Biden Proclaims “No Amendment is Absolute” as He Rolls Out Gun Control Measures Which He Says Do Not “Impinge” on the 2nd Amendment…Scared, Yet?

President Biden spoke in the Rose Garden of the White House with Vice President Kamala Harris and Attorney General Merrick B. Garland on Thursday.

FoxNews.com reports that

President Biden on Thursday, in rolling out a set of executive orders on gun control, said “no amendment is absolute,” while maintaining that “nothing” he is recommending “impinges” on the Second Amendment.

“Today we’re taking steps to confront not just the gun crisis, but what is actually a public health crisis,” Biden said from the White House Thursday.

“Nothing, nothing I am about to recommend in any way impinges on the Second Amendment,” the president said, calling arguments suggesting that those constitutional rights are at stake “phony.”

“No amendment, no amendment to the Constitution is absolute,” he said. “You can’t yell ‘fire’ in a crowded movie theater — recall a freedom of speech. From the very beginning, you couldn’t own any weapon you wanted to own. From the very beginning that the Second Amendment existed, certain people weren’t allowed to have weapons.”

He added: “So the idea is just bizarre, to suggest that some of the things we’re recommending are contrary to the Constitution.”

The president went on to call gun violence in the United States “an epidemic.”

“Let me say it again, gun violence in this country is an epidemic,” Biden said. “And it’s an international embarrassment.”

Biden announced a set of executive actions and legislative proposals on gun control Thursday.

Biden is asking that the Justice Department, within a month, propose a rule to stop “ghost guns,” which are “kits” people can buy legally then fully assemble to create a functioning firearm that does not have a serial number.

Biden is also asking the DOJ within 60 days to propose a rule on braces used for handguns, which make them more accurate; proposing action on “community violence intervention”; asking the DOJ to publish suggestions for “red flag” legislation; and having his administration issue a report on gun trafficking. 

Biden also formally announced David Chipman as the director of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF). 

A senior administration official Wednesday said that Chipman will respect the Second Amendment while he enforces gun laws. 

The Biden administration is also expected to throw its weight behind gun control proposals in Congress. 

Here is how our Founding Fathers would have responded to the Dummy From Delaware, Joe Biden…

[T]he said Constitution [should] be never construed . . . to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms. Samuel Adams, Signer of the Declaration, “Father of the American Revolution” 

The right . . . of bearing arms . . . is declared to be inherent in the people. Fisher Ames, A Framer of the Second Amendment in the First Congress 

[T]he advantage of being armed [is an advantage which] the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation. . . . [I]n the several kingdoms of Europe . . . the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms. James Madison, U.S. President, Signer of the Constitution, a Framer of the Second Amendment in the first congress

[T]o preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them. Richard Henry Lee, Signer of the Declaration, A Framer of the Second Amendment in the First Congress 

Democrats like Biden believe that the Constitution is a “fluid” document, subject to change to fit the political ideology of those who happen to be the majority party, presiding over the Executive and Legislative Branches of our Federal Government at the time.

That is where they are wrong…and they know it…but, they do not care, as evidenced by the bullying and didactic tone which Biden took during his Royal Proclamation yesterday.

The Constitution was written by brilliant men who foresaw the possibility of a minority of tyrants attempting to take over and change our Constitutional Republic into a tyrannical form of government, such as they left behind in Europe.

And, that, boys and girls, after hearing President Joe Biden threaten the Second Amendment, appears to be exactly what the Democrats want for the future of our Sovereign Nation and our children and grandchildren.

By proclaiming, like a monarch, that “no amendment is absolute”, Biden has warned us that changing the Second Amendment of OUR Constitution, a part of OUR Bill of Rights, is a very real possibility, if he can get the “Fools on the Hill”, otherwise known as Congress, to go along with it.

And, if that happens, what is to stop them from “radically changing” the First Amendment, as well?

And, God forbid, if all of that happens, our Constitutional Republic will no longer exist and America will be just another failed Democratic Socialist Third World Barrio, instead of “The Shining City Up On A Hill”.

It is time to “put on the whole Armor of God”, to pray, and to call our Representatives in Washington and tell them that We The People will not stand for this…and if they want to keep their jobs they had better start fighting against this “Russian Revolution II” and the unwanted revision of OUR Constitution.

Or they are going to be out of a job.

God protect us.

Until He Comes,

KJ

DONATIONS ARE WELCOME AND APPRECIATED.

 

One-Time
Monthly
Yearly

Make a one-time donation

Make a monthly donation

Make a yearly donation

Choose an amount

$5.00
$15.00
$100.00
$5.00
$15.00
$100.00
$5.00
$15.00
$100.00

Or enter a custom amount

$

Your contribution is appreciated.

Your contribution is appreciated.

Your contribution is appreciated.

DonateDonate monthlyDonate yearly

The War Against Christianity: Billy Graham Predicts Persecution of the Church. Has It Started Already?

th1DXO5NI3Last night, some folks from my church, myself and my bride included, went to a friend’s house, and gave out hot dogs, chili dogs, water, apple cider, coffee, tea, kool-aid, and, of course, candy, to over 120 trick-or-treaters and their parents.

We also gave out a card, which simply said, “Jesus Loves Me”, which we had cut out and written ourselves, and, then,  hand-decorated with Christian Symbols.

That little action, which touched so many lives last night, was a part of our Constitutional Rights as American Citizens.

Could the right to spread the Gospel of Jesus Christ, one day, be taken completely away from Christian Americans?

Are we headed in that direction, as I write this Blog?

The Christian Post reports that

The Rev. Billy Graham has issued a written warning to America’s churches: “Prepare for persecution.”

The renowned preacher and founder of the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association penned a commentary that was posted on his website last week and is slated to appear in the November edition of Decision magazine.

In the magazine, Graham notes that the American church has been largely unfamiliar with persecution, writing that this “immunity to persecution that Christians in our country have experienced in the past two or three centuries is unusual.”

“As a whole, our nation does not know what privation is. We do not know what sacrifice is. We do not know what suffering is. Suppose persecution were to come to the church in America, as it has come in other countries,” wrote Graham.

“Since we have experienced little religious persecution in this country, it is likely that under pressure many would deny Christ. Those who shout the loudest about their faith may surrender soonest.”

Graham went on to list “five ways to fortify yourself so that you will be able to stand in that day.” These included making sure of one’s relationship to God, walking with God, regularly reading Scripture, praying always, and meditating on Christ.

“Today our nation ranks as the greatest power on the face of the Earth. But if we put our trust in armed might instead of Almighty God, the coming conflict could conceivably go against us,” continued Graham.

“History and the Bible indicate that mechanical and material might are insufficient in times of great crisis.”

For many years, some — especially in socially conservative circles — have argued that the United States is gradually marginalizing Christians.

They point to things like the censorship of manger scenes and Ten Commandments displays on government property and an inherent growth of secularism in media.

In recent years, Graham’s son, the Rev. Franklin Graham, has become an outspoken critic of what he believes to be growing hostility toward Christians in America.

Earlier in October, Franklin Graham wrote a Facebook post in which he viewed the shooting at Umpqua Community College in Roseburg, Oregon, as an example.

Chris Harper-Mercer opened fire on students at Umpqua, killing nine and wounding seven others before fatally shooting himself. Early reports indicated that he specifically targeted Christian students.

“Persecution and targeting of Christians isn’t just in Iran or the Middle East, it’s right here in America,” wrote Franklin Graham.

“The bold souls at Umpqua Community College who stood up to say they were followers of Jesus Christ were heinously gunned down with no mercy. Jesus said, ‘If they hate you, remember they hated me before they hated you,’ (John 15:18).”

When I step away from the other issues of the day, to write these articles about “The War Against Christianity” in our country, I catch a lot of flack from Liberals on the Internet, who insist that this “war” is just a figment of this ol’ white cracka’s imagination.

And then, something like the massacre of Christians at Umpqua Community College happens, and their skills of observation become reminiscent of the Statue of the Three Monkeys:

Hear no evil, See No Evil, Speak No Evil.

Even President Barack Hussein Obama refused to acknowledged that the gunman was targeting Christians.

That’s because in Modern American Society, Christians, even though we still comprise 70-75% of the population, are supposed to sit idly by and watch our country literally go to Hell in a handbasket.

That ain’t happenin’.

Modern American Liberals, in a desperate attempt to rewrite the Holy Scriptures, attempt to ascribe a Failed Modern Politcal Ideology to Him that was created by a man, 1,8000 years after Christ sacrificed Himself for OUR sins on the Old Rugged Cross.

This lame, erroneous argument of the Political Left, that the Son of God was a Socialist simply doesn’t fly.

Christine Rousselle, writing for thecollegeconservative.com, made the following astute observation…

While stumbling upon Facebook, I came across the following image:

Jesus+SocialismThe image is obviously in reference to the Biblical miracle of Jesus described in Matthew 14:13-21, Mark 6:31-44, Luke 9:10-17 and John 6:5-15 of feeding a large crowd using only five loaves of bread and two fish. While this feat may be impressive, it is not, as this image implies, socialism.

Let’s take a gander at the definition of socialism:

So•cial•ism (noun) \ˈsō-shə-ˌli-zəm\
1. Any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods
The key words in the definition of the term that completely negate any idea of Christ being a socialist are “governmental ownership.” Jesus, while being the Son of God and the King of the Jews, was not the government. People did not pay taxes to Jesus, for instance. Jesus may have had his own group of followers, but he was neither the head of any state nor the leader of any form of government. The prefect of Judea at the time of Christ’s life was Pontius Pilate, not Christ himself.

Furthermore, as the image suggests, the act of simply providing food for everyone in the crowd is not “socialism,” for a variety of reasons. First and foremost, the bread and fishes collected from the crowd were donated voluntarily, not taken by force from the people via governmental order. Taxes, on the other hand, are not voluntary.

…Jesus performing a miracle was not an act of the government and therefore cannot be an act of socialism, even if the result of the miracle bears a resemblance in passing to the goals of a socialized state. Jesus may have healed various people for “free,” but this cannot be considered “socialized medicine.” In actuality, the act was the effective use of a private charity (Jesus himself), the polar opposite of socialism.

In a perfectly socialized state, the government would provide for the needs of the people, whether it is healthcare, food, schooling, etc. There would be collective ownership of everything. Jesus did not advocate this. On the contrary, the Bible advocates strong individual charity and charity via the church—not the government forcibly collecting large sums of taxes and confiscating private property in order to aid the poor. Had a socialized government been the one distributing the five loaves and two fishes to the crowd that day, it is certainly plausible that many people would have gone home hungry.

Jesus Christ was many things, but he definitely was not a socialist.

Christ led and continues to lead us to repentance and PERSONAL SALVATION.

He did not work for the Government, nor did he SAVE THE COLLECTIVE.

So, why is God’s Church being persecuted?

Because strong Christian men and women remain the backbone of a successful society, raising their children in the way in which they should go: to be reverent, respectful, compassionate, caring,

…and doing what needs to be done…to help our fellow man…to the Glory and Edification of God…not the glory of the State.

 God’s Children stand in the way of things.

Now, where did I hear something like that before? Oh, yeah…

The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing. – Edmund Burke

Until He Comes,

KJ

The War Against Christianity: Fascism in the Name of Political Correctness

th1DXO5NI3While the world continues its path to a possible nuclear meltdown, America’s Silent Majority continues to suffer under the oppression of a Far Left Ideology, attacking our Constitutional Freedoms in the name of “Political Correctness”.

The Christian Post has the story

Evangelical preacher Franklin Graham has compared the removal of Ten Commandments monuments from public property in the U.S. to the Islamic State terror group tearing down Christian symbols across the Middle East.

“We have been appalled at news reports of ISIS and the Islamic State tearing down all symbols of Christianity in the Middle East; but think about it — we’re doing it to ourselves here in the U.S. Atheists, activists, and anti-God groups like the ACLU, the Freedom From Religion Foundation, and the Military Freedom of Religion Foundation are on a quest to erase or tear down anything associated with the Name of Jesus Christ,” Graham wrote in a Facebook post on Friday.

He linked to a story by USA Today earlier this week that reported on the recent removal of the Ten Commandments granite monuments from the Oklahoma Capitol grounds.

Back in June the Oklahoma Supreme Court decided in a 7-2 ruling that the display violated the ban on using state property to further religion.

The monument was torn down early Tuesday morning in order to avoid confrontations.

“What are these people thinking? We need God’s laws — these are the laws that have helped society flourish,” Graham said.

IS militants have posted numerous videos online depicting the destruction of Christian buildings and symbols in the territory it has captured across Iraq and Syria.

Back in March, the jihadists shared photos of the destruction of Christian crosses, statues, and icons from churches in Ninawa, Irawa, which they replaced with the group’s infamous black flag.

“The images show ISIS men engaged in the destruction of various Christian symbols, which ISIS perceives as being polytheistic and idolatrous,” the Jihad and Terrorism Threat Monitor said back then.

“They don’t care what it’s called; they are just following their ideology and that means getting rid of churches and minorities. It is the Islamic State, and there’s no room for anyone else,” MEMRI Director Steven Stalinsky added.

Graham further commented on his Facebook page that the removal of the Ten Commandments monument and other such instances are one of the reasons he is rolling out his “Decision America Tour,” where he will travel to all 50 states in 2016 to rally Christians to get involved politically.

“I’m going to challenge the people of God to stand for His truth and righteousness and make a difference in this nation,” Graham added.

Back in April, he explained that he’s encouraging Christians to vote based on biblical principles and to run for political office themselves.

“I want to strongly urge Christians to run for public office at every level — local, state, and federal. We will not be endorsing any political candidates, but I will be proclaiming the truth of God’s Gospel in every state,” Graham said.

I have written. time and time again, about the Culture War, which is taking place in America.

Boys and Girls, it is not just a “Culture War”. We are battling a war against Government-sponsored FASCISM.

TheHill.com reported a while back,  that

Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) on Saturday said Democrats had gone to extremes in their persecution of Christians.

“Today’s Democratic Party has decided there is no room for Christians in today’s Democratic Party,” he said at the Iowa Faith and Freedom Coalition summit in Waukee, Iowa.

“There is a liberal fascism that is going after Christian believers,” the 2016 GOP presidential candidate continued.

“It is heartbreaking,” Cruz argued. “But it is so extreme, it is waking people up.”

Cruz said same-sex marriage had produced rabid zealotry in Democratic ranks. This ideology, he argued, was excluding people of faith.

“Today’s Democratic Party has become so radicalized for legalizing gay marriage in all 50 states that there is no longer any room for religious liberty,” he said.

The Texas lawmaker said this stance was against America’s traditional values. Religious liberty, Cruz claimed, was one of the nation’s founding principles.

“We were founded by men and women fleeing religious persecution,” Cruz declared.

“We need leaders who will stand unapologetically in defense of the Judeo-Christian values upon which America was built,” he concluded.

Cruz, a long-time opponent of same-sex marriage, seemingly softened his tone on gay rights earlier this week.

The White House hopeful reportedly said Monday evening he would still accept one of his daughters if they became a lesbian.
 
The Texas lawmaker was the first official entrant into the 2016 election cycle.

He so far will face Sens. Rand Paul (Ky.) and Marco Rubio (Fla.) for their party’s nomination.

My late father was one of thousands of brave young American men, who landed on the beaches of Normandy , France on June 6, 1944, in the military operation which broke the backs of the Nazis, leading to the end of World War II,  now known as D-Day.

World War II was in a war against Fascism.

What is Fascism? Per merriam-webster.com, it is a

political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition.

Ladies and gentlemen, I firmly believe that America is now fighting a new war against fascism.

It’s not a war that is being fought fought with guns and bullets, But instead with state referendums, Congressional votes, Executive Orders, Law Suits, and Judicial Activism.

And, it’s not our Brightest and Best who are dying on this field of battle, but rather, it is our Constitutional Freedoms which are dying an ignoble death, pierced by the arrows of socialism and political correctness.

By now, there’s some out there in the audience saying, “Oh Lord, the crazy old cracker’s overreacting again.”

No, Skippy, I’m not.

If you try to talk to a Liberal about this New Fascism, they will deny that there is any Fascism going on at all. In fact, they will tell you that this is “the will of the people” and they will site Democratically-stacked push polls in order to back their opinion up.

When you ask Liberals if , for example, “homosexual marriage” is the “will of the people”, why did voters in the overwhelming majority of states, including California, vote against it? And, if there is “no Fascism”, what do you call the fact that 2% of the population is having activist judges overturn the actual will of the people in order to get their way, in their attempt to redefine a word that has meant the same thing since time immemorial?

In response, you will usually see their eyes glaze over, like a deer in the headlights, or experience a dramatic pause in posting, if you are on the Internet.

Liberals can not legitimately defend the suppression of the First Amendment Rights of Christian Americans.

Fascism, in any form, remains indefensible, even, when a spineless Supreme Court kicks the can down the road.

The Godfather of Conservative Talk Radio, Rush Limbaugh, once said the following,

You know as well as I do that people are scared to death to tell you what they really think. The left has politicized everything — everything — to the point that people are afraid to go against what they know to be political correctness, which is nothing more than liberal fascism, nothing more than censorship.

When Barack Hussein Obama assumed the position of President of the United States, the Far Left became empowered. Obama’s handlers saw the opportunity to “radically change” America into a Democratic Socialist Republic. You know, the kind of government that is currently failing over in Europe.

Every piece of legislation that Barack Hussein Obama has tried to get passed, has been designed to either overtly or covertly limit our freedom.

From the stimulus bill, through Obamacare and now, through the latest threatened changes to our Gun Laws by Executive Order, every single piece of legislation has been designed to further the Far Left’s agenda.

Remember when Obama was campaigning so hard to get the Affordable Health Care Act passed?

He always used people as props for his speeches, whether it was just normal people or people dressed in white coats like doctors.

When he was previously trying to get gun control passed, he used the parents from the Newtown Massacre in Connecticut as human props to try to get his repressive agenda passed.

The use of human props is an old propaganda trick, which was used by Joseph Goebbels to make his boss Adolf Hitler seem like a man of the people who really cared about the German citizenry.

The use of propaganda to further the aims of fascist governments is an old and effective method of camouflaging fascism, which Obama’s handlers realize all too well.

In addition to the use of human props during a speech, another strategy used in a propaganda campaign is to select an enemy and target them with the aid of a sympathetic press behind you.

During Hitler’s rise to power, the German Press demonized European Jews, betraying them as evil and money grubbing…painting them as being different from normal German citizens. It was this classification of the European Jews as the enemy that almost led to the extinction of them in that horrible attempted genocide, known as the Holocaust.

Now, in the early 21st century, the Far Left, the Democratic Party, and the Obama Administration (but, I repeat myself) are using propaganda to isolate and demonize average Americans, who through hard work, have risen to a high station in life or through their strong Christian faith and love of their country refuse to follow a popular culture- worshiping Administration, when it issues Executive Orders or has its Democratic Congress pass legislation which clearly contradicts the Word of God and the Judeo-Christian Belief System upon which America was built.

Considering what is happening in the world around us, thanks in a large part to Obama’s failed Foreign Policy, if America keeps on the path we seem to be headed on, we will find out why America is not mentioned in the Book of Revelation.

Claiming to be wise, they became fools. – Romans 1 : 22

Until He Comes,

KJ

 

 

Obama Sells Out American Sovereignty to the U.N. by Signing Arms Treaty

gun rightsIf you were Barack Hussein Obama, and your attempt at Gun Confiscation had failed miserably, with both Congressional and widespread public opposition to your efforts, what do you do?

…after you threw a temper tantrum on national television…

Simple: You sign over your nation’s sovereignty to the United Nations.

United States of America Secretary of State John Kerry announced yesterday that the Obama administration would sign a controversial U.N. treaty on arms regulation, in spite of bipartisan resistance in Congress. Congress is concerned that the treaty could lead to new gun control measures in the U.S.

Kerry, in a written statement, which he released as the U.N. treaty opened for signature Monday, proclaimed that the U.S. “welcomes” the next phase for the treaty…

We look forward to signing it as soon as the process of conforming the official translations is completed satisfactorily.

Kerry called the treaty “an important contribution to efforts to stem the illicit trade in conventional weapons, which fuels conflict, empowers violent extremists, and contributes to violations of human rights.”

On April 2nd of this year, in the modern-day Tower of Babylon, known as the United Nations, a sweeping, first-of-its-kind treaty to regulate the international arms trade was passed by the delegates. oblivious to worries from U.S. gun rights advocates that this agreement could be the precursor to a national firearms registry.

The U.N. Arms Trade Treaty (ATT) requires countries to regulate and control the export of weaponry such as battle tanks, combat vehicles and aircraft and attack helicopters, as well as parts and ammunition for such weapons. It also provides that participating countries will not violate arms embargoes, international treaties regarding illicit trafficking, or sell weaponry to countries for genocide, crimes against humanity or other war crimes.

With the unwavering support of Obama and his Administration, the General Assembly vote totaled 155 to 3, with 22 abstentions. Iran, Syria and North Korea voted against it.

The problem with the treaty is that is positively porous, due to all of the loopholes contained in it. The list of controlled weaponry in it includes “small arms and light weapons”. Of course, the U.N. claims that the pact is meant to regulate only cross-border trade and would have no impact on domestic U.S. laws and markets.

There are several times, during my musings, that I have described our blessed country as a sovereign nation. What does that mean?

It means that we are an “independent state”, completely independent and self-governing. We bow to no other country on God’s green Earth. We are beholden to no other nation. America stands on its own, with our own set of laws , The Constitution of the United States.

On June 5, 2009, Professor Jeremy Rabin of George Mason University, author of “The Case for Sovereignty”, delivered a lecture sponsored by Hillsdale College in Washington, DC. What he said certainly applies to this situation…

The Constitution provides for treaties, and even specifies that treaties will be “the supreme Law of the Land”; that is, that they will be binding on the states. But from 1787 on, it has been recognized that for a treaty to be valid, it must be consistent with the Constitution—that the Constitution is a higher authority than treaties. And what is it that allows us to judge whether a treaty is consistent with the Constitution? Alexander Hamilton explained this in a pamphlet early on: “A treaty cannot change the frame of the government.” And he gave a very logical reason: It is the Constitution that authorizes us to make treaties. If a treaty violates the Constitution, it would be like an agent betraying his principal or authority. And as I said, there has been a consensus on this in the past that few ever questioned.

…At the end of The Federalist Papers, Alexander Hamilton writes: “A nation, without a national government, is, in my view, an awful spectacle.” His point was that if you do not have a national government, you can’t expect to remain a nation. If we are really open to the idea of allowing more and more of our policy to be made for us at international gatherings, the U.S. government not only has less capacity, it has less moral authority. And if it has less moral authority, it has more difficulty saying to immigrants and the children of immigrants that we’re all Americans. What is left, really, to being an American if we are all simply part of some abstract humanity? People who expect to retain the benefits of sovereignty—benefits like defense and protection of rights—without constitutional discipline, or without retaining responsibility for their own legal system, are really putting all their faith in words or in the idea that as long as we say nice things about humanity, everyone will feel better and we’ll all be safe. You could even say they are hanging a lot on incantations or on some kind of witchcraft. And as I mentioned earlier, the first theorist to write about sovereignty understood witchcraft as a fundamental threat to lawful authority and so finally to liberty and property and all the other rights of individuals.

Our Founders  added “A Bill of Rights” to the U.S. Constitution in 1789. The second Amendment, found in that Bill of Rights, states…

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.

By selling out our sovereignty to the United Nations, President Barack Hussein Obama is definitely infringing on our rights as American Citizens as specified in the Second Amendment, and ignoring the Oath which he has taken, twice, to uphold the Constitution of the United States.

All because he did not get his way.

Until He Comes,

KJ

Obama Hypocricy: Abu Ghaith and Unmanned Drones

obamabillofrightsHave you ever thought about where our rights as Americans come from? Are they rights that are common and applicable to every individual born 0n this terrestrial ball? Or, are they unique to those of us, graced by God, with the gift of having been born in the greatest country on the face of His green Earth?

Evidently, President Barack Hussein Obama (mm mmm mmmm) and his Attorney General believe that the previously mentioned rights are universal.

The Obama Administration has captured Abu Ghaith, a Kuwaiti member of Al Qaeda,a member of Osama bin Laden’s family, believe it or not, and, instead of interring him in Gitmo, where he belongs, they have conferred upon this enemy combatant the same rights as you or I, American citizens, have. Obama and Holder have brought him to the United States for a civilian trial in a Manhattan courtroom, ironically, one mile from Ground Zero, where he’s already appeared in court to plead not guilty to charges of conspiracy to kill Americans.

According to Jay Sekulow, Chief Counsel of the American Center for Law and Justice (ACLJ), in an op ed he has written for foxnews.com,

Enemy combatants should be interrogated relentlessly, not given Miranda warnings.

Enemy combatants shouldn’t be tried in civilian courtrooms in the middle of a densely populated city – creating a much softer target for a spectacular and symbolic terrorist attack than a fortified military base like Guantanamo Bay.

Moreover, if we’re going to make the legal argument at home and abroad that we’re at war, why play right into our critics’ hands by suddenly and arbitrarily treating our war like an episode of “CSI: New York”?

Our enemies, working with their allies on the international left, want America’s hands to be tied, for us to use police methods and – more importantly – police weapons and tactics even while they arm themselves to the teeth and work tirelessly to kill as many Americans as they can.

Already our military is under extreme pressure, even from some of our allies, to adopt a law-enforcement approach even in the conduct of our military operations in Afghanistan.

Our rules of engagement are sometimes so restrictive that they can lead to loss of American life and grant actual battlefield advantages to the Taliban.

While we’re in the midst of an international argument over the law of armed conflict, we just handed our ideological opponents something more than a significant propaganda victory – we handed them a real-life example to use as the foundation for a new “customary international law” that is the form of binding international law created by nations’ actual policies and practices in fighting terror.

In addition, the Obama administration is demonstrating that it exists as an “imperial presidency.” One that is more arbitrary than the Bush administration it so self-righteously criticized. Under this Obama doctrine, the ultimate questions of war and peace, life and death, appear to follow no principle or pattern beyond the administration’s own whims.

This administration has failed to articulate a coherent approach to fighting deadly enemies. It brags about its “kill list” during a presidential campaign, yet after the campaign it doesn’t seem to mind when Egypt denies us access to the Benghazi suspects (by the way – where is the retaliation for that dreadful attack?).

Simply put, Bin Laden family members should not get their day in court in Manhattan.

The distinguished barrister is absolutely correct.

By conferring American rights on a barbaric, murderous, Islamic Terrorist, who would just as soon behead us Infidels as look at us, Obama has given our enemy the right to remain silent, which shuts down our intelligence agencies’ ability to get any information from him which may save American lives in the future.

Not to mention the fact that he is putting the people of New York City in danger from the very same Jihadists who killed over 3,000 in that very same city on that horrible day of September 11, 2001.

Furthermore, the Manchurian President has conferred upon this barbarian, rights and privileges bequeathed to us by our Founding Fathers, in the magnificent document they wrote for us to govern ourselves by, known as the United States Constitution.

In the section which contains the first Ten Amendments to this living and breathing document, known as the Bill of Rights, are the Fifth and Sixth Amendments, it states,

Amendment V

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Amendment VI

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

By bestowing upon this murderous Islamic Thug, and those like him, the rights and privileges of the very citizens they are trying to slaughter, Obama and Holder have proven themselves to be the world’s biggest hypocrites.

Because, at the same time they are wrapping these murderous Muslims in a Constitutional blanket of rights, woven by our Founding Fathers, specifically for American citizens, they have been intimating the fact that they plan to violate the Constitutional Rights of actual Americans, by using unmanned drones to hunt them down and kill them on American soil without due process.

Which begs the question: Why are they protecting the rights of our enemies and are so loathe to protect the rights of American citizens, whom they are sworn to protect “from enemies foreign and domestic”?

Anti-American, treasonous, or just plain Impeachable…or all of the above?

Until He Comes,

KJ

One Nation Under God, Being Divided

American ChristianityThe primary focus of the nation for the last couple of weeks has been the efforts of Obama and his sycophants to, literally, restrict the Second Amendment rights of average, law-Abiding Americans.

But, what about the First Amendment?

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Americans are concerend about those rights as well, under the Second Regime of the Manchurian President.

The Christian Post reports…

Millions of American adults, particularly Protestants and evangelicals, feel religious freedoms have grown worse in the last decade in the United States, and foresee further restrictions in the years to come, according to the results of a new study.

Slightly more than half of adults say they are very (29 percent) or somewhat (22 percent) concerned that religious freedom in the U.S. will become more restricted in the next five years, shows the research conducted by Calif.-based Barna Group in partnership with Clapham Group.

The study, released Friday and which included 1,008 adults from across the religious spectrum, representing the nation’s population from the most active to the most skeptical, shows that those who are religious are more concerned than those who aren’t.

Looking at religious groups separately, the survey found that 71 percent of evangelicals, 46 percent of practicing Protestants, and 30 percent of practicing Catholics are “very concerned” about this prospect.

Concerns are not only over the future of religious freedom, but also about the current level of restraints, the study shows. Among practicing Protestants, 48 percent say they perceive freedom of religion to have grown worse in recent years, while 60 percent of evangelicals perceive religious freedoms to have grown worse.

“The simple fact is that America is becoming more religiously diverse,” said David Kinnaman, president of Barna Group.

“This trend includes growth of faiths other than Christianity, increasing expressions of Christianity beyond white Protestantism, and the growth of the no-faith segment – the so-called religiously unaffiliated,” he added. “These social changes create increasing tension about how something everyone essentially agrees on – freedom of religion – ought to work itself out in the real world where people find themselves disagreeing on important matters.”

The study suggests there is widespread agreement on what “religious freedom” means. About 90 percent of Americans agreed with the statement, “True religious freedom means all citizens must have freedom of conscience, which means being able to believe and practice the core commitments and values of your faith.”

Yet, many controversial aspects of religious liberty are emerging, with most Americans subscribing to “us-versus-them narratives.”

More than half of Americans (57 percent) believe “religious freedom has become more restricted in the U.S. because some groups have actively tried to move society away from traditional Christian values.” This opinion is more common among practicing Catholics (62 percent) and Protestants (76 percent) and is nearly a universal perception among evangelicals (97 percent).

Slightly more than 31 percent of Americans believe “the gay and lesbian community is the most active group trying to remove Christian values from the country.” Those who believe so include practicing Protestants (42 percent), practicing Catholics (32 percent), and evangelicals (72 percent).On values that should dominate America’s vision for the future, there is a substantial difference of opinion, the study found.

In fact, an accomplished Man of God was bounced from Obama’s Second Inauguration tomorrow, because he was not politically correct enough. Karen Gushta, in an Op Ed for the Christian Post, writes that

Pastor Louie Giglio, known for his work on human trafficking, had been tapped to deliver the benediction. But whenThinkProgress.com, a media outlet for the George Soros funded Center for American Progress, reported that Giglio had preached a “rabidly anti-LGBT” sermon in the mid-1990s, the inaugural committee quickly distanced itself, stating that it wasn’t aware of Giglio’s past comments when they invited him.

Giglio immediately withdrew from the inauguration, noting in his letter to the White House that “the prayer I would offer, will be dwarfed by those seeking to make their agenda the focal point of the inauguration.” The spokeswoman for the Presidential Inaugural Committee said, “As we now work to select someone to deliver the benediction, we will ensure their beliefs reflect this administration’s vision of inclusion and acceptance for all Americans.”

The question Christians are now asking is whether that “inclusion and acceptance” will include them.

Dr. R. Albert Mohler, Jr., president of The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, wrote on his blog (AlbertMohler.com 1/10/2013):Louie Giglio was cast out of the circle of the acceptable simply because a liberal watchdog group found one sermon he preached almost twenty years ago. If a preacher has ever taken a stand on biblical conviction, he risks being exposed decades after the fact. Anyone who teaches at any time, to any degree, that homosexual behavior is a sin is now to be cast out….The Presidential Inaugural Committee and the White House have now declared historic, biblical Christianity to be out of bounds, casting it off the inaugural program as an embarrassment.

In discussing Giglio’s withdrawal with OneNewsNow (1/12/2013) Family Research Council’s Tony Perkins said that it is shocking how intolerant the administration is in forcing acceptance of homosexuality. “This isn’t the inauguration of another four years,” said Perkins. “I’m afraid this is the inauguration of a new era of religious intolerance in America.”

Four years ago, Pastor Rick Warren’s selection to give the invocation at President Obama’s first inaugurationignited “fury from same-sex marriage advocates and progressives.” (Christianity Today, 12/23/2008).Nevertheless, he gave the invocation as planned.

A lot has changed in four years.

Warren himself recently spoke out on the issue of religious freedom in a statement for The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, which is handling seven of the cases against the Health and Human Services Department mandate requiring abortifacients and contraceptives to be included in insurance coverage:

Today, the government has tried to reinterpret the First Amendment from freedom to PRACTICE your religion, to a more narrow freedom to worship, which would limit your freedom to the hour a week you are at a house of worship. This is not only a subversion of the Constitution, it is nonsense. Any religion that cannot be lived out … at home and work, is nothing but a meaningless ritual.”

On January 16, President Obama began his presidential proclamation for Religious Freedom Day with the following:

Foremost among the rights Americans hold sacred is the freedom to worship as we choose. Today, we celebrate one of our Nation’s first laws to protect that right – the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom.

Later the proclamation states:

Because of the protections guaranteed by our Constitution, each of us has the right to practice our faith openly and as we choose. [emphasis added]

What are you saying, Mr. President? Is our “practice” of our faith going to be limited to freedom to worship inside our churches and houses of worship, as you punish us for holding to our religious beliefs on Monday through Saturday at our places of work and as we speak out on public forums?

We pray that God will open your heart and mind to see that unless freedom of religion includes freedom of conscience and freedom to speak the truth as we understand it, there is no freedom of religion in this land. Next Sunday, as you solemnly swear to “faithfully execute the office of President” and to “preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States,” may you acknowledge this truth and act accordingly.

What Liberals, Moderates, and even “Libertarians” (the legalize dope kind) don’t seem to understand, is that Christians do not and will not leave our faith at the church door. We carry it with us wherever we go. And, when prompted by the Holy Spirit, knowingly or unknowingly, we act upon it.

John Adams, writing to the Officers of the First Brigade of the Third Division of the Militia of Massachusetts on October 11, 1798 said

Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.

Judging by the attack on it and us by this current president and his sycophants, I would said President Adams was spot on.

Until he comes, 

KJ