A Christian student does not lose their Constitutional rights when they walk on campus. By Mario Murillo

Mentioning God or giving Jesus credit for one’s success in a graduation speech does not violate the establishment clause.  However, banning such speech clearly violates the constitution.  Enough is enough!  It is time to pay the price to end this madness.
It is insane that one or two people who claim to be offended can ban words from a speech.   It is crazy that Christian clubs are forced to either disband or elect non-Christian officers.  Someone’s hare-brained idea of “inclusivity” does not overrule the Bill of Rights.
But it is crazier than that.  Campuses are drowning in double standards.  Atheist clubs are not forced to elect Christian officers.  And do you think for one moment a speech would be banned or a club ostracized if Christian students claimed to be offended?
The fact is, the overwhelming majority of speech and practice restrictions target Christians and conservatives.  Even illegal immigrants have more rights on campus.
However, the most mind-boggling thing are the excuses Christian leaders use to justify their silence and inaction against something that is punishing the children in their congregations.

Timid leaders claim lawsuits would be a bad witness. 

If defending your civil rights is a bad witness, then Paul the Apostle was the worst.  Look carefully at these verses:
Acts 16: 37 But Paul said to them, “They have beaten us openly, uncondemned Romans, and have thrown us into prison. And now do they put us out secretly? No indeed! Let them come themselves and get us out.”  38 And the officers told these words to the magistrates, and they were afraid when they heard that they were Romans. 39 Then they came and pleaded with them and brought them out, and asked them to depart from the city.
Paul understood that these men were wrong and they needed to know they were wrong.  Isn’t that precisely what Gospel preaching should do?  Moreover, Paul knew the welfare of the Philippian church was involved.  Pastors need to have the heart of Paul for the modern church.
We also need to understand that such bold confrontation is not only right—it is necessary.  School administrators need to feel the heat of their illegal actions—that heat needs to be hotter than the hissy fits of a few atheists and God haters.
Not only this, but I am convinced God wants us to take up this cause.  Detrick Bonhoeffer said “silence in the face of evil, is itself evil.”

The final excuse is the money.  How can we afford this? 

Legal fees for such massive action will be exorbitant.  This is a hair-pulling excuse.  Parents are shelling out over $50,000 a year on tuition.  Multiply that times the number of Christian students are on campus and legal fees are a drop in the bucket.
And what about faith in our awesome heavenly Father?  He will supply all of our needs!
Besides, all we need are key victories that set precedents in the courts.
The real question is not what is the cost of taking action…the question is what is the cost of remaining silent?

Expert Testifies to Congress that Obama’s ‘Ignoring Laws’ Could Lead to Overthrow of Government.

Expert Testifies to Congress that Obama’s ‘Ignoring Laws’ Could Lead to Overthrow of Government

by Noah Rothman | 12:34 pm, December 3rd, 2013VIDEO2474

During a congressional committee hearing about the constitutional limits imposed on the presidency and the implications of President Barack Obama’s disregard for implementing the Affordable Care Act as written, one expert testified that the consequences of the president’s behavior were potentially grave. He said that the precedent set by Obama could eventually lead to an armed revolt against the federal government.

On Tuesday, Michael Cannon, Cato Institute’s Director of Health Policy Studies, testified before a congressional committee about the dangers of the president’s legal behavior.

“There is one last thing to which the people can resort if the government does not respect the restrains that the constitution places on the government,” Cannon said. “Abraham Lincoln talked about our right to alter our government or our revolutionary right to overthrow it.”


“That is certainly something that no one wants to contemplate,” he continued. “If the people come to believe that the government is no longer constrained by the laws then they will conclude that neither are they.”

“That is a very dangerous sort of thing for the president to do, to wantonly ignore the laws,” Cannon concluded, “to try to impose obligation upon people that the legislature did not approve.”

Watch the clip below via C-SPAN 2:

Court rules: President Obama exceeded his power when he bypassed the Senate.

Second court invalidates Obama appointments to labor board

Published May 16, 2013


  • blog insert Jan 25
A national labor board which has long been accused of making union-friendly decisions was dealt another blow Thursday, after a second federal appeals court found President Obama exceeded his power when he bypassed the Senate to appoint its members.The ruling by the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Philadelphia once again threatened to upend the National Labor Relations Board’s decisions. And it has the potential to stall the board entirely, as well as challenge other federal agencies that have similar appointees.For now, the Obama administration has tried to disregard the court decisions — it has already appealed a similar ruling, from a Court of Appeals in Washington, D.C., to the Supreme Court.In the 2-1 decision from the Philadelphia court, judges said Obama had no constitutional authority to install attorney Craig Becker to the labor board in 2010 while the Senate was adjourned for two weeks.

This is what’s known as a recess appointment. But the court said that under the Constitution recess appointments can be made only between sessions of the Senate, not any time the Senate is away on a break.

“If the Senate refused to confirm a president’s nominees, then the president could circumvent the Senate’s constitutional role simply by waiting until senators go home for the evening,” Judge D. Brooks Smith wrote in a 102-page decision.

The administration argues that such an interpretation would invalidate hundreds of recess appointments made by presidents over more than 100 years.

But Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell, emboldened by the decision, said Thursday that the ruling challenges Obama’s “unprecedented power grab.

“It’s time for the unlawfully appointed nominees to step down,” he said.

Both rulings have threatened to throw the labor board, the Consumer Financial Protection Board and other federal agencies with recess appointees into chaos. If they stand, hundreds of decisions by these agencies could be thrown out.

Obama has made 32 recess appointments during his presidency, nearly all of which would be considered invalid under the interpretation of these courts. The rulings could also threaten the recess appointments of previous presidents. President George W. Bush made 141 such appointments in eight years.

The ruling, incidentally, came as a Senate panel considered a slate of five nominees for full terms on the labor board. Senate Republicans said Thursday they would oppose two of the nominees — Sharon Block and Richard Griffin — because they currently sit on the board as recess appointments.

Tennessee Sen. Lamar Alexander, senior Republican on the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, said he would not consider Block and Griffin because they refused to step down from the board after the District of Columbia Circuit ruled that they were unconstitutionally appointed. Block and Griffin said they wanted to abide by their oath to serve their country and argued that appeals courts have reached different conclusions about recess powers.

Democrats on the panel accused Republicans of obstructionism because the GOP and its allies in the business community have been unhappy with some of the union-friendly decisions issued by the board during Obama’s administration. Unions warn that unless the nominees are confirmed soon, the board will be unable to function. It only has three members now, and the term of board chairman Mark Pearce expires in August.

A lengthy dissent came from Judge Joseph Greenaway Jr., who was appointed by Obama and joined the court in 2010. Greenaway said that under the majority’s decision, the recess appointment power “is essentially neutered and the president’s ability to make recess appointments would be eviscerated.”

The case was brought by New Vista, a New Jersey nursing and rehabilitative care center that argued its nurses were supervisors who were not allowed to form a union. The labor board ruled in favor of the union and New Vista appealed. The company argued that the board did not have enough validly appointed members to reach a decision because Becker was not a valid appointee.

The labor board has five seats and needs at least three sitting members to conduct business. At the time of the New Vista ruling, it had the minimum of three, but one member was Becker, the recess appointee.

Becker is no longer on the NLRB, but the current board also has only three members, two of whom are Obama recess appointees. More than a hundred companies have appealed NLRB decisions this year arguing that the board does not have enough validly appointed members to conduct business.

New York Times Calls American Constitution Evil.

the-new-york-times copy

“Let’s give up on the Constitution” -New York Times.

By  Louis Michael Seidman- New York Times.

“AS the nation teeters at the edge of fiscal chaos, observers are reaching the conclusion that the American system of government is broken. But almost no one blames the culprit: our insistence on obedience to the Constitution, with all its archaic, idiosyncratic and downright evil provisions.

Consider, for example, the assertion by the Senate minority leader last week that the House could not take up a plan by Senate Democrats to extend tax cuts on households making $250,000 or less because the Constitution requires that revenue measures originate in the lower chamber. Why should anyone care? Why should a lame-duck House, 27 members of which were defeated for re-election, have a stranglehold on our economy? Why does a grotesquely malapportioned Senate get to decide the nation’s fate?

Our obsession with the Constitution has saddled us with a dysfunctional political system, kept us from debating the merits of divisive issues and inflamed our public discourse. Instead of arguing about what is to be done, we argue about what James Madison might have wanted done 225 years ago.

As someone who has taught constitutional law for almost 40 years, I am ashamed it took me so long to see how bizarre all this is. Imagine that after careful study a government official — say, the president or one of the party leaders in Congress — reaches a considered judgment that a particular course of action is best for the country. Suddenly, someone bursts into the room with new information: a group of white propertied men who have been dead for two centuries, knew nothing of our present situation, acted illegally under existing law and thought it was fine to own slaves might have disagreed with this course of action. Is it even remotely rational that the official should change his or her mind because of this divination?

Constitutional disobedience may seem radical, but it is as old as the Republic. In fact, the Constitution itself was born of constitutional disobedience. When George Washington and the other framers went to Philadelphia in 1787, they were instructed to suggest amendments to the Articles of Confederation, which would have had to be ratified by the legislatures of all 13 states. Instead, in violation of their mandate, they abandoned the Articles, wrote a new Constitution and provided that it would take effect after ratification by only nine states, and by conventions in those states rather than the state legislatures.

No sooner was the Constitution in place than our leaders began ignoring it. John Adams supported the Alien and Sedition Acts, which violated the First Amendment’s guarantee of freedom of speech. Thomas Jefferson thought every constitution should expire after a single generation. He believed the most consequential act of his presidency — the purchase of the Louisiana Territory — exceeded his constitutional powers.

Before the Civil War, abolitionists like Wendell Phillips and William Lloyd Garrison conceded that the Constitution protected slavery, but denounced it as a pact with the devil that should be ignored. When Abraham Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation — 150 years ago tomorrow — he justified it as a military necessity under his power as commander in chief. Eventually, though, he embraced the freeing of slaves as a central war aim, though nearly everyone conceded that the federal government lacked the constitutional power to disrupt slavery where it already existed. Moreover, when the law finally caught up with the facts on the ground through passage of the 13th Amendment, ratification was achieved in a manner at odds with constitutional requirements. (The Southern states were denied representation in Congress on the theory that they had left the Union, yet their reconstructed legislatures later provided the crucial votes to ratify the amendment.)

In his Constitution Day speech in 1937, Franklin D. Roosevelt professed devotion to the document, but as a statement of aspirations rather than obligations. This reading no doubt contributed to his willingness to extend federal power beyond anything the framers imagined, and to threaten the Supreme Court when it stood in the way of his New Deal legislation. In 1954, when the court decided Brown v. Board of Education, Justice Robert H. Jackson said he was voting for it as a moral and political necessity although he thought it had no basis in the Constitution. The list goes on and on.”

My reaction to this article by Mario Murillo

The New York Times is calling for the abolishing of the Constitution of the United States.  Beyond the obvious horror of such an idea there is a dark and sinister plan.   Even though the writer raises some valid questions about our constitution he is not being honest about his true intention and his connection to the Obama administration.

Here is how it works.  The White House looks for a vanguard scapegoat.   They look for someone willing to make an outrageous claim such as “abolish the constitution” and then let the chips fall where they will.   The idea is to let it percolate in the general public until it begins to lose its radical edge.

Joe Biden was a perfect foil for this.   His now famous, “I am comfortable with gay marriage remark,” we all now know was made intentionally and with approval from the White House.  Obama bought time by letting the dust settle before coming out in favor of this himself.

What you need to know is that Obama and the Democratic Party do in fact want to do away with our Constitution and have hacking away at it ever since they took control.

They went after the first amendment with gusto by bullying the Catholic Church.  Now they are not going to stop until they disarm every gun owner in the nation.

They can hide behind all of the rhetoric but the goal is clear:

-Dismantle American free enterprise and bring us into a global government.

-Remove the bill of rights so that government decides what goes on in our daily life.

-Disarm the public so that there cannot be any resistance to totalitarian government.

The pattern is clear.  Get rid of the America of the Founding Fathers.  Get rid of God. It is telling that this writer does not call for amending the constitution but abolishing it.   He finds no good in a document that has kept us free for over 2 and a half centuries.  That says it all!

If this does not drive you to pray nothing will.  God is still on the throne but He must use us in this urgent time!

Today is Moral Pearl Harbor. Supreme Court Likely to Pass Gay Marriage.

Today is Moral Pearl Harbor.  Supreme Court to hear gay marriage cases 

The Supreme Court and protestors are shown. | Reuters

By JOSH GERSTEIN  12/7/12 3:39 PM EST

The Supreme Court announced Friday that it will take up same-sex marriage, hearing both a case stemming from California’s Proposition 8 voter-approved ban on gay marriage and a case from New York challenging the constitutionality of the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act.

The pair of moves greatly increase the chances that the justices will rule this term on whether the U.S. Constitution guarantees same-sex couples the right to marry. However, it’s still possible the high court could dispose of both cases without squarely addressing that central issue.

 Pearl Harbor day: A day that lives in infamy not because of Japan but because it marks the end of a month of the most disastrous losses for freedom and morality in American History. Never has more good been replaced by so much evil and so short a time.  Today, fittingly, the final torpedo was fired.  The Supreme Court agreed to hear a case that will legalize gay marriage. If marriage goes, you can kiss good bye to semblance of the America you once knew.

Lets rehearse the attack that began November 6th.  Obama is reelected and will now push the economy over the cliff just so he can blame Republicans. (unemployment now 8.3%.  76% of new jobs were in government.)  Own it Obama voters.  States legalize Gay Marriage and Marijuana.  Children are forced to take the word God out of their poems.  Churches cancel Christmas events because of a handful of parents think Charlie Brown undermines freedom.  Then there is the hilariously absurd war on Christmas trees and Nativity Scenes. The White House calls the National Christmas Tree a “Holiday Tree.”  As one eloquent atheist said in Santa Monica, “I can’t be free unless we take these religious symbols down.”

The Church once a firewall against immorality and political tyranny, is not even a speed bump. We saw the church act with insanity and betrayal in what I call the Cirque de Sellout.  Key Pastors who could have stemmed the tide with a ground game went AWOL.  6 Million Christians crossed over to join with the anti-God forces to vote for Gay Marriage, Abortion, Obamacare, and economic, suicidal socialism by reelecting Obama.  An American celebrity Pastor announces that Homosexual sex “might be a sin,” and finally there are all the Christians in Seattle who emailed their celebrity pastor to ask, “is it okay for a Christian to smoke pot now that it is legal in Washington?”

Am I trying to scare you?  No!  I am trying to fire you up because it is not too late.  On Dec 7, 1941 America knew it had to fight the war of its life.  Now it is time for a sprirtual war to begin.  America is still home to millions upon millions of godly Christians who are working hard, raising children and faithfully paying their taxes and their mortgages.  They did not live above their means.  They did not take any bailout money.  They have not bowed their knee to the gods of abortion or gay marriage.  A child of three can see that if God would have spared Sodom and Gomorrah for twelve righteous people then how much more we can expect God to spare the vast number of righteous Americans who have remained innocent of all that led to this economic and moral disaster.

Millions of Americans are fervently praying for revival.  The promise of God is “if my people who are called by My name will humble themselves, and pray and seek My face, and turn from their wicked ways, then I will hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin and heal their land.”  -2 Chronicles 7:14.  God will not ignore their cry or His promise.

It took 4 years for America to win World War 2.  Ironic isn’t it?  We have four years to get our brains, moral compass and God given fury back in time to save this nation.  We must seize the crisis for the Glory of God!  We must not hide, slow down or diminish our dreams.   Never forget that warnings of judgment always carry a promise of the wrath turning away through national repentance.  This should be our passion and our hope in  prayer.  There is still time my friend, but it is almost gone forever.

Part 2:  What should we do now.  Tomorrow.