DONATE

Showing posts with label 10th Amendment. Show all posts
Showing posts with label 10th Amendment. Show all posts

Thursday, April 16, 2020

Give Me Liberty Or Give Me Death

Patrick Henry speech: “Give Me Liberty Or Give Me Death


Although I don’t agree that President Trump is a bad guy (or at least not yet) in his Federal government decisions, I do agree absolutely the Federal government and many Dem-managed State and local governments are breaking the U.S. Constitution into pieces in the name of the ChiCom unleashed COVID-19, Globalism and ultimately Communism. Justin Smith takes the robbing of Liberty to task.

JRH 4/16/20
Your generosity is always appreciated - various credit, check 
& debit cards are accepted by my PayPal account: 
Or support by getting in the Coffee from home business – 
OR just buy some FEEL GOOD coffee, that includes immune boosting products.
******************************
Give Me Liberty Or Give Me Death:
Free Born Americans Don't Need Permission

By Justin O. Smith
Sent 4/15/2020 1:37 AM

"Even the bad guys are admitting it, and that is they made these dire predictions so that they could go ahead and destroy peoples' civil liberties and spend a lot of money and make up an excuse on why the stock market actually went down -- all kinds of things by having this coronavirus event blown way out of proportion."  ~ Ron Paul, former Congressman and Presidential Candidate

"If a government wishes to alleviate, rather than aggravate, a depression, its only valid course is laissez-faire [Blog Editor: Laissez-faire is a central to American Liberty yet eradicated as an economic principle by Statists and Dem-Marxists in particular. Since I have doubts Laissez-faire principles are taught to Americans these days, you should acquaint yourself. Three brief self-education examinations: Merriam-Webster, Encyclopaedia Britannica and Investopedia] -- to leave the economy alone. Only if there is no interference, direct or threatened, with prices, wage rates and business liquidation, will the necessary adjustment proceed with smooth dispatch."  ~ Murray Rothbard, 'America's Great Depression'

The President who once stated "America will never be a socialist country", President Donald J. Trump, is currently taking America down a path far and away from the free market and liberty, in general, in a manner that will only succeed in creating a situation for a greater economic collapse in the future, and perhaps the final collapse. He is answering the current economic collapse with big government, massive spending solutions, handouts and social projects, in the fashion of President Franklin D. Roosevelt, whose authoritarian policies ushered in a decade of economic misery and extended the disastrous effects of the Great Depression by years; and, this is certain to end badly for America, as the country is led further towards a deep depression and complete socialism, and, quite likely, greater control over all society, falling into a more extreme political environment and full blown Statism [Blog Editor: Statism defined – Your Dictionary and Ayn Rand Lexicon]

All Americans should be filled with some great degree of fear and anger as We recall President Trump at the White House, well-intentions or otherwise, recently stating, on April 13th: "When somebody is President of the United States, the authority is total. The governors know that." This is such an egregiously outright erroneous, factually and historically inaccurate statement [Blog Editor: 10th Amendment and Implication] as to boggle one's mind that any elected official, much less a sitting President, would so easily and assertively let such a remark pass their lips. This shows that Trump is neither the "stable genius" or the friend to the Constitution he portrays himself to be, and he isn't anywhere close to understanding anything whatsoever regarding our U.S. Constitution and our nation's founding; and it sends a flood of hot anger through me to hear such an anti-freedom and anti-liberty view held by a man who is sworn to defend freedom. [Blog Editor: President Trump can be infuriating when he makes 10th Amendment mistakes but on a personal level I’m not ready to toss him under the bus because he is used to corporate management despotism (remember, “You’re fired!”?), doesn’t mean Trump is averse to private correction. I suspect private correction has occurred because Trump has already walked back the I am totally in charge attitude toward the States. No matter how often President Trump screws up he drives Dem-Communists and their MSM propaganda tools nuts. As long that happens I’ll look for the best and pray the worst Trump decisions don’t activate the worst ends. But that is me – the Blog Editor.]

President Trump may as well have simply stated, "I am the State."

This national shutdown of America by the Federal and State governments has crushed nearly every business in the country and put millions of Americans out of work, in the process, that also resulted in a crash in tax revenues at the federal, state and local levels. If the economy remains debilitated by government interference beyond May 1st, America is looking at an economic decline, a Greater Depression, that will not see its end for two decades, give or take a few years.

The best thing that could have been done was to allow the economy to continue to operate and function as normally as possible, rather than shut the nation's entire economy down in a panic over a virus that represented so minimal a threat to the greatest majority of the people [Blog Editor: The Sweden and Brazil approach to COVID-19 you won’t hear about from MSM]. Somehow, the new Trump GOP was unable to use any semblance of cogent thought to arrive at this same conclusion; and so, they succumbed to the badgering of the Democratic Party Communists and passed the $8.3 billion vaccine bill, the $100 billion relief and paid leave package and the $2.2 trillion all-encompassing Dream Bailout -- most of it is corporate socialism, as they currently propose several more $2 trillion packages that double-down on all the "Free Stuff" that was contained in the first Trump stimulus, that passed without any debate on a voice vote rather than an actual recorded vote.

Trump, RINO globalists and Trumpified "Republicans", now Bernie Sanders socialists, have joined hands with the "progressive" Democratic Party Communists to open the U.S. Treasury to a massive theft that would create an indescribable envy in the hearts of the New Deal porkers, the Great Society big spenders and the Obama cartel cronies. And, as they also move towards a $2 trillion or more "stimulus/infrastructure" bill, and a deficit that will be $3 trillion this year and next, they are engaging in a fiscal drunken revelry that will leave America with outrageous and criminal debts, political dysfunction and economic debilitation and catastrophe for decades to come. 

Look at what these criminals advocated and passed and then tell me they don't need to be hung from the railings of the Capitol Building:

$25,000,000 for additional salary for the House of Representatives (Doesn't that just blow your mind?)

$20,000,000 for UPS (for who knows what)

$300,000,000 for the Endowment for the Arts (as if they said, "Let's do it. They'll never know)

$300,000,000 for the Endowment for the Humanities 

$435,000,000 for mental health support (that's a lot of suicide hotlines)

$30,000,000,000 for the Department of Education stabilization fund (WOW, that's massive. They need it to complete the indoctrination of children into the Communist ideology. I wonder how much goes to the socialists of the NEA?)

$200,000,000 to Safe Schools Emergency Response to Violence Program (because the virus causes students to be violent???)

$720,000,000 to the Social Security Administration (However, only $200,000,000 of this goes to benefit people. The rest goes to administration costs.)

$25,000,000 for Cleaning supplies for the Capitol Building (Yes it's true. See page 136)

And these few examples don't even begin to scratch the surface of the theft that is being perpetrated against the people through a massive bill that amounts to nothing less than a Grab Bag of Goodies for Congressmen, the lobbyists and their crony criminal CEOs and Wall Street.

The Democratic Party's opposition to helping small businesses and their preference for handing out checks is sheer malevolence; in that they will hand a person a fish to feed them for a day and stand nearby as their policies destroy people's ability to remain gainfully employed. Jobs and pensions alike are being destroyed as we speak. The Democratic Communists and Republican Statists and Communists have no consideration of the consequences of their actions [Blog Editor: Sadly, Justin is 100% correct], and they will eventually have to raise taxes as any future attempt to issue more debt will prove difficult in the midst of an economic collapse. One cannot help but see this as a deliberate move to force a Universal Basic Income in place of employment in order to create a larger welfare state. And the Paycheck Protection Act is simply one more big government program that facilitates this very thing.

The Communists within our government barely did achieve the 216 members' presence for a quorum, of sorts, after Representative Thomas Massie (R-KY) demanded it and went on to suggest they were trying to subvert the Constitution. Although President Trump and former Senator John Kerry (D-Mass) criticized Massie for the move as "grandstanding", Massie pushed back stating that it wasn't "grandstanding" when one defends the Constitution. 

Massie further justified his dissent, stating, "I came here to make sure our Republic doesn't die by unanimous consent in an empty chamber, and I request a recorded vote." 

Americans understand what it means when seventeen millions of their countrymen -- a full 10 percent of the workforce are added to the unemployment rolls in the past month, with projections that suggest it could go as high as 47 million, if not ended soon. We are appalled to see modern day bread lines at local food banks stretch for miles in the heart of America's once proud cities, such as Philadelphia, and we -- at least the Conservative Americans -- are angered at the knowledge our fiat Monopoly Money debt rises over $24 trillion and the Sovietization of Wall Street and our economy has been completed by the Federal Reserve Bank.

Americans also understand what it means when billionaires such as Bill Gates start explaining that only their new experimental mRNA vaccines will release us from this nightmare and provide us with the "certificates" that allow us to return to work. We -- the Christians and true Conservative liberty-minded Americans -- are truly angered to hear of threats to mark us with invisible ink tattoos, and we are infuriated to hear them say that we will not be able to buy or sell and participate in the economy until we can prove our "immunity".

It means that the New World Order is upon us and charging at a furious rate of speed to finish the job of ending America's republic.

Never did the simple, plain good and decent Americans suspect that someday their so-called "protectors" and "leaders" would lead them to the slaughter, but while some may say we were stupid, by and large, far too many Americans are naive and innocent [Blog Editor: It is this Editor’s current opinion that business mogul turned President Trump is among the naïve though probably not innocent] when it comes to seeing through their government's Machiavellian machinations. They are trusting, peaceable and cooperative by nature, and that is nothing to be derided. If it weren't for the predatory criminals in our midst who gain seats in all levels of government, their failings could be seen as virtues. 

To date, an unimaginable number of our political, financial, corporate, religious "leaders" at every level, such as Jerome Powell, Steven Mnuchin and Larry Kudlow, have revealed their true nature and their willingness to violate moral and ethical codes to facilitate the current Trump agenda, that does not align with the Constitution or the views of liberty-minded Americans. They, like top federal bureaucrats and Congressional leaders, have confirmed they are one party, that is loyal to corporate and banking interests, and completely willing to destroy the livelihoods of nearly all Americans to keep the top one percent enriched and empowered. And, more than likely, they will continue to do so until every manjack among us picks up a rifle and puts an end to it all, in order that Americans may one day achieve real freedom and liberty.  

So my mission is to awaken all my countrymen and say, "Fight like Hell to save Freedom and Liberty in America!"

Free born Americans do not need permission to buy and sell anything, to leave our homes to assemble and speak our minds, because the government doesn't have the right to know where we are, who we meet or what we are buying and our every move each hour of the day. Each of us are free to leave our homes as we desire and wish, for any reason, including work, despite illegal "orders" from incompetent or criminal "leaders" on the advice of intelligentsia knaves and fools far too willing to serve an agenda that destroys liberty in America. [bold text by Editor and I concur.]

There are dark forces using this virus for ulterior motives and creating an economic collapse that will cost more lives than anything we will ever see from COVID-19, and, as the veil of civilization is pulled aside, everything past generations have fought to secure and achieve is now at risk. The economy expanded and life expectancy increased all due to the prosperity initially created in America's earliest years of constitutional governance and unfettered capitalism. Now, that is all being undone.

Not one single red-blooded freedom and liberty loving American should ever be willing to sacrifice their liberty and freedom for the safety and security of a corporate fascist oligarchy that has bastardized our Constitution and now pretends to be a government of the people, by the people and for the people. Any liberty mistakenly abandoned may never return to us, or it may be a long time coming. 

Our fragile constitutional Republic and civilization itself rests in our hands. It will take a people with great courage to defend our **Founding Principles, if we are to survive as a civilization, society and nation. So long as we remember the blood of our brave ancestors flowing through our veins and remain brave ourselves, in the face of great adversity and danger, our desire to live free will never be extinguished and it will burn brightly in the lamp of Liberty forever.

**[Blog Editor: Again, the concept of Founding Principles is a forgotten subject matter in most American school curriculum. So consider some self-education:





o   The Founding of the American Republic: 17. Principles of the Constitution; By Clarence Carson; Foundation for Economic Education; Originally written 12/1/1972 (According to search engine date) Re-posted 3/30/20]

And at some point, in the not too distant future, Americans will have to recapture that spirit that was once inherent to us all -- the one that said, "Give me Liberty or Give Me Death". [Blog Editor: Some Patrick Henry historical perspective]

By Justin O. Smith
++++++++++++++++
[Blog Editor: For the most part, Justin’s post is awesome! If you believe the Federal government is usurping too much into your life (I certainly do!), this post excerpt that you should read in entirety:]

Confronting the Leviathan of the COVID-19 Crisis

April 16, 2020

The COVID-19 outbreak has made one thing clear: we are a nation that is quickly forgetting how to be free. How many people, in the face of economic panic, have knelt before our elected officials and financial authorities, yearning to be led out of this crisis and made secure in their livelihoods? How many people have taken comfort in the small amount of safety that comes from knowing that millions are not allowed to go to work and support their families, or leave their homes for anything other than what the government deems necessary?

Increasing Government Powers

How many have taken comfort in knowing that the police, in complete violation of the fourth amendment, are conducting unwarranted searches for civilians not following quarantine mandates? How many have gained a sense of peace in the idea of forced checkpoints and the government’s ability to dictate what companies ought to produce? How many people have taken comfort in their measly share of the $2 trillion stimulus package, which was financed from their own income and savings in the first place? And how many people have marveled at the government’s power to indefinitely shut down the economy and bring millions of lives to a halt?

It appears we live in a nation of people who have chosen to dismiss, or are blissfully ignorant of, the wealth of historical evidence—expertly documented in Robert Higgs's Crisis and Leviathanwhich lays bare the state's tradition of arrogating unwarranted powers during crises and emergencies, powers that never fully recede from its arsenal of economic and political manipulation once the crisis subsides. Higgs described this pattern as the “ratchet effect” and documented its unfolding throughout critical events of the 20th century—most notably the Great Depression and both World Wars.

In each crisis, the government assumed incredible powers to manipulate both the economy and the court of public opinion. For example, World War I alone saw the initiation of the War Industries Board, the War Labor Board, the Espionage Act, the Food Administration, the Fuel Administration, the Railroad Administration, and many others. The War Industries Board and War Labor Board, for example, represented one of the most invasive economic planning attempts by our government to date. And the Espionage Act, created to prohibit interference with military operations, military recruitment, and punish enemy support, was also used to silence opponents of the draft and those who exercised their right to speak out against American involvement in the war.

After the war ended, every bureaucratic creation mentioned above was formally scrapped, except for the Espionage Act, which remains on the government’s books to this very day. This is but one example of Higgs’s “ratchet effect” where not every power assumed by the government during an emergency is fully relinquished after the FINISHING READING
________________________________
Edited by John R. Houk

In Justin’s submission, text embraced by brackets and embedded links are by the Editor.

© Justin O. Smith


Tuesday, December 31, 2019

The Unacceptable Cost of Refugee Resettlement

Justin Smith tackles the issue of settling refugees from cultures that have zero allegiance to American culture and heritage and idiocy of the American Left complicit in destroying our American heritage. Essentially making the Many eradicate the One - ending E Pluribus Unum.


JRH 12/31/19
Your generosity is always appreciated: 
Or support by getting in the Coffee from home business – 
OR just buy some FEEL GOOD coffee.

Blog Editor: Rather than capitulate to Facebook censorship by abandoning the platform, I choose to post and share until the Leftist censors ban me. Recently, the Facebook censorship tactic I’ve experienced is a couple of Group shares then jailed under the false accusation of posting too fast. So I ask those that read this, to combat censorship by sharing blog and Facebook posts with your friends or Groups you belong to.
******************************
The Unacceptable Cost of Refugee Resettlement
Refugee Resettlement Is Not America's Obligation 

By Justin O. Smith
Sent 12/28/2019 8:19 PM

Americans absolutely have the right to determine who, if anyone, enters the country, and it doesn't violate any law or the Constitution to reject anyone claiming refugee status. So-called refugees do not have any automatic right to be granted entry, despite many leftist assertions to the contrary, and many of us are sick and tired of hearing our leaders' cliched platitudes that suggest they have a "Big Heart", much like Governor Bill Lee (R-TN), while they allow people into the country, who come to America to avoid fighting for their own countries; and, usually, of late, these refugees hold ideas and views so anti-American and so antithetical to the Constitution, that they eventually become a great disruptive factor to any community, as they work to undermine the nation.

On December 18th 2019, Tennessee Governor Bill Lee announced his decision to send a letter of consent to the Trump administration, in order to accept more refugees for resettlement next year. His decision coincides with those of other Republican governors who have also stated their intent to admit more refugees, such as Kim Reynolds of Iowa, Asa Hutchinson of Arkansas, Doug Ducey of Arizona, Kevin Stitt of Oklahoma, Gary Herbert of Utah and Doug Burgum of North Dakota.

And of course, numerous Democratic led states, such as California, New York, Washington, Pennsylvania, Virginia and others have already submitted letters of consent or are making preparations to do so. According to U.S. State Department arrival records, resettlement has occurred in the District of Columbia, every U.S. territory and state since 2003.

The state of Tennessee still has a high-profile Tenth Amendment lawsuit in the works, that Governor Lee has essentially undermined through his consent letter, effectively infuriating legislative leaders who had sued the federal government. The lawsuit questions the constitutionality of the refugee resettlement program.

House Speaker Cameron Sexton and Lt Governor Randy McNally (TN) issued a joint statement: "Our personal preference would have been to exercise the option to hit the pause button on accepting additional refugees in our state."

While more than a third of Tennessee's 95 counties are preparing to challenge any refugee resettlement, so too are other counties around America, from North Dakota to Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, and Indiana to Vermont, New Hampshire and Wyoming. Burleigh County North Dakota heard its chairman, Brian Bitner, voice citizens' concerns, stating: "North Dakota is already the highest per capita state for refugee resettlement in terms of number of citizens, so in the absence of any sort of number, there's no way we could know the cost to the state or the county, and I simply can't support that."

President Trump signed an executive order that allowed all fifty states to decide whether to accept refugees or not, in September of this year, and it requires a written letter of consent. This isn't any guarantee that refugees won't settle in an area that initially rejected the refugee resettlement program, since they can travel from state to state and county to county; and regardless of this, many Americans simply don't want any more anti-American refugees, such as Somalia born Representative Ilhan Omar (D-MN), or Representative Rashida Tlaib (D-MI) -- American born but raised to hate America by her "palestinian" Muslim mother, given entry to our nation, since they sound and act more like agents of Hamas, the Palestinian Liberation Organization, Hezbollah and Al Shabaab than someone interested in keeping America strong and free.

On August 26th 2019, Representative Ilhan Omar called for the government of Somalia to protect Hormuud Telecom Company, from United Nation peace-keepers, even though HTC has been financing the Al Shabaab terrorist organization for years. This link between Hormuud and Al Shabaab is well documented in the October 19th 2019 report compiled by the International Policy Group, entitled 'Reaping the Whirlwind -- Hormuud Entrepreneurs and the Resurgence of Al Shabaab'.

One should note that 45 Somali Muslims left their homes in Minneapolis to join the Somali based Al Shabaab Islamic terror group or ISIS, in 2007, as documented by FBI statistics. And as of 2018, a dozen more were arrested as they attempted to leave the U.S. for their expressed purpose of fighting for ISIS.

According to Steve Emerson of the Investigative Project, Representative Rashida Tlaib was photographed, in January 2019, with Abbas Hamideh, a Hezbollah supporter, and again in March with Nader Jalajel, a Palestinian activist who mourned the death of a Palestinian terrorist who had murdered a Jewish rabbi the previous year.

America has far too many natural born citizens who seemingly hate Her to be bringing in foreign nationals who hate America too, doesn't She?

Refugees come from many countries across the globe, fleeing specific danger in their homelands, although the bulk of refugees have been from Iraq, Syria and Somalia since 2015; and a large number is comprised of people who simply wouldn't fight for their war-torn countries. They come here too often simply from necessity, in their eyes, and safety, and not out of any sense of kindred spirit or love for the American way of life, our freedom and our liberty. And so, they set about life in their own tradition, with the same associated flaws that created the troubles in their country, regardless of its unseemly and foreign nature and cloistered within an American community.

Americans don't want to see their neighborhoods permanently transformed into United Nations refugee camps filled with welfare dependents, as they now find in Minneapolis where the crime rate has soared exponentially, largely due to the rapid and massive influx of Somali Muslim refugees. According to Steven Camarota's 2015 study (The High Cost of Resettling {Muslim} Middle Eastern Refugees), it costs taxpayers $64,370 for each Muslim refugee, which is twelve times UN estimates to care for one refugee in surrounding Middle Eastern nations. Even worse, the crime rate rose by fifty-six percent in Minneapolis, between 2010 and 2018, due to criminal activity by Somali Muslim gangs.

For God's sake, what is wrong with being a bit more discerning in regards of the refugees America accepts? Why can't we accept more like Ayn Rand, staunch anti-communist defender of liberty, Dith Pran, Pulitzer prize winning photo-journalist and translator for U.S. Military Assistance Command (Cambodia) and Albert Einstein, a genius physicist and Nobel Laureate? 

The United States granted an astronomical number of asylum requests in September 2019 to a combined 70,246 Afghan refugees and Special Immigration Visas (Afghan "allies") and 161,665 Iraqi refugees and SIVs. The war in Iraq ended in 2011, so there really isn't any excuse for U.S. taxpayers to be funding new lives in America for anyone from Iraq, other than the truly persecuted Christians who are still trapped in the region.

America spent enormous sums of money and lost thousands of fine men and women to give Iraqis a better path forward and a new chance to govern themselves as free men and women. Is there any good reason that justifies moving tens of thousands of Iraqis, or Syrians or Somalians for that matter, to any American town?

President Trump is only willing to give 18,000 refugees entry to America this year, which is the lowest number authorized since the program's inception in 1980. In contrast, President Barack Obama was willing to accept 110,000 refugees in 2017.

Amid the current anti-open borders sentiment in America, the open borders crowd, the Leftists of America always seem to manage to move U.S. policy in the opposite direction, just as they are currently attempting through a lawsuit filed against President Trump's executive order on November 21st 2019. Although public support for deceasing the numbers of legal immigration of all kinds is significant, the supporters are not well organized, unlike the Leftist coalition of ethnic churches and organizations that skillfully navigates the political arena in strong opposition to any proposal restricting any segment of legal immigration, including asylum seekers.

The lawsuit was filed in a Maryland federal court by lawyers representing the Lutheran Immigration and Refugee Service, Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society and Church World Service. Shortly afterwards, Krish O'Mara Vignarajah, president of LIRS, stated: "This executive order is unconstitutional and compassionless, and reflects a complete misunderstanding of the refugee resettlement process in this country."

Over the past decade, Ann Corcoran, a refugee law and policy expert, has given America outstanding briefings on the issue. She outlines in great detail the ultimate conflict of interest, by which refugee contractors' entire budgets grow commensurate to the number of refugees they resettle. The more communities they get on board with refugee resettlement, the more money they receive, and so their is nearly a knock down dragged out fight over all 3007 counties across America, with the goal of moving them to send letters of consent to the State Department.

Unbelievable as it seems, most Republican politicians are somewhat amenable to the one-sided pressure for all the wrong reasons, and in some cases, they [Blog Editor: i.e. (alleged) Conservative] are absolutely in the pockets of Open Borders Inc. And although conservatives have ceded a great deal of America to the Left, the refugee coalition has not ceded a single county; and so, thanks to many complacent and corrupt GOP politicians, refugee resettlement has thrived in the most conservative areas of the nation. The financial and cultural costs of refugee resettlement have been unacceptable and enormous. 

On July 5th 2017, a report, entitled 'The U.S. Refugee Admissions Program: A Roadmap for Reform', written by policy analyst David Inserra noted that at least sixty-one people who came to the United States as refugees engaged in terrorist activities between 2002 and 2016. The report detailed scores of other refugees who lied or took part in terror plots, as part of a study aimed at reforming the U.S. Refugee Admissions Program. The report concluded there was a need to place strict limits on refugee numbers and restrictions on the refugees themselves. 

Surely every knowledgeable American understands full well that there isn't any universal right to migrate, and resettlement isn't the solution to mass displacement. Our policymakers have a duty and a responsibility to make certain our nation only accepts as many refugees as can be safely scrutinized, investigated and assimilated. More importantly, America is not obligated to resettle refugees, and the ones we do resettle, America does so from a humane perspective and in hopes that such actions will also benefit our national interests.

So, to all the naive shmucks and corrupt, complicit liars out in Fly-Over-Country, who are playing a dangerous game with American lives, place your "Big Heart" on full display, but ignoring a moral and constitutional duty to place American interests and American lives above those of foreign nationals' needs is unconscionable and treasonous, at its best. Pressure Saudi Arabia, the United Emirates and Qatar to utilize their millions of dollars to resettle Muslim refugees in their own nations, as America works to facilitate the integration and assimilation of refugees it already has accepted, if and when such a feat is possible.  Don't let your "Big Heart" drive all common sense from between your ears, while your platitudes set the further destruction of America in motion, since the perpetrators of future Islamic terror attacks are already here: And as such, America would be most wise to, at the very least, halt any more Muslims from coming to America.

By Justin O. Smith
++++++++++++++++++++
Blog Editor: Rather than capitulate to Facebook censorship by abandoning the platform, I choose to post and share until the Leftist censors ban me. Recently, the Facebook censorship tactic I’ve experienced is a couple of Group shares then jailed under the false accusation of posting too fast. So I ask those that read this, to combat censorship by sharing blog and Facebook posts with your friends or Groups you belong to.
_______________________
Edited by John R. Houk
Source links and text enclosed by brackets are by the Editor.

© Justin O. Smith

Friday, January 22, 2016

Nullifying Obama's Gun Executive Order


John R. Houk
© January 22, 2016

I was raised through High School and College in eastern Washington State (to distinguish from the predominantly Left Wing west side). However, I have lived in Oklahoma for about 25 years (give or take). I am probably more akin to Okie Conservative voters than I am to Washington State voters.

In saying all that I am quite pleased with a State Senate bill that will officially be introduced at the beginning of the Oklahoma State legislative session beginning on February 1, 2016.

Sen. Nathan Dahm (R-Broken Arrow) will introduce the Second Amendment Preservation Act to be filed as SB1123. The bill is sure to cause controversy with America’s current Leftist-in=Chief President Barack Hussein Obama. Currently Obama is making another end-run around the U.S. Constitution and Congress by forcing Americans to live with unconstitutional restrictions against the Second Amendment restraining American citizens from guns that the Second Amendment guarantees to possess.

The Second Amendment of the United States Constitution reads: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." Such language has created considerable debate regarding the Amendment's intended scope. On the one hand, some believe that the Amendment's phrase "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms" creates an individual constitutional right for citizens of the United States. Under this "individual right theory," the United States Constitution restricts legislative bodies from prohibiting firearm possession, or at the very least, the Amendment renders prohibitory and restrictive regulation presumptively unconstitutional. On the other hand, some scholars point to the prefatory language "a well regulated Militia" to argue that the Framers intended only to restrict Congress from legislating away a state's right to self-defense. Scholars have come to call this theory "the collective rights theory." A collective rights theory of the Second Amendment asserts that citizens do not have an individual right to possess guns and that local, state, and federal legislative bodies therefore possess the authority to regulate firearms without implicating a constitutional right. (Bold emphasis is Blog Editor’s - Second Amendment; Legal Information Institute (LII) – Cornell University Law School)

You should be able to guess that Obama does not support the “individual right theory” but rather is a “Living Constitution” advocate of “the collective rights theory”. Whenever you see the word “collective” the political objective is Leftist-Marxist in orientation. (Living Constitution vs. Originalism See ‘Our Constitution: Absolutely Not A “Living Breathing Document”’ and “Constitution, Judicial Tyranny and a Moral Society”)

Let’s be clear on Obama’s early January 2016-gun control push. Some of the Dem President’s actions have the appearance of targeting gun purchases that probably should not have occurred. For example, people with mental health issues and expanded background checks.

BUT every time a Leftist politician puts forth well intentioned laws or bureaucratic rules with the enforcement of rule of law behind it, the toe is in the door for slow yet widening restrictions on individuals with more and more authority placed into the top-to-bottom grasp of government intrusion on individual rights.

The administrative steps will include a crackdown on gun dealers who bill themselves as “collectors” or “personal sellers” but are actually engaged in the business of firearms sales, including transactions online, said Attorney General Loretta Lynch. 
 The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives will require more of these dealers to obtain federal licenses, at the agency’s discretion, necessitating background checks on their sales. 
  
 The administration also will propose $500 million for expanded access to mental health services and, in a move that could raise privacy concerns, will seek to include’ mental health information on background checks for gun purchases. 
  
 The FBI will hire 230 examiners — an increase of 50 percent — to conduct the background checks on gun purchases. The National Instant Criminal Background Check System last year received 22.2 million requests for background checks, including about 3 million in December alone. 
 “We intend to make this system more efficient. The goal is keeping bad actors away from firearms,” Ms. Lynch said. 
 Mr. Obama’s budget for fiscal 2017 also will call for 200 more ATF agents to enforce existing laws. Beefing up the department’s budget has often met with a lack of enthusiasm in Congress. 
 The president also will require background checks for gun purchases conducted through a trust or corporation. Officials said the number of applications for such gun purchases has risen from about 900 in 2000 to more than 90,000 in 2014. 
 He also directed the departments of Defense, Justice and Homeland Security to conduct research into “smart gun” technology, “to explore potential ways to further its use and development to more broadly improve gun safety.” 
  
 On the mental health aspects of the president’s actions, the White House said the Social Security Administration will begin the rule-making process to include information in the background check system about beneficiaries who are prohibited from possessing firearms for mental health reasons. 
 The Department of Health and Human Services is finalizing a rule to remove legal barriers preventing states from reporting relevant information about people prohibited from possessing guns for specific mental health reasons. (Obama’s new gun regulations to require more background checks on purchases; By Dave Boyer; Washington Times; 1/4/16)

Background checks are good; however, background checks can be abused to the point of making it impossible to purchase a gun. Mental Health restrictions are good, but what if the Mental Health rule restrictions include something simplistic as agoraphobia, a fear of heights, a fear of being raped, a fear of home invasion and so on. Leftist abuse is ripe for the toe to kick down the entire door of constitutional individual rights.

Ergo thank GOD for Oklahoma and a bastion of voters that stick up and elect people with strong American values. State Senator Dahm’s Second Amendment Preservation Act is a constitutional State’s Rights implication of nullifying Federal intrusion of extending the arm of Big Brother over an issue best left to each individual American State to decide as per the Tenth Amendment.

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. (Amendment 10 - Powers of the States and People; U.S. Constitution)

So let’s take a look at the article that made me pleased to reside in the great State of Oklahoma from the Tenth Amendment Center.

JRH 1/22/16
*************************
Oklahoma Bill Would Nullify in Practice All New Federal Gun Control Measures

Posted January 21, 2016 10:27 pm

OKLAHOMA CITY (Jan. 22, 2016) – An Oklahoma bill prefiled for the 2016 legislative session would prohibit state cooperation with the enforcement all future federal gun control measures, effectively nullifying them in practice within the state.

Sen. Nathan Dahm (R-Broken Arrow) prefiled Senate Bill 1123 (SB1123) this week. Titled the Second Amendment Preservation Act, the legislation would prohibit any state or local agency, along with their employees, from knowingly and willingly participating in any way in the enforcement of any future federal act, law, order, rule or regulation issued regarding a personal firearm, a firearm accessory or ammunition. The bill would also ban the use of state assets or money in the enforcement of future federal gun laws.

Any local government found to have assisted in the enforcement of such federal gun laws in violation of the act would lose all of its grant funds the following year. State or local employers would face criminal penalties for knowingly violating the law in their official capacity.

SB1123 would effectively withdraw all state cooperation from the implementation or enforcement of future federal gun laws.

The legislation does not require any determination of constitutionality. It doesn’t attempt to physically interfere with federal enforcement of its own laws, but instead simply directs all state agencies to simply stand down. By removing resources and assistance that the federal government relies upon to carry out enforcement, these federal gun laws would be blocked in effect.

EFFECTIVE

Based on James Madison’s advice for states and individuals in Federalist #46, a “refusal to cooperate with officers of the Union” represents an extremely effectively method to bring down federal gun control measures because most enforcement actions rely on help, support and leadership from the states.

Fox News senior judicial analyst Judge Andrew Napolitano agreed. In a televised discussion on the issue, he noted that a single state taking this step would make federal gun laws “nearly impossible” to enforce.

The federal government relies heavily on state cooperation to implement and enforce almost all of its laws, regulations and acts – including gun laws. By simply withdrawing this necessary cooperation, states can nullify in effect many federal actions. As noted by the National Governor’s Association during the partial government shutdown of 2013, “states are partners with the federal government on most federal programs.”

“Partnerships don’t work too well when half the team quits,” said Michael Boldin of the Tenth Amendment Center. “By withdrawing all resources and participation in federal gun control schemes, the states can effectively bring them down.”

LEGAL BASIS

SB1123 rests on a well-established legal principle known as the anti-commandeering doctrine. Language in the bill refers to this universally accepted principle.

“Pursuant to and in furtherance of the principles of federalism enshrined in the Constitution of the United States, the federal government may not commandeer this State’s officers, agents or employees to participate in the enforcement or facilitation of any federal program not expressly required by the Constitution of the United States.”

Simply put, the federal government cannot force states to help implement or enforce any federal act or program. The anti-commandeering doctrine is based primarily on four Supreme Court cases dating back to 1842. Printz v. US serves as the cornerstone.

“We held in New York that Congress cannot compel the States to enact or enforce a federal regulatory program. Today we hold that Congress cannot circumvent that prohibition by conscripting the States’ officers directly. The Federal Government may neither issue directives requiring the States to address particular problems, nor command the States’ officers, or those of their political subdivisions, to administer or enforce a federal regulatory program. It matters not whether policy making is involved, and no case by case weighing of the burdens or benefits is necessary; such commands are fundamentally incompatible with our constitutional system of dual sovereignty.”

WHAT’S NEXT

SB1123 will be officially introduced on when the 2016 legislative session begins on Feb. 1. At that time it will receive a committee assignment. It will have to pass out of committee by a majority vote before moving on to the full Senate for consideration.

TAKE ACTION IN SUPPORT

In Oklahoma: follow all the steps to support this bill at THIS LINK

All other states: contact your state legislator and encourage them to introduce similar legislation to stop federal gun control at this link.

_______________________
Nullifying Obama’s Gun Executive Order
John R. Houk
© January 22, 2016
______________________
Oklahoma Bill Would Nullify in Practice All New Federal Gun Control Measures


Starting in 1767, in response to the Townshend Acts, John Dickinson, often referred to as “the Penman of the Revolution” wrote a series of 12 essays known as “Letters from a Farmer in Pennsylvania.”

In his first, he spent time discussing the last of the acts, the New York Restraining Act, which was punishment for the Assembly of New York, suspending its legislative powers for failing to fully comply with orders from the crown. He wrote:

If the parliament may lawfully deprive New York of any of her rights, it may deprive any, or all the other colonies of their rights; and nothing can possibly so much encourage such attempts, as a mutual inattention to the interests of each other. To divide, and thus to destroy, is the first political maxim in attacking those, who are powerful by their union.

He continued to say that, in essence, the rightful response at that moment would have been for other assemblies to have passed a non-binding resolution informing parliament that the act was a violation of rights and that it should be repealed.

Why? His answer came through clearly in his signature, where he wrote the Latin phrase, Concordia res parvae crescunt.

Small things grow great by concord.

Clearly, the Penman of the Revolution was right – and small things did grow great in the coming years.

In many ways, today’s federal government has suspended the legislative power of state assemblies by assuming control over powers not delegated to it by the Constitution. In recent years, this country has seen small things grow great once again – the simple introduction of non-binding resolutions affirming the 10th amendment has grown into a movement…

The Tenth Amendment Center is a national think tank that works to preserve and protect the principles of strictly limited government through information, education, and activism. The center serves as a forum for the study and exploration of state and individual sovereignty issues, focusing primarily on the decentralization of federal government power as required by the Constitution.


Please don’t hesitate to contact us with questions or comments.



Saturday, May 30, 2015

Explaining ‘End/Telos’ of Romans 10:4


More Thoughts on SCOTUS and Same-Sex Marriage
John R. Houk
© May 30, 2015

I belong to a secret Facebook group pertaining the First Amendment. A comment was left on this group pertaining a SlantRight 2.0 post entitled “Arise Christians against SCOTUS Violations”. Since the group is listed as “secret” I am hesitant to reveal the exact Facebook name or the name of the commenter. My sense is that those who post there may not wish to be harassed for their opinions. Thus I will identify the commenter as JP for anonymity reasons.

Just as a brief synopsis of “Arise Christians against SCOTUS Violations” that post was about then future oral arguments pertaining to homosexual same-sex marriage being a States’ Rights issue rather than a Federal Government issue. If the supporters of Family and Biblical Values are to win validation of their arguments before SCOTUS then Leftists and homosexual activists will be prohibited from making same-sex marriage a Federally mandated national law and would place that decision in the hands of each individual State of America’s Union. This would reinstate State Laws that made it a matter of the rule of law that marriage would be defined as between man and a woman rather than Adam and Steve or Adriana and Eve.

With that in mind here is JP’s comment edited with spellcheck because comments made on the fly are often grammatically flawed (and even though I also I am guilty of on the fly grammatically flawed comments it is a pet peeve of mine):

I don't understand why you reference the Old Testament for Christian Canon. Romans 10:4 – “For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth." KJV (Comment by JP)

The common mistake people make is that the Scriptures preached on by Early Christians and Jesus Himself were based on the Old Testament. And another comment mistake by Jim within Romans 10:4 is the word “end”. The Koine Greek word used in the days of the Apostle Paul was “telos”. That word has a more versatile meaning than just “end”. The explanation I found on the Denominational website from the United Church of God – an International Association:

In Romans 10:4, Paul's words are translated: “For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes.” Regrettably, most translators render the Greek word telos simply as “end” instead of giving Paul's intended meaning of that word in this context. Reasoning incorrectly that faith makes the law void, they have adopted an illogical assumption that Paul plainly rejected in Romans 3:31. This passage reads: “Do we then make void the law through faith? Certainly not! On the contrary, we establish the law.”

To discover the proper translation of a word that can be used in more than one way, its context has to be understood correctly before any effort is made to determine the right nuance of meaning that the author intended. Here is a simple example. One might ask a college student, “To what end are you attending college?” The word “end” in that context would refer to the “objective” or “goal” the student has in mind. Receiving a degree would be only the “end result” of his college years of learning, not the end to his ability or desire to learn.

The Greek word telos, translated “end” in Romans 10:4, can convey variations in meaning, including “'the aim or purpose' of a thing” (Vine's Complete Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words, 1985, “End, Ending”). This is very clear in the New King James Version's rendering of 1 Timothy 1:5, where telos is properly translated as purpose in the clause “the purpose of the commandment is love.” In this same verse the NRSV translates telos as “aim” and the NIV renders it as “goal.”

Paul uses telos in Romans 10:4 to convey that the objective or goal of the law—the “aim or purpose” of it—is to point us to the mind and character of Jesus Christ (Galatians 4:19; Philippians 2:5).

Jesus Christ, the living Word of God, is a perfect replica of what God's law teaches. Pointing us to His character and work is the aim” of the law. Rendering of telos as “end” in Romans 10:4 distorts Paul's intended meaning—something Peter forcefully warns us not to do (2 Peter 3:15-16).


The point is “the end” does not convey termination but rather the goal as in completeness. Christ completes the Law of the Old Testament by His Blood shed in death convicted under false accusations and human greed and arose from death three days later fulfilling the reasons for the existence of the Law. This does not make the commands of the irrelevant but encompassed in Blood bought Redemption which eliminates the penalties for breaking the Law.

In full disclosure about the secret Facebook group, at the time I posted these thoughts on this First Amendment group I had forgotten the secret group’s purpose was a bit more specific than all the aspects of the First Amendment. When I shared these Christian concepts to the secret Facebook group the main focus of this group was Islam in relation to the First Amendment. I posted “Arise Christians against SCOTUS Violations” straying from the groups designed purpose. I chose the First Amendment issue of Free Speech and the Religious Freedom to my opinion allowing Christian Americans to practice their Biblical faith which finds the homosexual lifestyle abhorrent before the sight of God Almighty. Thus on a State to State basis a plurality of Americans could vote individually as a Tenth Amendment Right on the definition of Marriage since the subject is not specifically addressed by the U.S. Constitution.


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

As I shared the secret group I posted on focused on Islam described in the right hand column as:

DESCRIPTION
For the creation & promotion of an amendment of the First Amendment which will permit proscribing Islam by law.

First Rough:

Any institution which recruits or retains members by force, seeks to supplant this constitution with its canon law, promotes offensive warfare or was created for the personal emolument of its founder is not protected under the free exercise clause of the first amendment and may be proscribed by law. 

There is very little chance of congressional passage and state ratification, but if properly publicized, the proposal will cause Muslims to s**t bricks, exposing themselves and their cult to full scrutiny.

On a personal level I have no problems with Muslims practicing a peaceful Islam that excises the portions of the Quran regarded as the very words of their Allah deity that commands violent Jihad in the present time forcing non-Muslims to submit to Islam by conversion. OR if choosing not to convert then submitting to the superiority of Islam over one’s own religious beliefs on penalty of offending Islam, the Allah deity or Mohammed resulting in a death sentence, violent punishment or imprisonment. Also Muslims should endeavor to transform (as opposed to the current purist Islamic reform flowing globally) the Hadith and Sira that supports the violent portions of the Quran advocating present time death, physical punishment or imprisonment for rejecting and thus offending Islam. Also Christians and Americans in general should realize that the Quran recorded in Mecca prior to Mohammed fleeing to Medina are peaceful and tolerant of non-Muslim faiths especially calling for an appreciation for Jews and Christians, BUT from Medina onward the Quran recorded is violently hostile toward non-Muslims which singles out forced submission of Jews and Christians who don’t convert with an OR ELSE caveat in the Medina suras. AND Christians and Americans should be aware that the Quran IS NOT recorded in chronological order – the Mecca and Medina suras are interspersed according to size rather than time frame.

In moving along back to the homosexual lifestyle pertaining to same-sex marriage vs. Traditional Marriage let it be known I probably should not have shared that particular post to the secret Facebook group focused on Islam in relation to the First Amendment; ergo I must say to my fellow members of the group I say, “Oops”.

This is an apology to the secret group, but I stand with God Almighty to assert a homosexual lifestyle is an abomination to His Presence. This is when I typically a homosexual activist claim something idiotic like, “God made me Gay and hence I was born Gay.” I find the homosexual activist assertion idiotic not based on science, but rather based on the God inspired Word in the Holy Bible.

Homosexuality condemned in both the Old and New Testaments. Thank God the Father emptied His Divine characteristics to be born as a man from a woman in Jesus Christ the Son of God. In Christ the penalty of the Law that is in the Old Testament has been rendered complete in Jesus. The penalty is not terminated but postponed in this life. The Last Judgment determines each person’s final eternity based on the heart-faith in following the Way of the Risen Savior thus determining if their name is in the Book of Life or not. Since Christ rose from the dead the final penalty or blessing occurs in that Last Judgment. That which is important that God finds homosexuality an abomination in the old covenant and the new covenant sealed in Christ’s Blood:

Leviticus

22 You shall not lie with a male as with a woman. It is an abomination.

13 If a man lies with a male as he lies with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination. They shall surely be put to death. Their blood shall be upon them.

Romans

18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, 19 because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them.

24 Therefore God also gave them up to uncleanness, in the lusts of their hearts, to dishonor their bodies among themselves, 25 who exchanged the truth of God for the lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen.

26 For this reason God gave them up to vile passions. For even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature. 27 Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due. (Leviticus 18: 22; 20: 13; Romans 1: 18-19 NKJV)

If SCOTUS rules in favor of homosexual activism making same-sex marriage a part of the rule of law without the path set forth in the U.S. Constitution, then SCOTUS is unconstitutionally enacting a law that should either be left to the described Amendment process through the vehicle of Congress and/or the States.


The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress; provided that no amendment which may be made prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any manner affect the first and fourth clauses in the ninth section of the first article; and that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate.

TAKE NOTE that the Supreme Court of the United States and the Executive Branch are not a part of Article V of the U.S. Constitution.

The only way that SCOTUS can act constitutionally to assuage the lot of homosexuals is to rule that it is more than a lifestyle but is a genetic occurrence. Even though you will homosexuals claim biological science is in their favor the actual science is hardly concrete in people being genetically born a homosexual. And ironically committed homosexuals are not even united on the OPINION of genetics.

If clear cut genetics is ever proven then science might be created by the heterosexuals that are actually needed to make children to engineer genes or the workings of inner anatomical organs responsible for sexual preference to eradicate the homosexual gene. Such genetic engineering would not fall under the category of murder but on the medical procedures that Leftists so often demand for women called “Choice”.

Homosexual activists point to the Fourteenth Amendment as the basis for claiming specific rights for homosexuals just as any other citizen of the United States. I’m not a lawyer but it seems if homosexuality is a choice rather than a genetic occurrence then how can the Fourteenth Amendment be applied to assign specific rights as equal to genetically born individuals?

People are not born a Democrat or Republican. People are not a Communist or a Capitalist.

People born into a human race is mentioned into the Constitution. Ironically people are not into a specific genetic religion, but they choose a religion or atheism or I could care less. BUT the Constitution specifically gives genetically born human beings the Constitutional Freedom to choose a religion or no religion.

NO WHERE in the Constitution are people who choose to be a homosexual have named specific rights for choosing that as a lifestyle to be respected by race, creed, religion or lack of religion.

The Constitution does provide for independent ideology in the First Amendment with Free Speech. The Constitution does not provide marriage between a same religion, a different religion, a religious person and an atheist, only Democrats can marry, only Republicans can and I think you get the idea. People marry as people.

If a majority of people in a given State view male/female marriage as natural law then marriage can so be entered. Frankly if homosexuals choose to enter into some kind of contractual mutual obligations and expectations I don’t see anything unconstitutional with that choice. But defining same-sex marriage a natural part of nature is ungodly in the sight of God. How do I know that? HE SAID SO IN THE HOLY BIBLE.

America is a secular nation founded under the platform of Christian Religious Liberty. Forcing a Christian to accept something as lawful is unconscionable and according to the First Amendment infringes on the right of a Christian to practice their faith which is unconstitutional.

The Fourteenth Amendment was enacted to after the Civil War to ensure liberated African-American slaves had the same protections and rights as pre-Civil War free non-slaves. In other words the Fourteenth Amendment dealt with civil protections and civil rights based on the genetics of human beings not on the choices of aberrant lifestyles.

Here are insightful words about the Original Intent of the Fourteenth Amendment:

The most decisive of these reasons is the fact that when the 14th Amendment was passed in 1868, homosexual behavior was a felony in every state in the union. So if the 14th Amendment was intended to require same-sex marriage, then every state in the union intended to throw the new couple into prison as soon as the marriage was consummated!

Some may say, “Who cares what they believed in 1868 about homosexuality? We’ve evolved since then.”

That’s addressed by the second reason: laws and words have specific scopes and meanings. They don’t have unlimited flexibility as liberal justices tend to think. Neither the intent nor the text of the Constitution requires the states to redefine marriage. If the people of the United States have “evolved” on the issue, then the Constitution provides them with a very clear and fair way for the document to intelligently “evolve”—they need to convince a supermajority of federal and state legislatures to amend the Constitution. That’s the very reason our Constitution has an amendment process!


… the 14th Amendment was intended to prevent states from discriminating against newly freed slaves. At that time blacks and women didn’t even have the right to vote, yet no court ever thought it could use the “equal protection” clause to change state voting laws. So why do some district courts think they can use it now to change state marriage laws? Are we to believe that “equal protection” does not guarantee a woman’s right to vote but does guarantee a woman’s right to marry another woman?


… Every person has the same equal right to marry someone of the opposite sex. That law treats all people equally, but not every behavior they may desire equally. If people with homosexual desires do not have equal rights, then people with desires to marry their relatives or more than one person don’t have equal rights. The “born that way” justification doesn’t work either because that same justification could make any desired arrangement “marriage,” which means the logic behind it is absurd. …


Does the U.S. Constitution require same-sex marriage? No, the U.S. Constitution requires the Court to leave this issue to the states. If you believe otherwise, then amend the Constitution. READ ENTIRETY (Why the 14th Amendment Can’t Possibly Require Same-Sex Marriage; By Frank Turek; Townhall.com; 3/17/15)

Here is the Fourteenth Amendment of which SCOTUS will issue an opinion on same-sex marriage:

Passed by Congress June 13, 1866. Ratified July 9, 1868.

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Section 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.

Section 3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

Section 4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.

Section 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article. (The US Constitution: 14th Amendment; website author - Fred Elbel; 14thAmendment.us; Copyright 2007-2014 - all rights reserved.)

Here is some truth to read pertaining the homosexual activist propaganda that a majority of American voters support same-sex marriage:

The headlines of most opinion polls and news stories say the same thing: Gay marriage is inevitable, by the people’s choice.


In February, a CNN/ORC survey of more than 1,000 people found 63 percent support for same-sex marriage.

This “supermajority of Americans” reflects the constant growing and widening support for the nuptials, said Evan Wolfson, president of Freedom to Marry.

In recent days, USA Today, The Washington Post and ABC News also have declared an end to the national battle on marriage.

“There’s no turning back,” said an April 19 article in USA Today, citing its poll of 1,000 adults taken with Suffolk University. Some 51 percent of those adults said they favored allowing gay couples to marry, with 35 percent opposed and 14 percent undecided.

An ABC News/Washington Post poll released Thursday found 61 percent support for same-sex marriage — with 78 percent support in the under-30 age group.

A Public Religion Research Institute survey of 40,000 Americans — which also found majority support for same-sex marriage — revealed …


In contrast, an amicus brief filed at the Supreme Court says it is “simply not true” that large majorities of Americans support a redefinition of marriage.

Real opinions are made at voting booths, and in 39 elections, in which nearly 85 million votes were cast in 35 states, more than 51 million people voted to keep marriage as a man-woman union, campaign and polling analyst Frank Schubert and the National Organization for Marriage said in their brief in Obergefell v. Hodges.

With a margin of 60.9 percent to 39.1 percent for traditional marriage, that is “an overwhelming landslide in American politics,” they wrote.

Although some polls indicate wide support for same-sex marriage, others show majority opposition to it or public support starting to drop, the brief said.


Also, many polls showing support for same-sex marriage may be worded to catch a “yes.”

“People generally want to be ‘for’ something, rather than ‘against’ something,” the National Organization for Marriage brief said.

Another factor, intended or not, is the “priming” of people with questions about legal rights before asking them about the right to marry. Without such priming, the Gallup Poll’s support for same-sex marriage dipped by an average of 6 to 7 points, the brief said.

READ ENTIRETY (Gay marriage defies opinions of American majority, legal brief tells Supreme Court; By Cheryl Wetzstein; Washington Times; 4/23/15)

What you should notice in that Washington Times article is that polls controlled by a Left-oriented Mainstream Media supports the agenda to restructure Family Values in America to reflect a decimation of Biblical Morality to be replaced with a Secular Humanism in which a mercurial humanity decides which morals have value and which morals are pointlessly archaic.

When a majority of American voters lean to defining American culture to an antichrist motif rendering Christianity irrelevantly archaic that will be the real beginning of the end of Constitutional Liberty America’s Founding Fathers intended for the United States of America.

JRH 5/30/15
*************************