Posts Tagged ‘Supreme Court’

65 Women Send Letter to Senate Committee in Defense of Kavanaugh

September 15, 2018

feinstein-kavanaugh

Desperation: a state of despair, typically one which results in rash or extreme behavior

FoxNews.com reports that

More than five dozen women came forward Friday to defend Supreme Court nominee Judge Brett Kavanaugh against an alleged high school incident, calling President Trump’s pick for the high court “a good person.”

The 65 women, who claim to have known Kavanaugh for more than 35 years, penned a letter to the Senate Judiciary Committee to vouch for his character.

“We are women who have known Brett Kavanaugh for more than 35 years and knew him while he attended high school between 1979 and 1983. For the entire time we have known Brett Kavanaugh, he has behaved honorably and treated women with respect,” the letter read. “We strongly believe it is important to convey this information to the Committee at this time.”

The women wrote that while Kavanaugh attended Georgetown Preparatory School, an all-boys high school in Bethesda, Maryland, they knew him through “social events, sports, church, and various other activities.”

“Many of us have remained close friends with him and his family over the years. Through the more than 35 years we have known him, Brett has stood out for his friendship, character, and integrity,” they wrote. “In particular, he has always treated women with decency and respect. That was true when he was in high school, and it has remained true to this day.”

They added: “The signers of this letter hold a broad range of political views. Many of us are not lawyers, but we know Brett Kavanaugh as a person. And he has always been a good person.”

The letter comes amid a controversy ignited by Senate Judiciary Committee Ranking Member Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., who released a statement this week saying that she turned information about Kavanaugh over to the FBI. She did not detail the accusation, and Republicans accused her of trying to orchestrate a last-minute smear.

“I have received information from an individual concerning the nomination of Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court,” Feinstein said in a surprise statement. “That individual strongly requested confidentiality, declined to come forward or press the matter further, and I have honored that decision. I have, however, referred the matter to federal investigative authorities.”

Fox News confirmed that the letter involved an allegation about Kavanaugh while in high school in the 1980s. A woman who was also in high school at the time, accused Kavanaugh of holding her down and trying to force himself on her during a party, before she got away. The details were first reported by The New Yorker.

The woman also claimed Kavanaugh was joined at the time by a friend who turned up music to conceal her protests. The unnamed classmate, quoted in the New Yorker article as having “no recollection of that,” is Mark Judge, Fox News confirmed. His identity was first reported by The Weekly Standard.

“It’s just absolutely nuts. I never saw Brett act that way,” Judge said, adding that he still does not know the identity of the woman who made the allegations.

Kavanaugh denied the allegations Friday.

“I categorically and unequivocally deny this allegation. I did not do this back in high school or at any time,” Kavanaugh, 53, said in a statement.

The White House blasted the charges on Thursday.

“Not until the eve of his confirmation has Sen. Feinstein or anyone raised the specter of new ‘information’ about him,” White House spokesperson Kerri Kupec said in a statement.

Excellent point.

What Senator Feinstein did was the act of a desperate politician.

According to an article posted on July 4th at LATimes.com,

Though California primary voters supported U.S. Sen. Dianne Feinstein by a huge margin, state party insiders are readying for a fight over choosing a favorite in her general election race against fellow Democrat state Sen. Kevin de León.

Feinstein, in an apparent attempt to avoid what could be an embarrassing loss, called for unity on Tuesday and urged party leaders to decline to endorse anyone at the upcoming executive board meeting where the endorsement question will be decided.

“Republicans would like nothing more than to see Democrats fighting each other, and a formal endorsement in our race will divide our party at the exact time we need to come together and focus on the general election,” Feinstein, who is seeking a fifth full term, wrote in an email to state Democrats.

The drama over an official endorsement is another indication that California’s Democrat-on-Democrat fight for the Senate seat, born out of the state’s top-two primary system, is exposing fractures among the party’s moderates and progressives. Neither candidate won a primary endorsement but De León came close, winning 54% of votes, shy of the 60% needed to secure the nod. Feinstein received just 37%.

And, don’t forget her fondness for Red China(but never with a blue tablecloth)…

An alleged Chinese spy reportedly infiltrated Sen. Dianne Feinstein’s (D-CA) office by posing as her driver for 20 years, according to multiple reports.

Reports from Politico and the San Francisco Chronicle revealed the alleged Chinese government mole posed as a staffer in Feinstein’s San Francisco office— serving as the California Democrat’s driver, Asian-American community liaison, and stand-in for the senator at Chinese consulate events.

Politico reported that the staffer allegedly delivered non-top-secret political intelligence to Chinese consulate officials in San Francisco. Five years ago, the FBI told Feinstein—who served as chairwoman of the Senate Intelligence Committee—that her staffer was a spy.

The California Democrat was reportedly “mortified” by the news and fired the staffer but did not disclose the news to the rest of her staff.

The FBI could not charge the individual with espionage because none of what he leaked was considered to be classified information, making it difficult for the agency to prosecute him.

Feinstein is definitely from the old school of Democrats.

She has done quite well for herself as a professional politician. However, just like Nancy Pelosi, she finds herself in the twilight of her career, seeking desperately to hold onto what little power within her state and within the New Far Left Democratic Party while somehow remaining relevant.

Through a strategy born of desperation, she attempted to slander a very good man who is destined to be our next Supreme Court Justice.

Her strategy has failed miserably as even members of her own political party are seeing it for the weak sauce that it is.

Feinstein and her fellow Democratic Senators could not make Judge Brett Kavanaugh look bad during the Confirmation Hearings. In fact, he made THEM look silly.

Of course, that doesn’t take much. However, Judge Kavanaugh still more than held his own and looked impressive while doing so.

Feinstein, through her attempted slandering of Kavanaugh has actually proved us with a prime example of the present mindset of the Democratic Party Hierarchy.

They are all so desperate to somehow damage President Trump, to somehow, someway derail “The Trump Train” which is bringing back our economy and accomplishing more in less than two years than his predecessor did in 8, that they will unashamedly slander anyone connected with him in order to do so.

This ineffectual strategy by Feinstein and her fellow Democrats has already grown old and tiresome in the eyes of average Americans and will be one of those responsible for the political “Red Wave” which will occur in less than two months in the Midterm Elections.

Even “Sainted” ol’ Jimmy Carter, himself an ineffectual Democratic President, warned the Democrats this past week against their current political strategy of moving to the Far Left of the Political Spectrum.

However, I doubt that they were listening to the 90-something year old from Plains, Georgia.

They did not listen to us average Americans in 2016, why should they listen to him now?

After all, they are way too smart for that.

Just ask President Clinton.

Oh…wait…

Until He Comes,

KJ

Advertisements

An Unexpected President, a Retiring Justice, and a Liberal Meltdown

June 28, 2018

ScreamHelplessly1 (2)

Presidents come and go, but the Supreme Court goes on forever.                              – William Howard Taft

If you have not heard by now, the booming thunderclap that you heard yesterday morning was not a prelude to the Second Coming, it was Modern American Liberals slamming their sphincters shut in unison over the announcement that Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy is retiring.

Once the announcement was made, Liberals started melting down all over the cable news networks and social media.

It was glorious to behold.

The realization that elections have consequences has finally hit them, bursting through their year and one-half long Nation Temper Tantrum like Mama’s yardstick across their legs.

It was painful enough when Billionaire Businessman Donald J. Trump beat their “Chosen One” Hillary Clinton for the Presidency.

Now Democrats, from Tinseltown to the Beltway, have suddenly realized that with Kennedy’s crucial swing vote no longer available, Constitutional Law will once again be the Order of the Day at SCOTUS.

Everything that the Progressive Movement has accomplished since Calvin Coolidge may very well be undone through a combination of a President and a Judicial Branch who both believe in upholding the Constitution of the United States of America.

All the Liberals can do now is to attempt to stall the nomination of the next Justice by asking Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell to enforce the “Biden Rule”, a move which would delay the seating of the next Justice until after the Mid-Term Elections in November, as Minority Leader Chuck Schumer did yesterday.

Unfortunately for ol’ “Chuck U.” and the rest of the Hive-Mind, McConnell announced that the Senate would be voting on the nomination in the Fall.

During his radio program yesterday, Rush Limbaugh observed that,

Two weeks ago they were thinking and praying about a blue wave, winning the House back, and impeaching Trump, and bringing back nirvana. And now, and now their judge, their judge, their abortion judge, their gay marriage judge, their affirmative action judge is leaving! Oh, now. Can you imagine? Everything has gone to hell for these people inside of two years.

However, it’s not just the Democrats who have a tear in their beer, it’s all of the “Never Trumpers”.

Trump is doing exactly what he promised that he would do. He’s WINNING.

Oh, and here’s something else to chew on: At least one more of the Supreme Court Justices could retire before Trump has to run for reelection.

That means that the Supreme Court could be a Conservative Court for decades to come.

To paraphrase country singer Toby Keith,

How do you like him, now?

Until He Comes,

KJ

SC Ruling for Christian Baker Shocks the Intolerant Left

June 5, 2018

untitled (241)

A Gallup Poll, published on December 22, 2017 showed about 3/4ths or 75% of America’s Population self-identify as Christian.

The same polling company, Gallup, reported in 2015 that just 3.8% of America’s population self-identify as “LGBT”.

So, what happens when someone from the 3.8% attempts to force someone belonging to the 75% to perform an act which goes against their faith and that American takes it all the way to the Supreme Court?

America found out the answer to that question yesterday.

Thomson Reuters Foundation News reported that

The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday handed a victory on narrow grounds to a Colorado Christian baker who refused for religious reasons to make a wedding cake for a gay couple, stopping short of setting a major precedent allowing people to claim exemptions from anti-discrimination laws based on religious beliefs. The justices, in a 7-2 decision, said the Colorado Civil Rights Commission showed an impermissible hostility toward religion when it found that baker Jack Phillips violated the state’s anti-discrimination law by rebuffing gay couple David Mullins and Charlie Craig in 2012. The state law bars businesses from refusing service based on race, sex, marital status or sexual orientation.

The ruling concluded that the commission violated Phillips’ religious rights under the U.S. Constitution’s First Amendment.

But the justices did not issue a definitive ruling on the circumstances under which people can seek exemptions from anti-discrimination laws based on their religious views. The decision also did not address important claims raised in the case including whether baking a cake is a kind of expressive act protected by the Constitution’s free speech guarantee.

Two of the court’s four liberals, Stephen Breyer and Elena Kagan, joined the five conservative justices in the ruling authored by Justice Anthony Kennedy, who also was the author of the landmark 2015 decision legalizing gay marriage nationwide.

“The commission’s hostility was inconsistent with the First Amendment’s guarantee that our laws be applied in a manner that is neutral toward religion,” Kennedy wrote.

But Kennedy also stressed the importance of gay rights while noting that litigation on similar issues is likely to continue in lower courts.

“Our society has come to the recognition that gay persons and gay couples cannot be treated as social outcasts or as inferior in dignity and worth,” Kennedy wrote.

“The outcome of cases like this in other circumstances must await further elaboration in the courts, all in the context of recognizing that these disputes must be resolved with tolerance, without undue disrespect to sincere religious beliefs, and without subjecting gay persons to indignities when they seek goods and services in an open market,” Kennedy added.

The case marked a test for Kennedy, who has authored significant rulings that advanced gay rights but also is a strong advocate for free speech rights and religious freedom.

Of the 50 states, 21 including Colorado have anti-discrimination laws protecting gay people.

The case pitted gay rights against religious liberty. President Donald Trump’s administration intervened in the case in support of Phillips.

Mullins and Craig were planning their wedding in Massachusetts in 2012 and wanted the cake for a reception in Colorado, where gay marriage was not yet legal. During a brief encounter at Phillips’ Masterpiece Cakeshop in the Denver suburb of Lakewood, the baker politely but firmly refused, leaving the couple distraught.

They filed a successful complaint with the state commission, the first step in the six-year-old legal battle. State courts sided with the couple, prompting Phillips to appeal to the top U.S. court. Phillips has said a backlash against his business has left him struggling to keep the shop afloat

The Homosexual Lobby and their supporters, affectionately known as the “Gay Mafia”, have been stepping it up a notch for quite a while now, suing Americans and getting them fired over their Christian faith.

Even the real Mafia does not attack people’s faith. In fact, the legendary Mafioso, Al Capone, gave tons of money to Chicago’s Catholic Charities. And, when the Mafia has to terminate the employment of one of their soldiers, emphasis on the word terminate, they make sure that their family is taken care of.

Not so with the Gay Mafia. If you do not support their agenda, they will sue you, see that you are fired, make you lose everything that you have in this world, and will not care one bit, if you and your family are put out on the street.

Just as the decadent leaders of ancient Rome fed the early Christians to the Lions, so is the unconscionable Gay Mafia tossing aside Christians in their quest for their deviant sexual behavior to be classified as normal.

In fact, I’ll go you one better: these idiots’ fanatical insensitivity to the welfare of believers who have the moral courage to oppose their hedonistic lifestyle, is reminiscent of those Radical Muslims we know as the Taliban.

Which is the height of irony if you think about it, because Radical Muslims not only behead Christians, they remove the heads of homosexual Muslims as well.

You have seen me saying 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 or, more appropriately, The Gay Taliban, are prime examples.

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 “intolerant”, inbred hillbilly.

Additionally, after American voters in the majority of states got together to express their opposition to homosexual marriage through their right to vote, the Gay Mafia found a sympathetic (at the time) Supreme Court 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.

The Far Left members of the Modern Democratic Party have proven that they cannot stand Christian Americans. It is evident from their condescension toward us and derision of our traditional values and ethics in their propaganda. Our Constitution gives us Religious Freedom in its very First Amendment.

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

Please note that this amendment does not say “in some circumstances”.

Those who are in the Pro-Homosexual Marriage Liberal Lobbying Group, or “Gay Mafia”, firmly believe that their right to force us to accept their belief system trumps our First Amendment Rights as Christian Americans to practice our faith in the workplace.

As Monday’s ruling by the Highest Court in the Land so starkly demonstrated…They’re WRONG.

The concerted effort by the Gay Mafia and the Liberal Activists in America’s Legal System, which quite frankly appears to be fascist in nature, to force Christian Businessmen and Businesswomen to forgo their faith, in order to service gay marriages, has been meeting a backlash from average Americans living in the Heartland for quite a while now, which is being desperately covered up by the Main Stream Media and the shrieking Progressives.

These same average Americans elected Donald J. Trump as our 45th President.

These average Americans with common sense have been asking all along…

Why can’t these gay couples simply go to other businesses, who will bake their wedding cakes for them, instead of trying to force Christian Americans to do something which is against their faith?

Because that would not make the news nor would it provide the impetus for “radical change” (remember THAT term?).

Neither would it serve their purpose to go into a Christian Baker for a dozen donuts, a cinnamon roll, or a “bear claw”.

Joseph Goebbels, Adolf Hitler’s Minister of Propaganda, once said that

If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it.

This continuing Liberal War against Christian American Small Business Owners, based on the lie that these business owners will not serve gay people, ever, proves that Goebbels was actually right about the intolerant gullibility of some people.

Even in a country founded by Christian Men.

Until He Comes,

KJ

Supreme Court Reinstates Trump’s Travel Ban…Again…Saving Us From This Generation’s Neville Chamberlains – A KJ Analysis

September 12, 2017

untitled (176) 

“Whenever the president finds that the entry of any aliens or any class of aliens into the U.S. would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants, non-immigrants or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions that he may deem to be appropriate,”- 8 U.S. Code § 1182 

As was reported on www.SpartaReport.com yesterday, the Supreme Court has overturned the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals stay of President Trump’s Travel Ban…again.

According to TheHill.com,

The Supreme Court on Monday granted the Trump administration’s request to temporarily lift restrictions on the president’s travel ban. 

In a one-page order signed by Justice Anthony Kennedy, the court temporarily blocked the part of last week’s 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruling that barred the government from prohibiting refugees that have formal assurances from resettlement agencies or are in the U.S. Refugee Admissions Program from entering the U.S.

Kennedy said that part of the decision is stayed pending the receipt of a response from the state of Hawaii. That response that is due by noon on Tuesday.

The Supreme Court’s decision came less than two hours after Acting Solicitor General Jeffrey Wall filed a request for a stay.

In its opinion last week, the 9th Circuit also blocked the government from banning grandparents, aunts, uncles and other extended family members of a person in the U.S. from entering the country.

But the administration said it decided not to fight the “close-family aspect of the district court’s modified injunction.”

Wall said in his request to the court that that part of the ruling was “less stark” than the nullification of the order’s refugee provision.

“Unlike students who have been admitted to study at an American university, workers who have accepted jobs at an American company, and lecturers who come to speak to an American audience, refugees do not have any freestanding connection to resettlement agencies, separate and apart from the refugee-admissions process itself, by virtue of the agencies’ assurance agreement with the government,” Wall wrote.

“Nor can the exclusion of an assured refugee plausibly be thought to ‘burden’ a resettlement agency in the relevant sense.”

The court was forced to act fast, given that the 9th Circuit decision was set to take effect at 11:30 a.m. on Tuesday.

Wall argued that allowing the 9th Circuit’s ruling to go forward would force the government to “change course” on orders it began implementing on June 29 and invite “precisely the type of uncertainty and confusion that the government has worked diligently to avoid.”

The Supreme Court handed Trump a partial win in June when it allowed theadministration to temporarily block people from six predominantly Muslim countries from entering the U.S. But the court carved out an exemption for people with a bona fide relationship with a person or entity in the country.

The federal district court judge in Hawaii who blocked Trump’s order in March further weakened it in July by including grandparents, grandchildren, brothers-in-law, sisters-in-law, aunts, uncles, nieces, nephews and cousins of people in the U.S and refugees working with resettlement agencies in the definition of what constitutes a bona fide relationship.

The Trump administration’s travel ban blocks travelers from Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen from entering the U.S. for 90 days.

The Supreme Court will hear arguments in two cases that have been consolidated challenging the ban on Oct. 10.

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.

This simple view of the matter suggests several important consequences. It proves incontestably, that the judiciary is beyond comparison the weakest of the three departments of power1; that it can never attack with success either of the other two; and that all possible care is requisite to enable it to defend itself against their attacks. It equally proves, that though individual oppression may now and then proceed from the courts of justice, the general liberty of the people can never be endangered from that quarter; I mean so long as the judiciary remains truly distinct from both the legislature and the Executive. For I agree, that “there is no liberty, if the power of judging be not separated from the legislative and executive powers.”2 And it proves, in the last place, that as liberty can have nothing to fear from the judiciary alone, but would have every thing to fear from its union with either of the other departments; that as all the effects of such a union must ensue from a dependence of the former on the latter, notwithstanding a nominal and apparent separation; that as, from the natural feebleness of the judiciary, it is in continual jeopardy of being overpowered, awed, or influenced by its co-ordinate branches; and that as nothing can contribute so much to its firmness and independence as permanency in office, this quality may therefore be justly regarded as an indispensable ingredient in its constitution, and, in a great measure, as the citadel of the public justice and the public security.

Do you think that Hamilton foresaw the rise of Activist Judges, whose sole purpose, working in concert with an out-of-power Political Party, to sabotage a president trying to protect American Citizens?

The repeated, desperate actions taken by the Liberal-led 9th Circuit Court of Appeals proves that Liberals are more concerned about their politics than they are the safety of our nation.

And, you know what is so stupid about this whole fiasco?

The list of countries which Trump wishes to temporarily suspend immigration from , was originally compiled by the Obama Administration, as a list of countries in which “Radical Islam” (although they probably did not call it, that) is growing exponentially.

And, another thing…I asked a couple of Liberals, when the ruling was announced, if they were taking these refugees into their homes…especially the 20 something year old military-looking ones with cellphones, which were so prevalently seen in the pictures of the “Muslim Migration” that swept across Europe.

Of course, all I received was the sound of crickets in return.

In the past, Liberals have made an art form out of circumventing the will of the American people by taking things before Liberal Judicial Activists.

However, this time is not about allowing two hairy-legged gents to roll around under the sheets together and label it a “marriage” in the name of “love”.

This time, it is about allowing those who want to kill us to come into our Sovereign Nation without being properly vetted.

Are “The Smartest People in the Room” so contrary, as to not realize that Radical Islam punishes every single social issue that American Liberals so “righteously” defend in this nation?

The maddening thing is that every time you challenge Liberals on this fact, they try to equate Radical Islam with American Christianity.

Frankly, the ignorance of these young Liberals blows my mind.

As a Lifeway Survey taken in 2014  showed, older Americans, such as myself, actually see Radical Islam and Sharia law for what it is.

Why is that?

I believe that it is because of the old adage,

With age comes wisdom.

Older Americans can remember when the Shah of Iran was deposed and the Radical Mullahs took over the nation, holding Americans hostage, under the ineffectual American President Jimmy Carter, for 144 days.

The only reason that those hostages were not killed and were let go, was the inauguration of President Ronald Wilson Reagan.

The only thing that these barbarians fear is strength, as the leader of Jordan has recently demonstrated.

Older Americans were raised differently than this current generation, for the most part. We were raised to understand Christianity’s place, as the stitching, in the fabric of our nation.

As I have written before, American Christianity is a legacy which our fathers and their fathers, bequeathed to us, along with the courage to stand up for our beliefs.

Our Founding Documents and our System of Law are based on our Judeo-Christian Beliefs.

This latest generation, seems to be more interested in giving Dress-wearing Johnny his perceived “Constitutional Right” to “drop trou” in the company of our wives, daughters, and daughters-in-law in public and school restrooms and locker rooms, or crying and crawling up into a ball in their “safe spaces” or violently protesting in public, when they don’t get their way like a bunch of 3-years olds in Walmart who are told that they can not have a toy they want, than they are about what is actually happening in our nation as related to our Sovereignty and our very lives.

This generation’s predilection for situational ethics, relative morality, and all-encompassing political correctness, is reminiscent of the cattle who are led up the ramp to the slaughter house.

They go through their lives, content in their ignorance, until the blade falls.

Neville Chamberlain would be so proud of the Modern American Liberal Judicial Activists that comprise the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals and the Modern American Liberals who cheer them on.

Unfortunately, this is the generation that we are leaving our country to.

It is time for them to wake up, grow up, and stand up…before it’s too late.

I. for one, am very glad that we now have a President who is not afraid to say the words “Radical Islam” in front of the world or to hire men who will stand up for our Sovereign Nation in the face of it.

As we were so hauntingly reminded yesterday,

FREEDOM IS NOT FREE.

Until He Comes,

KJ

Trump Administration to Support Christian Baker’s 1st Amendment Rights in Supreme Court Case

September 10, 2017

cartoon-branco-crucify-them

In recent times, especially under the Previous President, Barack Hussein Obama (mm mmm mmmm), a concerted effort was to marginalize Christian Americans, putting us in a box if you will.

A lot of Liberals and “libertarians” seem to believe that Christian Americans should only practice our faith on Sunday Mornings from 9 – 12, and be seen and not heard the rest of week.

To which I personally answer, with two quotes from the Bible,

So Judas threw the money into the temple and left. Then he went away and hanged himself. – Matthew 27:5 (NIV)

…”Go and do likewise.” – Luke 10:37 (NIV)

And, boys and girls, that is MY right as an American.

President Donald J. Trump was exactly right in what he told a meeting of Evangelical Christians over a year ago:

They took away the voice of people that want to see good things happen. It’s not like they took away a bad voice, an evil voice. They took away a voice.

President Trump is working to keep his promise to give Christian Americans our voice back.

ChristianPost.com reports that

The Trump administration has outlined its support for Christian baker Jack Phillips, who declined to make a cake for a gay wedding, and his Masterpiece Cakeshop in Colorado in a friend-of-the-court brief to the U.S. Supreme Court.

“Forcing Phillips to create expression for and participate in a ceremony that violates his sincerely held religious beliefs invades his First Amendment rights,” Acting Solicitor General Jeff Wall wrote for the Justice Department, according to CNN.

“The government may not enact content-based laws commanding a speaker to engage in protected expression: An artist cannot be forced to paint, a musician cannot be forced to play, and a poet cannot be forced to write.” 

The brief was filed Thursday, following several other friend-of-the-court briefs, including one from the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association. Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission is a major religious liberty case that is being closely watched by both sides of the same-sex marriage debate.

Phillips is challenging lower court decisions that found him guilty of discriminating against same-sex couple Dave Mullins and Charlie Craig in 2012, when he refused to make a cake for their wedding.

The Supreme Court announced in June that it will hear the Christian baker’s appeal. Alliance Defending Freedom lawyers filed their opening brief on behalf of Phillips last week.

Justice Department spokesperson Lauren Ehrsam said in relation to the filing that the “First Amendment protects the right of free expression for all Americans.”

The American Civil Liberties Union, which is representing the same-sex couple, slammed the decision to file the brief.

“This Justice Department has already made its hostility to the rights of LGBT people and so many others crystal clear,” said Louise Melling, ACLU’s deputy legal director.

“But this brief was shocking, even for this administration. What the Trump Administration is advocating for is nothing short of a constitutional right to discriminate.”

Attorney General Ken Paxton also led a 20-state coalition in filing an amicus brief to the Supreme Court in support of Phillips, highlighting the artist’s “constitutionally-protected right to religious liberty.”

“The Supreme Court has the opportunity to affirm that the First Amendment contains robust protections for people who choose to operate their businesses consistent with their faith,” Paxton said.

“The owner of Masterpiece Cakeshop should be allowed to choose what he will or won’t create without fear of being unjustly punished by the government.”

Texas joined in the amicus brief along with the attorneys general of Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Idaho, Kentucky, Louisiana, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah, West Virginia and Wisconsin, and Governor LePage of Maine.

The ADF brief last week noted that Phillips has relied on his Christian faith to guide his work for decades.

“Those beliefs inspire him to love and serve people from all walks of life, but he can only create cakes that are consistent with the tenets of his faith. His decisions on whether to design a specific custom cake have never focused on who the customer is, but on what the custom cake will express or celebrate,” ADF said. 

Over the last two decades as a baker in Colorado, Phillips has also declined to make Halloween cakes, anti-American cakes, adult-themed cakes, and cakes containing alcohol, among others.

Anyone who has read my blog for any length of time knows exactly what my feelings are on the subject of gay marriage.

I agree with the Reverend Mitchell, former pastor of the old landmark church in Chicago Illinois who said, and I quote,

The Good Lord made Adam and Eve. He did not make Adam and Steve. Can I get a witness?

And, may I add, if he did make Adam and Steve, none of us would be here because, try as they might, homosexuals cannot procreate.

The Homosexual Lobby and their supporters, affectionately known as the “Gay Mafia”, have been stepping it up a notch for quite a while now, suing Americans and getting them fired over their Christian faith.

Even the real Mafia does not attack people’s faith. In fact, the legendary Mafioso, Al Capone, gave tons of money to Chicago’s Catholic Charities. And, when the Mafia has to terminate the employment of one of their soldiers, emphasis on the word terminate, they make sure that their family is taken care of.

Not so with the Gay Mafia. If you do not support their agenda, they will sue you, see that you are fired, make you lose everything that you have in this world, and will not care one bit, if you and your family are put out on the street.

Just as the decadent leaders of ancient Rome fed the early Christians to the Lions, so is the unconscionable Gay Mafia tossing aside Christians in their quest for their deviant sexual behavior to be classified as normal.

In fact, I’ll go you one better: these idiots’ fanatical insensitivity to the welfare of believers who have the moral courage to oppose their hedonistic lifestyle, is reminiscent of those Radical Muslims we know as the Taliban.

Which is the height of irony if you think about it, because Radical Muslims not only behead Christians, they remove the heads of homosexual Muslims as well.

You have seen me saying 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 or, more appropriately, The Gay Taliban, are prime examples.

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 “intolerant”, 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.

Those who are in the Pro-Homosexual Marriage Liberal Lobbying Group, or “Gay Mafia”, firmly believe that their right to force us to accept their belief system trumps our First Amendment Rights as Christian Americans to practice our faith in the workplace.

They’re WRONG.

The concerted effort by the Gay Mafia and the Liberal Activists in America’s Legal System, which quite frankly appears to be fascist in nature,  to force Christian Businessmen and Businesswomen to forgo their faith, in order to service gay marriages, has been meeting a backlash from average Americans living in the Heartland for quite a while now, which is being desperately covered up by the Main Stream Media and the shrieking Progressives.

These same average Americans elected Donald J. Trump as our 45th President.

These average Americans with common sense are asking…

Why can’t these gay couples simply go to other businesses, who will bake their wedding cakes for them, instead of trying to force Christian Americans to do something which is against their faith?

It appears the President feels the same way.

I find these couples’ who are intentionally targeting Christian Bakers though obviously politically motivated actions to be intolerant, insensitive, demanding, and downright rude.

Our Constitution gives us Religious Freedom in its very First Amendment.

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

Please note that this amendment does not say “in some circumstances”.

Joseph Goebbels, Adolf Hitler’s Minister of Propaganda, once said that

If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it.

This continuing Liberal War against Christian American Small Business Owners, based on the lie that these business owners will not serve gay people, ever, proves that Goebbels was actually right about the intolerant gullibility of some people.

Even, in a country founded by Christian Men.

Until He Comes,

KJ

More WINNING: The Supreme Court Gives the Go-Ahead For President Trump’s Travel Ban.

June 27, 2017

wall-breakthrough_large

The Thunderclap that was heard from “sea to shining sea” yesterday morning was Liberal Sphincters slamming together in unison over the ruling by the Highest Court in the Land on President Trump’s “Travel Ban”.

Foxnews.com reported that

After successive rulings by numerous federal courts against President Trump’s controversial travel ban, the U.S. Supreme Court on Monday delivered what Trump is touting as a clear victory – allowing most of the policy to be enforced and teeing up a high-stakes court battle for the fall in which the administration may have the upper hand.
 
Monday’s ruling effectively allows part of Trump’s executive order to go into effect, including a 90-day ban on people entering the United States from six mostly-Muslim countries who “lack any bona fide relationship with a person or entity in the United States,” such as a spouse, close relative, employer or enrollment in an American university.

It also allows a 120-day ban on all refugees entering the United States to go into effect.

The ruling, though, sets up further litigation in the courts over the coming weeks on just how far the “bona fide” exemptions can go and whether emergency exceptions will be granted.

“I fear that the Court’s remedy will prove unworkable,” Justice Clarence Thomas wrote. “The compromise also will invite a flood of litigation until this case is finally resolved on the merits, as parties and courts struggle to determine what exactly constitutes a ‘bona fide relationship,’ who precisely has a ‘credible claim’ to that relationship, and whether the claimed relationship was formed ‘simply to avoid §2(c)’ of Executive Order No. 13780.”

Reaz Jafri, head of the global immigration practice at Withers Bergman law firm, told Fox News he expects a significant uptick in cases and protests. Jafri advises clients on how to navigate the U.S.’s changes in immigration policies.

 
“It is still unclear if a national from one of the banned countries will get a visa to visit a family member, participate in a conference, visit schools or come for a job interview,” Jafri said. “Will these be considered bona fide reasons to visit the U.S.? My sense is ‘no’ and the implication is that U.S. businesses, universities and families will be negatively impacted.”

All nine justices agreed in the 13-page decision to take up the case in the fall, setting up a showdown over the legality of the order.

Justices Neil Gorsuch, Samuel Alito Jr. and Thomas wrote a three-page opinion saying they would have allowed Trump’s travel ban to take effect fully, without regard to a foreign national’s connection to the United States. Their dissent could foreshadow a tough road ahead for opponents of the travel ban.

The justices agreed to hear oral arguments on the merits of the executive order – whether the ban is lawful or exceeds the president’s powers – during the Court’s next term, which begins in October.  

Though Monday’s decision wasn’t the final word on the travel ban, Trump touted it as “a clear victory for our national security.”

“As president, I cannot allow people into our country who want to do us harm,” he said in a written statement. “I want people who can love the United States and all of its citizens, and who will be hardworking and productive.”

Trump has been incensed since his original executive order, signed on Jan. 27, was partially blocked by a federal court.

“What is our country coming to when a judge can halt a Homeland Security travel ban and anyone, even with bad intentions can come into U.S.?” Trump tweeted on Feb. 4.

He added on Feb. 11: “Our legal system is broken!”

In early March, Trump issued a revised executive order — which also had key provisions blocked by federal courts.

Trump has been spoiling for the Supreme Court to take up the case and eager to get it out of the hands of what he sees as more liberal appellate judges.

Four days after signing the original ban, Trump nominated Gorsuch to fill the Supreme Court seat vacated when Antonin Scalia died.

Gorsuch, who has since been confirmed, is largely seen as a conservative, originalist justice in the Scalia mold and could help Trump claim an even more definitive victory after arguments.

Omar Jadwat, director of the ACLU’s Immigrants’ Rights Project, called the travel ban unconstitutional, saying, “Courts have repeatedly blocked this indefensible and discriminatory ban. The Supreme Court now has a chance to permanently strike it down.”

First off, the act of immigrating to America is NOT A CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT.

It is a privilege extended to those who request it legally and who possess the documentation and pass the background requirements that ensure the safety of our citizenry and the continued sovereignty of our nation.

Frankly…why should we allow people into our country who want to kill us?

What about other Presidents? How did they feel about “multi-culturalism” and allowing people in who do not like us?

In the first place, we should insist that if the immigrant who comes here in good faith becomes an American and assimilates himself to us, he shall be treated on an exact equality with everyone else, for it is an outrage to discriminate against any such man because of creed, or birthplace, or origin. But this is predicated upon the person’s becoming in every facet an American, and nothing but an American…There can be no divided allegiance here. Any man who says he is an American, but something else also, isn’t an American at all. We have room for but one flag, the American flag… We have room for but one language here, and that is the English language… and we have room for but one sole loyalty and that is a loyalty to the American people.” – Theodore Roosevelt

The Immigration Act of 1924 was passed because America had experienced an overwhelming flood of immigrants, which strained the resources of our nation.

That act allowed all of those immigrants to be assimilated into American Society and to actually become Americans, in thought, word, deed, and LOYALTY.

Later, Liberal President Jimmy Carter stopped Iranians from immigrating, because, just like the situation we faced today with Radical Islam, we were AT WAR.

In fact, Obama and his Administration were themselves actually restrictive in whom they allowed to immigrate to America, refusing the entry of Middle Eastern Christians, who were and are attempting to escape from certain death at the hands of Radical Islamists.

The Godfather of Conservative Radio Talk Show Programing, Rush Limbaugh, was on at the time of this historical ruling. According to Maha Rushie,

There was never any doubt that this travel ban was constitutional. The very federal statute that exists, we read it to you I don’t know how many times, Trump totally satisfied it with this travel ban. The only reason to stop this was political hacks that have been appointed to the judiciary by Obama and other Democrat presidents. And they were simply implementing personal political policy preferences to stop the travel ban rather than looking at is as a matter of law.

It was only a matter of time, folks. I never doubted this. When the Supreme Court saw this, the law is the law, the statute’s the statute. And the Supreme Court was gonna slap this down in no time, and it did. Now, the fact that they’re gonna hear it formally in October doesn’t mean that they’re gonna overturn it. It means they want to probably officially hear this thing and give it the official stamp of approval once it’s all said and done, because this is explicitly about the Constitution and separation of powers. And the judicial branch was way overstepping here for personal political policy reasons on the part of all the judges who decided this. Unanimous.

The only reason that the Democrat Elite are mad about Donald J. Trump restricting the immigration of those who would kill us, is that he is thwarting their plans to rapidly import thousands of un-vetted Muslims, whom they view as potential Democrat Voters, into our country.

And, the Democrats who run Hawaii are worried about their Tourism Industry.

Aloha! Would you like a lei to go along with that bomb?

They could care less about the results of their avarice.

Like all Liberals, they remain oblivious of their own callous hypocrisy.

As was attempted  by taking the Travel Ban before two separate Appeals Courts, Liberals have made an art form out of circumventing the will of the American people by taking things before Liberal Judicial Activists.

However, this time is not about allowing two hairy-legged gents to roll around under the sheets together and label it a “marriage” in the name of “love”.

This time, it is about allowing those who want to kill us to come into our Sovereign Nation without being properly vetted.

They should be grateful to President Trump.

While performing the duties of his job , which, as he said, includes ensuring the safety of the American People…

He is saving the Democrats from themselves.

Until He Comes,

KJ

Supreme Court to Decide Whether Non-Citizens Have the “Constitutional Right” to Sue in American Courts

February 22, 2017

thels14hik

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. – Amendment IV, The United States Constitution

Foxnews.com reports that

The Supreme Court expressed sympathy Tuesday for the family of a Mexican teenager fatally shot from across the U.S.-Mexico line by a Border Patrol agent, but struggled to reach consensus on whether foreign nationals – like the teen’s relatives – can sue in American courts.

The divisions were on display during oral arguments for what has become a closely watched case, amid an escalating political debate in Washington over border security. The arguments were held the same day the Department of Homeland Security released new directives on immigration enforcement, and after a lower federal court blocked a separate executive action from President Trump on immigration and refugee restrictions.

Apart from renewed interest in the court’s consideration of immigration disputes, the case heard Tuesday also could have implications for other U.S. government actions taken overseas — including military drone strikes against suspected terrorists, and electronic surveillance over the Internet.

In the current dispute, 15-year-old Sergio Hernandez was just steps from the border on Mexican soil when he was killed in 2010 by Jesus Mesa Jr., an agent standing on the American side in El Paso, Texas.

The federal agent was not prosecuted, and the U.S. refused to extradite him to Mexico. The victim’s family says a civil action is now their only recourse for justice.

The issues for the court are whether the officer enjoys immunity from such claims of excessive force, and whether the victim enjoyed limited constitutional protections, even though he was not a U.S. citizen.

During a spirited, 70-minute public session at the high court, the eight justices appeared divided over just what kind of violations by the U.S. government against foreigners merit legal action, and whether courts should even get involved.

“This is one of the most sensitive areas of foreign affairs where the political branches should discuss with Mexico what the solution ought to be,” said Justice Anthony Kennedy. “This an urgent matter of separation of powers for us to respect the duty that the principle rule the executive and the legislative have with respect to foreign affairs.”

But Justice Sonia Sotomayor wondered, “Why should there not be a civil remedy to ensure that border police are complying with the Constitution? … Wouldn’t shooting potshots at Mexican citizens be shocking to the conscience?”

Both sides in the shooting incident offer differing accounts of what happened in June 2010, when Hernandez and three of his friends were spotted hanging around a concrete culvert along the Rio Grande waterway separating the two countries.

Video shot on a phone by a civilian shows the agent shooting Hernandez as the unarmed boy peeked out from behind a railroad trestle, 60 feet away.

Mesa’s lawyers and supporters say unreleased surveillance video shows the agent was under threat from rocks being thrown at him, and that he acted appropriately.

While Mesa was never prosecuted, other border agents have been in separate incidents, including Lonnie Swartz for second-degree murder in the 2012 death of a 16-year-old Mexican boy. The agent has pleaded not guilty and his trial is pending.

An outside report commissioned by U.S. Customs and Border Protection faulted the agency for not fully investigating 67 shootings incidents from 2010-2012.

Immigration rights activists in particular have criticized incidents along the often-unmarked border, which Justice Elena Kagan called a “no-man’s land”– where determining what happened and where can prove challenging.

Both sides agree had Hernandez been on U.S. soil at the time of the shooting — even illegally — the agent could be sued in civil court.

But Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said the real issue here concerns the actions of the agent himself.

“It’s the United States law operating on the United States official who’s acting inside the United States,” she said. “This case has, as far as the conduct is concerned, United States written all over it. There’s nothing about Mexico. The Border Patrol guard doesn’t take his orders from Mexico.”

But Chief Justice John Roberts repeatedly urged lawyers for Hernandez’s family to offer a standard on just when such claims can be pressed, offering a contemporary hypothetical.

“How do you analyze the case of a drone strike in Iraq where the plane is piloted from Nevada?” he asked.

Given the competing arguments at Tuesday’s public sessions, the court may find it difficult to articulate a clear standard even for similar cases occurring within shooting distance of the border. A 4-4 tie would not create any precedent, but would stop the Hernandez lawsuit from proceeding.

The family’s lawyer said after the arguments that the Trump administration’s controversial immigration policies make it imperative the courts step in.

“It intensifies the danger if there is no Constitution when the border agents interact with the folks they are trying to deport,” said Robert Hilliard. “There is going to be more of a need to have the executive’s conduct reviewed by the judiciary. Right now there is no checks on the executive. There’s no separation of powers.”

But the attorney for the border agent told Fox News that, if his side loses, public safety could be compromised if agents feared being subjected to lawsuits. “I think it would create a chilling effect for all those protecting our borders and our national security in times of critical incidents on when to act and when to protect themselves in times of peril,” Randolph Ortega said.

The case is Hernandez v. Mesa (15-118). A ruling is expected by June.

Placing the fact of the wasted life of a 16-year old aside, the question remains:

How can non-citizens possibly have “Constitutional Rights”?

The child’s parents are Mexican Citizens, residing in Mexico, as was their 16-year old son.

How can “their 4th Amendment Rights” have been violated?

They do not reside on American Soil, therefore the laws, which our Founding Fathers  established to protect our Sovereign Nation’s Citizens, do not apply to them.

Illegal Immigrants do not have Constitutional Rights, either. However, they have had them bestowed upon them by sympathetic courts, when they are involved in “trifling” legal matters. like, say, the MURDER of an American Citizen.

Legal Immigrants, on the other hand, earned their citizenship. They showed that they were willing to become a part of the Great American Melting Pot (from the Schoolhouse Rock video of the same name).

They demonstrated that, as the US Citizen and Immigration services states, that they were willing to…

Support the Constitution;
Renounce and abjure absolutely and entirely all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty of whom or which the applicant was before a subject or citizen;
Support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic;
Bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and
A. Bear arms on behalf of the United States when required by the law; or
B. Perform noncombatant service in the Armed Forces of the United States when required by the law; or
C. Perform work of national importance under civilian direction when required by the law.

Additionally, these legal immigrants also took the following oath:

I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty, of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen; that I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I will bear arms on behalf of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform noncombatant service in the Armed Forces of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform work of national importance under civilian direction when required by the law; and that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; so help me God.

Perhaps, if the young man’s parents had raised him to be respectful of America’s Southern Border and the Americans who faithfully guard it, they would still have their son.

But, there I go again, expecting other nations to have our value systems and their people to exercise personal responsibility.

It’s far easier to disrespect a Sovereign Nation’s Borders and rely on the avarice and naiveté of those in the Judicial and  Legislative Branches of that country’s Governments to bestow those rights upon you, for the sake of Political Power.

Until He Comes,

KJ

The Death of Justice Antonin Scalia: Time to Start “Borking”

February 14, 2016

Pendulum-NRD-600Last night, President Barack Hussein Obama addressed the nation concerning the passing of Conservative Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia. As he showed during a State of the Union Address, several years back, to say that he did not care for this Judicial Giant, would be putting it mildly.

In fact, as his remarks, courtesy of whitehouse.gov reveal, ol’ Scooter is positively chomping at the bit to replace him with a Far left Extremist Judicial Activist of his own choosing.

Good evening, everybody.  For almost 30 years, Justice Antonin “Nino” Scalia was a larger-than-life presence on the bench — a brilliant legal mind with an energetic style, incisive wit, and colorful opinions.     He influenced a generation of judges, lawyers, and students, and profoundly shaped the legal landscape.  He will no doubt be remembered as one of the most consequential judges and thinkers to serve on the Supreme Court.  Justice Scalia dedicated his life to the cornerstone of our democracy:  The rule of law.  Tonight, we honor his extraordinary service to our nation and remember one of the towering legal figures of our time.

     Antonin Scalia was born in Trenton, New Jersey to an Italian immigrant family.  After graduating from Georgetown University and Harvard Law School, he worked at a law firm and taught law before entering a life of public service.  He rose from Assistant Attorney General for the Office of Legal Counsel to Judge on the D.C. Circuit Court, to Associate Justice of the Supreme Court.

     A devout Catholic, he was the proud father of nine children and grandfather to many loving grandchildren.  Justice Scalia was both an avid hunter and an opera lover — a passion for music that he shared with his dear colleague and friend, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg.  Michelle and I were proud to welcome him to the White House, including in 2012 for a State Dinner for Prime Minister David Cameron.  And tonight, we join his fellow justices in mourning this remarkable man.

     Obviously, today is a time to remember Justice Scalia’s legacy.  I plan to fulfill my constitutional responsibilities to nominate a successor in due time.  There will be plenty of time for me to do so, and for the Senate to fulfill its responsibility to give that person a fair hearing and a timely vote.  These are responsibilities that I take seriously, as should everyone.  They’re bigger than any one party.  They are about our democracy.  They’re about the institution to which Justice Scalia dedicated his professional life, and making sure it continues to function as the beacon of justice that our Founders envisioned.

     But at this moment, we most of all want to think about his family, and Michelle and I join the nation in sending our deepest sympathies to Justice Scalia’s wife, Maureen, and their loving family — a beautiful symbol of a life well lived.  We thank them for sharing Justice Scalia with our country. 

God bless them all, and God bless the United States of America.

The Liebrals, over at The Washington Post elaborated on the situation facing our nation and Obama’s possible choices.

President Obama declared Saturday that he intends to nominate a replacement for the late Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, a move aimed at deepening his imprint on the nation’s highest court.

“I plan to fulfill my constitutional responsibilities to nominate a successor in due time,” Obama said, adding that there’s “plenty of time” for the Senate “to give that person a fair hearing and a timely vote. These are responsibilities that I take seriously, as should everyone. They’re bigger than any one party — they’re about a democracy.”

But the president faces a fierce and protracted battle with Republicans who have already signaled that they have no intention of allowing Obama to choose a nominee to succeed Scalia.

Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) and Senate Judiciary Committee Charles E. Grassley (R-Iowa) said that Scalia should not be replaced until the next president has taken office. “The American people should have a voice in the selection of their next Supreme Court Justice,” McConnell said in a statement.

Senate Minority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) rejected that position. “It would be unprecedented in recent history for the Supreme Court to go a year with a vacant seat,” he said in a statement. “Failing to fill this vacancy would be a shameful abdication of one of the Senate’s most essential Constitutional responsibilities.”

Obama has nominated two justices to the court in the past, and he has expressed the desire for jurists with empathy. He did not discuss his thinking about that on Saturday night. Instead, he used the moment to pay tribute to Scalia, whom he described as an “extraordinary judicial thinker.”

In selecting Supreme Court nominees, Obama has relied heavily on the advice of Vice President Biden, a former Senate Judiciary chairman. Biden has demonstrated again and again a strong working relationship with McConnell, having previously negotiated several tax and budget deals. The court nomination may hinge on Biden’s ability to reach a deal with McConnell again.

But the fate of the nomination would clearly be in Republican hands. While Democrats were able to change the rules in 2013 to make it easier to approve lower court judges with a simple majority, Supreme Court nominations still require 60 votes to advance past an opposition filibuster. To derail or delay the nomination, McConnell could simply not schedule a vote, but even if he allows Senate consideration of the nomination, Democrats do not have the numbers to overcome a GOP filibuster.

Although the Republican-controlled Congress could easily thwart an Obama nominee, such a decision could reverberate across the presidential campaign and into in the November elections, in which several GOP senators face tough, competitive races.

The most immediate outcome of the Scalia vacancy is that it offers Obama the chance to draw sharper battle lines with Republicans during an increasingly acrimonious presidential election.

The administration now faces a chaotic political and legal environment in which the president must prepare for a bitter confirmation fight or embrace the prospect of a deadlocked Supreme Court divided evenly between liberals and conservatives.

Scalia’s death also throws into doubt the outcome of some of the most controversial issues facing the nation in cases before the court this term: abortion, affirmative action, the rights of religious objectors to the contraceptive mandate in the Affordable Care Act, and the president’s powers on immigration and deportation.

A deadlocked court could leave appellate decisions in place without setting a precedent. That would please the administration on a case involving union membership, for instance, but would keep Obama’s executive action on deportation from being implemented.

White House officials would not comment Saturday evening on their deliberations about a potential nominee, but the administration has an extensive list of possible candidates to choose from, including some who would change the face of the court by virtue of their race or sexual orientation.

“Blocking a strong person of color, a woman or an historic LGBT candidate for the Supreme Court might cause conservatives more trouble than they think they’re preventing,” said Robert Raben, a Democratic consultant and lobbyist who served as a senior Justice Department official under President Clinton. “The perception of unfairness or bias at the height of a national election could seriously backfire.”

One former senior administration official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the subject, said the president was likely to look to someone young enough to make a mark on the court over several decades. Obama has appointed several such jurists to U.S. appellate courts, the person noted, providing him with a relatively deep bench to from which to choose.

Among the leading candidates would be Sri Srinivasan, a judge on U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, who was confirmed to seat in a 97-to-0 Senate vote in May 2013. Srinivasan would be the first South Asian American on the court. He worked in the U.S. Solicitor General’s office under both Obama and President George W. Bush, and clerked for former Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor.

Other contenders from that same court include its chief judge, Merrick Garland, who is well liked by conservatives and was a finalist for such a nomination when Obama selected Justice Elena Kagan in 2010. Patricia Ann Millett, who won confirmation to the D.C. Circuit in December 2013, may also be considered.

Obama could also look to current or former administration officials, said those familiar with the president’s thinking, or even to the Senate. Among those officials are Attorney General Loretta E. Lynch, Solicitor General Donald B. Verrilli Jr., Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson and Eric Holder, the former attorney general.

Other potential choices could include Deval Patrick (D), the former governor of Massachusetts, or Paul Smith, who chairs the appellate and Supreme Court practice at Jenner & Block and, if confirmed, would be the first openly gay justice.

Beyond the D.C. Circuit, there are many other appellate judges the president could look to in selecting a nominee. Those include Paul Watford and Mary H. Murguia of the 9th Circuit; Albert Diaz of the 4th Circuit and Ojetta Rogeriee Thompson of the 1st Circuit.

Regardless of whom Obama selects, the combination of the timing of the opening, the stark division on the court and deeply partisan passion being evoked in both presidential primaries would make this confirmation battle unlike any of the past 40 years.

The last confirmation in the eighth year of a presidency was Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, whose 97-to-0 vote in February 1988 came after two failed nomination efforts by President Reagan in the face of a Democratic-controlled Senate in late 1987. Kennedy is seen as a traitor among conservative activists, who view his rulings on abortion and gay rights with the liberal bloc as an example of GOP leaders choosing political expediency over ideological rigidity.

The only other attempt to fill a vacancy during a presidential election year came in 1968, when President Lyndon Johnson tried to elevate Abe Fortas to be chief justice. The Senate blocked Fortas. Subsequently, the other nomination to fill Fortas’s spot as associate justice was withdrawn during the final months of Johnson’s presidency.

Under normal circumstances, the nomination of a justice takes about 75 to 90 days, the first 60 or so involving a thorough vetting process by the Senate Judiciary Committee. Typically, the panel does not consider judicial nominees after mid-May, under a tradition established by the late Strom Thurmond (R-S.C.). While chairing the Judiciary Committee, Thurmond declared that he would not take up new judicial nominations within a few months of a presidential election.

Filling the post of Scalia, however, will be anything but normal. He was the outspoken champion for the court’s conservative wing and had many admirers in the Senate, including McConnell. Obama’s first two appointments to the court were relatively easy because Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Kagan were replacing liberal-leaning justices.

Senate conservatives, already predisposed to not approve of Obama’s choice, might be loath to allow him to replace their judicial hero with a liberal jurist who would tip the court in a left-leaning direction. As of now, Sotomayor and Kagan often sided with Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen G. Breyer in the most ideologically driven cases, with Kennedy and sometimes Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. providing the tie-breaking votes.

If Republicans leave the Scalia seat vacant for any lengthy time, that sets up the chance of a series of 4-to-4 votes in which the ruling of the lower federal court would stand as the law of that particular region of the country.

That political math in the Senate means Obama will need the support of all 46 members of the Democratic caucus and at least 14 Republicans to end a filibuster and successfully appoint Scalia’s successor. In the president’s previous Supreme Court nominations, just nine and then four Republicans voted to confirm Sotomayor and Kagan, respectively.

So, what now? I will tell you “What Now”.

Time for McConnell and the Senate Republicans to grow a spine and do some “Borking”.

What do I mean by “Borking”?

On October 23, 1987, The New York Times printed the following article…

One of the fiercest battles ever waged over a Supreme Court nominee ended today as the Senate decisively rejected the nomination of Judge Robert H. Bork.The vote was 58 against confirmation and 42 in favor, the biggest margin by which the Senate has ever rejected a Supreme Court nomination. [ Roll call, page 10. ] Judge Bork’s was the 27th Supreme Court nomination to fail in the country’s history, the sixth in this century, and the first since 1970, when the Senate rejected President Nixon’s nomination of G. Harrold Carswell by a vote of 51 to 45. There have been 104 Supreme Court justices in the nation’s history.

The vote came two weeks after Judge Bork, in the face of expected defeat, said he would not withdraw his name and wanted the full Senate to vote on his nomination. In a statement issued from his chambers at the Federal courthouse here, where he still serves on the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, Judge Bork said he was ”glad the debate took place.”

”There is now a full and permanent record by which the future may judge not only me but the proper nature of a confirmation proceeding,” the 60-year-old judge said.

President Reagan, in a statement released by the White House, said, ”I am saddened and disappointed that the Senate has bowed today to a campaign of political pressure.” The Next Nominee? In the final hours of the three-day debate on the Senate floor, senators turned their attention to the next nominee for the vacancy on the court. The White House is not expected to name a new candidate before the middle of next week.

The President has publicly vowed to find a nominee who will upset Judge Bork’s opponents ”just as much” as Judge Bork himself. Mr. Reagan said today, ”My next nominee for the Court will share Judge Bork’s belief in judicial restraint – that a judge is bound by the Constitution to interpret laws, not make them.”

Meanwhile, senators on both sides of the debate urged the President to adopt a less confrontational tone.

Now, in the last year of the Obama Presidency (Praise God), it is imperative for the United States Senate to adopt president Reagan’s “confrontational tone”.

Why? Well, here is a quote for you…

In our own times, a coherent socialist movement is nowhere to be found in the United States. Americans are more likely to speak of a golden past than of a golden future, of capitalism’s glories than of socialism’s greatness. Conformity overrides dissent; the desire to conserve has overwhelmed the urge to alter. Such a state of affairs cries out for explanation. Why, in a society by no means perfect, has a radical party never attained the status of a major political force? Why, in particular, did the socialist movement never become an alternative to the nation’s established parties?

Who said that?  Karl Marx?  Vladimir Lenin?  Danny Glover?  George Clooney?  Barack Hussein Obama (mm mmm mmmm)?  Nope.  It was the Obama-appointed and Senate-ratified, Supreme Court Justice, Elena Kagan.  The quote was a part of her senior thesis, written almost thirty years ago while an undergraduate at Princeton. The title of the thesis: “To the Final Conflict: Socialism in New York City, 1900-1933”.

The Senate must “Bork” every single Supreme Court Nomination of this Lame Duck President.

He has done enough damage to our country, already.

Until He Comes,

KJ

 

Why America Remains a Predominantly Christian Nation (A KJ Sunday Morning Op Ed)

December 27, 2015

th1DXO5NI3The death of American Christianity has been greatly exaggerated.

The Christian Post Reports that

About 75 percent of Americans still identify as Christians, after a 5-percent drop since 2008, according to a new Gallup poll, which also shows that the number of those having no formal religious identification has increased by 5 percent, amounting to 20 percent.

A review of more than 174,000 interviews conducted by Gallup this year shows that three-quarters of American adults identify as Christians, little changed from 2014, but down from 80 percent eight years ago, the survey says. 

“Despite these changes, America remains a predominantly Christian nation, and with 94% of those who identify with a religion saying they are Christian,” the poll notes, adding that the percentage of Christians is highest among older Americans and decreases with each progressively younger age group.

The Christian category in the poll includes Catholics, Protestants, Mormons and non-denominational Christians.

In 2015, 24 percent of Americans identify as Catholic, 50 percent as Protestant or as members of another non-Catholic Christian religion, and 2 percent as Mormon, according to Gallup.

About 20 percent of Americans have no formal religious identification, which is up five percentage points since 2008, the survey says. About 5 percent of Americans identify with a non-Christian religion, which has been essentially constant over this time period, it adds.

The poll shows that the percentage of Christians is highest among older Americans and decreases with each progressively younger age group.

“One key to the future of Christian representation in the U.S. population will be shifts in the religious identification of today’s youngest cohorts,” pollsters say. “Traditionally, Americans have become more likely to identify with a religion as they age through their 30s and 40s and get married and have children. If this pattern does not occur in the same way it has in the past, the percentage of Christians nationwide will likely continue to shrink.”

A major religious trend in the U.S. has been the increasing number of Americans who say they do not have a formal religious identification, known as “nones,” the survey notes.

“This expansion has been accompanied by the shrinkage in the number of people who identify as Christian,” it adds. “More than 95% of Americans identified as Christian in the 1950s, and 80% did so as recently as eight years ago. While the 5% of the population who identify with a non-Christian faith is higher than it was decades ago, it has not shown significant change over the past eight years.”

As I was trying to choose what to write about on this Sunday Morning after the Celebration of our Savior’s Birth, a hard, cold fact struck my simple mind:  We are living in a country that is suffering under the tyranny of a minority. 

Not a racial minority, mind you, but an ideological one.

As the Gallup Poll referenced in the above article plainly states, 75% of Americans still self-identify as being Christians.

And yet, we are under attack daily, from the Main Stream Media, Cable and Satellite Television Programs, Social Media, and the current President of the United States of America and his Administration.

As Rev. Franklin Graham, the head of Samaritan’s Purse and the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association, declared in the August-September 2014 Edition of Decision Magazine, “Heaven is not for cowards!”

“Christians cannot ignore parts of God’s Word because they are unpopular or cause division. Our commission is to proclaim Christ and all He stands for,” wrote Graham.

“This is what the church’s presence in the world is all about. We cannot sincerely proclaim the truth of God’s love while ignoring what He hates, and God hates sin.”

Graham also stressed the need for “godly courage” and for Christians to speak out against abortion and homosexuality.

“We are soldiers in God’s army, and we cannot stand down on biblical issues out of fear of being labeled a homophobe or judge,” wrote Graham.

“People make judgments every day. The world’s system passes judgments accepted by governments and citizens. But the world considers Christian judgment to be biased, judgmental and intolerant,” he added.

In a column published in the July-August edition of Decision magazine, the head of Samaritan’s Purse and the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association, declared that “Heaven is not for cowards!”

“Christians cannot ignore parts of God’s Word because they are unpopular or cause division. Our commission is to proclaim Christ and all He stands for,” wrote Graham.

“This is what the church’s presence in the world is all about. We cannot sincerely proclaim the truth of God’s love while ignoring what He hates, and God hates sin.”

Graham also stressed the need for “godly courage” and for Christians to speak out against abortion and homosexuality.

“We are soldiers in God’s army, and we cannot stand down on biblical issues out of fear of being labeled a homophobe or judge,” wrote Graham.

“People make judgments every day. The world’s system passes judgments accepted by governments and citizens. But the world considers Christian judgment to be biased, judgmental and intolerant,” he added.

Rev. Graham was spot on.

I can testify from personal experience, having caught flack for sticking to my Christian American Conservative Principles, since beginning my daily posts on this blog in April of 2010.

My posts, concerning American Christianity, seem to “touch a nerve” in both Liberals and Atheists, alike. (But, in at least some cases, I repeat myself.)

Their reaction has hardly been unexpected.

Of course, one of the Hot Button Issues, which those Liberals and Atheists who responded, over the years, immediately denied, was that our Founding Fathers were Christians and that our country was founded on a Judeo-Christian Belief System.

Evidently, they had never read anything, except what their like-minded, non-believing soothsayers, allowed them to.  Or else, they would have read historical documents like President George Washington’s Thanksgiving Day Proclamation, written on November 1, 1777, and found at wallbuilders.com:

The committee appointed to prepare a recommendation to the several states, to set apart a day of public thanksgiving, brought in a report; which was taken into consideration, and agreed to as follows:

Forasmuch as it is the indispensable duty of all men to adore the superintending providence of Almighty God; to acknowledge with gratitude their obligation to him for benefits received, and to implore such farther blessings as they stand in need of; and it having pleased him in his abundant mercy not only to continue to us the innumerable bounties of his common providence, but also smile upon us in the prosecution of a just and necessary war, for the defense and establishment of our unalienable rights and liberties; particularly in that he hath been pleased in so great a measure to prosper the means used for the support of our troops and to crown our arms with most signal success:

It is therefore recommended to the legislative or executive powers of these United States, to set apart Thursday, the 18th day of December next, for solemn thanksgiving and praise; that with one heart and one voice the good people may express the grateful feelings of their hearts, and consecrate themselves to the service of their divine benefactor; and that together with their sincere acknowledgments and offerings, they may join the penitent confession of their manifold sins, whereby they had forfeited every favor, and their humble and earnest supplication that it may please God, through the merits of Jesus Christ, mercifully to forgive and blot them out of remembrance; that it may please him graciously to afford his blessings on the governments of these states respectively, and prosper the public council of the whole; to inspire our commanders both by land and sea, and all under them, with that wisdom and fortitude which may render them fit instruments, under the providence of Almighty God, to secure for these United States the greatest of all blessings, independence and peace; that it may please him to prosper the trade and manufactures of the people and the labor of the husbandman, that our land may yield its increase; to take schools and seminaries of education, so necessary for cultivating the principles of true liberty, virtue and piety, under his nurturing hand, and to prosper the means of religion for the promotion and enlargement of that kingdom which consisteth in righteousness, peace and joy in the Holy Ghost.

And it is further recommended, that servile labor, and such recreation as, though at other times innocent, may be unbecoming the purpose of this appointment, be omitted on so solemn an occasion.

Of course, the Poster Boy for the claim by Liberal/Atheist responders, concerning the Founders’ lack of  Christianity, is Thomas Jefferson.

Atheists like to bring up the fact that he wrote a version of the Bible which left out Christ’s miracles.  What they are reluctant to do, though, is explain why he wrote his book that way.  David Barton explains on wallbuilders.com:

The reader [of a newspaper article which Barton is replying to], 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.

Atheist Activists and young and/or misinformed Liberals, who replied to my blogs, insisted that Crosses and other Chrstian symbols have no place in the Public Square.  As we have witnessed in the past month, repeatedly, they wish for Christians to remain unseen and unheard from, worshiping in private, on Sunday mornings, only.

Unfortunately for them, The First Amendment to the Constitution still holds.

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.

So,  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, or have, turned your backs on the Christian Faith in which you were raised,  to worship popular culture, instead, have every right to your lack of faith…which, is actually a faith unto itself.

And, the overwhelming majority in this country, Christian Americans, will continue to exercise ours.

No matter what Liberal Supreme Court Justices may “legislate”.

God of our Fathers, whose almighty hand
leads forth in beauty all the starry band
of shining worlds in splendor through the skies,
our grateful songs before thy throne arise.

Until He Comes,

KJ

 

 

Christian American Kim Davis is Jailed. What’s Next? A Date With Lions in the Nearest Coliseum?

September 3, 2015

th1DXO5NI310Finally, be strong in the Lord and in the strength of His might. 11Put on the full armor of God, so that you will be able to stand firm against the schemes of the devil. 12For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the powers, against the world forces of this darkness, against the spiritual forces of wickedness in the heavenly places.…- Ephesians 6:10-12

Yesterday, something happened that,  at one time,  I never thought I would see in the United States of America.

A Christian was arrested for standing on principle and the Word of God.

The New York Times reported that

ASHLAND, Ky. — A defiant county clerk rejected a proposal that would have allowed her deputies to grant same-sex marriage licenses, hours after she was sent to jail by a federal judge for disobeying a court order.

Through her lawyer, the clerk, Kim Davis of Rowan County, said she would not agree to allow the licenses to be issued under her authority as county clerk. Had she consented, the judge would have considered releasing her from custody.

Five of the six deputies told Judge David L. Bunning of Federal District Court that they would issue the licenses, though some of them said they would do so reluctantly. The lone holdout was Ms. Davis’s son, Nathan.

Ms. Davis had argued that the Supreme Court order that she issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples infringed upon her religious beliefs and liberties. But after a hearing, Judge Bunning said that “her good faith belief is simply not a viable defense,” and ordered Ms. Davis to jail.

Mike Huckabee, currently campaigning for the Republican Party’s Presidential Candidate Nomination, who happens to be an ordained Minister, made a very cogent point on Facebook, yesterday…

I spoke with Kim Davis this morning to offer my prayers and support. I let her know how proud I am of her for not abandoning her religious convictions and standing strong for religious liberty. She is showing more courage and humility than just about any federal office holder in Washington.

Kim is asking the perfect question: “Under what law am I authorized to issue homosexual couples a marriage license?” That simple question is giving many in Congress a civics lesson that they never got in grade school.

The Supreme Court cannot and did not make a law. They only made a ruling on a law. Congress makes the laws. Because Congress has made no law allowing for same sex marriage, Kim does not have the Constitutional authority to issue a marriage license to homosexual couples.

Kim is a person of great conviction. When people of conviction fight for what’s right they often pay a price, but if they don’t and we surrender, we will pay a far greater price for bowing to the false God of judicial supremacy. Government is not God. No man – and certainly no unelected lawyer – has the right to redefine the laws of nature or of nature’s God. Five unelected lawyers have abused their power by ruling in favor of a national right to same-sex marriage with no legal precedent and with nothing in our Constitution to back it up. They have violated American’s most fundamental right guaranteed by our Constitution – religious liberty.

I stand with Kim Davis and every American of faith under attack by Washington elites who have nothing but disdain for us, our faith and the Constitution.

Another Republican running for that party’s Presidential Candidate Nomination, Senator Ted Cruz, put it this way…

Today, judicial lawlessness crossed into judicial tyranny. Today, for the first time ever, the government arrested a Christian woman for living according to her faith. This is wrong. This is not America.

I stand with Kim Davis. Unequivocally. I stand with every American that the Obama Administration is trying to force to choose between honoring his or her faith or complying with a lawless court decision.

In dissent, Chief Justice Roberts rightly observed that the Court’s marriage decision has nothing to do with the Constitution. Justice Scalia observed that the Court’s decision was so contrary to law that state and local officials would choose to defy it.

For every politician — Democrat and Republican — who is tut-tutting that Davis must resign, they are defending a hypocritical standard. Where is the call for the mayor of San Francisco to resign for creating a sanctuary city — resulting in the murder of American citizens by criminal illegal aliens welcomed by his lawlessness?

Where is the call for President Obama to resign for ignoring and defying our immigration laws, our welfare reform laws, and even his own Obamacare?

When the mayor of San Francisco and President Obama resign, then we can talk about Kim Davis.

Those who are persecuting Kim Davis believe that Christians should not serve in public office. That is the consequence of their position. Or, if Christians do serve in public office, they must disregard their religious faith–or be sent to jail.

Kim Davis should not be in jail. We are a country founded on Judeo-Christian values, founded by those fleeing religious oppression and seeking a land where we could worship God and live according to our faith, without being imprisoned for doing so.

I call upon every Believer, every Constitutionalist, every lover of liberty to stand with Kim Davis. Stop the persecution now.

On the Facebook Political Pages which I frequent, this has been a very hot topic for discussion.

Liberals and Moderates, but I repeat myself, all believe that Mrs. Davis must step down or resign.

My question is, why are her rights less important than the rights of this gay couple who, purposefully, with cameras following them, pressed this issue, knowing full well that Mrs Davis is a Christian Woman?

Are Christian Americans’ rights, as over 70% of the population, now less worthy than homosexual rights, who only comprise 2% of our population?

As Senator Cruz pointed out, aren’t the Liberals calling for her incarceration and resignation, being very selective in the laws which they wish to persecute and prosecute somebody over?

And, why are these gay couples not also challenging American Muslims?

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.

And, no Supreme Court full of Activist Judges can do anything about it.

It’s above their pay grade.

Until He Comes,

KJ