PA Judge McCullough – PA Election UNCONSTITUTIONAL


John R. Houk, Blog Editor

November 28, 2020

State Pennsylvania Appellate Judge by title, Commonwealth Court Judge Patricia McCullough, ruled the Pennsylvania Election UNCONSTITUTIONAL late last night! Now the gal is a Republican and of the Dem-Marxist Pennsylvania Governor Tom Wolf will most likely appeal to Dem controlled State Supreme Court AND THEN again ends up at SCOTUS. Keep in mind SCOTUS lacking a full panel failed the Constitution with a 4 to 4 tie (Chief Justice John Roberts joined the Left!) essentially sending back to PA State Supreme Court. BUT NOW the Supreme Court has a full panel and it is expected Justice Amy Coney Barrett will join the four Constitution-minded Justices and spank criminal Dem-led Courts. That’s 5 to 4 the Constitution and President Trump vindicated.

I am starting with the quite descriptive analysis Dr. Steve Turley provided in a Saturday podcast I found on Youtube. Since Youtube censorship is quite possible I am also cross posting two other websites that view the significance of PA State Judge Patricia McCullough.

JRH 11/28/20

Your generosity is needed – various credit, check 

& debit cards are accepted by my PayPal account: 

Please Support NCCR

Or support by getting in the Coffee from home business – 

OR just buy some FEEL GOOD coffee, that includes immune boosting products. Big Tech Censorship is pervasive – Share voluminously on all social media platforms!

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

VIDEO: BREAKING! PA Judge Rules Election UNCONSTITUTIONAL! Effectively Gives State to TRUMP!!!

 Posted by Dr. Steve Turley

711K subscribers – Nov 28, 2020

Get Your Back Up Solar Bank Now and Be Prepared! Click Here! http://www.backupsolarbank.com

Get 30% OFF W/ Promo Code “turley30”!

———————————————————

★★★ A NEW CONSERVATIVE AGE IS RISING ★★★

A PA judge has basically handed the state to Trump! That’s what we’re going to talk about in this special livestream; a PA judge has basically handed the state to Trump! This may indeed be the first domino to fall here; if PA falls to Trump, every single contested state will fall in line as well, that includes AZ and NV! This is absolutely HUGE!

MORE TO READ

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

BREAKING: PA Judge Patricia McCullough Rules Election Likely “Unconstitutional”…Gives PA State Legislators Power To Choose Electors

 

By Patty McMurray 

Nov 28, 2020

100PERCENTFeDUp

On Tuesday, the Democratic Party’s mainstream media was giddy over the news that Pennsylvania would certify their state’s November election results. But on Thursday, in a surprising development, Commonwealth Judge Patricia McCullough ordered the state to not take any further steps to complete the certification of the presidential race.  She also blocked the certification of all the other election results.

Commonwealth Judge Patricia McCullough circled

Robert Barnes of Barnes Law was first to break the news with a link to the opinion of Judge Patricia McCullough via Mark Levin. Now, in another surprising move, the PA Trial Court has ruled the 2020 election was likely unconstitutional in PA and that gives the state legislators the power to choose electors.

PA Judge Patricia A. McCullough has ruled that Pennsylvania’s preliminary election certification injunction was properly issued and should be upheld, stating in her opinion, “Petitioners appear to have established a likelihood to succeed.”

The petitioners in the case are Mike Kelly, Sean Parnell, Thomas A. Frank, Nancy Kierzek, Derek Magee, Robin Sauter, Michael Kincaid, and Wanda Logan.

Legal Insurrection – A Pennsylvania state court judge has issued a preliminary injunction preventing Pennsylvania from taking any further steps to perfect its certification of the election, including but not limited to appointment of electors and transmission of necessary paperwork to the Electoral College, pending further court hearings and rulings. The ruling upholds an injunction from earlier in the week and is significant because of the findings made in the Opinion released tonight.

The case has been somewhat under the radar because it doesn’t involve claims of fraud. It appears to be a pretty straight legal argument. This is not the federal court case that has received a lot of press attention and in which the Third Circuit Court of Appeals denied relief.

The issue, in this case, is whether legislative expansion of absentee balloting to broad mail-in balloting violated the Pennsylvania Constitution. It’s not clear what the relief would be; the petitioners seek to preclude the Secretary of State from transmitting the certification or otherwise perfecting the electoral college selections.

The Judge issued this Opinion to extend that halt pending further hearings, and to set forth the basis for the injunction, which could be relevant to the appeal:

Additionally, Petitioners appear to have established a likelihood to succeed on the merits because Petitioners have asserted the Constitution does not provide a mechanism for the legislature to allow for expansion of absentee voting without a constitutional amendment. Petitioners appear to have a viable claim that the mail-in ballot procedures set forth in Act 77 contravene Pa. Const. Article VII Section 14 as the plain language of that constitutional provision is at odds with the mail-in provisions of Act 77. Since this presents an issue of law which has already been thoroughly briefed by the parties, this Court can state that Petitioners have a likelihood of success on the merits of its Pennsylvania Constitutional claim.

The Judge found, among other things, that the plaintiffs were likely to prevail on their PA constitutional claims, and that the matter was not moot even though PA had “certified” the results, because there were more steps to be taken [emphasis added].

Judge McCullough concluded: This is not a final ruling on the merits. It’s meant to prevent PA from taking more steps until the court finally rules.

Given how the PA Supreme Court has ruled previously on election matters, expanding procedures beyond what even the legislature adopted, I don’t see how this survives the PA Supreme Court. From there, the next stop is the U.S. Supreme Court where we know John Roberts and the three liberal Justice will defer to the state supreme court. But the Court is now 6-3, so a Roberts defection would not result in a 4-4 deadlock again if the 5 conservative Justices voted together.

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

BREAKING REPORT: Pennsylvania Judge Gives Rules That The 2020 Election Was Likely Unconstitutional In Pennsylvania, And That Could Give State Legislators Power To Choose Electors

 

By Sarah Hall

November 28, 2020

Red State Nation

[Pres. Trump, Judge Patricia McCullough & Dem-Marxist Joe Biden]

A Pennsylvania appeals court judge ordered state officials on Wednesday to halt any further steps toward certifying election results, a day after Gov. Tom Wolf said he had certified Democrat Joe Biden as the winner of the presidential election in Pennsylvania.

Wolf’s administration quickly asked the state Supreme Court to block the ruling from taking effect, saying there was no “conceivable justification” for it.

“Since the birth of our nation nearly 250 years ago, no court has ever issued an order purporting to interfere with a state’s ascertainment of its presidential electors – until today,” the administration said in its motion.

Commonwealth Court Judge Patricia McCullough, a Republican, had issued the order and set a hearing for Friday. It wasn’t immediately clear if she intended to hold up the certification of state and local contests on the ballot or interrupt the scheduled Dec. 14 meeting of the state’s 20 electors.

She came back with more good news or Trump’s legal team as late in the night, Judge Patricia A. McCullough ruled that PA preliminary ELECTION CERTIFICATION injunction was PROPERLY ISSUED and should be upheld and that gives state legislators power to choose electors.

She issued a HUGELY favorable opinion

Of Note:

– Commonwealth barred from taking ANY further steps to certify results
– Issues raised found to be of “statewide and National concern”
-“likelihood to succeed on the merits”

“Additionally, Petitioners appear to have established a
likelihood to succeed.”

so:
“..the Court respectfully submits that the emergency preliminary injunction was properly issued and should be upheld pending an expedited emergency evidentiary hearing From the memorandum:

“Petitioners appear to have established a likelihood to succeed on the merits because Petitioners have asserted the Constitution does not provide a mechanism for the legislature to allow for expansion of absentee voting without a constitutional amendment.”

The petitioners in the case are Mike Kelly, Sean Parnell, Thomas A. Frank, Nancy Kierzek, Derek Magee, Robin Sauter, Michael Kincaid, and Wanda Logan.

Legal Insurrection – A Pennsylvania state court judge has issued a preliminary injunction preventing Pennsylvania from taking any further steps to perfect its certification of the election, including but not limited to appointment of electors and transmission of necessary paperwork to the Electoral College, pending further court hearings and rulings. The ruling upholds an injunction from earlier in the week and is significant because of the findings made in the Opinion released tonight.

The case has been somewhat under the radar because it doesn’t involve claims of fraud. It appears to be a pretty straight legal argument. This is not the federal court case that has received a lot of press attention and in which the Third Circuit Court of Appeals denied relief.

The issue, in this case, is whether legislative expansion of absentee balloting to broad mail-in balloting violated the Pennsylvania Constitution. It’s not clear what the relief would be; the petitioners seek to preclude the Secretary of State from transmitting the certification or otherwise perfecting the electoral college selections.

The Judge issued this Opinion to extend that halt pending further hearings, and to set forth the basis for the injunction, which could be relevant to the appeal:

Additionally, Petitioners appear to have established a likelihood to succeed on the merits because Petitioners have asserted the Constitution does not provide a mechanism for the legislature to allow for expansion of absentee voting without a constitutional amendment. Petitioners appear to have a viable claim that the mail-in ballot procedures set forth in Act 77 contravene Pa. Const. Article VII Section 14 as the plain language of that constitutional provision is at odds with the mail-in provisions of Act 77. Since this presents an issue of law which has already been thoroughly briefed by the parties, this Court can state that Petitioners have a likelihood of success on the merits of its Pennsylvania Constitutional claim.

The Judge found, among other things, that the plaintiffs were likely to prevail on their PA constitutional claims, and that the matter was not moot even though PA had “certified” the results, because there were more steps to be taken [emphasis added].

Judge McCullough concluded: This is not a final ruling on the merits. It’s meant to prevent PA from taking more steps until the court finally rules.

Given how the PA Supreme Court has ruled previously on election matters, expanding procedures beyond what even the legislature adopted, I don’t see how this survives the PA Supreme Court. From there, the next stop is the U.S. Supreme Court where we know John Roberts and the three liberal Justice will defer to the state supreme court. But the Court is now 6-3, so a Roberts defection would not result in a 4-4 deadlock again if the 5 conservative Justices voted together.

Here is a copy of Friday night’s ruling.

People shared their opinion online:

In any case, if any of you wonder what is memorandum opinion here’s your explanation:

Under United States legal practice, a memorandum opinion is usually unpublished and cannot be cited as precedent. It is formally defined as: “[a] unanimous appellate opinion that succinctly states the decision of the court; an opinion that briefly reports the court’s conclusion, usu. without elaboration because the decision follows a well-established legal principle or does not relate to any point of law.”

 

Generally, memorandum opinions follow ordinary rules, including the application of precedent and the rule of stare decisis.

Pennsylvania Judge Patricia A. McCullough:

CIRCLED

I believe the US Constitution specifies that the state legislature shall set the method and means of choosing the electors, quite independent of what any judge may decree.

Sarah [Hall] is American conservative author she is committed to the constitutional principles of individual freedom, economic liberty, limited government, personal responsibility, and traditional values. Sarah’s legendary ability to piss off liberals and get to the bottom of corruption makes her an extremely dangerous foe to all the easily-triggered snowflakes out there.

____________________________

PA Judge McCullough – PA Election UNCONSTITUTIONAL

John R. Houk, Blog Editor

November 28, 2020

______________________________

BREAKING: PA Judge Patricia McCullough Rules Election Likely “Unconstitutional”…Gives PA State Legislators Power To Choose Electors

 

Copyright © 2020. 100PercentFedUp.com. All Rights Reserved.

____________________________

BREAKING REPORT: Pennsylvania Judge Gives Rules That The 2020 Election Was Likely Unconstitutional In Pennsylvania, And That Could Give State Legislators Power To Choose Electors

 

© 2017-2019 Red State Nation Media

I Shed No Tears For Notorious RBG


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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

JRH 9/22/20

Your generosity is always appreciated – various credit, check 

& debit cards are accepted by my PayPal account: 

Please Support NCCR

Or support by getting in the Coffee from home business – 

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

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

I Shed No Tears For Notorious RBG

By Justin O. Smith

Sent 9/19/2020 11:05 PM

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

By Justin O. Smith

_______________________________

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

 

© Justin O. Smith

 

An Argument for Filling Ginsburg’s Seat Immediately


An ACT for America email shares a Frank Salvato Post (without crediting source) that is very effective in support of the Constitution showing it is President Trump’s duty to submit a nomination to SCOTUS to replace unborn baby-killing Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg who is deceased.

 

JRH 9/21/20

Your generosity is always appreciated – various credit, check 

& debit cards are accepted by my PayPal account: 

Please Support NCCR

Or support by getting in the Coffee from home business – 

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

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

An Argument for Filling Ginsburg’s Seat Immediately

 

By Frank Salvato

Sent 9/21/2020 6:19 AM

Sent from ACT for America (info@act4america.org)

 

In the aftermath of the death of Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, tensions on both sides of the aisle are high. With a hotly contested General Election just weeks away, some in the pundit/activist spheres, conditioned by the acceptance of civil unrest in our urban areas, are calling for acts of violence should President Trump nominate his pick to fill the vacancy on the bench.

The problem with this, besides the obvious, is that Mr. Trump has no choice but to deliver his nomination to the Senate for confirmation unless he is to be irresponsible to the nation’s needs and the Constitution’s mandates.

In an array of tweets, several self-important personalities issued violent threats against the country should the President and the Senate actually do their constitutional duties:

  • “If they even TRY to replace RBG we burn the entire f—–g thing down” and “Over our dead bodies. Literally,” tweeted Reza Aslan, an Iranian-born CNN host, born-again Islamist, and author.

 

  • “F–k no. Burn it all down,” tweeted Aaron Gouveia, author of Raising Boys To Be Good Men: A Parent’s Guide to Bringing Up Happy Sons in a World Filled with Toxic Masculinity and Father who defended his 5-year old son’s right to wear fingernail polish.

 

  • “We’re shutting this country down if Trump and McConnell try to ram through an appointment before the election,” tweeted Beau Willimon, a former aid[e] to John Dean’s failed Senate bid and screenwriter who pilfered the idea for House of Cards from the British version.

 

  • “Burn Congress down before letting Trump try to appoint anyone to SCOTUS,” tweeted Emmett Macfarlane, a Canadian professor at the University of Waterloo in Ontario, Canada.

 

If you are disturbed by the level of hatred, aggression, and complete disregard to the rule of law and the US Constitution then you haven’t been paying attention to what has been going on in the whole of America’s urban centers for the past six months.

But what both the foreign nationals and the US citizens noted above do not understand, for their constitutional illiteracy, is that there are two pressing reasons why Justice Ginsburg’s seat needs to be filled before the November election.

First and foremost, the country needs a full complement on the US Supreme Court should there be any contest to the election results this November the likes of Bush v. Gore in 2000. A deadlocked 4-to-4 decision regarding the election of a president would send a fireball of violence into the streets of our nation, not to mention dismantle continuity of government. With our nation as divided as it is, we would almost assuredly devolve into a Second US Civil War.

But more important is that the President and the US Senate are mandated by the US Constitution to execute the workings of government. The moment a vacancy is created it is mandated that the process of filling that vacancy begin. The bad precedent that politicians have set in elongating this process is just that: bad precedent.

Article II, Section 2 of the US Constitution states, in part:

 

“[The President] shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law…”

 

As you can see, nowhere in this Article, or anywhere else in the US Constitution, does it call for a period of mourning, an exception in an election year, or a hiatus due to an impending election. The US Constitution simple vests the authority and mandates its execution.

Just as when the vice president is immediately sworn in as president when a president is tragically taken from us, so too is it necessary to immediately begin the process of filling vacancies in every other constitutional branch of office and especially in the face of a critical national election. The execution of these constitutional duties is not a sign of disrespect for the recently passed, it’s a mandated exercise in continuity of government, and that is government’s obligation to its people.

Politicians would love to drag out the filling of Justice Ginsburg’s seat on the bench for political reasons; to suit their political agendas. Activists, Marxists revolutionaries, and ideologues would relish the elongation of the process in hopes that Mr. Trump loses his re-election bid so that Biden (or Harris) might nominate someone approved by the group-think, oligarchic elite of the Marxist-Progressive Left, the cabal that controls all things Democrat.

But politics is not government. Let me say that again. Politics is not government. We all have gotten so used to mistaking political acts for acts of government that we have become accepting of the falsehood that the political parties have any legitimacy in the execution of government. We have been duped into believing that politics is government, but politics is not — and never should have been — a component of government.

The shrieks of the political class who threaten retribution are the sounds of ideologues threatening the US Constitution. Politics and political operatives hold no sway over the mandates of the US Constitution. And while the Sen. Schumers and Speaker Pelosis of the Left talk about a period of mourning, that mourning must happen simultaneously with the execution of government, which means the seating of a ninth US Supreme Court justice prior to a national election.

President Washington warned us in his farewell address that politics would be the ruin of the Republic. So far, his warning has been both spot on and ignored. Where some would say the enemy is inside the gates, I put it to you that the enemy is, in fact, elected to office.

___________________________________

Frank Salvato is the executive partner at The CompassPoint Group, LLC. He is the host of The Underground podcast as heard on iHeart RadioPandoraSpotifyAmazon Podcasts, and anywhere podcasts are heard. 

 

ACT For America is a 501c3 nonprofit organization. We do not receive any government funding or grants so that we are not muzzled from speaking the truth. We rely on the generosity of patriots who believe in the importance of our work so we can continue exposing America’s enemies foreign or domestic and mobilizing Americans to stand up and defend freedom. We would be so grateful for your support.

Copyright © 2020. ACT for America, All rights reserved.

1300 Pennsylvania Ave. NW
Suite 190, #614
Washington, DC 20004
United States

 

Black Robed Tyranny Lives


There are God-Ordained Inalienable Rights that no man-made law authority over. Even so, the U.S. Constitution affirms Religious Liberty in the First Amendment. Now that the Supreme Court appears to join Dem-Marxists dedicated to ignoring God-Given and First Amendment memorialized Religious Liberty, I’m beginning to wonder why Christians would abide by Godless judicial impositions of law.

 

JRH 8/3/20

Your generosity is always appreciated – various credit, check 

& debit cards are accepted by my PayPal account: 

Please Support NCCR

Or support by getting in the Coffee from home business – 

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

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

Black Robed Tyranny Lives

Religious Liberty: Some Things Are Self-Evident – A Violation of the First Freedom

 

By Justin O. Smith

Sent 8/1/2020 11:05 PM

 

Religious freedom and liberty is the First Freedom and an Inalienable Right granted all by God, enumerated in the Bill of Rights and sacrosanct, but somehow Chief Justice John Roberts, who is supposedly a conservative, barely bats an eye in casting the deciding vote for a ruling and a violation of this right, by which all others flow.

 

On July 24th 2020, [JOS]Roberts joined the four leftist Justices of the Supreme Court to deny the petition brought before the Court, to give Calvary Chapel in Dayton Valley, Nevada relief from Governor Steve Sisolak’s illegitimate and unconstitutional order, that limited attendance for the congregation to only 50 at a time — supposedly over Covid-19 concerns — despite allowing Nevada’s casinos to operate with hundreds of people flowing through its rooms and gaming arenas. And taken in total, this case actually represents one of the most blatant and overt attacks against Christianity and the Church that any American has witnessed in the course of American history, no matter the weak attempts to justify it by the weak, simpering backstabbing Chief Justice, who once again betrays his oath to the Constitution and America and dares to suggest he is upholding any rule of law.

 

The five justices handed out the majority 5-4 ruling in favor of Governor Sisolak and Nevada, and they chose not to write any opinion to explain their decision, probably due to the surreal nature any such explanation would hold in any attempt to defend the indefensible. However, it actually isn’t all that unusual, but their decision did draw three sharp dissents from the Court’s four conservative Justices.

 

Shortly after the ruling was revealed, Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX) exclaimed: “John Roberts has abandoned his oath.”

 

In his own criticism of Roberts, Senator Tom Cotton (R-AR) stated: “Justice Roberts once again got it wrong, shamefully closing church doors to their flocks.”

 

Even the Editorial Board at the Wall Street Journal was left scratching its head on this one, since a normally reliable SCOTUS on matters of religious freedom was now missing in action. Liberal reporters too were baffled and had trouble explaining how Nevada’s churches could mount so strong a challenge to Sisolak’s illegitimate order and still lose.

 

Roberts acted in the same anti-First Amendment manner on May 29th 2020, when he also sided with the four Communist Horsemen of the Supreme Court to deny South Bay Pentecostal Church relief from Gov. Gavin Newsom’s illegal order, that held it to a different and more onerous standard than California’s similar secular businesses. His decision there and most recently with Cavalry Chapel were both wrong-headed and in absolute contravention of any moral interpretation of the Constitution and the law.

 

Some things are self-evident, as noted often by America’s Founders, and nothing should be more self-evident than one’s right to worship in a house of worship when and where one chooses, without the heavy hand of government interfering. This is especially important to both Christians and Jews as we find in Hebrews 10: 22-27 of the King James Bible, that reads:

 

Let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience, and our bodies washed with pure water. Let us hold fast the profession of our faith without wavering; for He is faithful that promised; And let us consider one another to provoke unto love and to good works; Not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together, as the manner of some is; but exhorting one another: and so much more, as ye see the day approaching. For if we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins, But a certain fearful looking for of judgement and fiery indignation, which shall devour the adversaries.”

 

Inalienable rights cannot be superseded or abrogated by any executive order, state legislation or federal order, since they pre-exist government and the Constitution, and any agreement to abide temporarily by any such order is only moral in a fair application across the board. In other words, what’s good for factories in California and casinos in Nevada is good for the Church. But that is not what we have witnessed.

 

Justice Brett Kavanaugh saw the Calvary Chapel case as straightforward, in his dissent, writing:

 

Nevada’s 50-person attendance cap on religious worship service puts praying at churches, synagogues, temples and mosques on worse footing than eating at restaurants, drinking at bars, gambling at casinos or biking at gyms. In other words, Nevada is discriminating against religion.

 

Rightfully so, lawyers for Calvary Chapel contended that Governor Sisolak’s order discriminated against churches and violated the First Amendment, writing in their brief: “This is a straightforward case. If the governor deems it acceptable for secular assemblies to occur at 50 percent capacity at casinos, restaurants, bars, gyms and fitness facilities, indoor and outdoor parks, bowling alleys, water parks, pools, arcades and more, he must apply the same 50 percent capacity rule to constitutionally protected worship services.”

 

[JOS]In his dissent, Justice Samuel Alito, one of the finest minds still on the Court, wrote:

 

That Nevada would discriminate in favor of the powerful gaming industry and its employees may not come as a surprise, but this Court’s willingness to allow such discrimination is disappointing. We have a duty to defend the Constitution and even a public health emergency does not absolve us of that responsibility. It says nothing about the freedom to play craps or blackjack, to feed tokens into a slot machine or to engage in any other game of chance.”

 

The executive order is so unbelievably biased against churches, that Governor Steve Sisolak reveals himself to be one of the most obscene and disgraceful faces of “the Government” and Big Brother. His order goes beyond the pale in its blatant disregard for the Church’s rights and its honest approach to worshiping in a responsible fashion. And so too does Chief Justice John Robert’s affirmation of Sisolak’s evil.

 

All the Church had asked was for the Governor to allow 90 parishioners rather than 50, in a church that holds 200. So, America bears witness to a mentally maladjusted, intellectual midget who is willing to allow thousands of people to pursue the hopes of fleeting riches through the inequities of gambling, while cracking the government whip on the Church for seeking to bring more of their brethren into their building in pursuit of a closer relationship to God.

 

In one sentence, Justice Alito nails the crux of the matter:

 

The idea that allowing Calvary Chapel to admit 90 worshipers present a greater public health risk than allowing casinos to operate at 50 percent capacity is hard to swallow, and the State’s efforts to justify the discrimination are feeble.”

 

During the course of the case, it was discovered that the Governor chose to disregard previous violations of his order by large masses of protesters. Not only did Gov. Sisolak not enforce his own directive, he actually supported and participated in at least one such protest, whereupon he shared a video of the protesters standing shoulder to shoulder. However, upon hearing that some churches might disregard the order, the State’s response from the attorney general came in part with a declarative statement that, “You can’t spit … in the face of law and not expect law to respond.”

 

What hypocrites. What anti-American hypocritical tyrants.

 

Of course all peaceful protests are protected too, by the First Amendment, but they are not any more important than Calvary Church’s Freedom of religion, and the State cannot favor one over another, since such a bias is anathema to the First Amendment, regardless of any imprimatur the Governor has given one in preference over the other. And it is still unconstitutional. [Blog Editor: Peaceful Protest is indeed a First Amendment Right BUT – rioting, looting, vandalism and other acts of violence are not First Amendment protected AND is NOT peaceful. Justin knows that, I just felt the need to reiterate it:

 

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.]

 

And Justice Neil Gorsuch concurred with Alito, writing:

 

In Nevada, it seems, it is better to be in entertainment than religion. … Maybe that is nothing new. But the First Amendment prohibits such obvious discrimination against the exercise of religion. The world we inhabit today, with the pandemic upon us, poses unusual challenges. But there is no world in which the Constitution permits Nevada to favor Caesars Palace over Calvary Chapel.”

 

Is it any wonder that America finds Herself in such dire straits, with Satan and the Enemy standing at Her gates? —  Disguised in many deceptive garbs and speaking many soothing, pleasing and beguiling manners.

 

Of some interest, Chief Justice Robert’s did somewhat explain his reasoning in his South Bay ruling, that may shed some light to his decision on Calvary Chapel. Unlike his associate Republican Justices, he tends to defer to democratically accountable officials during a public health crisis, and suggests the Court on the whole should also. However, one must note, from his rulings records, Roberts’s deference to “the politically accountable officials does not always move in favor of public health, or even democracy, as understood through the prism of republican governance, for that matter.

 

Roberts’s justification is lame as anything we will read this decade, and just as he had to jump through linguistic hoops to discover that Obamacare was a “tax” rather than an unconstitutional penalty, he has had to delve into a whole new Alice In Wonderland delusional alternative universe to negate and disregard the fundamental, inherent truth of the inalienable quality of our religious liberty, the First Freedom. His actions are inexcusable and unconscionable beyond anything any true American should ever hope to never see again.

 

The majority’s decision was worse than if they had simply set the case aside, since their ruling is tantamount to endorsing discrimination against the Church, pure and simple. In an unconscionable manner, this Court is failing in its constitutional responsibilities, and without rhyme or reason, their rulings have taken on an imperial tone, that is both dangerous and antithetical to the rule of law. And this Supreme Court is as close to Black Robed tyrants as America has ever seen, to date.

 

Chief Justice John Roberts has aligned himself with the adversaries of the very virtues, principles and righteous endeavors that stand between man’s freedom and tyranny, and still some attempt to hold him as a fine example of judiciary prudence. They excuse him in what they view as his attempt to prevent the American public from seeing the Court as a politicized body comprised of four Democrats and five Republicans, even though essentially that’s precisely what it is. And regardless of his intent, whether he is a purposeful closet liberal intent on advancing certain Marxist agendas, i.e. Obamacare, abortion and the deviant LGBTQ agenda, and seeks to be loved by Leftist America or he simply seeks to align the Court with the prevailing public opinion of the day, Chief Justice John Roberts is still ruling in ways, especially of late, that will have long reaching and long-lasting effects on America and undermine the rule of law, having the exact opposite effect he seeks, as all Americans who value truth and reality grow to see him as the betrayer of both.

 

And whenever any elected official holds before the people a “law” that is a malformed, cheap, imitation of anything remotely adhering to our founding principles, and it violates our Inalienable Rights in so egregious a manner as this, as un-Christian as it may seem to many, my own first initial response is to, in fact, spit square in the face of said “law” that is no law at all and fill the Church ’til its doors and windows pulsate with the Spirit of the Lord.

 

By Justin O. Smith

______________________________

Edited by John R. Houk

Text enclosed by brackets, bold text indicates agreement with Justin and embedded links except where indicated by “JOS” are by Editor.

 

© Justin O. Smith

 

Will You Obey God or Will You Obey the Government? Frightening Challenges to Americans’ Conscience


I read this CBN article rapidly and did not notice President Trump’s name in it. BUT the theme of this article is the very reason the Dems, the RINOs and various forms of Leftists want Trump gone by any means necessary. The theme is Biblical-minded Christians are being placed in a position to choose between their Biblical Christian conscience and the ever increasing government mandate to de-Christianize American culture. President Trump is an obstacle to this Leftist de-Christianizing transformation.

 

For those who live according to the flesh set their minds on the things of the flesh, but those who live according to the Spirit, the things of the Spirit. For to be [a]carnally minded is death, but to be spiritually minded is life and peace. Because the [b]carnal mind is enmity against God; for it is not subject to the law of God, nor indeed can be. So then, those who are in the flesh cannot please God. –Romans 8: 5-8 NKJV

 

JRH 12/13/19

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.

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

Will You Obey God or Will You Obey the Government? Frightening Challenges to Americans’ Conscience

 

By Paul Strand

December 11, 2019

CBN News

 

SCOTUS building

 

WASHINGTON – Religious liberty today faces more challenges than ever.  If you pay attention to the headlines, you know these are dangerous days. The battleground is often in the courtroom, where a frequent defender of religious liberty there sees new reasons for hope.

 

Becket Fund for Religious Liberty Senior Counsel Luke Goodrich points out every human has a conscience, and the government shouldn’t be messing with it.

 

“It’s that inner voice that urges us to choose the good and reject evil,” Goodrich told CBN News.

 

Big-Time Battler for Conscience Rights

 

He has fought for the right of conscience several times before the US Supreme Court, and writes about huge challenges to it in his new book titled Free to Believe: The Battle Over Religious Liberty in America.

 

“When the government comes in and forces us to violate our conscience, it’s forcing us to go against our human nature and violating a fundamental human right,” Goodrich said.

 

But as America moves toward a post-Christian era, issues long felt by believers and their conscience as wrong are now exalted.  Therefore any opposition to them is condemned as rank discrimination.

 

‘Will You Obey God or Will You Obey the Government?’

 

Goodrich explained, “We have experienced a major cultural shift in the last 10 to 20 years where traditional Christian beliefs about truth, about human life, about human sexuality…they used to be fairly broadly accepted or at least uncontroversial, but now those long-standing Christian beliefs are actually viewed as a threat.”

 

He added, “We’re seeing all kinds of new religious liberty conflicts and Christians really being put to the choice: will you obey God or will you obey the government?”

 

The biggest current battleground: homosexual and transgender rights.

 

“If you’re a Bible-believing Christian and you hold a traditional view on sex and marriage, then the rapid advance of gay rights is certainly the most significant religious liberty threat today.  And we’re seeing conflicts in multiple areas all across the country,” Goodrich noted.

 

The government long ago said you can’t discriminate based on someone’s race or sex. If the Supreme Court this term rules “sex” includes sexual orientation or transgender status, it could mean real trouble for those with biblical views on human sexuality.

 

Jack Phillips x Thousands

 

You could likely multiply by the thousands new legal problems of the kind suffered by Christian baker Jack Phillips, who refused to make a cake celebrating gay marriage and ended up in a legal battle over his conscience rights for years.

 

“Thousands of religious organizations will face new lawsuits and new liability simply for acting on their long-standing beliefs about human sexuality,” Goodrich predicted.

 

At one point, supporters promised same-sex marriage wouldn’t harm anyone. Well, depending on how the high court rules, Goodrich pointed out those same people could go all out, claws bared, to get their opponents.

 

“There’s a strong effort right now, particularly among progressives, to brand traditional Christian beliefs about marriage as a form of bigotry, and then use the power of the state to punish those religious beliefs and practices,” he said.

 

Bigotry or Believing in What’s Actually Best?

 

On the other hand, Frank Wright of D. James Kennedy Ministries maintains believers back only one-man, one-woman marriage because it’s healthy for families.

 

“The Bible says it because it’s for our welfare. It’s what enables families to flourish,” Wright told CBN News. “The secular research going back decades is irrefutable. Children do better when they have a mom and a dad.  And they are safer, they are more economically secure, they have less bad outcomes in life in terms of drugs and crime and all these things. It’s God’s design because it’s what’s best for us.”

 

He’s sad that homosexuals and their allies view the conservative support of one-man, one-woman marriage as bigotry and hatred.

 

Wright explained, “If they were to come to me and say ‘Why do you hate me?’ I would explain to them that I don’t. ‘You and I see this issue totally differently.  I don’t hate you.  Why should I hate you?   And why should you hate me because we disagree?'”

 

How Culture Views ‘Good’ Religion vs. ‘Bad’ Religion

 

Goodrich believes some of this comes from how modern society views religion.

 

“I think our culture is not really hostile to religion per se, but rather draws a distinction between good religion and bad religion,” he explained.

 

Goodrich added the culture sees so-called “good religion” as, “Fairly relativistic. You keep it private. You don’t make absolute truth claims and you don’t make any intense moral claims.”

 

On the other hand, this same culture sees bad religion as one that makes moral judgments among other things.

 

“Makes absolute truth claims. It doesn’t stay confined to the four walls of the home or the church, and it gets out there,” he said. “It evangelizes. It claims truth and it actually makes moral judgments.  And that kind of religion really today is deemed to be bad, and folks are much more willing to use government power to punish those sorts of belief.”

 

Forced to do the Transgenders’ Bidding

 

As for the transgender issue, the Obama administration mandated that doctors and hospitals provide surgery for men who wanted to be turned into women and women into men.

 

Goodrich explained the government was ordering doctors to perform those surgeries, “Even when it violated their religious beliefs and their medical judgment.  And if they didn’t do that, they would be deemed to be discriminating and would be subject to government penalties.”

 

Abortion is another battleground where supporters try to demonize those who can’t and won’t back it.

 

Those Against Abortion Labeled as Discriminators

 

“If you as a Christian, whether you’re a doctor or an employer, if you oppose abortion, you’re somehow denying health care to women and discriminating against women,” Goodrich explained.

 

This Becket lawyer fought for both the Little Sisters of the Poor and Hobby Lobby’s pro-life stand before the Supreme Court.

 

“The government was trying to force them to provide abortion-causing drugs in their health insurance plans or in their businesses, even when their conscience told them ‘you cannot participate in an abortion,'” Goodrich said of his clients.

 

Many Dark Clouds, But a Silver Lining

 

The high court ruled in favor of both, and Goodrich says believers can take hope in how often their conscience rights win in court.

 

“There are some real difficulties ahead, and we should take stock of where we’re at and be realistic. But at the same time, there’s a lot of reason for hope.  We have a 90 percent win rate and we’re undefeated at the US Supreme Court,” Goodrich said.

 

He warned, however, Christians need to prepare for defeats and learn how to show Christ’s love even to a culture that’s turning more and more against them.

 

How the Bible Can Guide Us in Such a Time

 

“Much of scripture is written to Christians who are facing suffering and persecution for their faith.  And as Christians, we need to recall those teachings and let those influence us,” Goodrich argued. “And it’s not just about winning or fighting a culture war.  It’s actually more about being like Christ in the midst of these conflicts.”

 

What this attorney hopes for is a government that just leaves religion alone as much as possible.

 

For instance, in public schools, it shouldn’t force students to pray, but can allow a time where they can pray if they want. It shouldn’t build a cross on government property, but it can let those there stand. It shouldn’t oppose religion OR promote it. It should just let it be.

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

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.

____________________

© 2019 The Christian Broadcasting Network, Inc., A nonprofit 501 (c)(3) Charitable Organization.

 

SUPPORT CBN News

 

The Cross Does Not Offend the Constitution


SCOTUS undoubtedly chapped the hide of Leftist Transformists everywhere with its 7-2 to keep the Bladensburg Peace Cross standing on taxpayer supported public land. Read Justin Smith’s thoughts.

JRH 6/23/19

Your generosity is always appreciated:

Please Support NCCR

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

The Cross Does Not Offend the Constitution

A Landmark Victory for Religious Freedom 

 

By Justin O. Smith

Sent 6/22/2019 11:22 PM

 

The Constitution as written, not the personal views of judges, should guide how the American people express their religious faith in the public square.” ~ Emilie Kao, Director of the DeVos Center for Religion and Civil Society

 

A fine blow was struck for religious freedom, when the United States Supreme Court handed down a 7 to 2 landmark victory in the case of the American Legion v. the American Humanist Organization, on June 20th 2019, as the majority opinion determined that the Peace Cross on public land in Bladensburg, Maryland, just outside of D.C., does not violate the Establishment Clause of the U.S. Constitution. The forty foot tall Peace Cross commemorating forty-nine of Prince George’s County men who died fighting in WWI can now remain on public land, property of the State of Maryland.

 

The American Humanist Organization originally filed suit in 2012, and modified the suit in 2014; they forged ahead to force the removal of the Peace Cross, suing the Park and Planning Commission and the American Legion, that originally paid for its erection, in part. The AHO alleged that the presence of the memorial on public land amounted to a government establishment of religion.

 

In the beautiful shape of the Cross, the Bladensburg World War I Veterans Memorial was erected between 1919 and 1925, by Gold Star Mothers and a local American Legion post. The Cross design was provided by the Gold Star Mothers in 1919 to recall the cross-shaped grave markers standing over the thousands of American graves on the Western Front of WWI, with one mother actually referring to this memorial as her son’s “grave stone”.

 

This surely had to be at the front of the majority’s mind, in making their decision, since particularly troubled by opposition’s Taliban-style proposal of chopping off the arms of the Cross, Justice Samuel Alito offered the following in the decision: “Many memorials for Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. make reference to his faith. These monuments honor men and women who have played an important role in the history of our country, and where religious symbols are included in monuments, their presence acknowledges the centrality of faith to those whose lives are commemorated.”

 

John Seaburn is the name of one of the soldier’s whose name is memorialized on the plaque at the base of the Peace Cross, having bravely marched off to join the Army in an all African American unit. His great-niece, Alvergia Guyton is one of the few people left with a personal connection to the Cross, stating “It’s been there all my life; it’s history”, and on June 20th seven Justices in America’s Supreme Court agreed with her, leaving John Seaburn’s sacrifice and those sacrifices of Prince George’s Native Sons intact and unsullied.

 

This case did little to untangle the confusion created by past Establishment Clause decisions, since two dissenters, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Justice Sonia Sotomayor, saw it as a clear violation, and those seven who did not, Justices John Roberts, Stephen Breyer, Elena Kagan, Clarence Thomas, Brett Kavanaugh, Neil Gorsuch and Alito all offered opinions that didn’t offer a fix to the underlying problem and the many different past interpretations regarding the intent of the Constitution. So, these sort of issues will continue to manifest themselves, and if anything, this case reveals the importance of Justices who view the Constitution through the prism of Original Intent.

 

And even though “separation of Church and State” is a fallacy and a gross misinterpretation of a passage written to the Danbury Baptist Church by Thomas Jefferson, the AHO vowed to fight on to “bolster the First Amendment” and to “(redouble their) works to strengthen the wall of separation between church and state, brick by brick.”

 

In her dissent, Justice Ginsberg stated: “Soldiers of all faiths ‘are united by their love of country, but they are not united by the cross … ‘ By maintaining the Peace Cross on a public highway, the Commission elevates Christianity over other faiths, and religion over nonreligion.”

 

America was founded as a Christian nation, and that’s just a historical fact and a matter of record, but it was founded to also be tolerant of all other religious beliefs. The Founding Fathers’ vision was a country that facilitated all Americans’ free expression of faith even if in the public square, and all across the span of our nation’s history, Americans have used religious symbols to commemorate a variety of meaningful events, whether one speaks of holidays, the Courts and sworn oaths or prayer in State legislatures.

 

[Blog Editor: Many Leftists, Secular Humanists, Separation of Church-State Ideologues and probably other Anti-Christian groups would strongly disagree with Justin’s belief, “America was founded as a Christian nation”. To justify their misguided Anti-Christian attitude you will read the Left-version of cherry picking that actually twist facts. The Left will accuse Christians of cherry picking as well, but the difference Leftist cherry picking often are quoting out of context or using a historical person who represented an absolute minority opinion as in the rare atheist or French-influenced Deist (AND there is quite a difference between a French Deist and an American Christian Deist). Here are some posts demonstrating America’s Christian heritage which trust is not exhaustive:

 

 

 

 

 

President Trump’s appointment to the Court, Justice Neil Gorsuch rightfully suggested that the Court shouldn’t have heard the case, because the plaintiffs could show no concrete injury other than they were “offended” by seeing it as they pass it. Gorsuch wrote: “This ‘offended observer’ theory of standing has no basis in law … What matters … to assessing a monument, symbol, or practice isn’t its age but its compliance with ageless principles. The Constitution’s meaning is fixed, not some good-for-this-day-only coupon, and a practice consistent with our nation’s traditions is permissible whether undertaken today or 94 years ago.”

 

Justice Samuel Alito, writing the Majority Opinion for the Court, noted: “(The Peace Cross) has become a prominent community landmark, and its removal or radical alteration at this date would be seen by many not as a neutral act but as the manifestation of ‘a hostility toward religion that has no place in our Establishment Clause traditions …  The Religion Clauses of the Constitution aim to foster a society in which people of all beliefs can live together harmoniously, and the presence of the Bladensburg Cross on the land where it has stood for so many years is fully consistent with that aim. The Cross is undoubtedly a Christian symbol, but that fact should not blind us to everything else that the Bladensburg Cross has come to represent … For all these reasons, the Cross does not offend the Constitution.”

 

Kelly Shackelford, president of  First Liberty law firm and a defender of religious freedom, who defended the case, exclaimed: “This is a landmark victory for religious freedom. The days of illegitimately weaponizing the Establishment Clause and attacking religious symbols in public are over.”

 

Forever memorialized, these men were regular, ordinary Americans, doctors, farmers and laborers, educators, some in their prime and one in his fifties — already wounded — who probably shouldn’t have been on the front lines. They all had one thing in common. They never came home and they were much loved and sorely missed by those who waited for their return. And one-hundred years after WWI, Americans are still fighting for the concrete ideas these fine American patriots died to give us, the foundation of the First Amendment and its manifested inherent Freedom.

 

Many descendants of these fine men have lived with the Peace Cross all their lives, as it has stood gracing the skyline one mile from D.C. for nearly a century, and they are shocked to their very core that any American would challenge its right to exist, regardless of its placement on public land. Their memories include the story of the mothers who slowly pulled the American Flag from the base of the Cross ninety-four years ago to reveal the names of forty-nine soldiers, American heroes, who made the final sacrifice of their lives in World War I. It’s survived all this time, through WWII, Korea, Vietnam, Desert Storm and 9/11 and Enduring Freedom, and now, Thanks to God and the Supreme Court, it has survived its most dire threat and a terrible battle with radical, extreme atheists intent and determined to destroy this much respected and greatly loved memorial simply because it was in the shape of the Cross.

 

By Justin O. Smith

________________________________

Edited by John R. Houk

Source links and text enclosed by brackets are by the /editor.

 

Justin O. Smith

 

Supreme Court Ruled 7-2 The WWI ‘Peace Cross’ Stays


The Supreme Court put a nick in the Church-State Separation idiocy with a 7-2 decision allowing a Peace Cross WWI Memorial to stay on County land at County expense in Maryland. GOD BLESS AMERICA!

 

JRH 6/20/19

Your generosity is always appreciated:

Please Support NCCR

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

JUST IN: Why The Supreme Court Ruled 7-2 The WWI ‘Peace Cross’ Stays

 

June 20, 2019

100PercentFedUp.com

 

The Supreme Court just ruled that the Bladensburg Peace Cross, a cross-shaped WWI memorial in Bladensburg, Maryland, does not violate the Constitution’s establishment clause.

 

It will remain standing and in the care of the government.

 

The vote was 7-2 for the Peace Cross to stay with Justices Sotomayor and Ginsburg as the lone dissenters:

 

SCOTUS Decision (7-2) Peace Cross Stays 6-20-19 screen capture

 

The courts ruling says that the cross represents ‘sacrifice’  and that’s why he can stay put. The 40-foot Peace Cross is a 94-year-old memorial to honor 49 men who fought and died in WWI.

 

Pete Williams described the decision in-depth:

 

A Humanist organization brought the case against the cross and won in a lower court. This reverses the lower court’s decision.

________________________

Copyright © 2019. 100PercentFedUp.com. All Rights Reserved.

 

ABOUT 100PercentFedUp.com

 

We are two moms inspired by the life of Andrew Breitbart. We’re exposing the lies of the left & MSM propagandists.

 

Our lives took an unexpected turn on the day that conservative activist Andrew Breitbart died. Together, we came to the realization that we could no longer sit on the sidelines and watch the country we loved being destroyed by an apathetic citizenry. Our children don’t deserve to grow up in a world where they will be slaves to the debt we have recklessly saddled them with. Our goal is to expose the lies and hypocrisy of the progressives in academia, the entertainment industry, and MSM through the use of social media.

 

Here is a sampling of  READ THE REST

 

Head of NASA Praises Prayer and Christian Influence in Government: Left Has Orbital Meltdown


I live in Oklahoma. As such this post from Geri Ungurean on her blog Absolute Truth from the Word of God about former Oklahoma Representative Jim Bridenstine (my District roughly representing Tulsa) tapped to be Administrator of NASA by President Trump got my attention.

 

One Nation Under God by Jon McNaughton

 

Evidently Bridenstine is not shy about his Christian faith and it’s driving Leftists and Separation of Church/State activists nuts. Ungurean begins with SCOTUS concurring atheistic doctrine can simulate religion then goes into the fallacy of Separation of Church and State. Then Ungurean examines how Bridenstine Church/State Separation activists crazy.

 

JRH 4/27/19

Your generosity is always appreciated:

Please Support NCCR

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

Head of NASA Praises Prayer and Christian Influence in Government: Left Has Orbital Meltdown

 

By Geri Ungurean

April 27, 2019

Absolute Truth from the Word of God

 

Jim Bridenstine

 

Did you know that The Supreme Court has said a religion need not be based on a belief in the existence of a supreme being? In the 1961 case of Torcaso v. Watkins, the court described “secular humanism” as a religion.

 

And in 2005, a Federal court deemed “Atheism” a religion.

Read about that decision here:

 

From wnd.com  — written in 2005

 

Court Rules Atheism a Religion

 

Decides 1st Amendment protects prison inmate’s right to start study group

 

A federal court of appeals ruled yesterday Wisconsin prison officials violated an inmate’s rights because they did not treat atheism as a religion.

 

“Atheism is [the inmate’s] religion, and the group that he wanted to start was religious in nature even though it expressly rejects a belief in a supreme being,” the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals said.

 

The court decided the inmate’s First Amendment rights were violated because the prison refused to allow him to create a study group for atheists.

 

Brian Fahling, senior trial attorney for the American Family Association Center for Law & Policy, called the court’s ruling “a sort of Alice in Wonderland jurisprudence.”

 

“Up is down, and atheism, the antithesis of religion, is religion,” said Fahling.

 

The Supreme Court has said a religion need not be based on a belief in the existence of a supreme being. In the 1961 case of Torcaso v. Watkins, the court described “secular humanism” as a religion. source

 

But if a person has the audacity to mention “God” or “Prayer to Him” in public; in this case in front of a Christian ministry by the HEAD of NASA– the reaction of the atheists is anger and of course citing the “Wall of Separation of Church and State.  So, the employees of NASA are attempting to take away a person’s freedom of speech because it will make them look bad – you know, guilt by association.

 

UNREAL

 

Let’s get something straight before I post about the Left’s response to the head of NASA (who happens to be a Christian).

 

You will not find “Separation of Church and State” anywhere in our Constitution.  The Left will tell you it’s there, but that’s a lie. This lie has been repeated so many times that the average person believes it.

 

So, where did the saying originate?

 

Satan is a liar and the father of them.  He is also the author of confusion.  He took our First Amendment and twisted it, just as he does with God’s Holy Word.

 

Here is the First Amendment of our Constitution:

 

“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.”

 

Do you  see in the First Amendment the verbiage “Separation of Church and State?”

 

Neither do I.

 

We don’t see it because it is NOT there.  The First Amendment was given its place of prominence because our Founding Fathers wanted to insure that the government would never establish a “religion” that would be forced upon the American people; and that we would always have freedom of speech.

 

Then why do we hear this clause so much?

 

In 1802, a group of Baptist ministers from Danbury, CT wrote to Thomas Jefferson. They were concerned about the possibility that the State would impose a denomination and their freedom to worship as Baptists might be in jeopardy.

 

Here is Thomas Jefferson’s response to these CT pastors:

 

Jefferson’s Letter to the Danbury Baptists

 

The Final Letter as sent:

 

To messers. Nehemiah Dodge, Ephraim Robbins, & Stephen S. Nelson, a committee of the Danbury Baptist association in the state of Connecticut.

 

Gentlemen

 

“The affectionate sentiments of esteem and approbation which you are so good as to express towards me, on behalf of the Danbury Baptist association, give me the highest satisfaction. my duties dictate a faithful and zealous pursuit of the interests of my constituents, & in proportion as they are persuaded of my fidelity to those duties, the discharge of them becomes more and more pleasing.

 

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

 

I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection & blessing of the common father and creator of man, and tender you for yourselves & your religious association, assurances of my high respect & esteem.”  (Emphasis mine)

 

Th Jefferson
Jan. 1. 1802.

 

In the past 100 years, the phrase “Wall of Separation between Church and State” (taken from Jefferson’s letter) has been misconstrued  to mean that anything to do with Religion must be separate from State or Federal Government.

 

First of all, as I said before – the phrase “Separation of Church and State” is found no where in the Constitution.  God-hating individuals have repeatedly used this statement (which was to PROTECT the Christians) so many times, that the average person on the street will tell you that this is part of America’s Constitution.

 

And don’t forget that this man (Jim Bridenstine) was addressing a Christian Ministry – NOT an audience filled with NASA employees!

 

Brethren, you should print this article out so that you can speak truth to a person who is parroting the lie that this clause is found in our Constitution!

 

From frc.org

 

NASA Chief Finds Space for Faith

 

April 18, 2019

 

It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to understand the First Amendment. Or maybe, after the spat over a speech by NASA’s Jim Bridenstine, it does. Thanks to the double standards of secularism, public officials can’t even talk about faith without making headlines. It’s no wonder, then, that when the head of America’s space program gave remarks at a Christian ministry, even he had trouble finding signs of intelligence in the criticism that followed.

 

Capitol Ministries [Blog Editor’s Link], the organization that Jim has supported for years, is hardly controversial. Nine of the president’s 15 cabinet officials are sponsors of the ministry — whose aim is simple: influencing government with biblical teachings. During his talk, Bridenstine even talked about the importance of that goal and what it means in the context of these times. “I love what Ralph said earlier: We’re not trying to Christianize the U.S. government. We believe in an institutional separation, but we also believe in influence. And that’s a big distinction and an important distinction, and that’s why I love this ministry.”

 

Jim couldn’t have been more clear: No one in the Trump administration is trying to create a theocracy. They just want the same freedom to bring their personal views to bear on public policy that liberals have. Still, secularists like Business Insider’s Dave Mosher, seem intent on dragging Bridenstine through the mud for daring to talk about actual NASA history — like Buzz Aldrin’s communion on the moon and the Apollo 8 astronauts’ Bible reading in orbit.

 

In a 2,000-word rant about the faith of Trump’s team, Mosher insists that “Some ethics and legal experts outside NASA have expressed concern over Bridenstine’s speech. They believe it ran afoul of the establishment clause of the First Amendment, which outlines a separation of church and state, and might have also violated ethics rules for federal executives.” Quoting people like Virginia Canter of Citizens for Responsible Ethics, Mosher tries to paint Bridenstine as a typical Establishment Clause abuser. “One’s personal beliefs must be respected, but when appearing in an official capacity, you have to adhere to certain ethical standards,” Canter explained. “One is not to give the impression that you are officially endorsing any products or service or enterprise.”

 

Funny, where was Mosher when Barack Obama was headlining political fundraisers for Planned Parenthood? Or worse, invoking God’s blessing on the abortion giant? Everyone from Hillary Clinton to Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) have not only endorsed the group’s “service” — but funneled hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars to it. No one seemed to care when they appeared in their official capacities to preach the gospel of abortion. But put a Christian on the stage from the Trump administration — encouraging something as innocent as prayer — and they’re a walking ethics violation! This is NASA, for crying out loud. What are they worried about? Jim sending astronauts to evangelize the galaxy?

 

If secularists are upset about Bridenstine’s speech, then they should have been shaking the White House gates over the last administration’s agenda for the space agency. How quickly we forget those shocking comments in 2010 when President Obama told NASA administrator Charles Bolden that his new mission should be “to find a way to reach out to the Muslim world and engage much more with dominantly Muslim nations…” If you’re looking for a textbook abuse of public office, I’d say start with the Obama administration. After that, giving a few remarks at a charity function seems like small potatoes.

 

But hypocrisy is the name of the Democratic game. Like Secretary Mike Pompeo and countless other Trump officials before him, Bridenstine is just the latest target of an intolerant Left whose only goal is purging faith from public life and history. If activists can’t get Christians to stay quiet, then they’ll try to drive them out of government altogether. That will be tough to do in this administration, thanks to the fearless leadership of Trump. If his team has learned anything, it’s how to stand up to bullies. That shouldn’t be hard for a man Jim Bridenstine. He was already light years ahead of the opposition. source

 

I say WELL DONE to the head of NASA!  He is not ashamed of our Lord Jesus before men, and neither will Jesus be ashamed of him before His Father!

 

But whoever denies Me before men, him I will also deny before My Father who is in heaven” (Matthew 10:33).

 

How Can I Be Saved?

Shalom b’Yeshua

MARANATHA!

__________________

A MESSAGE TO MY [Geri Ungurean] READERS

 

Brethren,

 

First of all, I would like to thank all of you for subscribing to “Absolute Truth From the Word of God.”

 

Many of you have been so generous by sending gifts to my P.O. Box. It’s always so surprising and warms my heart when I see gifts from my readers.

 

Here is the address for the P.O. Box:

 

Geri Ungurean
PO BOX 1031
Savage, MD 20763

 

But I did something recently that I did not feel comfortable about. I added a “Donate” button which I just took down.  My husband and I had a scare (and it’s not over) We received a letter from the VA stating that the government is looking at the money paid out to disabled Veterans and they may be cutting back the amount. Tim  was in the Vietnam war and volunteered for Desert Storm.

 

Anyway, I told hubby that I should try to find a full time job.  He was against that because of my health issues and also he said that it would cut back the writing ministry. And who is going to hire a woman who is almost 68? LOL!

 

So, friends urged me to place a donate button on the site.  I haven’t felt right since I did that. It was like saying to God that I didn’t trust Him that He would take care of us.  It’s like a heavy weight has been lifted off since I took down that Donate button!

 

Your prayers are much needed and so appreciated for this ministry, and I thank you so very much for adding us to your prayer list!

 

I love you all so much!

 

I can’t wait to meet you in heaven as we worship our Precious Jesus together!

 

What a Glorious Day that will be!

 

In Yeshua,
Geri
MARANATHA!

 

[NCCR Blog Editor: I do not sure Geri Ungurean’s reticence about using a donation button. Even so I encourage you to send your monetary support to Geri for her steadfast faith in standing with Jesus the Christ, the Savior of all who believe in the risen Lord.]

 

Here’s Hoping Capital Crime Case Ends Roe v. Wade


John R. Houk

© October 20, 2018

 

Jessie Phillips murdered Erica Droze Phillips & unborn baby in 2009

 

The Personhood argument against baby-killing abortion has arisen in Alabama within the merits of a capital crime of a husband murdering his pregnant wife:

 

In the case, [Jesse] Phillips was charged with the murders of his wife and unborn child, and sentenced to be executed. The state Supreme Court affirmed the sentence, rejecting claims that Phillips could not be sentenced for the unborn child’s death because the child was not a “person.” (WND article below)

 

This is a State Supreme Court ruling and not a Federal Court ruling. I will be surprised if the Alabama State Supreme Court does not make an appearance in Federal Court. Think of the irony as a bunch of Leftist baby-killing supporters rage that a convicted murderer was not only convicted of murdering his wife but also convicted of killing his unborn child.

 

I can hardly wait to see how the Left/Democrats spin an anti-Personhood argument when a person removes TWO lives from among the living. Why did Jessie Phillips kill his wife Erica Phillips?

 

… A jury in June 2012 found him guilty and put him on death row for the slaying, which took place at Lakeside Car Wash on Alabama 69 in Guntersville.

 

Court documents indicate that Phillips became angry because his wife had not changed the wet diaper of their young daughter. He subsequently shot Erica Phillips in the back of the head, leaving her body lying in one of the car wash bays; the 23-year-old died early the next morning at Huntsville Hospital.

 

Both of the couple’s children were present when the shooting occurred, as were two of Erica Phillips’ brothers. Jessie Phillips fled the scene without the children.

 

He later turned himself in for the murder and, in interviews with police, admitted knowing his wife was eight weeks pregnant at the time he shot her.  (Alabama man sentenced to death for 2nd time in pregnant wife’s murder; By Crystal Bonvillian; AL.com; 2/12/16)

 

There is absolutely zero doubt that Jessie Phillips is a heinous murderer. The Left is stuck with the conundrum of defending a wife-killer to perpetuate the heinous ideology that a woman has more rights over her body than an unborn life has a right to live.

 

The success of Personhood essentially boils down to this question: When does a life in a woman’s womb become a person?

 

The divide then becomes religious faith versus secularism. A secularist-minded person will look at biological criteria while a person of religious faith – particularly Christian faith – examines the criteria that life proceeds from God Almighty.

 

As to faith here is some valid thinking from the “Founding Charter for Personhood Alliance”:

 

WHEREAS, the Bible affirms the personhood, sanctity, dignity and value of every human being from the moment of our individual creation, as evidenced by the doctrine of Imago Dei and through the marital union of a man and woman (Gen 1:26-28), our being known by God even before being formed in the womb (Jer 1:5), the incarnation of Christ (Luke 1-2), and the sacrifice of Christ to atone for the sins of humanity and restore fellowship between God and man (Rom. 5:12-21);

 

The significant Biblical Scriptures in the above Personhood Charter are in order of usage are:

 

Genesis 1:26-28 (NKJV)

 

26 Then God said, “Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, over [a]all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.” 27 So God created man in His own image; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them. 28 Then God blessed them, and God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply; fill the earth and subdue it; have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over every living thing that [b]moves on the earth.”

 

Jeremiah 1:4-5 (NKJV)

 

Then the word of the Lord came to me, saying:

 

“Before I formed you in the womb I knew you;
Before you were born I sanctified[a] you;
[b]ordained you a prophet to the nations.”

 

[It stands to reason if God formed the Prophet Jeremiah in his mother’s womb, He formed YOU in your mother’s womb and He formed the entire human race in their mother’s womb.]

 

Luke Chapter one and two are the birth of Jesus Christ story. I am not going to quote the entirety of those two chapters. But to signify the importance of God in the birth process, here are some select quotes:

 

Luke 1: 26-33, 35; 2: 10-12, 15-16 (NKJV)

 

1 26 Now in the sixth month the angel Gabriel was sent by God to a city of Galilee named Nazareth, 27 to a virgin betrothed to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David. The virgin’s name was Mary. 28 And having come in, the angel said to her, “Rejoice, highly favored one, the Lord is with you; [a]blessed are you among women!”

29 But [b]when she saw him, she was troubled at his saying, and considered what manner of greeting this was. 30 Then the angel said to her, “Do not be afraid, Mary, for you have found favor with God. 31 And behold, you will conceive in your womb and bring forth a Son, and shall call His name Jesus. 32 He will be great, and will be called the Son of the Highest; and the Lord God will give Him the throne of His father David. 33 And He will reign over the house of Jacob forever, and of His kingdom there will be no end.”

 

35 And the angel answered and said to her, “The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Highest will overshadow you; therefore, also, that Holy One who is to be born will be called the Son of God.

 

2 10 Then the angel said to them, “Do not be afraid, for behold, I bring you good tidings of great joy which will be to all people. 11 For there is born to you this day in the city of David a Savior, who is Christ the Lord. 12 And this will be the sign to you: You will find a Babe wrapped in swaddling cloths, lying in a [a]manger.”

 

15 So it was, when the angels had gone away from them into heaven, that the shepherds said to one another, “Let us now go to Bethlehem and see this thing that has come to pass, which the Lord has made known to us.” 16 And they came with haste and found Mary and Joseph, and the Babe lying in a manger.

 

Romans 5: 12-21 (NKJV)

 

12 Therefore, just as through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men, because all sinned— 13 (For until the law sin was in the world, but sin is not imputed when there is no law. 14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those who had not sinned according to the likeness of the transgression of Adam, who is a type of Him who was to come. 15 But the free gift is not like the [a]offense. For if by the one man’s offense many died, much more the grace of God and the gift by the grace of the one Man, Jesus Christ, abounded to many. 16 And the gift is not like that which came through the one who sinned. For the judgment which came from one offense resulted in condemnation, but the free gift which came from many [b]offenses resulted in justification. 17 For if by the one man’s [c]offense death reigned through the one, much more those who receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness will reign in life through the One, Jesus Christ.)

18 Therefore, as through [d]one man’s offense judgment came to all men, resulting in condemnation, even so through one[e] Man’s righteous act the free gift came to all men, resulting in justification of life. 19 For as by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners, so also by one Man’s obedience many will be made righteous.

20 Moreover the law entered that the offense might abound. But where sin abounded, grace abounded much more, 21 so that as sin reigned in death, even so grace might reign through righteousness to eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.

 

I gotta tell ya … For me all arguments using biology to determine life before birth are irrelevant in favor of the Redemptive view of God for humankind through Jesus Christ the Savior.

 

Jessie Phillips took two lives and is being held accountable according to the laws of the State of Alabama. BUT those lives removed from the living – Erica Droze Phillips and her unborn child – were and are certified by God Almighty.

 

JRH 10/20/18

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

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

STATE SUPREME COURT: ROE V. WADE ‘PATENTLY ILLOGICAL’

Shocking decision declares unborn baby is ‘a person’

 

By Bob Unruh

October 19, 2018

WND

 

Alabama State Justice Tom Parker

 

The Alabama Supreme Court has ruled that an unborn baby is a “person” under the law, and, consequently, the death of that person can be punished with execution.

 

Further, in a special concurrence, Justice Tom Parker called on the U.S. Supreme Court to revisit Roe v. Wade, the 1973 ruling that created a “right” to abortion.

 

“I write specially to expound upon the principles presented in the main opinion and to note the continued legal anomaly and logical fallacy that is Roe v. Wade,” he said. “I urge the United States Supreme Court to overrule this increasingly isolated exception to the rights of unborn children.”

 

Parker affirmed the Alabama court’s rationale that “unborn children are persons entitled to the full and equal protection of the law.”

 

He asserted Roe v. Wade is “without historical or constitutional support, carved out an exception to the rights of unborn children and prohibited states from recognizing an unborn child’s inalienable right to life when that right conflicts with a woman’s ‘right’ to abortion.”

 

“This judicially created exception of Roe is an aberration to the natural law … and common law of the states,” Parker said.

 

He noted the Alabama court’s opinion stated the “obvious truth that unborn children are people and thus entitled to the full protection of the law” in its decision to reject Jessie Phillips’ arguments “that the unborn child he murdered, Baby Doe, was not a ‘person’ under Alabama law.”

 

In the case, Phillips was charged with the murders of his wife and unborn child, and sentenced to be executed. The state Supreme Court affirmed the sentence, rejecting claims that Phillips could not be sentenced for the unborn child’s death because the child was not a “person.”

 

The fault in the Roe decision was cited by Justice Harry Blackmun, who wrote the majority opinion.

 

He said the justices didn’t have the scientific evidence to determine if an unborn baby is a person, but “personhood” is the foundation of the case.

 

Blackmun wrote: “(If the) suggestion of personhood [of the preborn] is established, the [abortion rights] case, of course, collapses, for the fetus’ right to life is then guaranteed specifically by the [14th] Amendment.”

 

The Alabama ruling is not the only one to point out to the U.S. Supreme Court that Roe was wrongly decided.

 

In August, the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals struck down an Alabama law banning the gruesome, second-trimester abortion procedure in which limbs are removed from a baby’s body in the womb.

 

At the time, Chief Judge Ed Carnes lamented in his opinion that he was bound by U.S. Supreme Court precedent to rule against the state, writing that “dismemberment” is the best description of the procedure, which clinically is known as dilation and extraction.

 

“In our judicial system, there is only one Supreme Court, and we are not it,” he wrote, calling the high court’s history of abortion rulings an “aberration” of constitutional law.

 

And Judge Joel Dubina wrote separately to express his agreement with Supreme Court Justices Clarence Thomas and Antonin Scalia in Gonzales v. Carhart in which Thomas wrote, “I write separately to reiterate my view that the Court’s abortion jurisprudence,” including in Planned Parenthood v. Casey and Roe v. Wade, “has no basis in the Constitution.”

 

“The problem I have, as noted in the Chief Judge’s opinion, is that I am not on the Supreme Court, and as a federal appellate judge, I am bound by my oath to follow all of the Supreme Court’s precedents, whether I agree with them or not,” Dubina wrote.

 

The opinion had no use for the politically correct language of “choice” and “women’s rights.”

 

“This case involves a method of abortion that is clinically referred to as Dilation and Evacuation (D & E). Or dismemberment abortion, as the state less clinically calls it. That name is more accurate because the method involves tearing apart and extracting piece-by-piece from the uterus what was until then a living unborn child,” he wrote.

 

And a year ago, eight members of the Alabama Supreme Court revived a wrongful death claim against a physician even though the life that was lost was that of a “pre-viable” unborn child.

 

That ruling set the state in direct conflict with the Roe v. Wade decision.

 

The Alabama judges at the time criticized the Roe decision’s “incoherent standard” of viability.

 

The newest opinion notes that Alabama law states an unborn child is a person under the state’s intentional murder statute.

 

According to Liberty Counsel, “Justice Parker wrote separately to emphasize how broadly and consistently the law and judicial decisions in Alabama and around the country protect the rights of unborn children. This, Justice Parker said, contrasts with ‘the continued legal anomaly and logical fallacy that is Roe v. Wade.’”

 

In his opinion, Parker called on the Supreme Court to act: “It is my hope and prayer that the United States Supreme Court will take note of the crescendoing chorus of the laws of the states in which unborn children are given full legal protection and allow the states to recognize and defend the inalienable right to life possessed by every unborn child, even when that right must trump the ‘right’ of a woman to obtain an abortion.”

 

He said that by ensuring broad legal protections for unborn children, including under Alabama’s capital murder statutes, “we affirm once again that unborn children are persons with value and dignity equal to that of all persons.”

 

“There is a growing chorus of voices urging the Supreme Court to overrule its abortion decisions,” said Liberty Counsel founder Mat Staver. “The Supreme Court has created a constitutional aberration and caused incalculable harm by its abortion decisions. In 1992, Justice Kennedy voted with the majority to overrule Roe v. Wade, and then flipped his vote 30 days before the opinion was released to uphold Roe. It is time to correct course and overrule this horrible chapter in American and Supreme Court history.”

 

He continued: “We applaud Justice Tom Parker in calling on the Supreme Court to overturn the Roe v. Wade decision and once again protect precious children, women, and families. Abortion is simply a euphemism created by activists to soften what it really is: the murder of innocent unborn children.

 

“We must stop this human genocide. We must demand that the Supreme Court undo the horrendous ruling and make the womb a safe place again in America. As we hear about the horrible descriptions of the dismemberment of Jamal Ahmad Khashoggi, every breathing person naturally shutters. Yet, every day in America, helpless, preborn children are dismembered while they are still alive. We too must shutter at this horrible act and stop it.”

 

Parker is currently an associate justice of the Alabama Supreme Court and is running for the position of chief justice. Parker won the primary election on June 5, 2018.

 

In his new concurrence, Parker said a “person is a person, regardless of age, physical development, or location.”

 

“Baby Doe had just as much a right to life as did [mother] Erica Phillips. … Phillips was sentenced to death for the murder of two persons; Erica and Baby Doe were equally persons.”

 

He added: “In spite of voluminous state laws recognizing that the lives of unborn children are increasingly entitled to full legal protection, the isolated Roe exception stubbornly endures. … Some liberal justices on the United States Supreme Court adamantly defend the isolated Roe exception. I have written extensively explaining why the Roe exception lacks legal foundation and is patently illogical.”

 

The ruling, he said, “stands as an indictment against the United States Supreme Court.”

 

The only way it can continue, he said, is if the U.S. Supreme Court justices “insist, against all scientific evidence and reason, that unborn children are not human.”

________________________

Here’s Hoping Capital Crime Case Ends Roe v. Wade

John R. Houk

© October 20, 2018

______________________

STATE SUPREME COURT: ROE V. WADE ‘PATENTLY ILLOGICAL’

 

© Copyright 1997-2018. All Rights Reserved. WND.com.

Dr. Ford Passionate Assertions Don’t Match What Can be Proved


John R. Houk

© September 28, 2018

Christine Blasey Ford, left, and Brett Kavanaugh during testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee on Thursday, Sept. 27, 2018 on Capitol Hill. (Left: Melina Mara/Pool/The Washington Post; right: Gabriella Demczuk/The New York Times via AP, Pool)

If you watched the Dems inquisition of Brett Kavanaugh yesterday you should have noticed the Dems trying to get Kavanaugh to call for an FBI investigation to prove his innocence. Senator Grassley had to remind the Dems – over and over and over again – that the FBI does not draw conclusions in background investigations. The FBI merely finds facts and allows the government agency to decide if there are any red flags to prevent trust.

 

Kavanaugh was actually investigated by the FBI SIX TIMES with ZERO red flags EACH TIME. Obviously the Dem interview of Kavanaugh was merely to entice Kavanaugh to slip up. To the Dem frustration, Kavanaugh NEVER FELL FOR DEM BAITING!

 

One of the things that bothered me was the Dem aim to vilify Kavanaugh because of his High School portrayal of a rascally social life. Surprise – Surprise. Kavanaugh and buddies participated in juvenile antics that included – GASP – beer drinking.

 

Today, I am a committed Conservative Christian upholding the moral values of the Bible. HOWEVER, if my High School Yearbooks revealed the amount of keggers I participated in – especially as a Senior – and revealed it to my Church and expected the Church leadership to treat me accordingly in the present, I would be ostracized or given the left-foot of fellowship.

 

Vilifying the Kavanaugh of today – who has had a stellar law career for decades (unlike say porn lawyer Avenatti) – based on the antics of a popular teenage boy-Kavanaugh, was simply idiotic!

 

But what is good for the goose is good for the gander. Real Clear Investigations has dug up some facts of teenage girl-Christine Blasey Ford based on her mysteriously internet-scrubbed High School Yearbook. And shock of all shocks! The teenage Christine Blasey ALSO participated in adolescent antics on an equal level (if not even higher hijinks) to Kavanaugh’s teen days. AND TODAY, I get the impression the adult Dr. Christine Blasey Ford has also developed a stellar and respected career in her field.

 

It bugs the tar out of my that the Dems outrageously tried to equate Kavanaugh’s teen past to his accomplished adult present while absolutely ignoring the same scenario for Dr. Ford. And it really bugs me that the GOP side of yesterday’s hearing let Dr. Ford’s Yearbook antics go totally unexamined as a comparison.

 

[Click to enlarge] Scribe Yearbook from Natural News

 

After watching Dr. Ford’s treated with kid gloves testimony, it was my opinion she came across as quite believable. For a moment my opinion that was a liar changed to she was mistaken. You can’t call Kavanaugh a liar because he has witnesses that he was never at such a party as described by Ford. Ford’s best friend has sworn Ford’s account never took place which was given under oath with the penalty of perjury if lied.

 

Dr. Ford has NO sworn backing for her account of being sexually assaulted. So, if it happened, she is mistaken about whom she accuses as perpetrator. BUT if you examine her High School antics, I find it possible she was coached into making a fabrication merely to prevent an Originalist Justice to serve on the Supreme Court. AND if that’s the case, Dr. Ford is a WICKED EVIL partisan Democrat.

 

Interestingly the blog CULT OF THE 1ST AMENDMENT – a source of cached Yearbook photos – was removed from Blogger. The Free Republic has a cross post of the removed blog less the photos.

 

 

 

 

 

JRH 9/28/18

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

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

Suppressed Blasey Ford Yearbooks Reveal Fast Times at Holton-Arms

 

By Paul Sperry

September 27, 2018

Real Clear Investigations

 

Democrats plan at Thursday’s Senate Judiciary Committee hearing to use the high school yearbooks of embattled Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh, which they say imply he and his prep school pals regularly got drunk and boasted of sexual conquests, to discredit what they call his “choir boy defense” against sex-assault charges leveled by Christine Blasey Ford.

 

But Ford, whose story suffers from significant gaps in her memory, wasn’t exactly a choir girl. In fact, congressional sources say her own yearbooks, among other things, present a potential issue for her and her character, and Republicans are prepared to cite them in questioning her story through the female sex-crimes expert they’ve hired.

 

A committee staffer told RealClearInvestigations, “We have her yearbooks,” which had been mysteriously scrubbed from the Web prior to Ford coming out with her allegations. “She will not make a good witness.”

 

The source, who spoke on the condition of anonymity, noted that the annual class books feature a photo of an underage Ford attending at least one party, alongside a caption boasting of girls passing out from binge drinking. Her yearbooks also openly reference sexually promiscuous behavior by the girls, including targeting boys at Kavanaugh’s alma mater, Georgetown Prep, an all-boys school in the affluent Maryland suburbs of Washington, D.C. Ford attended neighboring Holton-Arms School, an all-girls academy.

 

While congressional sources say Ford’s yearbooks could be an exhibit at the hearing, longtime Capitol Hill watchers caution that going after her reputation could backfire on Republicans.

 

“That’s a minefield, especially given the #MeToo movement,” one said.

 

A spokesman for Judiciary Chairman Chuck Grassley’s office declined to comment.

 

Other evidence indicates Ford, a popular cheerleader at the time, was immersed in an alcohol-fueled party culture and no stranger to “keg parties” in the D.C. area — or the “bar scene” along the Maryland and Delaware coast. In fact, Ford was known as a “party girl” on the Delaware shore during summer breaks, another source with direct knowledge of the congressional investigation said.

 

One report, moreover, recounts how Ford once got caught in “a romantic triangle” at Dewey Beach that ended with the two men getting into a fistfight over her.

 

At Holton-Arms, the source added, she was known by classmates, and even some parents, by a sexually derogatory nickname playing off her maiden name Blasey, suggesting she was promiscuous.

 

“She was not the wholesome Catholic girl they’re trying to portray her as,” the source said, making her claims of victimization at the hands of Kavanaugh “harder to believe.”

 

Ford and her attorney did not respond to requests for comment. But they have cast a much different narrative, suggesting Kavanaugh and other boys from Georgetown Prep aggressively targeted Ford and other reluctant girls from her school while plying them with alcohol. Specifically, Ford alleges Kavanaugh and another older boy took advantage of her at a house party somewhere in the Chevy Chase or Bethesda area of Maryland in the early 1980s.

 

She says she has suffered post-traumatic stress disorder from the alleged attack, which she says involved an inebriated Kavanaugh forcefully groping her on a bed over her clothes while clapping his hand over her mouth to keep her from screaming for help. She added that she has had to seek therapy and other medical treatment to deal with “panic attacks” and “anxiety” from the incident, which she did not report to authorities.

 

Ford cannot remember key details from that night, including the location of the house or the date of the party, while claiming to have consumed just “one beer” there. She says she told no one about the “assault” at the time, not even her close girlfriend, who she says was with her at the party, or her mother.

 

Ford claims the reason she didn’t tell her parents about almost being “raped” is that she didn’t want to get “in trouble” for drinking at a party.

 

“I did not want to tell my parents that I, at age 15, was in a house without any parents present, drinking beer with boys,” she said.

 

But classmates said the former cheerleader, who was known as “Chrissy,” was part of the underage drinking tradition that was no secret among Maryland prep schools in the early 1980s, when the drinking age was 18.

 

Her own school yearbooks (in which parents took out paid ads) celebrated “boys [and] beer” and pictured beer bottles and beer cans and scenes of boys and girls drinking at parties. One published a photo of Ford and other girls at a Halloween party alongside a caption boasting of “pass[ing] out” after playing “Quarters” and other binge-drinking games. Her father, Ralph Blasey, was president of the local country club.

 

Neither her parents nor her two siblings have come out to voice support for Ford, and they did not sign a family letter of support for her and her claims circulated by her husband.

 

The Holton-Arms yearbooks in question, which cover her sophomore, junior and senior years, are titled “Scribe ’82,” “Scribe ’83” and “Scribe ’84.”

 

Among other things, the annual books objectified men and even talked about hiring male strippers, including one in a “gold G-string,” for sweet 16 parties. They also featured the young Holton coeds dressed as Playboy bunnies and posing seductively atop desks, school-uniform skirts hiked up.

 

One section, “While the Parents Were Out,” talked about partying with boys at area house parties where kids got so drunk they “ruined” their parents’ “heirloom Persian rugs” with vomit.

“The tenth grade taught us how to party,” the girls bragged in another section. And, “Loss of consciousness is often an integral part of the party scene.”

 

A caption on another page talked about girls having “their choice of men” at the neighboring boys schools, including Georgetown Prep: “No longer confining ourselves to the walls of Landon and Prep, we plunged into the waters of St. John and Gonzaga with much success.”

 

Jay Martin, who went to school in the area at the time, asserted that Holton-Arms girls back in the 1980s were hardly innocent “victims” of Georgetown Prep boys.

 

“I am her age,” he said of Ford. “I went to high school next to Prep and knew lots of Holton-Arms girls. This is pure false memory syndrome.”

 

Added Martin: “One of my best women friends had Kavanaugh ask her out [and] she said he was ‘one of the nice ones.’ His mom was a judge. I mean, seriously?”

______________________

Dr. Ford Passionate Assertions Don’t Match What Can be Proved

John R. Houk

© September 28, 2018

______________________

Suppressed Blasey Ford Yearbooks Reveal Fast Times at Holton-Arms

 

© 2016 RealClearInvestigations.com. All Rights Reserved.

 

This and all other original articles created by RealClearInvestigations may be republished for free with attribution. (These terms do not apply to outside articles linked on the site.)

 

We provide our stories for free but they are expensive to produce. Help us continue to publish distinctive journalism by making a contribution today to RealClearInvestigations.