Black Robed Tyranny Lives


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

 

JRH 8/3/20

Your generosity is always appreciated – various credit, check 

& debit cards are accepted by my PayPal account: 

Please Support NCCR

Or support by getting in the Coffee from home business – 

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

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

Black Robed Tyranny Lives

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

 

By Justin O. Smith

Sent 8/1/2020 11:05 PM

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

What hypocrites. What anti-American hypocritical tyrants.

 

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

 

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.]

 

And Justice Neil Gorsuch concurred with Alito, writing:

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

By Justin O. Smith

______________________________

Edited by John R. Houk

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

 

© Justin O. Smith

 

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

 

Judicial Tyranny or Constitutional Supremacy:


SCOTUS Travel Ban Ruling Decides

 

By John R. Houk

© June 4, 2017

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

WHY?

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Thomas Jefferson letter to Charles Hammond

Categories: Courts / Judiciary

Date: August 18, 1821

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

 

Alexander Hamilton The Federalist Papers Federalist No. 78

Categories: Courts / Judiciary

Date: June 14, 1788

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

 

Thomas Jefferson letter to Judge Spencer Roane

Categories: Courts / Judiciary

Date: September 6, 1819

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

 

Alexander Hamilton The Federalist Papers Federalist No. 78

Categories: Courts / Judiciary

Date: June 14, 1788

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

 

James Madison The Federalist Papers Federalist No. 47

Categories: Separation of Powers

Date: January 30, 1788

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Here is some further reading:

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

JRH 6/4/17

 Please Support NCCR

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

Supreme Court to Lift Ban on Travel Ban

 

By Douglas V. Gibbs

June 4, 2017

Canada Free Press

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

According to Fox News:

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

________________

Judicial Tyranny or Constitutional Supremacy:

SCOTUS Travel Ban Ruling Decides

 

By John R. Houk

© June 4, 2017

________________

Supreme Court to Lift Ban on Travel Ban

 

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

 

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

 

The First Freedom


Justin Smith captures the essence of SCOTUS joining the American Left to destroy Christianity in a stealthy slow whittling manner.

JRH 7/6/15

Please Support NCCR

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

The First Freedom

By Justin O. Smith

Sent: 7/4/2015 1:41 PM

Natural law – God’s law – will always trump common law. God will have the final word in this matter.” – Alveda King, a Christian leader and Martin Luther King, Jr.’s niece

The Supreme Court’s recent egregious and error-filled ruling in Obergefell v. Hodges, favoring homosexual marriage, has seriously endangered the liberty of all Americans, through its gross distortions of the documents fundamental to American liberty. This ruling, facilitated by five Progressive Justices acting like oligarchs, created through judicial decree a previously non-existent “constitutional right” to sin-based “gay marriage,” and it showed all Americans that they can never again trust in the rulings of the Court, when Liberty hangs in the balance.

The First Freedom — Religious Liberty — is currently in crisis, because the many activist federal judges and “conservative” Justices, like Anthony Kennedy, are willing to move Left, even if they must defy the Constitution. Too many conservatives have refused to stand in defense of religious liberty, and they follow rules that Democrats ignore, as these Progressives unfold their Machiavellian plan. If religious liberty can be undone by decree, and the people allow it, then so too can every other liberty be undone.

The Framers of Our Constitution thought that Congress’s “power of instituting impeachments,” explained by Alexander Hamilton in the Federalist Papers, would be an “important constitutional check” and would provide “a complete security against the justices’ deliberate usurpations of the authority of the legislature.” [The Essential Federalist Papers; Edited by Steve Straub; The Federalist Papers Project; 10/3/13; Federalist 81- pg. 24 of document – pg. 25 of PDF] But, with Congress currently lacking will and backbone, any prospect of impeachment is virtually non-existent and still offers no remedy.

In March of 1788, Robert Yates, a New York judge, published the ‘Anti-Federalist Papers’ under the name “Brutus.” [You can find the text to all Brutus Anti-Federalist essays HERE.] He noted that the Supreme Court would favor the increase of federal power at the expense of the states [Blog Editor’s opinion: These Brutus essays are must reads to ascertain Justin Smith’s exegesis of Robert Yates’ on SCOTUS, the States and Legislature – XI, XII, XIII and XV], just in the manner we now see state laws defining marriage as only between a man and a woman recently eradicated. Brutus also worried that SCOTUS could use its interpretive “principles, whatever they may be” to explain its own power and define that of the legislative branch through the threat of having its laws declared unconstitutional; so the precedent of Obergefell v. Hodges portends terribly evil events surrounding any future legislation on abortion or marriage.

Justice John Roberts’ dissent proves the truth of Brutus’s words:

“The majority’s ruling is an act of will, not legal judgment. The right it announces has no basis in the Constitution … The majority expressly disclaims judicial ‘caution’ and omits even a pretense of humility, openly relying on its desire to remake society according to its own ‘new insight’ into the ‘nature of injustice.'” [Entire Roberts Dissent]

Isn’t it curious and sickening that homosexuality, considered a mental disorder throughout the 1970s by the American Psychiatric Association and considered perverted and criminal by society until this century, is now supposedly acceptable, with homo-marriage “a constitutional right”?

Obergefell v. Hodges effectively nullified the votes of 50 million Americans, representing 60% of votes cast on the matter to date, and negated their affirmation that marriage is between one man and one woman. Thus, five Black Robes — the Court — trampled on the constitutional authority of the American people and our elected representatives to make marriage policy.

In part, Justice Antonin Scalia’s scathing dissent stated [Search Page: “SCALIA, J., dissenting]:

“The five Justices … have discovered in the 14th Amendment a ‘fundamental right’ overlooked by every person alive at the time of ratification, and almost everyone else in the time since. They see what lesser legal minds … John Marshall Harlan, Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., Learned Hand … Hugo Black … could not. ,,, These Justices know that an institution [marriage as defined as being between one man and one woman] as old as the government itself, and accepted by every nation in history until fifteen years ago, cannot possibly be supported by anything other than ignorance and bigotry. … The stuff contained in today’s opinion has to diminish this Court’s reputation for clear thinking and sober analysis.”

Any honest reading of the First Amendment’s “free exercise” clause would conclude that Christians cannot be forced to violate their conscience through compulsory participation in, or recognition of, “gay marriages”; however, while the First Amendment guarantees the freedom to “exercise” religion, the majority opinion in Obergefell v. Hodges omits any mention of the free exercise clause, suggesting only that the Keepers of the Faith may continue to “advocate” and “teach” our views of marriage.

Without a doubt, a total purge of America’s Judeo-Christian principles and values is underway in the public square and our education systems, and this “gay marriage” and sodomite deviancy nonsense is nothing more than a move to force Christ’s faithful, under penalty of law to abandon Biblical Truth and accept sexual sin in their midst, with the endgame essentially being the silencing of all Christian dissent: I will not let them silence me.

Pat Buchanan recently asked (in ‘Quo Vadis’),

“Does moral truth change? Are the Ten Commandments and Christian tradition and Natural law as defined by Aquinas just fine for their time, but not for ours?”

Todd Starnes (Fox News Radio) recently reported that Linda Barnette, from Grenada County-Mississippi, left her County Clerk position after 24 years of service, rather than issue marriage licenses to homosexuals. She wrote, “I choose to obey God rather than man,” in her one paragraph resignation letter. Unfortunately, the Court Clerk of Rutherford County, my home, did not have the same moral compass, resolve and strength of conviction, issuing homosexual “marriage licenses” immediately.

This homo-marriage ruling comes straight from Hell’s abyss, even though it supposedly still protects religious liberty. Aside from creating new furious debate, this ruling will also increase Christian persecution, through Leftist Progressive lawsuit abuse against Christian individuals, like Cynthia and Robert Gifford, who recently appealed a $13,000 fine they received for refusing to host a “gay wedding” at their privately owned Liberty Ridge Farm (Albany, NY) in June, as they argue that the lower court did not consider their constitutional freedoms and religious beliefs.

More than equality under the law — more than toleration — the “gay” community wants to force all Americans to validate their immorality. And, as such, Christians must refuse to comply with any ruling that forces us into any unwanted association with homosexuals, and we must demand that Congress restrains the Court by defunding it, if necessary: America — do not obey this rogue Court’s ruling.

Christians must tell the truth and fight back hard, if they don’t want to become second class citizens. Tell about a nation founded on Religious Freedom and rights that don’t end the moment we leave church, and fight for the 70% of Americans who claim to be Christians. Tell about the raw hatred for Christians that is driving the illiberal Progressives to crush religious freedom just as Marx and Engels mandated, and fight for religious freedom acts in all fifty states in order to counter today’s open warfare on Christians by the Left.

By Justin O Smith

________________________

Edited by John R. Houk

All links as well as text embraced by brackets are by the Editor.

© Justin O. Smith

Constitution, Judicial Tyranny and a Moral Society


James Madison on Tyranny

John R. Houk

© November 14, 2014

 

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

 

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

 

Original Intent:

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

 

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

 

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Living Constitution:

 

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

 

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

 

 

 

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

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

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

 

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

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

 

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

 

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

 

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

JRH 11/14/14

Please Support NCCR

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

One Nation Under Godlessness

 

By Michelle Malkin

November 14, 2014

Townhall.com

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

________________________

Constitution, Judicial Tyranny and a Moral Society

John R. Houk

© November 14, 2014

_______________________

One Nation Under Godlessness

 

Michelle Malkin

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

 

Copyright © Townhall.com. All Rights Reserved.

 

Townhall.com About Page

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

%d bloggers like this: