Life Is A Sacred Gift


Individual States of the American Union are pushing back against the godless SCOTUS decision of 1973 in Roe v. Wade which legalized baby-killing for any reason. Justin Smith elaborates on this sanctity of human life usurped by Leftist Court decisions.

 

JRH 5/19/19

Your generosity is always appreciated:

Please Support NCCR

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

Life Is A Sacred Gift

The Unborn Child’s Right to Life

 

By Justin O. Smith

Sent  5/18/2019 7:18 PM

 

Intellectual dishonesty is the only condition that allows so many Americans to call the murder of unborn children “a right to privacy”. It allows the sacred union between men and women and their joining in love to be diminished and made so casual to the point that any product of sex can simply be tossed in the garbage, like so much refuse. It has become a cover for denying one’s own responsibility and the consequences for any ‘mistake’, as far too many deny their own irresponsible behavior, and instead, they relax comfortably in their ignoble position that destroys the sanctity of life and kills a baby that has a soul, without a valid reason sanctioned by God, an act tantamount to infanticide.

 

Recently, after chaos broke out during a debate over a proposed abortion bill in Alabama’s state Senate, Lieutenant Governor Will Ainsworth said, “It is important that we pass this statewide abortion ban legislation and begin a long overdue effort to directly challenge Roe v. Wade”.

 

Not long afterwards on May 14th 2019, Alabama Governor Kaye Ivey signed into law the Alabama Human Life Protection Act, without exceptions for rape and incest, that was approved by overwhelming majorities in both chambers of the legislature. The Governor noted: “To the bill’s many supporters, this legislation stands as a powerful testament to Alabamian’s deeply held belief that every life is precious and that every life is a sacred gift from God.”

 

This is the issue nationwide. Far too many Americans are not willing to acknowledge the fact that sex between a man and a woman is a sacred matter ordained by God. They are not willing to admit that the product of such unions — a little vulnerable innocent live baby — cannot and must not be taken away on a whim, due to the inconvenience it may cause them.

 

Abby Johnson, one of the youngest ever to head a Planned Parenthood clinic, had her come to Jesus moment at a time in her life, when she had already facilitated nearly 22,000 abortions. One day in October 2009, she was asked to assist in an abortion at the clinic in Texas. Here is her emotional testimony: “Ultimately I left [Planned Parenthood] after witnessing a live … procedure where I saw a thirteen week old baby fight and struggle for his life against the abortion instruments only to lose his life, and I knew there was humanity in the womb. I knew that for all these years I had essentially put the rights of the woman above the rights of the unborn child, and it became very clear to me in that moment that our rights should be equal — that one shouldn’t supersede the other.”

 

It is accurate to state that a newly created human being is human because it has its own very specific and unique DNA. Life begins at fertilization and any action that puts an end to human life is indisputably a homicide, not matter how cute, obtuse or disingenuous one wants to be on the topic. Unborn children are not property or parasites to be discarded at will.

 

It’s important to note here that Roe v. Wade is a 1973 lawless ruling by the Supreme Court that has been foisted upon a majority of states in stark contravention of actual laws that they passed. There is not one actual law in existence that states a woman has a right to an abortion, and nowhere does any such thing exist within the constitution, something the Supreme Court conceded in the Roe decision itself. The Court uncertainly concluded that any guarantee of personal privacy only extended to areas such as procreation, contraception and childrearing.

 

Shortly after Roe was delivered by the Court, John Hart Ely, a supporter of legalized abortion and a Harvard Law School professor, wrote: “Roe is bad … because it is not constitutional law and gives almost no sense of an obligation to try to be.”

 

Justice Blackmun offered no sound logic in support of his decision, and in the forty-six years since the Roe v. Wade ruling shoved its way into American society, no one has produced a convincing defense of Roe on its own terms and merit.

 

Before Roe v. Wade this issue fell to each respective state to determine democratically through the duly elected representatives. The Supreme Court’s dictate was erroneous on its face, and this judicial tyranny resulted in the circumvention of the will of the people at the time and the deprivation of the states’ authority and rights under the 9th and 10th Amendments, every bit as bad as if a despot had been in control of America.

 

Much of the precedence for our legal system emanates from English Common Law, and as such, we would be negligent if we didn’t note that many early U.S. lawyers such as Louis Brandeis and Sam Warren drew heavily on English Common Law in 1890, when they wrote the Right to Privacy. They revealed that William Blackstone, an English legal scholar whose words shaped our Declaration of Independence, declared specific rights for the unborn child writing: “Qui in utero, est pro jam nato habetur quoties de ejus commodo quaeritur: One who is in the womb is held as already born, whenever a question arises for its benefit.”

 

Currently, there are nearly twenty other states poised to act more stridently to ban abortion, and with recent changes in the membership of the Supreme Court, any challenges have a good chance to be struck down. It also appears that some states are purposefully crafting these laws precisely to see Roe v. Wade rescinded in the affirmative support for the life of the unborn child. Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch are probably the most certain pro-life Justices; in February of this year, Thomas wrote that Roe was among the Court’s “most notoriously incorrect decisions“, and he gave the 1857 decision of Dred Scott v. Sanford as another equally bad decision that said black slaves were property and not citizens.

 

People just don’t understand the Constitution, if they agree to submit to unconstitutional rulings, especially in light of the fact that the Supreme Court has admitted to being wrong over 300 times by reversing their own rulings. And more importantly, Americans no longer seem to understand their own divine nature having been created in the image of God.

 

I grew up understanding that all souls were known to God long before He gave Us our human form, by way of my dear Grandmother’s constant reminder as she recited Jeremiah 1:5 from the Old Testament: “Before I formed you in the womb, I knew you. Before you were born, I set you apart; I appointed you as a prophet to the nations.” Just as God knows and loves each of Us long before we are born, Americans, people everywhere, must learn to love the Unborn Child while he or she is still in the womb.

 

Americans must fight for the right of all human life to exist, despite the sad truth that a generation and a half have lived in America seeing legality as a basis for their morality, no matter how wrong or heinous the act. Abortion must be revealed for the morally reprehensible act it truly is, an act that has reduced medicine to tearing limbs from feeling beautiful unborn babies, while we also move American society towards ending the federal legality of abortion and returning the issue to the states.  Americans must stop killing babies for fear of poverty and any other rationalized false justification. We must protect our children in the streets and in the womb and stop this insane acceptance of infanticide, or surely one day face the wrath of God.

 

By Justin O. Smith

____________________

Edited by John R. Houk

Source links are by the Editor.

 

© Justin O. Smith

 

Dem-Propaganda to Take Over Election Process


Dem-Propaganda to Take Over Election Process

John R. Houk, Blog Editor

March 5, 2019

 

If you haven’t heard already, you will probably a lot of promotion of Rep. (Speaker) Pelosi’s HR 1 named with typical Leftist deception, “For the People Act of 2019”. There is nothing for the people in this voting revamp-Bill. There is a load of destroy the American election process which among other things threatens 10th Amendment States’ Rights.

 

Thanks to the Heritage Foundation, here is some must read information to counter the lying propaganda the Dems will be pitching  for support.

 

I am cross posting the Heritage Foundation email alert and a couple links within that email.

 

JRH 3/5/19

Your generosity is always appreciated:

Please Support NCCR

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

House Democrats’ #1 priority this week is to weaken our election process for decades…

 

From Janae Stracke, Grassroots Director 

Sent Mar 4, 2019, 12:31 PM

Sent by Heritage Action for America

 

The House will vote this week on H.R. 1, the Democrat-backed “For the People Act.” This deceptively-titled bill would strip the American people and state governments’ of their power to oversee their own elections and hand it over to the federal government.

 

Democrats want to rig the election process in their favor without anyone noticing, and federalizing election oversight provides them the perfect cover to do so.

 

H.R. 1 mandates changes that make it near impossible to ensure the integrity of our elections. Specifically the bill would:

 

  • Mandate same-day voter registration

 

  • Automatically add illegal aliens to voter registration rolls

 

  • Abolish state voter ID laws

 

  • Allow voters to vote outside their precinct

 

  • Give one party majority control of the Federal Elections Commission

 

>>> Click here for more information on this corrupt bill.

 

Nancy Pelosi is using her new power in the House Democrat majority to weaken our election system for generations. She must be stopped.

 

In order to shine a big spotlight on the issue, we are taking to Twitter this Wednesday—and we need your help.

 

Please join grassroots activists nationwide on Twitter to expose this election fraud bill. We need to send the message that the “For the People Act” is #NOTforthePeople.

 

Join our #TweetFest on Wednesday, March 6 from 11 am – 2 pm ET to engage with our representatives with tweets urging them to vote against this anti-democratic bill.

 

 

Check out our latest issue brief here to get smart on the issue. Let’s take over Twitter and show the liberals in Congress that America still stands for the First Amendment and is against their #NOTforthePeopleAct. Together, we can bolster the conservative coalition and make sure there are no conservative votes for Nancy Pelosi’s election fraud bill.

 

Talk to you soon,

 

Janae Stracke
Grassroots Director
Heritage Action

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

The Facts About H.R. 1—the For the People Act of 2019

 

February 1, 2019

The Heritage Foundation

 

SUMMARY

H.R. 1 federalizes and micromanages the election process administered by the states, imposing unnecessary, unwise, and unconstitutional mandates on the states and reversing the decentralization of the American election process—which is necessary for protecting our liberty and freedom. The bill interferes with the ability of states and their citizens to determine qualifications for voters, to ensure the accuracy of voter registration rolls, to secure the integrity of elections, to participate in the political process, and to determine the district boundary lines for electing their representatives.

 

KEY TAKEAWAYS

 

  1. R. 1 federalizes and micromanages the election process administered by the states, imposing unnecessary, unwise, and unconstitutional mandates on the states.

 

  1. The bill interferes with the ability of states and their citizens to determine qualifications for voters and to ensure the accuracy of voter registration rolls.

 

  1. R. 1 reverses the decentralization of the American election process—which is necessary for protecting our liberty and freedom.

 

The Issue

 

H.R. 1 federalizes and micromanages the election process administered by the states, imposing unnecessary, unwise, and unconstitutional mandates on the states and reversing the decentralization of the American election process—which is necessary for protecting our liberty and freedom.

 

The bill interferes with the ability of states and their citizens to determine qualifications for voters, to ensure the accuracy of voter registration rolls, to secure the integrity of elections, to participate in the political process, and to determine the district boundary lines for electing their representatives.

 

What H.R. 1 Would Do:

 

  • Seize the authority of statesto regulate voter registration and the voting process by forcing states to implement early voting, automatic voter registration, same-day registration, online voter registration, and no-fault absentee balloting.

 

  • Make it easier to commit fraudand promotes chaos at the polls through same-day registration, as election officials have no time to verify the accuracy of voter registration information and cannot anticipate the number of voters, ballots, and precinct workers that will be needed.

 

  • Hurt voter turnout through early voting by diffusing the intensity of get-out-the-vote efforts; it raises the cost of campaigns. Voters who vote early don’t have the same information as those who vote on Election Day, missing late-breaking developments that could affect their choices.

 

  • Degrade the accuracy of registration lists by automatically registering individuals from state databases, such as DMV and welfare offices, by registering large numbers of ineligible voters, including aliens as well as multiple or duplicate registrations of the same individuals.

 

  • Constitute a recipe for massive voter registration fraud by hackers and cyber criminals through online voter registrationnot tied to an existing state record, such as a driver’s license.

 

  • Require states to count ballots cast by voters outside of their assigned precinct, overriding the precinct system used by almost all states that allows election officials to monitor votes, staff polling places, provide enough ballots, and prevent election fraud. Mandates no-fault absentee ballots, whichare the tool of choice for vote thieves.

 

  • Prevent election officials from checking the eligibility and qualifications of voters and remove ineligible voters. This includes restrictions on using the U.S. Postal Service’s national change-of-address system to verify the address of registered voters; participating in state programs that compare voter registration lists to detect individuals registered in multiple states; or everremoving registrants due to a failure to vote no matter how much time has gone by.

 

  • Cripple the effectiveness of state voter ID lawsby allowing individuals to vote without an ID and merely signing a statement in which they claim they are who they say they are.

 

  • Violate the First Amendment and could cover a vast range of legal activity. Voter intimidation or coercion that prevents someone from registering or voting is already a federal crime under the Voting Rights Act and the National Voter Registration Act. But H.R. 1 adds an additional provision to prevent interference with registering or voting that is so vague that it could easily interfere with free speech and other lawful activity.

 

  • Expand regulation and government censorship of campaigns and political activity and speech,including online and policy-related speech. H.R. 1 imposes onerous legal and administrative compliance burdens and costs on candidates, citizens, civic groups, unions, corporations, and nonprofit organizations. Many of these provisions violate the First Amendment, protect incumbents, and reduce the accountability of politicians to the public.

 

  • Reduce the number of Federal Election Commission membersfrom six to five, allowing the political party with three commission seats to control the commission and engage in partisan enforcement activities.
  • Prohibit state election officials from participating in federal elections and impose numerous other “ethics” rules that are unconstitutional or unfairly restrict political activity.

 

  • Require states to restore the ability of felons to vote the moment they are out of prison. Section 2 of the 14th Amendment gives states the constitutional authority to decide when felons who committed crimes against their fellow citizens may vote again. Congress cannot override a constitutional amendment with a statute.

 

  • Transfer the right to draw congressional districts from state legislatures to “independent” commissions whose members are unaccountable to voters. H.R. 1 makes it a violation of federal law to engage in “partisan” redistricting and mandates inclusion of alien population, both legal and illegal, in all redistricting. This is an anti-democratic, unconstitutional measure that takes away the ability of the citizens of a state to make their own decision about redistricting.

 

  • Violate separation of powers and directly interfere with the President’s constitutional duties. H.R. 1 bans his political appointees, such as the Attorney General, from participating in, directing the defense of, or assisting in any matter (including lawsuits against a President’s policies, programs, executive orders, or his enforcement of the law) in which the President is named as a party.

 

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

Background Information

 

Heritage Action for America

 

H.R. 1 is Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s signature piece of legislation for the 116th Congress. Deceptively titled “For the People Act,” its primary goal is to rig the election system in favor of Democratic politicians by undermining America’s electoral process.

 

Under H.R. 1, massive amounts of elections-related power would be transferred from the states to the federal government. The bill interferes with the ability of states and their citizens to determine qualifications for voters, to ensure the accuracy of voter registration rolls, to secure the integrity of elections, to participate in the political process, and to determine the district boundary lines for electing their representatives.

 

The end goal of H.R. 1 is clear—to enshrine into law dubious electoral practices that enable and encourage fraudulent behavior, such as ballot harvestingfalse voter registrationsduplicate voting, and ineligible voting.

 

Heritage scholar and election expert Hans Von Spakovsky summarized the problems with H.R. 1 as such, “Sometimes legislation proposed by Congress is bad policy; sometimes it is unnecessary; and sometimes it is unconstitutional. H.R. 1 is all three.”

 

At 600+ pages long, H.R. 1 contains many provisions that are unhelpful, unnecessary, and unconstitutional. Below are just a few of the terrible policies contained within of H.R. 1:

 

Sabotages state voter ID laws—When arriving at the polls, voters will not be required to show ID and can simply sign a statement in which they claim to be who they say they are. This undermines many states’ voter ID laws, which were enacted to combat impersonation fraud, voter registration fraud, duplicate voting, and voting by ineligible individuals, such as illegal aliens.

 

Mandates same-day registration—States will be required to immediately register a person to vote upon request, even on the day of an election. With no buffer-period to verify personal information, this provision could easily lead to voter fraud.

 

Automatically registers ineligible voters—States will be required to automatically add to voter registration rolls every person, regardless of voter eligibility, who partakes in certain government programs, such as receiving welfare or obtaining a driver’s license. Other provisions of H.R. 1 then restrict the ability of states to verify eligible voters and the removal of ineligible voters from voter registration rolls. This provision will automatically enroll ineligible voters such as illegal aliens.

 

Unconstitutionally requires states to restore the ability of felons to vote—Upon release from prison, every felon would immediately be restored the ability to vote. The 14th Amendment to the Constitution allows states to restrict voting rights to those who have participated in “rebellion, or other crime.” States have the constitutional authority to decide when or if to restore that right, as long as they do so in a manner that is not racially discriminatory. H.R. 1 would attempt to unconstitutionally overrule the 14th Amendment with a statute.

 

Violates the First Amendment—H.R.1 deters political free speech by inserting a provision that makes it a criminal offense to provide “materially false” information that will “impede or prevent” someone from registering or voting. This provision is so vague that it would likely interfere with free speech and other legitimate activities.

 

Requires ballots be counted outside of the voter’s precinct—This removes the integrity of the local government to verify voter rolls and oversee elections and gives the power to count votes entirely to the federal government.

 

Creates unaccountable redistricting committees—Currently, congressional district lines are drawn by state governments which are accountable to their constituents. Allowing unelected officials to determine congressional districts is a nakedly political ploy to draw more Democratic districts.

 

Alters Federal Election Commission into a partisan organization—Currently the FEC has six members (three from each party), preserving its bipartisan nature. H.R. 1 would reduce the number to five, giving one party a majority and the opportunity to weaponize the FEC for their party’s benefit.

 

Key Talking Points

 

  • Helps Liberals in Elections—R. 1 is designed to fund, elect, and maintain liberals in Congress, it even allows for using taxpayer dollars to fund candidates.

 

  • Federalization of the Election Process—R. 1 allows for overreaching federal authority of election processes by imposing unnecessary and unconstitutional mandates on states.

 

  • Removal of Redistricting Power—Under this bill, the power to draw congressional districts would be given to an unelected third-party.

 

  • Automatic Registration of Ineligible Voters—R. 1 interferes with states’ abilities to determine qualifications for voters and destroys the accuracy of voter registration rolls.

 

  • No Accountability for Vote Counting—Destroys the sanctity of the election process and endangers our democracy by requiring ballots be counted outside the county’s precinct.

 

  • Felon Voter Registration—Upon release from prison, felons are automatically allowed to register as voters.

 

  • Unchecked Voter Identification—States will be required to register voters on the day of elections and instead of requiring voters to bring ID to the polls H.R. 1 allows for people to simply “sign a statement” confirming identification. With no buffer-period to verify personal information, this provision could easily lead to voter fraud.

 

Call Notes

 

Hello,

 

My name is [NAME] from [CITY AND ZIP CODE] and I am calling today to urge [MEMBER OF CONGRESS] to vote against H.R. 1.

 

This bill strips states’ rights to regulate their individual election processes and undermines the integrity of our election process. This micromanaging attempt at federalizing the election process destroys the sanctity of the election process and endangers our democracy. As with most programs, voting is best regulated at levels closest to the people.

 

Four of the most troubling provisions of H.R. 1 are:

 

  • Requires states to restore the ability of felons to vote

 

  • Jeopardizes First Amendment rights

 

  • Federalizes congressional redistricting

 

  • Turns the Federal Election Commission into a partisan organization

 

These requirements will make it harder to detect fraudulent votes and make it easier for illegal immigrants and other ineligible voters to be registered to vote. As a constituent of [MEMBER OF CONGRESS], I am asking that they stand for election integrity and vote against H.R. 1.

 

Thank you for your time.

 

Social Posts (remember to insert the social handle of your member)

 

TWEET THIS

 

H.R. 1 is deceptively titled the ‘For the People Act.’ A truer name would be the #StealElectionsAct

 

OR

 

.@MEMBER, H.R. 1 sets a dangerous precedent that strips states of their election oversight and includes far-left policies that Americans like me do not support. Please vote against H.R. 1. #NOTForThePeopleAct

 

OR

 

H.R. 1 would force states to allow same-day voter registration which opens the door for excessive fraud. @MEMBER please do not support this anti-democratic bill. #StealElectionsAct

 

OR

 

The falsely named, “For The People Act,” is NOT for the people due to the nature of its left-wing priorities that would force states to comply with anti-democratic mandates. #NOTForThePeopleAct

 

OR

 

.@SpeakerPelosi cares more about helping felons vote than she does about securing the border. Oppose #HR1 #NOTForThePeopleAct

 

Sample Letter to the Editor

 

Below is a sample letter to the editor. We encourage you to adapt and personalize the letter below. Heritage Action Regional Coordinators are always here to help edit your letter and get it published.

 

Public confidence and trust in the validity of election results is key to increasing voter participation. Americans deserve a fair and accurate election process. This means not only making sure that every eligible individual is able to vote, but that his or her vote is not stolen or diluted through fraud. The Democrats “For the People Act” (H.R. 1) unfortunately would both enable and increase fraud.

 

H.R. 1 would sabotage state voter ID laws, which currently combat impersonation and voter registration fraud, duplicate voting, and voting by ineligible individuals like illegal aliens. Under H.R. 1, someone could simply sign a statement in which they claim to be who they say there are. This would be on top of allowing same-day voter registration. The combination of these two policies that H.R. 1 outlines would open the door for massive fraud.

 

The bill would also require automatically registering individuals to vote who partake in government programs such as receiving welfare or obtaining a driver’s license. This would automatically enroll ineligible voters such as illegal aliens who take advantage of government programs. In addition, it limits states ability to verify eligible voters and remove ineligible voters from registration rolls.

 

In addition to these dangerous policies, it would turn the Federal Election Commission into a hyper-partisan body. Currently the FEC is bipartisan, with six members (three from each party). H.R. 1 would reduce the number to five, giving one political party a majority and the opportunity to essentially rig elections in their party’s favor.

 

Sometimes legislation proposed by Congress is bad policy, sometimes it is unnecessary, and sometimes it is unconstitutional. “For The People Act” includes policies that are all three, and I am urging [insert Representative’s Name] to reject this bill.

 

Graphics (Right click on the image to download)

SOMETIMES LEGISLATION PROPOSED BY IS BAD POLICY…

 

HR 1 IS ANTI-DEMOCRATIC…

 

DEAR LIBERALS: STOP SAYING HR 1 IS FOR THE PEOPLE…

 

HR 1 FEDERALIZES THE ELECTION PROCESS…

 __________________

© 2019 Heritage Action for America. All Rights Reserved.

 

About Heritage Action

 

Mission

 

Heritage Action turns conservative ideas into reality on Capitol Hill. We do that by holding lawmakers accountable to their promises to advance the conservative principles of free enterprise, limited government, individual freedom, traditional American values, and a strong national defense.

 

We work directly with federal lawmakers inside and outside of Washington—the only way to bring about the conservative policies that hold true to our Founding Fathers’ ideals. Heritage Action exists to ensure that these ideals are not only maintained but flourish, both now and for future generations.

 

Heritage Action’s unique strategy combines inside-the-Beltway lobbying with outside-the-Beltway grassroots pressure.

 

Powerful Inside-the Beltway Influence

 

Our Capitol Hill lobbying team works directly with lawmakers and their staffs to implement conservative solutions—solutions drawn from our partners at The Heritage Foundation. While other lobbyists push for a special interest agenda, we lobby on behalf of American principles. And our groundbreaking legislative Scorecard grades lawmakers on the votes and bill co-sponsorships that are most critical to advancing the conservative mission over both the short and long term.

 

Influential Grassroots Network

 

Meanwhile, our team of grassroots coordinators organizes an elite group of almost 20,000 Sentinel activists who are on the front lines of the conservative fight. Leveraging personal relationships with lawmakers and tools like letters to the editors and calls to Congress, they apply essential political pressure that holds their representatives accountable to our nation’s founding principles.

 

Since our founding in 2010, Heritage Action has both thwarted the liberal agenda and advanced conservative principles. We have kept up momentum for Obamacare repeal even when the Establishment has declared it not worth fighting. We have led the fight for both spending cuts and tax cuts, and our bold stance against confirming any of Barack Obama’s judicial nominees in 2016 paved the way for Neil Gorsuch’s confirmation to the Supreme Court in 2017.

THE CONSTITUTION vs. THE CONSTITUTIONALIST


constitution-convention

Intro to ‘THE CONSTITUTION vs. THE CONSTITUTIONALIST

Edited by John R. Houk

By J.B. Williams

Posted December 30, 2016

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

JRH 12/30/16

Please Support NCCR

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

THE CONSTITUTION vs. THE CONSTITUTIONALIST

 

By J.B. Williams

December 29, 2016

NewsWithViews.com

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

CONGRESSIONAL TERM LIMITS

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

STATES’ RIGHTS

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

The Constitution vs. The Constitutionalists

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Only someone who understands this is a true constitutionalist!

 

______________

© 2016 JB Williams – All Rights Reserved

Click here to visit NewsWithViews.com home page.

 

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

 

Web site 1: www.PatriotsUnion.org

Web site 2: www.VeteranDefenders.org

Web site 3: www.COFBooks.com

Web site 4: www.TNALC.org

Web site 5: www.patriotvoice.net/TNALC

E-Mail: JB.USPU@gmail.com

 

Obama’s Path to Perdition


Obamanation 2016 - Save Children

Intro to Justin Smith’s ‘Obama’s Path to Perdition

Edited by John R. Houk

June 2, 2016

 

The Leftist elite, major corporations devoted to the concept of Multicultural Diversity and most of the Mainstream Media (MSM) that they are ramming ungodly transgenderism down the throat of Americans that still express Biblical Christianity as normative rather than aberrant. The thing is Americans have been brainwashed for about fifty years to accept ungodliness as a normalized Rights issue. We Christians do not recognize something that is an ungodly choice as a Civil Right. Unalienable Rights are those that can be traced to the Creator of the heavens, the earth and all that exists.

 

I do realize that choose not to recognize the existence of God Almighty. That Right to choose is the unalienable Right not the choice itself. “Choice” is the Right, not what is chosen – unless what is chosen is godliness. It is a Right to choose ungodliness. Adam was given the inherent Right of Choice when God commanded him NOT to eat of the fruit of the knowledge of good and evil. Adam and Eve were deceived into believing a lie above God’s Command. BUT the choice is a free will act guaranteed by God. When freely chooses darkness over God’s Light there is a penalty that must be paid:

 

Genesis 1:1; 2:7, 9, 15-18

 

In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.

 

Chapter 2

 

And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being.

 

And out of the ground the Lord God made every tree grow that is pleasant to the sight and good for food. The tree of life was also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.

 

15 Then the Lord God took the man and put him in the garden of Eden to tend and keep it. 16 And the Lord God commanded the man, saying, “Of every tree of the garden you may freely eat; 17 but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die.”

 

18 And the Lord God said, “It is not good that man should be alone; I will make him a helper comparable to him.” (NKJV)

 

THE LIE and THE PENALTY Chapter 3

 

Genesis 3:1, 4-7, 9-13, 16-19

 

Now the serpent was more cunning than any beast of the field which the Lord God had made. And he said to the woman, “Has God indeed said, ‘You shall not eat of every tree of the garden’?”

 

Then the serpent said to the woman, “You will not surely die. For God knows that in the day you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.”

 

So when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree desirable to make one wise, she took of its fruit and ate. She also gave to her husband with her, and he ate.Then the eyes of both of them were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together and made themselves coverings.

 

Then the Lord God called to Adam and said to him, “Where are you?”

 

10 So he said, “I heard Your voice in the garden, and I was afraid because I was naked; and I hid myself.”

 

11 And He said, “Who told you that you were naked? Have you eaten from the tree of which I commanded you that you should not eat?”

 

12 Then the man said, “The woman whom You gave to be with me, she gave me of the tree, and I ate.”

 

13 And the Lord God said to the woman, “What is this you have done?”

The woman said, “The serpent deceived me, and I ate.”

 

16 To the woman He said:

 

“I will greatly multiply your sorrow and your conception;
In pain you shall bring forth children;
Your desire shall be for your husband,
And he shall rule over you.”

 

17 Then to Adam He said, “Because you have heeded the voice of your wife, and have eaten from the tree of which I commanded you, saying, ‘You shall not eat of it’:

 

“Cursed is the ground for your sake;
In toil you shall eat of it
All the days of your life.
18 Both thorns and thistles it shall bring forth for you,
And you shall eat the herb of the field.
19 In the sweat of your face you shall eat bread
Till you return to the ground,
For out of it you were taken;
For dust you are,
And to dust you shall return.” (NKJV)

 

God said the penalty was death. Did Adam and Eve physically die? No. Does that make God a liar? No. Death in the account of creation is separation from God’s Presence rather than physical death. When God asked, “Where are you?” It was not because the Almighty did not know their location. Rather it was because Adam and Eve died by separation from God’s Presence. Adam’s free will choice of darkness over Light led to his AND Adam’s future descendants’ separation from God’s Presence.

 

Romans 5:12, 15-19

 

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—

 

15 But the free gift is not like the 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 offenses resulted in justification. 17 For if by the one man’s 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 one man’s offense judgment came to all men, resulting in condemnation, even so through one 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. (NKJV)

 

Only choosing Life in Christ restores Humanity to God’s Presence. Transgenderism is choosing to live in Adam’s bad choice of believing lie rather than the Truth of the Creator.

 

If you are a Biblical Christian at least in your belief system, then being told by humanity to accept ungodly lifestyles should rub you the wrong way. THAT is what the Obama Administration is telling you to do! Obama’s Administration, the Leftist Elite, Multiculturalist corporations and the MSM are telling YOU – a believing Biblical Christian – that you must be a bigot for choosing God’s Values over Humanistic Multiculturalist values.

 

Justin Smith addresses how the Obama Administration is forsaking the U.S. Constitution by telling each individual State and individual citizens to believe the Obama darkness way rather than God’s way or face the unrelenting power of the American Executive Branch. THAT is UNCONSTITUTIONAL, UNGODLY and WRONG!

Keep locker rooms safe

JRH 6/2/16

Please Support NCCR

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

Obama’s Path to Perdition

A Far Left Delusion

 

By Justin O. Smith

Sent: 5/31/2016 10:31 AM

 

Pursuing a path to perdition in the service of the radical homosexual agenda and on a civil rights pretext, President Obama would have us believe that all Americans, men and women alike, do not have the same rights under the U.S. Constitution, the Civil Rights Act, Title VII and Title IX. His May 13th “guidance letter” to the States, regarding transgender people’s use of the bathroom, violates the rights of women and girls, who do not want to be forced to use the restrooms alongside sexually deviant, confused and delusional men wanting to be women. He is conferring rights that do not exist upon the transgendered, granting privilege above all and superseding the rights of Americans, who object to this sexually aberrant behavior being granted “entitlement” status as a matter of one’s sense of common decency and religious conscience.

 

Lawsuits and counter-lawsuits are now flying, since the Department of Justice civil rights lawyer Vanita Gupta [Pertaining to NC HB2], Attorney General Loretta Lynch and the Obama administration have sued North Carolina for enacting HB2, which they describe as “facially discriminating against transgender employees.” On May 4th, fifty-one families (Students and Parents for Privacy) filed a lawsuit against the Department of Education, the Justice Dept., AG Lynch and School District 211 in Illinois, in order to stop school officials from “forcing 14 to 17 year old girls to use locker rooms and restrooms with biological males.” And on May 25th, Tennessee joined ten other states in a Texas led suit that defends North Carolina and the States’ Rights to set restroom guidelines without federal interference; at the very least, they want such matters decided by Congress, as the Founders intended, rather than by a despot’s decree aimed at “fundamentally transforming” American culture.

 

AG Lynch compared North Carolina’s HB2 to policies of racial segregation and efforts to deny homosexual couples the “right” to marry in typical illogical and incoherent fashion. She was wrong on multiple levels.

 

Separate bathrooms for men and women are moral and rational, but separate bathrooms for races are not, because one race’s nature is not inherently different from another race’s nature. The same is not true of males and females, who are inherently different from one another, and laws that recognize only sexually complementary unions as marriages are based on the true belief that men and women are different by nature, a truth that even homosexuals recognize.

 

Even though the guidance letter doesn’t change existing law, it does coerce and threaten to withhold federal funds from all States refusing to comply. Education Secretary John King also explained that once a student’s parents notify a school district that the student identifies differently from their birth records, they must be given equal access, even if it makes others uncomfortable.

 

Rodney Cavness, Port Neches-Grove Superintendent of Schools in Texas, said (FoxNews), “When I get that letter, I’ll throw it away.”

 

Title IX reads in part: “… to eliminate discrimination on the basis of sex … A recipient [of federal funds] may provide separate toilet, locker room, and shower facilities on the basis of sex, but such facilities for … one sex shall be comparable to such facilities provided for … the other sex.”

 

Focusing on the Far Left’s delusional thinking, Laurie Higgins noted on May 7th, that the lawsuit filed by the Alliance Defending Freedom and the Thomas More Society, against School District 211, was sparked by a boy’s demand for unrestricted access to change clothes and go to the restroom with only girls, denying actual girls the right to change clothes and go to the restroom with only girls. Higgins countered ACLU spokesman Ed Yohnka’s angry words “that they don’t even fundamentally acknowledge our client is a girl,” with a comic and fiery retort of her own: “I regret being so graphic, but Yohnka’s idiotic statement makes it necessary: Girls don’t have penises.”

 

At high noon on May 13th, Alabama Attorney General Luther Strange stated:

 

“School bathroom use is an issue that should be decided by parents, teachers and principals — not federal bureaucrats. The DOJ guidance document is also wrong on the law. Title IX allows schools to have separate facilities for separate sexes. The law says ‘sex’, not ‘gender identity’.”

 

Never failing to support Leftist lunacy, the New York Times quoted the one lone girl they could find, 14-year-old Valerie Martinez from Los Angeles, who said, “I’m totally fine with it — it’s who they are.”

 

Certainly there are hundreds of thousands, even millions, of students who are not comfortable sharing restrooms and locker rooms with an opposite-sex transgender student. If “gender-dysphoric” [Secular Humanist – “Gender Dysphoria Symptoms”; Christian Perspective – “Dr. Mark Yarhouse’s Transgenderized Christianity” and “Gender ideology harms children” (very clinical but very Christian Ministry of Parakaleo)] students have the “right” to use the restroom with only those whose gender identity they share, then certainly “non-gender-dysphoric” students have the right to privacy and must be allowed to use the restrooms with only those whose sex they share.

 

In Marion County, Florida, the schools are embroiled in a similar civil rights complaint by the ACLU, but one board member, Nancy Stacy, who believes sex is determined by anatomy and chromosomes, put the matter in proper perspective, when she stated: “It’s easy. Every student that comes to school says ‘I’m Cinderella’ — should we give them a carriage to ride around in?”

 

Texas Lt Governor Dan Patrick angrily stated on May 13th: “Parents are not going to send their 14-year old daughters into the shower or bathroom with 14-year old boys. It’s not going to happen … ” (and he has since stated) … “We will not be blackmailed by the president’s 30 pieces of silver.” He also says that Texas is prepared to forfeit billions of dollars rather than let Obama dictate bathroom policy for their five million students. Hopefully, a majority of the States will follow Dan Patrick’s lead.

 

Americans must not allow Obama, the ACLU and sexual deviants to dictate conscience on this matter, denying our unalienable rights and undermining those principles which are the bedrock of freedom and individual rights. We must stop the Dept. of Education from creating an intimidating and hostile environment for our children, and we must protect our children from Obama’s unlawful interpretation of Title IX that shreds their dignity and robs them of their privacy and innocence. Ultimately, we must reject the Far Left LGBT/homoerotic and ACLU vision of a social destiny where every form of sexually aberrant behavior is defined as a personal entitlement.

 

By Justin O Smith

_________________________

Blog Editor: Further Reading (Because the major search engines support Multiculturalism)

 

Black Pastors Say Unequivocally – ‘Transgender Agenda is not Civil Rights’; Christian Action League; 5/27/16

 

Target, Transgenderism, and Transformation; Accuracy in Media; 5/16/16

 

Putting the brakes on ‘fundamental transformation’; One News Now; 5/26/16

 

Feds Bully North Carolina, Cite Inapplicable Laws; Fulcrum7; 5/5/16

 

Parents Sue Obama Over Illinois School’s Pro-Transgender Bathroom Rules; Breitbart.com; 5/5/16

 

______________________

Edited by John R. Houk

All links or text enclosed by brackets are by the Editor.

 

© Justin O. Smith

 

USA in Trouble when SCOTUS Ignores Constitution


John R. Houk

© June 26, 2015

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

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

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

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

JRH 6/26/15

Please Support NCCR

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

Degrading OUR Constitution

By Robert G. Smith

Sent: 6/25/2015 11:07 PM

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

PSG [ret.] R. G. Smith

________________________

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

By Ryan Anderson

June 26th, 2015 4:28 pm

SCOTUSblog

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

But today the Court puts a stop to all that.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Further Reading on SCOTUS Homosexual Abomination Marriage

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

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

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

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

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

___________________

USA in Trouble when SCOTUS Ignores Constitution

John R. Houk

© June 26, 2015

___________________________

Degrading OUR Constitution

 

© Robert G. Smith

______________________________

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

 

© 2015 SCOTUSblog

A Win for States Rights and 2nd Amendment


John R. Houk

© June 10, 2015

The Brady Center is a prolific gun control organization. They have been operating what is known as the Brady Campaign which is a civil litigation campaign that attacks the 2nd Amendment which gives every American the right to protect themselves with a gun.

The Brady Center is named for Ronald Reagan’s Press Secretary James Brady that was shot in the head in an assassination attempt against the President. That head wound left him partially paralyzed for life.

The Brady Campaign lost a judicial battle when Federal Judge Julie A. Robinson dismissed a suit against the State of Kansan that passed a pro-Second Amendment law to nullify any Federal Regulations that counters or illegitimizes the Second Amendment:

Second Amendment

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. (2nd Amendment; About.com)

Kansas: The Second Amendment Protection Act (Full Text)

The law, signed by Gov. Sam Brownback in 2013, draws a line in the sand on federal gun control. It reads, in part:

Any act, law, treaty, order, rule or regulation of the government of the United States which violates the second amendment to the constitution of the United States is null, void and unenforceable in the state of Kansas

In conjunction with Section 6a (quoted above), the bill defines what is meant by “the second amendment to the constitution of the United States,” and that it isn’t based off a decision of the supreme court.

The second amendment to the constitution of the United States reserves to the people, individually, the right to keep and bear arms as that right was understood at the time that Kansas was admitted to statehood in 1861, and the guaranty of that right is a matter of contract between the state and people of Kansas and the United States as of the time that the compact with the United States was agreed upon and adopted by Kansas in 1859 and the United States in 1861. (Nullification 1, Brady Campaign 0: Federal Judge Dismisses Suit Against Kansas 2nd Amendment Protection Act; By TJ Martinell; Tenth Amendment Center; June 9, 2015)

Below is the full article about this Second Amendment and States Rights victory in the U.S. Federal Court.

JRH 6/10/15

Please Support NCCR

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

Nullification 1, Brady Campaign 0: Federal Judge Dismisses Suit Against Kansas 2nd Amendment Protection Act

By TJ Martinell

June 9, 2015 11:54 PM

Tenth Amendment Center

Last week, a federal judge dismissed a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the Kansas Second Amendment Protection Act, saying the suit from the Brady Campaign was “without merit.”

The law, signed by Gov. Sam Brownback in 2013, draws a line in the sand on federal gun control. It reads, in part:

Any act, law, treaty, order, rule or regulation of the government of the United States which violates the second amendment to the constitution of the United States is null, void and unenforceable in the state of Kansas

In conjunction with Section 6a (quoted above), the bill defines what is meant by “the second amendment to the constitution of the United States,” and that it isn’t based off a decision of the supreme court.

The second amendment to the constitution of the United States reserves to the people, individually, the right to keep and bear arms as that right was understood at the time that Kansas was admitted to statehood in 1861, and the guaranty of that right is a matter of contract between the state and people of Kansas and the United States as of the time that the compact with the United States was agreed upon and adopted by Kansas in 1859 and the United States in 1861.

State and local agents would be prevented from enforcing any acts or actions that are “null, void and unenforceable in the state of Kansas.” Based off this text, the state of Kansas would not be allowed to participate in any federal gun control measures that restrict the individual right to keep and bear arms as understood in 1861.

A second part of the bill seeks to encourage more gun manufacturing in the state by declaring null and void any federal restrictions, under the commerce clause, on firearms made and sold within the state.

A personal firearm, a firearm accessory or ammunition that manufactured commercially or privately and owned in Kansas and that remains within the borders of Kansas is not subject to any federal law, treaty, federal regulation, or federal executive action, including any federal firearm or ammunition registration program, under the authority of congress to regulate interstate commerce. It is declared by the legislature that those items have not traveled in interstate commerce.

This section of the bill is backed up by criminal charges.

It is unlawful for any official, agent or employee of the government of the United States, or employee of a corporation providing services to the government of the United States to enforce or attempt to enforce any act, law, treaty, order, rule or regulation of the government of the United States upon a firearm, a firearm accessory, or ammunition that is manufactured commercially or privately and owned in the state of Kansas and that remains within the borders of Kansas. Violation of this section is a severity level 10 nonperson felony

Any criminal prosecution for a violation of this section shall be commenced by service of complaint and summons upon such official, agent or employee. Such official, agent or employee shall not be arrested or otherwise detained prior to, or during the pendency of, any trial for a violation of this section.

Once a federal agent violates this law, they would be served with a complaint and summons, whereby criminal proceedings can begin.

BRADY CLAIMS

At the heart of the Brady Campaign’s legal argument is that the state law is ”an unconstitutional attempt to nullify federal gun control regulations.” Their concern is that state enforcement of the act “will have the effect of deterring application of federal gun laws in Kansas.”

That’s exactly what the bill is supposed to do.

Additionally, Brady complained, one of its members could have been prosecuted by the state for trying to help federal agents enforce federal gun laws.

U.S. District Court Judge Julie Robinson dismissed the claim on the basis of “subject matter jurisdiction,” noting that no actual prosecution had taken place.

…Brady Campaign lacks Article III standing to challenge the Second Amendment Protection Act in this lawsuit because it has not shown that enforcement of the statute inflicts an actual or imminently-threatened injury on any Brady Campaign member.

While it may seem like this was a technical victory, it is important to remember not who challenged the law, but who didn’t: the federal government. Guns.com aptly summed up their all bark and no bite stance:

While the U.S. Department of Justice panned the law, calling it unenforceable, it was only the Brady group that sought to challenge it.

This failed lawsuit by the Brady Campaign demonstrates the effectiveness of SAPA in two ways. One, it was upheld in federal court, which proves that such legislation is not merely political grandstanding that will be overturned in the courtroom. Two, the federal government’s unwillingness to contest its constitutionality – for now – speaks greater volume than any words they may speak against it. The boxer who takes his gloves off should not speak like one who puts them on.

NEXT UP

What’s important to note is that the federal court didn’t say that the federal government doesn’t have the power to regulate firearms under the commerce clause, as the Kansas law states. The Brady suit was dismissed for lack of standing. Should local gun manufacturers start acting outside of federal law, and should Kansas law enforcement serve a complaint on summons on a federal agent, it’s likely to be challenged by the federal government, with the federal courts likely to side with Washington D.C.

However, one part of the bill isn’t being challenged at all, the section setting the foundation for all state and local agents to refuse to help implement federal gun measures. This is based on the long-standing anti-commandeering doctrine, where the Supreme Court has repeatedly held that the federal government cannot require states to use personnel or resources to help enforce federal acts or regulatory programs.

Moving forward, every city, county, and town in the state should take action to pass legislation giving full practical effect to the state law. The 2nd Amendment Preservation Ordinance bans the use of local resources to effectuate federal gun control measures.

download it here:

http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/kansaslocal

People in other states are encouraged to sign our petition, review our model legislation for states, and spread the word!

Michael Boldin contributed to this report.

Brady v Kansas

Published by Guns.com [on Scribd.]

A federal judge last week tossed out a lawsuit from a gun control group challenging Kansas over what is called the strictest Second Amendment protection law in the nation.

The suit, filed last year in U.S. District Court by the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, aimed to take Kansas Gov. Sam Brownback (R) and the state to task over the Sunflower State’s Second Amendment Protection Act.


_____________________

A Win for States Rights and 2nd Amendment

John R. Houk

© June 10, 2015

__________________________

Nullification 1, Brady Campaign 0: Federal Judge Dismisses Suit Against Kansas 2nd Amendment Protection Act

 

Tenth Amendment Center

The Unalienable Rights of Man


Chris Cuomo vs. AL Chief Justice Roy Moore

Chris Cuomo interviewing AL Supreme Court Chief Justice Roy Moore

 

 

Mark Alexander writes about how Alabama Supreme Court Chief Justice Roy Moore (Politico gives a decent profile yet as expected is a bit judgmental by I think to attain to neutrality) contradicts Lefty Chris Cuomo (Andrew’s bro and Mario’s son) assertion that America’s Rights and Laws come from Man’s collective agreement and compromise. Cuomo’s assertion was in response to Moore’s assertion that “Rights contained in the Bill of Rights do not come from the Constitution, they come from God.”

 

God bless Roy Moore and my fellow Americans be wary of the American Left propaganda. That propaganda is a part of President Barack Hussein Obama’s 2008 promise to fundamentally transform America. That transformation agenda is to increase government meddling, decrease the influence of our Christian heritage, embrace a Socialist-Democratic governing model that weakens our future with Multiculturalism trumping our Founding Fathers.

 

See Also Mark Levin on Cuomo’s assertion.

 

JRH 2/19/15

Please Support NCCR

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

The Unalienable Rights of Man

A Brief Civics Lesson on the Fundamentals of Liberty

 

Support-Defend Essential Liberty

 

By Mark Alexander

Feb. 18, 2015

The Patriot Post

 

 

“God who gave us life gave us Liberty. Can the liberties of a nation be secure when we have removed a conviction that these liberties are the gift of God? Indeed I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just, that His justice cannot sleep forever.” –Thomas Jefferson (1774)

 

Just in time for the faux celebration of “Presidents’ Day” this week, faux CNN celebrity “journalist” Chris Cuomo, brother of New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo (both heirs to the Mario Cuomo Demo Dynasty), managed to dispense with the Declaration of Independence and its 239 year enshrinement of American Liberty – in a mere 10 seconds.

 

In Cuomo’s interview with a real Patriot, Alabama Supreme Court Chief Justice Roy Moore, on a Tenth Amendment (States’ Rights) issue, Judge Moore stated that the “Rights contained in the Bill of Rights do not come from the Constitution, they come from God.”

 

Cuomo, endeavoring to redefine the origin of Rights, rebutted, “Our rights do not come from God, your honor, and you know that. They come from man. … That’s your faith, that’s my faith, but that’s not our country. Our laws come from collective agreement and compromise.”

 

I am quite sure that Judge Moore, a West Point graduate, Army captain and Vietnam veteran who later earned his JD and embarked on a law career, wanted to grab Cuomo, who has spent his entire adult life as a media talkinghead, and slap some sense into him.

 

Instead, Judge Moore responded thoughtfully and respectfully, paraphrasing our Declaration’s foundational assertion, which reads, “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator [not man] with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among [not over] Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed [not the government].”

 

Given that Cuomo’s knowledge of history and law is unduly limited by his Ivy League education, and unduly revisionist by his Democratic Party indoctrination, allow me to provide an elementary civics lesson in regard to the words “endowed by their Creator.”

 

First, Cuomo argues, “Our rights do not come from God. … That’s your faith, that’s my faith…”

 

Wrong, wrong and wrong.

 

The first paragraph of our Declaration references “the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them,” which informs the words “endowed by their Creator” in the second paragraph.

 

To better understand what is meant by “the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God,” recall that our Declaration’s signers were not of one mind on matters of theology and doctrine. They were Christians, Deists and Agnostics, but they did, however, uniformly declare that the Rights of all people were, are and forever will be innate and unalienable, as established by “the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God.”

 

This is not an article of “faith” as Cuomo assumes. It is the assertion that the right to “Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness,” while enshrined in our Declaration, is inherent and applicable to all humans of every nation, religion, race and ethnicity, for all time.

 

It makes no difference what your concept of “Nature’s God” or our “Creator” is, or whether you even subscribe to any such conceptualization. You, and all people, are entitled to Liberty and all the rights it embodies.

 

As Founder Alexander Hamilton wrote, “The sacred Rights of mankind are not to be rummaged for among parchments and musty records. They are written, as with a sunbeam, in the whole volume of human nature, by the Hand of Divinity itself, and can never be erased or obscured by mortal power.”

 

Next, Cuomo insisted, “That’s not our country. Our laws come from collective agreement and compromise.”

 

Now that is an absurdly malleable heap of horse pucky. Cuomo has discounted the universal guidance of the Declaration, as if our Founders intended the Constitution as a substitute for it. Of course, it did no such thing, nor was that the intent of our Constitution’s delegation or ratification.

 

In that regard, I note that on the occasion of the Declaration’s 50th anniversary, James Madison (our Constitution’s principle author) wrote to Thomas Jefferson (our Declaration’s principle author), that the Constitution was subordinate to the Rights enshrined in our Declaration. Madison noted, “On the distinctive principles of the Government … of the U. States, the best guides are to be found in … The Declaration of Independence, as the fundamental Act of Union of these States.”

 

In other words, although the Articles of Confederation and its successor, the U.S. Constitution, were the contractual agreements binding the several states into one union – E Pluribus Unum – the innate Rights of Man identified in the Declaration are the overarching act of that union, and would never be negotiable by way of “collective agreement and compromise.”

 

Nor are those Rights negotiable today or tomorrow.

 

However, Cuomo’s conflation of Rights and laws asserts that the Rights of Man are, at any time, subject to the whims of agreement and compromise. Again, one wonders what part of “they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights” Cuomo doesn’t understand. Perhaps it’s the “unalienable” part, which means “unable to be taken away or transferred.”

 

Not only do Cuomo and his leftist ilk refuse to acknowledge that the Rights of Man are non-negotiable, but they subscribe to the errant notion of a “living constitution” – one which is subject to executive and legislative encroachment, and particularly judicial amendment by diktat, instead of its prescribed method of amendment in Article V.

 

Though they take solemn oaths to “to Support and Defend” our Constitution, most politicians on the Left and too many on the Right ignore that obligation, and have trampled Constitutional Rule of Law with reckless abandon. The implications for Liberty are dire.

 

The debate between Judge Moore and Cuomo is the foundational basis of all historical debate regarding Liberty and tyranny, or in contemporary political parlance, between Right and Left – between conservatives and liberals. The core question being debated: Who endows the Rights of Man, God (as ordained in natural law) or government (ordained by man)?

 

The Left’s position has been made plainly evident by Barack Hussein Obama, who has a history of deliberately and repeatedly omitting the words “endowed by their Creator” when citing in open constituent forums the Declaration’s reference to “Rights.”

 

Obama and other contemporary leftist protagonists seek to substitute Liberty as ensured under Rule of Law with the rule of men. They do so because the former is predicated on the principle that Liberty is innately “endowed by our Creator,” while the latter asserts that government is the sole arbiter and grantor of Liberty.

 

Ignorance of the true and eternal source of the Rights of Man is fertile ground for the Left’s assertion that government endows such Rights. It is also perilous ground, soaked with the blood of generations of American Patriots defending Liberty at home and around the world. Indeed, as Jefferson wrote, “The tree of Liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.”

 

Our Founders concluded our Declaration with this pledge to each other, and all who would follow: “With a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.”

 

Millions of fellow Patriots honor that pledge today, and stand ready to extend Liberty to the next generation.

 

(To promote Liberty and recruit additional Patriots to our ranks, please distribute our Essential Liberty Pocket Guide to your family, friends and colleagues.)

 

Pro Deo et Constitutione – Libertas aut Mors
Semper Fortis Vigilate Paratus et Fidelis

 

__________________________

[Blog Editor: The Patriot Post is absolutely a supporter supplied organization. PLEASE send your appreciation from your check book or online – HERE]

 

*PUBLIUS*

 

The Patriot Post is protected speech pursuant to the “unalienable rights” of all men, and the First (and Second) Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America. In God we trust. Copyright © 2015 The Patriot Post. All Rights Reserved.

 

REPRINTING, FORWARDING AND POSTING: Subscribers may reprint, forward or post original content from The Patriot Post, in whole or part, in accordance with our Terms of Use, with the following citation: “The Patriot Post (http://patriotpost.us/subscribe/ )”

 

The Patriot Post
PO Box 507
Chattanooga, TN 374
01

Birthers May have Found Path to Re-Publicize NBC


(BHO) Born Identity

John R. Houk

© January 21, 2012

 

Joseph Farah’s WorldNetDaily (WND) is still on the Birther bandwagon. In case you have had your head in the sand the last five years Birthers are those that believe President Barack Hussein Obama is not a natural born citizen (NBC) and therefore is not eligible to be President of the United States of America (POTUS).

 

WND writer Bob Unruh reported yesterday that a Georgia State Judge has stood up to the POTUS and has refused to quash a citizen’s civil suit requiring BHO to attend a hearing with documents in tow to prove his eligibility.

 

BHO’s lawyers are claiming POTUS has Federal jurisdiction that outweighs State jurisdiction. Thus BHO’s lawyers have turned the Birther issue into a States’ Rights issue. Ultimately this could lead to the Federal judiciary process deciding if State judicial jurisdiction on a State issue can indeed make a ruling affecting the standing of the POTUS within the confines of a State.

 

This could develop to be a thorn in BHO’s side depending how far such an issue proceeds through Federal judiciary system from Federal District Judge, Appellate Court through to the ultimate stop of the Supreme Court. In a Presidential election year whether the GOP nomination uses Birther beliefs or not, a court case like this will re-ignite reasons for voters to distrust incumbent President Barak Hussein Obama.

 

JRH 1/21/12

Using Federalism to Nullify Roe v. Wade


Aborted Baby

 

John R. Houk

© July 2011

 

I am unapologetically a Pro-Life person. I believe children have more rights to be protected than a woman has a right over her own body. I believe life begins at conception. I believe life is the result of the Creator. I believe killing an unborn life merely as a form of birth control is reprehensible, evil and murder.

 

Now this is where I may disagree with many of my fellow Pro-Lifers. I believe a pregnancy that resulted from rape should be provided with the abortion pill or whatever they are calling it these days because rape is the act brutal pathological violence even if it is a onetime snap of judgment. Because the trauma of a rape on a woman is taking away her right to safety and quite probably scarring her psychological ability to deal with a healthy romance or interpersonal relations with the opposite sex I favor the female victim to make a choice of abortion, adoption or keeping the child.

 

I believe if it is a choice between the life of an unborn child or the life of a pregnant woman, then the choice of life should go to the woman.

 

I know in these two instances I might be in trouble with my fellow Pro-Lifers.

 

Yet I have to reassert that abortion as the mere act of birth control IS HEINOUSLY AN UNGODLY ACT OF MURDER.

 

Having said all this I found an interesting tidbit of information from the Tenth Amendment Center (TAC) about the law and abortion. TAC evidently has been tracking proposed legislation in the great State of Ohio that might “nullify” Roe v. Wade which opened wide the gates of unborn infanticide in America. Those gates were swung open by the United States Supreme Court by deciding 7 to 2 to legalize abortion as a right to privacy issue which can loosely be interpreted that a woman’s decisions over her body weighs more than the unborn human life to have the right to live.

 

The TAC reports that the Lower House of the Ohio State General Assembly has passed legislation that would define human life to begin with a viable heart beat. If the General Assembly Senate follows suit and the Ohio Governor signs such a Bill into law there certain to be an Appellate and probable Supreme Court weigh-in on such a law.

 

According to the TAC report it seems that many Pro-Lifers believe such an Ohio law will hand more nails in the coffin of the Right to Life when the Federal Court system makes a decision which might use Roe v. Wade as part of judicial history to overturn such a law on the State level.

 

I on the other hand believe that if an anti-abortion law comes into existence on the State level it will be the opportunity to reaffirm the principle of Federalism that our great nation was founded upon. We are talking States’ Rights and the Federal Court to uphold the principle of the Tenth Amendment:

 

“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

 

Allowing sovereign States in the Union of the United States of America to decide the legality or illegality of abortion would fit closer to the Tenth Amendment and the right of the States to make law that is not specifically written in the U.S. Constitution. Keep in mind U.S. Congressional Bills are not the same as the U.S. Constitution.

 

The Federalist path to Pro-Life may not be the perfect picture of God creating life at conception; however it would be a great beginning to reverse Roe v. Wade.

 

JRH 7/15/11