Use of the Bible to attain an Illegal Goal is breaking Gods Law i itself.

Reblogged from Reclaim our Republic

12 Feb 2017 by Dr Don Boys


Last Wednesday, the Washington Post published an open letter from more than 500 “conservative evangelical pastors and leaders…urging President Donald Trump to reverse his temporary pause on refugee resettlement…” Some celebrity names were Bill Hybels, Daniel Akin, Max Lucado, Tim Keller, etc., and the organizer of the open letter was World Relief, the social action arm of the National Association of Evangelicals. Furthermore, the letter did not reveal that World Relief and other groups are paid for each refugee they settle!

President Trump was trying to be correct, careful, but not callous by putting a temporary halt to refugees from seven Middle East nations. After all, his main responsibility is to keep America safe; and therefore, bringing thousands of Muslims who have no concept of democracy and, in fact, have a dedication to sharia law demands caution.

Left wingers, including many Evangelicals, are belching out anger, angst, and animus as they twist scripture to use against President Trump’s temporary pause of refugees. And let’s be honest, part of the Evangelical concern is based on money as mentioned above. The many religious groups that settle “refugees” in the U.S. are paid millions of dollars for their altruism. However, altruism is not altruism if there is a profit to be made.

Those religious groups include the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, Lutheran Immigration and Refugee Services, World Relief, Church World Services, Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society, Episcopal Migration Ministries, the International Rescue Committee, and the U.S. Committee for Refugees and Immigrants. When these groups send out a news release making their case for more immigration, they never mention that they receive $2,050 for each person they settle. Isn’t that an obvious conflict of interest? For sure, it is not full disclosure.

But it gets worse because all those religious groups must sign a federal waiver that they will not attempt to share the Gospel with the “refugees.” Wait a minute, I thought that was the basic reason all religious groups exist. No, in order to receive federal funds (your tax dollars), these groups agree they will not attempt to win refugees to Christ! It is illegal if they do, the cash will stop flowing. And practically all of the immigrants are Muslim, not Christian. But that’s another column.

But let me get to the twisting of Scripture by religious leaders as they try to convince shallow Christians to swallow the Evangelical ruse and permit unlimited immigration.

The senior pastor of Mosaic Church in Memphis said, “We were once the same kind of refugees. Our families come from similar situations.” No, many of these modern “refugees” chose to break the law and many come unvetted, uninvited, and unwanted to America. President Trump says that won’t happen anymore and for that he is castigated by the haters on the left.

I remind these “do gooders” (as opposed to those who do good) that the Bible often speaks of borders, borders that should be respected. All the major cities in the Ancient Middle East had massive walls, not to keep people in, but to keep gatecrashers from coming in uninvited.

These compromising Evangelical leaders are trying to drive a square peg into a round hole with a sledge hammer, but it simply won’t fit. The President of the National Hispanic Christian Leadership Conference Samuel Rodriquez opined, “It’s about our Christian faith. It’s about Matthew 25 and Leviticus 19. It’s about finding a way where we can reconcile Romans 13, ‘respecting the rule of law.’” No, Sam, like many Evangelicals, has to twist the Scripture like a pretzel to make it mean what it was never meant to mean.

My critics declare that I am unkind, unreasonable, even unchristian for opposing amnesty, open borders, and sanctuary cities; however, their charge is not based on solid reasoning or the Scripture. They twist the Scripture to make it fit their unreasonable, unconstitutional, and unbiblical demands.

We are told that the illegal immigrants are trying to escape tyranny and poverty so America should make room for them since we are a Christian nation. Does that mean that we must accept any number of aliens? Does it mean that federal officials are not obligated to carefully investigate everyone who wants to stake a claim in America? Almost all my critics and supporters of amnesty and unlimited immigration confuse what a person should do with what a nation should do and they twist the Bible to support their political position.

The Bible twisters almost always use Exodus 23:9 to support their cause of immigration, amnesty, and sanctuary cities; however they use a flawed hermeneutic to build their tenuous case. That verse commands, “Also thou shalt not oppress a stranger: for ye know the heart of a stranger, seeing ye were strangers in the land of Egypt.” However, that chapter is dealing with an individual’s obligation to be gracious–not national guidelines for treatment of immigrants. Of course, those religious leaders who use that verse know what they are doing but are being dishonest to give credibility to a very shaky principle.

But that has nothing to do with illegal aliens. Fuzzy-thinking preachers neglect to tell their congregations that the Jews were in Egypt by invitation and were not trespassers. In fact, they were special guests as long as Joseph was alive and a friendly Pharaoh reigned. The Jews had not entered the land illegally as do modern invaders. The Jews were strangers in Egypt but not illegal aliens.

The preceding verses in Ex. 23 verify my contention about this being a personal obligation not a national policy. That passage warns the ancient Jews (and us today) that “Neither shalt thou countenance (give approval) a poor man in his cause.” Moses was warning us about showing favor to a person because of his condition, whether rich or poor. We are not to be swayed by our emotions but by justice. The ancient adage is, “Let justice be done, though the heavens should be dissolved.”

Leviticus 19:33 is also used wrongly: “And if a stranger sojourn with thee in your land, ye shall not vex him.” Again, the preceding verses prove that God was giving instructions for personal conduct by warning them not to consume blood; not to get tattoos or pierce their flesh; not to prostitute their daughters; keep the Sabbath days; not to be involved with sorcery and fortune telling, etc. Then He warned them not to vex a stranger living among them. In fact, Moses went on to say, “thou shalt love him as thyself.”

These verses do not apply to the immigration issue even slightly. Illegal aliens purposefully choose to break our laws, even arrogantly demanding entrance into our nation expecting to be cared for upon their arrival. They are not sojourners or strangers but scoundrels (with a few innocent women and children) and are being encouraged to break our laws by many leftwing religious groups, even some Evangelicals.

Most of the “refugees” are plucked out of an alien culture known for being bellicose, backward, and brutal–never knowing or desiring democracy and the rule of law. They arrive in an American city without any input from the citizens who have built the homes, businesses, streets, churches, colleges, hospitals, etc.! Many aliens will no doubt become productive citizens while others will continue their backward lifestyle. Some are or will become terrorists and it only takes one to kill your family or bomb your church.

The National Center for Lesbian Rights issued a statement calling Trump’s temporary order to keep out immigrants from seven nations as “an attack on American values.” Say what! A bunch of lesbians speaking of American values is like an abortionist speaking about his love for children; an arsonist speaking of his commitment to fire safety; and an anarchist boasting of his desire for constitutional government.

The immigration issue, especially as it relates to Trump’s temporary ban, is proof that many religious leaders wear pantyhose, silk shorts, shirts with lace around the edge and sniff perfume from frilly handkerchiefs–and are shamelessly called men of God!

Boys’ new book Muslim Invasion: The Fuse is Burning! was published recently by BarbWire Books; to get your copy, click here. An eBook edition is also available.




12 Feb 2017 by 


“And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie.” (2Th 2: 11)

This warning and promise of scripture is given to those who live in the days just prior to the return of the Lord Jesus Christ. It, along with many other passages speak to a time when “knowledge will be increased” (Dan 12: 4), but spiritual blindness will also be at a peak. The world will be as spiritually dumbed down as it will ever get.

God does not willfully trap people in this delusion, but because they want to live outside of his will, he lets them pursue it to the point of reprobation. (Ro 1: 28) Reprobation is a ticket to the interventional judgment of the Living God. It is to be – judged already!

The crowd that falls into this category has two things in common. The first is that they are the largest group on the planet earth and second, they are perfectly sure they are on the correct path.

Those who walk with God have God as their reward. The secular minded have only what the god of this world gives them as a reward – and they are perfectly satisfied with it.

The ruler of the cosmos (Satan) is delighted to give them what they want to keep them under the strong delusion, to wit:

 “And the devil, taking him up into an high mountain, showed unto him all the kingdoms of the world in a moment of time. And the devil said unto him, All this power will I give thee, and the glory of them: for that is delivered unto me; and to whomsoever I will I give it.” (Lu 4: 5-6)

The “whomsoever” in this verse is us, it is Gov. Cuomo and anyone else who will buy into secularism’s last day’s justifications for our worst behaviors.

They would insist that they are too educated, advanced and brilliant to fall down to a demonic entity or an idol as did the uneducated ancient civilizations. Their worship today is indirect and more subtle, but it is just as prominent today as it ever was.

For a case in point consider just one of today’s headlines.

In an article published by Slate a picture of a smiling Gov. Cuomo of New York and a brimming Nancy Pelosi in the background is a title that read; “What’s the Purpose of a State Constitutional Amendment Enshrining Roe v. Wade?

The word “enshrine” is as near to the idea of worship as it gets.

We may pride ourselves for not repeating the silly superstitious ways of our forebears who ignorantly offered their children in sacrifice to the idol Moloch – but we are exactly like them.

Enshrining the continued murder of un-born babies after 44 years and nearly 60 million already wasted is indeed worship of the Devil.

What’s worse is that it is done in the name of another false god moderns worship called science.

But let’s put up our necessary disclaimer for those who think we are just Bible thumpers making a fuss.

Science is both useful and a wonderful pursuit of modernity until it is misused and or misapplied to create the kind of secularism that dismisses God and makes fools of men. Empiricism is not imperial, it can uncover truth but it cannot create truth.

Having dispensed with that, now let’s look at the goofy application of good science that Cuomo and every other abortionist in the world uses to justify slaughtering their own kind.

From the eighth grade and beyond every student of science knows that when the DNA of male and female join to form the DNA of a new human being in the womb, the creation of a new human being has begun.

We don’t need to use the phrase “Abortion stops a beating heart” to make our case. Stopping this process is to kill a human being as sure as smashing the larvae eliminates the butterfly.

Similarly, no matter what gender humans decide they are, or what length they go to change their gender, the DNA will not lie for them. It is human, it is gender specific, and only social pressure from a PC indoctrinated world would ask science to tell such a whopping lie for them.

Ignoring the moral teachings of scripture is bad enough, but denying the very science the world so vigorously defends and depends upon is what constitutes the best definition of the phrase “strong delusion.”

The practice and promotion of abortion gives full definition to this verse taken from Proverbs.

 “There is a way that seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death.” (Pr 16: 25)

What seems right to modern man turns out to be all wrong for modern babies, in fact, it is murder!

As for homo-inclinations and transgenderism it is clear that we have capitulated into the dark realm where we cannot differentiate between diversity and perversity.

This kind of national insanity will lead us to hard times which will spring upon us without warning.

You can take this as a warning.




No Exceptions: All Illegal Aliens Must be Physically Removed | The Liberty Conservative

After every presidential election, the idea of the president’s “electoral mandate” becomes a hot topic of discussion. The newly elected president, by virtue of his election, is thought to have received a “mandate” from the American people to pursue his policy agenda.

On November 8, the American people elected Donald Trump and gave him a clear mandate to address the following issues: trade, Obamacare, and most importantly, immigration.

There is a lot of speculation about what Trump’s first moves as president will be – some religious conservatives are pushing for him to work with the Supreme Court to attempt to overturn Roe v. Wade. This is a move that establishment Republicans, who would love to see Trump fail, will be quick to go along with – because they know it will quickly waste the 45th president’s political capital and public goodwill.

Trump is likely smart enough to not engage in a fight over abortion right out of the gate. The repeal and replacement of Obamacare is likely to come first, as the poorly crafted portions of the unpopular healthcare law are thrown out and the few positive features are included in the new legislation.

This will satisfy most establishment Republicans and independents, and grant President Trump new political capital. With the public on his side, he can tackle the next issue the American people have asked him to solve: immigration.

President-elect Trump has pledged to first deport the illegal immigrants with “criminal records,” including “gang members, drug dealers”, continuing to state that “we have a lot of these people, probably two million, it could be even three million… we’re getting them out of our country, they’re here illegally.”

This is a policy that few could disagree with. Illegal immigrants who come to the country and commit crimes have no business being allowed to stay in the country.

However, when describing the rest of America’s illegal immigrant population, Trump referred to them as “terrific people,” appearing to be reconsidering his promise to deport all illegal immigrants from the country.

Immigration is one of the many issues where Trump’s supporters will have to hold his feet to the fire and demand that American laws be enforced to their fullest extent. Our nation is either one of laws or one of men – we do not make exceptions to the law because someone is a “terrific person.”

How “terrific” can one be if they are violating a major federal law?

No Exceptions: All Illegal Aliens Must be Physically Removed RTR2V43E

One of Trump’s campaign promises was to reverse many of Obama’s executive orders. Two of the orders prime for reversal are Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) and Deferred Action for Parents of Americans (DAPA), which grant deportation relief to illegal aliens who arrived in the U.S. as children, and relief to illegal aliens with children who are American citizens, respectively.

In effect, these executive orders create an even larger magnet for illegal aliens to come to the country. DAPA creates an unprecedented incentive for illegal aliens to have children in the U.S., knowing full well that after their child is born, they will not be deported.

DACA allows for illegal aliens who may have come here as children (there is no way to document this, of course) to have relief from deportation. Many of these illegal aliens are now using American education resources, creating a strain on the system and displacing natural born American citizens and legal residents from attending American universities.

In order to receive protection under these executive orders, illegal aliens had to go through an application process. To date, over 650,000 illegal aliens have received protection from DACA, and thousands more have received protection from DAPA, effectively creating a database with information on millions of illegal aliens inside the U.S.

President Trump should, and must, reverse both of these illegal executive actions, and then instruct the Department of Homeland Security to utilize the DACA and DAPA applicant databases to begin the deportation of illegal aliens – to do otherwise is unfair to legal immigrants, legal residents, and American citizens.

According to the Pew Research Center, there are approximately 1.5 million illegal aliens attending college in the United States. Every seat filled by an illegal alien is a seat that is being taken away from an American citizen or a legal resident to this country, and President Trump is in a unique position to rectify this.

There is an argument made that illegal alien students have earned their right to attend college by being equally or more qualified than American citizens. This is largely untrue. There are many scholarships available uniquely to illegal aliens, and many universities actually prefer illegal aliens over American citizens due to race-based affirmative action programs. This is fundamentally unfair to the hard-working American and legal immigrant students who are forced to attend lower quality schools after being displaced by illegal aliens.

It’s a lie to say that illegal aliens are equally qualified when government’s finger is on the scale.

Underscoring the debate is the fundamental question of justice – is the U.S. a nation that cares about law and order, or are we a nation that makes decisions based primarily on political consideration?

Gang members, the unemployed, parents of Americans, or students – it does not matter. If you are here illegally, as President-elect Trump said in one of the Republican primary debates, “you have to go back.”

Illegal aliens in this country are breaking the law and are subject to deportation. It does not matter if they are college students or gang members – illegal is illegal, and President Trump will have the resources and the mandate from the American people to fix the problem and see that justice is done.

Source: No Exceptions: All Illegal Aliens Must be Physically Removed | The Liberty Conservative

Trump message to Europe: ‘Era of free-loaderism is over’ — RT Op-Edge

America has a chance to have practical businessman approach with Trump instead of bullying and ideological approach of previous administrations, says former US diplomat, Jim Jatras.

America gripped by a second night of protests after Trump’s win

In New York, supporters of Hillary Clinton have flooded the streets to vent their anger over the Republican’s winning the presidency. And it’s not only in New York where crowds have been rallying against Trump.

More protests are expected in New York, as well as Boston, Oakland and Seattle. The crowds are rallying against Trump’s views on minorities, immigration and the current US administration.

They were also angry about his ambitious foreign policy pledges, from reforming NATO to healing ties with Russia.

RT: Trump made plenty of pledges during his campaign, from creating jobs and cutting taxes to reforming NATO. But he is a political newcomer. Will he be able to deliver on these?

Jim Jatras: I think he will be able to deliver all his promises, for a couple of reasons. There are a couple of challenges that I could outline, too. But there are two reasons I think he could deliver. One, he is approaching this in a pragmatic and non-ideological way. He is not a big visionary who is going to remake the whole world in our own image, regime change, all that stuff that has got the US into trouble under Obama, under Bush and so forth. The second thing is, I think he will take a businessman’s approach. He will be the Chairman of the Board and try to find the right people to do the right job and have limited, specific, attainable goals that he wants, rather than this continuous process of turning and making a big mess of things with no clear idea what the objectives are. The challenge is especially the foreign policy field. Can he find the people that agree with his gut-level instincts on these things who are not part of the problem, especially a lot of former Republican officials from earlier administrations who, frankly, a lot of them agree more with Hillary Clinton on these things than they do with Trump.

The plank that Trump walked the most and got a lot of support for is renegotiating the trade deals. Because there used to be a Clinton campaign slogan back in 1992 that goes, ‘It’s the economy, stupid.’ And that is what this is really about. So, between all the name calling and having two of the most unpopular candidates ever running for office in the US. What is really happening in the US is the same that is happening over there in Italy with the populist Five Star movement, with Le Pen’s movement in France, with the AfD party in Germany, with the Freedom Party in Austria. What it is, it’s an anti-elite movement. Trends Journal publisher Gerald Celente told RT.

RT: Some European leaders have already expressed their concerns about Trump as President. The French leader, Francois Hollande, said it’s a time of uncertainly for relations between Europe and the US. What are your views on his reaction?

JJ: I take their uncertainty and their complaints in some cases and their whining as a compliment. Because what Mr. Trump is saying that the “era of free-loaderism is over.” And that we are going to look out for American interests first. I don’t think it is just in the crude terms are they paying their way in NATO, I think there is a subtext to that when you say we are going to get along with the Russians. If you guys, you European countries are so concerned about this “Russian threat,” why don’t you spend your own money? I think it is a left-handed way of saying “that threat is really not there, what is this all about?”

Norman Solomon, American journalist, media critic, former US Congressional candidate, told RT: “Trump has far-reaching promises but not far-reaching consistency. Particularly on foreign policy. Very erratic, not consistent and that remains to be seen. However, in his better statements his lack of belligerency towards Russia is certainly a positive possibility. Whether his foreign policy actually turns away from militarism is an open question.”

RT: Trump has pledged to mend relationships on the international arena including those with Russia. Will he be able to push anything like that past the Republican hawks in Congress?

JJ: He doesn’t need to push much through Congress. Let’s remember, under our system, which is not a parliamentary system, the president has very broad authority, especially in the conduct of foreign affairs, and I think he will take a very personalized approach to foreign leaders, especially strong leaders when he feels he has a mutual respect on which to build a relationship. He certainly will take this position with President Putin, with Prime Minister Netanyahu, even with the Mexican president; I think we will see that developing with President Xi of China. So, I think he is ready to look across the table, to look another leader in the eye and do some hard bargaining for mutual advantage which is frankly what we need. A practical approach rather than this kind of bullying and ideological approach we’ve seen for the few last administrations.

The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of RT.

Source: Trump message to Europe: ‘Era of free-loaderism is over’ — RT Op-Edge

Trump Wins, the Fight for Change Begins 


Now that Donald Trump has won the race for the presidency, he must deliver policies that reflect the populist, anti-globalization feeling which propelled his campaign.

While progressives and Establishment Republicans are quick to dismiss Trump as a man who merely exploited Americans’ ugliest instincts, that dismissal is a serious mistake. Trump tapped into a groundswell of anti-globalization and anti-mass migration feeling that is rising across the U.S. and Europe.

“People really have had enough of the continued failure of a professional career political class who appear to be in it just for themselves, and almost devoid of principles or philosophy.”

“What Trump represents following hard on the heels of Brexit is pro-nation-state democracy, pro-border controls, and sensible immigration policies, and pro-standing up for our culture against the threat of Islamic terrorism,” former UKIP leader Nigel Farage told LifeZette in an exclusive interview.

“I’ve been coming back and forth to America regularly and talking to just huge numbers of people while I’m there and I think the crossover between the mood of our voters in June and the mood of the Donald’s voters now is astonishing,” he said.

“The rational, patriotic, and conservative voices of ordinary people, long suppressed, have once again found utterance in the wake of Brexit and Trump,” said Benjamin Harris-Quinney, chairman of the Bow Group, the U.K.’s oldest conservative think tank.

Harris-Quinney said the post-Trump victory era “will no longer be restrained by PC censorship and faux cries of ‘racism,’ ‘sexism,’ ‘homophobia,’ — and truth has the chance to flourish in the space that has been created.”

It’s not just happening in Britain and the U.S. In France, Marine Le Pen’s Front National is leading the polls heading into the 2017 elections. A poll released last week showed that nearly a full third of Frenchmen — 31 percent — think Le Pen’s hard-line stance on Islam would make the country safer.

In the Netherlands, Geert Wilders and his Party for Freedom are also leading the polls, a result mainly of their anti-Islamic immigration, anti-E.U. platform. Countries such as Hungary and Poland have governments led by national conservative political parties, and in many other countries across Europe, from Switzerland to Scandinavia, right-wing nationalist and populist parties are making substantial gains.

The U.S. political Establishment needs to come to terms with this new reality. The fight for these policies is what motivated voters to vote for Trump in droves, and they will surely hold Trump’s feet to the fire on those issues.

“If something is a pure protest, it isn’t a big enough motivation to get people to go to the polling stations in significant numbers,” Farage said. “There has to be a positive feeling that this is about change, this is about a radical change of direction that will be for the better,” he explained.

“I think too often people who vote for me, for Brexit, for Trump — they’re labeled as being ‘antis,’ they’re labeled as being negatives,” Farage said. “Actually when you poll these people you find, yes, of course they’re unhappy with the way things are but they’re voting for these new phenomena because they see in what’s being offered to them positive policy solutions.” Trump must do his utmost to get Congress to deliver those policy solutions.

People across the West are fed up with the erosion of the middle class that goes hand in hand with globalization, they are fed up with foreign wars, they are fed up with mass migration that threatens both their national security and their national identity, and they are fed up with an oppressive political correctness that stifles free speech and their ability to protest these things.

“People really have had enough of the continued failure of a professional career political class who appear to be in it just for themselves, and almost devoid of principles or philosophy,” Farage said. Trump must follow through on his America First message.

“Either this win takes over the Republican Party or you will see for the first time in a very long while a genuine attempt at a third party in American politics,” Farage predicted.

Source: Trump Wins, the Fight for Change Begins | LifeZette

On Its 229th Birthday, Our Constitution Hangs by a Thread

by KEN KLUKOWSKI 17 Sep 20166

On this day in 1787, the founders of this nation finished writing a Constitution that in the intervening 229 years has helped make America the greatest nation on earth. When voters go to the polls on Nov. 8, the American people will decide whether that document will continue to serve as the Supreme Law of the Land.

America declared its independence from Great Britain in 1776. Then in 1777 the signers of the Declaration adopted the Articles of Confederation, creating a common government that would bind the 13 newly minted states together as a nation, forming a confederation of sovereign states.

But it became clear that America would not survive under the Articles. Americans stuck together through the Revolutionary War, united against a common enemy. But after Britain’s General Cornwallis surrendered to George Washington at Yorktown in 1781, the new nation started to unravel.

America’s leaders knew they needed a new national compact, one that would regulate interstate commerce, guarantee a common defense, and empower the United States to speak with a unified voice on the world stage.

Their solution was the Constitution. For the first time in human history, a people decided to govern itself through a written document, one that would supersede every ruler and authority. All public officials and military officers would be required to take an oath to support and defend this Constitution before they could assume the powers of their office.

The Constitution was premised on the Framers’ mistrust of government power. They took that power and broke it, separating it into two levels: federal and state. The states were left free as sovereign institutions to structure their government however they wanted, so long as it was a republican government.

For the federal government, they broke its power again, this time into three branches: legislative, executive, and judicial. The Constitution defines the separate powers of each branch (called the “separation of powers,”) and also gave each branch a way to restrain the other two (called “checks and balances.”)

The Framers knew that the Constitution would not be perfect, so they also included a mechanism for amending it. Then once the Constitution was ratified, the American people immediately amended it with a Bill of Rights to specify certain rights that the American people would possess (called “enumerated rights,”) including First Amendment rights to free speech and religious liberty, the Second Amendment right to bear arms, the Fourth Amendment right against unreasonable searches and seizures, and Fifth Amendment rights of due process, property rights, and the right to avoid self-incrimination. Those who adopted these amendments also reaffirmed in the Tenth Amendment that unless the Constitution specifically vests a matter with the federal government, those matters were left with the states or the people (called “federalism.”)

The Framers kept the Constitution short; it is only 4,440 words. The Framers wrote it in a way so that the voters could read it and understand it, and then use it as the yardstick by which to measure all their elected leaders. By reading it, the voters would know what the powers of government are and what their rights as citizens are, and compel government officials to respect both.

That’s why originalism—the view that the words of the Constitution must be interpreted according to the original public meaning of its words, the meaning which ordinary Americans understood those words to carry—is the only legitimate way to interpret the Supreme Law of the Land. Anything less subverts the will of the American people and the democratic process.

In recent decades, the federal government has increasingly strayed from the Constitution, with only brief reprieves, such as during the Reagan years.

But over the past eight years, the United States has seen truly unprecedented threats to the constitutional order:

  • The Obama administration argued for the first time that its power to regulate interstate commerce includes the power to order Americans to buy certain things with their own private money (e.g., health insurance).
  • Obama argued that he had the power to do an end-run around the Senate by making recess appointments whenever senators weren’t literally on the Senate floor to do business.
  • Obama launched a unilateral war against Libya without congressional approval.
  • Obama argued he had the power to change immigration law to grant amnesty to 4.5 million illegal aliens.
  • And now, Obama argues that current civil rights laws require all schools and employers to embrace homosexuality and transgenderism, with the chairman of his civil rights commission saying that terms like “religious liberty” are code words for illegal discrimination.

Most of these issues have lost by a single vote at the U.S. Supreme Court. But now one of the freedom-loving defenders of America’s constitutional order—Justice Antonin Scalia—has passed away. If his seat is filled by a liberal who rejects originalism in favor of a “Living Constitution”—essentially ignoring the Constitution’s text by saying its words must be “reinterpreted” to agree with modern leftist ideas—then Americans will not recognize their country four years from now.

Hillary Clinton places that beyond doubt. She threatens that the Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision (which held that groups like the National Rifle Association have free-speech rights and can run ads during election season) must be overruled, and that the Court was wrong in Heller to hold that law-abiding American citizens have a right to own a gun at home.

She says that Christian beliefs on abortion, marriage, sexuality, and gender roles “have to be changed.” Shockingly, she even says that observant Christians and constitutional conservatives are “deplorable” and “irredeemable.”

She promises to grant not just legal status—but citizenship and voting rights—to 11 million illegal aliens, and stop voter-ID laws and other measures that safeguard the ballot box, to ensure that neither she nor her allies can be voted out of office.

And Clinton vows that she will appoint judges who will side with her when these assaults on the Constitution are challenged in court.

Compare that pledge with Donald Trump’s commitment to appoint constitutionalists to the bench and his list of potential Supreme Court justices that amounts to a conservative goldmine of originalists.

The choice could not be clearer. America is at a fork in the road on whether we will continue to be a nation under the rule of law crowned by a written Constitution. At stake is nothing less than whether America’s next two centuries follow the same course as its first two centuries.


Trump’s Muslim Ban Not Only Constitutional But Has Been the Law Since 1952

tomfernandez28's Blog

Screen Shot 2016-07-21 at 3.10.52 PMWell, well, well.  All of Trump’s opponents except for Ted Cruz and all establishment republicans, all liberals and the entire media have gotten it wrong and it turns out Trump has the law behind him in banning Muslim “refugees”.  Not only does the president have the absolute right to keep Muslims and Islamists out of the country, he has the moral duty to do so.  Of course, that doesn’t work with Obama since he has no morals.

In the USCIS handbook, it describes reasons for keeping out unwanted immigrants.  The full text is rather lengthy, so I will only post the relevant sections.  These excerpts come from Section 212, Chapter 2 of the USCIS handbook:

(G) 2b2cFOREIGN GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS WHO HAVE COMMITTED PARTICULARLY SEVERE VIOLATIONS OF RELIGIOUS FREEDOM-Any alien who, while serving as a foreign government official, was responsible for or directly carried out, at any…

View original post 1,461 more words

These ‘patriots’ want to protect the Constitution…by any means necessary | The Washington Post

Armed with shotguns and Constitutions, the ‘Patriot’ movement sees America under threat. They mean to defend their way of life, by any means necessary.

B.J. Soper took aim with his AR-15 semiautomatic rifle and fired a dozen shots at a human silhouette target. Soper’s wife and their 16-year-old daughter practiced drawing pistols. Then Soper helped his 4-year-old daughter, in pink sneakers and a ponytail, work on her marksmanship with a .22-caliber rifle.

Deep in the heart of a vast U.S. military training ground, surrounded by spent shotgun shells and juniper trees blasted to shreds, the Central Oregon Constitutional Guard was conducting its weekly firearms training.

“The intent is to be able to work together and defend ourselves if we need to,” said Soper, 40, a building contractor who is an emerging leader in a growing national movement rooted in distrust of the federal government, one that increasingly finds itself in armed conflicts with authorities.

Those in the movement call themselves patriots, demanding that the federal government adhere to the Constitution and stop what they see as systematic abuse of land rights, gun rights, freedom of speech and other liberties.

Law enforcement officials call them dangerous, delusional and sometimes violent, and say that their numbers are growing amid a wave of anger at the government that has been gaining strength since 2008, a surge that coincided with the election of the first black U.S. president and a crippling economic recession.
Soper started his group, which consists of about 30 men, women and children from a handful of families, two years ago as a “defensive unit” against “all enemies foreign and domestic.” Mainly, he’s talking about the federal government, which he thinks is capable of unprovoked aggression against its own people.

The group’s members are drywallers and flooring contractors, nurses and painters and high school students, who stockpile supplies, practice survival skills and “basic infantry” tactics, learn how to treat combat injuries, study the Constitution and train with their concealed handguns and combat-style rifles.

“It doesn’t say in our Constitution that you can’t stand up and defend yourself,” Soper said. “We’ve let the government step over the line and rule us, and that was never the intent of this country.”

LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIALS and the watchdog groups that track the self-styled “patriot” groups call them anti-government extremists, militias, armed militants or even domestic terrorists. Some opponents of the largely white and rural groups have made fun by calling them “Y’all Qaeda” or “Vanilla ISIS.”

Mark Potok of the Southern Poverty Law Center, which monitors extremism, said there were about 150 such groups in 2008 and about 1,000 now. Potok and other analysts, including law enforcement officials who track the groups, said their supporters number in the hundreds of thousands, counting people who signal their support in more passive ways, such as following the groups on social media. The Facebook page of the Oath Keepers, a group of former members of police forces and the military, for example, has more than 525,000 “likes.”

President Obama’s progressive policies and the tough economic times have inflamed anti-government anger, the same vein of rage into which Donald Trump has tapped during his Republican presidential campaign, said Potok and Mark Pitcavage, who works with the Anti-Defamation League and has monitored extremism for 20 years.

Much of the movement traces its roots to the deadly 1990s confrontations between civilians and federal agents at Ruby Ridge, Idaho, and in Waco, Tex., that resulted in the deaths of as many as 90. Timothy Mc­Veigh cited both events before he was executed for the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing that killed 168 people, and said he had deliberately chosen a building housing federal government agencies.

Now a “Second Wave” is spreading across the country, especially in the West, fueled by the Internet and social media. J.J. MacNab, an author and George Washington University researcher who specializes in extremism, said social media has allowed individuals or small groups such as Soper’s to become far more influential than in the 1990s, when the groups would spread their message through meetings at local diners and via faxes.

The movement received a huge boost from the 2014 standoff at Cliven Bundy’s ranch in Nevada, where federal agents and hundreds of armed supporters of Bundy faced off in a dispute over the rancher’s refusal to pay fees to graze his cattle on federal land.

When federal agents backed down rather than risk a bloody clash, Bundy’s supporters claimed victory and were emboldened to stage similar armed face-offs last year at gold mines in Oregon and Montana.

In January, dozens of armed occupiers, led by Bundy’s sons Ammon and Ryan, took over the headquarters buildings of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge near rural Burns, Ore., an action that resulted in the death of Robert “LaVoy” Finicum, an occupier who was shot by state troopers.

Soper has been in the middle of all of it. He says he has tried to be a more moderate voice in a movement best known for its hotheads. He spent a month living in his RV at Burns, trying to talk the occupiers into standing down.

Two days after Soper’s last visit to the refuge, Finicum was killed in an operation in which the Bundys were arrested. An independent local investigation concluded that the shooting was justified, although the U.S. Justice Department is investigating several FBI agents for possible misconduct. Soper considers Finicum’s death “murder.”

That kind of talk is “a big deal,” said Stephanie Douglas, who retired in 2013 as the FBI’s top official overseeing foreign and domestic counterterrorism programs. “Free speech doesn’t make you a terrorist just because you disagree with the government. But if you start espousing violence and radicalizing your own people toward a violent act, the federal government is going to take notice.”

Shortly after the Bundy ranch confrontation, two of Bundy’s supporters who had been at the ranch, Jerad and Amanda Miller, killed two police officers and a civilian and also died in a Las Vegas shooting rampage. Police said the couple left a note on the body of one the officers they had shot point-blank.

It said: “This is the beginning of the revolution.”

UNTIL TWO YEARS AGO, B.J. Soper was a creature of ESPN.

Settled down after spending much of his 20s as a professional rodeo rider, he lived with his second wife and their two daughters on a pastoral plot of land with horses, dogs, cats, chickens and a majestic view of the snow-capped Cascades.

He spent his days building sheds and doing other small carpentry jobs, and his weekends watching sports on TV. He played softball. He hunted and fished. He followed his mother’s advice and stayed away from politics: She taught him young that registering to vote was just a way for the government to call you to jury duty.

Then the TV news was filled with footage from the Bundy ranch, and he was shocked. Government officials said Bundy had been abusing grazing rights and refusing to pay his fees for two decades, so they finally sent in armed agents to round up his cattle grazing on federal land. Officials said they had shown great restraint and patience with Bundy. But to Soper, it appeared that they were bullying him.

Source: These ‘patriots’ want to protect the Constitution…by any means necessary | The Washington Post

Watch the Full Conservative Convention – YouTube

Published on Feb 20, 2016

Taking place two days before the 2016 South Carolina GOP Primary, the Conservative Convention, hosted by Conservative Review and Michelle Malkin, showcased leading conservative luminaries, conservative media personalities, and 2016 presidential candidates. Attended by thousands of conservatives, the first ever Conservative Convention was a stunning success.