The First Freedom

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

JRH 7/6/15

Please Support SlantRight 2.0

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

The First Freedom

By Justin O. Smith

Sent: 7/4/2015 1:41 PM

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Pat Buchanan recently asked (in 'Quo Vadis'),

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

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

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

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

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

By Justin O Smith

________________________

Edited by John R. Houk

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

© Justin O. Smith

It's all about race now

Pat Buchanan stands up for the legal process to work rather than the evisceration by the MSM and Black activists pertaining to Hispanic-American George Zimmerman. If Zimmerman’s story checks out he killed Trayvon Martin in self-defense. That would be quite different than the portrayal of the MSM and Black activists like Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson.

JRH 3/31/12

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

It's all about race now

Pat Buchanan: Zimmerman is being 'crucified' in arena of public opinion

By Patrick J. Buchanan

March 29, 2012

WND

If it had been a white teenager who was shot, and a 28-year-old black guy who shot him, the black guy would have been arrested.

So assert those demanding the arrest of George Zimmerman, who shot and killed Trayvon Martin.

And they may be right.

Yet if Trayvon had been shot dead by a black neighborhood watch volunteer, Jesse Jackson would not have been in a pulpit in Sanford, Fla., howling that he had been “murdered and martyred.”

Maxine Waters would not be screaming “hate crime.”

Rep. Hank Johnson would not be raging that Trayvon had been “executed.” And ex-Black Panther Bobby Rush would not have been wearing a hoodie in the well of the House.

Which tells you what this whipped-up hysteria is all about.

It is not about finding the truth about what happened that night in Sanford when Zimmerman followed Trayvon in his SUV, and the two wound up in a fight, with Trayvon dead.

It is about the exacerbation of and the exploitation of racial conflict.

And it is about an irreconcilable conflict of visions about what the real America is in the year 2012.

Zimmerman “profiled” Trayvon, we are told. And perhaps he did.

But why? What did George Zimmerman, self-styled protector of his gated community, see that night from the wheel of his SUV?

He saw a male. And males are 90 percent of prison inmates. He saw a stranger over 6 feet tall. And he saw a black man or youth with a hood over his head.

Why would this raise Zimmerman’s antennae?

Perhaps because black males between 16 and 36, though only 2 to 3 percent of the population, are responsible for a third of all our crimes.

In some cities, 40 percent of all black males are in jail or prison, on probation or parole, or have criminal records. This is not a product of white racism but of prosecutions and convictions of criminal acts.

Had Zimmerman seen a black woman or older man in his neighborhood, he likely would never have tensed up or called in.

For all the abuse he has received, Geraldo Rivera had a point.

Whenever cable TV runs hidden-camera footage of a liquor or convenience store being held up and someone behind the counter being shot, the perp is often a black male wearing a hoodie.

Listening to the heated rhetoric coming from demonstrations around the country, from the Black Caucus and TV talkers – about how America is a terrifying place for young black males to grow up in because of the constant danger from white vigilantes – one wonders what country of the mind these people are living in.

The real America is a country where the black crime rate is seven times as high as the white rate. It is a country where white criminals choose black victims in 3 percent of their crimes, but black criminals choose white victims in 45 percent of their crimes.

Black journalists point to the racism manifest even in progressive cities, where cabs deliberately pass them by to pick up white folks down the block.

That this happens is undeniable. But, again, what is behind it?

As Heather Mac Donald of the Manhattan Institute has written, from January to June 2008 in New York City, 83 percent of all identified gun assailants were black and 15 percent were Hispanics.

Together, blacks and Hispanics accounted for 98 percent of gun assaults.

Translated: If a cabdriver is going to be mugged or murdered in New York City by a fare, 49 times out of 50 his assailant or killer will be black or Hispanic.

Fernando Mateo of the New York State Federation of Taxi Drivers has told his drivers, “Profile your passengers” for your own protection. “The God’s honest truth is that 99 percent of the people that are robbing, stealing, killing these guys are blacks and Hispanics.”

Fernando Mateo is himself black and Hispanic.

To much of America’s black leadership and its media auxiliaries, what happened in Sanford was, as Jesse put it, that an innocent kid was “shot down in cold blood by a vigilante.”

Yet, from police reports, witness statements, and the father and friends of Zimmerman, another picture emerges.

Zimmerman followed Trayvon, confronted him and was punched in the nose, knocked flat on his back and jumped on, getting his head pounded, when he pulled his gun and fired. That Trayvon’s body was found face down, not face up, would tend to support this.

But, to Florida Congresswoman Federica Wilson, “this sweet young boy … was hunted down like a dog, shot on the street, and his killer is still at large.”

Some Sanford police believed Zimmerman; others did not.

But now that it is being investigated by a special prosecutor, the FBI, the Justice Department and a coming grand jury, what is the purpose of this venomous portrayal of George Zimmerman?

As yet convicted of no crime, he is being crucified in the arena of public opinion as a hate-crime monster and murderer.

Is this our idea of justice?

No. But if the purpose here is to turn this into a national black-white face-off, instead of a mutual search for truth and justice, it is succeeding marvelously well.

___________________________

Pat Buchanan was twice a candidate for the Republican presidential nomination and the Reform Party's candidate in 2000. He is also a founder and editor of The American Conservative. Buchanan served three presidents in the White House, was a founding panelist of three national TV shows, and is the author of nine books. His latest book is "Suicide of a Superpower: Will America Survive to 2025?"

© Copyright 1997-2012 All Rights Reserved. WND.com Inc.