America Needs Prayer - PARTICIPATE

John R. Houk

© July 27, 2015

Joseph Farah of WND sent an email promoting the third annual 9/11 Day of Prayer and Repentance. Farah begins with the recent SCOTUS decision that essentially told God Almighty He is in error for condemning any proclivity toward homosexual sex as an abomination. SCOTUS accomplished this usurpation of God’s prerogative as Creator by the unconstitutional activist rewriting of law forcing ALL American States to accept same-sex marriage.

The Supreme Court’s slow but sure whittling away of the moral standards of America by creating law rather than telling Congress to address a legal issue has activated a slow decent into a sewer humanist morality. The decent has been so slow that Americans are like the adage of a frog tossed in a pot of water which doesn’t notice it is slowly being boiled to death.

In truth there is only two ways for moral Americans to reclaim a USA that is exceptional once again: the Founding Fathers’ path of Revolution OR humbling ourselves before Almighty God in prayer and repentance OR both.

Farah’s email provides various links to WND opinion pieces pertaining to the 9/11 Day of Prayer and Repentance of which one is to the page promoting the event. Here is a video from that page and the following words leading to participation:

VIDEO: Dave Kubal 911 National Day of Repentance   

     

Our country is in a deep spiral of moral and spiritual descent.  As believers, this fact is starkly clear. The Bible declares that such things lead to national judgment.  The biblical warning signs of national judgment that appeared in the last days of ancient Israel are now reappearing on American soil (The Harbinger, Jonathan Cahn). The Bible declares that the prayers and repentance of God’s people can help facilitate, repentance, revival, healing, and restoration.  

This has resulted in 9/11 Pray – a Day of Prayer and Repentance The call for such a day first started September 11, 2013 and was first sounded by Joseph Farah, of World Net Daily and producer of The Isaiah 9:10 Judgment.  It to was early affirmed by Jonathan Cahn, Michele Bachmann, Greg Laurie, Chuck Norris, and more and the movement kept spreading. 

 9/11 Pray: National Day of Prayer and Repentance is appointed for believers across the nation to pray according to the pattern in 2 Chronicles 7:14 ‘If My people who are called by name will humble themselves and pray and seek My face and turn from their evil ways, I will hear from heaven, forgive their sin, and heal their land.’ 

 It will be a day for believers to humble themselves, pray, to seek God’s face, and to turn, in repentance, from their sinful ways and having done that, to pray and intercede for America, for God’s mercy and purpose, for revival. 

 This is being initiated and led by the Spirit of God moving on the hearts of believers and leaders across the nation, and not by any one organization or effort. 

 It is a call for both individual and corporate prayer and repentance.  It is open to all believers.  Any individual, any church, any ministry, any Bible study, any leader can join in – with individual prayer, prayer services, gatherings in church, gatherings in one’s region, town or city, media events, fasting, intercession, worship, etc….however the Lord leads. The most important thing is that God's people come before Him in prayer and repentence (sic) for themselves and America. 

 How You Can Be Part: Spread the Word, Send, forward, post this, to as many people as possible, let your pastors/ congregations/family/neighbors/friends people know Sign up to get further information/posts, the 9/11 Pray How-To Guide, The Declaration and more. (AMERICA IS IN RAPID DEPARTURE FROM GOD)

Facebook: 9/11 National Day of Prayer And Repentance

One can JOIN in prayer at the least or in person if available and can get there.

VIDEO: 911prayer video 03 "Short Promo"

Posted by I FA 

Published on Sep 9, 2014

JRH 7/24/15

Please Support SlantRight 2.0

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

AMERICA: Prayer Can Reverse a Downward Spiral

By Joseph Farah

Sent: 7/21/2015 9:42 AM

Sent by WND

In the aftermath of the Supreme Court's decision to impose homosexual "marriage" on the nation, WND CEO Joseph Farah says it is more important than ever for Americans to repent. And he's calling for believers in God throughout the country to participate in the third annual "9/11 Day of Prayer and Repentance."

"When America was founded 239 years ago, fellow believers fought to establish and protect the role of God in preserving the fabric of our country. We are a nation originally built on and by prayer. Today, as Christians, we can look around and readily see that our beloved homeland is tragically broken and our culture is disintegrating and dramatically moving away from God," he said.

But he said the solution is available.

"How can we save America? What would our founders do if faced with such predicaments? Those of us who understand the challenges we face for the very survival of America as one nation under God must start planning now to do something radical," he said.

"That something is the 2015 nationwide day of prayer and repentance."

The "9/11 Day of Prayer & Repentance" began in 2013 with an editorial column at WND.com calling for "a nationwide day of prayer, fasting and humility" to respond to national challenges rivaling "anything we've seen since the start of World War II."

Though Farah did not anticipate it, pastors, preachers, rabbis, and others around the country responded enthusiastically and what he initially termed a "throwaway" column became a movement.

Thousands of churches and hundreds of thousands of individuals have participated in the "9/11 Day of Prayer & Repentance" in previous years. However, this year's event takes on special significance because of contemporary events in politics and culture.

Jonathan Cahn, the well-known Bible teacher and author who warned years ago of divine judgment if America did not reject secularism, has suggested America is already a "post-Christian" nation and that bathing the White House in the colors of the homosexual "rainbow flag" was "a sign of desecration covering the White House."

Cahn's warning to the Supreme Court not to implement homosexual "marriage" and to turn back to God went viral racking up millions of views in only a few days.

 Elizabeth Farah

Joseph Farah and his wife Elizabeth trace the beginnings of the "9/11 Day of Prayer & Repentance" to their efforts producing the most successful faith movie of 2012-2013, "The Isaiah 9:10 Judgment," based on Cahn's New York Times best-selling book, "The Harbinger."

Farah says "the movie has had a profound impact on millions with its biblically based revelations of how God's judgment is befalling our land as it did ancient Israel" and Cahn has affirmed the "9/11 Day of Prayer & Repentance."

Cahn's work shows how the Israelites responded to catastrophe with pride and defiance, rather than prayer. In his interpretation, this led to catastrophe for the Jewish people.

Seeing contemporary Americans in a similar situation, Farah believes, "If there is one word that could instantaneously reverse the critical state that our nation is in today, it is this – repentance."

In his view, the "9/11 Day of Prayer & Repentance" is an effort to urge the entire nation to repent and avoid destruction.

Other leaders are also stepping forward to encourage Christians to participate in the effort, including Michele Bachmann and Chuck Norris.

Also Richard Land, president of the Southern Evangelical Seminary, who has promoted the event:

Ken Ham, president and founder of Answers in Genesis, is another supporter.

Farah said of the event, "September 11 will be a day for believers to humble themselves, pray, fast, seek God's face, and personally repent of sin. Having done that, it is also a day to pray and intercede for God's mercy upon America. The Spirit of God is moving in the hearts of believers all across this nation to initiate this event, and the 9/11 Day of Prayer & Repentance is being promoted and carried out by a variety of organizations and leadership efforts."

Farah encourages pastors to open their churches on Wednesday, Sept. 11, to allow both their community of members and their communities at large to gather and pray.

Individuals can also participate in the effort in several ways, according to organizers:

·       Pledge to pray as an individual or a group and to receive FREE devotionals and other resources at 911dayofprayer.org. The website has more information on how to participate, the resources available and how to stay in touch for updates. Sign up today.

·       Pass the word, (send, forward, and post this), to as many people and groups as possible. Learn more at 911DayofPrayer.org and let your pastors, congregations, and friends know about this event and put it on the calendar.

·       Plan to participate either as a group locally, on the national conference call or other event you create in concert with the day.

·       Most importantly, prepare to repent by praying in advance of the day & be led by the Lord as to how you can participate.

Farah points to 2 Chronicles 7:14, which reads, "... if My people, who are called by name will humble themselves, and pray and seek My face, and turn from their evil ways, then I will hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin and heal their land." (NKJV)

Farah condemns the response of the contemporary culture to America's challenges.

"The people of America are responding predictably to today's culture by doing what's 'right in their own eyes' – as the people of Israel did before their judgment. No longer does Washington see itself as a servant of the people, but rather as their master. Man's conventional answers are not going to work. God will not be silently mocked by blatant disregard.

"As followers of Christ, we are at a crossroads. The number of Americans with godly values appears to be rapidly declining, and it is imperative for the church to turn away from culture and turn to Scripture to find answers. Second Chronicles tells us that God desires to heal our land. Our part is clear – to humble ourselves, pray, seek His face and turn from our evil ways."

Thank you and God's blessings!

Joseph and Elizabeth Farah
Co-Founders
WND.com

Watch this WND exclusive video of David and Jason Benham on the importance of prayer and repentance:

VIDEO: David and Jason Benham Promote 9/11 Day of Prayer and Repentance

Published: WNDTV

Published on June 9, 2015

________________________________________________

America Needs Prayer – PARTICIPATE

John R. Houk

© July 27, 2015

___________________________________________

AMERICA: Prayer Can Reverse a Downward Spiral

WND | 2020 Pennsylvania Ave NW, #351 | Washington, DC 20006 |
Copyright 1997-2015 WND.com Inc. All Rights Reserved.

Support WND with your contribution!

Arise Christians against SCOTUS Violations

John R. Houk

© April 8, 2015

What do Public Advocate of the U.S., Joyce Meyer Ministries, the Lincoln Institute, the Abraham Lincoln Foundation, Institute on the Constitution, Conservative Legal Defense and Education Fund and Pastor Chuck Baldwin have in common? Include in that commonality these organizations and Ministries: National Religious Broadcasters, the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association, Samaritan’s Purse, In Touch Ministries, Pathway to Victory, The Chuck Colson Center for Christian Worldview, Dallas Theological Seminary, The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary, Daniel L. Akin, Mark L. Bailey, Francis J. Beckwith, Robert A.J. Gagnon, Robert Jeffress, Byron R. Johnson, Eric Metaxas, Albert Mohler Jr., Charles F. Stanley, John Stonestreet and Owen Strachan.

What they ALL do have in common are the U.S. Appellate, Supreme Court and Traditional Marriage. They all are taking a stand against homosexual same-sex legally mandated marriage ESPECIALLY as the Judicial Branch making it legal as opposed to State legislatures and people’s State Initiatives.

ONLY a handful of American States have made same-sex marriage legal by legislative action or a voter’s Initiative. A significant majority of American States have been forced to recognize same-sex marriage at the hands of the Federal Judicial system on every level. 

SO, I have to wonder. What Constitutional Article or Amendment gives the Judicial Branch to legislate laws? My understanding of the U.S. Constitution is that only the Amendment process of the U.S. Congress and/or each individual American State has that authority. All the Courts should be involved with is ruling if a law is constitutional or not. Then order the appropriate action from Congress to correct any unconstitutional provisions of a law. AND if the U.S. Constitution does not address an issue each individual State has the Liberty enact a law pertaining to its jurisdiction.

Amendment X

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.

Here is a pretty good picture of the Original Intent of the 10^th Amendment which includes the legal marriage of the 9^th Amendment:

Ninth Amendment: "The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

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."

What was the original purpose of these two Amendments? … The truth of the matter is that the two Amendments were intended to be a pair that would secure the rights of the people by ensuring a federal government of limited powers. The original purpose of what became the Ninth and Tenth Amendments is embodied in a letter from James Madison to George Washington in 1789. Madison wrote, "If a line can be drawn between the [federal] powers granted and the rights retained, it would seem to be the same thing, whether the latter be secured by declaring that they shall not be abridged, or that the former shall not be extended." In other words, what became the Ninth and Tenth Amendments serve virtually identical and reciprocal purposes. (Bold-Italic text added by this Editor)

… The Tenth plainly says that there is a federal government only of limited enumerated powers. This is of course a most important principle to announce and clearly enshrine in the Constitution, but it alone is not enough precisely because those powers can always be interpreted to be limitless. … The Ninth was therefore also included to say that in applying those federal enumerated powers, it is forbidden to construe them to the point where everything conceivable falls within those powers so long as they do not violate a right specified in the previous listed Amendments to the Constitution that became the Bill of Rights. The Tenth Amendment stands for the proposition that there is only an enumeration of powers and no more, and the Ninth stands for the proposition that the notion of limited and defined powers is to be taken seriously.

Federalist (those who argued for the ratification of the Constitution) Governor Edmund Randolph clearly expressed this intent behind what would later became the Ninth and Tenth Amendments at the Virginia Ratifying Convention of 1788. He asked, "If it would not fatigue the house too far, I would go back to the question of reserved rights. The gentleman supposes that complete and unlimited legislation is vested in the Congress of the United States. This supposition is founded on false reasoning... [I]n the general [federal] Constitution, its powers are enumerated. Is it not, then, fairly deducible, that it has no power but what is expressly given it?--for if its powers were to be general, an enumeration would be needless... [Regarding a government] body arising from a compact, and with certain delineated powers...a bill of rights...would not be [necessary]... for the best security that can be...is the express enumeration of its powers" (emphasis added). The "retained rights" of the Ninth Amendment are reserved by the Tenth Amendment's making clear there is an enumeration of powers. It is in making sure that the federal government is one of limited and defined powers, and that these limitations are taken seriously, that the reserved rights of the people are protected.

Nonetheless, this concern underlying the Ninth and Tenth Amendments is in contravention with Supreme Court jurisprudence. The principles announced in the Ninth and Tenth Amendments has been intentionally gutted by the modern Supreme Court since the New Deal.  … The Court stated in the most famous footnote of Constitutional law, in Footnote 4 of the US v. Carolene Products (1938) decision, that there is a "narrower scope for operation of the presumption of Constitutionality when legislation appears on its face to be within a specific prohibition of the Constitution, such as those of the first ten amendments." The idea expressed by the Supreme Court is the most famous footnote precisely because it is still the framework for much of Supreme Court jurisprudence today. The footnote states that there is a "presumption of Constitutionality" given to federal laws unless a right enumerated in the first ten amendments is at issue. This specifically turns the original meaning of the Ninth Amendment on its head, it contradicts the very purpose of the Ninth Amendment's inclusion at the end of the Bill of Rights. SHOULD READ ENTIRETY (Original Purpose Of The Most Significant Ignored Amendments To The Constitution: The 9th And 10th; By Steve Lackner; Free Republic; 6/30/11 [at SteveLackner.com – dead link at time of posting] and 7/1/11 3:32:19 AM [at Free Republic])

Undoubtedly a little more research will uncover more SCOTUS overreach, but I want to draw attention to a report by Bob Unruh writing for WND. Unruh’s post is the source of the organizations and Ministries I listed above that are taking a stand for Religious Liberty and a stand against the moral abomination of homosexual same-sex marriage.

Those great Christians are confronting the SCOTUS Justices with the Word of God and the fact that SCOTUS rulings are infringing on the Rights of individual States to define what marriage is.

Unfortunately the Unruh article only focuses on First Amendment violations forced on We The People rather including the imperative of the 10^th Amendment and I discovered in reading up on this issue, the significance of the 9^th Amendment.

JRH 4/8/15

Please Support SlantRight 2.0

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

SUPREMES WARNED: 'GOD'S JUDGMENT' NOW LOOMING

'Scripture attests that perversions violate the law of the land'

By BOB UNRUH

April 7, 2015

WND

In a stunningly blunt brief, a team of lawyers acting on behalf of a number of Christian and liberty-focused organizations has told the U.S. Supreme Court that to mandate same-sex marriage is to invite God’s judgment.

And that’s probably not going to turn out well.

The brief was filed by the William J. Olson law firm and the U.S. Justice Foundation on behalf of Public Advocate of the U.S., Joyce Meyer Ministries, the Lincoln Institute, the Abraham Lincoln Foundation, Institute on the Constitution, Conservative Legal Defense and Education Fund and pastor Chuck Baldwin.

The Supreme Court is to hear arguments later this month in a case coming from the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in which judges said state residents are allowed to define marriage in their state. The appeal to the Supreme Court contends barring same-sex marriage violates the U.S. Constitution.

Other briefs already have pointed out that marriage existed before any government, law or constitution, so the judiciary doesn’t have the authority to allow people to simply change the definition.

The new brief goes much further.

“Should the court require the states and the people to ‘ritualize’ sodomite behavior by government issuance of a state marriage license, it could bring God’s judgment on the nation,” the brief warns. “Holy Scripture attests that homosexual behavior and other sexual perversions violate the law of the land, and when the land is ‘defiled,’ the people have been cast out of their homes.”

The brief cites Leviticus 18:22 and 24-30, a biblical passages that seldom finds its way into popular discourse.

Verse 22 states, “Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable.”

And the subsequent section warns against such defilement.

“If you defile the land, it will vomit you out as it vomited out the nations that were before you. … Keep my requirements and do not follow any of the detestable customs that were practiced before you came and do not defile yourselves with them,” the Old Testament passage states.

Conservative icon Phyllis Schlafly doesn’t mince words in her astounding new book, “Who Killed the American Family?” blaming “feminists, judges, lawmakers, psychologists, school districts” and others.

The court filing, citing the book of 2nd Peter, continues: “Although some would assert that these rules apply only to the theocracy of ancient Israel, the Apostle Peter rejects that view: ‘For if God … turning the cities of Sodom and Gomorrha (sic) into ashes condemned them with an overthrow, making them an ensample unto those that after should live ungodly’” (King James Version).

The brief says the “continuing application of this Levitical prohibition is confirmed by the Book of Jude: ‘Even as Sodom and Gomorrha (sic), and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.”

The brief argues: “Whatever justification any judge may believe compels a state to define marriage to include same-sex couples, it is not found in the Constitution, nor is it based in any constitutional principles. For any judge to require a state to define marriage to include same-sex couples is an usurpation of authority that he does not have under the laws of man or God, and is thus illegal.”

Christian evangelist Franklin Graham defended traditional marriage on his Facebook page Tuesday.

“God’s Word doesn’t need a majority vote. God’s Word is true regardless of the winds of moral change, and we must stand up for biblical truth in the midst of a depraved society.”

WND previously reported some of the top names in Christian ministry – including the National Religious Broadcasters, the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association, the Chuck Colson Center, Southern Baptists, Albert Mohler and Charles Stanley – asked the U.S. Supreme Court to protect marriage as God defined it.

Their brief also was filed in the Obergefell v. Hodges case, where the 6th Circuit ruled residents of Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio and Tennessee can define marriage for themselves.

That brief was filed by Liberty Institute on behalf of the National Religious Broadcasters, the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association, Samaritan’s Purse, In Touch Ministries, Pathway to Victory, The Chuck Colson Center for Christian Worldview, Dallas Theological Seminary, The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary, Daniel L. Akin, Mark L. Bailey, Francis J. Beckwith, Robert A.J. Gagnon, Robert Jeffress, Byron R. Johnson, Eric Metaxas, Albert Mohler Jr., Charles F. Stanley, John Stonestreet and Owen Strachan.

“In reaching its decision, this court should reaffirm that the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment protects religious dissenters who disagree with state-recognized same-sex marriage and to reaffirm the importance of free debate and free inquiry in this democratic republic,” the brief states.

Liberty Institute President Kelly Shackelford said religious liberty and free speech “are our first American freedoms.”

“We hope the Supreme Court will use this opportunity to affirm the Sixth Circuit and reaffirm the constitutional rights of all Americans to speak and act according to their beliefs,” he said.

When the Alabama Supreme Court prevented a federal judge from imposing same-sex marriage there earlier this year, it argued the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed the right of states to decide the issue when it overturned the federal Defense of Marriage Act in the Windsor case.

In its order, the Alabama court wrote: “An open question exists as to whether Windsor’s ‘equal dignity’ notion works in the same direction toward state laws concerning marriage as it did toward DOMA. The Windsor court stated that ‘the history of DOMA’s enactment and its own text demonstrate that interference with the equal dignity of same-sex marriages, a dignity conferred by the states in the exercise of their sovereign power, was more than an incidental effect of the federal statute.’”

The Alabama court noted that in Windsor, New York’s law allowed same-sex couples to obtain marriage licenses.

“Thus, the ‘dignity’ was conferred by the state’s own choice, a choice that was ‘without doubt a proper exercise of its sovereign authority within our federal system, all in the way that the Framers of the Constitution intended.’”

The Alabama court thus asked: Why, if New York could make that choice, would Alabama be deprived of exactly the same choice?

“The problem with DOMA was that it interfered with New York’s ‘sovereign’ choice,” the Alabama court said. “Alabama ‘used its historic and essential authority to define the marital relations’ and made a different ‘sovereign’ choice than New York. If New York was free to make that choice, it would seem inconsistent to say that Alabama is not free to make its own choice, especially given that ‘the recognition of civil marriages is central to state domestic relations law applicable to its residents and citizens.’”

The new brief makes several other points, including that the “constitutional foundation” for the “‘right’ to marry any person of one’s choice” is simply fabricated.

“The same-sex advocates have posited that their right to marry is an evolutionary one, having gradually emerged from the dark ages of the common law into the full bloom of a social science consensus of marriage equality,” the brief explained.

But to travel that path would be to “ignore what [the court] clearly acknowledged in Marbury v. Madison – that the power of judicial review is limited by the words of the Constitution, and by its original purpose – to secure the right of the people to limit future governments by principles designed to be permanent, not to empower this court to change the Constitution to fit the changing times.”

On the issue of homosexuality, the American people “have seen a flurry of judicial opinions with ‘no foundation in American constitutional law’ overturning laws which were ‘designed to prevent piecemeal deterioration of the sexual morality’ desired by the people.”

“These opinions together constitute what [was] described as ‘an act, not of judicial judgment, but of political will.’”

The problem is social science isn’t static, the document said.

“Prior to 1973, the American Psychiatric Association consensus was that homosexuality was a mental disorder. Now the consensus is that homosexuality is a positive virtue. Who knows what tomorrow may bring.”

The brief said today people are being told that marriage cannot constitutionally be based on “a divinely revealed moral foundation, but only according to the secular reasons of men.”

Beware, the brief says.

“The nation was not so founded. The Declaration of Independence, the nation’s charter, grounded our nation on the biblical ‘Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God,’ embracing the principle that all men ‘are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights,’ putting its case for liberty before ‘the Supreme Judge of the world,’ and acting in ‘firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence.’”

Such a change would require the “entire revision” of every family law in the country, closure of adoption agencies and government persecution of those who preach against homosexuality, the brief warns.

And there would be no logical barrier to three men or three women marrying: “Why not an uncle and a niece as in New York?”

“The current accepted vernacular is said to be “lgbttqqiiaa+,” standing for “lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, transsexual, queer, questioning, intersex, intergender, asexual, ally and beyond,” the brief notes. “Indeed, some consider pedophilia to be a legitimate sexual orientation, returning us to the pagan pederasty of ancient Greece.”

Nearly all orders for states to recognize same-sex marriage have come from federal judges. The judges have simply overridden the will of the state’s residents who voted, often overwhelmingly, to define marriage as the union of one man and one woman.

That was the scenario in California, where the fight over marriage ended up at the U.S. Supreme Court, which ruled only on a technicality – the standing of those supporting the state constitution – and not the merits of the case.

Of the three dozen states that now have been forced to recognize same-sex marriage, only a handful enacted it through their own legislative or administrative procedures.

The Alabama court noted: “Only 12 states have accepted same-sex marriage as a result of choices made by the people or their elected representatives. The 25 other states that now have same-sex marriage do so because it has been imposed on them by a federal court.”

California Supreme Court Justice Marvin Baxter warned of the fallout from approving same-sex marriage in 2008.

Baxter said the court’s decision to overturn a “deeprooted” standard for marriage opened a Pandora’s box.

“Who can say that, in 10, 15 or 20 years, an activist court might not rely on the majority’s analysis to conclude, on the basis of a perceived evolution in community values, that the laws prohibiting polygamous and incestuous marriages were no longer constitutionally justified?”

Two justices of the U. S. Supreme Court already have made a public stand for same-sex marriage, having performed ceremonies.

The actions by Elena Kagan and Ruth Ginsburg have prompted citizens groups to call for them to recuse themselves from the coming decision, but they have declined to do so.

Kagan performed a Sept. 21 same-sex marriage for her former law clerk, Mitchell Reich, and his partner in Maryland. Ginsburg performed a same-sex marriage at the Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts in Washington, D.C., in August 2013.

“Both of these justices’ personal and private actions actively endorsing gay marriage clearly indicate how they would vote on same-sex marriage cases already before the Supreme Court,” the American Family Association said.

__________________________________________

Arise Christians against SCOTUS Violations

John R. Houk

© April 8, 2015

_________________________________

SUPREMES WARNED: 'GOD'S JUDGMENT' NOW LOOMING

Bob Unruh joined WND in 2006 after nearly three decades with the Associated Press, as well as several Upper Midwest newspapers, where he covered everything from legislative battles and sports to tornadoes and homicidal survivalists. He is also a photographer whose scenic work has been used commercially.

© Copyright 1997-2015. All Rights Reserved. WND.com

Activist Courts Continue to Abuse 1st Amendment

VIDEO: Rally for police captain draws demonstrators

John R. Houk

© October 16, 2014

The Tulsa Police Department (TPD) under the management of Police Chief Charles (Chuck) Jordan punished TPD Captain Paul Fields for refusing to attend a mock/deceptive Law Enforcement Appreciation Day at one of the most radicalized Mosques in the United States of America. I have been following since about 2011 when this heinous breech of First Amendment rights of Religious Freedom began to occur.

Captain Fields has sued for this punishment and infringement of the First Amendment BUT every level of Court so far has come down on the side of the TPD. A combination of limiting the scope of evidence and misrepresentations by Tulsa City Attorneys has worked against Captain Fields. Ergo, unfortunately Left oriented Judges and Appellate Justices have chosen the multiculturalist approach to favor the TPD and the Radical Mosque (See Also HERE) ruling that there was no breech against Captain Fields’ First Amendment rights and that the Islamic Society of Tulsa (a radical Muslim network of ISNA) was providing a harmless inter-faith community service activity because the TPD was providing protection from hate-threats against the Mosque and Islam.

The American Freedom Law Center discusses the Federal case:

On February 17, 2011, Captain Fields received an email from his immediate supervisor at the Riverside Division, Major Julie Harris.  This email had the subject line, “Tour of Mosque – March 4,” and stated, in relevant part, “We are directed by [Deputy Chief of Police] Webster to have representatives from each shift—2nd, 3rd, and 4th to attend [the Islamic event].”  This email also contained the directive from Webster, which was pasted into the text of the email.  Webster, with the approval of Chief of Police Jordan, who is also a defendant in this lawsuit, was now ordering officers to attend the Islamic event.  It was no longer voluntary.

After receiving the email from Major Harris, Captain Fields met with her to discuss the order from Webster.  He advised Major Harris of his belief that the order was unlawful.  Captain Fields correctly believes that City police officials do not have a right to order police officers to attend an Islamic event against the officers’ personal religious beliefs and convictions.

Captain Fields also responded to the order by email.  In his email response, Captain Fields stated that he believed that the order directing officers to attend the Islamic event was “an unlawful order, as it is in direct conflict with my personal religious convictions, as well as to be conscience shocking.”  Captain Fields concluded his email by stating, “Please consider this email my official notification to the Tulsa Police Department and the City of Tulsa that I intend not to follow this directive, nor require any of my subordinates to do so if they share similar religious convictions.”

On February 18, 2011, Webster sent a three-page interoffice correspondence to Captain Fields by email that affirmed the order and requested Captain Fields to reconsider his position.  Captain Fields again refused based on his religious beliefs, convictions, and conscience.

As a result of Captain Fields’s refusal to compromise his religious beliefs and convictions and violate his conscience, Webster ordered Captain Fields to appear in Jordan’s conference room on Monday, February 21, 2011.

During this meeting with Jordan and Webster, Captain Fields again explained that he believed the order was unlawful and that he could not, in good conscience, obey the order nor force the officers under his charge to obey it.

At the conclusion of this meeting, Captain Fields was served with a pre-prepared order transferring him to the Mingo Valley Division, as well as a notification that the police department was initiating an internal investigation of him for allegedly violating Rule 6 of the Tulsa Police Department Rules and Regulations (“Duty to be Truthful and Obedient”).  The transfer order stated, “This action is taken in reference to an Internal Affairs administrative investigation regarding the refusal to follow a direct order.”

Prior to being transferred for his refusal to violate his personal religious beliefs and those of the officers under his charge, Captain Fields was the shift commander for 26 officers and 5 supervisors.  As a result of this transfer, which is now a permanent part of his personnel record, Captain Fields was stripped of his command and his stellar reputation as a police officer was irreparably tarnished.

On March 10, 2011, Captain Fields received an official notification via email stating, “You are hereby notified that Chief Chuck Jordan has requested IA [Internal Affairs] to conduct an administrative investigation in regards to your refusal to attend and refusal to assign officers from your shift, who shared your religious beliefs, to attend the ‘Law Enforcement Appreciation Day’ on March 4, 2011, at the Tulsa Peace Academy [a.k.a. Islamic Society].

… READ ENTIRETY (Captain Paul Fields v. City of Tulsa, Oklahoma; American Freedom Law Center, H/T Noisy Room 3/25/14)

I actually stand by the TPD in providing protection for the Radical Mosque. No matter how much I or some extreme-minded Right Wingers may consider the IST Mosque to be a threat to American Constitutional government or as an anti-Christ religion; until the IST Mosque can get caught red-handed offering material support to Islamic terrorists, act as a front for homegrown Islamic terrorists or as an operational source placing into action the hate-rhetoric spewing from the Muslim equivalent of a pulpit then the IST Mosque itself has First Amendment rights of both Religious Freedom and Free Speech.

But when the TPD feels that not enough police volunteered to participate in the IST Mosque’s Law Enforcement Appreciation Day and then orders precinct Captains to participate along with chosen Police Officers; then the violation of Religious Freedom works toward the Officers so ordered.

Here are some of the blog posts from SlantRight 2.0 posted about this warped infringement of an individual American citizen Captain Paul Fields:

o   What if it was a synagogue?

o   Tulsa Police Chief Supports Radical Islamic Mosque

o   Stand With Paul Fields August 30

o   Tulsa Police Chief Targeted Paul Fields 1st Amendment Rights

o   ISNA Radical – OK Local ISNA Chapters Radical – Alton Nolan Radical

The only way Christians in America are going to reverse Obama’s fundamental transformation of American culture is if WE begin to be as vocal as Leftist and Muslims are anti-Christian.

As long as WE Christians trust in Leftist lies that the U.S. Constitution says there is a Wall of Separation keeping Christian Churches from supporting political candidates that represent Christian ethics and morals then Leftists will be allowed to falsely proclaim that anti-Christian morality is moral with reckless impunity our cultural American Exceptionalism will continue to evaporate.

In the same vein, as long as Islam is given an accommodation for Muslims to practice the unconstitutional portions of Sharia then the Liberty and Freedom enshrined in our Constitution will be rendered irrelevant.

What is unconstitutional with Sharia?

Islam is a theocratic political terrorist regime that hides behind the mask of religion to accomplish its mission of a worldwide caliphate. What most Americans don’t understand is that it is a totalitarian “theo-political” belief system and a social doctrine (the two go hand in hand) based on the Quran, Sirah and Hadith, what Dr. Bill Warner of the Center for the Study of Political Islam aptly coins the “Trilogy of Islam.” It has mandates on every single aspect of life and those mandates are enforced and regulated by the barbaric criminal and civil code known as Sharia Law.

…

… In case you are not familiar with some of the condoned atrocities of Islam and Sharia law . . . are you aware that women are stoned to death for committing adultery and that gay men are actually hung? Or that the genitals of little girls are mutilated in order to protect her virginity and that children may be murdered in the name of family honor?

…

Understand that Sharia is very complex and it’s derived from multiple Islamic sources. The Quran, considered the “uncreated word of Allah” is the primary source of Sharia law. The Hadith (sayings and actions of Muhammad) is the second most important document in Sharia. Historic rulings by jurists over the years and so-called reasoning by analogy make up the other two, less-influential sources of Sharia. Together they constitute Islam’s theological core and they result in a totalitarian way of life for Muslim followers and non-Muslims (kafirs and infidels).

… Sharia demands the death of those who renounce Islam. … Honor killings, marital rape, female genital mutilation, not to mention the severing of hands and feet are but a few of the other components of Sharia.

… (Islam and Sharia: Deadly Facts You Should Know; By Kevin A. Lehmann via Catch Kevin; Letting Freedom Ring; 1/25/12)

A PDF document from the Center for Security Policy (CSP) that shows the specifics of Sharia contradictions to the U.S. Constitution:

Shariah Law vs. the Constitution

Center for Security Policy

Article VI: The Constitution is the supreme law of the land

Constitution: Article VI: “This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby”

Shariah: “The source of legal rulings for all acts of those who are morally responsible is Allah.” (a1.1, Umdat al-salik or The Reliance of the Traveller, commonly accepted work of Shariah jurisprudence); “There is only one law which ought to be followed, and that is the Sharia.” (Seyed Qutb); “Islam wishes to destroy all states and governments anywhere on the face of the earth which are opposed to the ideology and program of Islam regardless of the country or the nation which rules it. The purpose of Islam is to set up a State on the basis of its own ideology and program.” (Seyed Abul A’ala Maududi)

First Amendment: Freedom of religion

Constitution: First Amendment: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”

Shariah: "Those who reject Islam must be killed. If they turn back (from Islam), take hold of them and kill them wherever you find them." Quran 4:89; "Whoever changed his [Islamic] religion, then kill him" Sahih al-Bukhari, 9:84:57. In historic and modern Shariah states, Shariah law enforces dhimmi status (second-class citizen, apartheid-type laws) on non-Muslims, prohibiting them from observing their religious practices publicly, building or repairing churches, raising their voices during prayer or ringing church bells; if dhimmi laws are violated in the Shariah State, penalties are those used for prisoners of war: death, slavery, release or ransom. (o9.14, o11.0-o11.11, Umdat al-salik).

First Amendment: Freedom of speech

Constitution: First Amendment: Congress shall not abridge "the freedom of speech.”

Shariah: Speech defaming Islam or Muhammad is considered “blasphemy” and is punishable by death or imprisonment.

First Amendment: Freedom to dissent

Constitution: First Amendment: “Congress cannot take away the right of the people "to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Shariah: Non-Muslims are not to harbor any hostility toward the Islamic state or give comfort to those who disagree with Islamic government.

Second Amendment: Right to self-defense

Constitution: Second Amendment: "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

Shariah: Under historic and modern dhimmi laws, non-Muslims cannot possess swords, firearms or weapons of any kind.

Fifth, Sixth and Seventh Amendments: Right to due process and fair trial

Constitution: Fifth Amendment: "no person shall be held to answer for a capital or otherwise infamous crime… without due process of law." Sixth Amendment: guarantees a "public trial by an impartial jury." Seventh Amendment: "the right of trial by jury shall be preserved."

Shariah: Hadith Sahih al-Bukhari: Muhammad said, "No Muslim should be killed for killing a Kafir (infidel)." Non-Muslims are prohibited from testifying against Muslims. A woman’s testimony is equal to half of a man’s.

Eighth Amendment: No cruel and unusual punishment

Constitution: Eighth Amendment: "nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted."

Shariah: Under Shariah punishments are barbaric: "Cut off the hands of thieves, whether they are male or female, as punishment for what they have done – a deterrent from Allah." Quran 5:38; A raped woman is punished: "The woman and the man guilty of adultery or fornication – flog each of them with a hundred stripes" (Sura 24:2).

Fourteenth Amendment: Right to equal protection and due process

Constitution: Fourteenth Amendment: “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. “

Shariah: Under dhimmi laws enforced in modern Shariah states, Jews, Christians and other non-Muslims are not equal to Muslims before the law. Under Shariah law, women, girls, apostates, homosexuals and “blasphemers” are all denied equality under the law. Under Shariah law, women, girls, apostates, homosexuals and “blasphemers” are all denied equality under the law.

For more information on Shariah law vs. the Constitution:

Shariah: The Threat to America in paperback or kindle at amazon.com, or free download at www.shariahthethreat.com

___________________

Original bullet marks edited out

AND YET the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the city government of Tulsa, OK can violate the First Amendment Religious Freedom rights.

Here’s another thing I have a problem with. Although Tulsa changed the election law for candidates to run without a Political Party affiliation he has ran for all political Offices as a Republican. In Oklahoma if you are a Republican you are a Christian Right Conservative (even if you are a Roman Catholic). Instead of standing up for a Tulsa citizen who chose to not to attend a radicalized Mosque as the Islamic Society of Tulsa; Mayor Bartlett not only has not rebuked the TPD and its dhimmi Chief Chuck Jordan, Deputy Chief A. Daryl Webster and Major Julie Harris the Mayor did nothing to stop the Tulsa City response to being sued. I don’t care how you spin that but that means Mayor Bartlett is a supporter of the kind of Radical Islam that is spewed from the Islamic Society of Tulsa. If Dewey Bartlett runs for any Office as a Republican/Conservative – local, State or Federal – I will never vote for him!

Perhaps a deluge of electronic messages using the City of Tulsa contact page will let Mayor Dewey Bartlett may have a precarious political future in the State of Oklahoma by sending complaints. To use that contact page CLICK HERE.

On October 13 Jim Kouri wrote about the injustice being done to Captain Paul Fields at the Examiner.com. I was going to cross post it but I sense I ran out of space. Kouri gives an excellent synopsis of local government successfully abusing the First Amendment with the help of the U.S. Judiciary system. You should read Kouri’s article.

Since the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) supported same-sex marriage by refusing to look at the Tenth Circuit Appellate Court’s recent ruling throwing out the voters of several States, I am not expecting too much constitutional Original Intent pertaining to Paul Fields. I pray in the Name of Jesus Christ that I am incorrect on that thought and that SCOTUS not only looks at Captain Fields’ violation of the First Amendment but rules in his favor.

JRH 10/16/14

Please Support SlantRight 2.0