You don’t hand matches to an arsonist

The victory of Brett Kavanaugh faded quickly in my spirit.  It was something President Trump asked the crowd in Kansas.  “If they act this way trying to get power what do you think they will be like if they get the power?”

Then he said, “you don’t hand matches to an arsonist.”

Diane Feinstein will slander an innocent man—hold back that slander till it has the most sadistic impact on a godly family—just to win an election.  If she does that now, what would she do with a Senate majority?

The left believes men should be guilty until proven guilty.  They want carte blanche to investigate until the lies suffocate the truth. 

And what if Kavanaugh had quit?  What if that towering miscarriage of justice had carried the day? The war on men would have reached critical mass.

As it stands, all we have won is a battle.  The war goes on.  We will still see this ideology canonized in the courts if the left gains control.

Oh, they won’t go after every man…just your man.  They won’t investigate Bill Clinton for rape or Keith Ellison for beating a woman senseless.  They only want to stop men who oppose their agenda.  What do you think they’d do to your Christian, conservative son, brother, husband, father, if they get in the way?

What about the street thugs of the left?  With a Democratic majority they will be emboldened to expand and deepen their disruption and violence.  The streets can become their reign of terror, destroying property and reputations.  They will operate with impunity shielded by a Congress sympathetic to their cause.

Whatever restraint Facebook, YouTube, Twitter, and all the social media platforms are showing now will go away.  Instead of shadow banning there will just be banning.

Hollywood, and all the media voices of the left would churn out complete propaganda, drowning out all opposing views.  Look at this tweet:

The writer of this vile tweet is a writer on the Stephen Colbert show, and has nearly 40,000 followers on Twitter. As the Senate confirmation vote was gearing up, she wanted everyone to know that “whatever happens” she is “just” glad she ruined a man’s life. Never mind if he was innocent, never mind any of the facts or corroborations or shifting stories of his accuser. The important thing to her was ruining his life. That was what mattered.

We have entered a moment unlike any in history.  They only time it reminds me of is in Luke 4: 13 “When the devil had finished all this tempting, he left him until an opportune time.”

The left is a bloodied beast regrouping.  Their vile behavior against Kavanaugh was just a dress rehearsal. Starting today, they will unleash deceit, intimidation and yes, violence.  Dark money will fuel their dirty commercials.  A tsunami of leftist sewage is about to crash into the nation.

Mario, I don’t believe you, this can’t happen.  Yeah and did you ever think something like these depraved confirmation hearings could happen?

The stakes for November are beyond calculation.  I have never seen, nor will I ever see a closer tie between my faith and my vote.  They have become virtually inseparable.  One is now an extension of the other.  Every believer must storm heaven in prayer!  Every believer must go and vote.  If your pastor is not rallying you to pray and vote why are you still listening to them?

You don’t hand matches to an arsonist.  However, if you think you are spiritual by not voting you need to realize this:  while you aren’t handing an arsonist matches, you are leaving them out on the table.

Dear Democrats you did this to yourselves

 

“Republican enthusiasm surges amid Supreme Court battle!”  That’s what Katie Glueck and Adam Wollner of the Maclatchy Report said in their article of the same name.

“Conversations with pollsters, strategists and party officials reveal that Republican voters are circling the wagons around Brett Kavanaugh, Trump’s Supreme Court nominee who has been accused of sexual assault, allegations he strongly denies. And now, there are concrete signs that the drama over his confirmation, complete with emotional Senate hearings and an FBI supplemental investigation, is helping Republicans close an enthusiasm gap with Democrats, which has been one of the GOP’s biggest challenges of the last two years.

‘It’s the difference between victory and defeat in a close race,’ said veteran GOP pollster Whit Ayres, who said he’s seeing a bump in Republican enthusiasm. ‘They’re pretty upset about how Kavanaugh has been treated.’”

 Feinstein and all the rest crossed the one line you don’t cross with Americans: their sense of fairness.  Both liberal and conservative Americans are disgusted by the treatment of Brett Kavanaugh.  And there are signs that the public is going to punish the Democratic Party for this circus of horrors.

No longer can you blame Trump…you did this to yourselves.  Today for example, Chuck Schumer is screaming that there is only one copy of the FBI report on Kavanaugh for Senators to read.  That is a procedure Obama created with the Justice Department in 2009.  Again, they did it to themselves. 

The media, universities, and the Democratic Party’s credibility is imploding.  The press is crying foul.  They claim the president’s attacks erode democracy.  The truth is, they have been caught red-handed omitting facts and giving credence to people who have lied. They have been tagged for eroding democracy, once again they did it to themselves.

Tragically, they are not only missing the point, they are basking in their self-inflicted wounds.

Secular progressives from all of these institutions have deranged themselves.  Old Democratic Party leftists will not even consider self-examination.   The damage is now clear.   Unable to take anymore, many mainstream liberals are quietly excusing themselves …quietly because of the left’s slander-terror campaign against any liberal who openly disagrees.

The exasperating—over-the-top—leftist behavior has given the nation combat fatigue.  Not to mention they look and sound just plain loony.  The new radical left has trapped Democrats trapped in a twilight zone.  They are too big to be an insane asylum and too small to be a national movement.  They are merely an elite, out of touch group of bullies who—for the moment at least—hold the microphone.  It appears however that they will have to face the facts of life.

It’s a fact of life: the public will hold you accountable when you don’t hold yourself accountable.

It’s a fact of life: silencing people does not convert them.

The Trump excuse has worn thin and the left must pay the piper.  They told the lies.  They colluded to elect Hillary Clinton.  They own the narrative that is spewing venom.  They are the ones who look unhinged.

fatigue

Here’s an all points left wing loon bulletin:

The University of Michigan has banned whiteboards in the dorms to cut down on hurtful words.

From the Devolving, Democratic Congress:  Maxine Waters calls the entire Trump Cabinet “scumbags.”

From the fading CNN Bunker:  A father asks Chris Cuomo, “what if my twelve-year-old daughter doesn’t want to see male genitalia in the girl’s locker room?”  His answer, “her overprotective father should teach her tolerance.”

A terror group in the Bay Area who call themselves By Any Means Necessary say that they break windows, set buildings on fire and beat people to silence speakers on campus.  Oh, and not on just any campus but Sproul Plaza at Cal Berkeley: the birthplace of the free speech movement.   They said, “Our violence is an act of self-defense.”

When you scream that the enemy is white male Christians—when you use violence to stop free speech—when you say gender is not scientific—you not only sound crazy, but you show the public that the real racism, sexism, and hate is coming from.

You are driving folks to conservatism.  You are the early committee to reelect Trump.  You are alienating America.  A part of me doesn’t want to tell you this.  Napoleon said, “never interfere with your enemy when he is making a mistake.”

John Voight’s plea to save America

Hollywood conservative and staunch Donald Trump supporter Jon Voight released a video “Plea to Save America” on Thursday, urging Americans to vote for the Republican candidate in next month’s election, which the actor called the “most important in American history.”
The actor, who recently sparred with Democratic contributor and Hillary Clinton supporter Robert De Niro over the latter’s disdain for Trump, appealed to Americans to vote for the only candidate who can “save our America.”

The full transcript of Voight’s remarks are below:

My dear fellow Americans.

We are all feeling tremendous anxiety with only a few weeks left to the election. This will be the most important election in American history.

We were once a country of freedom, and now we’re becoming a country of tyranny.

We are witness to our own people burning down and looting our cities. Ferguson, Missouri, Milwaukee, Orlando, Florida, Baltimore. We are all witness to our own people killing our policemen. Islamic terrorists have killed thousands of people all over our country, and Hillary and Obama want to be politically correct and pretend all the killings are not happening.

How many Americans are aware of George Soros? An evil man, who turned hundreds of Jewish people over the Nazis to be exterminated during World War II. He was interviewed on 60 Minutes, and was asked does he feel guilty for what he has done. And arrogantly, he said ‘Absolutely not. If I didn’t do it, someone else would have.’

Soros is a billionaire, who made most of his money manipulating currencies and almost bankrupting many countries. He supports hate groups, who are responsible for taking down our cities. And he is a close friend of Hillary Clinton, and a major supporter of her campaign.

Robert De Niro is a millionaire, as are so many of our Hollywood stars who are voting for Hillary, and who have absolutely no tolerance for anyone with a different opinion, forgetting that that is what our country is founded on: freedom of choice. But they will not be affected by Hillary’s open borders. Only our poor and middle class will suffer.

Thousands of refugees will flood our nation, and no one will know the good guys from the bad guys. It will kill our economy, which is at an all-time low now under the years of Obama’s presidency. And Hillary boasts of how proud she will be to continue Obama’s legacy.

No one can afford health insurance now. Prices for healthcare have gone through the roof thanks to Obamacare. Our once reasonable healthcare is gone.

With Hillary as President, we will lose our Second Amendment right to bear arms. Freedom of religion will be attacked, and Hillary will try to stop all conservative voices on TV and radio. Our highest court will become Socialist, and she will restrict what America was founded on, our freedom to become a small business owner and pursue our own personal dreams.

She has blood on her hands from the Benghazi terrorist raid. Four of our American patriots died, and when the parents stood over their loved ones’ coffins, she lied to them about the cause of their sons’ deaths.

The pendulum of freedom is not balanced. Hillary and her followers are on a crude campaign to stop and degrade all of Trump’s followers. Her words were echoed loud and clear for all Americans to hear. Hillary said Trump’s followers are a basket of deplorables. They are un-redeemable.

May God protect the real truth, and may Donald Trump win this presidency. He will save our America, and he will certainly make it great again.

Should Christians Vote for Trump?

Should Christians Vote for Trump?

By Eric Metaxas

Over this past year many of Donald Trump’s comments have made me almost literally hopping mad. The hot-mic comments from 2005 are especially horrifying. Can there be any question we should denounce them with flailing arms and screeching volume?

Trump’s behavior is odious, but Clinton has a deplorable basketful of deal breakers.

This question should hardly require an essay, but let’s face it: We’re living in strange times. America is in trouble.

Over this past year many of Donald Trump’s comments have made me almost literally hopping mad. The hot-mic comments from 2005 are especially horrifying. Can there be any question we should denounce them with flailing arms and screeching volume? I must not hang out in the right locker rooms, because if anyone I know said such things I might assault him physically (and repent later). So yes, many see these comments as a deal breaker.

But we have a very knotty and larger problem. What if the other candidate also has deal breakers? Even a whole deplorable basketful? Suddenly things become horribly awkward. Would God want me simply not to vote? Is that a serious option?

-What if not pulling the lever for Mr. Trump effectively means electing someone who has actively enabled sexual predation in her husband before—and while—he was president?

-Won’t God hold me responsible for that? What if she defended a man who raped a 12-year-old and in recalling the case laughed about getting away with it? Will I be excused from letting this person become president?

-What if she used her position as secretary of state to funnel hundreds of millions into her own foundation, much of it from nations that treat women and gay people worse than dogs? Since these things are true, can I escape responsibility for them by simply not voting?

Many say they won’t vote because choosing the lesser of two evils is still choosing evil. But this is sophistry. Neither candidate is pure evil. They are human beings. We cannot escape the uncomfortable obligation to soberly choose between them.

if

Not voting—or voting for a third candidate who cannot win—is a rationalization designed more than anything to assuage our consciences. Yet people in America and abroad depend on voters to make this very difficult choice.

Children in the Middle East are forced to watch their fathers drowned in cages by ISIS. Kids in inner-city America are condemned to lives of poverty, hopelessness and increasing violence. Shall we sit on our hands and simply trust “the least of these” to God, as though that were our only option? Don’t we have an obligation to them?

Two heroes about whom I’ve written faced similar difficulties. William Wilberforce, who ended the slave trade in the British Empire, often worked with other parliamentarians he knew to be vile and immoral in their personal lives.

Why did he? First, because as a sincere Christian he knew he must extend grace and forgiveness to others, since he desperately needed them himself. Second, because he knew the main issue was not his moral purity, nor the moral impurity of his colleagues, but rather the injustices and horrors suffered by the African slaves whose cause he championed. He knew that before God his first obligation was to them, and he must do what he could to help them.

The anti-Nazi martyr Dietrich Bonhoeffer also did things most Christians of his day were disgusted by. He most infamously joined a plot to kill the head of his government. He was horrified by it, but he did it nonetheless because he knew that to stay “morally pure” would allow the murder of millions to continue. Doing nothing or merely “praying” was not an option. He understood that God was merciful, and that even if his actions were wrong, God saw his heart and could forgive him. But he knew he must act.

Wilberforce and Bonhoeffer knew it was an audience of One to whom they would ultimately answer. And He asks, “What did you do to the least of these?”

 

It’s a fact that if Hillary Clinton is elected, the country’s chance to have a Supreme Court that values the Constitution—and the genuine liberty and self-government for which millions have died—is gone. Not for four years, or eight, but forever.

Many say Mr. Trump can’t be trusted to deliver on this score, but Mrs. Clinton certainly can be trusted in the opposite direction. For our kids and grandkids, are we not obliged to take our best shot at this? Shall we sit on our hands and refuse to choose?

If imperiously flouting the rules by having a private server endangered American lives and secrets and may lead to more deaths, if she cynically deleted thousands of emails, and if her foreign-policy judgment led to the rise of Islamic State, won’t refusing to vote make me responsible for those suffering as a result of these things?

vote

How do I squirm out of this horrific conundrum? It’s unavoidable: We who can vote must answer to God for these people, whom He loves. We are indeed our brothers’ and sisters’ keepers.

We would be responsible for passively electing someone who champions the abomination of partial-birth abortion, someone who is celebrated by an organization that sells baby parts. We already live in a country where judges force bakers, florists and photographers to violate their consciences and faith—and Mrs. Clinton has zealously ratified this. If we believe this ends with bakers and photographers, we are horribly mistaken. No matter your faith or lack of faith, this statist view of America will dramatically affect you and your children.

For many of us, this is very painful, pulling the lever for someone many think odious. But please consider this: A vote for Donald Trump is not necessarily a vote for Donald Trump himself. It is a vote for those who will be affected by the results of this election. Not to vote is to vote. God will not hold us guiltless.

A Clinton win would ensure the most liberal Supreme Court in 80 years

A Clinton win would ensure the most liberal Supreme Court in 80 years

The next president’s picks mean the difference between democracy and tyranny

By Senator Orrin Hatch

The outcome of this November’s election will determine the direction of the Supreme Court for a generation. The next president will have at least one, and as many as four or five, vacancies to fill. There is no more important issue in this election than the Supreme Court.

This is because Supreme Court justices do more than just decide legal cases. To a great extent, they shape the kind of country we have.

Judges come in two basic varieties — those who follow the law as enacted by the people’s representatives, and those who effectively rewrite the law to match their own personal preferences. The first type of judge seeks to implement the law as passed by Congress or state legislatures. The second kind of judge seeks to control the law by making the words in statutes and the Constitution mean what the judge wants them to mean.

The first kind of judge allows the people and their elected representatives to run the country and define our culture, while the second kind of judge prefers to take that role for himself. In this sense, the second type of judge acts as a sort of philosopher-king, deciding what sorts of laws and activities will be allowed, regardless of whether anything in the Constitution or existing law actually addresses the question. Supreme Court decisions restricting religious freedom, greatly expanding federal power, and legalizing abortion and same-sex marriage nationwide offer examples of the second type of judge in action.

The most critical issue in this year’s presidential election is which kind of judge each candidate is likely to appoint.

Donald Trump has said he would appoint the first kind of judge, one who follows the law and doesn’t seek to inject his or her personal views into policy debates. He’s pointed to the late Justice Antonin Scalia as the kind of judge he will select, one committed to faithfully implementing the laws Congress has actually passed. Mr. Trump has backed up that promise with a list of federal and state court judges who, he said, are “representative of the kind of constitutional principles I value.” That list was well received by those of us in the conservative legal movement who believe judges must enforce the law as written.

Hillary Clinton’s record, by contrast, shows that she would appoint a very different kind of judge. When she was a senator, she voted 24 times to filibuster President George W. Bush’s judicial nominees, including current Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito, an outstanding jurist. In fact, a comprehensive statistical analysis, based on a widely used measure of judicial ideology, concluded that if Hillary Clinton is elected, “the court may quickly become the most liberal it’s been in at least 80 years.”

No one today can predict with certainty who the next president will appoint to the Supreme Court. But here’s what we do know: The federal judiciary is more powerful than ever, and the Supreme Court will continue to have an enormous impact on our country and on our liberties. The next president will tip the court’s balance, installing a court majority that is either anchored in the text of our statutes and Constitution, or adrift on a sea of “undiscovered” rights and liberal policy ambitions.

We know one other important thing: While the Supreme Court gets much of the attention, the lower federal courts have the last word in the vast majority of cases. During his time in office, President Obama has appointed nearly 40 percent of the entire judiciary. These judges will serve an average of more than 20 years, with the power either to follow or rewrite the law.

A president’s lower court judges frequently serve as a “farm team” for future Supreme Court nominations. Last month, one popular legal blog offered a list of potential Hillary Clinton Supreme Court nominees. Each of the federal judges on the list was either nominated or appointed by President Obama.

Columnist Thomas Sowell hit the nail on the head when he said, “The issue is judges that stick to the law versus judges who ignore the law. That is a huge distinction. It is the difference between living in a self-governing democracy and living under tyrants on the bench.”

Through his or her appointments, the next president will determine whether the federal judiciary respects its proper, limited role in our self-governing democracy, or whether we continue to slide ever further toward judicial tyranny. There is no more important issue in this election.

Orrin Hatch, a Utah Republican, is president pro tempore of the U.S. Senate.

THE ONE THING WE MUST STOP HIM FROM DOING

Don’t Let Obama Fill Scalia’s Seat

Congress has frittered away virtually every constitutional power save one:  the power of the Senate to deny presidential appointments to the federal bench.  If Senate Republicans expect conservatives to ever trust them on anything, then they must decline to consider Obama’s nominee to replace Justice Scalia. 

There is precedent for this.  In 1968, when Republicans were a Senate minority possessing only the power of filibuster, Everett Dirksen prevented Lyndon Johnson from appointing Associate Justice Abe Fortas to replace retiring Chief Justice Earl Warren and then appointing Homer Thornbury to take Fortas’s seat as an associate justice.

Senate Minority Leader Dirksen did not run the Senate or control any Senate committees.  Republicans, in fact, held only 36 Senate seats, and several of these were leftists.  Yet Dirksen was able to cobble together enough senators to prevent Johnson from filling a Supreme Court office during a heated election year.  The left, of course, squealed and yelled, but it lost, because Senate Republicans and a handful of Senate Democrats stood firm.

If Everett Dirksen, who was only a moderate conservative holding a very weak hand, was able to thwart LBJ, who had been Senate majority leader before he was vice president and who knew all the ropes and all the tricks of the Senate, then Senate Majority Leader McConnell clearly has the power to do the same.

In fact, all McConnell and the Republican leadership have to do is to decline to consider any nominee appointed by Obama.  State clearly that the Senate is exercising its constitutional power and, unlike Obama who presumes powers he does not have, that the power to confirm or deny a presidential appointment is at the heart of the Senate’s control of the Executive Branch.

cram

This is also crunch time for any candidate for the Republican presidential nomination.  The argument is quite simple: the presidency and the Supreme Court threaten to overwhelm all other parts of our constitutional system.  Let the American people this November decide who will pick the next Supreme Court justice.

In fact, make this presidential election a battle about the proper role of the federal bench in our constitutional system.  Those who want more power flowing to unelected and unaccountable figures in Washington vote for the Democrat nominee.  Let those who think that lawyers and judges ought to run our nation support the Democrats.  Let those who want power to devolve back to the people and to the states support the Republicans.

The president could, of course, make a recess appointment to the Supreme Court – an appointment that would end with the new Congress and new president – but there is no right of any president to insist that his nominees be confirmed or even considered.  Any president who has acted as arrogantly and contemptuously toward the powers of Congress as Obama deserves no special consideration from the Senate at all.

The stakes are monumentally high.  Winning the presidency while delivering the Supreme Court to a radical leftist majority means guaranteeing that the drift of our nation into secular humanism and unconstitutional arrogations of power to judges, federal administrators, and others who are immune to our wishes will continue toward a cataclysmic end of the America we have known.

jmOneNationUnderSocialism 001

Moreover, this is a battle that we can win, if those Republican leaders who seek our help every election cycle will stand boldly against the left.  It has been a long, long time since Republican leaders in Congress have actually given conservatives anything like a political victory.  If these Republicans cannot or will not do so now, then it is truly time for conservatives to abandon the Republican Party and form, instead, around a political party and movement that are serious about what happens to our nation.

The timing, in some ways, is awful for conservatives, but in other ways it is perfect.  Do this one thing – let the next president and next Senate fill this seat – and we will begin to trust you again.  Fail, and there is no reason for conservatives to ever trust Washington Republicans again.

Congress has frittered away virtually every constitutional power save one:  the power of the Senate to deny presidential appointments to the federal bench.  If Senate Republicans expect conservatives to ever trust them on anything, then they must decline to consider Obama’s nominee to replace Justice Scalia. 

There is precedent for this.  In 1968, when Republicans were a Senate minority possessing only the power of filibuster, Everett Dirksen prevented Lyndon Johnson from appointing Associate Justice Abe Fortas to replace retiring Chief Justice Earl Warren and then appointing Homer Thornbury to take Fortas’s seat as an associate justice.

Senate Minority Leader Dirksen did not run the Senate or control any Senate committees.  Republicans, in fact, held only 36 Senate seats, and several of these were leftists.  Yet Dirksen was able to cobble together enough senators to prevent Johnson from filling a Supreme Court office during a heated election year.  The left, of course, squealed and yelled, but it lost, because Senate Republicans and a handful of Senate Democrats stood firm.

If Everett Dirksen, who was only a moderate conservative holding a very weak hand, was able to thwart LBJ, who had been Senate majority leader before he was vice president and who knew all the ropes and all the tricks of the Senate, then Senate Majority Leader McConnell clearly has the power to do the same.

american-flag-tattered

In fact, all McConnell and the Republican leadership have to do is to decline to consider any nominee appointed by Obama.  State clearly that the Senate is exercising its constitutional power and, unlike Obama who presumes powers he does not have, that the power to confirm or deny a presidential appointment is at the heart of the Senate’s control of the Executive Branch.

This is also crunch time for any candidate for the Republican presidential nomination.  The argument is quite simple: the presidency and the Supreme Court threaten to overwhelm all other parts of our constitutional system.  Let the American people this November decide who will pick the next Supreme Court justice.

In fact, make this presidential election a battle about the proper role of the federal bench in our constitutional system.  Those who want more power flowing to unelected and unaccountable figures in Washington vote for the Democrat nominee.  Let those who think that lawyers and judges ought to run our nation support the Democrats.  Let those who want power to devolve back to the people and to the states support the Republicans.

The president could, of course, make a recess appointment to the Supreme Court – an appointment that would end with the new Congress and new president – but there is no right of any president to insist that his nominees be confirmed or even considered.  Any president who has acted as arrogantly and contemptuously toward the powers of Congress as Obama deserves no special consideration from the Senate at all.

The stakes are monumentally high.  Winning the presidency while delivering the Supreme Court to a radical leftist majority means guaranteeing that the drift of our nation into secular humanism and unconstitutional arrogations of power to judges, federal administrators, and others who are immune to our wishes will continue toward a cataclysmic end of the America we have known.

Moreover, this is a battle that we can win, if those Republican leaders who seek our help every election cycle will stand boldly against the left.  It has been a long, long time since Republican leaders in Congress have actually given conservatives anything like a political victory.  If these Republicans cannot or will not do so now, then it is truly time for conservatives to abandon the Republican Party and form, instead, around a political party and movement that are serious about what happens to our nation.

The timing, in some ways, is awful for conservatives, but in other ways it is perfect.  Do this one thing – let the next president and next Senate fill this seat – and we will begin to trust you again.  Fail, and there is no reason for conservatives to ever trust Washington Republicans again.

Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2016/02/dont_let_obama_fill_scalias_seat.html#ixzz40DlqmxNm
Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook

‘Don’t cram’ religious neutrality ‘down throats of American people’

cram

Scalia: ‘Don’t cram’ religious neutrality ‘down throats of American people’

By Rebecca Kheel – 

The idea that the U.S. government should be neutral about religion is not supported by the Constitution and is not rooted in American history, Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia said Saturday.

“God has been very good to us,” Scalia said at a speech at a Catholic high school in Louisiana, according to the Times-Picayune. “One of the reasons God has been good to us is that we have done him honor.”

Scalia, a Catholic, is one of the court’s more conservative members. He recently caused uproar over remarks on affirmative action.

On Saturday, he said the First Amendment prohibits the government from endorsing one religion over another. But, he added, that doesn’t mean the government has to favor non-religion over religion.

He argued that’s a more modern reading originating in the courts in the 1960s.

He also said there is “nothing wrong” with presidents and others invoking God in speeches, according to The Associated Press.

If Americans want to the government to be non-religious, he said, they should vote on it instead of courts deciding.

“Don’t cram it down the throats of an American people that has always honored God on the pretext that the Constitution requires it,” he said, according to the Times-Picayune.

What do we do now?

SCOTUS_GAY_MARRIAGE copy

Gay Marriage is the law of the land what do we do now?

By Mario Murillo

1. We must be clear about what just happened. For the first time in American history the highest court in the land has made it illegal to be a Bible-believing Christian. That’s right; you are not legally allowed to practice your faith from this point on.

Of course the court will never admit that.  And, like Jimmy Carter’s 55 miles per hour speed limit, it may not be enforced, at least not yet.  That comes later when the public gains the stomach for persecuting Christians.

Let’s be extremely clear about all of this.  The Supreme Court out and out violated the Constitution of the United States by overruling the right of the states to decide marriage. 

Bobby Jindal is right.  He said, “’The Supreme Court decision today conveniently and not surprisingly follows public opinion polls, and tramples on states’ rights that were once protected by the 10th Amendment of the Constitution. Marriage between a man and a woman was established by God, and no earthly court can alter that. This decision will pave the way for an all-out assault against the religious freedom rights of Christians who disagree with this decision.’ “

Supreme Court Justice Alito agrees: “Alito wrote, “Today’s decision usurps the constitutional right of the people to decide whether to keep or alter the traditional understanding of marriage.”

 2.  The goal isn’t equality – it’s abolishing an institution.  

What just happened has nothing to do with equal rights for gays.  It is only about destroying marriage as an institution.

We can sort out six developments that indicate we’re on the fast track to abolishing civil marriage. They include: 1) The blueprint for abolishing family, developed by the founder of feminist legal theory, Martha Fineman; 2) support and advocacy of  Fineman’s model by facilitators and regulators in the Obama Administration; 3) the statements of prominent LGBT activists themselves, including their 2006 manifesto which in effect established the abolition of marriage as the goal of the same sex marriage movement; 4) the demographic shift to single rather than married households; 5) the growing shift in social climate from marriage equality to marriage hostility; and 6) the recent push to export the LGBT agenda globally, particularly targeting poor and developing nations of Africa.

removing family

5. The Gender Theorist Model: Replace civil marriage with government-regulated contractual relationships.  Stella Morabito adds:
Collectivist style parenting may still seem like the stuff of science fiction to a lot of folks, but the ground for it has softened a lot since Hillary Clinton’s 1996 treatise It Takes a Village and American Federation of Teachers president Sandra Feldman’s 1998 op-ed “The Childswap Society.” We now have MSNBC anchor Melissa Harris-Perrydeclaring open war on traditional families by announcing “We have to break through our kind of private idea that kids belong to their parents or kids belong to their families and recognize that kids belong to whole communities.”
She envisages that the State will fill the vacuum left by the abolition of family

The abolition of marriage and family has been a longtime project of gender theorists. Among them is internationally renown feminist law theorist Martha Albertson Fineman whose 2004 book The Autonomy Myth argues strenuously for “the abolition of marriage as a legal category.” Her treatise is breathtaking in its brazen approach to ending family autonomy and privacy.

Fineman advocates for a system that would unavoidably result in the regulation of personal relationships through legal contracts. “Contract,” she writes “is an appealing metaphor with which to consider social and political arrangements. It imagines autonomous adults” hashing out the terms, etc. Yet she envisages that the State will fill the vacuum left by the abolition of family [emphasis added]:

“. . . in addition to contract rules, I anticipate that ameliorating doctrines would fill the void left by the abolition of this aspect of family law. In fact, it seems apparent to me that a lot more regulation (protection) would occur once interactions between individuals within families were removed from behind the veil of privacy that now shields them.”

Fineman operates on the apparent assumption that family privacy serves no purpose other than to afford institutional protection for men behaving badly. Her prescription is sweeping: “Once the institutional protection [is] removed, behavior would be judged by standards established to regulate interactions among all members of society.” [emphasis added]
maxresdefault
 
“Gay marriage is a lie,” announced gay activist Masha Gessen in a panel discussion last year at the Sydney Writers’ Festival. “Fighting for gay marriage generally involves lying about what we’re going to do with marriage when we get there.”  [Applause.] “It’s a no-brainer that the institution of marriage should not exist.”
Gessen was merely echoing a message from an LGBT manifesto of 2006 called Beyond Same Sex Marriage. The manifesto is a blatant rallying cry to bring about a post-marriage society, one in which there is no room for state-recognized marriage.

There you have it. All of your social interactions judged by certain standards. Standards established by whom? The state. And lest our eyes glaze over at mention of it, we ought to think of the State for what it really is: a hierarchy of cliques, with one dominant clique at the top. (Think mean girls in charge of everything and everyone.)

Fineman replaces the word “spouse” with the term “sexual affiliate,” because, she professes, what we think of as “family” should be defined by its function, not its form. In other words, only “caretaker-dependent relationships” would be recognized in the sense that “family” is recognized today.
So the abolition of marriage, according to Fineman:

“would mean that sexual affiliates (formerly labeled husband and wife) would be regulated by the terms of their individualized agreements, with no special rules governing fairness and no unique review or monitoring of the negotiation process.”

Feel better?  Fineman also states approvingly that:

“if the family is defined functionally, focused on the caretaker-dependent relationship, the traditionally problematic interactions of sexual affiliates (formerly designated “spouses”) are not protected by notions of family privacy.”

Indeed, no interaction could be protected by “notions of family privacy” in Fineman’s model. She elaborated further and more recently on all of this in an October 2013 article in the Chicago-Kent Law Review.

No one blog can possibly answer the question, “What do we do now?”  For starters, pastors need to issue an engraved apology to all of those voices they vilified.   Men and women of God warned you again and again that the Christian church should unify and condemn the acts of Barrack Obama, Hillary Clinton and Eric Holder.  

Now the Orwellian nightmare you assured us would never happen is here.  Tomorrow I speak out to the core who are willing to see this disaster turned around

Opposing Gay Marriage is not Bigotry

 OPPOSING

Traditional teachings of marriage rooted not in animus, but in pursuit of happiness

BY TIMOTHY P. CARNEY | APRIL 23, 2015 | 5:29 PM

 Traditional marriage in the U.S. makes its last stand this week at oral arguments before the Supreme Court. If same-sex marriage wins out, the next question is what to do with the vanquished? Should we tolerate opposition to gay marriage?

What should be done, legally and socially, with photographers who don’t want to take part in a gay wedding, or churches that don’t want to consecrate a same-sex union? How should we all treat the old-fashioned view that marriage is between a man and a woman?

Many institutions, commentators and politicians already have their answer: Opposition to gay marriage deserves no more respect than racism. The government ought to force a photographer, a musician or a caterer to participate in a gay wedding, they argue, just as we forced racist diner owners to allow black customers to sit at their lunch counters.

But the premise here — that opposition to gay marriage is necessarily grounded in bigotry — is wrong.

But refusing to participate in a marriage ceremony is a different sort of thing. It’s not a statement about the people involved. It’s a decision about the ceremony itself — that one doesn’t want to endorse a definition of marriage that one doesn’t share.

And there are many valid reasons to believe in marriage as being between a man and a woman. There are many arguments to make here, but here’s one, from my own Catholic perspective:

There isn’t really a Catholic teaching on gay marriage — there is a rich Catholic teaching on marriage, which is a sacrament. Marriage is inextricably tied with sex and family formation. To deliberately separate these three things is a moral error, the Church teaches.

Sexual morality, as taught by traditional religions, isn’t terribly popular in the U.S. these days, but it’s a mistake to dismiss these views as archaic prescriptions followed blindly by the faithful. Such teachings are often far more complex than simple “shalls” and “shall nots” accepted as divine revelation.

Consider Aristotle’s view of virtue and happiness (eudaimonia, in Greek). Happiness — a deep, lasting happiness — is a life lived according to virtue, Aristotle writes. Morality can be seen as the roadmap to human happiness.

Over thousands of years, Christianity, building on the traditions of the Jews and ancient civilizations such as the Greeks, has tried to understand human nature ± — through experience, reason, and revelation. From that picture of the human soul, the Church has tried to craft a roadmap.

removing family

We need a roadmap because life is full of obstacles and pitfalls that we typically can’t see beforehand on our own, but which are well-known in prior human experience. Walking directly towards what we think we want can often be perilous to our happiness. Sacrifice, patience, and struggle are often required.

It’s not an old-fashioned or purely religious notion that sacrifice is necessary for happiness. Secular morality embraces that notion as well: You shouldn’t always eat whatever you want; you need to exercise; don’t get too drunk.

The road to happiness also involves giving up sex at times, even when following secular moral road maps. Perfectly irreligious, live-and-let-live moral systems often guard against (for example) prostitution, open marriages, sex in the early teen years, and extreme promiscuity. These activities may appeal to some people in the short run, but one need not believe any particular religion to understand how they can cause anguish and pain in the long run.

The roadmaps provided by conservative religious moral systems prescribe a narrower path and often call for more sacrifice. In many cases, for many people, the prescribed path is celibacy. If you want to be a Catholic priest, nun, or monk, you must also agree to a life of celibacy.

If you’re unmarried, most Christian teaching tells you to be celibate. Many men and women are unmarried, despite their best efforts, and asking them to forego sex is asking a lot. But the Church does so out of an understanding of human nature, and the true path to happiness.

Married Catholic couples are often called to abstain from sex if they want to space out the births of their children. And the limitations on divorce often mean a sexless life for married people whose marriages fell apart, or whose spouses suffered a debilitating injury, or were imprisoned.

Everyone is called to some level of sacrifice — some more, some less. Nobody says it’s fair. But it’s prudent, the Church teaches.

For people who are exclusively attracted to people of the same sex, the Catholic Church also prescribes celibacy.

I got this roadmap image from a conversation over coffee with Eve Tushnet, the author of Gay and Catholic. Her heartfelt book makes it clear that carrying the cross of gay celibacy is very different from, and often harder than, the chastity to which other Catholics are called. But she has concluded this is her cross, and her path.

These rules, again, aren’t terribly popular these days. I expect this column to persuade approximately zero people that they should give up premarital sex, birth control, or their same-sex relationship.

But however unappealing or unconvincing you find this approach to sexuality and marriage, how can you say this view is grounded in bigotry?

You don’t need to agree for an instant with Catholic, or Protestant, or Muslim, or Jewish teachings on sex, family, or marriage. But if you can grant that some of these teachings are grounded, not in animus, but in an understanding of love, then at least you can agree to this: We shouldn’t use the force of law to banish these views from our society.

Timothy P. Carney, The Washington Examiner’s senior political columnist, can be contacted attcarney@washingtonexaminer.com. His column appears Sunday and Wednesday on washingtonexaminer.com.

Obama is doing it out of revenge

Illegals-are-illegal copy

“To the last, I grapple with thee; From Hell’s heart, I stab at thee; For hate’s sake, I spit my last breath at thee.”   -Captain Ahab in Moby Dick

 

Obama is doing it out of revenge.

By Mario Murillo

Listen to me America.   You must wake up!  What is a man of God if he does not warn when the Lord tells him to speak out?  tonight is the eve of a great misery.  I hate to bear evil tidings but everything within me tells me I must warn you.  Obama is obsessed with hurting us in that way that Captain Ahab was obsessed with killing the whale Moby Dick.

He knows it will bitterly divide the nation.  He knows that it will destroy an already fragile economy. He knows it will take jobs away from black people.  He knows it will overwhelm all social agencies.  He knows it will increase crime.   In short, he knows that there are few things he could ever do that would hurt the nation he swore to protect as much as what he is about to do…but he will do it anyway and make no mistake, he is doing it to hurt you and those you love.

Obama is about to bring upon us the most preventable disaster in our history.  He is not doing it for humanitarian reasons.  He is doing it completely out of spite and revenge.

adult-illegal-immigrants

He is vicious, full of rage and will take his revenge.  He will eviscerate the Constitution.  He will do whatever he can to hurt us now that we rejected him.  The midterm elections enraged him because the opposition voted against his policies and his own base, disillusioned with him, stayed home.  It was the final humiliation for an utterly narcissistic president.

So with one sweep of his pen he will take his revenge on you and your children.  He will create an illegal law to legalize 5 million illegal immigrants.  He will tell the world to just sneak in here and take our dwindling resources. He will take the money of hard working Americans and give it to 5 million people who are illegally here.

jmOneNationUnderSocialism 001

He is bringing upon you and your children the most preventable disaster in our history.  He is not doing this for humanitarian reasons.  He has proven that he does not care about illegal immigrants.  From 2008 till 2010 Democrats had control of the House, the Senate and the White House and did nothing.  They could have passed comprehensive immigration reform but they did not, he did not.

He can wait but he won’t.  He is only interested in illegal immigrants now because they can hurt those he hates.

He can give the new Congress a chance but he won’t. To the last he will rage against us, to the bitter end he will show malice and depraved indifference.

Wake up my friend!  It is time for the entire church to become one voice of righteousness in America.  Time is up, what we do we must do right now.