After SCOTUS Upholds Arizona Election Laws, Upset Dems Once Again Call for Packing the Court

pic_giant_040815_SM_Justice-System-DT-2

“President Roosevelt clearly had the right to send to the United States Senate and the United States Congress a proposal to pack the court. It was totally within his right to do that. He violated no law. He was legalistically, absolutely correct. “But it was a bonehead idea. It was a terrible, terrible mistake to make. And it put in question, if for an entire decade, the independence of the most-significant body … in this country, the Supreme Court of the United States of America.” – Senator Joe Biden, 1983

FoxNews.com reports that

Democrats on Thursday expressed their displeasure with the Supreme Court’s final decisions of its 2020-2021 term, accusing the justices of doing “severe damage” to the political system and in some cases re-upping their calls to pack the court with liberal justices appointed by President Biden.

One decision was on a challenge to Arizona election laws, including a ban on ballot harvesting. The other was about a California law that required nonprofits to disclose their largest donors to the state government for law enforcement purposes.

The court upheld the Arizona laws – which liberals saw as voting rights restrictions and conservatives saw as election security measures – and struck down the California law on the grounds that it chilled free speech.

Biden weighed in on the Arizona decision in a statement that was remarkably critical of the Supreme Court for a sitting president.

“I am deeply disappointed in today’s decision by the United States Supreme Court that undercuts the Voting Rights Act,” Biden said. “In a span of just eight years, the Court has now done severe damage to two of the most important provisions of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 – a law that took years of struggle and strife to secure.”

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., said the court’s decision in the Arizona case is part of an “unprecedented assault on voting rights” from the court before also tearing into the court over the California case.

“The decision in Americans for Prosperity further harms our democracy by allowing the suffocation of the airwaves caused by big dark special interest money,” Pelosi said. “This torrent of dark money silences the voices of voters and prevents passage of commonsense, bipartisan and popular legislation – from gun violence prevention to climate action to LGBTQ equality. It is fundamentally anti-democratic, and it cannot go unanswered.”

The California case was called Americans for Prosperity Foundation v. Bonta, while the Arizona case was titled Brnovich v. Democratic National Committee.

“Having to identify one’s own polling place and then travel there to vote does not exceed the ‘usual burdens of voting,'” Justice Samuel Alito wrote in his opinion upholding the Arizona laws.

“Our cases have said that disclosure requirements can chill association'[e]ven if there [is] no disclosure to the general public,” Chief Justice John Roberts wrote in the majority opinion for the California case. “While assurances of confidentiality may reduce the burden of disclosure to the State, they do not eliminate it.”

Some Democrats were even harsher in their responses to the court’s final rulings of its term, lashing with demands to pack the court. Sen. Ed Markey, D-Mass., responded specifically to the Arizona ruling, saying that the alleged reduction of voting rights stemming from the decision should necessitate adding Democrat-appointed justices.

“Today’s ruling is another blow to voting rights. We have no time to waste to protect the right to vote. We must abolish the filibuster and pass the For the People Act and John Lewis Voting Rights Act,” he said. “And we must expand the Supreme Court.”

“And still some people have the nerve to question whether Court expansion is necessary,” Rep. Mondaire Jones, D-N.Y., also said in response to the Thursday rulings.

“Expand the damn court,” he also said.

Rep. Hank Johnson, D-Ga., also tweeted in support of expanding the court. And Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., who has resisted calls to pack the court in the past, said he is at least in favor of Democrats getting rid of the legislative filibuster to counteract the Supreme Court’s decision on the Arizona voting laws.

“If Mitch McConnell could abolish the filibuster to appoint 3 extreme right wing Supreme Court justices who just voted to gut the Voting Rights Act, you know what? Democrats can and should abolish the filibuster to save democracy and make it easier, not harder, for people to vote,” Sanders said.

The Democrats desperately want to pack the court so that, like all fascist governments before them, they can rule with impunity.

For the last several decades, and especially during the Obama Administration, the Liberals of the Democratic Party  relied upon Judicial Activism to overturn the will of the American People and to “get their way” on matters of political and societal importance.

Sometimes they won and sometimes they lost.

A big win for the Democrats was the Supreme court ruling allowing gays to get married.

It was taken to the courts by the Democrats after American Citizens voted not to allow gay marriage in their states. Liberal Judicial Activist Judges, some gay themselves, began striking down the referendums passed in individual states, finally leading to a ruling by the United States Supreme Court.

During the Trump Administration, Judicial Activists attempted to thwart some of the actions taken of behalf of the American People by our President, such as their attempts to stop the Travel Ban, designed to keep those who would seek to do Americans harm out of our Sovereign Nation.

According to Founding Father Alexander Hamilton, in the following Federalist Paper, Americans have nothing to fear from the Judiciary when they act alone. It’s when they act in concert with others, such as Liberal Politicians in Congress, that Americans need to be afraid.

From The Federalist #78

Whoever attentively considers the different departments of power must perceive, that, in a government in which they are separated from each other, the judiciary, from the nature of its functions, will always be the least dangerous to the political rights of the Constitution; because it will be least in a capacity to annoy or injure them. The Executive not only dispenses the honors, but holds the sword of the community. The legislature not only commands the purse, but prescribes the rules by which the duties and rights of every citizen are to be regulated. The judiciary, on the contrary, has no influence over either the sword or the purse; no direction either of the strength or of the wealth of the society; and can take no active resolution whatever. It may truly be said to have neither FORCE nor WILL, but merely judgment; and must ultimately depend upon the aid of the executive arm even for the efficacy of its judgments.

As the 2022 Midterm Elections approach, we, as Americans, must remember that the Majority Party in both houses of Congress and the President are the ones who will shape our Judicial System for decades to come.

That is why we must get out and vote when the time comes.

However, what we can do right now, is let our Republican Representatives and Senators know that not only must they hold the line on keeping the Supreme Court just the way it is, they also must sway at the “Moderate” Democratic Representatives to vote with them.

If the Republicans do not prevent the Democrats from packing the Supreme Court, our Judiciary will change from one which interprets and enforces the Constitution to one which rewrites and ignores it, while ensuring that Democrats remain in power in Washington, D.C. forever.

This must not be allowed to happen.

We must, once again, rise up, speak out, and let the Democrat Elite know that we are not going to allow them to “radically change” our Sovereign Nation, like we did on November 8, 2016.

Our future as a Constitutional Republic depends on it.

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

Dems Set to Present Legislation Today to Expand SCOTUS From 9 to 13 Justices in Order to Rule America Forever

pic_giant_040815_SM_Justice-System-DT-2

“President Roosevelt clearly had the right to send to the United States Senate and the United States Congress a proposal to pack the court. It was totally within his right to do that. He violated no law. He was legalistically, absolutely correct. “But it was a bonehead idea. It was a terrible, terrible mistake to make. And it put in question, if for an entire decade, the independence of the most-significant body … in this country, the Supreme Court of the United States of America.” – Senator Joe Biden, 1983

FoxNews.com reports that

Democratic lawmakers are set to unveil legislation Thursday to expand the number of justices on the Supreme Court.

Sen. Ed Markey, D-Mass., and Reps. Jerry Nadler, D-N.Y., Hank Johnson, D-Ga., and Mondaire Jones, D-N.Y., will hold a press conference on Thursday to introduce the proposal on the steps of the Supreme Court.

Given their control of the White House and the Senate, the legislation could allow them to supersede the current conservative majority by “packing” the Court with liberal justices.

Spokespeople for the lawmakers’ offices did not return Fox News’ requests Wednesday night for further details.

The Intercept reported on Wednesday that the legislation will propose expanding the court to 13 justices, from nine.

The Supreme Court has had nine justices since the 19th century, though it is not required by the Constitution.

Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, introduced legislation earlier this year that included a constitutional amendment to preserve the current number of sitting justices, as well as provisions prohibiting congress from passing legislation to expand the number.

Cruz first introduced that legislation in October, as some Democrats indicated an openness to expanding the size of the high court following the death of Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

Ginsburg’s vacancy was filled by Donald Trump-appointee Amy Coney Barrett, marking Trump’s third appointment to the Supreme Court. Justice Barrett also tilted the ideological power balance of the court in favor of conservatives 6 to 3.

Democrats often attribute part of that shift in the court to the fact that then-Sen. Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., refused to consider Merrick Garland – nominated by President Barack Obama in 2016 – to fill a vacant seat during an election year. That seat, belonging to Antonin Scalia, was eventually filled by conservative Justice Neil M. Gorsuch.

Trump also appointed Justice Brett Kavanaugh.

…Biden has previously opposed the idea of court-packing. However, he said in the fall that he intended to set up a bipartisan commission to study Supreme Court reforms.

This week, the president signed an executive order forming the “Presidential Commission on the Supreme Court of the United States” to analyze the merits of proposed reforms.

The Democrats desperately want to pack the court so that, like all fascist governments before them, they can rule with impunity.

For the last several decades, and especially during the Obama Administration, the Liberals of the Democratic Party  relied upon Judicial Activism to overturn the will of the American People and to “get their way” on matters of political and societal importance.

Sometimes they won and sometimes they lost.

A big win for the Democrats was the Supreme court ruling allowing gays to get married.

It was taken to the courts by the Democrats after American Citizens voted not to allow gay marriage in their states. Liberal Judicial Activist Judges, some gay themselves, began striking down the referendums passed in individual states, finally leading to a ruling by the United States Supreme Court.

During the Trump Administration, Judicial Activists attempted to thwart some of the actions taken of behalf of the American People by our President, such as their attempts to stop the Travel Ban, designed to keep those who would seek to do Americans harm out of our Sovereign Nation.

According to Founding Father Alexander Hamilton, in the following Federalist Paper, Americans have nothing to fear from the Judiciary when they act alone. It’s when they act in concert with others, such as Liberal Politicians in Congress, that Americans need to be afraid.

From The Federalist #78

Whoever attentively considers the different departments of power must perceive, that, in a government in which they are separated from each other, the judiciary, from the nature of its functions, will always be the least dangerous to the political rights of the Constitution; because it will be least in a capacity to annoy or injure them. The Executive not only dispenses the honors, but holds the sword of the community. The legislature not only commands the purse, but prescribes the rules by which the duties and rights of every citizen are to be regulated. The judiciary, on the contrary, has no influence over either the sword or the purse; no direction either of the strength or of the wealth of the society; and can take no active resolution whatever. It may truly be said to have neither FORCE nor WILL, but merely judgment; and must ultimately depend upon the aid of the executive arm even for the efficacy of its judgments.

As the 2022 Midterm Elections loom in the distance, we, as Americans, must remember that the Majority Party in both houses of Congress and the President are the ones who will shape our Judicial System for decades to come.

That is why we must get out and vote when the time comes.

However, what we can do right now, is let our Republican Representatives and Senators know that not only must they hold the line on keeping the Supreme Court just the way it is, they also must sway at least 3 “Moderate Democratic Representatives to vote with them.

If the Republicans do not prevent the Democrats’ attempt to pack the Supreme Court, our Judiciary will change from one which interprets and enforces the Constitution to one which rewrites and ignores it, while ensuring that Democrats remain in power in  Washington, D.C. in perpetuity. 

This must not be allowed to happen.

We must, once again, rise up, speak out, and let the Democrat Elite know that we are not going to allow them to “radically change” our Sovereign Nation, like we did on November 8, 2016.

Our future as a Constitutional Republic depends on it.

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: SCOTUS Rules That California Gov. Newsom Can’t Stop Prayer Meetings in Private Homes

bible-american-flag1

FoxNews.com reports that

The U.S. Supreme Court in a divided decision late Friday ruled in favor of lifting restrictions on in-home religious gatherings, overturning a lower court ruling that upheld Gov. Gavin Newsom’s limits on people from different homes.

The 5-4 unsigned ruling follows other similar decisions recently regarding churches and the coronavirus pandemic. The decision noted it was the fifth time the court has rejected the Ninth Circuit’s analysis of California coronavirus restrictions.

Chief Justice John Roberts dissented but did not sign the dissenting statement submitted by justices Elena Kagan, Sonia Sotomayor and Stephen Breyer.

The ruling stated that before it can limit religious gatherings, the government must prove they pose a greater danger than secular activities that remain open, such as shopping or attending movies.

“Otherwise, precautions that suffice for other activities suffice for religious exercise too,” the majority opinion said, adding that California “treats some comparable secular activities more favorably than at-home religious exercise, permitting hair salons, retail stores, personal care services, movie theaters, private suites at sporting events and concerts and indoor dining at restaurants to bring together more than three households at a time.”

The majority opinion added that the state can’t “assume the worst when people go to worship but assume the best when people go to work,” in a quote from a previous ruling.

Justice Elena Kagan, who ruled against easing restrictions along with Justices Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor and John Roberts, wrote in a dissenting opinion that the state has complied with the First Amendment because it also restricts secular at-home gatherings to three households.

California “has adopted a blanket restriction on at-home gatherings of all kinds, religious and secular alike,” she wrote in the dissent joined by Sotomayor and Breyer.

“The law does not require that the State equally treat apples and watermelons,” Kagan wrote, saying that in-home gatherings shouldn’t be compared to businesses.

The lawsuit had been brought by residents in Santa Clara County who hold in-home religious meetings and claimed the restrictions infringed on their constitutional rights, according to The New York Times.

A federal judge ruled against the suit, which was upheld by the Ninth Circuit in San Francisco, before being overturned by the Supreme Court.

“The state reasonably concluded that when people gather in social settings, their interactions are likely to be longer than they would be in a commercial setting,” the Ninth Circuit wrote of the federal court’s findings, “that participants in a social gathering are more likely to be involved in prolonged conversations; that private houses are typically smaller and less ventilated than commercial establishments; and that social distancing and mask-wearing are less likely in private settings and enforcement is more difficult.”

I began writing my daily articles in April of 2010.

Today, 10 years later, the struggle to prevent Far Left Democrats from “radically changing” our Sovereign Nation into a Socialist Paradise continues.

As does the fight to keep the greed and avarice of those promoting the installment of Marxist Theory in our political, medical, and religious institutions from consuming our nation in a fire of self-destruction, as it has those before us.

The restrictions which Democrat Governors placed upon churches and Cristian Meetings, like prayer groups, using the threat of the spread of COVID-19, is a prime example.

Friends have asked me if I believe that Christ would be in favor of the “Social Justice” movement that has infiltrated some churches in America, replacing Christian Doctrine with a Modern Liberal Political Agenda.

No, I do not believe that Jesus would be a part of the social justice movement. His was and is a soul-saving movement. One that still brings hundreds of thousand of people to individual salvation on this terrestrial ball every day. A movement that, in fact, was embraced by the founders of this cherished land.

In a opinion piece for ChristianPost.com, Christian Talk Show Host Julie Roys gave the following Five Reasons that Socialism itself is not based on  the teachings of Jesus Christ.

1. Socialism is Based on a Materialistic Worldview

According to socialists like Bernie Sanders, the greatest problem in the world is the unequal distribution of wealth.

His website declares: “The issue of wealth and income inequality is the great moral issue of our time, it is the great economic issue of our time, and it is the great political issue of our time.”

This betrays a fundamentally materialistic worldview, which is the basis of socialism.

To socialists, all that really exists is the material world.

2. Socialism Punishes Virtue

Socialists want to distribute wealth to individuals according to their need, regardless of virtue.

As Karl Marx, famously said, “From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs.”

However, whenever any institution provides aid, it runs the risk of removing God-designed rewards and consequences. It can punish those who are industrious by making them pay for those who are not. And, it can reward those who aren’t industrious by giving them the fruits of another man’s labor. This is precisely what socialism does.

Interestingly, Marx mooched off others his whole life, and failed to provide for his wife and children.

As Aristotle once noted, “Men start revolutionary changes for reasons connected with their private lives.”

The Bible teaches that aid should be tied to responsibility. First, anyone who refuses to work should be refused aid.

3. Socialism Endorses Stealing

Barack Obama once defended his socialist policies to a little girl by saying, “We’ve got to make sure that people who have more money help the people who have less money. If you had a whole pizza, and your friend had no pizza, would you give him a slice?”

That sounds pretty Christian, right? What Christian wouldn’t endorse sharing your abundance with someone who has nothing? However, Obama wasn’t endorsing people voluntarily sharing their wealth with others; he was endorsing the government forcibly taking a piece of the pie from one person and giving it to someone else. Put another way, that’s saying that if you have three cars and your neighbor has none, the government has a right to take your car and give it to your neighbor. That’s not Christian; that’s stealing!

But, socialists don’t believe in private property. And, some Christian socialists actually assert that the Bible doesn’t either. That’s preposterous.

Both the Old Testament and New Testament unequivocally affirm private property. We can’t even obey the eighth commandment to not steal, unless we accept the notion of private ownership. Nor, can we steward our money as the Bible commands if the state owns our money, not us.

4. Socialism Encourages Envy and Class Warfare

Socialists demonize the rich, blaming all of society’s problems on them.

Bernie Sanders once posted to his Facebook Page: “Let us wage a moral and political war against the billionaires and corporate leaders on Wall Street and elsewhere, whose policies and greed are destroying the middle class of America.”

Here, Sanders is mimicking Karl Marx, who viewed history as a series of class struggles between the rich and the poor — and advocated overthrowing the ruling class.

Scripture strongly warns the rich and powerful not to oppress the poor.

In fact, Proverbs 14:31 says, “Whoever oppresses the poor shows contempt for his maker . . .”

But, Sanders — and other Leftists, including Hillary Clinton — go far beyond decrying specific acts of injustice. They basically condemn an entire class of people simply for possessing wealth. And, they encourage those who are poor to overthrow them. In fact, Clinton once said the U.S. economy required a “toppling” of the wealthiest 1%.

The rich are not causing all the problems in American society. People like Bill Gates are not acquiring wealth by stealing from the masses. They’re creating great products, which produce wealth, and actually provide jobs for many people. But, even if they were exploiting the poor, nowhere does Scripture support the have-nots demanding money from the haves. Instead, it teaches that we should not covet (Exodus 20:17) and should be content in all circumstances (Phil. 4:11-13). 

5. Socialism Seeks to Destroy Marriage & Family

A little known fact about socialism is that, from its beginning, it has sought to destroy marriage and family. Grove City Professor Paul Kengor explains this in detail in his book, Takedown: From Communists to Progressives, How the Left Has Sabotaged Marriage and Family. Essentially, what socialism seeks is for the state to replace the family. That way, it can indoctrinate children in its Leftist way of thinking, and remove from them any notions of God and religion.

Friedrich Engels, co-author with Marx of the “The Communist Manifesto,” once wrote that the society he envisioned would be one where “the single family ceases to be the economic unit of society. Private housekeeping is transformed into a social industry. The care and education of the children becomes a public affair.”

Similarly today, Bernie Sanders calls for a “revolution” in childcare and for the government to provide early childhood education beginning with children as young as six-weeks-old. And, he’s a proud supporter of gay marriage — what Kengor calls “communism’s Trojan Horse” to secure the final takedown of traditional marriage.

To socialists, what Bernie describes is a utopia. But, to Christians, it’s a dystopia. That’s because there’s nothing Christian about socialism — and there’s absolutely no way Jesus would ever support it.

America was not founded to be a Socialist Nation.

The following is courtesy of adherents.com:

There were 56 signers of the Declaration of Independence. There were 48 signers of the Articles of Confederation. All 55 delegates who participated in the Constitutional Convention of 1787 are regarded as Founding Fathers, in fact, they are often regarded as the Founding Fathers because it is this group that actually debated, drafted and signed the U.S. Constitution, which is the basis for the country’s political and legal system. Only 39 delegates actually signed the document, however, meaning there were 16 non-signing delegates – individuals who were Constitutional Convention delegates but were not signers of the Constitution.

There were 95 Senators and Representatives in the First Federal Congress. If one combines the total number of signatures on the Declaration, the Articles of Confederation and the Constitution with the non-signing Constitutional Convention delegates, and then adds to that sum the number of congressmen in the First Federal Congress, one obtains a total of 238 “slots” or “positions” in these groups which one can classify as “Founding Fathers” of the United States. Because 40 individuals had multiple roles (they signed multiple documents and/or also served in the First Federal Congress), there are 204 unique individuals in this group of “Founding Fathers.” These are the people who did one or more of the following:

– signed the Declaration of Independence
– signed the Articles of Confederation
– attended the Constitutional Convention of 1787
– signed the Constitution of the United States of America
– served as Senators in the First Federal Congress (1789-1791)
– served as U.S. Representatives in the First Federal Congress

The religious affiliations of these individuals are summarized below. Obviously this is a very restrictive set of names, and does not include everyone who could be considered an “American Founding Father.” But most of the major figures that people generally think of in this context are included using these criteria, including George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Samuel Adams, Benjamin Franklin, John Adams, John Hancock, James Madison, Alexander Hamilton and more.

Courtesy adherents.com

Religious Affiliation of U.S. Founding Fathers

# of Founding Fathers/% of Founding Fathers

Episcopalian/Anglican 88 54.7%
Presbyterian 30 18.6%
Congregationalist 27 16.8%
Quaker 7 4.3%
Dutch Reformed/German Reformed 6 3.7%
Lutheran 5 3.1%
Catholic 3 1.9%
Huguenot 3 1.9%
Unitarian 3 1.9%
Methodist 2 1.2%
Calvinist 1 0.6%
TOTAL 204

The Founding Fathers were, I do not doubt, aware of the following passage:

Now the Lord is the Spirit, and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom. – 2 Corinthians 3:17

The Liberals and Atheists who reply to my blogs on Facebook and other Internet Sites insist that Crosses and other Christian symbols have no place in the Public Square.  They wish for Christians to remain unseen and unheard from, worshiping in private, and for Christian Americans to  “compromise” our Faith…i.e., shut up about Homosexual Marriage and other sins, being used as political expediencies to further an agenda to “radically change” America into something that it was never meant to be.

Well,  y’all can wish for a unicorn to magically appear in your backyard…but that ain’t gonna happen, either.

As a free nation, all you who are non-believers have every right to exercise your faith.

However, as Orthodox Rabbi Daniel Lapin of the Jewish Policy Center clearly explains:

[I] understand that I live . . . in a Christian nation, albeit one where I can follow my faith as long as it doesn’t conflict with the nation’s principles. The same option is open to all Americans and will be available only as long as this nation’s Christian roots are acknowledged and honored.

…Without a vibrant and vital Christianity, America is doomed, and without America, the west is doomed. Which is why I, an Orthodox Jewish rabbi, devoted to Jewish survival, the Torah, and Israel am so terrified of American Christianity caving in. God help Jews if America ever becomes a post-Christian society! Just think of Europe!

Is the Rabbi prophetic? I pray that he isn’t.

I have, however, noticed in the last few years, a propensity among those who have not been raised in a Christian home, to be intolerant toward those who have…as witnessed in public forms, ranging from Collegiate Classrooms to Facebook Political Pages.

Americans’ Christian Faith, of which approximately 70% of us, according to Gallup, still anchor our lives around, has been the Solid Rock upon which our nation was built. To deny that, is to deny reality, to re-write history, and, to, quite frankly, endanger “the Shining City on a Hill”.

As President Ronald Reagan said,

If we ever forget that we are One Nation Under God, then we will be a nation gone under. 

Do not be fooled.

Gavin Newson and Joe Biden are just a big a Socialist as Bernie Sanders..

They just hide it better than Bernie Sanders does.

Pay attention to their actions, not their words.

Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them. – Matthew 7:20

Until He Comes,

KJ

SCOTUS Reopens California Churches, “Gated Community” of Capitol Hill Used to Hold Church Services Every Sunday

bible-american-flag1

America is smack dab in the middle of a war involving the devotees of a Far Left Political Ideology who are determined to take away our Constitutional Right to worship Our Creator.

WashingtonExaminer.com reports that

The Supreme Court ruled that California churches can open indoors at 25% capacity.

The Friday decision was a response to lawsuits filed by South Bay United Pentecostal Church in Chula Vista and Harvest Rock Church in Pasadena after they had been unable to hold indoor services.

California has a tiered coronavirus restrictions program. Regions under the severest restrictions, which included the vast majority of the state since November 2020, have not been able to hold indoor worship services.

Per the ruling, which entailed several splintering opinions, the most restricted regions will be able to hold services indoors at 25% capacity, but singing and chanting will still be prohibited.

CHURCHES ARE ESSENTIAL.

Christianity has played a predominant role in the building of our nation. In fact, the Capitol building itself was used for church services, even before Congress moved into the building, and continued to be used for Sunday Church Services until well after the Civil War.

The approval of the Capitol for church was given by both the House and the Senate on December 4, 1800, with House approval being given by Speaker of the House, Theodore Sedgwick, and Senate approval being given by the President of the Senate, Thomas Jefferson, whose approval came while he was still officially the Vice- President but after he had just been elected President.

And now, Capitol Hill is a GATED COMMUNITY.

But, I digress…

According to David Barton at wallbuilders.com:

Jefferson attended church at the Capitol while he was Vice President 5 and also throughout his presidency. The first Capitol church service that Jefferson attended as President was a service preached by Jefferson’s friend, the Rev. John Leland, on January 3, 1802. 6 Significantly, Jefferson attended that Capitol church service just two days after he penned his famous letter containing the “wall of separation between church and state” metaphor.

U. S. Rep. Manasseh Cutler, who also attended church at the Capitol, recorded in his own diary that “He [Jefferson] and his family have constantly attended public worship in the Hall.” Mary Bayard Smith, another attendee at the Capitol services, confirmed: “Mr. Jefferson, during his whole administration, was a most regular attendant.” She noted that Jefferson even had a designated seat at the Capitol church: “The seat he chose the first Sabbath, and the adjoining one (which his private secretary occupied), were ever afterwards by the courtesy of the congregation, left for him and his secretary.” Jefferson was so committed to those services that he would not even allow inclement weather to dissuade him; as Rep. Cutler noted: “It was very rainy, but his [Jefferson’s] ardent zeal brought him through the rain and on horseback to the Hall.” Other diary entries confirm Jefferson’s attendance in spite of bad weather.

…Jefferson was not the only President to attend church at the Capitol. His successor, James Madison, also attended church at the Capitol. 14 However, there was a difference in the way the two arrived for services. Observers noted that Jefferson arrived at church on horseback 15 (it was 1.6 miles from the White House to the Capitol). However, Madison arrived for church in a coach and four. In fact, British diplomat Augustus Foster, who attended services at the Capitol, gave an eloquent description of President Madison arriving at the Capitol for church in a carriage drawn by four white horses.

The series of cacophonous thuds you just heard were the “I’m-smarter than-you” Atheists from both sides of the aisle, falling off their chairs. You see, they (all 8% of them) will argue until they are blue in the face that Jefferson and Madison were not Christians, and our founding documents were not based on a Judeo-Christian system of beliefs.

Then, they go out to feed the unicorn in their backyard.

Jefferson told his friend, William Bradford (who served as Attorney General under President Washington), to make sure of his own spiritual salvation:

[A] watchful eye must be kept on ourselves lest, while we are building ideal monuments of renown and bliss here, we neglect to have our names enrolled in the Annals of Heaven.

Concerning Christianity, Jefferson said:

The doctrines of Jesus are simple, and tend all to the happiness of man.

The practice of morality being necessary for the well being of society, He [God] has taken care to impress its precepts so indelibly on our hearts that they shall not be effaced by the subtleties of our brain. We all agree in the obligation of the moral principles of Jesus and nowhere will they be found delivered in greater purity than in His discourses.

I am a Christian in the only sense in which He wished anyone to be: sincerely attached to His doctrines in preference to all others.

I am a real Christian – that is to say, a disciple of the doctrines of Jesus Christ.

But, what about Jefferson’s re-writing of the Bible, leaving out Jesus’ miracles, you ask? David Barton answered that question in 2001, in a letter to a newspaper, in response to a reader:

The reader, as do many others, claimed that Jefferson omitted all miraculous events of Jesus from his “Bible.” Rarely do those who make this claim let Jefferson speak for himself. Jefferson’s own words explain that his intent for that book was not for it to be a “Bible,” but rather for it to be a primer for the Indians on the teachings of Christ (which is why Jefferson titled that work, “The Life and Morals of Jesus of Nazareth”). What Jefferson did was to take the “red letter” portions of the New Testament and publish these teachings in order to introduce the Indians to Christian morality. And as President of the United States, Jefferson signed a treaty with the Kaskaskia tribe wherein he provided—at the government’s expense—Christian missionaries to the Indians. In fact, Jefferson himself declared, “I am a real Christian, that is to say, a disciple of the doctrines of Jesus.” While many might question this claim, the fact remains that Jefferson called himself a Christian, not a deist.

The other Founding Father whom Atheists claim was one of them is James Madison.

Per David Barton:

James Madison trained for ministry with the Rev. Dr. John Witherspoon, and Madison’s writings are replete with declarations of his faith in God and in Christ. In fact, for proof of this, one only need read his letter to Attorney General Bradford wherein Madison laments that public officials are not bold enough about their Christian faith in public and that public officials should be “fervent advocates in the cause of Christ.” And while Madison did allude to a “wall of separation,” contemporary writers frequently refuse to allow Madison to provide his own definition of that “wall.” According to Madison, the purpose of that “wall” was only to prevent Congress from passing a national law to establish a national religion.

Also, as this writing shows, Madison wanted all public officials – including Bradford – to be unashamed concerning their Christian beliefs and testimony:

I have sometimes thought there could not be a stronger testimony in favor of religion or against temporal enjoyments, even the most rational and manly, than for men who occupy the most honorable and gainful departments and [who] are rising in reputation and wealth, publicly to declare their unsatisfactoriness by becoming fervent advocates in the cause of Christ; and I wish you may give in your evidence in this way.

Did you know that Madison was a member of the committee that authored the 1776 Virginia Bill of Rights and approved of its clause declaring that:

It is the mutual duty of all to practice Christian forbearance, love, and charity toward each other. ?

And, per Barton, Madison’s proposed wording for the First Amendment demonstrates that he opposed only the establishment of a federal denomination, not public religious activities. The proposal reads:

The civil rights of none shall be abridged on account of religious belief or worship, nor shall any national religion be established.

But, wait. There’s more:

In 1789, Madison served on the Congressional committee which authorized, approved, and selected paid Congressional chaplains.

In 1812, President Madison signed a federal bill which economically aided a Bible Society in its goal of the mass distribution of the Bible.

Finally, throughout his Presidency (1809-1816), Madison endorsed public and official religious expressions by issuing several proclamations for national days of prayer, fasting, and thanksgiving.

So, if you run into one of those individuals who, like the Democratic Blue State Governors, when it comes to accepting the Faith of our Founding Fathers, proves that denial is not just a river in Egypt, you can respond with one or all of three things:

1. Quote from this article.

2. Give him/her this link to wallbuilders.com.

3. Show them this excellent video, in which David Barton conducts a historical tour of the Capitol Building.

God Bless America!

It is time to get back to church!

Until He Comes,

KJ

Rudy Says SCOTUS Case About Pennsylvania Supreme Court Decisions Just the Beginning: “You Have to Go State By State”

Newsmax.com reports that

The new effort by President Donald Trump’s legal team asking the U.S. Supreme Court to overturn three Pennsylvania Supreme Court decisions is just the first of many efforts to overturn what they see as a fraudulent election, Trump personal attorney Rudy Giuliani tells Newsmax TV.

“You have to go state by state,” he told “Spicer & Co.” host Sean Spicer on Monday, acknowledging even a victory in the case would only net 20 electoral votes — not enough to give Trump the 270 needed to secure reelection.

“I remember an old adage that I learned from baseball,” Giuliani said. “When you’re down by 10 runs, you can’t score 10 runs on one hit. So you got to get one run at a time. So the way I look at it, we have to win one of these legislatures. I think we have three good ones to pick from: Pennsylvania, and Georgia, and Arizona.”

Giuiliani said he thinks his team has demonstrated enough fraud in any of those cases – “that the state legislature has a very, very strong basis to make a determination the election in those three states were stolen.”

The state legislatures are the final arbiters, he said, under the U.S. Constitution, and that is why his team has been holding hearings in various legislatures to present their case the votes filed were not accurate.

Asked about a reported White House meeting in which Trump discussed appointing former Trump team lawyer Sidney Powell as a special prosecutor to investigate election fraud — as story Trump has called “fake news” — Giuliani said:

“Let me say definitively: Sidney Powell is not part of our legal team. She hasn’t been for five weeks. She is not a special counsel for the president. She does not speak for the president, nor does she speak for the administration. She speaks for herself. And she’s a fine woman, a fine lawyer. But whatever she is talking about it’s her own opinion. I’m not responsible for them. The president isn’t, nor is anybody else on our legal team.”

He added, he and the team will be “extremely aggressive” in their fight, but added, “We’re also going to do it within the bounds of rationality, common sense, and the law.”

As a Former Federal Prosecutor who dismantled the Mafia in the State of New York, Rudy Giuliani’s credentials are impeccable and I believe him when he says that their plan of attack is a sound one.

I, as just an ordinary average American Voter viewing this sorry spectacle, believe that Trump has the best chance of overturning this horrific case of election fraud on January 6th, when Congress will count the Electoral College Votes.

The President has asked Americans to join him in Washington on the 6th. He says that “It will be wild.”

Now, I have no idea as to what he is planning to do.

However, since every other pundit, paid, and unpaid, is guessing about it, I may as well, too.

I believe that Trump will hold a rally, the purpose of which will be to remind the professional politicians voting on our Sovereign Nation’s future as to whom they answer to…not the Chinese but the American Voters.

To be blunt, this rally will be for the purpose of intimidating the Vichy Republicans into doing the right thing by not consenting to the vote and several Republicans have already publically stated that they plan to do.

Average Americans, who live between the coasts in America’s Heartland, have already surmised what happened on Election Night.

It happened right in front of their faces.

From Fox News calling Arizona for Biden too early to the four cities shutting down their counting centers in the middle of the night with Trump ahead, and then opening up in the morning with Biden ahead.

Come on, now.

Even Sleepy Joe himself could figure out what happened that night…and he only has two brain cells left and they are fighting to the death.

Rudy Giuliani is a good man and a good attorney who a party of a good legal team which Trump has assembled.

However, it is time for the American people to let Washington know that we happened on the night of November 3rd was NOT a Presidential Election.

It was GRAND THEFT.

Until He Comes,

KJ

The Milli Vanilli Presidential Election

The big story from yesterday was that the Supreme Court rejected the Texas Lawsuit.

While bad news, the Fat Lady has not sung, yet

President Trump has more arrows in his quiver.

Yesterday, I compared the outcome of the 2020 Presidential Election to the story of the 1980s Pop Music Act “Milli Vanilli”.

Here’s why.

Per Billboard.com,

In Nov. 1990, Rob Pilatus and Fabrice Morvan, the dancers known around the globe as pop sensations Milli Vanilli, scored an ignoble record: they became the first artists to ever have their Grammy Award revoked by the Recording Academy after the organization said the liner notes to the group’s debut album falsely claimed “vocals: Fab and Rob.”

The meticulously coifed pair’s high-wire mime act was nearly two years in the making, but in a pre-Twitter age, their 12-month crash-and-burn felt more like a slow-motion car wreck than instant cancellation. After winning three American Music Awards in Jan. 1990, and the best new artist statue (over The Indigo Girls, Neneh Cherry, Soul II Soul and Tone Loc) at the Feb. 21, 1990, Grammy Awards, the whispers grew louder that something was rotten in Munich.

That’s where Svengali producer Frank Farian cooked up the idea to re-record a little known American hip-hop single by the Baltimore crew Numarx with a group of German and American session singers and musicians, who remained in the shadows while he boosted the dancing duo to global superstardom. Farian had pulled similar sonic seduction over Eurodance pop fans’ eyes more than a decade before with his band Boney M. — a mid-1970s co-ed disco funk group whose supposed lead “singer” was really an Aruban exotic dancer, who simply looked the part as he mouthed Farian’s vocals. In fact, Farian had recorded the first songs for MV’s debut album before he’d even cast the two faces with all the right moves who would front his latest Wizard of Oz-like creation.

The Story of Milli Vanilli’s ‘Girl You Know It’s True,’ From the Baltimore Group Whose Song They Borrowed
After irresistible first single “Girl You Know It’s True” turned into a smash across Europe, Farian enlisted the young, fame-hungry hoofers to be the face of his group, no vocals necessary. (In a 2017 interview with VladTV, Morvan claimed Farian signed them to a contract, and after paying around $5,000 worth of their bills, told them they needed to either lip sync or pay him back immediately. “Let’s do this and let’s get out of there… but then it went crazy,” he said of what he described as a difficult choice.) “Girl” caught the ear of legendary music man and Arista Records boss Clive Davis, who licensed the album from BMG (while tweaking its title and adding a handful of new tracks for American ears), and soon it conquered America, selling a reported seven million copies worldwide and hitting No. 2 on the Billboard Hot 100.

Released in Europe on the LP All or Nothing in Nov. 1988, the undeniable strength of “Girl” was such that Arista didn’t hesitate to put on a full-court press, releasing the revamped version as Girl You Know It’s True in March 1989, complete with the fresh Diane Warren-penned soon-to-be No. 1 smash ballad “Blame It on the Rain.” The album already contained two other tracks that would both hit No. 1 on the Billboard Hot 100, “Girl I’m Gonna Miss You” and “Baby Don’t Forget My Number,” with no spotlight on who actually sang and rapped on the LP. The Girl album spent 78 weeks on the Billboard 200 albums chart — peaking at No. 1 for 8 weeks, making Milli Vanilli one of the year’s most dominant pop acts.

And the entire plan might’ve worked, if it wasn’t for a pesky tape that went rogue during a Club MTV performance at Lake Compounce amusement park in Bristol, Connecticut, on July 21, 1989. While many on the inside of their American label were beginning to think by then that Rob and Fab were just smoke and pre-taped vocals, the televised flub turned the growing whispers about lip syncing into a scream. During the now-infamous incident, the two briefly kept “singing” — then ran offstage — as the “Girl” backing track got stuck on repeat, raising questions that a year later would result in the reveal of the biggest lip syncing scandal in pop history. On Nov. 15, 1990, Farian admitted that Rob and Fab — by then megastars whose insistence on singing on their next album drew a hard “no” from the producer and Davis — were merely his puppets in an elaborate, incredibly lucrative pop ruse.

They were summarily dumped from Arista and their Grammy was yanked — marking the first time in Recording Academy history that an award was taken back — and a few days later, Farian blithely brushed off the controversy by telling the Washington Post, “One part was visual, one part recorded. Such projects are an art form in themselves, and the fans were happy with the music.” Rob and Fab found themselves without an American label as the album was purged from Arista’s archives, another humbling first to add to their list of dubious distinctions. Tragically, Pilatus died of a suspected overdose of alcohol and drugs in April 1998 at age 32 (or possibly 33 based on other reports at the time), and Girl You Know It’s True became the biggest-selling album to ever be taken out of print voluntarily.

Again, gentle readers, let us face some facts (And, I will type slowly for any Liberals who might be reading this post.):

  1. Joe Biden has never been the sharpest knife in the drawer. He has been a stereotypical glad-handing, kiss your baby, sniff your wife greasy politician. Sleepy Joe made hundreds of gaffs in his political career, which he got by with, because nobody expected much out of him anyway. Remember, he’s the guy who called Barack Hussein Obama (mm mmm mmmm) “clean and articulate”.
  2. The Democrats had a horrible field of Primary Candidates to choose from. That entire line-up has about as much charisma as Howard Dean (Yeeargh!). Not a single one of those candidates had a chance to beat Donald J. Trump, including Former Vice-President Joe Biden.
  3. Biden was chosen because he was recognizable and the least offensive out of a bunch of bad picks. The DNC knew that Biden’s mental and physical health was deteriorating. That is why they arranged for Kamala “Heels Up” Harris to be his running mate. If Biden gets too bad, they will have him resign and America will have its First Black Female President.(Yeeargh!)
  4. The Democrats knew that they could not defeat Trump unless they cheated. And, man, did they cheat. From four Democrat states shutting down voting in the middle of the night when Trump was ahead only to open back up 4 hours later showing Biden to be leading Trump because of “lost” ballots being delivered to them while they were closed to Republican poll Watchers not being allowed to watch vote counting, the Democrats had this “soft coup” perfectly planned. Even the Voting machines themselves were rigged and votes were being counted in Germany.
  5. Then, of course, there was the National Media, both Traditional and Social, running cover for the Democrats by not reporting on the Biden Crime Family and their collusion with Communist China. Even Fox News got into the act, jumping the gun with their Democrat “analyst” declaring Arizona from Joe Biden early in order to take the wind of the Trump Machine’s sails.

Just as Milli Vanilli received awards for an act of fraud, Joe Biden and his Democrat Puppet Masters could very well be given the most powerful position in the world through an act of complete and utter fraud.

Now, let me make this very clear: I am not giving up. I, like a lot of you, fought like blazes against Obama, or as I called him “Petulant President Pantywaist” and I intend to do the same if Sleepy Joe becomes President.

However, I can do nothing without the One who strengthens me and guides my steps.

So, tonight, just like every night, I will continue to pray for our country and for God’s mercy upon us and for guidance and protection for President Donald J. Trump and Vice-President Mike Pence.

I am asking you to do the same.

Until He Comes,

KJ

Cruz Offers to Represent Trump if SCOTUS Hears Penn Fraud Case

Newsmax.com reports that

Texas Sen. Ted Cruz says he is available and willing to give the oral argument before the U.S. Supreme Court if the court agrees to hear an election lawsuit out of Pennsylvania challenging the constitutionality of lawmakers’ dramatic expansion of absentee voting.

Cruz, the longest-serving solicitor general in the history of Texas and a former law professor at the University of Texas Law School in Austin, was the first U.S. senator to publicly support the case, filed by Rep. Mike Kelly of Pennsylvania, 2020 U.S. congressional candidate Sean Parnell and former state representative candidate Wanda Logan.

“If #SCOTUS grants cert in the PA election case, I have told the petitioners I will stand ready to present the oral argument,” Cruz said on Twitter after first disclosing his intent on Fox News Channel. “Because of the importance of the legal issues presented, I’ve publicly urged #SCOTUS to hear the case brought by Congressman Mike Kelly, congressional candidate Sean Parnell & state rep. candidate Wanda Logan challenging the constitutionality of the POTUS election results in PA.”

Kelly’s appeal argues that Pennsylvania legislators last year passed legislation greatly expanding the use of absentee voting as pandemic fears raised worries about in-person processing of votes, making it a “no-excuse” mail-in election and contradicting the state’s constitution. It further derides the Pennsylvania Supreme Court for dismissing Kelly’s lawsuit for “laches,” a legal term for a procedural issue, i.e. saying the case was brought too late.

Cruz was especially critical of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s dismissal on the procedural ground.

“Even more persuasively, the plaintiffs point out that the Pennsylvania Supreme Court has also held that plaintiffs don’t have standing to challenge an election law until after the election, meaning that the court effectively put them in a Catch-22: before the election, they lacked standing; after the election, they’ve delayed too long,” Cruz said. “The result of the court’s gamesmanship is that a facially unconstitutional election law can never be judicially challenged.

Cruz also on Monday filed a friend of the court brief – along with 10 of his Senate colleagues – in Arizona Attorney General Mark Brnovich’s case challenging the Democratic National Committee’s stance that the Voting Rights Act bans state laws limiting absentee voting. among other measures.

On April 13, 2016, the following post appeared on legalinsurrection.com

Noted liberal Harvard Law School professor (retired) Alan Dershowitz was on the Kelly File last night, and repeated what he has said before via News Max):

“He came into my class, literally his first day in law school with his right had up – not his left hand, his right hand,” Dershowitz said Tuesday on Fox News Channel’s “The Kelly File.”

Cruz challenged his professor on everything, which made his job easier, Dershowitz said.

“I was against the death penalty, he’s in favor. I was in favor of the exclusionary rule, he’s against it,” he said. “And he made such brilliant arguments that I never had to play the devil’s advocate.”

Cruz “was one of the best students I ever had,” Dershowitz said.

Many of his liberal friends criticize him for praising the firebrand conservative, Dershowitz said, but he argues, “I have to tell the truth about my students, even if I disagree with their views – even if I’m not gonna vote for him. I’m not going to change history and pretend that this brilliant student was anything else.”

High praise from a man who knows more about the law than 99% of the practicing attorneys in our nation’s courts today.

Back in September of 2013, right before the disaster known as Obamacare was about to cost Americans their Doctors and Savings Accounts, Cruz held a filibuster on the Senate Floor against it.

His spirited defense of Americans’ right to decide their own health care, reminded me of the indefatigable Jefferson Smith, in Capra’s classic “Mr. Smith Goes to Washington”. Smith (the late, great Jimmy Stewart) says the following as he’s delivering his filibuster:

Just get up off the ground, that’s all I ask. Get up there with that lady that’s up on top of this Capitol dome, that lady that stands for liberty. Take a look at this country through her eyes if you really want to see something. And you won’t just see scenery; you’ll see the whole parade of what Man’s carved out for himself, after centuries of fighting. Fighting for something better than just jungle law, fighting so’s he can stand on his own two feet, free and decent, like he was created, no matter what his race, color, or creed. That’s what you’d see. There’s no place out there for graft, or greed, or lies, or compromise with human liberties.

When you get down to it, what Senator Ted Cruz was speaking about was LIBERTY.

Our American Freedom has been endowed by OUR CREATOR. What happend November 3rd, was simply a step toward a totalitarian regime taking it away.

If Cruz can bring that same passion to the job of convincing the Supreme Court to rule in President Trump’s favor, it should be something that will be talked about for decades to come.

I believe that, if called upon, Ted Cruz would do a fantastic job on behalf of President Trump…

…AND LIBERTY.

Until He Comes,

KJ

Dems’ Fears Realized as Trump Picks a Christian Constitutionalist to Fill SCOTUS Vacancy

us-supreme-court.0

As you probably know by now, last night President Donald J. Trump announced that Brett Kavanaugh will be his nominee to fulfill the seat on the Supreme Court vacated by Justice Anthony Kennedy.

Christian American Conservatives praised Kavanaugh’s nomination last night…and with good reason.

Per ChristianityToday.com

As a young lawyer, Kavanaugh clerked for Kennedy, the man he may now replace. In 2003, he was appointed to the DC circuit by George W. Bush, though he wasn’t officially confirmed until 2006 after a long stall by Democrats who expressed skepticism of his record and level of experience.

A staunch defender of religious liberty, Kavanaugh rejected challenges to prayers at the president’s inauguration and the phrase “so help me God” in the presidential oath.

“We cannot resolve this case by discounting the sense of anguish and outrage plaintiffs and some other Americans feel at listening to a government-sponsored religious prayer,” he stated in the 2010 case. “We likewise cannot dismiss the desire of others in America to publicly ask for God’s blessing on certain government activities and to publicly seek God’s guidance for certain government officials.”

In the 2015 case, Priests for Life v. HHS, Kavanaugh opposed a decision against a challenge to the Health and Human Services contraceptive mandate, dissenting from the DC circuit’s decision not to review the case.

According to Kavanaugh’s dissent, the HHS regulations “substantially burden the religious organizations’ exercise of religion because the regulations require the organizations to take an action contrary to their sincere religious beliefs (submitting the form) or else pay significant monetary penalties.”

Kavanaugh also dissented on a recent, contentious case in which a pregnant teenager in immigration custody sought an abortion, arguing that as she was a minor, the US government had a responsibility to attempt to transfer her out of government detention and into the care of a sponsor before she made her final decision on whether to seek an abortion. His opinion was overruled by his fellow judges, but some pro-life advocates critiqued Kavanaugh for not going far enough in condemning the girl’s right to an abortion in the first place.

Early in his career, Kavanaugh worked on the recount that led to George W. Bush’s election to the presidency. Before that, he made a case for President Clinton’s impeachment following his affair with White House intern Monica Lewinsky, a fact that may pose a stumbling block for some Republicans in light of Robert Mueller’s special counsel investigation into foreign interference in the nation’s presidential election and Donald Trump’s 2016 campaign.

The next appointee will further cement the judiciary’s conservative shift, as early last year, President Trump nominated Neil Gorsuch to the Supreme Court. He was confirmed last April.

Ever since Justice Kennedy announced that he was stepping down, the Far Left Democratic Party has been protesting Trump’s pick for Kennedy’s successor.

Of course, the Dems and the Never-Trumpers, all Nattering Nabobs of Negativity, had no clue as to whom the President was going to pick. All they knew was that they were against him/her.

One of the fears of those who oppose whatever Trump does was that he was going to pick someone who was a Christian and who was unashamed of their faith.

And, of course, Trump did.

Christians still make up 75% of America’s population, so odds were that Trump’s nominee would believe in the Triune God.

And, that’s a good thing.

The legendary Judicial Giant who Trump’s first appointee, Neil Gorsuch, replaced, Antonin Scalia, was.

Here is what he said about the role of Christianity in our government, which remains in sharp contrast to the Rewritten History and wish-casting of the “Democratic Socialists” whose heads are exploding even as we speak.

In his dissenting opinion in the 2005 case McCreary County v. ACLU, Justice Antonin Scalia explained:

Those who wrote the Constitution believed that morality was essential to the well-being of society and that encouragement of religion was the best way to foster morality. The fact that the Founding Fathers believed devotedly that there was a God and that the unalienable rights of man were rooted in Him is clearly evidenced in their writings, from the Mayflower Compact to the Constitution itself…

President Washington opened his Presidency with a prayer, and reminded his fellow citizens at the conclusion of it that “reason and experience both forbid us to expect that National morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.” President John Adams wrote to the Massachusetts Militia, “we have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion… Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”

After going on to quote similar sentiments from Thomas Jefferson and James Madison, Scalia continued:

Nor have the views of our people on this matter significantly changed. Presidents continue to conclude the Presidential oath with the words “so help me God.” Our legislatures, state and national, continue to open their sessions with prayer led by official chaplains. The sessions of this Court continue to open with the prayer “God save the United States and this Honorable Court.” Invocation of the Almighty by our public figures, at all levels of government, remains commonplace. Our coinage bears the motto, “In God We Trust.” And our Pledge of Allegiance contains the acknowledgment that we are a Nation “under God.” As one of our Supreme Court opinions rightly observed, “We are a religious people whose institutions presuppose a Supreme Being.”

With all of this reality (and much more) staring it in the face, how can the Court possibly assert that “the First Amendment mandates governmental neutrality between… religion and nonreligion,” and that “[m]anifesting a purpose to favor… adherence to religion generally,” is unconstitutional? Who says so? Surely not the words of the Constitution. Surely not the history and traditions that reflect our society’s constant understanding of those words.

While the ever-increasing turn toward Marxism and the constant protesting and threatened violence by the New Bolsheviks of the Democratic Party, is very troubling, I find solace in the fact that they are still a minority in this country.

In my opinion, President Trump picked ANOTHER winner.

Until He Comes,

KJ

Non-Profit Led By Hillary’s Press Secretary Trying to Sway Moderate GOPers to Oppose Trump SCOTUS Pick

supremecourt_0 (2)

FoxNews.com reports that

President Trump hasn’t even announced his Supreme Court nominee and already liberal advocacy groups are pumping millions into campaigns pressuring Republican lawmakers to oppose his pick.

One group at the forefront of these efforts, Demand Justice, has launched what is reported to be a $5 million campaign targeting two moderate GOP senators – Susan Collins of Maine and Lisa Murkowski of Alaska. 

Demand Justice is led by the former press secretary for Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign, Brian Fallon, and is one of several groups launching an aggressive push to sway moderate senators of both parties to oppose the eventual nominee. 

“The next SCOTUS pick should await the next election, but McConnell won’t wait,” Fallon tweeted last week. “The future of the Court for the next 40 years – and thus the fate of abortion rights, and the ACA – may be decided in the next 3 months.” 

The Washington Post reports the group’s ads will start airing Thursday in Murkowski and Collins’ home states. They focus on the possibility that Trump’s pick to replace retiring Justice Anthony Kennedy could help the court overturn Roe v. Wade, among other major decisions. 

The narrator in the ad pressuring Collins urges Maine residents to call her office and demand she “keep her word.” 

“Senator Susan Collins could be the deciding vote on Trump’s pick for justice. She claims to support a woman’s right to have an abortion, so why won’t she rule out voting for Trump’s anti-choice picks?” the narrator says — in a taste of what swing senators have to look forward to in the coming weeks. 

Fox News reported Thursday that Trump has completed his interviews of Supreme Court candidates after speaking to six judges — Brett Kavanaugh, Raymond Kethledge, Amy Coney Barrett, Amul Thapar, Joan Larsen and Thomas Hardiman. He is said to be focusing on Kavanaugh, Kethledge and Barrett, and is expected to announce his decision Monday.

Republicans currently have 51 votes in the Senate and would ordinarily need 50 to confirm Trump’s nominee, provided Vice President Pence votes with them to break a tie. But with Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., out battling cancer, if Democrats can remain together and just one Republican defects from the party line, Trump’s nominee would fail to win confirmation.

Besides running ads in both Maine and Alaska, Demand Justice is one of a number of groups that plan to rally outside of the Supreme Court in Washington, D.C., next Monday – the same day that Trump is expected to nominate his choice. 

Much of the ad campaigns and outreach has focused on the possibility that the next justice could provide the vote that would permit states to ban abortion. In Maine, the group NARAL Pro-Choice America plans to take out full-page ads in four newspapers to highlight this issue, as Collins is one of the few pro-choice Republicans in Congress.

…Collins has said she would not support a nominee who shows “hostility” to Roe v. Wade. 

So, who exactly is “Demand Justice”?

According to the New York Times in an article posted on May 3, 2018…

Mr. Fallon has assembled an initial staff that includes judicial experts such as Christopher Kang, a former senior congressional staff member who played a central role in the Obama administration’s vetting of judicial nominees, and Paige Herwig, a former Judiciary Committee aide to Senator Dianne Feinstein of California, the top Democrat on the panel. The new organization will rely on a digital team led by Gabrielle McCaffrey, a digital organizer for the Clinton campaign. Cornell Belcher, a Democratic pollster, will conduct research for the group. About a dozen staff members will be housed in newly leased space near the White House.

Mr. Fallon said he was more than halfway to the initial fund-raising goal. He declined to name donors but said the organization had multiple backers and was also planning to seek smaller contributions online. He spoke recently at the Atlanta conference of the Democracy Alliance, a network of progressive donors that has included the billionaires George Soros and Tom Steyer.

In that article Fallon said that he hopes to raise $10,000,000 in funding in the first year and that he is already halfway there.

Gosh, I wonder where he got the money from? (I’ll give you a hint: either one or both of the last two names mentioned in the above article.)

Being the curious guy that I am, I went to the organization’s website,  DemandJustice.org, and on a page titled “What’s at Stake”, I found the following. One note of advice…put on your wading boots. It’s about to get deep.

Our courts are supposed to be the place that protects the rights of all Americans, but Trump is now stacking them with people loyal to him and his agenda. Trump’s judges are overwhelmingly white men. Many are not at all qualified for their posts. And they consistently hold extreme, right-wing views.

His nominees have a record of favoring big corporations over workers. They have fought to restrict women’s access to reproductive health services and deny equal treatment to LGBTQ Americans.

Trump’s judges also have a clear record of bigoted views when it comes to race. His nominees have defended voter suppression tactics, promoted the racist birther conspiracy against President Obama, and even defended the Ku Klux Klan. His picks also won’t even say they agree with the historic Brown vs. Board of Education decision by the Supreme Court that led to the desegregation of our nation’s schools. 

A majority of Democratic senators have voted for more than half of Trump’s judges.

Long after Donald Trump is no longer our President, his takeover of our courts will keep alive his hateful vision for America for decades to come. 

Trump has bragged that his takeover of our courts will be “country-changing,” and his allies in Congress agree. Senate Republicans are changing the way the Senate works to install Trump’s judges as quickly as possible ahead of the 2018 midterm elections.  Mitch McConnell said his goal is to move America “right of center.”

And how are Democrats in Washington responding? Not very courageously. A majority of Democratic senators have voted for more than half of Trump’s judges.

If we truly want to stop Trump, we can’t surrender this fight.

Have I lost my mind? (Don’t answer that.)

Or, hasn’t every other president been able to choose his own nominees to fill vacancies on the Supreme Court?

Lord knows, Obama did: Kagan and Sotomayor.

And, isn’t it interesting that “Demand Justice” just sprang up and is already halfway funded?

For a party that was “refudiated” (as Sarah Palin would say) on November 8, 2016, they certainly are full of themselves if they believe that they still carry enough political weight to influence the opposition party into going against their own president.

I realize that Susan Collins and the rest of the Never-Trumper RINOs are tone-deaf politically, but certainly they have been paying attention to what is happening in America politically.

Trump, despite the best efforts of the Democratic Party and all of the Liberal non-profits like Demand Justice which work for them, is fulfilling his Campaign Promises to the average Americans who voted for him….with spectacular results.

Gorsuch has proven to be a solid Constitutionalist edition to SCOTUS and I do not see Trump nominating anyone less qualified to fill this vacancy.

If RINOs like Susan Collins value their “government jobs”, they will stand with the Republican Side of the Political Aisle in support of a president whose job performance is growing the ranks of the Republican Party.

If the RINOS fall for the Liberal garbage being spewed by the Democratic Operatives at Demand Justice, they will, quite deservingly, find themselves voted out of office, for they will have betrayed both their political party and their constituencies.

As for the Temper Tantrum-throwing Far Left Democrats, watch for more of these “non-profit organizations” like “Demand Justice” to pop up out of nowhere and attempt to stop President Trump from fulfilling his Campaign Promises to the American People.

And, they will be as successful as Hillary Clinton was.

MAGA.

Until He Comes,

KJ

 

 

 

Obama to Tell SCOTUS That He has the Power to Make Illegals Eligible for “Earned-Benefit” Programs, Like Social Security

th (8)Did you know that there is a case in front of the United States States Supreme Court, in which President Barack Hussein Obama is arguing that he has the Constitutional Power to tell millions of illegal aliens, who are violating the laws of our Sovereign Nation, that he will not enforce that law against them now, in order for them to continue to violate that law in the future and that he will enable them to be eligible for federal benefit programs for which they are not currently eligible, because they are, in fact, breaking our laws?

Well, through his mouthpiece, Solicitor General Donald Verrilli, that is exactly what Obama is  telling the Supreme Court exactly this right now.

Terrence P. Jeffrey, writing for CNSNews.com, reports that

…The solicitor general calls what Obama is doing “prosecutorial discretion.”

He argues that under this particular type of “prosecutorial discretion,” the executive can make millions of people in this country illegally, eligible for Social Security, disability and Medicare.

On April 18, the Supreme Court will hear arguments in the case. Entitled United States v. Texas, it pits President Obama against not only the Lone Star State, but also a majority of the states, which have joined in the litigation against the administration.

At issue is the policy the administration calls Deferred Action for Parents of Americans and Lawful Permanent Residents, which would allow aliens in this country illegally who are parents of citizens or lawful permanent residents to stay in the United States.

“The Executive Branch unilaterally created a program — known as DAPA — that contravenes Congress’s complex statutory framework for determining when an alien may lawfully enter, remain in, and work in the country,” the attorney general and solicitor general of Texas explained in a brief submitted to the Supreme Court on behalf of the states seeking to block the policy.

“DAPA would deem over four million unlawfully present aliens as ‘lawfully present’ and eligible for work authorization,” says the Texas brief. “And ‘lawful presence’ is an immigration classification established by Congress that is necessary for valuable benefits, such as Medicare and Social Security.”

In the administration’s brief, the solicitor general admits that the president’s DAPA program does not convert people illegally in the United States into legal immigrants. He further asserts that the administration at any time can decide to go ahead and remove these aliens from the country.

“Deferred action does not confer lawful immigration status or provide any defense to removal,” he says. “An alien with deferred action remains removable at any time and DHS has absolute discretion to revoke deferred action unilaterally, without notice or process.”

Despite this, he argues, the administration can authorize aliens here illegally on “deferred action” to legally work in the United States.

“Without the ability to work lawfully, individuals with deferred action would have no way to lawfully make ends meet while present here,” says the administration’s brief.

Nonetheless, the solicitor general stresses that “deferred action” does not make an illegal immigrant eligible for federal welfare.

“In general,” he says, “only ‘qualified’ aliens are eligible to participate in federal public benefit programs, and deferred action does not make an alien ‘qualified.’… Aliens with deferred action thus cannot receive food stamps, Supplemental Security Income, temporary aid for needy families, and many other federal benefits.”

But, he says, aliens here illegally with deferred action will be eligible for “earned-benefit programs.”

“A non-qualified alien is not categorically barred, however, from participating in certain federal earned-benefit programs associated with lawfully working in the United States — the Social Security retirement and disability, Medicare, and railroad-worker programs — so long as the alien is ‘lawfully present in the United States as determined by the (Secretary),'” says the solicitor general.

The “secretary” here is the secretary of Homeland Security.

“An alien with deferred action is considered ‘lawfully present’ for these purposes,” says the solicitor general.

So, as explained to the Supreme Court by Obama’s solicitor general, when DHS grants an alien here illegally “deferred action” under the president’s DAPA policy, that alien is not given “lawful immigration status” and can be removed from the country “at any time.” However, according to the solicitor general, that alien will be authorized to work in the United States and will be “considered ‘lawfully present'” for purposes of being eligible for “the Social Security retirement and disability, Medicare, and railroad-worker programs.”

The U.S. Constitution imposes this straightforward mandate on the president: “(H)e shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed.”

When the Supreme Court agreed in January to hear U.S. v. Texas, it made a telling request. It asked the parties to argue whether Obama’s DAPA policy “violates the Take Care Clause of the Constitution.”

So, you ask, what is the “Take Care Clause”?

According to Heritage.org,

The Take Care Clause (also known as the Faithful Execution Clause) is best read as a duty that qualifies the President’s executive power. By virtue of his executive power, the President may execute the lawful and control the lawful execution of others. Under the Take Care Clause, however, the President must exercise his law-execution power to “take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed.”

So, by giving an individual, who has broken our laws, by entering our Sovereign Nation illegally, Federal benefits, reserved to provide for the welfare of actual American Citizens, Obama is “taking care” of dutifully executing our Nation’s Laws?

Sure, he is.

And Rosie O’Donnell has a “bikini body”. (Let that image settle in for a moment.)

Is breaking into our country, something that should be rewarded?

No.

What makes the current influx of illegal immigrants exempt from the rules and regulations that every other generation of immigrants to this country had to abide by in order to become legal citizens of the greatest nation in the world? By being here illegally, they are not entitled to the same rights as natural-born or naturalized American citizens.

And, yet, even as I write this, they are in our hospitals, taking advantage of our charity and the finest health care system in the world, and driving our streets, with either forged drivers licenses or those obtained from states who have acquiesced and given them to these “undocumented workers”.

This is in no way a human rights issue. Freedom is God-given, and with freedom comes responsibility. With citizenship comes responsibility, like paying taxes and making your own way.

My concerns about all of Obama’s, the Democrats’ and the Vichy Republicans’ coddling of the illegal aliens and the often-proposed “Path to Citizenship” business, can be divided into three bullet points. (Hey, I’m a Former VP of Marketing. What do you expect?)

1. Patriotism – Will these new “citizens” be willing to fly our flag above theirs? Will they be willing, if called upon, to serve in our Armed Forces, at home or abroad? Will they love this country, more than the one they left?

2. Loyalty – When these “new Americans” achieve the right to vote, are they all going to vote Democrat, so that they can receive more FREE STUFF? Is the Republican Party shooting themselves in both feet by pushing an outcome which will simply add new Democratic Voters? As I asked in the first point, will they honestly embrace our sovereign nation as their new home? Or, will they remain loyal to Mexico?

3.  Immigration – Are we rewarding illegal behavior, while at the same time, insulting all of the brave souls who have come here legally, seeking a better life for themselves and their families?

I understand that people want a better life for themselves and their children.  We are all immigrants in this land, except for American Indians, and they got here by crossing the Bering Straight.  But there is a huge difference between immigrating here legally and sneaking in illegally, between assimilating into an existing culture, and insisting on replacing a country’s existing culture with that of the country you left.

I’m all for assisting anyone in becoming a legal citizen of the United States, if that is their wish.  But, it must be done the right way, and they must accept responsibility for their illegal entry, show a willingness to learn our language, and embrace our American way of life, including respecting the American Flag.

Like the rest of his Far Left Brothers and Sisters, Barack Hussein Obama exhibits the symptoms of a disease that I’ve noticed that most of the Far Left exhibit: Narcissistic-Reality-Denial-Over-Educated-Beyond-Their-Intelligence Syndrome. The patient tends to rely on his self-assumed superior intellect, denying the reality of the world around him to the point of forsaking both his allegiance to and concern for the people of the country that has provided him with both his livelihood and his well-being.

This syndrome seems to be extremely pernicious in academic and political figures. The patient actually believes that he is an expert on everything, to the point where he can write and distribute instructional theses to seasoned professionals while lecturing them in a didactic manner.

The only treatment for Narcissistic-Reality-Denial-Over-Educated-Beyond-Their-Intelligence Syndrome at this time is “refudiation” and isolation. The people who are being affected by these individuals must, in a clear and over-whelming manner, let the patient know that they do not accept their attitude or actions and put them in a “time-out”.

In Obama’s Case, Americans must send a clear rejection of his Presidency, when we vote in a new President of the United States of America, this November.

Y’know…at the rate that this educated-beyond-his-intelligence, imperious, golf-playing, gum-smacking buffoon keeps obviously running our nation into the ground, I fully expect him, one day soon, to respond to an economic question at one of his almost non-existent press conferences by answering:

Let them eat arugula!

Until He Comes,

KJ