The Constitution—Do We Still Follow It?


From: http://dailycaller.com/2011/06/23/time-magazine-cover-features-shredded-u-s-constitution-asks-if-it-still-matters/#ixzz1Q8LIDhsv

“Provocative? Perhaps, but that’s nothing new for Time magazine with a history of taking iconic American symbols and using them to make political statements.

On Thursday on MSNBC’s ‘Morning Joe,’ Time magazine editor Richard Stengel presented the cover of his new July 4 issue, which features the U.S. Constitution going through a paper shredder and asks does the document still matter. According to Stengel, it does, but not as much anymore.

‘Yes, of course it still matters but in some ways it matters less than people think,” Stengel said on ‘Morning Joe.’ ‘People all the time are debating what’s constitutional and what’s unconstitutional. To me the Constitution is a guardrail (Does it matter what the Constitution is to him?—my addition). It’s for when we are going off the road and it gets us back on. It’s not a traffic cop that keeps us going down the center. And what our politics are about—politics are about conflict. There was no people who argued more about defining principles of America than the framers of the Constitution. They argued both sides of the most powerful issues in American history—slavery, states’ rights, central government. So to say that what did the framers want is kind of a crazy question, I have to say (Is he right or wrong with this stance?—my addition). I write about that in the piece.’

The cover is about a story Stengel authored dated June 23 and tackles issues of the day as they related to the Constitution, including Libya, the debt ceiling, ObamaCare and immigration.

Stengel concludes his article by saying it isn’t the document that is the U.S. Constitution that plays the prominent role in American society, but the people instead.

‘The Constitution does not protect our spirit of liberty; our spirit of liberty protects the Constitution,’ Stengel wrote (Have we lost that spirit of liberty?—my addition). ‘The Constitution serves the nation; the nation does not serve the Constitution. That’s what the framers would say.”

From the comment section:

“Princeton University

When you can’t win by playing by the rules, simply destroy the rules. America—we hardly knew ya.”

2:34 AM 06/25/2011 - 2:34 AM

Realist4U

‘WE THE PEOPLE’ … Would like it if ‘You The People’ who have such disdain for this country and it’s Constitution, would get on a slow boat to China and never return.

5:19 PM 06/24/2011 - 5:19 PM “

From: http://theteaparty.net/

“Dear Patriot,

You may have already seen the provocative Time Magazine cover that shows our beloved Constitution being shredded with the caption ‘Does It Still Matter?’ Our question is:

‘Does Time Magazine or any of the establishment media still matter?’ The establishment class in this country has bastardized the Constitution, using radical interpretation to circumvent the negative powers that impede their power. The free press has failed in their responsibility to be a critical check on the establishment; instead, they have championed a radical liberal agenda that centralizes power. For years they got away with it because they had a monopoly on the flow of information, but advances in new media like talk radio and the internet have destroyed their monopoly and, when offered a choice, the consumer overwhelmingly rejects their blatant propaganda.

Now, we are taking our fight against liberal policy and the publications that push a liberal agenda to a whole new level! The Tea Party Cyber tour gives our members direct and exclusive access to conservative candidates, our upcoming groundbreaking Presidential Debate circumvents the old media kingmakers and puts you in control of the information that you demand of candidates. All this is a part of our broader strategy to close the information and technology gap between liberals and conservatives.

Regaining control of the instruments of information is not an option as we seek to restore our nation’s constitutional footing. We cannot fail, but we cannot succeed without your continued support! Hosting a Presidential Debate, sponsoring townhalls with conservative leaders that utilize multiple mediums, recruiting tens of thousands of new patriots every week, and all of the other amazing tools and information that we offer free-of-charge has a cost. We rely on you, our membership to fund these important endeavors, and you can help by making a generous contribution today!

https://secure.campaignsolutions.com/theteaparty/donation1/Default.aspx?initiativekey=YJJPQLZB3QSU

Thank you,
Dustin Stockton
Media Director”

From: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2011/06/the_constitutions_demise_according_to_time_nothing_to_see_here.html

“June 24, 2011
The Constitution’s Demise According to Time: Nothing to See Here

The central-government media has finally given us knuckle-draggers an explanation of the difference between war criminals and constitutionalists: It's party affiliation, and which party is in power.

Time magazine's recent cover story ‘One Document, Under Siege’

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,2079445-1,00.html

is clearly written as a response to the constitutional conservative movement, or as the essay says, ‘the rise of the Tea Party and its almost fanatical focus on the founding document.’

It’s worth reading for one purpose only, which is to understand the curious, inconsistent and anti-intellectual thought processes by which the left views the Constitution. Through the words of Time managing editor Richard Stengel, we come to see the internal contradictions that the Constitution must be applied strictly, but then not. That it’s to be obeyed in some instances, but then not. (Much like some people profess obedience to GOD. Obedient when they agree with the WORD of GOD and when it suits their purposes; disobedient when they disagree with it and/or when it does not suit their purposes!—my Addition)

Walking us through four topics of the day—Libya, the debt ceiling, ObamaCare and immigration—Mr. Stengel takes us through the rollercoaster thinking that is the left’s view of the Constitution. (Situational ethics?—my addition)

When it’s for the progressive cause, ‘we shouldn’t be so delicate about changing the Constitution or reinterpreting it.’ The Constitution is, after all, merely a ‘blueprint.’ (Really—my addition) For the Founders, ‘it was a set of principles, not a code of law.’ (What? By definition, a Constitution is law!—my addition)

‘A constitution in and of itself guarantees nothing,’ writes Stengel. ‘Bolshevik Russia had a constitution, as did Nazi Germany.’ (He is correct about this!—my addition)

Why, yes, as a matter of fact, those totalitarian regimes did have constitutions. That must make some people salivate.

As to our Libyan war, he writes:

‘The War Powers Resolution is a check on presidential power, but the President seeks to balance this by, well, ignoring it. That’s not unconstitutional; that’s how our system works.’ (That doesn’t mean it isn’t Unconstitutional!—my addition)

Mr. Stengel is right in one regard. The President and many elected officials operate by ignoring the Constitution and other laws. That he is comfortable that this is how ‘our system works’ is both disturbing and revealing. (True! Did he voice the same position when George W. Bush was President?—my addition)

On the other hand, whether America ‘defaults on our national debt is not only reckless; it’s probably unconstitutional.’

Aha! Mr. Stengel has given us the key to understanding the left’s interpretation of the Constitution. I get it now, and I want all of my fellow knuckle-draggers to understand it with me. It’s a document written for the progressive movement to make what they will of it. (A living Constitution? An uninterpretable Constitution?—my addition)

This makes it so much easier for us knuckle-draggers to understand the Constitution. Thank you, central-government media.

From: http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,2079445-1,00.html

‘One Document, Under Siege
By Richard Stengel Thursday, June 23, 2011

Here are a few things the framers did not know about: World War II. DNA. Sexting. Airplanes. The atom. Television. Medicare. Collateralized debt obligations. The germ theory of disease. Miniskirts. The internal combustion engine. Computers. Antibiotics. Lady Gaga. (So what? The only author of any document who knew the future is GOD. That doesn’t prevent people from ignoring, reinterpreting, and disobeying the Bible!—my addition)

People on the right and left constantly ask what the framers would say about some event that is happening today. What would the framers say about whether the drones over Libya constitute a violation of Article I, Section 8, which gives Congress the power to declare war? Well, since George Washington didn’t even dream that man could fly (Don‘t know this!—my addition), much less use a global-positioning satellite to aim a missile, it’s hard to say what he would think (That may be true. However, that does NOT mean the Constitution is not to be used to make decisions in that area!—my addition). What would the framers say about whether a tax on people who did not buy health insurance is an abuse of Congress’s authority under the commerce clause (That it is! I have no doubt about that!—my addition)? Well, since James Madison did not know what health insurance was and doctors back then still used leeches, it’s difficult to know what he would say (Not necessarily!—my addition) . And what would Thomas Jefferson, a man who owned slaves and is believed (Believed by whom?—my addition) to have fathered children with at least one of them, think about a half-white, half-black American President born in Hawaii (a state that did not exist)? Again, hard to say (Not necessarily!—my addition).”

The framers were not gods and were not infallible. Yes, they gave us, and the world, a blueprint for the protection of democratic freedoms—freedom of speech, assembly, religion—but they also gave us the idea that a black person was three-fifths of a human being (A compromise that made the adoption of the Constitution possible! These people love to rewrite and/or ignore history when it suits their purpose!—my addition), that women were not allowed to vote (Nothing about women voting or specifically about men voting is said in the Constitution! Voting rights were a State issue!—my addition) and that South Dakota should have the same number of Senators as California, which is kind of crazy (Again, a compromise to help make the Constitution possible! Ignoring history!—my addition). And I’m not even going to mention the Electoral College. They did not give us income taxes. Or Prohibition. Those came later. (Those came later by Constitutional Amendment as REQUIRED by the Constitution!—my addition)

Americans have debated the Constitution since the day it was signed, but seldom have so many disagreed so fiercely about so much (Really?—my addition). Would it be unconstitutional to default on our debt? Should we have a balanced-budget amendment? Is it constitutional to ask illegal immigrants to carry documents? The past decade, beginning with the disputed election of 2000, has been a long national civics class about what the Constitution means—and how much it still matters. For eight years under George W. Bush, the nation wrestled with the balance between privacy and security (an issue the framers contended with) while the left portrayed the country as moving toward tyranny. For the past three years under President Obama, we have weighed issues of individual freedom vs. government control while the right has portrayed the country as moving toward a socialist welfare state.

Where’s the Crisis? (He has to ask?—my addition)
A new focus on the Constitution is at the center of our political stage with the rise of the Tea Party and its almost fanatical focus on the founding document. The new Republican Congress organized a reading of all 7,200 words of an amended version of the Constitution on the House floor to open its first session. As a counterpoint to the rise of constitutional originalists (those who believe the document should be interpreted only as the drafters understood it), liberal legal scholars analyze the text just as closely to find the elasticity they believe the framers intended (Believe is the operative word! Claim may be even better!—my addition. Everywhere there seems to be debate about the scope and meaning and message of the Constitution. This is a healthy thing. Even the framers would agree on that (How does he know? Earlier his claim about not knowing seems to dispute this statement!—my addition).

So, are we in a constitutional crisis? In a word, no (In a word, YES?—my addition). The Constitution was born in crisis. It was written in secret (Not true! It was written by a committee of State representatives. Some who were present and participated did not sign the final document!—my addition) and in violation of the existing one (What?—my addition), the Articles of Confederation, at a time when no one knew whether America would survive. The Constitution has never not been under threat. Benjamin Franklin was skeptical that it would work at all (And YET he signed it and gave GOD the credit for its formation!—my addition). Alexander Hamilton wondered whether Washington should be a king. Jefferson questioned the constitutionality of his own Louisiana Purchase.

Today’s debates represent conflict, not crisis. Conflict is at the core of our politics, and the Constitution is designed to manage it. There have been few conflicts in American history greater than the internal debates the framers had about the Constitution. For better or for worse—and I would argue that it is for better—the Constitution allows and even encourages deep arguments about the most basic democratic issues. A crisis is when the Constitution breaks down (Or when it is continually not obeyed!—my addition). We’re not in danger of that (In his opinion!—my addition).”

From: http://www.personalliberty.com/conservative-politics/government/lessons-in-history/?eiid=&rmid=2011_06_23_PLA_[P11296820]&rrid=387097743

“Lessons In History
June 23, 2011 by Bob Livingston

In his column this week, Patrick J. Buchanan wrote about the ignorance of today’s American schoolchildren, as revealed by the results of the National Assessment of Education Progress test.

On a history test given to 31,000 pupils, most fourth-graders could not identify a picture of Abraham Lincoln or why he was important. Most eighth-graders could not identify an advantage American forces had in the Revolutionary War, most 12th-graders did not know why America entered World War II or that China was North Korea’s ally in the Korean War.

One of the questions on the test showed a poster put out by the Committee to Defend America by Aiding the Allies in 1940 that depicted a boot with a huge swastika on its sole about to trample the Statue of Liberty and asked which country the boot represented. Four countries were listed as possible answers. But a majority of students failed to pick Germany.

Buchanan wrote:

‘We’re raising young people who are, by and large, historically illiterate (And illiterate when it comes to the Constitution?—my addition),’ historian David McCullough told The Wall Street Journal.

‘History textbooks,’ added McCullough, ‘are (sic) ‘badly written.’ Many texts have been made ‘so politically correct as to be comic. Very minor characters that are currently fashionable are given considerable space, whereas people of major consequence’—such as inventor Thomas Edison—‘are given very little space or none at all.’

Trendies and minorities have their sensibilities massaged in the new history, which is, says McCullough, ‘often taught in categories—women’s history, African American history, environmental history—so that many students have no sense of chronology … no idea of what followed what.’ (True!—my addition)

But if the generations coming out of our schools do not know our past, do not know who we are or what we have done as a people, how will they come to love America, refute her enemies or lead her confidently?’

This ignorance of history is a plague that is leading America down the road to ruin.

Socialism (and its related ‘isms’ communism and Marxism), which just 30 years ago was rightly considered a danger to America, has not just become an acceptable alternative to a growing number of today’s youths, but is actually something many are striving for.

Few are the people today younger than 40 who appreciate the Constitution and the wisdom of the Founding Fathers, and fewer still are those who have ever read it, much less understand what it means and says. And an even smaller number know that the tyranny of the British Empire the Founders rejected and defeated is no less than the tyranny our own government now imposes upon us.

The result is an acceptance—even an embrace—of the growing police state in exchange for a life of government handouts.

Noah Webster (who authored the first American textbook and dictionary) once said: ‘Every child in America should be acquainted with his own country. He should read books that furnish him with ideas that will be useful to him in life and practice. As soon as he opens his lips, he should rehearse the history of his own country.’

Parents who expect their children to learn the real history of America in a government school are deluded. It’s something that must be taught at home. And that teaching is vital to restoring the American Republic.”

http://www.personalliberty.com/feature-video/presidential-show-n-tell-26937/

How can and how will a people defend, preserve, and protect a document—the Constitution of the United States or the Bible—that they are NOT familiar with and knowledgeable of? Knowledge is, in a very real sense, power. Lack of knowledge makes it easier to lead others down the wrong paths as any pied piper knows.

Do people today know what the Constitution says? How can one obey what one does not know? How can one know when the Constitution is not being obeyed if one does not know the Constitution. To return to the principles and law of the Constitution we MUST know what those Constitutional principles and law are. That is why I’m developing a Constitution workbook. Knowledge is, in a very real sense, power.

This is my last post until July 5th. Have a safe, enjoyable, and patriotic Fourth of July weekend!

Be back next Tuesday, the LORD willing!

It’s time, it is past time to RESTORE THE CONSTITUTION!!!
It’s time, it is past time to RESTORE THE CONSTITUTION!!!
It’s time, it is past time to RESTORE THE CONSTITUTION!!!

It’s time, it is past time to OBEY THE CONSTITUTION!!!
It’s time, it is past time to OBEY THE CONSTITUTION!!!
It’s time, it is past time to OBEY THE CONSTITUTION!!!

It’s time, it is past time to TAKE BACK THE NATION!!!
It’s time, it is past time to TAKE BACK THE NATION!!!
It’s time, it is past time to TAKE BACK THE NATION!!!

Wisconsin, Labor Law, the Federal Courts, and the Constitution


From: http://www.righttoworkfoundation.org/

“Date: Jun 21, 2011 12:00 PM”

“First the good news.

Last week, the Wisconsin Supreme Court upheld Governor Scott Walker’s government-sector monopoly bargaining reform bill from one spurious legal attack.

The very next day, union lawyers filed a new lawsuit in federal court seeking to overturn the bill, which protects the Right to Work for most government employees.

As you’ll read below, the U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly rejected the very arguments made by union lawyers in Wisconsin in cases won by National Right to Work Foundation attorneys.”

“Big Labor is desperate to protect its forced-dues powers, and it’s vital Governor Walker does not back down now.

Please, sign your Declaration of Support for Governor Scott Walker today.

http://righttoworkfoundation.org/wihf_openletter.aspx?pid=wif7

Sincerely,
Mark Mix”

From: http://righttoworkfoundation.org/wihf_openletter.aspx?pid=wif7

“Declaration of Support for Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker

As a concerned citizen outraged by Big Labor’s forced-dues power and stranglehold over state and local budgets, I would like to thank you for standing up to the union bosses and bringing the Right to Work for most Wisconsin government workers.

Your reform bill passed, but as you know, the fight is not over. That’s why I urge you to:

1) PROTECT the new Wisconsin public-sector Right to Work law and stand strong as Big Labor goes all-out to restore its forced-dues privileges over Wisconsin’s state and local government workers.

2) ENFORCE the bans on forced-dues and automatic paycheck deduction for most public employees.

3) PROSECUTE lawbreakers and vandals who flouted the law and common decency to protect the union bosses’ power.

Peaceful events like citizen rallies are hallmarks of our republic, but violent threats against pro-worker freedom politicians, damage to public property, doctors faking sick notes for absentee teachers—these are unacceptable!

4) DEFEND the reforms of government-sector monopoly bargaining from spurious legal assaults by union lawyers.

No matter what the union czars claim, freedom of association does not entitle them to steamroll over taxpayers with outrageous budget demands.

In November, the American people sent a clear message to elected officials. Your government-sector monopoly bargaining reforms suggest that you got the message.

Please, do not back down.”

Watch the video on this website!

Also here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dcuqM1LEi5c&feature=player_embedded

And here for another video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kY3I3ed_pjE&NR=1

Just received the following.

From: Western Representation PAC

http://www.westernpac.org/

“Dear Patriot,

It is imperative for New Hampshire to override its liberal Governor’s veto on critical ‘Right-To-Work’ legislation that ends compulsory union dues in the public sector. Union corruption has become an endless cycle, and the best way to target their radical liberal activism is to deny them the government mandate that allows them to compel employees to pay for activism that they do not support!

Our sources inside of the New Hampshire legislature say the important legislation hinges on a handful of wavering representatives who are considering caving in to union intimidation. They have assured us that with our help they can deliver yet another blow to union corruption!

The ad is being produced today and to go up on the air THIS WEEK! We are buying the airtime knowing that our loyal supporters will once again be there for us as we push back against union corruption. We still need to raise $8,000 to fund this effort, and you can help by making a generous contribution---HERE---

https://www.westernpac.org/contribute/donate-u.html

The Western Representation PAC is proud to be leading the way against the union intimidation that has bankrupted states across the country. Your generous contribution of $25, $50, $100, or even $500 give us the resources to lead the way on union reform from Wisconsin to New Hampshire. Fight back by making your contribution---HERE--

https://www.westernpac.org/contribute/donate-u.html

Sincerely,

Dustin Stockton, Strategy Chief
Western Representation PAC

From: http://www.westernpac.org/sign-our-petition/

Sign Our Petition

WHEREAS, Public Employee Unions require union dues to be paid by its members;

WHEREAS, Public Employee Unions use these union dues to influence legislative, gubernatorial and congressional elections;

WHEREAS, Public Employee Unions, in turn, negotiate with elected officials for greater salaries, benefits, and special treatment at great expense to taxpayers;

WHEREAS, federal, state, and municipal budgets are strained by these contracts with Public Employee Unions;

NOW THEREFORE, do we, the undersigned, call on elected officials to STAND UP in the face of union intimidation and leftist thugs in order to restore fiscal sanity. We stand with the courageous leaders who will make the tough decisions necessary to limit state spending and the size and scope of government. And we call on the state and federal Departments of Justice and Attorneys General to investigate all death threats, vandalism, and other acts of intimidation by, and on behalf of, Public Employee Unions.”

In the case of Wisconsin, the left has already lost in the Wisconsin Supreme Court. (See my June 16, 2011 post.) Now, they have turned their efforts to remove a Constitutionally passed law to the federal courts. And as always seems to be the case, they are Unconstitutionally taking the case to a lower inferior federal court contrary to the Constitution of the United States. This violates the Constitution but it also often achieves two of the left’s objectives. Even if the law suit is eventually not successful, it costs the State money and time to fight to protect their newly passed, Constitutionally passed law. Second, it often delays the enforcement of the newly passed, Constitutionally passed law as the inferior federal court issues an Unconstitutional injunction against the State not to enforce the law. Both of these maneuvers would be greatly hindered if the Constitution of the United States was actually obeyed by the particular inferior federal court.

For as I’ve said repeatedly, NO inferior federal court judge has jurisdiction over a State. NONE! The Constitution of the United States of America clearly states in Article III, Section 2, ¶ 2: “In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction.” Who has jurisdiction when a State is a party to the case? The United States Supreme Court!!! And only the United States Supreme Court until and unless the Constitution is amended!!! An inferior federal court has no such jurisdiction! The inferior federal courts in the United States have NO jurisdiction over States! NONE!!!

Just as Christians restore the church by returning to the Bible and being obedient to the will of GOD as given in the Bible, so will we the people restore the nation by returning to the Constitution as written by the founding fathers and as Amended by we the people through our representatives. However, don’t be deceived. To save the moral decay of this nation both MUST occur.

It’s time, it is past time to OBEY THE CONSTITUTION!!!
It’s time, it is past time to OBEY THE CONSTITUTION!!!
It’s time, it is past time to OBEY THE CONSTITUTION!!!

It’s time, it is past time to TAKE BACK THE NATION!!!
It’s time, it is past time to TAKE BACK THE NATION!!!
It’s time, it is past time to TAKE BACK THE NATION!!!

Kansas, Planned MURDERHOOD, the Federal Courts, and the Constitution


From: http://enews.earthlink.net/article/us?guid=20110627/481595e0-c44a-47bd-90d7-7be4ec1bc560

“Planned Parenthood sues over Kan. blocking funds

JOHN HANNA
From Associated Press
June 27, 2011 4:15 PM EDT

TOPEKA, Kan. (AP)—Planned Parenthood filed a federal lawsuit Monday over a provision in Kansas’ next state budget that prevents the organization from receiving federal funding for family planning services, marking the first of what could be several legal challenges to policies successfully pushed by abortion opponents.

The lawsuit comes as Planned Parenthood of Kansas and Mid-Missouri awaits word from the state about whether it will receive a license to continue performing abortions in Kansas after Friday. Its clinic was inspected last week under a separate state law that recently set up a special licensing process for abortion providers, and one of Kansas’ three providers has already been denied a license.

Abortion rights advocates fear that none of the three will get a license, making Kansas the first state in the nation without an abortion provider.

Other new Kansas laws taking effect Friday restrict private health insurance coverage for most abortions, require doctors to obtain written consent from parents before terminating minors’ pregnancies and tighten restrictions on abortions after the 21st week of pregnancy, based on the disputed claim that a fetus can feel pain. (Planned MURDERHOOD disputes everything connected with the MURDERING of the unborn!!!—my addition)

The Planned Parenthood chapter’s lawsuit, filed in U.S. District Court in Kansas City, Kan., challenges a budget provision that requires the state’s portion of federal family planning dollars go first to public health departments and hospitals, which leaves no money for Planned Parenthood and similar groups. Planned Parenthood expects the provision to cost it about $331,000.

The lawsuit alleges the provision violates the organization’s rights to free speech (Committing MURDER is now free speech!!!—my addition) and legal due process (They HAD due process!!! It happened when the law was passed by a duly elected legislative body and approved by the Governor!!!—my addition). It was filed against Gov. Sam Brownback, an anti-abortion Republican who took office in January, and Robert Moser, his secretary of health and environment.

‘Unfortunately, Governor Brownback and his allies in the Legislature put the health of thousands of their constituents at risk by eliminating funding for a trusted community health care provider,’ ( LIARS!!! MURDERING unborn babies IS NOT health care!!! It is MURDER!!!—my addition) said Peter Brownlie, the Planned Parenthood chapter’s president and chief executive officer. "Women in Kansas need better access to affordable, high quality health care, not politically-motivated barriers.’ (If it is affordable, why does Planned MURDERHOOD need State money? Why should the people who recognize what Planned MURDERHOOD is be forced by law to support the MURDER of unborn babies? It is Planned MURDERHOOD who wants to deny due process to the majority of the people of Kansas!!!—my addition)

The measure is less far-reaching than a plan enacted in Indiana that cuts off Medicaid funds for Planned Parenthood. A federal judge has blocked that law, saying Indiana can’t deny funds for general health services such as breast exams and Pap tests just because Planned Parenthood also performs abortions. (I don’t know why not!!!—my addition)

Still, Planned Parenthood contends that Kansas’ budget provision will do ‘significant and irreparable harm’ to men and women seeking family planning services. (Then shouldn’t those who are allegedly being harmed be the ones suing. And, most importantly, shouldn’t they be suing at the U.S. Supreme Court since it is the U.S. Supreme Court which has original jurisdiction when a State is a party in a federal law suit?—my addition) Planned Parenthood offers abortion services in Kansas only at its clinic in Overland Park, a Kansas City suburb, but also has clinics in Wichita and Hays that serve about 5,700 patients.

Its lawsuit argues that the budget provision represents a punishment for publicly advocating abortion rights. But backers of the budget provision argue that Kansas residents who oppose abortion shouldn’t be forced to have their tax dollars subsidize abortions. (DUH!!!—my addition)

‘Kansas taxpayers have made it clear they do not wish to underwrite organizations that perform abortions. We will uphold the law,’ the governor said in written statement Monday. (I pray they do and I pray they DEMAND that the case goes directly to the U.S. Supreme Court as required by the Constitution of the United States!—my addition)

Planned Parenthood maintains that it keeps abortion services separate from other services (That’s like saying, “I keep my criminal activities separate from my other business activities.” So what!!! Planned MURDERHOOD is still MURDERING unborn babies and they are directly or indirectly doing so with other people’s money. People who do NOT want to fund the MURDER of innocent unborn babies!!! Where is their due process?—my addition), such as family planning, though abortion opponents contend any state funds ultimately help support the chapter’s clinic in Overland Park.

“The state’s other two abortion providers, which also are in the Kansas City area, also have been considering legal challenges to the budget provision as they try to prepare for the new licensing regulations. Among other things, those regulations list drugs and equipment they must have on hand, set allowable temperatures in procedure and recovery rooms, and establish the minimum size for procedure rooms. The licensing law mandates annual state inspections, including at least one unannounced visit.”

“The lawsuit is Planned Parenthood of Kansas and Mid-Missouri v. Sam Brownback and Robert Moser, No. 11-cv-2357 JTM/DJW.”

According to http://www.lifenews.com/ Kansas is not the only State that has recently passed laws to cut off, at least, some funding for Planned MURDERHOOD at the State level.

“Wisconsin Becomes Fourth to Cut Planned Parenthood Funding

With pro-life Gov. Scott Walker signing the state budget into law in Wisconsin, the Badger State becomes the fourth to cut funding for the Planned Parenthood abortion business—following decisions by Indiana, North Carolina and Kansas to revoke funding entirely.

The legislation redirects $1 million in state and federal family planning funds away from Planned Parenthood of Wisconsin. In 2010 Planned Parenthood of Wisconsin received more than $18 million in federal and state family planning funds that it claims has reduced abortions. However, the abortion business did 5,439 abortions in 2009, a 56% increase from 2008.

Wisconsin Right to Life praised Walker, with legislative director Susan Armacost saying, ‘Governor Walker and the state legislature acted courageously to protect Wisconsin taxpayers from having their tax dollars used to destroy human life. While there is more work to be done to protect taxpayers from paying for abortions, this state budget has greatly improved the situation. On behalf of Wisconsin Right to Life members and supporters throughout the state, we extend our heartfelt thanks to Governor Walker and the legislature.’

Senator Glenn Grothman, a Republican, said he is glad Planned Parenthood is losing some of its taxpayer funding in Wisconsin, but he wants to see the de-funding effort move forward with eliminating all or most of the remaining $18 million Planned Parenthood receives annually.

‘There’s a very ugly side to this organization, and I regret that they’re going to take such a tiny cut in this budget,’ Grothman said.

http://www.lifenews.com/2011/06/27/wisconsin-becomes-fourth-to-cut-planned-parenthood-funding/”

According to this article of June 27, 20011, The States of Kansas, Indiana, which I have previously discussed, North Carolina, and now Wisconsin have all legally and Constitutionally passed laws to cut off, at least, some funding for Planned MURDERHOOD at the State level.

But wait. That’s not all. Again from http://www.lifenews.com/

“Texas Legislators Cut Planned Parenthood Abortion Biz Funding

The Texas state legislature has approved the Senate Bill 7 Conference Committee Report that would revoke the taxpayer funding for the Planned Parenthood abortion business.

With the actions by the state House and Senate, the measure now heads to pro-life Governor Rick Perry for his signature.

‘This will defund Planned Parenthood, stop taxpayer funding of elective abortions, and regulate adult stem cell research in Texas,’ says Texas Alliance for Life. ‘The final step is for pro-life Gov. Rick Perry to sign this bill into law, which will defund Planned Parenthood $34 million or more over the biennium.’”

“Senate Bill 7, authored by Senator Jane Nelson (R-Flower Mound) and Representative John Zerwas (R-Simonton), has three significant pro-life provisions strongly supported by Texas Alliance for Life and leading pro-life organizations and individuals.”

http://www.lifenews.com/2011/06/27/texas-legislators-cut-planned-parenthood-abortion-biz-funding/”

Do you expect North Carolina, Wisconsin, and Texas to be hit with lawsuits at the inferior federal court level as has already occurred in Indiana and now Kansas? Why are inferior federal court judges violating the Constitution of the United States? Haven’t they taken an oath of office to uphold the Constitution of the United States? Why isn’t the House of Representatives impeaching these inferior federal court judges for violating their oath of office?

For as I’ve said repeatedly, NO inferior federal court judge has jurisdiction over a State. NONE! The Constitution of the United States of America clearly states in Article III, Section 2, ¶ 2: “In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction.” Who has jurisdiction when a State is a party to the case? The United States Supreme Court!!! And only the United States Supreme Court until and unless the Constitution is amended!!! An inferior federal court has no such jurisdiction! The inferior federal courts in the United States have NO jurisdiction over States! NONE!!!

Just as Christians restore the church by returning to the Bible and being obedient to the will of GOD as given in the Bible, so will we the people restore the nation by returning to the Constitution as written by the founding fathers and as Amended by we the people through our representatives. However, don’t be deceived. To save the moral decay of this nation both MUST occur.

It’s time, it is past time to TAKE BACK THE NATION!!!
It’s time, it is past time to TAKE BACK THE NATION!!!
It’s time, it is past time to TAKE BACK THE NATION!!!

Indiana, Planned MURDERHOOD, the Federal Courts, and the Constitution


On my June 3rd post I wrote that the State of Indiana was taken to federal court because of a newly passed law to restrict money to Planned MURDERHOOD. At that time, I pointed out the Constitutionally obvious truth that an inferior federal court has NO jurisdiction over the case. The inferior federal court has now issued its Unconstitutional ruling which places an injunction against the State in relation to a Constitutionally passed law of the State of Indiana.

From: http://enews.earthlink.net/article/us?guid=20110624/b43a2952-3d43-4d27-bbc3-b88e8bc91c50

“Judge stops Indiana cuts to Planned Parenthood funds
CHARLES WILSON
From Associated Press
June 25, 2011 3:03 AM EDT

INDIANAPOLIS (AP)—Planned Parenthood of Indiana expects to start offering services to Medicaid patients again Saturday after a federal judge ruled the state is not allowed to cut off the organization’s public funding for general health services solely because it also provides abortions.

U.S. District Judge Tanya Walton Pratt’s ruling Friday blocked parts of a tough new abortion law and granted Planned Parenthood of Indiana’s request for an injunction on the state’s move to defund the organization. The decision sides with federal officials who said states cannot restrict Medicaid recipients’ freedom to choose their health care provider or disqualify Medicaid providers merely because they also offer abortions.

Indiana attorney general’s office spokesman Bryan Corbin said the state likely will appeal.” (As well it should since the inferior federal court does NOT have the Constitutional authority to do anything when a State is a party to a federal law suit. This case, as I have repeatedly said, Constitutionally should start and end at the Supreme Court. Until then, the law is inherently Constitutional!!!—my addition)

“A recent federal Medicaid bulletin said states may not exclude qualified health care providers merely because they also provide abortions. Pratt noted in her ruling that the federal government had threatened to withhold some or all of Indiana’s Medicaid funds because of the new law, which could total more than $5 billion annually and affect nearly 1 million residents.

‘Thus, denying the injunction could pit the federal government against the State of Indiana in a high-stakes political impasse,’ the judge wrote in her ruling. ‘And if dogma trumps pragmatism and neither side budges, Indiana’s most vulnerable citizens could end up paying the price as the collateral damage of a partisan battle.’” (Exactly how does any of this make the law Unconstitutional! Give the provision of the U.S. Constitution that is being violated by the State of Indiana with the passage of this law. But wait!!! This inferior federal court has NO authority to do anything in this area. No inferior federal court has Constitutional authority over a State. NONE!!!—my addition)

“Daniels’ office said the governor did not have an immediate statement on ruling.

Marcus Barlow, a spokesman for the state’s Family and Social Services Administration, said that while the injunction is in effect, Planned Parenthood will be able to provide services and apply for Medicaid reimbursement as it did previously. He said the agency was unsure if it would push for an appeal of the decision or whether Planned Parenthood would continue to get funding during any appeal period.” (To provide funding to Planned MURDERHOOD is to violate a Constitutionally passed State law. An Unconstitutional decision by an inferior federal court is null and void by definition. The court has NO jurisdiction! The State has the right and duty to withhold funding!—my addition)

“Indiana Right to Life President Mike Fichter called the judge’s overall decision troubling.

‘We are deeply disappointed that today’s ruling brushes aside the will of the Indiana Legislature,’ he said. (Exactly correct! And Unconstitutionally did so!!!—my addition) ‘This ruling opens the pipeline for our tax dollars to flow back into the hands of Indiana’s largest abortion provider and denies women seeking abortions the right to know about an unborn child’s ability to feel pain.’”

For as I’ve said repeatedly, NO inferior federal court judge has jurisdiction over a State. NONE! The Constitution of the United States of America clearly states in Article III, Section 2, ¶ 2: “In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction.” Who has jurisdiction when a State is a party to the case? The United States Supreme Court!!! And only the United States Supreme Court until and unless the Constitution is amended!!! An inferior federal court has no such jurisdiction! The inferior federal courts in the United States have NO jurisdiction over States! NONE!!!

Just as Christians restore the church by returning to the Bible and being obedient to the will of GOD as given in the Bible, so will we the people restore the nation by returning to the Constitution as written by the founding fathers and as Amended by we the people through our representatives. However, don’t be deceived. To save the moral decay of this nation both MUST occur.

It’s time, it is past time to TAKE BACK THE NATION!!!
It’s time, it is past time to TAKE BACK THE NATION!!!
It’s time, it is past time to TAKE BACK THE NATION!!!

Restoring the Nation


I thought I had posted this Saturday. It seems I did not. Therefore, I’m posting it today. Today’s post has already been posted. This is the second post and should have been posted Saturday the 25th. There are two posts for today!

If you read this blog regularly, you may have noticed that I sometimes use material from http://www.searchtv.org/. That’s because I worship at an area church of Christ. The desire of members of the church is to restore Christianity to the original Christianity of the New Testament. To restore the church back to the practices and beliefs of the church as originally established by GOD and HIS ONE and ONLY SON—JESUS, The CHRIST—and the HOLY SPIRIT.

Yesterday, I posted an article entitled “The Restoration Plea” and entitled on my blog as “Restoring the Church.” Today, I’m going to use some of the comments from that article to reinforce my position that to change the direction of this nation from its continual slide into moral decay it is important to restore the Constitution of the United States as the guiding law for the nation. That is, restore the Constitution as written by the founding fathers and as Amended rather than misinterpreting and misapplying the Constitution, or, in some cases, ignoring the Constitution completely to suit the whims and believes of people who want to implement their goals extra-Constitutionally.

Some of the framers of the Constitution expressed their belief that GOD had HIS hand in the formation of the Constitution,

“I have so much faith in the general government of the world by Providence that I can hardly conceive a transaction of such momentous importance [as the framing of the Constitution] … should be suffered to pass without being in some degree influenced, guided, and governed by that omnipotent, omnipresent, and beneficent Ruler in whom all inferior spirits live and move and have their being.”
—Benjamin Franklin

“For my part, I sincerely esteem it a system which, without the finger of God, never could have been suggested and agreed upon by such a diversity of interests.”
—Alexander Hamilton

“[The adoption of the Constitution] will demonstrate as visibly the finger of Providence as any possible event in the course of human affairs can ever designate it.”
—George Washington

Some of the early leaders also recognized the importance of we the people being obedient to GOD’S will in order to preserve and protect our democratic government.

“Only a virtuous people are capable of freedom. As nations become corrupt and vicious, they have more need of masters.”
—Benjamin Franklin

“Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”
—John Adams

“Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of men and citizens …. Let it simply be asked, where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths which are the instruments of investigation in courts of justice?”
—George Washington

From “Restoring the Church”: “Going back to the Bible is necessary to true Christianity.”

Restoring the nation: Returning to the Constitution as written and as Constitutionally Amended is necessary to continue the republic as founded and continuing the nation as a force for good rather than a force for evil—evil such as MURDERING our unborn children.

From “Restoring the Church”: “Christianity has changed dramatically through the centuries. Many of these changes were departures from the stated will of God in the New Testament. Some changes came as innovations that were never considered in Scripture; other changes came as edits to make the church more up-to-date with culture; and still other changes caused Christianity to be blended with other religions. Well, in the end, the pure Christianity of the New Testament, as God willed it to be, was corrupted. It desperately needed to be brought back to its original condition in order to be what God desired.”

Restoring the nation: In many ways, the nation has change drastically through our 200 plus years. Many of these changes are the result of departures from the Constitution as written by the founding fathers. Many of these changes occurred not by Amending the Constitution as provided by the Constitution. But rather by corrupt judges imposing their will over the principles established by and within the Constitution. In many ways, we have become a nation governed not by law but by corrupt people perverting the law to suit their purposes.

From the 1856 court case of Dred Scott v. Sandford:

“When a strict interpretation of the Constitution, according to the fixed rules which govern the interpretation of laws, is abandoned, and the theoretical opinions of individuals are allowed to control its meaning, we have no longer a Constitution; we are under the government of individual men who for the time being have power to declare what the Constitution is according to their own views of what it ought to mean.” (Quoted from: Men in Black: How the Supreme Court is Destroying America; page 15; Mark R. Levin; Regnery Publishing, Inc.; One Massachusetts Avenue, NW; Washington D.C., © 2005.)

From “Restoring the Church”: “The concept of ‘restoration’ grew out of the conviction that the Bible is the complete and final authority. Now, just as a seed will produce only after its own kind, so the seed of God’s word will only produce the same Christianity today that it did in the first century. Now, in Luke chapter 8 and verse 11 the Lord Jesus says, ‘Now the parable is this: that the seed is the word of God.’ You remember that parable of the sower. Now, as long as you keep a pure seed, you will have a pure Christianity. If you corrupt the seed, the teaching of the Word of God, then what you will have is a corrupt Christianity.”

Restoring the nation: Our concept of restoring the nation must grow out of the conviction that the Constitution as written is the complete and finally author on how the nation must operate and be governed. Not the Constitution as interpreted by a small group of people who want to impose their own will upon the nation. But rather, the Constitution as written and as Constitutionally Amended.

The founding fathers knew there might be a need to change the Constitution. That’s why they established a process for Amending the Constitution. However, that process did not include amending the Constitution by judicial interpretation. It was rather a process that would require the overwhelming approval of a majority of we the people as established by our representatives. The nation was never intended to be controlled by a handful of people writing law through judicial fiat.

We had just fought a war and won independence from a tyrannical monarchy. Do you really believe the writers of the Constitution intended to replace one tyrant with another tyrannical group who imposes their will over the will of the people?

Just as Christians restore the church by returning to the Bible and being obedient to the will of GOD as given in the Bible, so will we the people restore the nation by returning to the Constitution as written by the founding fathers and as Amended by we the people through our representatives.

It’s time, it is past time to TAKE BACK THE NATION!!!
It’s time, it is past time to TAKE BACK THE NATION!!!
It’s time, it is past time to TAKE BACK THE NATION!!!

Restoring the Church


From: http://www.searchtv.org/

The Restoration Plea

Ephesians 4: 1-6

Going back to the Bible is necessary to true Christianity. Hello, I’m Phil Sanders, and this is a Bible study, ‘In Search of the Lord’s Way.’ If we’re to find the Lord’s Way, we’re going to have to go back to God’s Word. Won’t you join us in our study today!

Hello, I’m Phil Sanders and we’re here to search God’s Word for the Lord’s Way. We search the Bible, because we know that God’s Holy Word is what teaches us what God wants us to know in order to please Him. God’s Word provides for us a standard, an example, that teaches us His will for our lives. We do well to know and to follow that pattern that He set for us. And that’s what we strive to do on this program, and we’re so grateful that you joined us today. We want to be part of your life each week.

Have you ever broken a favorite dish or maybe dropped a treasured book into the mud? You probably groaned and wished you could bring your prized possession back to its pure and original state. You wanted to restore it, because it was ruined. Spiritually speaking, the restoration plea calls us to bring back to the pure and unbroken state the church as God meant for it to be by returning to the truth that’s found in the New Testament.

Christianity has changed dramatically through the centuries. Many of these changes were departures from the stated will of God in the New Testament. Some changes came as innovations that were never considered in Scripture; other changes came as edits to make the church more up-to-date with culture; and still other changes caused Christianity to be blended with other religions. Well, in the end, the pure Christianity of the New Testament, as God willed it to be, was corrupted. It desperately needed to be brought back to its original condition in order to be what God desired.

Now, if we wear the name of Jesus Christ, shouldn’t we seek to truly follow Him? Shouldn’t we abandon every belief or practice that gets us away from His will as declared in the New Testament? Shouldn’t we seek God’s teaching in everything we do? Let’s restore the Lord’s way in our lives.

Now, if you want to think a little more about this topic, we offer the information on this program free. And if you would like a printed copy or CD of our study, mail your request to In Search of the Lord’s Way, P.O. Box 371, Edmond, OK 73083 or send us an e-mail, searchtv@searchtv.org. Or, call our toll-free telephone number, 1 (800) 321-8633. We also stream this program on our website at www.searchtv.org. The Edmond church will now worship in song, and then we’ll read from Ephesians 4, verses 1 to 6.

Our reading today comes from Paul’s epistle to the Ephesians, chapter 4, verses 1 through 6. ‘I, therefore, the prisoner of the Lord, beseech you to walk worthy of the calling with which you were called, with all lowliness and gentleness, with longsuffering, bearing with one another in love, endeavoring to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace. There is one body and one Spirit, just as you were called in one hope of your calling; one Lord, one faith, one baptism; one God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all.’ That’s from God’s Holy Word. Let’s pray together. Father, we’re thankful that You bring us together as one people. Father, help us to devote ourselves to Your will fully and freely in everything that we do. This is our prayer in the name of Jesus. Amen!

In the early 1800s many church leaders grew weary of the fussing, the strife and division found in the denominational world of their day. They believed the Lord wanted His people to be united, and all of the bad-mouthing and exclusiveness of the denominations shamed the name of the Lord. Their divisive ways caused people to fall away from Christ into disbelief. They also objected to all that was of human origin that led them away from pure Christianity.

The Lord Jesus prayed in John 17, verses 20 and 21, ‘I do not ask on behalf of these alone, but for those also who believe in Me through their word; that they may all be one; even as You, Father, are in Me and I in You, that they also may be in Us, so that the world may believe that You sent Me.’ The Lord Jesus wanted His followers to remain united, and the whole concept of denominationalism is actually foreign to the New Testament.

These early church leaders believed that the acceptance of human opinions, and human creeds, councils, human practices, and names caused this divisive and hostile condition. They wanted something better—a pure and true Christianity that went back to the Bible and remained free from human traditions. They knew that if they abandoned the human and concentrated on what was from God, they could find a basis for unity. They could have unity only through following the truth of God’s Word found in the Scriptures. Now, this meant that they had to cast off everything human and denominational and just return to the Christianity that God proposed in the New Testament.

So, they rejected human traditions, human opinions and innovations, since these things cannot be found in God’s word. They believed that they couldn’t require members to believe a doctrine that was not expressly taught in the New Testament. And so they said, “We speak where the Bible speaks, and we are silent where the Bible is silent.’ They wanted unity in essentials, freedom in matters of opinion, and love in all things.

They also recognized the New Testament predictions that Christians would fall away from the truth into error. You see, God knew the hearts of men often follow their own paths. You’ll remember the apostle Paul told the elders of the church at Ephesus in Acts 20, verses 29 to 30, ‘I know that after my departure savage wolves will come in among you, not sparing the flock; and from among your own selves men will arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away the disciples after them.’ The apostle Paul knew some would fall away from the truth.

The apostle Peter also predicted in 2 Peter 2, verses 1 to 3, ‘But false prophets also arose among the people, just as there will also be false teachers among you, who will secretly introduce destructive heresies, (a heresy is a doctrine that divides) even denying the Master who bought them, bringing swift destruction upon themselves. Now, many will follow their sensuality, and because of them the way of the truth will be maligned; (that is bad-mouthed) and in their greed they will exploit you with false words; their judgment from long ago is not idle, and their destruction is not asleep.’

Paul was serious about staying with the truth. He told Timothy in 2 Timothy 4, verses 1 to 4, ‘I solemnly charge you in the presence of God and of Christ Jesus, who is to judge the living and the dead, and by His appearing and His kingdom: preach the word; be ready in season and out of season; reprove, (that is to rebuke sharply) rebuke, exhort, with great patience and instruction. For (he says) the time will come when they will not endure sound (or healthy) teaching; but wanting to have their ears tickled, they are going to accumulate for themselves teachers in accordance to their own desires, and will turn away their ears from the truth (from the Bible) and will turn aside to myths.”

Now, early church history confirms that Christians began teaching and practicing things that were never taught or authorized in the New Testament. Within 500 years after the apostles died, a whole new vocabulary developed and there were many innovations in the church. For instance, the New Testament says nothing about things like holy water, nothing about lent, penance, infant baptism, intercession of the saints, sprinkling for baptism, the sacrifice of mass, nothing about that; nothing about the celibacy of priests; nothing about purgatory, or confessing to priests. There’s nothing mentioned about archbishops, or popes; no worship service ever had instrumental music; and the idea of salvation by faith alone was not in the Scriptures; the doctrine of ‘once saved, always saved,’ you can’t find that in the Bible.

You see, the Bible never contemplated the idea of so many different groups with different names, and creeds, and organizations, and different forms of worship. The Bible actually condemns the perpetuation of new doctrines that differ from the teaching found in the New Testament.

And so, century by century Christians moved farther and farther away from the simplicity of New Testament Christianity. They no longer followed God’s pattern for the church found in the New Testament but became something very different. God’s way was corrupted by the will of man. So, if the church is to please God, it has to return to what God willed in the New Testament. Restoration to the Lord’s way is necessary, because repentance from error is necessary.

No one, hear me now, no one can remain in error and still please God. The Bible says in James 5, verses 19 to 20, ‘My brethren, if any among you strays from the truth and one turns him back, let him know that he who turns a sinner from the error of his way will save his soul from death and will cover a multitude of sins.’ You see, straying from the truth can put our souls in peril with a multitude of sins. By casting off these sinful, manmade doctrines and practices, we can restore the doctrine, the worship, and the organization of the New Testament church.

And our intent is not to start some new denomination, but to restore the church according to the ideals of the New Testament. That is the church that Jesus built. You see He built His church before any denomination existed. The Lord’s church is not denominational; it’s not inter-denominational; it’s not even non-denominational. The church that Jesus built was undenominational and ‘pre-denominational.’ The idea of denominationalism is foreign to the New Testament. The Lord Jesus would never approve of unifying the truth with error.

The New Testament never entertained the idea of so many groups with different names, creeds, organizations, and forms of worship. And the Bible actually condemns the perpetuation of new doctrines that differ from the teaching found in the New Testament. So, churches of Christ strive to ‘do Bible things in Bible ways and call Bible things by Bible names.’ They believe they must discard from their faith and their practice everything that’s not found written in the New Testament of our Lord and Savior; and to believe and to practice whatever is instructed there.

The concept of ‘restoration’ grew out of the conviction that the Bible is the complete and final authority. Now, just as a seed will produce only after its own kind, so the seed of God’s word will only produce the same Christianity today that it did in the first century. Now, in Luke chapter 8 and verse 11 the Lord Jesus says, ‘Now the parable is this: that the seed is the word of God.’ You remember that parable of the sower. Now, as long as you keep a pure seed, you will have a pure Christianity. If you corrupt the seed, the teaching of the Word of God, then what you will have is a corrupt Christianity.

The Bible is complete in that it gives us all that God has revealed for us to know. It has God’s revealed will for our life and godliness. Jesus promised His apostles in John 16, verses 12 to 13, ‘I have many more things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now. But when He, the Spirit of truth is come, He will guide you into all the truth; for He will not speak on His own initiative, but whatever He hears, He will speak; and He will disclose to you what is to come.” The Bible is all-sufficient; that means it contains every spiritual truth that we need to have eternal life and to live the Christian life in order to please God. We aren’t lacking anything that God wanted for us.

But many people are not content with the pure teaching of the gospel, and so they say we must change. Well, we ask, ‘Change to what?’ If they call for change that leads us back to the doctrine of Christ; well, we can rejoice in that. But if they call for change that leads us away from God’s will to fit popular thinking, let’s not be fooled.

When people go beyond the Scriptures to teach other doctrines, they produce something other than the church that Jesus built. And they are making a church in their own image rather than honoring God’s will. To add to the Scriptures, to take away from the Scriptures, to edit the Scriptures to fit today’s culture into the Scripture is to corrupt the pure message or seed and to substitute for it something that will not accomplish God’s intended purpose. You know, rather than fall for a substitute, let’s demand pure Christianity.

The Lord Jesus desires unity in His followers; but before He prayed for unity in John 17, verses 20 to 23, he first prayed for his followers to be sanctified or ‘set apart’ in the truth. (John 17 and verse 17) Jesus wanted all His followers to know and practice the truth. Christ didn’t pray for a unity that sacrifices the truth or compromises the truth. No, it’s our faith in the truth that unites us. Christian unity is not ecumenism, where groups unite but maintain their conflicting and contradictory beliefs and practices. Oh, No! To be faithful and true, Christians must hold to the truth and refuse error.

The Lord Jesus said in John 8, verses 31 to 32 that, ‘If you continue in My word, then you are truly disciples of Mine; and you will know the truth, and the truth will make you free.’ Now, Jesus distinguished true disciples from others by their willingness to abide in His word. What we believe may not matter to today’s culture, but what we believe and practice matters greatly to the Lord Jesus Christ.

The New Testament provides for us examples and patterns showing how God wishes for us to respond to His grace, how we should come to Him in faith and obedience, how we should worship, how we should live, and how we should organize ourselves, and how we should treat one another. Some object to the concept of patterns in the New Testament, but the Scriptures are clear about the need to follow the apostles doctrine and their example. God expects us to believe and to obey His instructions that are found in the New Testament.

For instance, Romans 6, verses 17 to 18 says, ‘But thanks be to God that though you were slaves of sin, you became obedient from the heart to that form (or pattern) of doctrine to which you were committed, and having been freed from sin, you became the slaves of righteousness.’ Second Thessalonians 2 and verse 15 says, ‘So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught, whether by word of mouth or by letter from us.’ The apostle Paul said to Timothy in 2 Timothy 1, verse 13, ‘Follow the pattern of the sound words that you have heard from me, in the faith and love that are in Christ Jesus.’

I tell you, if the sun, the planets, and the moon in our universe follow a pattern, if every cell in our body has a DNA pattern, and if every leaf on every tree follows a pattern, why would we suppose that the Lord’s church has no pattern? If there is no pattern to the church, then it’s the only thing that God ever produced that didn’t have a pattern.

The New Testament speaks of the love and the grace of God, but these 27 books also have commands, and instructions, and examples for us to follow. The Lord Jesus said in John 14, verse 15 that, ‘If you love Me, you will keep My commandments.’ And Jesus demonstrates how this will affect our relationship with God in John 15, verses 8 to 10.

The Lord said, ‘My Father is glorified by this, that you bear much fruit, and so prove to be My disciples. Just as the Father has loved Me, I have also loved you; abide in My love. If you keep My commandments, you will abide in My love; just as I have kept My Father’s commandments and abide in His love.’

Obedience to the Lord is not some kind of legalism; obedience from the heart is how we love God. And if we wish to abide in the love of God, we must be obedient to His commandments. Let’s pray. O Father, help us to put away the error from our lives and to follow only the things that are taught within the words that Your Son Jesus gave to us and found in the New Testament. Help us to love you and to be obedient. It is in the name of Jesus, we pray. Amen!

God always requires people to repent of their sins when they learn the truth. Repentance means that we leave error and embrace the Lord’s will. Repentance is how we’re restored to the Lord. Do you need to repent? Do you attend a church that goes beyond the teaching of the New Testament? Are you a true disciple that abides in the words of Christ? If you aren’t, repent and restore yourself to God.

Restoration leads the lost out of sinful error and into eternal life. And if this is true for an individual, it’s also true for groups and churches. You know, even churches can fall from God’s grace, when they abandon the truth. Jesus anticipated disciplining whole churches in Revelation 2 and 3; if they didn’t repent He was going to cast them out. When a church falls away, the Lord will remove its candlestick. And so we must remain faithful to God and His word.

We have to hold to the truth at all costs. If we unite with error, we have corrupted ourselves. We’d rather speak the truth with the Lord than to fall for the devil’s popular lies. We’d rather lovingly teach the truth that gives—even if at first it offends, gives life—than to spread a false hope that destroys. You see, love demands that we tell the whole truth of God, because it’s the truth that saves.

The truth is there is only one gospel, one body or church, and one baptism. And in order to enter the Lord’s church, we have to believe with all of our hearts that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God. And out of that faith and love, we repent of sin, we confess the Lord Jesus, and we’re baptized. The one baptism of Jesus Christ is an immersion in water for, that is, so that your sins may be forgiven. And when you are baptized, the Lord will add you to His church. Why not be baptized today?

We hope you’ve been challenged to think by today’s study. And if you want a free printed copy or a CD of this message, then mail your request to In Search of the Lord’s Way, P.O. Box 371, Edmond, OK 73083 or send us an e-mail, searchtv@searchtv.org. Or, call the Search office. The number is 1 (800) 321-8633. Now, our programs appear on our website at www.searchtv.org, and you can access them in a printed, audio, or video format. We offer Bible Correspondence courses, just let us know. We also offer free study sheets that go along with our programs. You can download them free at our website or you can call and request them. Now, we’re not here to exploit you, and we won’t put you on a mailing list.

Please go and worship at one of the churches of Christ in your area. They’re the reason that we don’t ask for money. And if you’re looking for a church home, we’ll be happy to help you find one. Churches of Christ love and want guests, and you’ll be glad you went. Well, we’ll be back next week, so keep searching God’s Word with us and tell a friend. God bless you and we love you from all of us at In Search of the Lord’s Way.”

A Texas High School, the Federal Courts, and the Constitution


From Human Events

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=44376

“Gingrich Calls for Congress to Fire Texas ‘Speech Police’ Judge
by Jason Mattera
06/22/2011

District Judge Fred Biery’s ruling that prohibited high school students from using religious language at a graduation ceremony, even threatening school organizers with jail time if his order was violated, is so far outside the bounds of mainstream America that Congress must eliminate his judgeship.

So says Newt Gingrich. And he’s making it part of his campaign theme for President moving forward.

‘I’m going to raise the banner that we don’t have to tolerate this level of anti-American activism by elitist judges,’ Gingrich told HUMAN EVENTS. (Although I’m not supporting Newt Gingrich for the Republican Presidential nomination, he is correct about the abuse of federal judges. He is also correct about making it a campaign issue. Hopefully, other Republican nominees will do the same. The three major issues in this campaign should be:

1) STOPPING the MURDER of unborn babies

2) STOPPING the homosexual agenda which aims to destroy the family

3) STOPPING the out-of-control federal judiciary from violating the very Constitution they have sworn to uphold

To correct EVIL, one MUST first STOP EVIL! And, unfortunately there is MUCH EVIL being perpetuated by government in this nation today!—my addition)

‘Do you think an American judge should threaten high school administrators with going to jail for using the word prayer? If you don’t, then what are you going to do about it? Don’t tell us you’re powerless.’

The ‘you’ Gingrich speaks of is Congress. He told HUMAN EVENTS that it’s in Congress’ purview to abolish the seats of judges who make ‘irrational’ decisions based on their radical ideology. (It is! However, there is a better way which I’ll discuss at the end of this post—my addition)

‘How can you possibly justify an American judge speaking like that?’

Earlier this month, Biery, a U.S. district judge in Texas, ordered that students participating in the Medina Valley Independent School District graduation were forbidden from uttering the words ‘prayer,’ ‘amen,’ ‘bow their heads’ or any other religious reference. Biery vowed incarceration for those defying his order.

While Biery’s diktat was halted by the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, Gingrich is demanding that Congress no longer tolerate the judicial ‘speech police.’ (As he should! AS should all other Republican candidates!—my addition)

Gingrich cites the Judicial Reform Act of 1802,

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=44358

in which Thomas Jefferson eliminated more than half of the sitting judgeships, nixing 18 out of 35 of them. Congress, Gingrich notes, should follow Jefferson’s lead and introduce legislation that targets activist judges. (Historical note: After Thomas Jefferson won the 1800 Presidential election, the old Congress, which also was swept from power, created new judgeships in which to have some continued impact on the federal government. The Judicial Reform Act of 1802 was to correct and reduce those newly created judgeships. Constitutionally, Congress determines the make-up of inferior federal courts. The only federal court specifically mentioned in the U.S. Constitution is the U.S. Supreme Court. All others are created by Congress. What Congress creates, Congress may also end. However, as I’ve already said, there is a better way!—my addition)

‘If you had a Republican Senate, a Republican House and Republican President, you could do substantial things to the judiciary.’

Americans don’t have to feel ‘powerless’ anymore, he added.

‘A judge this dictatorial (And this WRONG in his decision!—my addition) to high school students shouldn’t be in office.’”

From: http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=44358

“Anti-Religious Speech Police in America
by Newt Gingrich
06/22/2011

Can you imagine high school administrators being threatened with jail if their students said any of the following words? ‘Prayer,’ ‘stand,’ ‘bow your heads,’ or ‘amen’?

Can you imagine a graduation ceremony in which the word 'invocation' was replaced with 'opening remarks' and ‘benediction’ was replaced with ‘closing remarks’—by order of a federal judge? Or a judge declaring that such an order would be ‘enforced by incarceration or other sanctions for contempt of Court if not obeyed?’

This sounds like a scenario that might occur under a dictatorship, but it happened earlier this month in the Medina Valley Independent School District near San Antonio, Texas. It is just one recent example of how anti-religious many on the Left have become.

It is bad enough that NBC revealed its anti-religious bias by editing out ‘under God’ from the Pledge of Allegiance last weekend. (If there were any programs on NBC that I actually watched, I’d stop watching those programs. I stopped watching NBC a long time ago!—my addition)

It is bad enough that President Obama has skipped the phrase ‘our Creator’ at least four times when citing the Declaration of Independence, even when the teleprompter read that we are ‘endowed by our Creator.’

At least neither NBC nor President Obama threatened to put anyone in jail.

Federal District Judge Fred Biery issued the order to stop the school’s valedictorian from saying a prayer as part of her graduation speech. He did so in the name of the First Amendment, which is supposed to prevent government prohibitions of the free exercise of religion and protect the freedom of speech. (There is NOTHING in the 1st Amendment or any other section in the U.S. Constitution which prohibits prayer or any other religious activities by government bodies. The nonsense of it all is extreme! Both Congress and the U.S. Supreme Court open their sessions with prayer and have done so from the beginning of the adoption of the U.S. Constitution!!! Both BEFORE and AFTER the adoption of the 1st Amendment!!!—my addition)

Judge Biery’s decision clearly is not about defending the Constitution. It is the anti-religious judicial thought police at work here in America. (True!!!—my addition)

It is time for Americans who are fed up with this kind of repression by an anti-religious judiciary to act decisively. (TRUE!!! It is past TIME!!!—my addition) Judge Biery’s decision is so outrageous that the American people should not accept his continued employment on the federal bench.

The Federalist Papers and a Limited Judicial Branch

The Founders never intended for judges to have free reign to interpret the Constitution according to their own ideological purposes. (TRUE!!!—my addition) In fact, Alexander Hamilton is quite clear in the Federalist No. 78 that judges who conduct themselves like Biery will have short tenures.

‘The judiciary,’ Hamilton writes, ‘… will always be the least dangerous to the political rights of the Constitution, because it will be least in capacity to annoy or injure them.’ (Unfortunately, he was WRONG about this!!!—my addition)

Among the three co-equal branches of government (each of which is charged with interpreting and upholding the Constitution), he writes that the judiciary ‘can never attack with success either of the other two.’ (Unfortunately, he was WRONG about this!!!—my addition)

Hamilton’s description of a judiciary subordinate in power to the president and the Congress is a long way from the modern doctrine of judicial supremacy (TRUE, unfortunately!!!—my addition), by which the judiciary has asserted itself as the supreme authority for Constitutional interpretation.

By Hamilton’s standard, at least, Judge Biery has clearly failed to avoid the kind of offenses that should rightly provoke attacks by the legislative and executive branches.

In the Hamiltonian spirit, then, I would like to offer a simple solution to the problem.

Judge Biery, Meet Thomas Jefferson

President Thomas Jefferson—who, together with his Secretary of State James Madison, knew more than a little about the Constitution—had a solution for dealing with out-of-control federal judges: he abolished the judgeships of 18 out of 35 of them.

That’s right. In the Judiciary Act of 1802, Jefferson eliminated more than half the sitting federal judges.

As a first step toward reining in an out-of-control, anti-religious bigotry on the bench, let’s start with this modest suggestion: Judge Biery’s office should be abolished by Congress. He should go home.

The American people would be better off without a judge whose anti-religious extremism leads him to ban a high school valedictorian from saying even the word ‘prayer.’

Vote now on whether or not Judge Biery’s seat should be eliminated.

Fill out my Wufoo form!

https://humanevents.wufoo.com/forms/z7x1w3/

A Nation Like No Other

In my new book, ‘A Nation Like No Other: Why American Exceptionalism Matters’, I discuss the basis of Jefferson’s concern about the judiciary, and especially about its claim to supremacy as ‘the ultimate arbiter of all constitutional questions.’ The idea that unelected and unaccountable judges (He is wrong here! At least they should be held accountable and, in fact, there are methods provided within the Constitution to hold them accountable. It is up to the President [forget that at the present time], Congress, and we the people to hold them accountable. We have been failing in that mission! We need to change!!! Which would, indeed, be change we can believe in!!!—my addition) would dictate to the people the meaning of the Constitution, he wrote in an 1820 letter to William Jarvis, was ‘a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy.’ (I call it Courtocracy!!!—my addition)

Jefferson was adamant that the Constitution had not established a ‘single tribunal’ to interpret its meaning (TRUE!!!—my addition) specifically because the Founders understood that any group to whom alone that power was confided ‘would become despots.’ (And VERY TRUE!!!—my addition)

Instead, the branches of government were created to be co-equal (Not true!!! Some were deliberately created to be more powerful than others!—my addition) created, each itself charged with interpreting the Constitution and ‘responsible to the people in [its] elective capacity.’

‘The exemption of the judges from that [accountability] is quite dangerous enough,’ (But, they were NOT exempted!!!—my addition) Jefferson wrote. ‘I know of no safe depository of the ultimate powers of society, but the people themselves.’ (VERY, VERY TRUE and that is EXACTLY where the ultimate power lies if WE use it!!!—my addition)

This challenge to judicial supremacy is intimately connected to the heart of what makes America exceptional. As I write in “A Nation Like No Other”, the final power in America lies not with judges or presidents or bureaucrats, but with the American people. (VERY TRUE!!!—my addition) We loan power to the government. And as Jefferson demonstrated dramatically when he abolished eighteen federal judgeships, we can take it back when it is abused.

Few things exhibit the danger of judicial abuse more clearly than when judges like Biery use their positions to advance agendas so far out of the mainstream that they end up dictating word choice at a local high school graduation. (IT IS EXTREME!!! IT IS ARROGANT!!! IT IS AN EXTREME ABUSE OF AUTHORITY!!!—my addition)

In Biery’s case, the order was so extreme that thankfully it was stayed by the appeals court just hours before the graduation.

The broader encroachment of the anti-religious judiciary, however, has taken place below the radar of most Americans. It has proceeded, as Jefferson wrote of the branch in another letter, ‘like gravity, ever acting, with noiseless foot, unalarming advance, gaining ground step by step, and holding what it gains … engulfing insidiously the special governments into the jaws of that which feeds them.’

Thomas Jefferson was right. When judges are policing graduation speeches for religious content, the judiciary has clearly advanced too far. It is time for the American people to reassert their authority.

They can start in the U.S. District Court for Western Texas.

Your Friend,

Newt Gingrich

P.S.—The Actual Order

Just so no one will think I have exaggerated the outrageousness of Judge Biery’s attack on free speech, here is his order:

‘SIGNED this 1st day of June, 2011.

Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that the Medina Valley Independent School District and its officials, agents, servants, and employees, as well as all persons acting in concert with them, are prohibited from allowing a prayer (as defined in paragraph (b) below) to be included in the June 4, 2011 graduation ceremony for Medina Valley High School.

More specifically:

a. The district was to remove the terms ‘invocation’ and ‘benediction’ from the program of ceremonies. The terms shall be replaced with ‘opening remarks’ and ‘closing remarks’.

b. The district, through its officials, shall instruct the students previously selected to deliver the invocation and benediction to modify their remarks to be statements of their own beliefs as opposed to leading the audience in prayer. These students, and all other persons scheduled to speak during the graduation ceremony, shall be instructed not to present a prayer, to with, they shall be instructed that they may not ask audience members to ‘stand’, ‘join in prayer’, or ‘bow their heads’, they may not end their remarks with ‘amen’ or ‘in a [deity’s name] we pray,’ and they shall not otherwise deliver a message that would commonly be understood to be a prayer, nor use the word ‘prayer’. The students may in stating their own personal beliefs speak through conduct such as kneeling to face Mecca, the wearing of a yarmulke or hijab or making the sign of the cross.

c. The District, through its officials, shall review, and make any necessary changes to, the students’ revised remarks to ensure that those remarks comply with this Order, and shall instruct the students that they must not deviate from the approved remarks in making their presentations.

Because this suit seeks to enforce fundamental constitutional norms, it is further ORDERED that the security requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65 ( c) is waived, and that this injunctive order shall be effective immediately and shall be enforced by incarceration or other sanctions for contempt of Court if not obeyed by District officials and their agents.’”

“Mr. Gingrich is the former speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives and author of ‘To Save America: Stopping Obama's Secular-Socialist Machine’, ‘Real Change: From the World That Fails to the World That Works’ and ‘Winning the Future’ (published by Regnery, a HUMAN EVENTS sister company).”

It is not necessary to abolish an inferior federal court to remove this judge from the bench. The Constitution is very clear! The term of office for all federal judges and Justices is NOT life!!! It is good behavior!!! Congress has the authority and the DUTY to impeach and convict members of the judiciary who violate their oath of office to uphold the Constitution. An impeachment occurs in the House of Representatives and takes only a majority vote to impeach. The House of Representatives should IMPEACH this judge. It doesn’t matter if the Senate convicts or not. The Senate HAS the Constitutional duty to try the impeachment! A few impeachments of out-of-control federal judges and they will drastically reduce their arrogant abuse of authority!

By the way, there is NO provision within the Constitution or any of its Amendments requiring a separation of church and State! That is another long running example of judicial tyranny! We the people MUST STOP our out-of-control judiciary. It has begun to change (Change WE CAN believe in!) at the Supreme Court level because of the change of Justices’ philosophy at the Supreme Court brought about by appointments by George W. Bush. It can and MUST be stopped at the lower court levels too!!!

It’s time, it is past time to TAKE BACK THE NATION!!!
It’s time, it is past time to TAKE BACK THE NATION!!!
It’s time, it is past time to TAKE BACK THE NATION!!!

Arizona, Utah, Indiana, Georgia, the Federal Courts, and the U.S. Constitution


From: http://enews.earthlink.net/article/us?guid=20110620/4b8d3b8b-f682-42bd-b22d-0836dd9f2007

“US judge hears arguments on Georgia immigration law

KATE BRUMBACK
From Associated Press
June 20, 2011 2:02 PM EDT

ATLANTA (AP)—Civil liberties groups argued Monday that Georgia’s law cracking down on illegal immigration should not take effect until a lawsuit challenging it as unconstitutional is resolved, and a judge said he likely would rule on that request before the law takes effect.

The lawsuit asks a judge to find the law unconstitutional and to prevent its enforcement. U.S. District Judge Thomas Thrash also heard arguments from a lawyer for the state, who said the lawsuit should be dismissed. Thrash repeatedly questioned Senior Assistant Attorney General Devon Orland, with the exchange sometimes bordering on testy.”

“At the end of the hearing, Thrash said he needs more time to consider the arguments because the legal and constitutional issues at play are complex. He expects to decide on the issue before July 1, when most parts of the law take effect.

‘We’re optimistic,’ Jadwat (Omar Jadwat is with the American Civil Liberties Union—my addition.) said after the hearing. ‘The judge seemed to grasp a lot of the practical problems posed by this law.’” (Since when did the “practical problems” of a State law become a reason for declaring a State law Unconstitutional in an inferior federal court?—my addition)

“Georgia’s law has provisions similar to those in laws enacted in Arizona, Utah and Indiana.

A federal judge blocked the most controversial parts of Arizona’s law last year after the U.S. Department of Justice sued, arguing that only the federal government can regulate immigration. A federal appeals court judge upheld the decision, and Arizona Governor Jan Brewer has said she plans to appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.

A federal judge also has temporarily blocked Utah’s law, citing similarities to the most controversial parts of Arizona’s law. A hearing is set for mid-July to determine if the law can take effect. And in Indiana, a federal judge is set to hear arguments Monday over whether that state’s law can take effect next month.”

From: http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/04000.html

“Population of Arizona, 2010 = 6,392,017
Population, percent change, 2000 to 2010 = 24.6%
Population, 2000 = 5,130,607”

From: http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/13000.html

“Population of Georgia, 2010 = 9,687,653
Population, percent change, 2000 to 2010 = 18.3%
Population, 2000 = 8,186,781”

From: http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/18000.html

“Population of Indiana, 2010 = 6,483,802
Population, percent change, 2000 to 2010 = 6.6%
Population, 2000 = 6,080,520”

From: http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/49000.html

“Population of Utah, 2010 = 2,763,885
Population, percent change, 2000 to 2010 = 23.8%
Population, 2000 = 2,233,204”

From: http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/04000.html

“United States

Population, percent change, 2000 to 2010 = 9.7%

The current situation within four different States is that four different State laws dealing with a State problem—how to handle the thousands of people who are living in each of the four States illegally—have each been challenged in four different inferior federal courts. Each State through their Constitutionally elected State legislatures with the approval of each State’s governor passed laws to try to deal with the problem WITHIN their individual State boundaries where the State has jurisdiction.

Each State has been sued in an inferior federal court. The inferior federal court in each case has been asked to rule that a duly and legally passed State law is Unconstitutional according to the United States Constitution.

In the case of Arizona, one unelected inferior federal court judge determined that portions of a duly and legally passed law was Unconstitutional. One unelected inferior federal court judge rejected portions of a law passed by a State legislature representing over 6 million citizens of the State of Arizona. 1 verse 6,392,017. And the 1 has the power to decide for 6,392,017?

In the case of Georgia, one unelected inferior federal court judge is to determine if a duly and legally passed law is Unconstitutional. One unelected inferior federal court judge may reject portions of a law/all of a law passed by a State legislature representing over 9 million citizens of the State of Georgia. 1 verse 9,687,653. And the 1 has the power to decide for 9,687,653?

In the case of Indiana, one unelected inferior federal court judge is to determine if a duly and legally passed law is Unconstitutional. One unelected inferior federal court judge may reject portions of a law/all of a law passed by a State legislature representing over 6 million citizens of the State of Indiana. 1 verse 6,483,802. And the 1 has the power to decide for 6,483,802?

In the case of Utah, one unelected inferior federal court judge is to determine if a duly and legally passed law is Unconstitutional. One unelected inferior federal court judge may reject portions of a law/all of a law passed by a State legislature representing over 2 million citizens of the State of Utah. 1 verse 2,763,885. And the 1 has the power to decide for 2,763,885?

But wait you say, that’s the process that the U.S. Constitution requires. “We have to follow the Constitution!” But wait I say, that’s NOT the process that the U.S. Constitution requires. The present process is a violation of the very Constitution these inferior federal court judges have sworn to uphold. “We should follow the Constitution! At the present time, we are NOT!!!”

For as I’ve said repeatedly, NO inferior federal court judge has jurisdiction over a State. NONE! The Constitution of the United States of America clearly states in Article III, Section 2, ¶ 2: “In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction.” Who has jurisdiction when a State is a party to the case? The United States Supreme Court!!! And only the United States Supreme Court until and unless the Constitution is amended!!! An inferior federal court has no such jurisdiction! The inferior federal courts in the United States have NO jurisdiction over States! NONE!!!

It’s time, it is past time to be obedient to the Constitution!!!
It’s time, it is past time to be obedient to the Constitution!!!
It’s time, it is past time to be obedient to the Constitution!!!

It’s time, it is past time to TAKE BACK THE NATION!!!
It’s time, it is past time to TAKE BACK THE NATION!!!
It’s time, it is past time to TAKE BACK THE NATION!!!