The Right to Kill

Abortion is not in the constitution because it is an unjust horrific evil, that no founding father would ever imagined to be considered legal. Therefore, according to the constitution it is a matter to be determined by the states. Even if one believes the Civil war eliminated states rights, the right of states to regulate certain affairs such as medical institutions and professionals has been established through decades in the judiciary and legislature. 

However, the Supreme Court is prohibiting the states from protecting their women citizens who want abortions from having safe procedures in safe facilities. They believe the right to kill is greater than any right to life, or the provision of reasonable care in the process of killing an innocent. The decision in Roe v. Wade is almost universally considered unsupported in law. It is a fly in the ointment, a hole in the dike, and lunacy among an ordered system of law.

Justice John Roberts turned away from the law, when he became Chief Justice and decided he would think like the Democrats on the bench, who hardly consider the constitution or law. The Democrat justices do as they feel and think, they are not bound by anything. As the Bible says, “Bad company corrupts good morals”. (1 Cor. 15:33). Also, “No good tree bears bad fruit, nor does a bad tree bear good fruit.” (Luke 6:43) When Justice Roberts became Chief Justice he thought that balance was required from a Chief Justice, so he began to think as the Democrat justices, who consider themselves fair, compassionate, and all-wise. He should be balanced in procedure, perspective, and process. However, balance is fairness, not justice – it has no place in decisions. Moreover, fairness in decisions is by definition unjust as it renders to each party based on their share, rather than what’s due under the law. In his pride as Chief justice, he lost his way and rules against law and justice. Finally, like the Democrat group, Justice Roberts feels free to impute evil intent to the Louisiana legislature in a duly established law. This is absurd, but illustrates the unjust motives of the Democrat group and their new apprentice Chief Justice Roberts. In the same way, he might object and assert that I don’t know what he thinks or what is in his mind. To which I reply, “What you sow, you reap.” This court’s decisions are abominable and one man is mainly to blame.


The following is an interview with the Editor on the subject of Federalism:

Question – I don’t think it is taught or generally known that our “Federal” government refers to a unity or federation of independent sovereign states.  The tenth amendment to the Constitution provides, “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States, respectively, or to the people.”  This amendment embodies the general principles of Federalism in a republican form of government.  Is this still relevant in America today?

Answer – It is if you believe the Constitution is still our nations governing document.  Many today, including the liberal Supreme Court justices, believe the Constitution is a living document” open to reinterpretation with each new generation without going through the required procedure to amend.  This view effectively leaves it to nine justices of the Supreme Court to determine how the Constitution should be amended any time their folly decides it should be.  I believe the Constitution, as written and legally amended, is the law of the land.  That is why I have often called for the states to nullify (not abide by) any ruling of the Supreme Court that is clearly outside the law such as allowing abortions and homosexual marriage.  There is nothing in the Constitution about issues such as these and thus the Supreme Court has no authority under the Constitution to override State laws on these issues.  Really, even the Federal Government has no authority in these areas because it has not been granted to them.  

Question – In the origin of the United States did the concept of Federalism merely carryover from the thirteen original colonies or was it considered a value within itself, such that a majority among thirteen different points of view would reveal the best course?  Alternatively, was the intent to limit the power of a central government that could wield power over local matters traditionally reserved to the states?

Answer – Federalism does not involve anything about majoritiesbut rather that there is a dual role for a central Federal government and the States as outlined in the Constitution, including the Tenth Amendment.  The original Colonies, operating under the Articles of Confederation, were Sovereign States and that remained so even after the Constitution was agreed to as shown in the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution.  As there was no Federal government per se under the Articles of Confederation (although a Congress was put in place) Federalism would have started when the Constitution was created and a Federal government established.

Question – Most people may consider the Tenth Amendment to be defunct or at least suspended after the Civil War, but did Roosevelt’s “New Deal” actually give more free rein to an unlimited central government?  Marriage was defined for thousands of years as the union of one man and woman, but the Supreme Court changed this recently in spite of the fact that marriage licenses are issued by the separate states.  Is the Tenth Amendment relevant is such an issue?

Answer – The tenth amendment was never superseded, even by the Civil War, although Lincoln and the Federal Government of the time certainly trampled all over it by forcing sovereign states back in the Union against their will.  This included throwing half of the legislature of Maryland in jail so they would not vote to succeed.  As for Roosevelt, he certainly tried to ignore the Tenth Amendment and states rights in his New Deal legislation.  However, the Supreme Court of the time ruled against him in enough cases, such as the National Industrial Recovery Act, that he tried to add two additional Supreme Court justices and pack the court.  For a long time after the Civil War a respect for states rights and the Tenth Amendment came back in favor in the courts and nation.  Only in more recent times has the Federal government gained more sympathy with the people and power over the States due to our poor educational system and changing national values of the people.  The people are increasingly looking for a more centralized power to take care of them and this has begun to thwart our decentralized form of government.  Even so, the Tenth Amendment is still regularly considered and sometimes even deployed by the courts so the principal is not completely dead.  However, unless the states rise up and assert their rights of nullification the danger grows of the Supreme Court (even more than the Federal government) ruling the land.

Question – Abortion is not mentioned in the Constitution, and regards the heath, safety and morality of citizens of the state.  Many state legislatures are passing laws to either limit or expand abortion within their respective states.  Do they possess the right to do so under the constitution?  Various and different laws exist in the states regarding the right to bear arms.  How do such differences among state laws apply to issues such as abortion, when, where, under what circumstances it can be performed?

Answer – There in nothing in the Constitution on these issues, except on the right to bear arms and that to guarantee it, and thus the Supreme Court has no role or power over these issues except to interpret that any laws passed by the State or Federal (as long as they stay in their lane) governments are carried out faithfully.  States definitely have the right under the tenth amendment to rule on issues such as abortion, and rule in different ways from one another.  See discussion below.

Question – Is it possible to restrain the power of the central government or has the breach become too wide?  For example, the Constitution clearly grants to the Executive Branch/President power to administer border protection, as recently ruled in US vs Arizona, but now lower courts are overruling presidential actions with respect to border security. Must every action be sanctioned by nine members of the Supreme Court?

Answer – Yes through Nullification and reasserting of States sovereign rights.  Each state should be free to operate under its laws on matters not specifically granted to the Federal government in the Constitution. The precedent for nullification may have been set by the Sanctuary Cities” established (or at least allowed for) in some liberal states.  Although some believe immigration is a Federal area of authority, it is not clearly so under the Constitution.  I have no problem with states allowing illegal immigrants in their cities if they desire as long as we can restrict abortions and homosexual marriage and round up illegal immigrants in my state.  That is the way it should be, but alas, the more conservative states are loath to thwart the Federal rules because they are, well, conservative in nature.

Question – Where do you see these issues and their clash with states rights going in the  future?

Answer – Nowhere good.  The Federal government has already largely won as the States have little power except on issues that the Federal government does not care enough about to act against them.  The ironic thing is that, as the Federal Government usurps the States power, the Supreme Court, which has decided without authority that it can rule on the constitutionality of all things, will eventually rule over the Federal Government and then the Constitution will be fully turned on its head.


Public Forum and Free Speech

Are the electronic platforms of Twitter, Facebook, Google and Apple, public forums? Free speech is protected in the public forum, not in private locations. The public square, parks, and sidewalks are places of public fora. Yet, in our society public speaking is largely conducted via audio, video, and electronic means through television, radio and ever-expanding digital formats. Is the Internet a public arena or a completely private sphere created and operated by private individuals? Email is private, but are broadcast messages, blogs, opinion journals, tweets, and comments posted for the entire digital world on various platforms public speech?

Disputes over the abuse of private information and censored speech by the large internet platform providers mentioned earlier resulted in congressional hearings questioning the necessity of government oversight or regulation. A few large corporations control the various network platforms. The officers or owners of these corporations program their political and social bias into these networks in order to promote their own values, ideas, and political agenda, which is lawful, but they go further by censoring dissent. Much of it is done in secret with algorithms that block distribution while appearing to be broadcast. More flagrant censorship happens when an “offenders” account is blocked or terminated.

The Supreme Court is reviewing the case Manhattan Community Access Corporation v. Halleck, that could have a bearing on these issues and what constitutes a public forum. The 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals overturned the District Courts decision that the community cable network was a private concern, rather than a “state actor”. This ruling conflicted with decisions in the 6th Circuit and DC circuit, thus guidance from the Supreme Court is required.

Free speech is protected from censoring in a public forum. The Cato institute filed a friend of the court brief explaining that first amendment protections apply only to the state. “…when it comes to the First Amendment. Allowing the state unfettered power to interfere with the flow of speech in the marketplace of ideas would allow the state to alter discourse and consequently interfere with the search for truth. The First Amendment therefore prevents the state from restricting who may speak and what they can say. This risk of abuse of power is absent, though, when a private person is speaking or—as relevant here—

deciding who may use its property to speak. Allowing lawsuits that challenge the editorial decisions of private persons who promote speech via their private property would unduly and unnecessarily stifle the free flow of speech in the marketplace of ideas.”

Historically, this is all true and pertinent, however, in our digital age of monopolized electronic public forums, the abuse of power is perpetuated not by the State, but by a very few Internet barons, who are actively restricting who may speak, what may be said, and who may use their property (if in-fact they own the infrastructure) to speak. Moreover, these self-appointed censors are not interested in promoting speech, but rather preserving their bias. Censorship is not editorial activity when it is applied to further a political purpose and agenda as we see today.

Unfortunately, the issues we face today can not be resolved by merely concluding that the monopoly of electronic platforms are public forums. To do so requires entanglement with the state, which the founders and constitution deem the entity from whom protection is necessary. Public speech is being censored by a few private individuals who control vast electronic forums. Political and religious speech is being censored, rather than, threats, vulgarity, indecency, or other acknowledged inappropriate speech. When the only source for securing one’s right comes from the very entity most likely to deny it, we are left in a paradox without recourse. It will be interesting to see how the Court clarifies these issues in our digital age and whether the right questions will be addressed. If my hope and faith were not in God alone, I might be worried that the Supreme Court is like a seventeenth century physician whose patient has a severely infected wound. After a brief physical examination the doctor recommends blood-letting and application of a dung poultice.

Supreme Court Justice

The judicial branch of government is capped by the Supreme Court where the Justices exercise their influence on a case by case basis.  Historically, the Justices keep a low profile sequestered behind their loyal clerks and private environs.  They wield tremendous increasing power of the Federal Government and since the Civil War over every aspect of American life. The best proof of this is the recent decision that upheld Obama’s redefinition of marriage.  Many may never personally acknowledge it, because it is contrary to thousands of years of tradition, practice, religion, law, and common sense, but for American legal purposes it is done.  States issue marriage licenses as they do most other licenses, because our Constitution leaves all matters not specifically provided for in the Constitution to the states.  Simply following this principle would resolve many problems, limit the ever-increasing size and invasiveness of the federal government, and restore the Supreme Court to its proper bounds.  However, constitutional convention or citizen revolt may be the only avenues left to those who interpret the Constitution as it’s words say.   Moreover, many fascist socialist, once referred to as Liberals, don’t accept any fixed meaning to the constitution and would never accept clarification provided from a constitutional convention.  Americans obtained freedom from tyranny of British Royalty, but how can it preserve freedom from government tyranny without the constitution that was written to guarantee it.

The Justices on the supreme court are generally just men and women who often succumb to a desire to “do good” as they see it.  Several recent articles exist that explain and document the “liberal” shift in Justices on the High Court.  There is no mention, evidence or suggestion of a “conservative” shift.  That alone should be a wake up call to everyone.  Martin-Quinn scores track the leanings of justices and as everyone knows, many justices make dramatic moves toward liberalism, for example, Justices Kennedy, Souter, Stevens, Rehnquist, and Blackmun, all of which were thought to have been conservative or at least neutral when appointed.  Now, it appears that Chief Justice Roberts is on a path to liberalism.  It is interesting that he publicly objected to President Trump’s acknowledgment of this liberal slide that exists in the court.  Justice Roberts denied that any Justices were loyalty to a judicial interpretation held at the time of their appointment.  President Trump used a more colloquial description, but he was simply acknowledging a historic reality.  On the contrary, Justice Roberts made no objection when Justice Ginsberg, unethically stated, “I can’t imagine what this place would be — I can’t imagine what the country would be — with Donald Trump as our president,” in a Times interview.  She went on to say, ” He is a faker.”  “He has no consistency about him.”  “He says whatever comes into his head at the moment.”  “He really has an ego.”  “How has he gotten away with not turning over his tax returns?  The press seems to be very gentle with him on that.”

There is no requirement that presidential candidates make their tax returns public.  Ginsberg has prejudiced herself, revealing extreme bias against Trump, and should recuse herself from any case with which Trump is directly connected.  Yet, where was Roberts criticism of this unprecedented public outlast against a presidential candidate?  Justice Roberts was expected to recognize that Obamacare, as designed was unconstitutional, particularly given that it was strictly not a tax.  Instead, he performed some contorted judicial yoga, declaring that the laws individual mandate was a constitutionally allowed tax, (contrary with every fact filed in the case that it was not to be a tax), siding with the liberal bloc and saving Obamacare.

What causes this frequent liberal shift among Justices?  One cause is deception regarding their true judicial perspectives before their confirmation.  They are well-practiced in appearing independent, so they keep it up until they reach the top high court.  Another is activism or wanting to “do good”.  For the liberals this is acceptable, as long as it is liberal activism. Moreover, liberals believe they are good and only possess a proper understanding of what is good.  Not even the constitution can limit what they think is good.  Most of the evils and socialistic failures in our government and society spring from this cause.  Another cause is from a biblical source, “Bad company corrupt good morals,” (1 Cor. 15: 33).  All the justices meet together and the liberal bloc is a source of twisted thinking, their commitment to following the fascist dream is unwavering.  A constant diatribe of such ideology will corrupt it’s hearers.  The Supreme Court has a history of making many horrible decisions, particularly as they relate to social issues about which they have no legitimate Constitutional basis upon which to rule.  We all are subject to making mistakes and being deceived, therefore it is essential to have a guide outside our own rational thinking.  The Judeo-Christian values contained in the Bible is that guide for American Government and society. These principles are also in the founding documents and history validates their truth, virtue, and necessity for the American way of life, government, and prosperity.  When a land falls into the hands of the wicked, he blindfolds its judges. ” If it is not he, then who is it?” (Job 9: 24).

Hypocrisy Redefined

I noticed an article with an astonishing title/accusation against the Vice President, charging he and his wife of moral hypocrisy.  I looked for the source and noted that it was from a discredited fascist source.  However, what was the basis for this accusation?  The writer stated that Mrs. Pence taught art at a private christian school that did not condone sexual perversion and required each student to agree to follow biblical teaching and principles for marriage.  The author’s conclusion followed that working for such an institution was morally contrary to LGBTQ beliefs, and thus morally hypocritical. If one does not believe in the fascist-humanist way, they are immoral.

The truth is that Biblical Christianity is contrary to sexual perversion in its various forms.  “If a man has sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable.  They are to be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.” (Leviticus 20: 13-21; Rom. 1: 25-32; 1 Cor. 6:9; 1 Tim 1:10).  Incest, adultery, homosexuality, casual sex among unmarried people, and other detestable behavior is condemned in the most clear and serious language.  Historically, this was instituted in most civilized societies and recognized as common knowledge.  As recent as 1986 the Supreme Court upheld state sodomy laws in Bowers v. Hardwick (1986).  In 2003, the Supreme Court decided the case of Lawrence v. Texas by rejecting Texas’s anti-sodomy law, essentially declaring that the Bowers decision was incorrect.  Justice Anthony Kennedy’s majority opinion stated, “Bowers was not correct when it was decided, and it is not correct today.  It ought not to remain binding precedent.  Bowers v. Hardwick should be and now is overruled.”  This decision was an example of the Court imposing its opinion over the law and contrary to constitutional authority.  So, we see that all historical law and common knowledge agreed with religious teaching until 2003.  In 2018, the Court, in Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd. v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, upheld first amendment protections allowing freedom of speech and religion against homosexual activists who contrived a scenario to deny them to a Christian businessman, stating, that these disputes must be resolved with tolerance, without undue disrespect to sincere religious beliefs, and without subjecting gay persons to indignities when they seek goods and services in an open market.”  Where is dignity protected in the constitution?

Today, religious freedom is still protected from LGBTQ activists who along with many other anti-religious groups seek to eliminate our freedom of religion.  Therefore, a Christian school can follow biblical teaching and a person can teach art at such a private school without being labeled “immoral” and “hypocritical”.  Only a great fool or very evil person can not distinguish the difference between tolerance and license.  Christians tolerate evil in society as the Bible teaches, but they do not agree, condone, or license evil practice.  To do so would deny their own religious faith.  Interestingly, their opponents are not equally tolerant of biblical teaching either in society or in their personal lives. The anti-christian groups have their own fascist humanist religion that is based on doing whatever they wish, but they go further by demanding that their faith must be given priority with preeminent acceptance by all.

The Supreme Court ruling in 2003, did not repeal the constitutional rights to free speech and freedom of religion.  Moreover, it has no authority to do so, if and when it should ever do so.  A similar case was brought against the IRS, seeking to overrule longstanding laws pertaining to religious clergy, under a ridiculous premise that no law could acknowledge or pertain to religious organizations.  The Court recognized historical reality and the IRS properly replied that if any clergy of the humanist faith wished to claim treatment under the existing laws, they would need to file accordingly. These Fascist-humanist are a religion, but they seek to be granted the highest power to eliminate all other faiths.  The words “Moral” and “Hypocrisy” have no meaning to these neo-fascist humanist.  Their attacks on the innocent reveal a sinister plan to gain power and wield it to deny freedoms long-held and well established.  How can such ludicrous accusations be given any credence.  Similar hyperbole is used by Nancy Pelosi, leader of Neo-fascism, referring to a border wall as immoral.  Invasion into America, contrary to longstanding law accepted world-wide, is not immoral to any reasonable person.

Supreme Injustice

U.S. Supreme Court Justice John Roberts offered a rare public criticism of the President on Wednesday when he disputed President Trump’s claim that an “Obama judge” had blocked his effort to deny asylum to those entering the country illegally.  Roberts said that the U.S. doesn’t have “Obama judges or Trump judges, Bush judges or Clinton judges.”  He seemed to take the President’s claim that there was political basis in many rulings as an attack on an independent judiciary and went on to applaud the “extraordinary group of dedicated judges doing their level best to do equal right to those appearing before them.”  This was a naive statement at best by Justice Roberts if not dishonest.  Clearly, certain courts, appointed by Obama or other liberal presidents, make rulings outside the law that favor their political points of view and in some cases it has happen with conservative courts as well (although the rule of law conservative political views by their nature restrain ruling outside the law).  As President Trump pointed out, liberals go to the Ninth Circuit to get his authorities overturned because they could not get such favorable rulings in other courts.  That fact alone makes it clear that there is political bias from court to court, at least from time to time.

More disturbing was the fact that Roberts was silent when President Barack Obama attacked the Court during the 2010 State of the Union address for a ruling he disliked while six of the nine justices were sitting in front of him.  There was no defense of the independence of the Court from this unprecedented assault by Obama.  When oral arguments in the Obamacare case appeared to be going against his administration, Obama warned the Supreme Court against “an unelected group of people” overturning the law.  Again, no defense of the Court from Roberts.  In fact, he effectively rewrote the law to save Obamacare.

The idea that criticizing the Courts, even by a President, is somehow attacking the independence of the Court is fundamentally incorrect.  Arguably, the opposite is true.  The Courts, including the Supreme Court, were not given the authority to do anything but interpret the law and when clear political bias causes them to create rulings outside the law, they should be criticized.  The Constitution does not give the Supreme Court or any other court the power to strike down laws.  This right was “discovered” by the Supreme Court for itself in the 1803 Marbury vs. Madison case.  This effectively allows the least democratic branch of government to overrule the elected branches.  Should nine judges really be the ones to divine the one true meaning of words and phrases in the Constitution that the long-dead framers and ratifiers never discussed or contemplated?  That is a discussion for another article but clearly persons like Justice Roberts do not want an independent judiciary but one with the power to rule and be shielded from criticism, including from the other branches of government.

A June 2012 poll found that just 13 percent of respondents said that Supreme Court justices decide their cases based purely on legal analysis, while 76 percent said they let their personal political views influence their decisions.  This is apparent on its face and certainly President Trump was correct in pointing this out.




Wonders of Marriage

bible-verses-about-marriage“Haven’t you read,” he replied, “that at the beginning the Creator made them male and female,’ and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’?  So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.” (Matthew: 19: 4:6).

What an amazing revelation Jesus gives us in this answer to the religious leaders of his day.  The concept of male and female cannot be explained in evolution theory, it is so fundamental, so marvelous in design and interrelated with so much in our being, our identity, our behavior, our thinking and our desires.  Jesus tells us it is even… Continue reading