“So This is How Liberty Dies…With Thunderous Applause”…and a SCOTUS Ruling

On June 26, 2015June 27, 2015 By kingsjesterIn Christianity, Politics7 Comments

Well, it happened. The overwhelming majority of American voters have been spat squarely in the face by five representatives of the Judicial Branch of our government, who decided, instead, that they wanted to be the Legislative Branch, and add a new “right” to our Constitution.

In other words, our votes in State Referendums, in which the overwhelming majority of states, voted against “gay marriage”, did not mean squat to the five self-righteous Liberals on the Supreme Court.

The following excerpts, from the dissenting Supreme Coast Justices, are courtesy of nationaljournal.com

Chief Justice John Roberts:

Roberts’s argument centered around the need to preserve states’ rights over what he viewed as following the turn of public opinion. In ruling in favor of gay marriage, he said, “Five lawyers have closed the debate and enacted their own vision of marriage as a matter of constitutional law.”

Justice Scalia and Justice Thomas joined him in his dissent.

While Roberts said he did not “begrudge” any of the celebrations that would follow the Court ruling, he had serious concerns that the Court had extended its role from constitutional enforcer to activist.

Roberts: “Understand well what this dissent is about: It is not about whether, in my judgment, the institution of marriage should be changed to include same-sex couples.”

Judge Antonin Scalia:

According to Scalia, the five justices in the majority are using the 14th Amendment in a way that was never intended by its writers. “When the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified in 1868, every State limited marriage to one man and one woman, and no one doubted the constitutionality of doing so,” he wrote.

“They [the majority] have discovered in the Fourteenth Amendment a ‘fundamental right’ overlooked by every person alive at the time of ratification, and almost everyone else in the time since.”

Scalia called out the majority for acting like activists, not judges. (He was similarly critical in Thursday’s ruling on health care.) “States are free to adopt whatever laws they like, even those that offend the esteemed Justices’ ‘reasoned judgment,'” he wrote.

Scalia’s scorn went beyond picking apart the majority’s legal judgement. He also made fun of their language.

The majority began its opinion with the line: “The Constitution promises liberty to all within its reach, a liberty that includes certain specific rights that allow persons, within a lawful realm, to define and express their identity.”

Scalia wrote that if he ever were to join an opinion that began with that sentence he “would hide my head in a bag,” saying such language was more like the “mystical aphorisms of the fortune cookie” than, say, legendary Chief Justice John Marshall.

Elsewhere, the majority wrote “The nature of marriage is that, through its enduring bond, two persons together can find other freedoms, such as expression, intimacy, and spirituality.”

Scalia scoffed at this assertion, saying that even “the nearest hippie” would know that marriage hinders the freedom of intimacy. Here are his words:

Really? Who ever thought that intimacy and spirituality [whatever that means] were freedoms? And if intimacy is, one would think Freedom of Intimacy is abridged rather than expanded by marriage. Ask the nearest hippie.

Judge Clarence Thomas:

In his own separate dissent, which Scalia also joined, Justice Clarence Thomas pilloried the majority opinion as “at odds not only with the Constitution, but with the principles upon which our nation were built.”

Kennedy and the Court’s liberal wing are invoking a definition of “liberty” that the Constitution’s framers “would not have recognized, to the detriment of the liberty they sought to protect.”

“Along the way, it rejects the idea—captured in our Declaration of Independence—that human dignity is innate and suggests instead that it comes from the Government,” Thomas said. “This distortion of our Constitution not only ignores the text, it inverts the relationship between the individual and the state in our Republic. I cannot agree with it.”

Judge Samuel Alito:

In his dissent, Alito argues that gay marriage is not protected in the Constitution under the Due Process Clause because “liberty” only applies to those principles that are rooted in U.S. tradition. His argument is that the concept of gay marriage is new and therefore not included.

“For today’s majority, it does not matter that the right to same-sex marriage lacks deep roots or even that it is contrary to long-established tradition. The Justices in the majority claim the authority to confer constitutional protection upon that right simply because they believe that it is fundamental,” Alito writes.

Alito also reaffirms his position that there is no way to confirm what the outcome of gay marriage may be on the institution of traditional marriage and therefore the Court is and should not be in a position to take on the topic.

Philosophers, and historians—can predict with any certainty what the long-term ramifications of widespread acceptance of same-sex marriage will be. And judges are certainly not equipped to make such an assessment,” Alito wrote.

Alito’s belief is also that traditional marriage has existed between a man and woman for one key reason: children. His argument is:

For millennia, marriage was inextricably linked to the one thing that only an opposite-sex couple can do: procreate. Adherents to different schools of philosophy use different terms to explain why society should formalize marriage and attach special benefits and obligations to persons who marry. Their basic argument is that States formalize and promote marriage, unlike other fulfilling human relationships, in order to encourage potentially procreative conduct to take place within a lasting unit that has long been thought to provide the best atmosphere for raising children.

Now that the majority has ruled in favor of gay marriage, Alito offers a stark warning about future conflict between religious liberty and progressive ideas.

“By imposing its own views on the entire country, the majority facilitates the marginalization of the many Americans who have traditional ideas. Recalling the harsh treatment of gays and lesbians in the past, some may think that turnabout is fair play. But if that sentiment prevails, the Nation will experience bitter and lasting wounds,” he writes.

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 narrowly sides in favor of popular culture and against God’s Law.

Have you ever heard the story of the frog in the pot of water?

You put a frog in the pot of tap water. You place that pot of tap water on the stove. You slowly increase the heat on that burner in increments, allowing the frog to get adjusted to the rising heat, so that he is content with staying in the pot of water, until he boils.

That is what has happened to America. Gradually, like the frog in the pot of water, we’ve allowed things that we intrinsically know are wrong, to become a part of our popular culture and everyday lives, burning away what were the Traditional American Values, upon which this country was founded, and upon which we were raised.

And now, the country which we have known and loved, all of our lives, is sitting here boiling in a facist stew of our own making.

God, be merciful.

Until He Comes,

Welcome to Scotuscare

On June 26, 2015 By kingsjesterIn PoliticsLeave a comment

Judicial Activism is on the verge of changing our nation from one which cherishes the Faith and Heritage, which those before us sacrificed their very lives for, to a shallow, live-for-the-moment collection of individuals, worshiping at the altar of Popular Culture and Political Correctness.

Fox News reports that

Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia and his conservative colleagues may have been overruled in Thursday’s decision upholding ObamaCare subsidies, but they didn’t go down without a fight.

The firebrand conservative justice delivered one of the most scathing and linguistically creative dissents in recent memory. In a 21-page rebuttal, Scalia and two other justices tore into the Affordable Care Act and the court’s handling of it over the years — effectively accusing their colleagues of twisting the law for the sake of preserving President Obama’s signature policy.

“Today’s interpretation is not merely unnatural; it is unheard of,” Scalia wrote, joined by Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito.

The case itself centered on language in the original law that technically limited subsidies to people buying insurance in exchanges set up by the states. Opponents said this made subsidies through the federal exchange invalid.

“You would think the answer would be obvious — so obvious there would hardly be a need for the Supreme Court to hear a case about it,” Scalia wrote.

The majority, though, upheld subsidies everywhere, arguing that is what Congress intended.

Scalia in his dissent scolded his colleagues’ handling of Affordable Care Act challenges, writing, “We should just start calling this law SCOTUScare,” referring to the several times the high court has ruled on controversial parts of ObamaCare.

At one point, he panned the majority’s reasoning as “pure applesauce.”

Scalia essentially made two major points: he accused the court of playing favorites by letting politics get in the way, and claimed the majority’s opinion contained “somersaults of statutory interpretation.”

The conservative justice attacked the logic behind the ruling as “interpretive jiggery-pokery” and said the result shows “words no longer have meaning.”

He wrote: “The Court forgets that ours is a government of laws and not of men. That means we are governed by the terms of our laws, not by the unenacted will of our lawmakers.”

Drilling down to the language of the case itself, he wrote: “The court holds that when the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act says ‘Exchange established by the State’ it means ‘Exchange established by the State or the Federal Government,’ That is of course quite absurd, and the court’s 21 pages of explanation make it no less so.”

He noted the other justices have stepped in twice now to block what he considered worthy challenges to the law, including the 2012 case challenging the individual mandate. Scalia suggested the court is now in a position of protecting the law, writing: “Under all the usual rules of interpretation, in short, the Government should lose this case. But normal rules of interpretation seem always to yield to the overriding principle of the present Court: The Affordable Care Act must be saved.”

The Thursday decision was 6-3.

Chief Justice John Roberts delivered the majority opinion. He said that while the law’s wording was problematic, Congress’ intent was clear.

“Congress passed the Affordable Care Act to improve health insurance markets, not to destroy them. If at all possible, we must interpret the Act in a way that is consistent with the former, and avoids the latter,” he wrote. “Those credits are necessary for the Federal Exchanges to function like their State Exchange counterparts, and to avoid the type of calamitous result that Congress plainly meant to avoid.”

Justices Anthony Kennedy, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan and Stephen Breyer ruled in favor of the subsidies.

TheHill.com reports that

A House Republican on Thursday proposed forcing the Supreme Court justices and their staff to enroll in ObamaCare.

Rep. Brian Babin (R-Texas) said that his SCOTUScare Act would make all nine justices and their employees join the national healthcare law’s exchanges.

“As the Supreme Court continues to ignore the letter of the law, it’s important that these six individuals understand the full impact of their decisions on the American people,” he said.

“That’s why I introduced the SCOTUScare Act to require the Supreme Court and all of its employees to sign up for ObamaCare,” Babin said.

Babin’s potential legislation would only let the federal government provide healthcare to the Supreme Court and its staff via ObamaCare exchanges.

“By eliminating their exemption from ObamaCare, they will see firsthand what the Americanpeople are forced to live with,” he added.

It has been a rough week for America. We have seen the Southern Half of our contiguous 48 states mercilessly attacked by those who would rather that we ignore our history, than grow because of it, to rewrite history, rather than to learn from it, and, to blame an inanimate object, a flag, for the actions of a racist sociopath.

And now, we have witness the Judicial Branch of our Government, assume the duties of the Legislative Branch, in blatant protection of the Executive Branch.

In the midst of my anger, I thought about this moment in history…so very long ago…

To avoid interference from Lieutenant-Governor Dunmore and his Royal Marines, the Second Virginia Convention met March 20, 1775 inland at Richmond–in what is now called St. John’s Church–instead of the Capitol in Williamsburg. Delegate Patrick Henry presented resolutions to raise a militia, and to put Virginia in a posture of defense. Henry’s opponents urged caution and patience until the crown replied to Congress’ latest petition for reconciliation.

On the 23rd, Henry presented a proposal to organize a volunteer company of cavalry or infantry in every Virginia county. By custom, Henry addressed himself to the Convention’s president, Peyton Randolph of Williamsburg. Henry’s words were not transcribed, but no one who heard them forgot their eloquence, or Henry’s closing words: “Give me liberty, or give me death!”

…And what have we to oppose to them? Shall we try argument? Sir, we have been trying that for the last ten years. Have we anything new to offer upon the subject? Nothing. We have held the subject up in every light of which it is capable; but it has been all in vain. Shall we resort to entreaty and humble supplication? What terms shall we find which have not been already exhausted? Let us not, I beseech you, sir, deceive ourselves. Sir, we have done everything that could be done to avert the storm which is now coming on. We have petitioned; we have remonstrated; we have supplicated; we have prostrated ourselves before the throne, and have implored its interposition to arrest the tyrannical hands of the ministry and Parliament. Our petitions have been slighted; our remonstrances have produced additional violence and insult; our supplications have been disregarded; and we have been spurned, with contempt, from the foot of the throne! In vain, after these things, may we indulge the fond hope of peace and reconciliation. There is no longer any room for hope. If we wish to be free– if we mean to preserve inviolate those inestimable privileges for which we have been so long contending–if we mean not basely to abandon the noble struggle in which we have been so long engaged, and which we have pledged ourselves never to abandon until the glorious object of our contest shall be obtained–we must fight! I repeat it, sir, we must fight! An appeal to arms and to the God of hosts is all that is left us!

They tell us, sir, that we are weak; unable to cope with so formidable an adversary. But when shall we be stronger? Will it be the next week, or the next year? Will it be when we are totally disarmed, and when a British guard shall be stationed in every house? Shall we gather strength by irresolution and inaction? Shall we acquire the means of effectual resistance by lying supinely on our backs and hugging the delusive phantom of hope, until our enemies shall have bound us hand and foot? Sir, we are not weak if we make a proper use of those means which the God of nature hath placed in our power. The millions of people, armed in the holy cause of liberty, and in such a country as that which we possess, are invincible by any force which our enemy can send against us. Besides, sir, we shall not fight our battles alone. There is a just God who presides over the destinies of nations, and who will raise up friends to fight our battles for us. The battle, sir, is not to the strong alone; it is to the vigilant, the active, the brave. Besides, sir, we have no election. If we were base enough to desire it, it is now too late to retire from the contest. There is no retreat but in submission and slavery! Our chains are forged! Their clanking may be heard on the plains of Boston! The war is inevitable–and let it come! I repeat it, sir, let it come.

It is in vain, sir, to extenuate the matter. Gentlemen may cry, Peace, Peace– but there is no peace. The war is actually begun! The next gale that sweeps from the north will bring to our ears the clash of resounding arms! Our brethren are already in the field! Why stand we here idle? What is it that gentlemen wish? What would they have? Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!

OUR Revolution will be a peaceful one. Our weapons will be our ballots. The outcome will be the same: Freedom from those who would rule our lives.

On November 8, 2016, Americans will once again fire the shot heard ’round the world.

Until He Comes,

Head of World’s Largest Evangelical Denomination on Gay Marriage: “The Supreme Court…is Not the Final Authority.”

On June 17, 2015 By kingsjesterIn Christianity, Politics1 Comment

The world’s largest Evangelical Christian Denomination, with approximately 16,000,000 members, is holding its yearly Convocation.

And, its newly-elected President has left no doubt as to the denomination’s stance on the hot-button social issues, which our nation is presently wrestling with.

The Christian Post reports that

Ronnie Floyd, president of the Southern Baptist Convention and pastor of Cross Church in Arkansas, speaks during AVANCE 2015 at the Greater Columbus Convention Center in Ohio, June 14, 2015.

Southern Baptist Convention President Ronnie Floyd told messengers gathered at the opening day of the denomination’s annual gathering Tuesday that “now is the time to lead,” on issues such as abortion, same-sex marriage, and racism.

“We are in spiritual warfare, and this is not a time for Southern Baptists to shrink back in timidity or shrink back with uncertainty,” said Floyd during his opening address at the SBC annual meeting in Columbus, Ohio. “Crises abound; the need is great hour is late, and now is the time to lead.”

The SBC president also highlighted global calamities including the advance of ISIS, human trafficking, Boko Haram, the persecution of Christians as well as crippling problems in the U.S., such as poverty, debt, and race relations.

“We are adrift in denial,” said Floyd, quoting Peggy Noonan.

The senior pastor at Cross Church in Springdale, Arkansas, prayed for the next great spiritual awakening, stating “we need a Jesus revolution” in the U.S. before addressing hot-button moral issues under fire in the legal system today like abortion.

“America, we stand believing that abortion is a glaring desecration of the unborn child’s purpose and value,” said Floyd. “We must be vigilant in this fight for the unborn child. All human life and human dignity — from the womb to the tomb. God has created all of us for His glory, and when we devalue human life, we are robbing God of his intended glory for every person in the world.”

Referring to the U.S. Supreme Court’s upcoming decision on whether gays and lesbians have a constitutional right to marry or whether state bans against same-sex marriage can remain in place, Floyd took a firm stance in his religious conviction that marriage is strictly between one man and one woman.

“We do not need to redefine what God himself has defined already,” he said.

Floyd explained to the audience that they will be asked to approve a resolution that affirms Southern Baptist beliefs on marriage. The resolution also reminds Christians to love our neighbors and extend respect to all people, even those who disagree with them.

“While we affirm our love for all people, including those struggling with same-sex attractions, we cannot and will not affirm any behavior that deviates from God’s design for marriage,” said Floyd. “Our first commitment is to God and nothing else and no one else. I humbly remind everyone today the Supreme Court of the United States is not the final authority, nor is the culture itself, but the Bible is God’s final authority about marriage and on this book we stand.”

In his final comment on same-sex marriage, Floyd took an oath to never sanctify gay marriage.

“I declare to everyone today as a minister of the Gospel, I will not officiate over any same-sex unions or same-sex marriage ceremonies, I completely refuse,” said the pastor.

On the issue of race relations, Floyd asserted: “America, we stand believing that all humanity bearing of God’s image is not contingent upon one’s skin color, and we also believe all racism and injustice must end. We need to let grace begin uniting our hearts in the bonds of peace. We need to learn to love one another as Christ loved us.”

That eardrum-shattering shriek that you just heard was the 24% of Americans, who self-identify as Liberals, beginning their hissy fit.

The truth of the matter is, Pastor Floyd is exactly right. Regardless of how the United States Supreme Court rules on same-sex marriage, God will have the final word.

He always does.

Modern Liberals seem to have great difficulty comprehending the role which Our Creator, the God of Abraham, played and plays in this Grand Experiment, known as the United States of America.

From adherents.com:

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.

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%

unknown 43 %

TOTAL 204

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%
unknown	43	%
TOTAL	204

Here are some quotes about God and Christianity from 3 Presidents of the United States, whom you might recognize:

John Quincy Adams

My hopes of a future life are all founded upon the Gospel of Christ and I cannot cavil or quibble away [evade or object to]. . . . the whole tenor of His conduct by which He sometimes positively asserted and at others countenances [permits] His disciples in asserting that He was God.

The hope of a Christian is inseparable from his faith. Whoever believes in the Divine inspiration of the Holy Scriptures must hope that the religion of Jesus shall prevail throughout the earth. Never since the foundation of the world have the prospects of mankind been more encouraging to that hope than they appear to be at the present time. And may the associated distribution of the Bible proceed and prosper till the Lord shall have made “bare His holy arm in the eyes of all the nations, and all the ends of the earth shall see the salvation of our God” [Isaiah 52:10].

In the chain of human events, the birthday of the nation is indissolubly linked with the birthday of the Savior. The Declaration of Independence laid the cornerstone of human government upon the first precepts of Christianity.

Thomas Jefferson

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.

George Washington

You do well to wish to learn our arts and ways of life, and above all, the religion of Jesus Christ. These will make you a greater and happier people than you are.

While we are zealously performing the duties of good citizens and soldiers, we certainly ought not to be inattentive to the higher duties of religion. To the distinguished character of Patriot, it should be our highest glory to add the more distinguished character of Christian.

The blessing and protection of Heaven are at all times necessary but especially so in times of public distress and danger. The General hopes and trusts that every officer and man will endeavor to live and act as becomes a Christian soldier, defending the dearest rights and liberties of his country.

I now make it my earnest prayer that God would… most graciously be pleased to dispose us all to do justice, to love mercy, and to demean ourselves with that charity, humility, and pacific temper of the mind which were the characteristics of the Divine Author of our blessed religion.

Recently, a Gallup Poll showed that a little less than 3/4 of Americans proclaim Jesus Christ as their Personal Savior and half of Americans attend Religious Services on a regular basis.

While Modern American Liberals, under the rights granted to us by our Constitution, have every right to speak their mind, blackmail and intimidation of the Majority, is not a guaranteed right.

Additionally, without being anchored on the Solid Rock, America would have been a failed experiment, assigned to the dustbin of history, years ago.

That still, small voice which resides within each one of us, has led Americans to do great things, in service to their country and the concept of American Freedom, as personified by Lady Liberty, standing so majestically in New York Harbor.

God gave us this nation, ensconced in the concept of “Liberty and Justice for all”.

By His Grace, we will keep it.

Until He Comes,

Obama Wants to Forcibly “Desegregate” Wealthy Neighborhoods Through Socialism…AKA…”Government Grants”.

On June 12, 2015June 12, 2015 By kingsjesterIn Uncategorized1 Comment

From the get-go, President Barack Hussein Obama’s motto has been “Share the Wealth”. Not his, of course, but, ours.

This “Quest for Equality”, i.e., lack of individualism, i.e., forming a collective society, if you will, springs from his love for the teachings of Karl Marx and Saul Alinsky, and his upbringing within an American Communist Family, which led to his association with people who wanted, with all their hearts to “radically change” America…by any means necessary.

Obama wants to limit our freedom…by making our choices for us.

And, by taking away individual achievement.

For example…

Thehill.com reports that

The Obama administration is moving forward with regulations designed to help diversify America’s wealthier neighborhoods, drawing fire from critics who decry the proposal as executive overreach in search of an “unrealistic utopia.”

A final Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) rule due out this month is aimed at ending decades of deep-rooted segregation around the country.

The regulations would use grant money as an incentive for communities to build affordable housing in more affluent areas while also taking steps to upgrade poorer areas with better schools, parks, libraries, grocery stores and transportation routes as part of a gentrification of those communities.

“HUD is working with communities across the country to fulfill the promise of equal opportunity for all,” a HUD spokeswoman said. “The proposed policy seeks to break down barriers to access to opportunity in communities supported by HUD funds.”

It’s a tough sell for some conservatives. Among them is Rep. Paul Gosar (R-Ariz.), who argued that the administration “shouldn’t be holding hostage grant monies aimed at community improvement based on its unrealistic utopian ideas of what every community should resemble.”

“American citizens and communities should be free to choose where they would like to live and not be subject to federal neighborhood engineering at the behest of an overreaching federal government,” said Gosar, who is leading an effort in the House to block the regulations.

Civil rights advocates, meanwhile, are praising the plan, arguing that it is needed to break through decades-old barriers that keep poor and minority families trapped in hardscrabble neighborhoods.

“We have a history of putting affordable housing in poor communities,” said Debby Goldberg, vice president at the National Fair Housing Alliance.

HUD says it is obligated to take the action under the Fair Housing Act of 1968, which prohibited direct and intentional housing discrimination, such as a real estate agent not showing a home in a wealthy neighborhood to a black family or a bank not providing a loan based on someone’s race.

The agency is also looking to root out more subtle forms of discrimination that take shape in local government policies that unintentionally harm minority communities, known as “disparate impact.”

“This rule is not about forcing anyone to live anywhere they don’t want to,” said Margery Turner, senior vice president at the left-leaning Urban Institute. “It’s really about addressing long-standing practices that prevent people from living where they want to.”

“In our country, decades of public policies and institutional practices have built deeply segregated and unequal neighborhoods,” Turner said.

Children growing up in poor communities have less of a chance of succeeding in life, because they face greater exposure to violence and crime, and less access to quality education and health facilities, Turner suggested.

“Segregation is clearly a problem that is blocking upward mobility for children growing up today,” she said.

To qualify for certain funds under the regulations, cities would be required to examine patterns of segregation in neighborhoods and develop plans to address it. Those that don’t could see the funds they use to improve blighted neighborhoods disappear, critics of the rule say.

The regulations would apply to roughly 1,250 local governments.

Hans von Spakovsky, a fellow at the conservative Heritage Foundation, called the Obama administration “too race conscious.”

“It’s a sign that this administration seems to take race into account on everything,” Spakovsky said.

Republicans are trying to block the Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing rule. Before passing HUD’s funding bill this week, the GOP-led House approved Gosar’s amendment prohibiting the agency from following through with the rule.

Though segregationist policies were outlawed long ago, civil rights advocates say housing discrimination persists.

HUD is looking to break down many barriers, but Gosar suggested the regulation would have negative repercussions.

“Instead of living with neighbors you like and choose, this breaks up the core fabric of how we start to look at communities,” Gosar said. “That just brings unease to everyone in that area.”

“People have to feel comfortable where they live,” he added. “If I don’t feel comfortable in my own backyard, where do I feel comfortable?”

Critics of the rule say it would allow HUD to assert authority over local zoning laws. The agency could dictate what types of homes are built where and who can live in those homes, said Gosar, who believes local communities should make those decisions for themselves rather than relying on the federal government.

If enacted, the rule could depress property values as cheaper homes crop up in wealthy neighborhoods and raise taxes, Gosar warned.

It could also tilt the balance of political power as more minorities are funneled into Republican-leaning neighborhoods, he suggested.

The Supreme Court is expected to weigh in on housing discrimination in a related case in the coming weeks. At issue is whether government policies that unintentionally create a disparate impact for minority communities violate federal laws against segregation.

The Texas Department of Housing and Community Affairs is facing accusations that it makes low-income housing funds more readily available in minority neighborhoods than in white neighborhoods. This promotes segregation, critics argue, by encouraging minorities to continue living in poor communities where government assistance is available.

Court observers say the case could have a profound impact on HUD’s rule.

“Government-Funded Upward Mobility”?

Are we still in America?

How does that work in cities that are already 90 % minority population, like Detroit or Memphis?

As Charles Barkley pointed out a while back, Racism is not just a one-way street. How do you think that these cities go this way? Not all of their White citizens moved out because they wanted to.

But, I digress.

On a Sunday, in October of 2008, outside of Toledo, Ohio, Democratic Presidential Nominee Obama met a plumber named Joe Wurzelbacher. Joe, who owned his own plumbing company, dared to ask Obama about his proposed tax hikes. In fact, he told Obama that he did not want to pay higher taxes, he was already paying enough. Obama told him,

Now, I respect the disagreement. I just want you to be clear – it’s not that I want to punish your success – I just want to make sure that everybody who is behind you – that they’ve got a chance at success too.”

…I think when you spread the wealth around, it’s good for everybody.

Evidently, the “fairness” Obama seeks, includes making everyone’s housing “fair”, too.

No individuality allowed in the Proletariat.

Welcome to the USSA, “komrades!”

Until He Comes,

Faith-Based Institutions Will Be Affected By Possible Favorable Gay Marriage Ruling

On April 29, 2015April 30, 2015 By kingsjesterIn Christianity, Politics2 Comments

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. – The First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America

You have seen me write, time and time again, that it is funny how those among us who claim to be the most tolerant, are actually the least of all.

The “Gay Mafia” is a prime example.

As with any liberal, as long as you believe what they believe, you’re one of the smartest people in the room. However, as soon as you cross them, and stand up for your own Christian Heritage of Faith, you are labeled a stupid “Christianist” and/or an inbred hillbilly.

Additionally, when the voters of a state get together to express their opposition to homosexual marriage through their right to vote, the Gay Mafia finds a sympathetic judge to rule that marriage is a “Civil Right”, instead of a Holy Sacrament…a bond between a man and a woman, ordained by God.

The problem that Christians and Conservatives alike face is the fact that being Pro-homosexual marriage is the “cool” thing to be now.

Even if it is at the expense of the First Amendment.

ChristianPost.com reports that

WASHINGTON — The lead attorney representing the Obama administration admitted before the U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday that if the court were to rule in favor of making same-sex marriage a constitutional right, it would create a religious liberty “issue” for faith-based schools and institutions, who could be at risk of losing their tax-exempt statuses.

As the Supreme Court listened to oral arguments regarding whether the 14th Amendment requires states to issue same-sex marriage licenses, U.S. Solicitor General Donald Verrilli tried to dodge a question from Chief Justice John Roberts, who asked him whether or not religious schools which have married housing would be required to provide housing to same-sex married couples.

The solicitor general, which is the third highest ranking official in the Justice Department and is appointed to speak on behalf of the Obama administration in court cases, provided a winded answer to Roberts about how it is the states that are responsible for setting their civil laws.

Roberts continued prodding Verrilli by saying that even though states set their laws, the federal government has “enforcement power,” which Verrilli admitted was true but reasoned that there is no federal law “now” that bans discrimination based on sexual orientation.

Justice Samuel Alito followed up and asked a pointed question regarding whether religious schools could have their tax-exempt status revoked for not providing same-sex couples with housing. Alito referenced the 1983 Bob Jones University Supreme Court case, which ruled that the Internal Revenue Service could revoke the school’s tax-exempt status for refusing to accommodate interracial married couples with housing.

“So would the same apply to a university or a college if it opposed same-sex marriage?” Alito asked.

It was clear that Verrilli did not want to answer that question but offered an offhand remark assuring that a ruling in favor of gay marriage would create some issues.

“You know, I don’t think I can answer that question without knowing more specifics but it’s certainly going to be an issue,” Verrilli stated. “I I don’t deny that. I don’t deny that, Justice Alito. It is, it is going to be an issue.”

Speaking at a Heritage Foundation panel on Wednesday, which discussed Tuesday’s oral arguments, Carrie Severino, chief counsel and policy director for the Judicial Crisis Network, explained that Verrilli’s answer indicates that the Obama administration is looking to “preserve the ability to remove tax-exempt status from institutions, like religious universities.”

“What this exchange shows is that the administration wants to leave the door wide open to do [removing tax-exempt statuses],” Severino told The Christian Post after the panel. “Not that they could really be bound, necessarily, by the statements here but the solicitor general does not want to, even in furtherance of winning this case, because him saying ‘Don’t worry, that won’t happen,’ that would actually help him in this case. Even though that would help his case, he said, ‘I am not going to say that. We are not going to go there.'”

“Frankly his answer to Chief Justice Roberts a minute earlier more or less admitted that the federal government could say this case could force a religious college to open its married housing to a married same-sex couple if they were married under laws of the state,” Severino added.

Severino also explained that such a ruling in favor of constitutional gay marriage would create a “head-on collision” with religious expression.

“That ought to give a lot of people cause to say that this is an absolute head-on collision potentially with religious liberty because the arguments that are being made on the other side are so extreme here,” Severino stated.

Severino reasoned that if such a ruling could cause tax-exempt status issues for Christian universities and schools, it could also present religious freedom conflict for faith-based charities and other organizations also.

“There isn’t any reason to say that it clearly wouldn’t extend to charitable organizations, potentially even to removing tax-exempt status from a house of worship, which is a slightly different argument but I can see people trying to make that argument,” Severino asserted. “Taking the tax-exempt status thing would be a gigantic step and a very serious blow to a lot of institutions, all sorts of charitable institutions that are run by religious organizations from Salvation Army on down.”

“Just imagine if all of those groups were not tax-exempt anymore and what impact that would have on their ability to serve the poor the way they are attempting to do and live out their faith,” she continued.

Severino expects that the potential for conflict with religious liberty will somehow weigh into the case’s outcome even if the court decides to constitutionalize gay marriage.

“Those potential collisions were brought out and will affect the way the justices decide this case because I think that Justice [Anthony] Kennedy is not going to want to have that kind of collision with religious liberty, and any of the justices ought to be concerned with the potential of further limiting the religious liberty at this point,” she said. “Perhaps, even if it doesn’t mean that is going to affect the outcome entirely, it may affect the way that the opinion is written in a way to have less of a risk to steamroll religious freedom.”

Democratic Presidential Hopeful Hillary Rodham Clinton recently stated that religion would have to “change” in order to allow the American Genocide known as Abortion.

Today’s American Liberals, from Barack Hussein Obama on down to the Internet Troll, sitting at his computer in his Mom’s Basement, munching Cheetos, want Christians, like myself, to “change” our view on homosexuality, in order to proclaim Adam and Steve as husband and…err…husband.

What they do not understand, nor wish to, is the fact that man did not label it as deviant behavior and a “sin”.

GOD DID.

His Word, as revealed in the Old and New Testaments, with the Holy Bible, states that fact, over and over again.

Christianity is not something that can be boxed in, from 9 a.m. to 12 Noon on Sundays, as the President and the rest of the Gay Mafia seem to want it to be.

Nor can it be changed and modified to fit a culture which is currently embracing relative morality and situational ethics.

God’s Word, as is its Author, is eternal and unchanging.

The Supreme Court Justices must understand that, by undermining the Faith of Our Fathers, they are undermining the Solid Rock from which sprang forth the principles upon which our country was founded.

The future of America is in their hands.

“Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness – these firmest props of the duties of men and citizens. … And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion.” – President George Washington’s First Inaugural Address, April 30, 1789

Until He Comes,

America Vs. the Far Left: A War Against Fascism

On April 26, 2015April 27, 2015 By kingsjesterIn Christianity, PoliticsLeave a comment

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 reports 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, 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.

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 on through the latest changes to Obamacare 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 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.

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,

Supreme Court Showdown: Is “Gay Marriage” a “Constitutional Right”?

On April 22, 2015April 23, 2015 By kingsjesterIn Christianity, PoliticsLeave a comment

You have seen me write, time and time again, that it is funny how those among us who claim to be the most tolerant, are actually the least of all.

The “Gay Mafia” is a prime example.

The problem that Christians and Conservatives alike face is the fact that being Pro-homosexual marriage is the “cool” thing to be now.

Even if it is at the expense of the First Amendment.

Speaking of the Constitution, the Supreme Court is scheduled to address this very subject next week.

The Christian Post reports that

As the U.S. Supreme Court prepares to hear oral arguments next Tuesday on whether states will continue to be free to define marriage for their own citizens, a number of amicus briefs have been filed arguing that the U.S. Constitution does not guarantee a fundamental right to same-sex marriage.

Heritage Foundation Senior Fellow Ryan Anderson and prominent attorney and constitutional law expert Gene Schaerr recently co-authored their own amicus brief that asserts that the U.S. Constitution does not require states to redefine marriage to allow for two individuals of the same gender to get married.

Speaking at a Heritage Foundation discussion on Monday, Anderson and Schaerr, a former associate counsel to President George H.W. Bush, explained their brief in detail and offered more reasons as to why the Supreme Court should not force a decision in favor of same-sex marriage on all 50 states to uphold as law.

Anderson, who co-authored the book What is Marriage? Man and Woman: A Defense, explained that governments did not originally get into the “marriage business” because they wanted to be involved in their citizens’ romances. Rather, state governments got involved in marriage so that the children who were born from marriages would have the best chance of having a stable family environment to grow up in, which included both a mom and dad.

“There is nothing in the U.S. Constitution that requires all 50 states to redefine marriage,” Anderson asserted. “The Constitution is simply silent on whether the consent-based vision of marriage or the comprehensive vision of marriage is the true definition of marriage. It is silent on whether the states should devise their marriage policy to serve.”

Schaerr discredited a notion that a person has a constitutional right to get married to the person they love as long as they are two consenting adults.

“The bottom line is … there has never been any right to marry the person you love and so a states’ rejection of that claimed right couldn’t possibly be a denial of due process under the plain language of the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment,” Schaerr asserted. “If we turn to the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, the argument that same-sex marriage is based on, that clause also has holes in it.”

Schaerr also discredited a widely portrayed notion that bans on same-sex marriage are discriminatory against gays and lesbians.

“Unlike the old Jim Crow laws that prohibited mix-raced marriages, the man-woman definition of marriage doesn’t offend the equal protection guarantee because it allows any otherwise qualified man and woman to marry, regardless of their sexual orientation,” Schaerr said.

“The state man-woman marriage laws do not deny anybody the ability to marry based on their sexual orientation. There is no question on the marriage application that asks are you gay or lesbian,” Schaerr continued. “The law doesn’t care. The law just says that there are certain requirements for marriage and if you are willing to comply with those requirements, then we will give you a marriage license.”

Anderson argues that redefining marriage as a union between two consenting adults would have drastic societal consequences.

“If you redefine marriage to say that it is the union of any two consenting adults, irrespective of sexual complementarity, how will we as a community insist that fathers are essential when the laws redefine marriage to make fathers optional?” Anderson asks. “That is the challenge that faces the society that redefines marriage as consenting-adult romance and care-giving. It eliminates the public message of marriage as about uniting a man and a woman as husband and wife so that children will have both a mom and a dad.”

With unelected federal judges overturning a number of states’ gay marriage bans in the last year and many people thinking the Supreme Court could do the same a national level, Anderson said that just because the court has the power of judicial review, that does not mean the Supreme Court reigns supreme.

“I think it is important here to say that judicial review is not the same thing as judicial supremacy,” Anderson said. “The Supreme Court is not supreme. Judicial supremacy is a problem when it claims to be the only branch of government that has the obligation the defend and uphold the Constitution. All branches of government, the three federal branches and the state governments, take that oath to defend the Constitution. All branches of government are co-equal in interpreting what the Constitution means.”

Although many are confident that at least five justices will rule in favor same-sex marriage, Schaerr explained that no Supreme Court justice has ever written an opinion that held that there is a constitutional right for same-sex couples to get married.

“In fact, there are three justices that have written or have joined opinions that clearly say there is no constitutional right to same-sex marriage and Chief Justice Roberts’ opinion in the Windsor case goes at least half way there,” Schaerr stated. “So as of right now, in terms of Supreme Court Justices, its three-and-a-half on our side and nobody who’s committed to recognizing a Constitutional right to same-sex marriage.”

Obama and his one-minded collective have been desperately trying to desensitize Americans, regarding the Hot Button Issue of “gay marriage”, lately.

Even though, those who practice the sexually deviant behavior of homosexuality only compose around 3% of our population, those advocating defiling of the sacrament of marriage would like us to all believe that they number many, many more. And, those who rig polls for a living would like us to believe that the majority of Americans believe it is okay for homosexuals to imitate the union of a heterosexual couple.

If that were the case, the overwhelming majority of states would not have voted against “Gay Marriage”. And, “Activist Judges” would not have had to overturn the will of the people in several of those states.

In their desperation, Liberals have even tried to rewrite God’s Word regarding Homosexuality, labeling anyone who does not agree with them, into a “Hater”.

Recently, Liberals have even become “Biblical Experts” regarding the issue, bringing up the fact that Jesus Christ hung out with people “of all kinds”.

They are correct. He did.

What they are incorrect about, is their belief that he somehow condoned their sins.

He did not.

Christ “hung out” with those people out of love , a love whose purpose was to convict them of their sins and lead them to repentance, and then, to personal salvation.

Remember John 8: 1-11?

1but Jesus went to the Mount of Olives. 2Early in the morning he came again to the temple. All the people came to him, and he sat down and taught them. 3The scribes and the Pharisees brought a woman who had been caught in adultery, and placing her in the midst 4they said to him, “Teacher, this woman has been caught in the act of adultery. 5Now in the Law Moses commanded us to stone such women. So what do you say?” 6This they said to test him, that they might have some charge to bring against him. Jesus bent down and wrote with his finger on the ground. 7And as they continued to ask him, he stood up and said to them, “Let him who is without sin among you be the first to throw a stone at her.” 8And once more he bent down and wrote on the ground. 9But when they heard it, they went away one by one, beginning with the older ones, and Jesus was left alone with the woman standing before him. 10Jesus stood up and said to her, “Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?” 11She said, “No one, Lord.” And Jesus said, “Neither do I condemn you; go, and from now on sin no more.”]]

Please notice that He did not tell her to go do whatever she felt like doing to whomever she felt like doing it to.

Sin still carries consequences.

Next week is going to be an important week in our nation’s history.

Pray for the Supreme Court Justices.

Until He Comes,

The New Fascism (October 7, 2014 Edition)

On October 6, 2014October 7, 2014 By kingsjesterIn Christianity, Politics1 Comment

World War II was 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, and judicial activism.

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.

Look at the Supreme Court’s Ruling, or rather, lack of one, on “gay marriage”, yesterday, yesterday.

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?