USA in Trouble when SCOTUS Ignores Constitution


John R. Houk

© June 26, 2015

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

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

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

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

JRH 6/26/15

Please Support NCCR

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

Degrading OUR Constitution

By Robert G. Smith

Sent: 6/25/2015 11:07 PM

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

PSG [ret.] R. G. Smith

________________________

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

By Ryan Anderson

June 26th, 2015 4:28 pm

SCOTUSblog

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

But today the Court puts a stop to all that.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Further Reading on SCOTUS Homosexual Abomination Marriage

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

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

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

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

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

___________________

USA in Trouble when SCOTUS Ignores Constitution

John R. Houk

© June 26, 2015

___________________________

Degrading OUR Constitution

 

© Robert G. Smith

______________________________

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

 

© 2015 SCOTUSblog

Republican Party’s Fiascos


Justin O. Smith is a frequent contributor to this blog. I tell you this because every once in a while Justin’s Father Robert makes a contribution. This is one of those cases.

Robert Smith has become weary of politicians in Congress NOT making decisions for the good of the citizens (i.e. WE THE PEOPLE) of the United States of America. Robert assumes that Conservatives still have the Founding Fathers’ vision of Liberty and Freedom for Americans whose government is supposed to be “… as the Founding Fathers recognized, to protect people’s inalienable rights to life, liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness.” (The italic text is a quote from: The American Right, the Purpose of Government, and the Future of Liberty; By Craig Biddle; The Objective Standard, Winter 2011, Vol. 6, No. 4.)

President Abraham Lincoln fought a war to preserve the Union of the United States of America to preserve and establish a more perfect union of States in which the role of government, in line with the vision of the Founding Fathers, was pronounced in November 1963 a few months after the Battle of Gettysburg:

We here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain, that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom; and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.” (LINCOLN’S FAMOUS QUOTE AND ITS INSPIRATION [closing words of his Gettysburg Address, delivered on November 19, 1863]; quote/counterquote; 3/2/15)

Robert has correctly surmised that our Congress has forsaken this original vision transforming America from a people oriented Representative Republic into a ruling elite acting government telling people how to live and how to believe that what humanity feels is the best virtue of morality. I surmise Robert’s target of unconstitutional elitists are the Democrats and the GOP Establishment.

JRH 6/23/15

Please Support NCCR

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

Republican Party’s Fiascos

By Robert Smith

Sent: 6/23/2015 5:17 AM

Our Senators and Representatives are sent to Washington by “we the people” to read the bills presented to them. It is then incumbent on them to explain to us, their constituents, and the contents of those bills, along with the reasons that they are either good or bad for our country.

Congress recently passed the Trade Promotion Authority bill, in part, for greater transparency and so we can read it. In other words, do their job and read it for them.

I do not need to read the bill, simply from understanding that it opens an easier path for passing the Trans-Pacific Partnership through a simple majority vote.; I do not need to read bills, such as these, in order to know that they are not in the best interests of our country. All one needs to do is to view the results from the passage of the North American Free Trade Agreement and the ensuing mass exodus of our U S companies to other countries.

Since our Senators and Representatives cannot, or will not, do their jobs, we need to fire them. To rid ourselves of our Representatives is relatively easy, since every two years they seek re-election. With our Senators, it is more complicated, since their terms are for six years and in only 18 states have provisions to recall their Senators. Where does your state stand? Is it one of the 18 or not? If it is not take action ensure that your state will have the ability to recall your Senators.

It is time – it is past time – that we charge the State Legislatures with the task of legislating a procedure that enables us to recall our Senators. If our

Legislators cannot or will not do this they can be replaced in 2016.

I am fed up with the RINOs (Republican – In – Name – Only) that are holding positions in the House of Representatives and the Senate. So, as voters, review their past records and make certain that they are true conservatives before casting your vote for any one.

Today in a large part, many of our country’s problems stem from the people who are far too willing to take the words of liars or idiots or both; it is time for us to throw the liars and idiots out of office.

In all of my 89 years I have never seen so much apathy in the voters. It is as though they do not care about our country’s current condition and sad state of affairs. For the people who still love the USA, vote conservative and ensure the person you vote for is a true conservative.

PSG [ret] R. G. Smith

___________________________

Edited by John R. Houk

 

© Robert G. Smith

Robert Smith Thoughts


Robert Smith takes on the issue of forcing the Boy Scouts of America to abandon its Christian morality which followed by the issue racism afflicting both White Americans and African Americans. Both are great food for thought.

JRH 6/3/15

Please Support NCCR

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

Robert Smith Thoughts

Posted June 3, 2015

 

The Scout Oath

Robert G. Smith

Sent: 5/23/2015 7:28 PM

Updated: 5/26/2015 4:55 PM

In recent days the Director of The Boy Scouts of America, the former Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, has determined that homosexuals must be allowed to become scouts.

As a former scout I know the oath that each scout must take on becoming a scout.

The oath: On my honor I will do my best to do my duty to GOD and my country. To obey the scout laws. To help other people at all times. To keep myself physically strong, mentally awake and MORALLY STRAIGHT.

[Blog Editor: Apparently Gates is pursuing the long term Obama agenda of transforming America into an immoral Left Wing paradigm.]

Homosexuality is a perversion and committing of immoral acts that are condemned by the Christian and Jewish faiths.

It should not be allowed to taint an honorable institution like The Boy Scouts of America. This sort of advocacy and advancement for immoral lifestyles to be inserted into heretofore morally guided and largely Christian institutions and organizations must be stopped. It is tearing down the fabric of our society.

+++++++++++

Racism

Robert G. Smith

Sent: Mon 6/1/2015 11:37 PM

A belief that some races are by nature superior to others has been with us since the different races began to intermingle.

Prior to that it was tribalism. An example are the Native Americans. Until the white man landed in America they only had seen others of their own race but were constantly at war with other tribes.

Racism is for those with lesser intellects and those with a need to be superior to other human beings. You will find racists in every color, white, black, red, yellow, and brown. I am sure if there were striped and polka dot [people] there would be racists among them.

I have served in three wars, two of them as a combat infantryman and I have seen many wounded and dead of all colors. The thing I noticed most all of them [is that they] bleed the same color.

I have met many racists and most of them had several things in common, a lack of common sense and intelligence. They also had a sense of superiority and the need to prove it and the need to be right in all things at all times.

Here in our country the largest showing of racism is between the blacks and whites.

There are however many blacks and whites who are endeavoring to end the racial divide and to help the races live together in peace and harmony. There are also those, both black and white, who keep agitating each other causing racial turmoil.

I will first name some of those who are trying to end the strife between the races that will allow us to coexist in a peaceful and friendly manner.

Some who are working toward those goals to name a few – Allen West, Dr. Carol Swain, Deneen Borelli, David Webb, Kelly Wright, Bill O’Reilly, Laura Ingraham, Niger Innis, A. B. Stoddard, Harris Faulkner, Sean Hannity, Ben Carson, Alveda King, Herman Cain, Sheriff David Clark, and the list goes on.

Some of those who are continually agitating and race baiting are, Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, Michelle Obama, Barack Obama, Louis Farrakhan, Jeremiah Wright, Eric Holder, Rahm Emanuel and sundry others that make a living from it.

And yes black lives matter as the lives of any other race. However if you put yourself in a confrontational [posture] with law enforcement officers you are putting yourself in danger.

We know there are racists in all positions of authority. These people must be confronted and eliminated from the organizations they represent. All Americans of all races must take a stand to eliminate where ever it exists. Then and only then will we have conquered the ugly existence of racism.

PSG [ret] R. G. Smith

Global Warming


Global Trend - Climate just fine

Intro to Global Warming

By Robert G. Smith

Edited by John R. Houk

Posted 4/7/15

 

Global Warming or Climate Change denial is a path villainized by the Left. The reality is there are now just as many if not more science guys who take the denier tact because they believe the changing climate has more to do with climate cycles than manmade contamination of the earth’s environment.

 

Indeed, when one reads the stats from Climate alarmist purporting that a majority of mainline scientists believe a manmade Climate catastrophe will occur unless those causes are dealt with are based on highly flawed surveys and flawed investigations scientific peer papers about the subject.

 

The Myth of the Climate Change ‘97%’

What is the origin of the false belief—constantly repeated—that almost all scientists agree about global warming?

 

 

Yet the assertion that 97% of scientists believe that climate change is a man-made, urgent problem is a fiction. The so-called consensus comes from a handful of surveys and abstract-counting exercises that have been contradicted by more reliable research.

 

 

Of the various petitions on global warming circulated for signatures by scientists, the one by the Petition Project, a group of physicists and physical chemists based in La Jolla, Calif., has by far the most signatures—more than 31,000 (more than 9,000 with a Ph.D.). It was most recently published in 2009, and most signers were added or reaffirmed since 2007. The petition states that “there is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of . . . carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate.”

 

We could go on, but the larger point is plain. There is no basis for the claim that 97% of scientists believe that man-made climate change is a dangerous problem. READ ENTIRE ARTICLE (The Myth of the Climate Change ‘97%‘; By JOSEPH BAST and ROY SPENCER; Wall Street Journal; 5/26/15)

 

 So when Robert Smith writes about the hoax of Climate Change/Global Warming, he is not just repeating Conspiracy Theories about Climate Denial.

 

See Also:

 

·         Global warming is a big fat lie and the science behind it is fake: John Coleman Tech Times 10/25/14 7:19 AM

 

·         The fiddling with temperature data is the biggest science scandal everThe Telegraph 2/7/15 10:15 PM GMT

 

·         Top 10 Global Warming Lies That May Shock YouForbes.com 2/9/15 6:21 AM

 

JRH 4/7/15

Please Support NCCR

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

Global Warming

 

By Robert G. Smith

Sent: 4/5/2015 11:11 PM

 

I continue to hear the fear mongers rhetoric concerning climate change and what we can do to keep us from being harmed. Some of these people do have our welfare in their hearts but there are others that have nothing but the almighty dollar in their minds.

 

Climate change is, in most cases, due to natural phenomenon and cannot be controlled by us. The only things we can control is the solid waste we produce in our every living and the carbon monoxide produced by our internal combustion engines.

 

So called “greenhouse gases” are a natural occurrence. They are nothing more than carbon dioxide, without which there would be no oxygen. The overabundance of carbon dioxide can be lessened by reforestation and controlled lumbering in the rain forests.

 

In the, guesstimated, four, plus, billion years of Mother Earth’s existence there have been millions of climate changes. During this period there have been thousands of magnetic pole changes. These have caused catastrophic climate changes, resulting in the extinction of many plants and animals. There have also been millions of other climate changes varying in intensity, and in most cases causing many changes in the flora and fauna existing at those times.

 

There is little we can do to control climate but some people, like our former Vice President Al Gore, have made billions of dollars and created hardships for us by using the EPA ” Environmental Protection Agency”, to ban or restrict the use of certain commodities, such as coal and prevented the drilling for petroleum products, the building of pipelines to transport them, and mandating the emissions testing of internal combustion engines.

 

Most of the things I have mentioned do little to change the environment and cost you and me dollars that are sometimes hard to come by, to comply with the edicts of the controlling agencies.

 

It is time to take a stand against these intrusions into our lives and wallets.

 

Call your senators and representatives.

 

PSG [ret] R.G. Smith

_______________________________

Edited by John R. Houk

 

© Robert G. Smith

 

Our Unfunded War with Islam


Crusades 2.0 - Liberating from Islam

Robert Smith makes a good case for Americans to understand that ‘We the People’ are at war with the theopolitical religion known as Islam or at best with nations that perpetuate that Islam will dominate the world ending Western Liberty (especially in the USA) with Jew-hating and antichrist Islam aka the religion of violence.

 

The only thing I am not sure that I agree with Robert is the concept of returning a mandatory Draft program for Americans to serve the maintenance of our Constitution. The all voluntary military service in all branches was quite successful prior to the decimation and the inculcation of bad morale in all the Branches.

 

America must find the special funding to maintain the voluntary military in a state of preparation for our National Security. If a full scale ware breaks out, only then would I be in favor of the return of the Mandatory Draft. If that full scale war includes nuclear WMD the reasons for a Draft will be rendered irrelevant. The only purpose for a military will be in the mop-up if there is a survival after a nuclear exchange.

 

Off the subject a bit: If Obama’s appeasement strategy of a bad Iran nuke deal leads to a nuclear armed Iran, because of the nature of the theopolitical Islamic Shia-Twelver messianic-Mahdi beliefs of the return of a 12th hidden Iman – a nuclear war will be forthcoming. To understand my point consider HERE, HERE and HERE.

 

JRH 4/3/15

Please Support NCCR

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

Our Unfunded War with Islam

 

By Robert G. Smith

Sent: 4/1/2015 11:26 PM

 

We are quite probably in the latter days. Read your Bible. There will be war and rumors of war, (Matthew 24:06).

 

We are now at war with Islam, although no one wants to admit it. The well-meaning people are saying give moderate Islam a chance to find peace. Because there are no such things as “moderate”. And “radical” Islamists are one and the same [as “moderates” – See HERE] with but one goal, to dominate all the world and make it all Muslim [HERE and HERE].

 

I know a great many of you do agree with this, but the truth is no farther than your nearest library. Research Islam and the manner in which it has decreed all Muslims must treat Christians and Jews and all other religions [HERE, HERE and HERE], if this does not awaken you nothing will.

 

I am beyond the age and physical ability to engage the enemy in the manner that must be prescribed and implemented, but after serving in three wars, I do know it must be done.

 

The atrocities that are being committed in the names of allah and Mohamed cannot be allowed to continue.

 

Our armed forces are at their lowest since WW1, having been decimated by Obama and the Democrats.

 

In my wildest dreams I never thought I would agree with Rep. Charles Rangel [D-NY]. However I find some of his recent statements, regarding a tax for the sole use of our military and reinstating the draft, are things I wholeheartedly support.

 

We cannot afford any more unfunded wars, our national debt will not allow it. As for the draft, every able-bodied male over the age of 18 needs to realize he owes a debt to our country for the freedom he enjoys.

 

The lack of patriotism that has occurred over the last three decades resulted from the knowledge they were not going to be called to serve our country and the fact our schools teach little or nothing about what it has taken to keep our country free, and no longer does the pledge of allegiance start the school day.

 

Someone must accept the challenge to protect our liberty and the principles upon which this great country of ours was built.

 

This challenge will fall upon my children, your children, our children’s children etc., but [the challenge must] be met if we are to retain our freedom.

 

PSG [ret] R.G. Smith

______________________________

Edited by John R. Houk

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

 

© Robert G. Smith

 

Usurpation of our Constitution


Obama-Leftists Destroying Constitution

Robert Smith writes about America’s Left eroding the U.S. Constitution.

 

JRH 3/31/15

Please Support NCCR

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

Usurpation of our Constitution

 

By Robert G. Smith

Sent 3/30/2015 9:40 AM

 

From the lowest city official to the top office in our country, our Constitution is being usurped~~ Yes even in the Supreme Court.

 

Our Chief Justice, John Roberts has taken on a role [overstepping the] House of Representatives and ruled that a law [Obamacare] was a tax even though there was no tax mentioned in the law. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg advised the Egyptian parliament not to use our Constitution as a model as it is out dated, even though it has served us well for 224 years and is as suitable now as it was at its inception. Justice Elena Kagan actively advocates the use of Shariah Law in our Constitution. They both should be impeached.

 

Eric Holder’s Justice Department, with full knowledge of President Barak Obama, refuses to enforce the laws he is obligated to enforce under our Constitution.

 

The President has, by executive order, made recess appointments to posts that require congressional [approval] even though Congress was not in recess but on holiday closure.

 

He has endeavored to put disclaimers in the Second Amendment even though there are none [See HERE and HERE]. He has called the Benghazi, the IRS, and NSA problems, phony scandals but has done nothing to enlighten the American people as to what occurred.

 

New Jersey is attempting to pass a law that would allow police officers to seize your cellphone and examine the contents- a violation of the fourth and fifth amendments of our Constitution. [See HERE, HERE, HERE and HERE]   

 

Local governments are using medical information against patients- again a violation of the fourth and fifth amendments. And medical ethics concerning releasing your medical information without your acquiescence. [Blog Editor: In full disclosure I can’t place my finger on recent media coverage in which “local governments” used “medical information against patients” pertaining to a Constitutional issue. In act of pure speculation perhaps Robert Smith is referring to HERE, HERE and/or HERE)

 

These are but a few examples of the misuse of our Constitutional rights.

 

Don’t you think it is time to take a serious stand against a serious problem and put a stop to the usurpation of OUR CONSTITUTION?

 

By PSG [ret] R.G. Smith

____________________________

Edited by John R. Houk

All links and all content enclosed by brackets are by the Editor.

 

© Robert G. Smith

 

Ted Cruz, Chris Matthews and McCarthyism


John R. Houk
(with hat tip to Robert Smith)
© March 27, 2015
 
 
 
Published on Jan 6, 2015
 
 
Robert Smith sent a submission that isn’t really long enough for a stand-alone post, but Robert’s point should be taken into consideration. This is the email that Robert sent on 3/24/15:
 
Today, 3-24-15, Chris Matthews, MSNBC, accused Senator Ted Cruz of being another Joe McCarthy.
 
Matthews intended this accusation to be derogatory to Senator Cruz, however looking back at history this remark could be considered praise of the highest order for Senator Cruz.
 
The 1995 declassification of the Venona Files absolutely vindicated Senator Joe McCarthy of any wrong doing and it is a historical fact that every one of those named by Senator McCarthy were indeed either a communist or a communist sympathizer. Not one time was he found to be in error.
 
When someone says “McCarthyism” to me in a derogatory manner I know they are liberal leftists or know very little about the history of our country.
 
I don’t know what they’re teaching in schools today about Senator Joe McCarthy but I suspect it is still pejorative misinformation. I was a child in the 1960s and a teen most of the 1970s. Education in Public School and in my college experience was still treating Joe McCarthy as a pariah. Television documentaries and biographies of McCarthy portrayed as a monster who ruined peoples’ lives with false accusations as a Communist in the 1950s.
 
The reality is Senator Joe McCarthy was actually validly exposing Soviet Communist infiltration in our American government and classified sensitive civilian work. The only place Senator McCarthy was out of line with was in going after entertainment and journalistic media individuals as Communists. The political climate of the 1950s and early 1960s was the fear of a Soviet Russian threat of nuclear war aimed at ridding American citizens of their Constitutional Rights and even their lives via a nuclear holocaust. I mean remember as a kid practicing drills for nuclear attacks with instructions to hide under our classroom desks (as if that would have provided any protection from aFallout Shelter Signs nuclear blast and ensuing radiation fallout). In the small town I grew up in I even recall building with yellow signs indicating Fallout Shelters in case of a nuke attack. All those ineffective drills and practices have ended long ago.
 
There was an authentic fear of nuclear destruction among Joe-American citizens in the 1950s and 1960s. AND Americans were fully aware those nuclear threats emanated primarily from the Communist Union of Soviet Socialists Republics (USSR – Russian Federation today). So if you were an American that were deluded enough to believe a totalitarian Communist State would better humanity into a humanist utopia non-existent of religion, devoid of military conflict, no ownership and NO individual Rights for decision making or choices of a life path; THEN you would not be a popular person in your neighborhood or community.
 
Ergo when citizens exercised their First Amendment to be a political and social moron by placing stock into Communist ideology were ostracized from their Middle Class and Upper Middle Class jobs. ON THE OTHER HAND those were the days Soviet Communists were actually recruiting “Fellow Travellers” to inspire the concept of a proletariat revolution to overthrow the U.S. Constitution and replacing with it the false humanist visions of Karl Marx, Vladimir Lenin and Joseph Stalin. The Communist future utopia was a lie in the past and it still is a lie. It is too bad America’s entertainment media and journalistic Mainstream Media have romanticized Marxism under various deceitful names (e.g. Progressivism) so much no one is concerned that another Bill Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn (friends of President Barack Hussein Obama) could be your agitating neighbor next door.
 
Senator McCarthy had the cajones to expose Soviet Communism in the U.S. government. Here is an example of Venona Files revelations that show McCarthy was vigilantly more correct than a delusional paranoid loon:
 
To give you an idea of how serious [the] Soviet infiltration [was] check out this 1995 article from the Baltimore Sun:
 
An aggressive Soviet spy network penetrated a key strategy meeting between President Franklin D. Roosevelt and British Prime Minister Winston Churchill during World War II and tried to recruit friends of first lady Eleanor Roosevelt, according to decoded Soviet messages released yesterday by the National Security Agency.
 
NSA declassified 250 messages sent between Moscow and the Soviet spy headquarters in New York in 1942 and 1943.
 
They confirm that a number of wartime American intelligence agents were secretly working for the Kremlin.
 
The messages from the so-called “Venona” project document the tireless efforts of Soviet leader Josef Stalin to recruit agents across the United States and Mexico.
 
 
But from the timing, NSA historians concluded that the still-unidentified “19” was a high-level agent who had penetrated Roosevelt’s inner circle and attended at least part of the two-week conference in Washington and Williamsburg, Va., code-named Trident, a major strategy meeting.
 
 
The 250 messages are the second of a series of planned releases of the cables intercepted between 1942 and 1946 and decoded and analyzed over many years under the American code name Venona. (Standing with Sources and more FDR Criticism – PT 3; By John R. Houk; SlantRight 2.0; 8/20/14)
 
And a book review from Bernie Reeves of M. Stanton Evans’ McCarthy biography entitled “Blacklisted by History: The Untold Story of Senator Joe McCarthy and His Fight Against America’s Enemies” talks about validating the McCarthy quest to stifle out Communism:
 
In 1995, the NSA and CIA turned the wheel of history toward the truth by declassifying the Venona files, intercepted messages from Moscow to their American agents from 1942 until 1964. And lo and behold there they are: Julius and Ethel Rosenberg, Alger Hiss, Harry Dexter White, Lachlan Currie and hundreds of other American Soviet agents working for the US government – code names and all. Not only were these alleged victims guilty, they and their apologists made fools of us all. Yet, what followed in the national press after Venona was resounding silence.

After Venona sank in, despite violent opposition by the usual suspects, some of the more rational members of the intellectual Left – such as the venerated historian Arthur Schlesinger, Jr. – opined that McCarthy may have been right after all, but he was a bad person and he did great harm to innocent people. Then it was back to the same shopworn clichés, such as “McCarthy didn’t uncover one communist.” Actually, according to Venona, he was way short in his estimations, but the anti-McCarthy propaganda machinery churned on to be sure history goes their way. …

 
Final Verdict

And that’s where things stood until November 2007 with the publication of Blacklisted by M. Stanton Evans, columnist, editor and former director of the National Journalism Center in Washington, DC. Drawing on previously classified FBI and governmental files – and new information available from Venona – Evans upends the McCarthy myth and turns the tables on the real guilty parties: Presidents Truman and Eisenhower; a majority of Congress; heads of several government agencies; lawyer Joseph Welch … (Let’s Call it GOOD McCarthyism for a Good America; By John R. Houk; SlantRight 2.0; 4/15/14)

 
Joe McCarthy - Told-U-So
 
SO now you can I understand that I completely agree with Robert Smith on the false flag vilification of Senator Joe McCarthy and to comprehend just how much of a deluded Leftist Chris Matthews is for trying to throw mud on Senator Ted Cruz because of his Conservative principles.
 
To get an idea of Matthews Leftist rant against Senator Cruz read this from Moonbattery:
 
Peter King isn’t the only moonbat to validate Ted Cruz’s candidacy with an unhinged denunciation that among sensible people serves as an endorsement. Chris “Tweety” Matthews lets loose:
 
“This guy [Senator Ted Cruz] goes pretty far. I think he fits in the tradition of Father Coughlin and [Joe] McCarthy and, of course, maybe to a lesser extent, Pat Buchanan and, of course, [Bill] O’Reilly. These guys are hard right-wing guys. They look a lot a like. They have that, we call the Black Irish look to them. They don’t smile much.” (Chris Matthews Denounces Ted Cruz for Looking Irish and Not Smiling; By Dave Blount; Moonbattery; 3/25/15)
 
David Rutz writing for the Washington Free Beacon made these observation about Chris Matthews’ unhinged dislike for Senator Cruz:
 
MSNBC host Chris Matthews is incredibly proud of his negative comparison of Sen. Ted Cruz (R., Texas) to former Sen. Joseph McCarthy (R., Wis.), who rose to prominence in the 1950s for his staunch anti-Communism and controversial methods of political attacks.
 
So much so that Matthews has made that direct attack at least 31 times on his MSNBC program, Hardball.
 
It’s the place for politics–or more accurately, the place for Matthews to flip out about Cruz whenever he does something like say Chuck Hagel would make a poor Defense Secretary (McCarthyism!), opposing executive order amnesty (McCarthyism!) or questioning President Obama’s allegiance to Israel (McCarthyism!).
 
In fact, Matthews, who supposedly opposes judging people for what they look like given his very strong anti-racist credentials, is fond of pointing out Cruz even resembles McCarthy, showing a side-by-side graphic of them during their Senate tenures.
 
“Ted Cruz reminds me of this guy!” he yelled at one picture.
 
Actually, he constantly says Cruz reminds him of McCarthy, and he’s made such pronouncements as “Joe McCarthy imitator,” “not since Joe McCarthy have we seen a senator with such sinister self-assuredness,” and “there are echoes of Joe McCarthy there.”
 
 
I am with Robert Smith in his email: Matthews called Senator Cruz a McCarthyist as a point of derogatory derision. I suspect Matthews has been so indoctrinated with Leftist hatred that he actually felt he was insulting Senator Cruz’s integrity. Senator Cruz should address Chris Matthews one day and give him a heartfelt thank you and a knowing smile. That would undoubtedly chap the Leftist’s hide.
 
Chris Matthews scowling
Chris Matthews Leftist Loon
 
JRH 3/27/15

Please Support NCCR

Murder


Abortion Indoctrination- Anti-Woman, Anti-Human & Ant9-Christ

 

Personhood is the cultural and legal recognition of the equal and unalienable rights of human beings.

 

“Nothing is unchangeable but the inherent and unalienable rights of man.”Thomas Jefferson

 

When the term “person” is applied to a particular class of human beings, it is an affirmation of their individual rights. In other words, to be a person is to be protected by a series of God-given rights and constitutional guarantees such as life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. (What is Personhood? Personhood USA; Copyright 2013. © All Rights reserved.)

 

Abortion is infanticide and infanticide is murder.

 

Robert Smith writes about this kind of murder.

 

JRH 3/23/15

Please Support NCCR

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

Murder

 

By Robert G. Smith

Sent: 3/22/2015 8:09 PM

 

Murder, in criminal law, is the unjustified killing of one person by another, usually distinguished from man-slaughter by the element of malice aforethought.

 

Most states distinguish between murder in the first degree and murder in the second degree with capital punishment limited to crimes of clear intent.

 

If I as a citizen of the United States have some person threatening my life style, through no fault of their own, and I, after much planning and deliberation, kill that person to rid myself of the threat,  have committed murder in the first degree.

 

In all probability, after a trial by a jury of my peers, I will receive a sentence, which could be life imprisonment or even death.

 

It has been determined by scientists and the Supreme Court that life begins at conception.

 

So we now come to abortion!!

 

Abortion- an induced expulsion of a fetus accompanied by or followed by the death of the fetus.

 

When a woman finds she is pregnant, it is definitely a threat to her life style.

 

She now has two options, she can carry the child inside her to term or she can have an abortion.

 

It does not take a scholar or a genius to know that an abortion takes a great deal of thought and planning.

 

So the question arises, has the woman that opts to have an abortion committed a premeditated [first-degree] murder?

 

Has the doctor that preformed the killing of an innocent child committed first-degree murder?

 

What do you think?

 

By PSG [ret] R.G. Smith

____________________________

Edited by John R. Houk

 

© Robert G. Smith

HONOR


Drew Johnson

Drew Johnson
 
Intro to R. Smith’s ‘Honor’
Edited by John R. Houk
March 17, 2015
 
Robert Smith writes about the lack of honor exhibited by media journalists these days. Media publishers appear to be more concerned about political correctness and angering Liberals (aka Leftists, Progressives, and Libtards and so on depending on the degree of annoyance) than integrity in reporting accurate news.
 
Robert uses Tony Snow as an example of Press integrity.
 
Then Robert uses Drew Johnson as an example of a journalist who wrote an accurate picture (Original Title: “Take Your Jobs Plan and Shove it, Mr. President” and Re-Edited title: “President Obama’s policies have harmed Chattanooga enough”) of one President Barack Hussein Obama’s job policies that followed with the consequence of being fired by the Chattanooga Times Free Press.
 
If you Google “Drew Johnson: Take Your Jobs and Shove it, Mr. President,” you will discover Leftist websites such as Daily Kos expressed gratification that Johnson was fired because the Editorial was offensive. The thing is there is ZERO content one finds offensive in the piece unless you are a moron that gets offended for criticizing the Obamasiah. Even the title that upset Johnson’s bosses has no offensive wording in it – again – unless you are an Obamasiah Leftist.
 
Drew Johnson goes public with his side:
 
 
Published by newschannelnine
Published on Aug 1, 2013
 
 
Published by AmericanIdeology
Published on Aug 31, 2013
 
The full disclosure rebuttal by the Chattanooga Times Free Press: “Times Free Press responds to inaccuracies in coverage of Drew Johnson firing”.
 
If you read the above link you will discern someone is lying. Since I am a Conservative knowing that Leftists lie at worst or deceptively twist facts at best, it is my opinion that Johnson’s former employers are lying.
 
Read “Journalist Fired for Negative Obama Editorial” by Michael Lotfi at BenSwann.com.
 
JRH 3/17/15

Please Support NCCR

***************************
HONOR
 
By Robert Smith
Sent: 3/15/2015 11:20 PM
 
The American public has little chance of getting an honest report on any news subject of political importance unless they have access to cable news, and some of them are questionable.
 
What is wrong? It is a matter of honor and integrity.
 
This calls to mind a press secretary for President George W. Bush, Tony Snow.
 
When he took the position as presidential press secretary he said, this may not be verbatim but relays the message he sent to the nation and members of the press.
 
The statement he made “I will not sacrifice my honor and integrity for anyone or for any reason.”
 
He was a true gentleman and possibly the best press secretary to serve any president. How many such as he are left in the fourth estate?
 
I know there are some, Drew Johnson, opinion editor for the Chattanooga Times was terminated for giving a true assessment of President Barak Obama’ speech concerning his job program .Just doing his job got him fired,
 
Is this the problem in the liberal media? Are they sacrificing their honor and integrity in order to protect their employment?
 
A true journalist reports the news in a factual, no embellishments or distracting manners, unafraid of any consequences and in all cases keeping their honor and integrity intact.
 
Will we ever see this again?
 
PSG [ret] R.G. Smith
 
______________________________
Edited by John R. Houk
 
© Robert G. Smith
 

Opinions


Opinion of Opinions toon

Robert Smith has a short and sweet opinion about sharing points of view. Indeed Robert’s opinion is almost too short to post independently; however the nuggets of wisdom are so valid I feel the necessity to post. So, read and enjoy and comment your thoughts.

 

JRH 3/7/15

Please Support NCCR

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

Opinions

 

By Robert Smith

Sent: 3/7/2015 8:15 AM

 

In this era, when censorship seems to be making a comeback, I feel it is more important than ever, that all sides of any debate on any issue be heard.

Opinions are the thoughts, views and ideas that we all hold, and they vary in a great many ways; possibly the most controversial opinions concern politics and religion.

Some of us endeavor to share our opinions with others, which is usually an attempt to get them to agree with us, or to inspire debate with those people who hold opposing views, in an attempt to change their minds and have them accept a better solution for any particular issue being debated.

Most of us are of the mind that our opinions have merit and valid points, and we express these views through conversations with our friends and neighbors and other people we may encounter daily. However, the best vehicle for presenting our views to the public is the media, such as talk shows and the hosts, who have their own agendas; many hosts will only present your views if those views are in agreement with theirs. There are also the Op-Ed sections of magazines and newspapers, which also have an agenda.

These talk shows, magazines and newspapers are business oriented and dependent on advertisement sales, and all too often they fear that if they print a subject that is highly controversial, the public will think that they are in agreement with that particular viewpoint. They are mainly worried that those in opposition to the viewpoint presented in any article may quit purchasing their product. This may be true in some cases, but most readers of most Op-Ed sections are broad minded and read the Op-Ed sections to learn what others are thinking; and good debates inspire interest and increase advertisement sales and product sales. So, in the interest of inspiring more lively debates and increasing sales, print all opinions, with no regard to how controversial they are!

 

 

PSG [ret] R.G. Smith

________________________________

Edited by John R. Houk

 

© Robert G. Smith