Perspectives; Thoughts; Comments; Opinions; Discussions

Posts tagged ‘U.S. Constitution’

Abortion in Early America (incredible video)


waving flagWritten by Brad Sherman, Feb 25, 2016

URL of the original posting site: http://constitution.com/abortion-early-america-incredible-video

“With consistency, beautiful and undeviating, human life – from its commencement to its close- is protected by the common law.

“In the contemplations of law, life begins when the infant is first able to stir in the womb.  By the law, that life is protected.”

— James Wilson

birth

When life was declared as an unalienable right given by God in the Declaration of Independence, and when the 5th and 14th Amendments to our U.S. Constitution speak of protections for life,  life in the womb was certainly included and was expected to be protected by law.

The founders of our nation were not unfamiliar with abortion. In 1652 a conviction was handed down in Maryland for “intent to abort,” and in 1656, a woman was arrested for murder after procuring an abortion. (Proprietary v. Mitchell in Archives of Maryland, Vol. 10, (Baltimore: Maryland Historical Society, 1936. p.182-185; 464.)

In Delaware, for example, a 1719 law made illegal the act of giving counsel for abortion, delineating its as a crime, “accessory to murder.” (Delaware Laws, Chapter 22, Section 6, p. 67 (1797)).

And in Virginia, a 1790 law made illegal the act of concealing a pregnancy, and later being found with a dead baby, a capital crime. (William Waller Hening, ed., The Statutes at Large, Vol. 3. Philadelphia: Desilver, 1823. p. 516-517).

Make no mistake, the child in the womb is a person and God knows each one. Jeremiah was called to be a prophet to the nations before he was born (Jeremiah 1:5).  John the Baptist was filled with the Spirit of God while in the womb, and he “leaped” in Elizabeth’s womb in response to Mary’s voice, who was pregnant with our Lord Jesus (Luke 1:41).

Americans must employ every means available to save the lives of those yet in the womb. Our greatest victory will be reestablishing the personhood of the unborn and providing them protection under law.AMEN I AM A PERSON with Poem Die Picture1 In God We Trust freedom combo 2

Will the Real Americans Please Stand Up


stand upJeremy Dodge is an American songwriter and defender of the U.S. Constitution who recently began speaking out about basic constitutional principles that continue to be ignored, violated, or forgotten.

He mentions that several years ago he didn’t know what or how he personally could positively improve any of the numerous challenges facing America. But a breaking point arrived when it seemed to Dodge that no end was in sight to the rapidly increasing deterioration of American socio-economic life. He said,

“I just knew I couldn’t sit down any longer and watch as my country, my America was being changed into something that I didn’t even recognize.  It was then that I realized, I was falling for the lie that I couldn’t make a difference, that I was just one voice in a sea of millions but that never has been nor ever will be the truth.”

He cites perhaps America’s greatest leader and first president, George Washington, who affirmed, “The Constitution is the guide which I will never abandon.”

This commitment to defending the Constitution is one Dodge shares with many Americans, and his growing fan base on social media. Millions of concerned American citizens are increasingly troubled by local, state, and federal government officials who blatantly ignore the most basic “shall not be infringed” prohibitions clearly outlined in the Constitution.

Dodge decided to take action and began writing, singing, and producing music videos to encourage Americans to “stand up” to restore America’s foundational principles of liberty, freedom, and unity. He tells Americans, “this is your country, our voices do matter but if we choose to remain silent, if we choose not to stand up, then we lose by default.”

From singing about being proud to be an American to belting out “God bless America,” Dodge identifies the liberties that are systematically being stripped away by media elites and fascist leaders.

His most recent song, “Stand Up, 2nd Amendment Style,” addresses the ongoing and largely false claims made by gun control advocates.

In-between sound bites of Ronald Reagan and JFK, he sings:

“… when politicians take from you and me the very liberties that set us free – so stand up and fight – for this “democracy” is you and me 

“will the real Americans please stand up – divided we’ve fallen but united we’ll stand.”

song

Who will stand for America?

Dodge has been asking this for years. Addressing his own thoughts about “stepping out of his comfort zone,” he says:

“We need to get out of our comfort zones, we need to be bold and open our mouths and speak the truth in love.  It is the knowledge of the truth that will set our country free.  For far too long we have been silent, while the outspoken minorities have slowly changed the God ordained direction our country was created to head.  No one in history who has stood up and made a difference was comfortable doing so, but that didn’t stop them.  The love that they had for their country was greater than the fear of man’s opinion of them and so they stood.  Where do you stand?  You are either for America or not. There is no in between.  We can no longer shift between two opinions on the back of apathy or fear, we must stand up and stand our ground without fear and full of love.”AMEN

In God We Trust freedom combo 2

Black Lives Matter Leader Warns: Replace The Constitution Or Else This Will Happen


waving flagPosted by B. Christopher Agee October 8, 2015

URL of the original posting site: http://www.westernjournalism.com/black-lives-matter-leader-warns-replace-the-constitution-or-else-this-will-happen/?utm_source=Email&utm_medium=ConservativeHeadlinesEmail&utm_campaign=AM2&utm_content=2015-10-09

Image Credit: Flickr/Arash Azizzada

Image Credit: Flickr/Arash Azizzada

“Sounds like a terroristic threat to me.”

An activist’s racially motivated attack on the U.S. Constitution included a direct threat of violence against those who disagree with him. Blake Simons, identified as a leader in the Black Lives Matter movement, wrote an editorial with a message made clear in its title: A New Constitution or the Bullet.blm

Simons wrote that “the Constitution is the root of virtually all our problems in America,” going on to ridicule the nation’s founders as genocidal rapists.

“A Constitution written by only white men,” he asserted, “will never serve the interests of Black people. The Constitution was written for the ruling class of white men which constructed whiteness to be more valuable than any other race.”

In an apparent attempt to further clarify his article’s frank rhetoric, Simons wrote that “it is our human right to defend ourselves by any means necessary” and “overthrow a government that has been destructive to our people.”hate

He cited failed extremist efforts of decades past, proclaiming that now is the time for blacks to “pick up where the Black Panthers left off and declare a new constitution or it will be the bullet.”

The article was shared in a Free Republic post, prompting a number of replies lambasting Simon’s piece.

“Sounds like a terroristic threat to me,” one reader responded.

Another said the editorial represented the “[b]latherings of an idiot.”

At least a few advocates made their support known via social media, however, including one individual who posted a corresponding article in an attempt to get Simons’ attention.

Leftist monster race In God We Trust freedom combo 2

Video: Muslims are ANGRY at Texas Mayor After She Stops “Sharia Court”… Here Is Her EPIC Response!


waving flagBy clyde – / Sep 6, 2015

This radical group of Muslims is not pleased with the Mayor of Irving, Texas after she put the end to America’s first “Sharia Court.” Mayor Beth Van Duyne has accused mosque leaders of creating separate laws for Muslims, which is why the city voted to stop these supposedly “voluntary” tribunals from operating.Christian Persecution

In a very close 5-4 vote, the city of Irving ruled to back the Texas state bill banning foreign law from the state. The bill doesn’t mention Sharia or any religion, but it’s a huge defeat for Sharia supporters, as such courts are in violation of the U.S. Constitution.

All four of the “voluntary” court’s lawyers were unlicensed in the state of Texas, a third degree felony. Mayor Beth Van Duyne received several phone calls on the matter. It seems that the Islamic Tribunal not only was unlicensed, but they failed to notify the city of their illegal court being operated in city limits. She promised to get to the bottom of it, and she did.

By their own website’s admission, if U.S. law conflicts with Sharia law, “we follow Sharia law.” It also openly admitted separate rules for men and women in their proceedings, discriminating and humiliating women which is against the U.S. Constitution. The Islamic Tribunal also openly declared that they hope [this] will “set a precedence that will be emulated and duplicated throughout the country.”Islam is NOT

Here is how Mayor Duyne responded on Facebook, before the historic and controversial vote:

facebook11

And while Muslims filled the city council hearing to voice their opposition, the Mayor shot back:

“This bill does not reference Shariah, Islam or even religion. It has nothing to do with preventing any tribunal,” Van Duyne told the crowd. “Why anyone would feel this is hatred or bigotry is absolutely beyond me.”

Good for Mayor Van Duyne! The legal system from the Islamic faith is incompatible with civilized Western cultures. To have anyone in America abiding by Sharia law is a dangerous precedent, which is why the city moved swiftly to outlaw the practice. No one is above the law!

sharia

95b119e45c50cbea1e7a4fbfa33415f3 In God We Trust freedom combo 2

 

 

 

Kansas Governor Brownback Issues Order Protecting Beliefs of Clergy About Same-Sex “Marriage”


waving flagWritten by  , Friday, 10 July 2015 

URL of the original posting site: http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/constitution/item/21236-kansas-gov-brownback-issues-order-protecting-beliefs-of-clergy-about-same-sex-marriage

Kansas Governor Brownback Issues Order Protecting Beliefs of Clergy About Same-Sex “Marriage”

Kansas Governor Sam Brownback issued an executive order on July 7 that prohibits the state government from taking any action against any individual clergy, religious leader, or religious organization that “acts in accordance with a religious belief or moral conviction that marriage is or should be recognized as the union of one man and one woman.” The governor said his order protects “Kansas clergy and religious organizations from being forced to participate in activities that violate their sincerely and deeply held beliefs.”

Brownback issued the executive order, entitled “Preservation and Protection of Religious Freedom,” in response to last month’s U.S. Supreme Court ruling in the case of Obergefell v. Hodges, mandating recognition of same-sex “marriage” in all 50 states. In the order, he cited the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, Section Seven of the Bill of Rights of the Kansas Constitution, and the Kansas Preservation of Religious Freedom Act (which he signed in 2013), all of which protect the religious liberty of Kansans. He quoted from the latter, which provides that state government shall not “substantially burden a person’s civil right to exercise of religion.”

Building on that legal foundation, Brown noted that “the recent imposition of same sex marriage by the United States Supreme Court poses potential infringements on the civil right of religious liberty” and that “government actions and laws that protect the free exercise of religious beliefs about marriage will encourage private citizens and institutions to demonstrate tolerance for those beliefs and convictions and therefore contribute to a more respectful, diverse, and peaceful society.”burke

Getting down to specifics, Brownback ordered:

The State Government shall not take any discriminatory action against any individual clergy or religious leader on the basis that such individual declines or will decline to perform, solemnize, or facilitate any marriage, based upon or consistent with the individual’s sincerely held religious belief or moral conviction

The four Catholic bishops in Kansas issued a joint statement urging state officials to make the enactment of new legal protections for those who are opposed in conscience to same-sex marriage a top priority in coming months. The bishops praised Brownback’s order and said in a statement: “Generations of Americans have taken freedom of conscience for granted. We, sadly, do not have that luxury anymore.”It HasNever Been About Marriage

Texas Governor Greg Abbott recently issued a similar memo to all agency heads in his state, granting state employees who object on moral grounds to same-sex marriage some protection against the ruling. Abbott’s memo stated: “All state agency heads should ensure that no one acting on behalf of their agency takes any adverse action against any person, as defined in Chapter 311 of the Texas Government Code, on account of the person’s act or refusal to act that is substantially motivated by sincere religious belief.”Big Gay Hate Machine

While orders such as Brownback’s and Abbott’s mitigate some of the most harmful effects of the Supreme Court’s overreaching decision on same-sex “marriage” — about which Justice Samuel Alito said in his dissent, “The Constitution leaves that question to be decided by the people of each State” — they fall far short of other remedies available to the states. One such remedy is nullification, a little-used technique in recent history, but a viable one nevertheless. As Joe Wolverton noted in a recent article for The New American on the prospect of states using nullification to resist the application of Obergefell v. Hodges within their borders:Leftist Giant called Tyranny

Nullification, whether through active acts passed by the legislatures or the simple refusal to obey unconstitutional directives, is the “rightful remedy” for the ill of federal usurpation of authority. Americans committed to the Constitution must walk the fences separating the federal and state governments and they must keep the former from crossing into the territory of the latter.

Wolverton cited no less an authority on the Constitution than Thomas Jefferson to support the legitimacy of nullification, quoting from the Founding Father’s statement in the Kentucky Resolutions:

That the several states who formed that instrument [the Constitution], being sovereign and independent, have the unquestionable right to judge of its infraction; and that a nullification, by those sovereignties, of all unauthorized acts done under colour [sic] of that instrument, is the rightful remedy.

Though nullification is a valid, constitutional option, no state has thus far made an attempt to apply the principal to Obergefell v. Hodges. Granted, it has been only a few weeks since the decision was made, and such matters take time. However, that is all the more reason why serious discussions to consider that possibility should now be taking place.SCOTUS GIANT

One of the strongest statements suggesting nullification came from former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-Texas), who said on Newsmax TV’s The Steve Malzberg Show shortly before the High Court handed down its decision that the states should ignore any Supreme Court ruling in favor of same-sex marriage. “A ruling by the Supreme Court is nothing but an opinion if the legislative branch and the executive branch do not enforce it,” said DeLay. “Not only that, if the states would just invoke the 10th Amendment and assert their sovereignty, they can defy a ruling by the Supreme Court. It’s in the Constitution. We can tell the court what cases they can hear.”

What DeLay described regarding telling the federal courts which cases they can hear is governed not by the 10th Amendment, which protects the sovereignty of the states, but by Article III, Section 2 of the Constitution, which gives Congress the power to make exceptions to and regulate the jurisdiction of the federal courts. Former Representative Ron Paul (R-Texas) attempted to utilize this power when he introduced his We the People Act in 2004 and 2009. The bill, if it had passed, would have removed jurisdiction of federal courts from cases involving the establishment of religion, sexual orientation, abortion, and marriage.

Invoking such power made more practical sense when DeLay mentioned it prior to Obergefell v. Hodges being decided. Since the court has now ruled, it would be difficult to rescind its jurisdiction to decide on marriage cases retroactively. However it is not too late to use the other tool that DeLay recommended, the 10th Amendment, to which Justice Alito alluded when he said, “The Constitution leaves that question to be decided by the people of each State.”

If the decision should be decided by the states, then the states must declare that the power usurped by the Supreme Court in rendering that decision is null. Leftist Giant called Tyranny

Related articles:

Political Leaders Voice Discontent With Supreme Court Marriage Ruling

Catholic Leaders Vow to Stand Against Contraception Mandate, Same-sex Marriage

Texas AG: “Reach of Court’s Opinion Stops at the Door of the First Amendment”

Supreme Court Rubber Stamps Same-sex “Marriage” — Time for Nullification

Rome: Hundreds of Thousands Protest Against Same-sex Unions

Marriage Can’t Be Redefined

Sen. Lee and Rep. Labrador Propose Protection for Religious Liberty

Southern Baptist Leader: Prepare for Civil Disobedience Over Gay Marriage Ruling

As Gov. of Texas, Would Abbott Continue to Stand for States’ Rights?

freedom combo 2

Academic: Constitution Is ‘Confederate Symbol,’ Censor It


waving flagAuthored by Photo of Blake Neff Blake Neff, Reporter, 07/07/2015

burning Constitution YouTube screenshot/FX Riot

A political scientist and former professor has penned an article calling for the U.S. Constitution to be censored in order to conceal older parts that are offensive. “South Carolina’s battle flag may soon come down from the capitol flagpole, but other symbols of the Confederacy’s ideology remain in place,” writes political scientist and former University of Maryland professor Henry Bain in an editorial that has appeared in several newspapers around the country. “For example, consider the U. S. Constitution.”More Evidence

Bain isn’t calling for the creation of a new Constitution, but rather says the current one should simply be edited to remove parts he considers immoral and outdated. “All copies of the Constitution promulgate detailed instructions for the recapture of slaves who have run away from their owners,” he says. “They also specify that slaves are to be counted as three-fifths of a person in the Census, giving a boost to the slave-owning states in the House of Representatives and the Electoral College.” Bain is referring, of course, to the parts of the Constitution which reflect the fact slavery was legal until after the Civil War, when the Thirteenth, Fourteenth, and Fifteenth Amendments were ratified. Slavery isn’t his only problem, as he believes in removing any other text that references “embarrassing” parts of American history, like Prohibition.

Modern copies of the Constitution (such as that at Archive.gov) typically show the text as it originally was, while also including a note that such clauses have been superseded by later amendments. That may seem reasonable, but Bain says that kind of approach is the reason nine people found themselves brutally gunned down in Charleston. “One might justify this presentation of our national charter by saying that it commemorates an earlier time or instructs students on the nation’s political history,” says Bain. “That kind of thinking has prevailed for a long time in Charleston, only recently yielding in the face of an atrocity.”Head in Hands 01

And so, Bain says, the Constitution needs to be “reorganiz[ed]” to suit the modern era, with offensive text excised and moved to a separate back section, “where it belongs.” Such a move would create “a Constitution that deserves to be read aloud each year when the House of Representatives begins its session,” unlike the undeserving current one, which Republicans have read aloud at the opening of Congress for the last three congresses.

insane Alinsky affect freedom combo 2

 

U.S. Constitution Acknowledges Jesus, is Unquestionably Uniquely Christian


waving flagWritten by Bethany Blankley

 

decl-locThis year marked the 239th anniversary of the signing of the Declaration of Independence. Not insignificantly, Barack Obama intentionally ignored God in his July 4th “video tribute to America.”However, the signers of the Declaration of Independence—and the majority of America’s 200 Founders—were quite clear: they believed in the God of the Bible. They consistently and publicly acknowledged and thanked God; their speeches, statements, and letters total many tens of thousands of volumes of books.

imgres

George Mason, one founder known as the “Father of the Bill of Rights,” affirmed: “My soul I resign into the hands of my Almighty Creator, Whose tender mercies are all over His works… humbly hoping from His unbounded mercy and benevolence, through the merits of my blessed Savior, a remission of my sins.”Founder James Madison wrote, “I have sometimes thought there could not be a stronger testimony than for men who occupy the most honorable and gainful departments and are rising in reputation and wealth publicly to declare their unsatisfactoriness by becoming fervent advocates in the cause of Christ.”

Unlike the U.S. Supreme Court of the last century, the Constitution communicates the Founder’s intentions by acknowledging both Christianity and Jesus Christ.

When the delegates deliberated over each word when writing the First Amendment, they did so within a specific religious and historical context— influenced by Christianity. In fact, George Mason proposed that the First Amendment include the following terminology:

“[A]ll men have an equal, natural and unalienable right to the free exercise of religion, according to the dictates of conscience; and that no particular sect or society of Christians ought to be favored or established by law in preference to others.” (Rowland, 1892, 1:244).

The Annals of Congress, records of their deliberations, evidence the Framers’ discussions about “religion” pertained to Christianity—not Islam, not Hinduism, not Buddhism, and not Judaism (Annals of Congress, 1789, pp. 440ff; Story, 1833, 3.1873:730-731).

Furthermore, Section 7 of Article I, refers to Christianity, not any other religion: “If any Bill shall not be returned by the President within ten Days (Sundays excepted) after it shall have been presented to him, the Same shall be a Law, in like Manner as if he had signed it….”

If this exception were made for Jews, Congress would have stated, “Saturdays excepted;” if for Muslims, “Fridays excepted.” If for people practicing no faith, delegates would have specified that the government be closed on Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, or Thursday. Yet the Founders specified: “Sundays excepted,” recognized the importance of the Christian faith to America’s founding.

Amendment1Their Christian worldview primarily explains the Founders’ reasoning to intentionally insert two Religion Clauses to prohibit federal government interference.

This was well understood by John Jay, the original Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court. He testified: “Unto Him Who is the author and giver of all good, I render sincere and humble thanks for His manifold and unmerited blessings, and especially for our redemption and salvation by His beloved Son… Blessed be His holy name.”

Significantly, the U.S. Constitution closes with the following words after Article VII: “Done in Convention by the Unanimous Consent of the States present the Seventeenth Day of September in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven and of the Independence of the United States of America the Twelfth …”

Anno-DominiThe Framers intentionally used the “Year of our Lord” (English for the Latin “Anno Domini,”A.D.). Granted, all western Christiansocio-political cultures have recorded time—dates and calendars of events—based on the person of Jesus Christ. Datesprior to Christwere recorded as B.C. (“Before Christ”).The Framers could have used a nominal pluralistic, multi-cultural, or politically correct designation like C.E. (“Common Era”) and B.C.E. (“Before the Common Era”). If they wanted to historically date the Constitution according to the Islamic calendar they would have used “A.H.” (“Anno Hegirae,” “in the Year of the Hijrah”), referring to Muhammad’s escape from Mecca in A.D. 622, officially marking Islam’s beginning.

Jesus is LordThe adjective, “Our Lord,” didn’t refer to a generic deity or to God as father or creator. It explicitly referred to Jesus Christ, who Christians (not anyone else) worship as the Son of God. 

To be clear: the Constitution of the United States explicitly refers to Jesus Christ—not Allah, Buddha, Muhammad, or any Hindu or Native American god known to the Founders, to validate its historical date and importance.

The Founder’s commitment to the Bible is noteworthy. Prior to the Revolutionary War, King George prohibited American colonists from printing the Bible in English. However this changed after the Battle of Yorktown when colonists first became free of British policies. In 1782 Congress, in its entirety, approved printing the Bible in English. On the first page of each newly printed Bible read: “Resolved, that the United States in Congress assembled … recommend this edition of the Bible to the inhabitants of the United States.”

John Adams, one of the most influential Founders, wrote in his diary and to his beloved friend Thomas Jefferson,

“Suppose a nation in some distant region should take the Bible for their only law book and every member should regulate his conduct by the precepts that there exhibited… What a Utopia—what a Paradise would this region be! The Bible is the best book in the world.”

images-8It was no accident that “In God We Trust” and “Annuit Coeptis” (Latin, “God has favored our undertaking”) were first printed on American currency—to be used as the basis for all financial transactions.

IMG_4028Indeed, Alexander Hamilton, the founder of America’s financial system and first Secretary of the Treasury said, “I have a tender reliance on the mercy of the Almighty, through the merits of the Lord Jesus Christ.”

The Declaration of Independence un-mistakenly alludes four times to the God of the Bible. The U.S. Constitution ensures that Christians must be able to practice their faith freely, unimpeded by the government, that the day of Sunday is to be respected and that Jesus Christ is significant to history, time, date, and law. Without question the U.S. Constitution remarkably acknowledges uniquely Christian concepts and was framed by men who openly valued the God of the Bible.

AMEN freedom combo 2

Tag Cloud

%d bloggers like this: