|By Bill FedererOn OCTOBER 15, 1788, James Madison warned:
“As the courts are generally the last in making the decision, it results to them, by refusing or not refusing to execute a law, to stamp it with its final character.This makes the Judiciary department paramount in fact to the Legislature, which was never intended and can never be proper.”
On OCTOBER 15, 1991, the U.S. Senate confirmed Clarence Thomas as a Supreme Court Justice. During the hearings, in reply to Senator Thurmond, Clarence Thomas replied:”The role of a judge is a limited one. It is to…interpret the Constitution, where called upon, but at no point to impose his or her will or…opinion in that process.”
Thomas Jefferson wrote to Abigail Adams, September 11, 1804:
“Nothing in the Constitution has given them (judges) a right to decide for the Executive, more than to the Executive to decide for them…
The opinion which gives to the judges the right to decide what laws are constitutional… not only for themselves in their own sphere of action, but for the legislature and executive…would make the judiciary a despotic branch.”
Webster’s Dictionary defined “despot” as:
“Absolute and arbitrary authority power… independent of the control of men.”
“You seem…to consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions;a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy...”
“Our judges are as honest as other men, and not more so….and their power (is) the more dangerous, as they are in office for life and not responsible , as the other functionaries are, to the elective control.
The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal,knowing that to whatever hands confided, with corruptions of time and party, its members would become despots.”
In his 1841 Inaugural Address, PresidentWilliam Henry Harrison warned:
“The great danger to our institutions does…appear to me to be…theaccumulation in one of the departments of that which was assigned to others.
Limited as are the powers which have been granted, still enough have been granted to constitute a despotism if concentrated in one of the departments.”
In 1857, Democrat appointed JusticeRoger Taney gave the Supreme Court’s infamous Dred Scott decision that slaves were not citizens, but property.
Lincoln alluded to this decision in his First Inaugural Address, March 4, 1861:”I do not forget the position assumed by some that constitutional questions are to be decided by the Supreme Court…
having to that extent practically resigned their Government into the hands of the eminent tribunal.“
Thomas Jefferson warned Mr. Hammond in 1821:
“The germ of dissolution of our federal government is in…the federal judiciary;
an irresponsible body…working like gravity by night and by day, gaining a little today and a little tomorrow, and advancing its noiseless step like a thief, over the field of jurisdiction, until all shall be usurped from the States.”
Jefferson wrote September 6, 1819:
“The Constitution is a mere thing of wax in the hands of the judiciary, which they may twist and shape into any form they please.”
Thomas Jefferson explained to Supreme Court Justice William Johnson, June 12, 1823:”On every question of construction, carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates,and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed.”
Baron Montesquieu, the most frequently quoted writer by the Framers of the Constitution, warned of the dangers of uncontrolled judicial power in his Spirit of the Laws, 1748:”Nor is there liberty if the power of judging is not separated from legislative power and from executive power.If it were joined to legislative power, the power over life and liberty of the citizens would be arbitrary, for the judge would be the legislator.
If it were joined to executive power, the judge could have the force of an oppressor.
All would be lost if the same…body of principal men… exercised these three powers.”
Alexis de Tocqueville, author of Democracy in America, 1835, warned:
“The President, who exercises a limited power, may err without causing great mischief in the State.
Congress may decide amiss without destroying the Union, because the electoral body in which Congress originates may cause it to retract its decision
by changing its members.But if the Supreme Court is ever composed of imprudent men or bad citizens, the Union may be plunged into anarchy or civil war.”
Colonial leader John Cotton stated:
“For whatever transcendent power is given, will certainly over-run those that give it…It is necessary therefore, that all power that is on earth be limited.”
“All men having power ought to be distrusted.”
“And of fatal tendency…to put, in the place of the delegated will of the Nation, the will of a party – often a small but artful and enterprising minority…
They are likely, in the course of time and things, to become potent engines, by which cunning, ambitious, and unprincipled men will be enabled to subvert the Power of the People and to usurp for themselves the reins of Government;
destroying afterwards the very engines which have lifted them to unjust dominion.”
“It is easy to conceive that great evils to our country and its institutions might flow from such a concentration of power in the hands of a few men irresponsible to the people.
Mere precedent is a dangerous source of authority, and should not be regarded as deciding questions of constitutional power.”
“In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this:
you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself.”
“All history tells us that a free people should be watchful of delegated power,
and should never acquiesce in a practice which will diminish their control over it.”
Lord Acton wrote to Bishop Mandell Creighton. April 5, 1881:“All power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely.”
American Minute is a registered trademark. Permission is granted to forward. reprint or duplicate with acknowledgement tovwww.AmericanMinute.com
by Bill Federer
“The power to tax is the power to destroy,” wrote John Marshall, 4th Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, who was born SEPTEMBER 24, 1755.No one had a greater impact on Constitutional Law than John Marshall.Home schooled as a youth, he served with the Culpeper Minutemen at the beginning of the Revolutionary War.
Marshall joined the Continental Army and served as a captain in Virginia Regiment under General George Washington, enduring the freezing winter at Valley Forge.
John Marshall later described George Washington:
“Without making ostentatious professions of religion, he was a sincere believer in the Christian faith, and a truly devout man.”
John Marshall then studied law under Chancellor George Wythe at the College of William and Mary.
He as a U.S. Congressman from Virginia, and became Secretary of State under President John Adams, who then nominated him to the Supreme Court.
John Marshall swore in as Chief Justice on February 4, 1801, and served 34 years.
Every Supreme Court session opens with the invocation:
“God save the United States and this Honorable Court.”
John Marshall helped write over 1,000 decisions, usually favoring the Federal Government, which put him at odds with President Thomas Jefferson who championed State Governments.
John Marshall decided in favor of the Cherokee Indian nation to stay in Georgia against the Indian Removal Act of 1830, which was hurriedly pushed through Congress by Democrat President Andrew Jackson.
Ignoring John Marshall’s decision, the Federal Government removed over 46,000 Native Americans from their homes and relocated them west, leaving vacant 25 million acres open to the expansion of slavery.
Chief Justice John Marshall commented May 9, 1833, on the pamphlet The Relation of Christianity to Civil Government in the United States written by Rev. Jasper Adams, President of the College of Charleston, South Carolina (The Papers of John Marshall, ed. Charles Hobson, Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 2006, p, 278):
“No person, I believe, questions the importance of religion to the
The American population is entirely Christian, and with us, Christianity and religion are identified.
It would be strange, indeed, if with such a people, our institutions did not presuppose Christianity, and did not often refer to it, and express relations with it.”
According to tradition, the Liberty Bell cracked while tolling at John Marshall’s funeral, July 8, 1835.
Inside the Supreme Court chamber are Adolph A. Weinman’s marble friezes depicting lawgivers throughout history, including Moses holding the Ten Commandments, and John Marshall.
A story was originally published in the Winchester Republicannewspaper, and recounted in Henry Howe’s Historical Collections of Virginia (Charleston, South Carolina, 1845, p. 275-276; Albert J. Beveridge, The Life of John Marshall, Boston and New York, Houghton Mifflin Company, 1919, Vol. 4, The Building of the Nation, 1815-1835):
“There is, too, a legend about an astonishing flash of eloquence from Marshall – ‘a streak of vivid lightning’ – at a tavern, on the subject of religion.
The impression said to have been made by Marshall on this occasion was heightened by his appearance when he arrived at the inn.
The shafts of his ancient gig were broken and ‘held together by switches formed from the bark of a hickory sapling’; he was negligently dressed, his knee buckles loosened.
In the tavern a discussion arose among some young men concerning ‘the merits of the Christian religion.’
The debate grew warm and lasted ‘from six o’clock until eleven.’
No one knew Marshall, who sat quietly listening.
Finally one of the youthful combatants turned to him and said:
‘Well, my old gentleman, what think you of these things?’
Marshall responded with a ‘most eloquent and unanswerable appeal.’
He talked for an hour, answering ‘every argument urged against the teachings of Jesus.’
‘In the whole lecture, there was so much simplicity and energy, pathos and sublimity, that not another word was uttered.’
The listeners wondered who the old man could be.
Some thought him a preacher; and great was their surprise when they learned afterwards that he was the Chief Justice of the United States.”
Albert J. Beveridge wrote in The Life of John Marshall(Boston and New York, Houghton Mifflin Company, 1919, Vol. IV, The Building of the Nation, 1815-1835, p. 70):
“John Marshall’s daughter makes this statement regarding her father’s religious views:
‘He told me that he believed in the truth of the Christian
He determined to apply to the communion of our Church, objecting to communion in private, because he thought it his duty to make a public confession of the Saviour.’”
Albert J. Beveridge continued in The Life of John Marshall(referencing Bishop William Meade’s Old Churches, Ministers and Families of Virginia, 2 Vols., Richmond, 1910, Vol. 2, p. 221-222):
“He attended (Episcopal) services. Bishop William Meade informs us, not only because ‘he was a sincere friend of religion,’ but also because he wished ‘to set an example.’
The Bishop bears this testimony: ‘I can never forget how he would prostrate his tall form before the rude low benches, without backs, at Coolspring Meeting-House (Leeds Parish, near Oakhill, Fauquier County) in the midst of his children and grandchildren and his old neighbors.’
When in Richmond, Marshall attended the Monumental Church where, says Bishop Meade, ‘he was much incommoded by the narrowness of the pews…
Not finding room enough for his whole body within the pew, he used to take his seat nearest the door of the pew, and, throwing it open, let his legs stretch a little into the aisle.’”
John F. Dillon wrote in John Marshall-Life, Character and Judicial Services-As Portrayed in the Centenary and Memorial Addresses and Proceedings Throughout the United States on John Marshall Day, 1901(Chicago: Callaghan & Company, 1903):
“John Marshall Day, February 4, 1901, was appropriately observed by exercises held in the hall of the House of Representatives, and attended by the President, the members of the Cabinet, the Justices of the Supreme and District courts, the Senate and House of Representatives, and the members of the Bar of the District of
The program, prepared by a Congressional committee acting in conjunction with committees of the American Bar Association and the Bar Association of this District, was characterized by a dignity and simplicity befitting the life of the great Chief Justice…”
After an invocation delivered by John Marshall’s great-grandson, Rev. Dr. William Strother Jones of Trenton, N.J., Chief Justice Fuller made introductory remarks:
“The August Term of the year of our Lord eighteen hundred of the Supreme Court of the United States had adjourned at Philadelphia… However, it was not until Wednesday, February 4th, when John Marshall…took his seat upon the Bench…”
U.S. Attorney General Wayne MacVeagh then stated:
“The centennial anniversary of the entrance by John Marshall into the office of Chief Justice of the United States…
Under his forming hand, instead of becoming a dissoluble confederacy of discordant States, became a great and indissoluble nation, endowed with…the divine purpose for the education of the world…securing to the whole American continent ‘government of the people, by the people, and for the people’…
Venerating the Constitution…as ‘a sacred instrument’…we have lived to see…such generous measures of political equality, of social freedom, and of physical comfort and well-being as were never dreamed of on the earth before…
Let us, on this day of all days…acknowledge that nations cannot live by bread alone…
We have heretofore cherished, the Christian ideal of true national greatness; and our fidelity to that ideal, however imperfect it has been, entitled us in some measure to the divine blessing, for having offered an example to the world for more than an entire generation of how a nation could marvelously increase in wealth and strength and all material prosperity while living in peace with all mankind…
We all believe that the true glory of America and her true mission in the new century…is what a great prelate of the Catholic Church has recently declared it to be: to stand fast by Christ and his Gospel; to cultivate not the Moslem virtues of war, of slaughter, of rapine, and of conquest, but the Christian virtues of self-denial and kindness and brotherly love…
Then we may some day hear the benediction: ‘Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren ye have done it unto me’…
The true mission of nations as of men is to promote righteousness on earth…
and taking abundant care that every human creature beneath her starry flag, of every color and condition, is as secure of liberty, of justice and of peace as in the Republic of God.
In cherishing these aspirations…we are wholly in the spirit of the great Chief Justice; and…so effectually honor his memory.” (Dillon, Vol. 1, p. 7-42)
U.S. Supreme Court Justice Horace Gray gave an address the same day in Virginia:
“Gentlemen of the Bar of the Commonwealth of Virginia, and of the City of Richmond: One hundred years ago today, the Supreme Court of the United States, after sitting for a few years in Philadelphia, met for the first time in Washington, the permanent capital of the Nation; and John Marshall, a citizen of Virginia, having his home in Richmond, and a member of this bar, took his seat as Chief Justice of the United States…
Chief Justice Marshall was a steadfast believer in the truth of Christianity as revealed in the Bible. He was brought up in the Episcopal Church; and Bishop Meade, who knew him well, tells us that he was a constant and reverent worshipper in that church, and contributed liberally to its support, although he never became a communicant.
All else that we know of his personal religion is derived from the statements (as handed down by the good bishop) of a daughter of the Chief Justice, who was much with him during the last months of his life.
She said that her father told her he never went to bed without concluding his prayer by repeating the Lord’s Prayer and the verse beginning, ‘Now I lay me down to sleep,’ which his mother had taught him when he was a child;
and that the reason why he had never been a communicant was that it was but recently that he had become fully convinced of the divinity of Christ, and he then ‘determined to apply for admission to the communion of our church objected to commune in private, because he thought it his duty to make a public confession of the Saviour and, while waiting for improved health to enable him to go to the church for that purpose, he grew worse and died, without ever communing.’” (Dillon, Vol. 1, p. 42, 47, 88)
New Hampshire Supreme Court Judge Jeremiah Smith gave an address:
“And this brings us to what is…the great distinguishing feature in Marshall s life; the real secret of his extraordinary success…that is his high personal character…
John Marshall was pre-eminently single minded. His whole life was pervaded by an overpowering sense of duty and by strong religious principle. A firm believer in the Christian religion, his life was in accord with his belief.” (Dillon, Vol. 1, p. 162)
Charles E. Perkins, nephew of Harriet Beecher Stowe and President of the Connecticut Bar Association stated:
“As a man, Marshall appears to have been as near perfection in disposition, habits, and conduct as it is possible for a mortal man to be…He had no vices and, I may almost say, no weaknesses.
In spite of his eminent talents, his high positions, and his great reputation, there was no tinge of conceit…
His charities were constant and great. He bore no malice toward those who offended or injured him.
He was a sincere Christian and believed in and obeyed the commands of the Bible.” (Dillon, Vol. 1, p. 330)
U.S. Rep. William Bourke Cockran addressed the Erie County Bar Association, Buffalo, New York:
“Aside from the establishment of Christianity, the foundation of this republic was the most memorable event in the history of man…
And if the foundation of this government be the most momentous human achievement of all the centuries, then clearly the appointment of John Marshall to the Chief Justiceship of the United States was the first event of the last century no less in the magnitude of its importance than in the order of its occurrence.” (Dillon, Vol. 1, p. 404-405)
U.S. Senator and former Maryland Governor William Pinkney Whyte stated:
“Would you not call a man religious who said the Lord’s Prayer every day? And the prayer he learned at his mother’s knee went down with him to the grave.
He was a constant and liberal contributor to the support of the Episcopal Church.
He never doubted the fact of the Christian revelation, but he was not convinced of the fact of the divinity of Christ till late in life.
Then, after refusing privately to commune, he expressed a desire to do so publicly, and was ready and willing to do so when opportunity should be had. The circumstances of his death only forbade it…
He was never professedly Unitarian, and he had no place in his heart for either an ancient or a modern agnosticism.” (Dillon, Vol. 2, p. 2-3)
U.S. Rep. Horace Binney of Pennsylvania stated that Marshall:
“…was a Christian, believed in the gospel, and practiced its tenets.” (Dillon, Vol. 3, p. 325)
Nathan Sargent, former Commissioner of Customs, wrote inPublic Men and Events from 1817 to 1853 (Philadelphia, 1875, Vol. 1, p. 299), that Marshall’s “name has become a household word with the American people implying greatness, purity, honesty, and all the Christian virtues.”
American Minute is a registered trademark. Permission is granted to forward. reprint or duplicate with acknowledgement tovwww.AmericanMinute.com
‘If religious exercises are impermissible in schools…it is the establishment of a religion of secularism.’ – Ronald Reagan via American Minute
by William Federer
AUGUST 11, 1984, by an 88-11 Senate vote and a 337-77 House vote, Congress passed the Equal Access Act, stating:
“It shall be unlawful for any public secondary school which receives Federal financial assistance and which has a limited open forum,to deny equal access or a fair opportunity to, or discriminate against, any students who wish to conduct a meeting within that limited open forum on the basis of the religious, political, philosophical, or other content of the speech at such meeting.”
Regarding this, President Reagan commented August 23, 1984 at Reunion Arena, Dallas, Texas:
“We even had to pass a special law in the Congress just a few weeks ago to allow student prayer groups the same access to school rooms after classes that a Young Marxist Society…would already enjoy.”
The Supreme Court upheld the Equal Access Act by a vote of 8-1 in Westside Community Schools v. Mergens, June 4, 1990:
“If a State refused to let religious groups use facilities open to others, then it would demonstrate not neutrality but hostility toward religion.
The Establishment Clause does not license government to treat religion and those who teach or practice it…as subversive of American ideals.”
Ronald Reagan stated in a radio address, February 25, 1984:
“Former Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart noted if religious exercises are held to be impermissible activity in schools, religion is placed at an artificial and state-created disadvantage.
Permission for such exercises for those who want them is necessary if the schools are truly to be neutral in the matter of religion.
And a refusal to permit them is seen not as the realization of state neutrality, but rather as the establishment of a religion of secularism.“
U.S. District Court, Crockett v. Sorenson, W.D. Va,. 1983:
“The First Amendment was never intended to insulate our public institutions from any mention of God, the Bible or religion.
When such insulation occurs, another religion, such as secular humanism, is effectively established.”
This reaffirmed what George Washington wrote to the United Baptist Churches of Virginia, May 10, 1789:
“If I could have entertained the slightest apprehension that the Constitution framed by the Convention, where I had the honor to preside, might possibly endanger the religious rights of any ecclesiastical Society, certainly I would never have placed my signature to it.”
Ronald Reagan, on the National Day of Prayer, May 6, 1982, commented:
“Well-meaning Americans in the name of freedom have taken freedom away.
For the sake of religious tolerance, they’ve forbidden religious practice.”
On January 10, 1963, Democrat Congressman Albert S. Herlong, Jr., of Florida, read into the Congressional Record a list of Communist goals for America, (Vol 109, 88th Congress, 1st Session, Appendix, pp. A34-A35), which included:
“Eliminate prayer or any phase of religious expression in the schools on the ground that it violates the principle of ‘separation of church and state’…
Discredit American culture…Discredit the family as an institution. Encourage promiscuity and divorce…”
Rep. Herlong continued listing Communist goals:
“Present homosexuality, degeneracy and promiscuity as ‘normal, natural, healthy’…
Infiltrate churches and replace revealed religion with ‘social’ religion…
Discredit the Bible and emphasize the need for intellectual maturity which does not need a ‘religious crutch’…
Control schools. Use them as transmission belts for socialism and current Communist propaganda.
Soften curriculum. Get control of teachers’ associations. Put party line in textbooks… Control student newspapers…”
Ronald Reagan told the Annual Convention of the National Religious Broadcasters, January 30, 1884:
“I was pleased last year to proclaim 1983 the Year of the Bible. But, you know, a group called the ACLU severely criticized me for doing that.
Well, I wear their indictment like a badge of honor.”
American Minute is a registered trademark. Permission is granted to forward. reprint or duplicate with acknowledgement to vwww.AmericanMinute.com
Verse of the Day
Jude 1:7 Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.
I wonder if the sodomites in Sodom were getting “married” at the time of its destruction? I know that Americans will be “marrying” homosexuals at the time of its destruction.
Justice Kennedy is to homosexual “marriage” what Justice Blackmun was to abortion. They both used the Supreme Court to advance the heart of the Hard Left reprobate agenda. These two issues are killing babies in the womb and promoting sodomy. In God’s eyes those that support, promote or encourage homosexuality are exactly like those who commit the act. They are linked to this sin. Kennedy has unleashed demonic spiritual forces that are now going to quickly destroy America.
This has all happened so fast because God has turned America over to the reprobates for judgment. I see America as a terminally ill cancer patient rapidly dying. Day by day, you can actually see the power draining out of the person. At the end, death comes very rapidly. This is now America.
The cancer of sin is now consuming the nation. The cancer has metastasized all through society. The entire federal government is now ruled by reprobates. The reprobates own the Executive Branch, the federal courts, the Senate and most of the House. They own the Democratic Party and huge chunks of the Republican Party. Watch the mainline Republicans jettison the Religious Right. They own the school system, along with the medical profession and lawyers. They also own most the mainline churches. I would say the reprobates control about 90 percent of America. Americans seem to now really embrace homosexuality. It is as if they “fell in love with it”.
Romans 1:24,25 Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves: Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.
Romans 1:26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.
Romans 1:28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;
Scalia: ‘High-Handed’ Kennedy Has Declared Us ‘Enemies of the Human Race’ 06/16/13 Read what Kennedy wrote about those who disagree with homosexual “marriage”. They have declared war on us! The Hard Left is going to use this decision to vilify all who stand for the Lord Jesus and His word. Wow, literally the battle lines are now drawn. They have taken the fight to us. There is no hiding from them or trying to run, these people mean business, and they are out to destroy anyone who stands against them. America as you knew it is now dead. We are in the death throes of a nation.
“But to defend traditional marriage is not to condemn, demean, or humiliate those who would prefer other arrangements, any more than to defend the Constitution of the United States is to condemn, demean, or humiliate other constitutions. To hurl such accusations so casually demeans this institution. In the majority’s judgment, any resistance to its holding is beyond the pale of reasoned disagreement.
To question its high-handed invalidation of a presumptively valid statute is to act (the majority is sure) with the purpose to “disparage,” “injure,” “degrade,” “demean,” and “humiliate” our fellow human beings, our fellow citizens, who are homosexual. All that, simply for supporting an Act that did no more than codify an aspect of marriage that had been unquestioned in our society for most of its existence— indeed, had been unquestioned in virtually all societies for virtually all of human history. It is one thing for a society to elect change; it is another for a court of law to impose change by adjudging those who oppose it hostes humani generis, enemies of the human race.”
Kennedy has codified what the Hard Left Fascists/reprobates think of us. Kennedy wrote it into the decision for all to see. Anyone who stands for the Holy God of Israel, the Bible, righteousness, and marriage: “disparage,” “injure,” “degrade,” “demean,” and “humiliate” our fellow human beings, our fellow citizens, who are homosexual.” It will not be long before the government begins to deal with these enemies of the state.
Obama: I won’t make churches conduct gay marriages 06/26/13 This is so nice of Mr. Obama! Of course, he is going to force the church or what little is left it. Just give it a year or two, if America has that much time left, and the pressure will come. The Hard Left reprobates hate Christianity and they will not pass up an opportunity like this to destroy it.
“On an issue as sensitive as this, knowing that Americans hold a wide range of views based on deeply held beliefs, maintaining our nation’s commitment to religious freedom is also vital,” Obama said. “How religious institutions define and consecrate marriage has always been up to those institutions. Nothing about this decision — which applies only to civil marriages — changes that.”
If he forced the churches to “marry” homosexuals, I do not think there would be much resistance. The church died a while ago. There is no fight left in it. All he would have to do is threaten to take away the churches’ tax exemption status, and the pastors would cry like babies while great numbers would cave. They would find some excuse to go along with the government. I see them as cowards. I wonder if preaching from the NIV and other modern translations left them so powerless?
It is very difficult for me to write this without spilling out disgust for the VAST amount of pastors and church leaders in America. I really do think the vast amount do not have one ounce of God’s power. The American pastors are exactly like the ones in Germany with Hitler. They failed to stand against the Nazis both before and after Hitler came to power. I am more angry at the church than with the Supreme Court.
The final judgment for America is now set and sure. The highest court has codified homosexuality and demonized all who stand with the Holy God of Israel.
If you are going to work for the Lord Jesus, now is the time. The darkness is closing very fast. The reprobates will soon be after the real believers, and the LORD will then deal with America like He did with the sodomites at the time of Lot. When they went after the angels who represented God, they were destroyed. When they come after the believers, God will deal directly with the nation. It is not too far off as hell is now energized. Always remember that the Hard Left hate us with the same venom as the Nazis had for the Jews.
No matter what happens, always draw closer to the Lord Jesus and stay fixed on His coming. This will keep you from depression and fear. Remember, the joy of the Lord is our strength.
Daniel 12:3 And they that be wise shall shine as the brightness of the firmament; and they that turn many to righteousness as the stars for ever and ever.
ABOMINATION: National Cathedral Rings Bells to Cheer Gay Marriage06/26/13 Remember, this “church” promoted homosexual “marriage” in Washington, DC, and then an earthquake damaged the building. That earthquake was just a warning. There is destruction coming that not only is going to destroy this “church” but all of Washington, DC.
Pentagon celebrates gay troops 06/25/13 This could only happen because the moral fiber of the country was destroyed.
“The Pentagon on Tuesday toasted gays in the military, with a top adviser to President Obama declaring the country is “safer” now that they may serve openly in the ranks.”Because we repealed ‘don’t ask, don’t tell,’ our military … is stronger and our country is safer, more equal and more just,” said Valerie Jarrett, the keynote speaker at the Pentagon’s gay pride celebration.”
Rainbow Flag Flies At Governor’s Residence 06/25/13 I see this as a sign of surrender. When the US defeated Japan they took down the Japanese flag and raised the American flag. America has been overthrown and surrendered to the Hard Left reprobates.
Pediatricians have a new mission: Fight ‘homophobia’ 06/24/13 The day is coming that if parents try to deal with a child that is confused with sex, the state will take the child away. It will be viewed as child abuse to deal with a child that feels he is a homosexual. Homosexuality is going to be protected at all costs.
Revelation 22:20 He which testifieth these things saith, Surely I come quickly. Amen. Even so, come, Lord Jesus.
Reposted with permission of the author!
In colonial America only landowners voted, then those owning a certain amount of personal property.
After the Revolution, States gradually let those without land vote if they paid taxes, but many States continued religious and literacy tests.
In 1870, the 15th Amendment let former slaves vote.
In 1920, the 19th Amendment let women vote.
In 1924, American Indians could vote in Federal Elections.
In 1961, the 23rd Amendment let District of Columbia residents vote in Federal Elections.
In 1964, the 24th Amendment let vote those who could not pay a poll tax.
In 1965, the Voting Rights Act removed literacy tests.
On JUNE 22, 1970, President Nixon extended the Voting Rights Act to let 18-year-olds vote.
The Supreme Court, in Oregon v Mitchell, limited this right so the 26th Amendment was passed in 1971 to confirm it.
President Nixon stated March 24, 1970:
“In other areas, too, there were long struggles to eliminate discrimination…Property and even religious qualifications for voting persisted well into the 19th century - and not until 1920 were women finally guaranteed the right to vote.”
On August 24, 1972, Nixon said:
“For the first time in the 195 year history of this country, men and women 18 to 21 years of age will have the chance to vote.”
In 1832, Noah Webster wrote in his History of the United States:
“When you become entitled to exercise the right of voting for public officers, let it be impressed on your mind that God commands you tochoose for rulers ‘just men who will rule in the fear of God.’
The preservation of a republican government depends on the faithful discharge of this duty.
If the citizens neglect their duty and place unprincipled men in office, the government will soon be corrupted; laws will be made not for the public good so much as for the selfish or local purposes;
corrupt or incompetent men will be appointed to execute the laws; the public revenues will be squandered on unworthy men; and the rights of the citizens will be violated or disregarded…”
Noah Webster continued:
“If a republican government fails to secure public prosperity and happiness, it must be because thecitizens neglect the divine commands, and elect bad men to make and administer the laws.”
Fought Stamp Tax, signed Declaration, became Supreme Court Justice, defended Religious Liberty via American Minute
With a reputation as a firebrand, he founded a Maryland chapter of The Sons of Liberty to protest The Stamp Act of 1765 and the British Government’s usurpation of citizen’s rights.
At the age of 24, Chase challenged the authority of the English Parliament to tax the Colonies without their consent, and forcibly opened the public offices in Annapolis, seized and destroyed the hated stamps.
When Maryland learned that Boston’s harbor had been closed in 1774 to punish the Tea Party colonists, Samuel Chase and four other Marylanders were appointed as delegates to the Continental Congress for:
“agreeing on a general plan of conduct…for the relief of Boston and preservation of American liberty.”
Chase served on dozens of committees, and in the spring of 1776, even traveled with Ben Franklin, Charles Carroll of Carrollton and his cousin Bishop John Carroll, in an unsuccessful attempt to get Canada to join the Revolution.
Samuel Chase, more than any other, was responsible forpersuading Maryland to vote for independence.
On August 2, 1776, Samuel Chase along with other Maryland delegates, William Paca, Thomas Stone and Charles Carroll of Carrollton signed the Declaration.
At the beginning of the Revolutionary War when political intrigues arose to remove George Washington from being Commander-in-Chief, Samuel Chase staunchly support Washington.
After the War, at Maryland’s 1788 Convention to decide whether to accept the new United States Constitution,Samuel Chase initially voted against it, as he thought the States were relinquishing too much control.
In a letter he signed “Caution,” (Maryland Journal, October 12, 1787), Samuel Chase warned of the rush to adopt the Constitution:
“Suspicion should take the alarm… Questions of consequence…ought not to be hastily decided…The decision, for or against the plan…involves no less than the happiness or miser of you and all your posterity forever.”
In 1788, he was appointed Chief Justice of Baltimore’s District Criminal Court, and in 1791, he became Chief Justice of the Maryland General Court.
In 1796, President George Washington appointed Samuel Chase as an Associate Justice of the United States Supreme Court.
A controversial personality, Samuel Chase had articles of impeachment filed against him in 1804, but he was acquitted of all charges.
Samuel Chase was one of the most influential Justices on the early Supreme Court, following Chief Justice John Marshall, serving till his death, JUNE 19, 1811.
Justice Samuel Chase was decisive in a 1799 case involving whether Irish emigrant Thomas M’Creery had become a naturalized American citizen and thereby able to leave an estate to a relative in Ireland.
The Court decided:
“Thomas M’Creery, in order to become…naturalized according to the Act of Assembly…on the 30th of September, 1795, took the oath…before the Honorable Samuel Chase, Esquire, then being the Chief Judge of the State of Maryland…
‘Maryland; I, Samuel Chase, Chief Judge of the State of Maryland, do hereby certify all whom it may concern, that…personally appeared before me Thomas M’Creery, anddid repeat and subscribe a declaration of his belief in the Christian Religion, and take the oath required by the Act of Assembly of this State, entitled, An Act for Naturalization.’”
In the Maryland Supreme Court case of Runkel v. Winemiller, 1799, Justice Samuel Chase rendered the court’s opinion:
“Religion is of general and public concern, and on its support depend, in great measure, the peace and good order of government, the safety and happiness of the people.
By our form of government, the Christian religion is the established religion; and all sects and denominations of Christians are placed upon the same equal footing, and are equally entitled to protection in their religious liberty.”
Ye have heard that it was said of them of old time, Thou shalt not kill; and whosoever shall kill shall be in danger of the judgment:
Random House Webster’s College Dictionary to kill means:
- to deprive of life; cause the death of; slay.
- to destroy; do away with; extinguish.
And life means:
- (n.)the general condition that distinguishes organisms from inorganic objects and dead organisms, being manifested by growth through metabolism, a means of reproduction, and internal regulation in response to the environment.
Who decides when it is appropriate to end the life of a being? In a civilized society it is a matter for those who are responsible for enforcing the law, to decide if the crime a person has committed rises to the level of ceding their lives for their crimes. We are no longer living in a civilized society!!!
Somehow we have passed beyond the thin veil of civilization into a degenerate and lawless society where death is appropriated simply on the whim of those doing the killing. And these degenerate ideas spawn the infantile excuse that somehow, just for the fact that you are born a woman, you have some greater empathetic knowledge on who is justified to live or die. All on the very thin excuse that a woman should be able to decide what is best for their own welfare, body and future.
It is simply such a stupid argument, I wonder at the intelligence of those who state it and those who accept it as if it must be true. If a woman was that intelligent, she would never have gotten to the place where she has the choice to make. After all, she is the one who invited the action in which she became pregnant. I am not talking about rape and incest here. I am talking about the women who think that they can sleep with any man who comes along and either not get pregnant, or rid themselves of the product of their carelessness by simply disposing of it like it is so much waste to be flushed down the toilet or tossed with the trash. And yet these are the same people who tell us that they have the right to decide what to do with their body. They seem to think that this is a sign of intelligence. If these same women were foolish enough to get an arm cut off or a permanent mark on their body, these things they would have to live with and explain how foolish they were in their actions.
So how did we get here? We got here by a Supreme Court that made a foolish decision, and gave every woman that comes along and makes a bad mistake, the opportunity to kill. Shall we start saying at some point that these women now have the right to decide that their children don’t have the right to exist if they are handicapped or if in someway they are just a burden to them? Should we give men this same right? If not why not? If you come down to it, the life that begins in a woman’s womb would not be possible without the input from the man. Should that not give them just a much right in the decision? If they decide that a baby is not in their interests, should they not have the right to make that decision?
Or is the woman somehow so much more intelligent and caring? Again I say, for most of them, they wouldn’t be in the position they were in if these were the deciding factors. So since we can say these are not applicable, we take away their reasoning for them to be in the position to make that decision , don’t we?
Abortion is not about the life of the woman, it is about the death of the baby and the denying of the responsibility of the woman for her own actions. Truly, if you follow this argument through, what you will find is that the woman if displaying a lack of intelligence and therefore cedes the very responsibility that she argues gives her the right to make a life and death decision.
I read this the other day and it haunted me:
“Can it be that women know something very deep inside, even deeper than fear and shame? Can it be that women know it is their responsibility to decide when to bring new life into this world? Women are not the enemies of our children–even those we decide not to bring into the world.”
– Quoted in “Good Women have Abortions,” which appeared on the pro-abortion sitewww.rhrealitycheck.org/node/21883
Truly sad, and yet this is the argument that they use!!!! Do they think that they know more than God then? Are they somehow so smart and empathetic that they just somehow know? If this sounds foolish, it is because it is foolish. As foolish as your child telling you that it isn’t their fault that they did something wrong, somebody else started it. Because that is the real excuse this woman is using, it isn’t her fault because some man impregnated her. She was just minding her own business. When do we stop listening to the excuses our children and hold them accountable for their actions?
We must quit letting women murder their own children in order to escape the responsibility of their own actions…
Whether you believe Mr. Romney or not, he is the first Presidential hopeful in some time who has had the courage to make this statement. It would be a big step in turning this country in the right direction. We have spent the last four years with a pro death culture in control of this country. It is time to choose life!
In an interview with the Columbus Dispatch newspaper, presidential candidate Mitt Romney said, once again, that he wants the Supreme Court to overturn the infamous Roe v. Wade decision that has paved the way for 55 million abortions.
Romney wants states to be able to protect unborn children and, in his interview with the newspaper, indicated overturning Roe was more possible in the current political climate than a Human Life Amendment.
“That’s not where America is now,” he said. “I would love us to be in a situation where the American people decide let’s not have abortion. But that’s not where we are. That’s why I think the most effective next step is to have the court return the decision with regards to abortion to the American people and their elected representatives.”
“And it is my preference that would return to the states and to the people and their elected representatives the issue of abortion as opposed to having the federal government impose, the Supreme Court impose its view on a one-vote majority. But that’s something that will be up to the court. That’s not something I can decide as president, that’s something which the court would have to decide,” Romney continued. Read the rest at Life News.com
This is the kind of nonsense that we have to look forward to if we let the liberals who want globalism to rule, decide to give our freedom to an international court, instead of relying on on own Supreme Court system.
This is an insane principle that will lead to the inmates ruling the country.
In his State of the Union Address, JANUARY 25, 1984, President Ronald Reagan stated: “Each day your members observe a 200-year-old tradition meant to signify America is one nation under God. I must ask: If you can begin your day with a member of the clergy standing right here leading you in prayer, then why can’t freedom to acknowledge God be enjoyed again by children in every school room across this land?” A month later in a radio address, February 25, 1984, President Reagan stated: “The First Amendment of the Constitution was not written to protect the people from religion; that amendment was written to protect religion from government tyranny…But now we’re told our children have no right to pray in school. Nonsense. The pendulum has swung too far toward intolerance against genuine religious freedom. It is time to redress the balance.” President Reagan continued: “Former Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart noted if religious exercises are held to be impermissible activity in schools, religion is placed at an artificial and state-created disadvantage…Refusal to permit religious exercises is seen not as the realization of state neutrality, but rather as the establishment of a religion of secularism.”
I am afraid that perhaps a censorship of ideas is being by-passed by corruption of a more devious kind. The arbiter that we have relied on, the Supreme Court, is being undermined with a subtle change of wording on records that changes the very meaning of the decisions that were made. This is not obvious by changing modern decisions, instead the record keepers, an org. called Justia, is changing decision that are relied on, to make it look as if government is the power instead of the people. They say that this is an error in the record keeping, but is that true? It seems that all these "errors" add up to changing our history and changing the meaning of who is the real power of this country. If changing the decisions handed down by the Supreme Court to make it seem as if they have ruled that in all cases, or even in most cases, that government is the power instead of the people, they take control away from the people and establish that government is the final power. It takes away the ability of the people to affect change by appealing decisions. It makes it so that those decisions appear to favor government over people, when in some cases, it is quite the opposite. This goes beyond censoring, this is changing the very facts that people rely on, therefore the decisions that they make are made with the error already built in to get the results that they want. It makes actual censoring un-needed for the most part. Law abiding people rely on laws and yet here the laws are being change in such subtle ways that even the most educated and honest people have missed it. Where does that leave us? Related story
JustiaGate: CEO Tim Stanley Claims Innocense After Blocking Access To Wayback Machine Snapshots Of All Supreme Court Cases Published By Justia.(via Natural Born Citizen)
This is an important story my friends. Mr. Donofrio has been covering this story for sometime. Whether you have an opinion about the validity of Barack Obama’s eligibility or not, the documentation that he provides in regard the Justia changing and altering records is stunning. It doesn’t matter whether they did this to help Mr. Obama or to help Mr. McCain, who also had questions raised about his eligibility, is beside the point. The point that someone who represents Justice would manipulate the facts in order to obtain a result that is favorable to them, is frightening. What other situations have they done this in? Is this the first time they have manipulated data? How can we trust the facts that they have represented previously? Have people lost their right to appeal based on what results they have gotten from Justia? This is anarchy and lawlessness on the part of the very system that purports to represent truth and justice. From the response by the CEO of this organization, you have to wonder if this is fraud from the very top. Are they working for themselves or are they working for someone else? These are questions that need to be answered and this is something that we as bloggers need to be sure is spread around and pressure put on the media as well as the company itself, for answers. We need to know what the results of this action were and what they would have been without this manipulation. Please pass this on, this is not just a question of eligibility, this is a question of trust, truth, and justice!
JustiaGate: CEO Tim Stanley Claims Innocense After Blocking Access To Wayback Machine Snapshots Of All Supreme Court Cases Published By Justia
by Leo Donofrio, Esq.
Yesterday, in a stunning development, Justia CEO Tim Stanley blocked Wayback Machine access to all US Supreme Court cases published by Justia.com. This is the epitome – the textbook definition even – of hypocrisy. As Dianna Cotter previously reported:
“Justia founder Tim Stanley has for years prided himself and his companies on principles of ‘freedom of information’. On June 19th, 2008, Stanley addressed the Legislative Council Committee at the Oregon State Legislature with the following…
‘In the end, we both recognize the importance of providing the public with online access to our nation’s laws because such actions promote understanding, participation in and respect for our democratic institutions and legal system.’
“We agree that public policy demands that state laws remain in the public domain. To otherwise permit the State of Oregon or any other governmental body to restrict access to the laws that govern all of us would make a mockery of the legal doctrine that all persons have presumed knowledge of the law. “
Does Tim Stanley believe that his publication of Supreme Court cases should be held to the same open standard? Not so much.
Stanley is blocking access to Justia’s previous publications of US Supreme Court cases which are in the Public Domain. Nothing being blocked is owned by Justia… other than the evidence our nation needs to have an open dialogue. Stanley’s blockage makes a mockery of his prior statements concerning free legal information. Past versions of SCOTUS cases which were – until yesterday – open to the public, exhibit with absolute clarity the changes made by Justia to these cases between the years 2006 and 2011. Read the rest at Natural Born Citizen
Things are getting ready to break wide open in the next few weeks. You may already be aware of Overruled, the new 30-minute docudrama about parental rights scheduled for release on November 1. But there are also developments in Congress that should lead to some big news very soon.
In the meantime, here are some quotes and stories to consider and pass along. Every American should care about parental rights. Those who don’t simply aren’t paying attention to some of the things going on in our country. Consider:
In 2005, the U.S. Ninth Circuit “affirm[ed] that theMeyer-Pierce [fundamental parental] right does not extend beyond the threshold of the school door.” They also held that “[p]arents…have no constitutional right…to prevent a public school from providing its students with whatever information it wishes to provide, sexual or otherwise, when and as the school determines that it is appropriate to do so.”1
In 2007, the federal District Court for the district of Massachusetts held that “Parents do have a fundamental right to raise their children. They are not required toabandon that responsibility to the state. [They] may send their children to a private school…. They may also educate their children at home.”2 So, sending a child to public school is in this paragraph equated to “abandoning your parental rights to the state.”
In 2008, the Maryland Board of Education announced, “While we recognize the right of parents to direct the education of their children, we must bend their willto the state’s obligation to educate its citizens.”
Nor do such problems exist only for parents with kids in public schools.
In Roper v. Simmons (2005), and in Graham v. Floridaand Sullivan v. Florida (2010), the Supreme Court overthrew the laws of Texas and of Florida, writing, “the Court has referred to the laws of other countries and to the international authorities as instructive for its interpretation of the [U.S. Constitution].”3 In both instances, they applied the UN’s Convention on the Rights of the Child to United States law, though we have not yet ratified this dangerous treaty.
Last year, a judge in Philadelphia cited the concept of “Customary International Law” in applying an optional protocol to the UN’s Convention on the Rights of the Child to a federal court case. And the number of judges applying international standards in our courts seems to be increasing.
Daytime curfews around the country threaten the right of home-schooled and private-schooled children to move freely in public without harassment from law officers during public school hours. California just passed a law allowing children as young as 12 to consent to the Gardasil vaccine without parental knowledge or consent. Minnesota already allows the same thing. In Virginia, the vaccine is even mandated by law, the state having made the decision in parents’ stead.
It seems every week brings more violations of parents’ liberty to make decisions for the good of their children. It almost makes President Reagan’s words sound prophetic: “We will spend our twilight years telling our grandchildren what it was like to live in America when men were free.”
But we are not doomed to that yet. In fact, I expect to bring very good news next week, news of our efforts to turn back the tide by adopting the Parental Rights Amendment.
Until then, pass the word, sound the alarm, and urge your friends to sign up atparentalrights.org/petition.
Dir. of Communications & Research
1. Fields v. Palmdale, 427 F.3d 1197 (2005).
2. Parker v. Hurley, 474 F.Supp. 2d 261 (D Mass 2007).
3. Roper v. Simmons, 543 U.S. 551 (2005). Also Graham v. Florida, 560 U.S. ___ (2010).
The only U.S. President to also serve as Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, he had previously been appointed by President McKinley to be the first governor of the Philippines after the Spanish-American War and was later appointed by President Theodore Roosevelt as Secretary of War. The largest President, weighing 300 lbs, a bathtub was installed for him in the White House big enough to hold four men. His name was William Howard Taft, and he was born SEPTEMBER 15, 1857. On Thanksgiving, November 7, 1912, President Taft proclaimed: “A God-fearing nation, like ours, owes it to its inborn and sincere sense of moral duty to testify its devout gratitude to the All-Giver for the countless benefits its has enjoyed.” Speaking at a missionary conference, 1908, William Howard Taft stated: “No man can study the movement of modern civilization from an impartial standpoint and not realize that Christianity, and the spread of Christianity, are the basis of hope of modern civilization in the growth of popular self government.” Taft concluded: “The spirit of Christianity is pure democracy. It is equality of man before God – the equality of man before the law, which is the most God-like manifestation that man has been able to make.”
“The power to tax is the power to destroy,” wrote John Marshall, 4th Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, who was born SEPTEMBER 24, 1755. No one had a greater impact on U.S. Constitutional Law than John Marshall. Sworn in February 4, 1801, Marshall served 34 years on the bench and helped write over 1,000 decisions, including supporting the Cherokee Indian nation in their effort to stay in Georgia. During the Revolution, John Marshall fought under Washington and endured the terrible winter at Valley Forge. According to tradition, the Liberty Bell cracked tolling at Marshall’s funeral, July 8, 1835. Chief Justice John Marshall wrote to Jasper Adams, May 9, 1833: “The American population is entirely Christian, and with us Christianity and Religion are identified. It would be strange indeed, if with such a people, our institutions did not presuppose Christianity and did not often refer to it and exhibit relations with it.” A hundred years after Marshall’s death, the present Supreme Court Building was completed in 1935. Engraved above the Chief Justice are the Ten Commandments. Moses is included among the great lawgivers in Herman A. MacNeil’s marble relief on the east portico, and every session of the Supreme Court opens with an invocation: “God save the United States and this Honorable Court.”
I originally wrote this post in Febuary, but I wanted to come back to it and review it. There are more question to be asked, but I wanted to ask something further. Since Barack Obama has been serving as President there have been many questions about whether he actually was legally able to claim “natural citizenship.” I am not a lawyer, but there are many challenges out there that seem to be reasonable. The fact that he put a fake birth certificate out the other day is truly disturbing and just adds to the questions.
It seems as if that is the plan of the Obama administration at times. Why would you put false papers out, knowing they would be challenged? But the pattern of this White House seems to be to stir up controversy on all fronts. They lie to the public in ways that it only takes a few moments to prove that they are lying, but they keep on doing it.
What bothers me even more than the chaos that they are causing, is the question of what would happen if we find out that Barack Obama does not fit the requirement for the President of the United State? What would happen? If the Supreme Court ruled in the favor of those who are challenging him, what happens next? Who makes Barack Obama give up the office that he would not legally be in? Do we really believe that a man and a party, the Democrat Party leaders have to have known, would give up power? Would they just not go to the public and say that the Supreme Court was in the wrong?
Then what would happen? Could we force his own justice department to remove him? Eric Holder? A man that only follows the laws that he likes and ignores the others? A man that is only in the position that he is in because of Barack Obama? And if he wouldn’t, who would? The FBI? What kind of crisis would that cause?
Is that their goal? To cause a Constitutional Crisis and divide this country? That is a truly scary thought, but it seems that with a lot of the policies that they are putting into place, they are pushing us into that direction. They care little about the rule of law. That is obvious from the way all the ABC agencies are pushing their agendas on the American people, the States, and business from small to large. Many of the questions I asked are still relevant so I won’t rewrite the whole post, I will just give you a chance to read it and consider the situation that this President and the actions of the Democrat party have put us in and ask you, my readers, “How In The World Do WE Change A President That May Refuse To Go?”
Where are we headed in this country? Why are the unions telling our President what to do? Or is it the other way around? Is our President the head of the unions? Why does the President or his aides meet with or talk to the unions everyday?Especially when he doesn’t bother to meet with his own cabinet ministers at all.
Does it seem strange to you that a man that is the leader of a great nation with a diverse cabinet, doesn’t even bother to gather them in one place and meet with them once a month, or even once every six months? Why is our President inserting himself into the state governments, while not bothering to make inroads into the massive debts that we have. Which is the job of the President? To take care of the federal government or the state government?
Who is benefiting both from the unrest here in the United States and in the rest of the world? What is the real goal. Is this good against evil? Or is there some agenda being played out that we are not aware of? Why is the press not covering all the things that are going on?
Why is the President so determined to abandon Israel? It does seem as if the President has much more respect for the Muslim religion than he does for the Christian, and he seems to have a literal hatred of Judism and Israel. Why? Is it his upbringing. Is this why our founders wanted to make sure that a President was a natural born citizen? Did they understand that only a natural born citizen would love this country enough to keep it safe?
Where does that leave the American people when the leader of the country does not share their love for the country? What are our options? If a President is trying to bring the country down from within, what can we do? We were asleep at the wheel when this President was elected. We didn’t think that someone could hate this country, and yet pretend to love it and want to make it better. We didn’t know that this country was vulnerable to someone who was determined to destroy it by using some of the laws and ignoring any that didn’t serve their purpose.
We are in a Constitutional Crisis and yet it seems as if most of our leaders are simply ignoring the fact and pretending that everything is normal. We have a leader, the President of the United States, Barack Obama, who is actively violating the constitution of the United States. Whether you like Mr. Obama or not, whether you agree with him or not, he is the President of the country.
As a leader, he has the obligation to not only obey the laws, he has the obligation to enforce and to make sure that those under him,obey the laws of the country. He took an oath when he was sworn in, to obey the laws of the country, and to protect the country. He has shown over and over that he does not believe that the laws apply to him and if he does get a judgement that goes against him, he either ignores them or pretends that they say something else.
- By U.S. Senate’s Definition, Obama Is Not a Natural Born Citizen (fellowshipofminds.wordpress.com)
- Constitution 101 (pjh95811.wordpress.com)
- The Bluff by the Media, Pundits, and Government Officials Won’t Work (wtpotus.wordpress.com)
- Does Obama’s long form birth certificate clear him or prove he’s not a natural born citizen? (gunnyg.wordpress.com)
- Does Obama’s long form birth certificate clear him or prove he’s not a natural born citizen? (gunnyg.wordpress.com)