Indeed, there might be one thing you have an extreme disagreement with.

 

Disagreement is something I have learned to live with in various Social Media locations in which I have joined either due to fascination or perceived agreement.

 

Just so you can peg me, allow me to sum up where I stand. I am a Christian Conservative. There are many elements of Neoconservatism that I concur (America first National Interests, Strong Military, not backing down to threats to the American way of life (which does mean meddling in the domestic issues of foreign nations if those nations are determined to mess with America) and Biblical Moral concepts as highlighted through the lens of the New Testament (which means I am a very strong Social Conservative).

 

Keeping that stand in mind this translates into Big Government is evil domestically yet essential for National Security in foreign relations, I am huge with the rule of law to be viewed via the Original Intent of the U.S. Constitution. I also have a huge distrust of all transformative ideals of the American and global Left (which tends to desire Big Government statism, top-down collectivist despotism, anti-Christian Secular Humanism, a diluted moral society and a basic anti-Capitalist/anti-Free Market economic system. In other words, the Left agenda is representative of EVERYTHING that will degrade and ultimately destroy American Liberty and the Pursuit of individual Happiness.

 

Also, you should be aware I am a huge supporter of Israel being a Jewish State as well as perceiving the theopolitical doctrines of Islam as antithetical to everything American and Christian. This also pegs me as a Christian Zionist and a Counterjihadist. Both concepts are viewed by the Left as either anti-Palestine or an Islamophobic racist.

 

If understanding the only Palestine that ever came close to existing was in ancient history an insult to Jews and in modern history a designation for the Jewish return to a national homeland that have been expelled from over and over. Understandably, the Jewish desire for the return of their homeland might be different than my Christian desire for the Jews to have their homeland returned. My Christian perspective is that the return of Israel is a sign of the return of Jesus Christ (who face it, will come to the Jews first and then the rest of the Christians who believe). Whatever the differentia is between Jewish and Christian goals for the existence of Israel, the end goal is the same.

 

There is one point that too many Christians fail to understand about the Jews. Both religious and secular Jews have a huge reason to mistrust Christians. As non-Jewish Christians began to dominate the faith, some theological rocket scientists … err, I mean Christian intelligentsia, began to teach that ALL Jews are responsible for the death of Jesus Christ. Thus, irrelevant of the Christian leg or denomination (e.g. but not limited to – Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox and Protestant), the moniker of Christ-killers was brainwashed into the minds of Christian adherents. Sadly, some Christian still use the Antisemitic moniker today. I’ll go into the reasons why this moniker is idiotic to perpetuate later.

 

Due to the Christ-killer moniker levelled against Jews, European Christians spent a huge part of their history persecuting Jews that included forced migrations, brutal violence, theft and murder. AND this is the reason present day Jews have a huge distrust of Christian motives. Again sadly, what is left of Middle Eastern Christians have this Christ-killer Jew-hatred still ingrained into their psyche. That is one sad explanation Middle Eastern Christians might display the same hatred of Jews that Jew-hating Muslims are disposed to act out as well.

 

I am a Counterjihadist not just because of Islamic terrorism so prevalent in this day and age, but also because the Quran, Hadith and Sunnah of Islam has Jew-hatred and Christian-hatred actually ingrained in these revered writings. My perspective makes Islam an Antichrist religion. Yup, that bugs me.

 

NOW, if you have come to this post because of Social Media, I am fairly certain there are aspects of where I stand you either agree with or disagree with AND if you are a Leftist you probably disagree with my entire stand.

 

As an American I believe everyone has the Right to disagree without fear of retribution on my part. I mean if I have rattled your cage to a vivid angry emotion, your Liberty enables you to choose not to read my thoughts or dispositions. In contrast my Liberty means I am free not to read another’s disposition. The idiom I like for this Liberty is: “Agree to disagree”.

 

Now here’s the rub of Social Media disagreement for me. I like reading and boning up on Conspiracy Theories. Also, I belong to some Social Media that espouses my Counterjihad thoughts but are a bit too far to the Right for my comfort zone. The unfortunate difficulty I run into from those Social Media Communities is a blatant Antisemitism that blames all Jews for all the ails of the world. I got to tell you, that chaps my hide.

Below is a comment of disagreement one had with my post “Disagreement on Conspiracy Theory Pt 2” at the Google Plus Community Global Info Exchange Our Community!

 

The link to the G+ comment at this site is HERE. The comment there duly chastised me for flirting with Conspiracy Theories informing me they don’t do that community. So now I have to remember to avoid conspiracies at that G+ location. The second comment by Shawn Jones got me into “chaps my hide” mode.

 

In full disclosure, I did perform a spell check on Shawn and my posts at the G+ community. So if you do go to the G+ site for varication you will notice slight variations in both our posts. Indeed, I have a feeling that Shawn might respond with a bit of his/her own chap-hide moment. The reason: Shawn is a person that obviously blames the Jews for all the ills of planet earth.

Shawn Jones

4/22/17

 

what if I told you Jews are behind the term conspiracy theory cause they got tired of people exposing them.
I suppose with a crusader avatar you would attack me? The Christ-killing Jews always hide behind Crusader avatars on Youtube and news outlets.

 

John Houk

4/24/17

 

Actually Shawn, the Jews are probably the longest victims of idiotic Conspiracy Theories. If that is the sense you are thinking then you’d be correct. ALSO, the reality is Jews are not big fans of the Crusader image. The ***Crusaders slaughtered Jews in Jerusalem more than they did Muslims because of the idiotic conspiracy accusation of “Christ-Killers”.

A majority of the Sanhedrin Pharisees and Sadducees set up a crowd crying “Crucify Him” while barring the Jewish believers in Christ’s Messiahship before Pilate. Pilate ordered the scourging and Crucifixion. Romans forced Christ in humiliation down the Via Dolorosa, it was Romans that drove spikes through Christ’s hands and feet and it was a Roman that drove a spear through the side of Jesus to make sure He was dead.

Sounds to me if you want to blame an ancient people in modern times, you might want to look at Italians and not Jews.

But hey, Jesus said on the Cross before He died, “Father, forgive them, they know what they do”. Whoever to blame for Christ’s death is irrelevant. Jesus forgave, meaning the Father forgave. Then Jesus arose bodily from the tomb for ALL who believe to receive forgiveness of sins. Blame is idiotic.

 

+++

***While Writing This I sense the need to justify the Crusader icon I use to any Jewish readers that happen by.

As mentioned above, I am aware of the reason that Jews are offended by a Crusader icon. I have adopted the imagery of a Crusader Knight because it drives Muslims crazy that believe their theopolitical religion is perfect, peaceful and just. As I have already mentioned, the Islamic revered writings not only insult/condemn Jews but also condemn the central beliefs of the Christian faith. Islam condemns:

 

  • That Jesus is the Son of God.

 

  • That Jesus was Crucified.

 

  • That Jesus arose bodily from the tomb.

 

  • That Jesus is both fully human and fully God (essential for Salvation).

 

And these Antichrist issues are just ones I can think of off the top of my head.

I am aware that religious Jews also have a problem Jesus as the Son of God and the bodily Resurrection of Jesus from death to life. Unlike Muslims, Jews will not threaten to hunt me down and lop off my head for my Christian faith. As a Christian I believe religious Jews will accept Jesus as Messiah when the see the Second Coming of this son of David. Again the Second Coming of Jesus probably is not tickling heart of joy for religious Jews before His return. But I look at it this way.

 

Every single Apostles of Jesus (The Twelve) were Jewish. Even the traitor Judas Iscariot. The Apostle Thomas was the last to believe in Jesus’ Resurrection from death to life. WHY?

 

Thomas wanted to see the Resurrected Jesus complete with the scars left by the Crucifixion.

 

John 20: 24-29 NKJV

 

24 Now Thomas, called the Twin, one of the twelve, was not with them when Jesus came. 25 The other disciples therefore said to him, “We have seen the Lord.”

 

So he said to them, “Unless I see in His hands the print of the nails, and put my finger into the print of the nails, and put my hand into His side, I will not believe.”

 

26 And after eight days His disciples were again inside, and Thomas with them. Jesus came, the doors being shut, and stood in the midst, and said, “Peace to you!” 27 Then He said to Thomas, “Reach your finger here, and look at My hands; and reach your hand here, and put it into My side. Do not be unbelieving, but believing.”

 

28 And Thomas answered and said to Him, “My Lord and my God!”

 

29 Jesus said to him, “Thomas,[a] because you have seen Me, you have believed. Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.”

Take note that Jesus was not pleased with Thomas’ disbelief, but simply said bless are who believe without seeing. If one is a Christian, he believes without seeing. At Christ’s Second Coming, it is my belief the Doubting Thomas Jews will believe when they see Him. Jews simply missed out on the blessing because of unbelief. No blessing doesn’t mean a curse. It merely means you missed when you could have had it earlier.

JRH 4/24/17

Please Support NCCR

THE CONSTITUTION vs. THE CONSTITUTIONALIST


constitution-convention

Intro to ‘THE CONSTITUTION vs. THE CONSTITUTIONALIST

Edited by John R. Houk

By J.B. Williams

Posted December 30, 2016

 

I am a great believer in the foundation of the U.S. Constitution. And by foundation, I mean the rough Original Intent (more detail of Originalism) of America’s Founding Fathers that were invested in framing our Republic’s Founding Document.

 

That being said, I am hardly a Constitutional expert. Academically I proceeded only to a Bachelor of Arts in History from a small college in the central part of Washington State (the more Conservative side of the Leftist State and in a day and time when Profs were fairly equal in Liberal and Conservative viewpoints).

 

BUT, I can read the Constitution and The Federalist Papers (the selling point of the Constitution). THIS MEANS lame duck President Barack Hussein Obama – a self-described Constitutional expert – has gone to great lengths to promote the concept of a Living Constitution which essentially tosses out the Original Intent to be replaced with a make-it-up as you go along rule of law to fit whatever Elitist concept of man-law is valid for the day.

 

J.B. Williams has some thoughts on Original Intent that most will agree with and some – including myself – thoughts Originalists might have to think twice about.

 

JRH 12/30/16

Please Support NCCR

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

THE CONSTITUTION vs. THE CONSTITUTIONALIST

 

By J.B. Williams

December 29, 2016

NewsWithViews.com

 

After many years of abusive and tyrannical federal intrusions into state, local and private personal affairs, protected freedoms and liberties, well beyond the constitutional authority granted to the federal government in the U.S. Constitution, it has become necessary to return to our founding principles and values, to restate and enforce the Rule of Constitutional Law in preservation of our once free republic.

 

It has also become socially popular to proclaim the name of constitutionalist, an indication of both knowledge of and reverence for our Charters of Freedom. Yet too many constitutionalists are not even vaguely familiar with the Charters of Freedom, often calling for alterations to our form of self-governance in the name of constitutional conscience, but at odds with constitutional text, wisdom and intent.

 

The Obama Administration has indeed been historic in many ways, first and foremost, the failed but extreme effort to “fundamentally transform” our sovereign Constitutional Republic into a secular socialist member of a criminal global commune. No previous President has ever done so much to destroy the republic or their own political party, Obama having lost the Democratic Party more than 1000 political seats in less than eight years.

 

The 2016 revolt of the people that resulted in the historic election of political outsider Donald J. Trump also resulted in Republicans gaining control of both chambers of Congress, 2/3 of the state governorships and all but 13 of the 50 state legislatures. In short, the Obama era has been disastrous for both the country and his party.

 

Still, even Barack Hussein Obama claims constitutional expertise and reverence, as he works day in and day out to destroy everything the Founders created some 240 years ago. Like many modern lawyers trained in Common Law [noun: common law is the part of English law that is derived from custom and judicial precedent rather than statutes;] instead of Constitutional Law based in Natural Law, experts with a left-leaning agenda may be experts, but use that expertise to undermine and subvert the Rule of Constitutional Law rather than uphold and preserve it. Three great examples of this is demonstrated by the open assault on States’ Rights, the call for congressional term limits and the end of the Electoral College.

 

Because the vast majority of Americans stopped being forever vigilant in self-governance long ago, many now seek what they believe to be shortcut solutions to solve the natural consequences of a society no longer informed or engaged in self-governance. These notions are at odds with both constitutional text and intent.

 

THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE

 

People have referred to the U.S.A. as a “democracy” for far too long. The Founders took great pains to avoid establishing a pure “popular vote” only form of democracy, referred to by our Founders as nothing more than “mob rule.”

 

To assure that the U.S.A. would never be a pure democracy ruled by popular referendum alone, the Electoral College was created to prevent an entire nation from falling under the rule of “the mob” huddled in a handful of high population centers which always lean left politically due to the inherent challenges of inner city life.

 

The 2016 election provides a perfect example of exactly what the Founders had in mind when they established the Electoral College. Of our 50 states in the union, Trump won 30, or 60%. Of our 3142 counties across the country, Trump won 2523 (80.3%) to Clinton 490 (15.6%). Without the Electoral College, Hillary Clinton would have (allegedly) won the 2016 election by popular vote (pure democracy), despite 80.3% of the counties and 60% of the states voting against her.

 

I say “allegedly” because the actual popular vote numbers are horribly tainted by vote fraud and illegal alien votes in places like California. We actually don’t know (and never will know) the real outcome of the legitimate popular vote, which is again, why the Electoral College exists.

 

To eliminate the Electoral College would be to destroy the Founders constitutional guarantee to every state of the union under Section 4 of Article IV, a republican form of government, as opposed to a democracy.

 

So, why do many modern self-proclaimed constitutionalists demand an end to the Electoral College?

 

CONGRESSIONAL TERM LIMITS

 

Many constitutionalists seek a quick fix for a general lack of public oversight of congress by arguing in favor of congressional term limits. Once again, this concept is wholly at odds with constitutional text and intent.

 

To be certain, past alterations in constitutional intent for congress, such as the 17th Amendment which ended states representation in the U.S. Senate by using popular vote instead of state legislatures to elect senators, along with the power of incumbency, has made the concept of term limits look attractive to many.

 

But as is the case with all alterations to the original design and intent, those alterations come at a high price. Some even seek term limits for the U.S. Supreme Court, at risk of great peril. Members of that court or any other can be removed from the court in an instant for anything deemed to be “bad behavior,” which should certainly include failing to uphold and enforce the Supreme Law of this land.

 

The House of Representatives (by congressional district) was originally intended to be the most powerful branch of the federal government, as it was designed to be the branch closest to the people with only two-year terms. Members are term limited to two years of service, unless the people re-elect.

 

The U.S. Senate was originally designed to represent States’ interests only, which is why senators were to be elected by State Legislatures (not popular vote) and each state assigned the same number of senators regardless of population, two per state. The passage of the 17th Amendment eliminated the U.S. Senate as a body representing State interests and essentially eliminate states’ rights in the process. Senators are term limited to six years of service unless reelected.

 

The problem is the people are not forever vigilant. Incumbency has become so powerful not just because of the money available to incumbent’s vs challengers, but because the people tend to reelect repeatedly unless a senator is such a bad actor that they simply must replace them.

 

The downside to additional term limits is that it is not the incumbents being tossed out, but rather the voters. The will of the people is overruled by the clock. No matter how good a member of congress might perform, they are forced to leave when the clock runs out. There are no guarantees that the seat will be filled with someone better suited to the position, just because the clock ran out. In fact, more often than not, we would end up with someone worse, as most decent and honorable people do not seek public office at all.

 

Had the Founders seen a need and benefit to additional term limits, they would have placed them in Article I of the U.S. Constitution. They didn’t… So, why do many constitutionalists seek to alter the Founders design when it comes to term limits?

 

STATES’ RIGHTS

 

The primary rights of every state of the union is to be secure in their independent sovereignty and they are guaranteed a republican form of government, not a democracy.

 

So, when the federal government becomes abusive or destructive of state sovereignty and rights, it is the power of each state to check the federal government and force it back into constitutional boundaries, alter or abolish it altogether.

 

For the past eight years of the Obama regime, many states have sought to check the federal government abuses by numerous means, from State Level 10th Amendment bills like The Balance of Powers Act to individual issue nullification efforts, or even chatter about State Conventions and secession, all of it thwarted by left-leaning politicians and courts seeking to expand federal authority beyond constitutional boundaries via broad interpretations of federal supremacy.

 

Now that Trump will be taking the reins of the federal government on January 21, 2017, even many democrat politicians are suddenly supportive of 10th Amendment protections against federal abuses of power – something they entirely opposed while their dictator-in-chief was in power.

 

But once again, many constitutionalists overlook the power of the 10th Amendment and the states to force the federal government back into constitutional compliance in their efforts to find a quick cure-all for federal tyranny. They know that the federal government was created by and exists at the pleasure of the member states, but fail to look to those states to solve federal abuses and expansions of power.

 

The truth of the matter is that no matter which political party or person is in power at the federal level at any given time, none of them will operate within constitutional boundaries unless forced to do so by the states and the people.

 

The Constitution vs. The Constitutionalists

 

Not everyone who claims the title of constitutionalist is one. Many have never even red the document much less the underpinning for everything in it, Natural Law. Thus, many find themselves working for “unconstitutional” solutions to problems easily remedied within the original constitutional text and intent.

 

Political points of view and related agendas drive the dialogue. People with progressive-leanings interpret constitutional text entirely different than those with libertarian-leanings. Those who think we are a democracy will interpret text entirely different than those who know why we are a republic. The agenda drives the interpretation, instead of the original text and intent driving the agenda.

 

No true constitutionalist believes that the original document can be improved upon with additional alterations. Every real constitutionalist knows that the document has been altered far too much already. The solution is not to alter it further, but rather to unwind some of the past alterations that have served only to undermine the original text and intent.

 

When considering which “constitutionalist” to follow in your political activism, look at who is seeking to further amend the original document vs who is looking to restore and enforce the original text and intent.

 

Despite the human tendency to see ourselves as the smartest person in any room these days, the reality is there is no one alive today who is wiser than the original Founders. There is no one alive today who can improve upon the divinely inspired work of our Founding Fathers.

 

Only someone who understands this is a true constitutionalist!

 

______________

© 2016 JB Williams – All Rights Reserved

Click here to visit NewsWithViews.com home page.

 

JB Williams is a writer on matters of history and American politics with more than 3000 pieces published over a twenty-year span. He is co-author of the just released book – TRUMPED – The New American Revolution – with co-author Timothy Harrington, published by COFBooks.com. He has a decidedly conservative reverence for the Charters of Freedom, the men and women who have paid the price of freedom and liberty for all, and action oriented real-time solutions for modern challenges. He is a Christian, a husband, a father, a researcher, author and writer as well as a small business owner. He is co-founder of action organizations The United States Patriots Union, a civilian parent organization for The Veteran Defenders of America. He is also co-founder of The North American Law Center, a citizen run investigative legal research and activism organization focused upon constitutionally protected Natural Rights under Natural Law. Williams also co-hosts TNALC Radio every Sunday evening at 5:00 PM ET with TNALC Lead Counsel Stephen Pidgeon and he receives mail at: jb.uspu@gmail.com

 

Web site 1: www.PatriotsUnion.org

Web site 2: www.VeteranDefenders.org

Web site 3: www.COFBooks.com

Web site 4: www.TNALC.org

Web site 5: www.patriotvoice.net/TNALC

E-Mail: JB.USPU@gmail.com