Tuesday, June 30, 2015

STRATEGY MEMO: Restoring the Balance with the Supreme Court

Tea Party Express (TPX) has sent an election 2016 strategy for a Conservative President and the maintenance of a Conservative Republican majority in both Houses of Congress. Problematically and unfortunately, Congress may have to retain some RINOs to maintain that majority (HOWEVER, if your voting District or Senate seat can get a Conservative to replace a Republican Establishment incumbent then join the efforts to support that Conservative!!!).

In full disclosure you should examine the plan, but I’d advise you to contribute only if you are a TPX supporter. It is my opinion to use your financial resources (especially if they are a bit limited) to find a local Conservative or Tea Party organization (Here’s a good place to start) that knows more about the voting issues in your neck of the woods and donate to them.

JRH 6/30/15
STRATEGY MEMO: Restoring the Balance with the Supreme Court

By Taylor Budowich, Executive Director
Sent: 6/29/2015 5:59 PM
Sent by Tea Party Express

Patriots -

After the horrific week we endured at the hands of the U.S. Supreme Court, I spent the entire weekend developing a plan to restore the balance with the Supreme Court. Please take the time to review this plan and let me know what you think!


The three branches of government were created to be equal and balancing, yet with a radical president, a weak congress, and a Supreme Court willing to invent legal interpretations that protect the President's left-wing legacy, the balance has been absent and our nation has taken a turn for the worse.

Luckily, we have all that we need to restore the balance: the ballot box.

Left: 2016 U.S. Senate Races -- Right: 2012 Presidential Electoral College Results


To maximize our resources, I've identified five states with competitive U.S. Senate races and critical Electoral College points needed to send a CONSERVATIVE to the White House.

Ohio (18-Points), Pennsylvania (20-Points), & Wisconsin (10-Points): These three Senate races are similar in that they all profile a conservative incumbent Senator that's being challenged by an ultra-liberal candidate that lost statewide in 2010. These are critical races that we must carry in order to protect our Senate majority. They also deliver a critical 48 Electoral College points that would propel a conservative presidential nominee.

Florida (29-Points), & Nevada (6-Points): Florida and Nevada are similar in that these are both open seats. Senator Marco Rubio (FL) has forgone running for re-election since he's running for President. Additionally, after targeting Senator Harry Reid as our #1 target for 2016, he has since wisely decided on retirement. These open seats present us with the opportunity to stack the Senate with even more constitutional conservative lawmakers in the mold of Ted Cruz, Rand Paul, and Mike Lee. Moreover these two states would deliver us the finals votes necessary to win back the White House!

We have begun interviewing and vetting the candidates to ensure: (1) adherence to fiscal responsibility and the U.S. Constitution, (2) ample grassroots support, (3) a credible campaign team that's capable of winning a tough race.

As this plan develops further, I'll update you. In the meantime, I must ask you for a financial contribution to support this massive, five-state campaign. You've seen our success over the years, but it has always been made possible by generous contributions from people like you. To sustain this campaign though, I need to find 100 more patriots that are able to commit to the Tea Party Honor Guard Partnership. Partners agree to make a monthly, recurring contribution to support our campaign. This allows me to create a budget around a reliable revenue stream, which is critical to putting this plan into motion. Will you join the Tea Party Honor Guard Partnership and commit to making a monthly, recurring donation?

Of course, I understand if a monthly commitment is too much. Would you possibly consider making an instant, one-time contribution to this fight? The time for complaining is over, it is time to put our money where our mouth is and hit the pavement if we want change! Join me by making an instant contribution right now:

Thank you for your time.

In Liberty,

Taylor Budowich, Executive Director
Tea Party Express
TPX Mission Statement

Propelled by millions of Tea Party supporters across the country, Tea Party Express has become the most aggressive and influential national Tea Party group in the political arena. We are committed to identifying and supporting conservative candidates and causes that will champion tea party values and return our country to the Constitutional principles that have made America the “shining city on a hill.”
Tea Party Express is proud to stand for six simple principles:

o   No more bailouts

o   Reduce the size and intrusiveness of government

o   Stop raising our taxes

o   Repeal Obamacare

o   Cease out-of-control spending

o   Bring back American prosperity

Monday, June 29, 2015

Pro-Palestinian Propaganda Ploy

Flotilla III Stopped by Israeli Navy

By John R. Houk
© June 29, 2015

Apparently the latest Arabs that call themselves Palestinians latest propaganda effort with Gaza Flotilla III did not come with weapons or Islamic terrorists ready to provoke an incident with Israel’s Navy. Of the four ships taking off from Sweden to land in Gaza without Israeli approval, three turned back and one – Swedish registered Marianne of Gothenburg – carrying some notable protesters continued when ordered to turn around and go back to last port of origination. The Israeli Navy boarded the ship without incident and headed to the Israeli port of Ashdod:

Israeli Navy fighters boarded the Swedish boat Marianne of Gothenburg early Monday, taking over the vessel carrying 18 political activists and journalists bound for the Gaza Strip. The takeover was accomplished without incident and the Navy then escorted the vessel to Israel's southern port of Ashdod, where the passengers will be questioned and then deported.  
… The declared aim of the organizers - Israeli, Arab and European activists - was to break the Israeli blockade of Gaza, which Israel says is essential in order to prevent Palestinian terror group from arming.  
"This flotilla is nothing but a demonstration of hypocrisy and lies that is only assisting the Hamas terrorist organisation and ignores all of the horrors in our region," Netanyahu said.  
"Preventing entry by sea was done in accordance with international law and even received backing from a committee of the UN Secretary General," he said.  
Israeli troops boarding the vessel handed the activists a letter, accusing them of hypocrisy in singling out Israel for alleged human rights violations at a time when brutal wars raging across the Middle East claim heavy tolls.  
"It appears you have strayed READ ENTIRETY FOR MORE DETAILS (Israeli Navy seizes Gaza flotilla boat without incident; By Taboola; i24 News English; 6/29/15 01:27pm)

Ari Bussel forwarded a copy of the Israel Government Press Office (GPO) official statement of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and a quite humorous letter delivered to the protesters on the vessel Marianne. Undoubtedly the statement and the letter made public have the purpose to counter pro-Palestinian propaganda that typically lies or twists facts in an effort to paint Israel as the villain.

JRH 6/29/15
PM Netanyahu's Statement Following Last Night's Navy Action

Sent by Ari Bussel
Originated from GPO
Sent: 6/28/2015 11:50 PM

PM Netanyahu's Statement Following Last Night's Navy Action

(Communicated by the Prime Minister's Media Adviser)

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, this morning (Monday, 29 June 2015), issued the following statement:

"I would like to commend the sailors and commanders of the Israel Navy for their determined and efficient action in detaining the passengers on the ship that tried to reach the Gaza coast in contravention of the law. This flotilla is nothing but a demonstration of hypocrisy and lies that is only assisting the Hamas terrorist organization and ignores all of the horrors in our region. Preventing entry by sea was done in accordance with international law and even received backing from a committee of the UN Secretary General.

Israel is the only democracy that defends itself in accordance with international law. We are not prepared to accept the entry of war materiel to the terrorist organizations in Gaza as has been done by sea in the past. Just last year we foiled an attempt to smuggle by sea hundreds of weapons that were destined for use in attacks against Israel's citizens.

There is no siege on Gaza. Israel assists in transferring goods and humanitarian equipment to Gaza – approximately 800 trucks a day that have recently brought into Gaza more than 1.6 million tons of goods. Moreover, Israel assists in hundreds of humanitarian projects, through international organizations, including the building of clinics and hospitals.

Israel is a state that seeks peace and acts in accordance with international law so that the residents of Gaza might have safe lives and their children may grow up in peace and quiet."

Following is a copy of the letter that was issued last night:

"Welcome to Israel,

You seem to have gotten lost. Perhaps you meant to sail to a place not far from here – Syria, where Assad’s army is slaughtering its people every day, and is supported by the murderous Iranian regime.

Here in Israel we face a reality in which terrorist organizations like Hamas try to kill innocent civilians. We defend our citizens against these attempts in accordance with international law.

Despite this, Israel transports goods and humanitarian aid into the Gaza Strip – up to 800 trucks a day. In the past year we enabled the entry of over 1.6 million tons of products, an average of one ton per person in the Gaza Strip. By the way, these supplies are equivalent to 500,000 boats like the one you came in on today.

Israel provides assistance to hundreds of humanitarian projects through international organizations, including the building of clinics and hospitals.

However, we will not allow the terrorist organizations to transfer weapons into the Gaza Strip by sea. Only one year ago, we thwarted an attempt to smuggle hundreds of weapons into the Gaza Strip by ship. These weapons were meant to target innocent Israeli civilians.

There is no siege on the Gaza Strip, and you are welcome to transfer any humanitarian supplies for the Gaza Strip through Israel.

Barring the entrance of boats and ships into the Gaza Strip is in accordance with international law, and was even backed by a committee commissioned by the United Nations Secretary General.

If you were truly concerned about human rights, you would not be sailing in support of a terrorist regime which summarily executes citizens in the Gaza Strip, and uses children as human shields.

If you were to travel around in Israel, you would see for yourself that the only stable democracy in the Middle East guarantees equality for all its citizens and freedom of worship for members of all religions; it is a country that upholds international law so that its people can live in safety and its children grow up in peace and quiet."
Pro-Palestinian Propaganda Ploy
By John R. Houk
© June 29, 2015
PM Netanyahu's Statement Following Last Night's Navy Action

Original content: GPO
Sent from Ari Bussel

Blog Editor John R. Houk

Calls grow for probe of Clinton's private server

Hillary Clinton: This is the gal that currently leads the Dems for the 2016 nomination for POTUS. How crazy is any portion of the American electorate to trust this woman with the security, safety and prosperity of the United States of America? If she actually wins the Dem nomination will American voters replace one Liar-in-Chief for another?

JRH 6/29/15
Calls grow for probe of Clinton's private server

JUNE 27, 2015 | 12:01 AM 

Calls for Hillary Clinton to allow a third party to examine her private server grew louder Friday following revelations that she had withheld more than a dozen Benghazi-related emails from the State Department.

"Secretary Clinton's failure to turn over all Benghazi and Libya documents is the reason why we have been calling for an independent, third party review of her server," Rep. Lynn Westmoreland, R-Ga., a member of the House Select Committee on Benghazi, told the Washington Examiner.

"Her unusual email arrangement with herself allowed for Secretary Clinton to pick and choose which emails she deemed work related, and now we know that she failed to be honest and forthcoming with those emails to both the Select Committee and the State Department that were subpoenaed," Westmoreland added.

A State Department spokesman said Friday the agency had no plans to launch a probe of Clinton's private server, on which she hosted both her personal and work-related emails.

But officials did acknowledge that they had no idea whether Clinton submitted all of her work-related emails, as she has claimed to have done.

"This confirms doubts about the completeness of Clinton's self-selected public record and raises serious questions about her decision to erase her personal server — especially before it could be analyzed by an independent, neutral third party arbiter," Rep. Trey Gowdy, chairman of the select committee, said Thursday evening.

Renewed scrutiny of Clinton's private email use bubbled up this week after it became clear that Blumenthal had given Congress 60 emails that the State Department never provided.

The agency admitted Thursday it could not locate all or part of 15 of those messages.

"[Clinton] said she had 'confidence' that all relevant emails from her secret server were handed over," Reince Priebus, chairman of the Republican National Committee, said Friday.

"But now there is proof that she wasn't telling the truth. This is yet another reason she can't be trusted," Priebus said. "And it's yet another reason that her server has to be turned about to an independent arbiter — to see if anything can be recovered after she wiped it."

Tom Fitton, president of Judicial Watch, said the only way to ensure the State Department has a complete record of Clinton's emails is to locate and search the private server she used as secretary.

"This is something we're raising now with the courts in a variety of cases," Fitton said, noting that State has resisted calls to seek out the server.

Judicial Watch has filed more than 20 requests through the Freedom of Information Act for records related to the Clinton email scandal.

"There is nothing in the history of the Freedom of Information Act or in the history of the Federal Records Act to compare with Mrs. Clinton's decision to use a secret account to conduct her government business, and have other agency officials use that as well," Fitton said.

"There was a whole cadre of State Department officials who went dark and were conducting government business in such a way that made it immune to scrutiny," he added.

Gowdy has blasted the State Department for what he perceives as its reluctance to comply with congressional requests for Benghazi-related documents.

State Department officials have countered that the select committee's ever-widening requests have drained resources and resulted in the possibility of documents falling through the cracks.

"The State Department also turned over a new set of Clinton emails that were responsive to previous committee requests regarding Libya and Benghazi, but for some reason were not previously given to the committee under subpoena," Gowdy noted Thursday.

A State Department spokesperson told the Examiner the "new set of Clinton emails" provided to the committee were all the records in their possession that matched those submitted by Blumenthal earlier this month.

"These revelations raise questions that the committee will now be considering carefully in the days ahead," Gowdy said, suggesting the committee may take additional action to ensure it obtains all of Clinton's Benghazi-related emails.
Sarah Westwood is a Watchdog Reporter for the Washington Examiner. She previously covered local governments for the Marietta (Ga.) Daily Journal. She received her bachelor's degree in political science from George Washington University. She is a graduate of the fellowship program of the National Journalism Center.

Copyright 2015 Washington Examiner

Sunday, June 28, 2015

America Rising

It is gratifying there are Patriots in America displeased with an unconstitutional SCOTUS. Justin Smiths shares some thoughts on the Obamacare subsidy ruling and the Same-Sex Marriage ruling.

JRH 6/28/15
America Rising

By Justin O. Smith
Sent: 6/27/2015 9:30 PM

"The Liberties of Our Country ... are worth defending at all hazards ... We have received them as a fair inheritance from our worthy ancestors ... purchased ... with toil ... and expense of treasure and blood. -- It will bring a mark of everlasting infamy on the present generation ... if we should ... be cheated out of them by the artifices of designing men." - Samuel Adams

Two-hundred and thirty-nine years of freedom and liberty and the American Heritage, as that "shining city on the hill," a beacon and a place of safety for all peoples that offers a glimmer of hope for a better future and a better tomorrow, are coming to a grinding halt. With Congress moving America towards transnational fascism (TPA) and the Supreme Court acting in a lawless fashion concerning Obamacare - King v. Burwell - and the issue of same-sex marriage, the "land of liberty" is facing the greatest challenges of its entire history.

The majority of Americans stand for American interests to be first and foremost in our foreign policies, and we oppose globalism. We believe this country has the right and obligation to secure Her borders, Her sacred Heritage and Her values. And we believe in a small constrained federal government, with its inevitable corruption confined within the limited role set for it by the Founding Fathers.

When the Supreme Court can arbitrarily decide to provide alternative and false meanings to words written and passed by our elected representatives and ignore other laws, in order to align with the goals and agendas of whoever happens to be in power, we are on the road to tyranny, like it or not.

As noted on June 25th by Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia _ a true Son of Liberty:

(On Obamacare) "We should start calling this SCOTUSCare ... this Court's two decisions on the Act will surely be remembered through the years. The summersaults of statutory interpretation they have performed ('penalty' means tax ... 'established by the State' means not established by the State) will be cited by litigants endlessly, to the confusion of honest jurisprudence."

On June 26th Scalia stated his concerns regarding the Supreme Court's 5-4 decision removing state bans on homosexual/gay marriage:

"I write separately to call attention to this Court's threat to American democracy ... Today's decree says that ... the ruler of 320 million Americans coast to coast is a majority of nine lawyers on the Supreme Court."

In Katie Pavlich's 'Gay Marriage is a Constitutional Right', the observation is made that Chief Justice John Roberts' accusation that the Court acted "out of preference" is "an interesting description considering he did the same thing on King v. Burwell."

Former Governor Mike Huckabee's assessment on this egregious mess coincides with Chief Justice Roberts' dissent. Huckabee said: "They [the Justices] didn't rule on any existing law. They simply redefined marriage"; and Roberts stated: "The majority's decision was an act of will, not legal judgment. The right it announces has no basis in the Constitution or this Court's precedent."

Marriage defined as a union between one man and one woman is a part of America's core traditional value system. Our ancestors were mostly Christian, and, as such, the majority of Americans have understood marriage as set forth in the Bible. They also hold fast to God's commandment in Leviticus 18:22 _ "Man shall not lie with man as with woman; it is an abomination."

The Court's ruling on homosexual marriage is nothing less than an attempt to force Christianity out of America's public square and underground, as the Far Left moves to culturally transform America. Chief Justice Roberts pointedly observed: "As a result the Court invalidates the marriage laws of more than half the states and orders the transformation of a social institution that has formed the basis of human society for millennia, for the Kalahari Bushmen and the Han Chinese, the Carthaginians and the Aztecs. Just who do we think we are?"

All of these disgusting anti-liberty, anti-American developments moves me to tell the fascist Progressives of both parties "You don't belong here." Go find a place where the people welcome the idea of a permanent ruling class. There are plenty of them out there, but it's not here.

Take your tools in the press, your sycophant followers, the poltroons and quislings, your socialist pipedreams and your Hell called "Utopia". Take your self-serving transnational vision of one borderless world, united under your thumb. That might be fine for others, but it's not for the Sons and Daughters of Liberty still living in America.

Whatever the motives of Obama and the five Progressive activist Justices, America cannot allow itself to be dragged down into the dung heap of totalitarianism, as a result of the majority's misapplication of clauses like "due process", aimed at affording substantive rights at the expense of 'liberty' and through a distortion of the principles on which this Nation was founded. Our path can only be up to man's age-old dream and the ultimate in individual freedom consistent with law and order.

The sole thing tyranny fears is the truth, and therein lies a sworn mission for each of us. All who believe in liberty must do everything to convince their fellow Americans of the importance of a conservative path towards freedom. Tell the truth to the good people of the United States, and through that revelation, restore America to the greatness She was founded to attain.

There is a God, and this God of all Creation would prefer us to be free. That means He must love this country, not so much for what we've allowed it to become, but deeply for what it was once meant to be.

However, there is a never ending war being waged for the heart of America -- because true Evil cannot be stopped and the truly Good will not be moved. [This] is a battle that must be won or lost every day, by one side or the other, and no less than the fate of free mankind hangs in the balance.

The outcome may still be in question, but I know where I stand. To those yet undecided, there's a place here beside me or out there against me, once you're moved to make up your mind.

Rise up America and let Liberty's dimmed light once more burn bright. It awaits an awakening, so this one nation and the love of true Liberty at its heart can be restored to Her old glory. America demands much of those that hear the call, and the first hard thing it asks is courage.

By Justin O. Smith
Edited by John R. Houk
Text enclosed by brackets and links are by the Editor.

© Justin O. Smith

Saturday, June 27, 2015

Guns or Bibles or Both

Is it Time to Consider?

John R. Houk
© June 27, 2015

Bible believing Christians must show their displeasure with SCOTUS, Congress and of course President Barack Hussein Obama. The only way to prevent the further threat to our Liberty to be practicing Christians is to call for an Amendment to the Constitution to reverse the curse that SCOTUS has placed on our nation. That a Leftist Congress has promoted. And that our Leftist-in-Chief President has sent in his so far successful agenda to fundamentally transform America.

Posted by obamacarePublished on Jul 24, 2013 
 Remember 5 days before the 2008 Presidential Election? President Obama promised to fundamentally transform America? How's He doing? Join the Fight against Obama and the Progressives' attempt to destroy Individual Liberty at

Getting Congress to pass an Amendment to address Traditional Marriage may be a daunting task. I suspect not one Democrat would vote in favor of such an Amendment. ALSO I have a horrible feeling the Establishment Republican RINOs and pretend pseudo-Conservatives would join the Democrats in naysaying. Under those conditions I have serious doubts that Congress could muster even a simple majority in favor of Traditional Marriage with one man and one woman. A simple majority in favor of a Traditional Marriage Amendment isn’t enough since 2/3 of both Houses of Congress is required. And if a 2/3 majority passes both Houses still the Amendment to the States requires the ratification of 3/4 of States (currently 38 out of 50) to be a part of the Constitution. There is another way to constitutionally amend the Constitution that bypasses Congress, the President and SCOTUS.

If 2/3 (34) of each individual State passes a resolution petitioning for a Constitutional Convention to construct an Amendment for Traditional Marriage. This has never happened since the first Constitutional Convention that brought us our U.S. Constitution.

Critics of a Constitutional Convention on both the Left and the Right believe such a convention will rewrite the entirely new Constitution. However I have since learned that each State legislature can call for a Constitutional Convention with a specific mandate for a specific Amendment or specific Amendments or a whole new Constitution. The next convention which would only be the second since the 1787, can assign the delegates with specific instructions on what kind of Amendment or Amendments to work on. AND THEN still 3/4 of the States would be needed to ratify said Amendment or Amendments under a specified mandate; i.e. 38 out of 50.

Calling for such a convention only needs a simple majority of the legislature of each State OR if the State runs an Initiative law, a voters plebiscite can call for a convention. The U.S. Constitution does not actually lay out the framework on how each State issues a petition for a convention. That method is left to the devices of each State. The U.S. Constitution does issue one caveat for States calling an assembly of a national Constitutional Convention. After 34 States submit a Constitutional Convention petition, then the U.S. Congress must convene the Convention.

I have to wonder what happens if the U.S. Congress refuses to convene a Convention after 34 States validate such a petition. The next logical Constitutional path would that the several States have SCOTUS force Congress to convene a convention as per Article 5 of the Constitution. I perceive the problem with SCOTUS fulfilling its Constitutional duty is that the recent two rulings validating Obamacare and same-sex marriage contrary to Amendment 10 of the Constitution will continue a rogue Supreme Court thus ensuring political tyranny.

It is political tyranny that America’s Founding Fathers initiated a rebellion against British rule because the British Crown and the British Parliament ignored the Liberty and Freedom of their citizens in the 13 American colonies.

Declaration of Independence – July 4, 1776 
 When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation. 
 We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.--Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and ... Dear God in Heaven you should READ THE  REST (The Declaration of Independence: A Transcription IN CONGRESS [i.e. under Articles of Confederation], July 4, 1776; Charters of Freedom;

It is my opinion that if all three Constitutional Branches of government form an oligarchy of despotism, then a new American Revolution may be necessary for WE the people to dissolve the political bands which have connected us to a political despotism that separates us from the “Laws of Nature and of Nature's God”. 

I suspect the Founding Fathers responsible for the Bill of Rights (viz. the Second Amendment) foresaw a future rogue National Government. Hello: rogue President, rogue SCOTUS and an indecisive Congress essentially the essence of a rogue legislature swayed by special interests and huge ideological divisions making statesman a 19th century concept.

It was there I took a couple of courses with Dr. J. Rufus Fears, professor of an incredibly manly subject: the history of freedom. One of the things the good professor emphasized to us captivated students was that politician and a statesman are not the same thing. A statesman, Fears argues, is not a tyrant; he is the free leader of a free people and he must possess four critical qualities: 
 1.   A bedrock of principles 
 2.   A moral compass 
 3.   A vision 
 4.   The ability to build a consensus to achieve that vision 
 Let us now explore these four criteria of a democratic statesman in READ ENTIRETY (The 4 Qualities of a True Statesman; By Brett &  Kate McKay; The Art of Manliness; 1/30/12)

The only moral compass among Obama-Democrats are the godless fallacies of Secular Humanism:

Theologically, Secular Humanists are atheists. Humanist Paul Kurtz, publisher of Prometheus Books and editor of Free Inquiry magazine, says that "Humanism cannot in any fair sense of the word apply to one who still believes in God as the source and creator of the universe."[5] Corliss Lamont agrees, saying that "Humanism contends that instead of the gods creating the cosmos, the cosmos, in the individualized form of human beings giving rein to their imagination, created the gods."[6] 
 Philosophically, Secular Humanists are naturalists. That is, they believe that nature is all that exists - the material world is all that exists. There is no God, no spiritual dimension, no afterlife. Carl Sagan said it best in the introduction to his Cosmos series: "The universe is all that is or ever was or ever will be."[7] Roy Wood Sellars concurs. “Humanism is naturalistic,” he says, "and rejects the supernaturalistic stance with its postulated Creator-God and cosmic Ruler."[8] 
 Secular Humanist beliefs in the area of biology are closely tied to both their atheistic theology and their naturalist philosophy. If there is no supernatural, then life, including human life, must be the result of a purely natural phenomenon. Hence, Secular Humanists must believe in evolution. Julian Huxley, for example, insists that "man … his body, his mind and his soul were not supernaturally created but are all products of evolution."[9] Sagan, Lamont, Sellars, Kurtz—all Secular Humanists are in agreement on this. 
 Atheism leads most Secular Humanists to adopt ethical relativism - the belief that no absolute moral code exists, and therefore man must adjust his ethical standards in each situation according to his own judgment.[10] If God does not exist, then He cannot establish an absolute moral code. READ ENTIRETY (What is Secular Humanism? Adapted from Understanding the Times: The Religious Worldviews of our Day and the Search for Truth, and Clergy in the Classroom: The Religion of Secular Humanism by David A. Noebel, J.F. Baldwin and Kevin By water of Summit Ministries; ChristianAnswers.Net; Copyright © 1996, Summit Ministries, All Rights Reserved)

The SCOTUS decision on Same-Sex marriage has just about robbed me of all confidence that the operation of the current Federal Government will preserve an exceptional United States of America under God with Liberty and Justice for all. The “Justice” here is NOT the social justice advocated by a godless Secular Humanism. RATHER this “Justice” is Justice under God Almighty as displayed in the Holy Bible (and not the antichrist Quran of Islam).

In a cross post of Robert Smith’s email submission yesterday, he volunteered Americans have two choices to take back the Constitution of the Founding Fathers’ Original Intent:

It is becoming clear that the American People must take matters into their own hands. Hopefully by the ballot box, but if necessary by armed intervention.

Robert had submitted his thoughts at about 11:00 PM on June 25 referencing the SCOTUS support for Obamacare subsidies which was a stretch on the Constitution. However his thoughts came to mind after listening to Fox News the morning of June 26 announcing the SCOTUS decision on same-sex marriage. AGAIN: the ballot box or armed intervention.

I always conceived an armed confrontation might occur between American citizens standing for Conservative-Christian principles and a rogue operating unconstitutional Federal government, BUT I really did not conceive such a situation viable in my lifetime. NOW I am not so sure.

The existence of a Rogue Presidency and a Rogue SCOTUS could be hard pressed for Americans to make their wishes be heard at the ballot box. SCOTUS has demonstrated that a disregard for the Constitution in which their mandate was to preserve when broken and to instruct Congress to make corrections to bad legislation unless that legislative purview belonged to each individual State of the Union.

A SCOTUS majority has embraced the Secular Humanist Leftist (Progressive, Liberal or whatever appellation) concept of a Living Constitution rather than the Original Intent (See Also HERE) of the Founding Fathers and the original intent of succeeding Amendments after the Bill of Rights. The Living Constitution theorists believe the U.S. Constitution must be interpreted according to the perceptions of modern culture and associated rules of law pertaining to the global legal environment.

It is my increasingly lack of confidence in all three branches of the Federal government that leads me to believe America’s last chance is in the never yet used Constitutional process of Amendment by State origin regardless of the potential to rewrite the entire Constitution. If a new Constitution favors a Left Wing perspective and is ratified by 38 States is America is lost to the past of insightful American Founding Fathers.

If THIRTYEIGHT American States choose a godless path to America’s future that means twelve States are willing to remember Liberty and Freedom under God.

Franklin Graham Facebook post 6/26/15 screen capture

If there are 38 States ratifying godlessness, I suspect there will be Conservative Christians who will be willing to participate in a Declaration of Independence-style rebellion throw the godless bands of tyranny off their necks by guns or Bibles or both.

JRH 627/15

Friday, June 26, 2015

USA in Trouble when SCOTUS Ignores Constitution

John R. Houk
© June 26, 2015

Yesterday SCOTUS ruled Obamacare subsidies are just fine. Remarkably Chief Justice John Roberts joined four Leftists and a Centrist to pat Barack Hussein Obama to tell him it was just fine to keep screwing up America.

TODAY SCOTUS ruled that same-sex marriage must be legal in ALL 50 States in the Union based on the 14th Amendment that assured former slaves as equal citizens with equal rights. I wonder if those Northern States that ensured Freedom for Black-Americans would think that the 14th Amendment’s intent would be used to justify the ungodly abomination of homosexual marriage. This time Chief Justice Roberts went with the godly side but was a part of four losing Justices that lost out to four thumbing their noses Leftist Justices and Centrist Justice Anthony Kennedy placed the USA in a dangerous spiritual position in the eyes of God Almighty.

Late last night Robert Smith submitted a post expressing his displeasure with how the three constitutional Branches of our Federal government are forsaking the Constitution. Smith concludes that the unconstitutional government movement will lead to one of two actions: 1) America’s Constitution gets a reset button of Original Intent at the ballot box. 2) Barring the peaceful action of the ballot box, a Revolutionary War-style rebellion will occur with the Americans that are tired of the tyranny of the ungodly Left.

After the Robert Smith post I’m going to cross post the informative story I find most relevant to the Sodomizing of America by five ungodly Justices of the Supreme Court of the United States.

JRH 6/26/15
Degrading OUR Constitution

By Robert G. Smith
Sent: 6/25/2015 11:07 PM

The Constitution is being ripped asunder by the POTUS and the SCOTUS. The POTUS is determined to destroy our country. This is so the Transnational Bankers, Global Politicians and Islamists will have an easier task of subjugating the people of our country and making them accept a NWO and Islam as the one true religion.

In the SCOTUS you have Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg who believes the Constitution has out lived its usefulness. [And we have] one Elena Kagan, who believes the Constitution should be supplemented by Sharia Law. And Chief Justice John Roberts who perceives himself as a member of the House of Representatives.

It is becoming clear that the American People must take matters into their own hands. Hopefully by the ballot box, but if necessary by armed intervention.

They have taken the most sought after health care in the world, emasculated it and made it so costly no one can afford it. The number of citizens who did not have health care prior to O-Bama Care was so small they could have been provided governmental health care paid for, many times over, by the billions already spent by O-Bama Care.

It makes me heartsick to see the country and the Constitution I fought for in three wars so maligned so corrupted by those who have never turned a finger to protect our country and our way of life. This must be corrected. How? I do not have the answers, but I hope it is by the ballots and not the bullets.

We have a Congress that is doing very little to better the situation. They must be replaced by true Conservatives, those who truly love our country.

Most of our voters do not comprehend the serious nature of the problems facing our country today. They are lackadaisical when it comes to checking the backgrounds of those we choose to represent us. They continue to send to Congress people who have only their own selfish interests in mind. This must be stopped!!

To vote for a Liberal only ensures the continuation of the situation we now have. The liberals must be replaced by true Conservatives and not by the many RINOs - Republican In Name Only - that we now have serving in Congress; i.e. Mitch McConnell, John Boehner, Lamar Alexander, Bob Corker, and the list goes on.

I hope to see a peaceful change in the direction our country is following but I do hope to see a change!!!!

PSG [ret.] R. G. Smith
Symposium: Judicial activism on marriage causes harm: What does the future hold?

June 26th, 2015 4:28 pm

Ryan T. Anderson is the William E. Simon Senior Research Fellow at The Heritage Foundation and the author of the forthcoming book Truth Overruled: The Future of Marriage and Religious FreedomHis amicus brief was cited in Justice Clarence Thomas’s dissenting opinion in Obergefell.

As the four dissenting opinions make abundantly clear, today’s ruling in Obergefell v. Hodges had nothing to do with the Constitution. This ruling is perhaps as clear of an example of judicial activism as any we have seen in recent years – or are likely (hopefully) to see in the future. The majority of the Court simply replaced the people’s opinion about what marriage is with its own. Nothing in the Constitution supplies an answer to the question What Is Marriage? And none of the purported rationales can justify the Court redefining marriage everywhere.

This ruling will likely cause harm to the body politic: to constitutional democratic self-government, to marriage itself, to civil harmony, and to religious liberty. Because of space constraints, I highlight these four harms with quotations solely from Chief Justice John Roberts’s dissent. (Needless to say, they could be amplified with quotations from Justices Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, and Samuel Alito.)

First, the ruling will cause harm to constitutional democratic self-government. As Roberts notes, “this Court is not a legislature. Whether same-sex marriage is a good idea should be of no concern to us. Under the Constitution, judges have power to say what the law is, not what it should be. The people who ratified the Constitution authorized courts to exercise ‘neither force nor will but merely judgment.’” Roberts continues:

Although the policy arguments for extending marriage to same-sex couples may be compelling, the legal argu­ments for requiring such an extension are not. The fun­damental right to marry does not include a right to make a State change its definition of marriage. And a State’s decision to maintain the meaning of marriage that has persisted in every culture throughout human history can hardly be called irrational. In short, our Constitution does not enact any one theory of marriage. The people of a State are free to expand marriage to include same-sex couples, or to retain the historic definition.

Indeed, Roberts repeatedly argues that in Obergefell the Court has simply Lochner-ized – “the majority’s ap­proach has no basis in principle or tradition, except for the unprincipled tradition of judicial policymaking that char­acterized discredited decisions such as Lochner v. New York.”

Second, the ruling will cause harm to marriage itself. Roberts notes that marriage “arose in the nature of things to meet a vital need: ensuring that children are conceived by a mother and father committed to raising them in the stable conditions of a lifelong relationship.” But redefining marriage makes it more about the romantic desires of the consenting adults involved than about the needs or the rights of children involved to a relationship with their mother and father.

Indeed, the judicial redefinition of marriage to exclude the marital norm of male-female sexual complementarity raises the question of what other marital norms may be excluded. Roberts writes: “One immediate question invited by the majority’s posi­tion is whether States may retain the definition of mar­riage as a union of two people.” Roberts continues:

Although the majority randomly inserts the adjective “two” in various places, it offers no reason at all why the two-person element of the core definition of mar­riage may be preserved while the man-woman element may not. Indeed, from the standpoint of history and tradi­tion, a leap from opposite-sex marriage to same-sex mar­riage is much greater than one from a two-person union to plural unions, which have deep roots in some cultures around the world. If the majority is willing to take the big leap, it is hard to see how it can say no to the shorter one. 
 It is striking how much of the majority’s reasoning would apply with equal force to the claim of a fundamental right to plural marriage. If “[t]here is dignity in the bond between two men or two women who seek to marry and in their autonomy to make such profound choices,” why would there be any less dignity in the bond be­tween three people who, in exercising their autonomy, seek to make the profound choice to marry? If a same-sex couple has the constitutional right to marry because their children would otherwise “suffer the stigma of knowing their families are somehow lesser,” why wouldn’t the same reasoning apply to a family of three or more persons raising children? If not having the oppor­tunity to marry “serves to disrespect and subordinate” gay and lesbian couples, why wouldn’t the same “imposition of this disability,” serve to disrespect and subor­dinate people who find fulfillment in polyamorous rela­tionships?

For marriage policy to serve the common good it must reflect the truth that marriage unites a man and a woman as husband and wife so that children will have both a mother and a father. Marriage is based on the anthropological truth that men and woman are distinct and complementary, the biological fact that reproduction depends on a man and a woman, and the social reality that children deserve a mother and a father.

Redefining marriage to make it a genderless institution fundamentally changes marriage: It makes the relationship more about the desires of adults than about the needs – or rights – of children. It teaches the lie that mothers and fathers are interchangeable.

Third, the ruling will cause harm to civil harmony. When fundamental policy changes are made by Court rulings that have no basis in the Constitution, it makes change harder to accept – because it casts doubt on the change itself. As Chief Justice Roberts points out,

Supporters of same-sex marriage have achieved considerable success persuading their fellow citizens—through the democratic process—to adopt their view. That ends today. Five lawyers have closed the debate and enacted their own vision of marriage as a matter of constitutional law. Stealing this issue from the people will for many cast a cloud over same-sex mar­riage, making a dramatic social change that much more difficult to accept.

Yet in the middle of such a robust debate, the Court “seizes for itself a ques­tion the Constitution leaves to the people, at a time when the people are engaged in a vibrant debate on that ques­tion. And it answers that question based not on neutral principles of constitutional law, but on its own ‘under­standing of what freedom is and must become.’” This will make the redefinition of marriage less accepted – more contested – in the United States. Roberts elaborates:

The Court’s accumulation of power does not occur in a vacuum. It comes at the expense of the people. And they know it. Here and abroad, people are in the midst of a serious and thoughtful public debate on the issue of same-sex marriage. … This delib­erative process is making people take seriously questions that they may not have even regarded as questions before.

When decisions are reached through democratic means, some people will inevitably be disappointed with the re­sults. But those whose views do not prevail at least know that they have had their say, and accordingly are—in the tradition of our political culture—reconciled to the result of a fair and honest debate.

But today the Court puts a stop to all that.

The Court had no reason – no basis in the Constitution – to short-circuit the democratic process. No reason to put a stop to the national discussion we were having about the future of marriage. Roberts continues, “There will be consequences to shutting down the political process on an issue of such profound public significance. Closing debate tends to close minds. People denied a voice are less likely to accept the ruling of a court on an issue that does not seem to be the sort of thing courts usually decide.” Just so.

Fourth, the ruling will cause harm to religious liberty. As Roberts notes, the decision “creates serious questions about religious liberty. Many good and decent people oppose same-sex marriage as a tenet of faith, and their freedom to exercise religion is—unlike the right imagined by the majority—actually spelled out in the Constitution.” When marriage was redefined democratically, citizens could accompany it with religious liberty protections, but “the majority’s decision imposing same-sex marriage cannot, of course, create any such accommo­dations.”

Most alarmingly, the majority opinion never discusses the free exercise of religion. Roberts notes, “The majority graciously suggests that religious believers may continue to ‘advocate’ and ‘teach their views of marriage. The First Amendment guarantees, however, the freedom to ‘exercise’ religion. Ominously, that is not a word the majority uses.”

Indeed, as Roberts notes, “Unfortunately, people of faith can take no comfort in the treatment they receive from the majority today.” Why can they take no comfort? Because “the most discouraging aspect of today’s decision is the extent to which the majority feels compelled to sully those on the other side of the debate.” Over and over and over again, the majority attacks the Americans who stand for marriage as the union of husband and wife. And as Robert notes, “These apparent assaults on the character of fair minded people will have an effect, in society and in court. Moreover, they are entirely gratuitous.”

Indeed, “[i]t is one thing for the major­ity to conclude that the Constitution protects a right to same-sex marriage; it is something else to portray every­one who does not share the majority’s ‘better informed understanding’ as bigoted.”

In conclusion, because the Court has inappropriately redefined marriage everywhere, there is urgent need for policy to ensure that the government never penalizes anyone for standing up for marriage. As discussed in my new book, Truth Overruled: The Future of Marriage and Religious Freedom, we must work to protect the freedom of speech, association, and religion of those who continue to abide by the truth of marriage as union of man and woman.

At the federal level, the First Amendment Defense Act is a good place to start. It says that the federal government cannot discriminate against people and institutions that speak and act according to their belief that marriage is a union of one man and one woman. States need similar policies.

Recognizing the truth about marriage is good public policy. Today’s decision is a significant setback to achieving that goal. We must work to reverse it and recommit ourselves to building a strong marriage culture because so much of our future depends upon it.

Recommended Citation: Ryan Anderson, Symposium: Judicial activism on marriage causes harm: What does the future hold?, SCOTUSblog (Jun. 26, 2015, 4:28 PM),

Further Reading on SCOTUS Homosexual Abomination Marriage

<![if !supportLists]>-       <![endif]>By BOB UNRUH; WND; 6/26/15

SCOTUS Endorses Same-Sex Marriage - By John J. Bastiat; The Patriot Post; 6-26-15

USA in Trouble when SCOTUS Ignores Constitution
John R. Houk
© June 26, 2015
Degrading OUR Constitution

© Robert G. Smith
Symposium: Judicial activism on marriage causes harm: What does the future hold?