Tag Archives: First Amendment

Criminal Trespassing: Mall Cop v. Navy Seal

After hearing the combat veteran talking privately about the Gospel to his friends, the mall cop interrupts them and says that they aren’t allowed to discuss religion on private property.

He then threatens to charge them with criminal trespassing if they don’t leave.

That’s when things get messy.

http://https://youtu.be/RQQOXSX7Nl0

LEADER OF TEA PARTY PATRIOTS ATTACKS TRUMP AT CPAC

NewsWithViews.com

“While, then, the constituent body retains its present sound and healthful state everything will be safe. They will choose competent and faithful representatives for every department. It is only when the people become ignorant and corrupt, when they degenerate into a populace, that they are incapable of exercising the sovereignty. Usurpation is then an easy attainment, and an usurper soon found. The people themselves become the willing instruments of their own debasement and ruin.” ~James Monroe, First Inaugural Address (March 4, 1817)

“When a true genius appears, you can know him by this sign: that all the dunces are in a confederacy against him.” ~Jonathan Swift

Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor – 9th Commandment – Exodus 20:16

Martin’s CPAC Speech

Jenny Beth Martin, leader of the Tea Party Patriots (TPP) spoke at CPAC on Friday, March 4th, 2016. I listened to her 18 minute speech and was appalled at her lack of Constitutional knowledge, not to mention her support for a liberal Warren court decision, NYT’s v. Sullivan, which allows media and public figures to destroy the reputations of others with impunity.

She claims one of the candidates for president is not Tea Party at all, although Mr. Trump says he loves the Tea Party. Martin states, “If you want to love our country, then you have to love our Constitution, and I have serious questions about his (Trump’s) fidelity to the document the Tea Partiers revere.” (Really Jenny Beth? If they revere it so much, why does TPP want to open another Constitutional Convention and risk the destruction of our founding document?)

Martin states Trump has said, “If he becomes president, he would open up the libel laws to make it easier for him to sue newspapers who wrote unkind things about him.” Not just unkind things, Jenny Beth, but outright libel and slander!

And that’s not what he said at all. He said, “We’re going to open up the libel laws, so when they write falsely, we can sue the media, and we can get the story corrected and collect damages.” I would agree with him. Media lies are propaganda to sway the uninformed public, and all too often, they work.

In her diatribe against Mr. Trump, Martin continues, and says, “The right to speak freely without reprisal is enshrined in our Constitution, and when I hear a candidate say he wants to mess with our rights to free speech, I fear for our Constitution.” Whoa Jenny Beth, you’re using the same tactics Trump is fighting against…you’re lying! Trump has never said he wants to mess with our rights to free speech. What he wants to do is return the nation to civil discourse rather than the odious deceit perpetrated by so much of the MSM, GOP, DNC, and other public figures. Trump believes in honest discourse, but Ms. Martin doesn’t seem to grasp this concept.

Jenny Beth Martin agrees with the very liberal Supreme Court that lying about public figures is a first amendment right. In other words, anyone who is a public figure can have their reputation destroyed at the will of media or other public figures because of this liberal court’s decision. Take for example, Cruz’s campaign manager, Jeff Roe, who has no problem lying about opponents, and in one instance Roe’s lies and attacks even caused a public figure to commit suicide.

Ms. Martin speaks of fearing for our Constitution, but the candidate she supports, Ted Cruz, wishes to open the Constitution via a Convention of States and destroy what the founders gave us. Her former partner, Mark Meckler, is also pushing a Constitutional Convention under the guise of a Convention of States. I have continually asked these people one question, and have never received an answer. “Where does it say in Article V that the states can call, open, or convene a Convention and bypass Congress?” It doesn’t! Obviously, lawyers Cruz and Rubio know this, but to pass the CFR’s North American Union (NAU) may well require another Constitutional Convention. Remember, Heidi Cruz, along with Ted’s friend, Henry Kissinger, were on CFR’s NAU Task Force.

As a matter of fact, while Meckler was still with TPP, he co-sponsored a conference on an Article V convention at Harvard with several pro-Convention leftists, including Obama associate, Lawrence Lessig. Absent were the people and groups against a Convention. [Link], [Link] They were never invited.

Meckler and Martin

New York Times v. Sullivan

Donald Trump knows all about the 1964 decision, NYT v. Sullivan and what it has done to truth in politics and the public forum. In 1962, the NYT’s lied about the police department in Montgomery, Alabama. The police commissioner, Sullivan, sued in Alabama court and won a $500,000 judgment. The Alabama Supreme court upheld the judgment. Then, the NYT’s, knowing there were six liberals and three moderates on the Supreme Court, sued Sullivan. With a 9 to 0 decision, the liberal Earl Warren court stated that media could lie with impunity, and could only be sued if “actual malice” could be proven. Remember this is the same court who ruled in 1962, that religious prayer in schools was unconstitutional.

The Supreme court succeeded in changing the rules involving libel that had previously been the province of state law and state courts, as they’ve done with so many other laws belonging only to the states.

Supreme Court Justice Brennan then set out the rule that reshaped libel law with his majority opinion. A public official could recover in a libel action only if and when a court found that the libelous statement about the official was made with ” ‘actual malice’—that is, with knowledge that it was false or with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not.” As long as the press has an “absence of malice,” public officials are barred from recovering damages for the publication of false statements about them. It’s nearly impossible to prove “actual malice.” This decision also eliminates the ability of a public figure to sue other public figures or politicians for libel, i.e., the lies of Ted Cruz against both Donald Trump and Ben Carson. The Court’s decision eliminates the 9th Commandment in the public arena. “Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor.”

Jenny Beth Martin, GOP establishment

Let’s take a look at TPP’s roots. Founded in February of 2009, TPP is a 501(c)4 tax exempt entity. As such, they can endorse candidates and still have tax exempt status. In 2011, I wrote a four part article on the Tea Parties, and their infiltration and neutralization by the GOP establishment. There are some wonderful TP’s out there, those who have remained independent and who do independent research. However, these larger TP’s have long since been controlled by the establishment GOP.

TPP was initially organized by pro-amnesty Dick Armey’s FreedomWorks, and funded by the leftist Koch brothers’, Americans for Prosperity. There were originally three founders of TPP. Mark Meckler and Amy Kremler left for various reasons, and Martin retained control. Before Martin became a Tea Party star, she was scrubbing floors and cleaning houses for suburbanites after her husband’s business went bankrupt in 2007. Nothing wrong with physical labor and hard work, but she’s sure had a lifestyle change heading up TPP. In 2011, she was making $6 K a month at TPP. What was disturbing to many people within the TPP, was that she put her husband in charge of TPP’s finances, especially since they had huge IRS debts because of his bankruptcy.

Martin has done quite well for herself, TPP takes in millions of dollars every year. The majority of these donations are spent on “consultants.” Problem with this is, Jenny Beth is the consultant. She sets her fee at $15,000 per month. She also gets a salary, and as of 2012, she was paid more than $272,000. Nice work if you can get it. These two salaries allowed Martin to earn over $450,000 in 2015.

JB Martin is in bed with the globalist GOP establishment and has been from TPP’s inception. Martin has long been affiliated with Ralph Reed, formerly Director of the Christian Coalition, and infamous for the Jack Abramoff lobbying scandals, along with Grover Norquist. Martin has appeared on panels at Reed’s “Faith and Freedom Coalition” conferences, and Reed has returned the favor by speaking at TPP gatherings. During 2004, both of them worked on the Bush campaign, as did Ted and Heidi Cruz. All of them are Bush establishment GOP!

Remember Dave Brat who overcame all odds and beat incumbent pro-amnesty, Eric Cantor? Well, according to Laura Ingraham, JB Martin wouldn’t give TP favorite, Brat, the time of day. [Link] Martin wouldn’t even accept Brat’s phone calls. What does that tell you?

While the national TPP group is flush with cash, much of it raised through fundraising pitches that tell donors the money will be directed to grassroots activities. The smaller TP organizations around the country are struggling on shoestring budgets. TPP is not and never has been a grassroots organization. It is strongly affiliated with the GOP establishment and has been from its inception.

Jenny Beth Martin is just another GOP establishment clone, following the lead of the globalists to derail Donald Trump. They are desperately afraid of him, and have pulled out all the stops to eliminate him from the nomination, despite what the American people really want! With voter fraud, with intimidation, with attacks and lies, with Romney and Ryan, he still leads, and the people still love him.

Judge Who Jailed Kim Davis Also Ordered Opposition to Sodomites to be Re-Educated

Written by: Tim Brown

H/T to Jackie

Published on: September 5, 2015

Now, we’re getting somewhere. The judge that ordered Kim Davis to be jailed for not breaking the law, but opposing his unlawful orders, is the same judge behind re-educating (indoctrinating) Kentucky student who opposed sodomy. That judge, a Bush appointee no less, was none other than US District Judge David Bunning.

In 2003, the communist American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) sued the Boyd County Board of Education. The suit was to bully the Boyd County High School into allowing a “gay-straight” alliance club to meet. Parents overwhelmingly spoke out against the club, but to no avail. (Hint: Parents who love your kids, get them out of these indoctrination centers now!)

This same group, the ACLU, is also the same organization that filed suit against Kim Davis.

Judge Bunning ordered the allowance of the sodomite-straight club on campus, despite the fact that he had no jurisdiction to do so.

He wrote in his ruling, “Absent a preliminary injunction, plaintiffs will be unable to meet at school, unable to benefit from a forum for discussion with other students who are suffering the effects of harassment based on sexual orientation, and unable to work with other students to foster tolerance among all students.”

Christian News reports:

But Bunning also required the school district to implement training as part of a settlement, which mandated school staff and students to undergo diversity education, “a significant portion of which would be devoted to issues of sexual orientation and gender harassment.”

However, a number of students objected to being forced to watch a video that asserted that it is wrong to oppose homosexuality and that a person’s sexuality cannot be changed. They discovered that they could not opt-out of the training without being penalized, and contacted the legal organization Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF) for assistance.

ADF then sued the Boyd County Board of Education over the matter on behalf of student Timothy Morrison and his parents, who said that the re-education requirement “effectively forces the students to speak in agreement with the school district’s view that homosexuality is a safe and healthy lifestyle that cannot be changed.”

But in 2006, Bunning again ruled that the students must watch the video and could not opt-out because of their Christian identity, stating that the education “rationally related to a legitimate educational goal, namely to maintain a safe environment.” He said that the training wouldn’t mean that students would have to change their religious beliefs, therefore, an opt-out was unnecessary.

Bunning then denied the students request who were refusing the training.

“Plaintiffs are not requesting that a student absent from the training be considered an ‘excused’ or that the Board offer an alternate assignment on the issue of diversity. Rather, they seek to opt-out of the training altogether,” Bunning wrote.

“Given the requirements of the consent decree, the Board cannot meet this demand. Moreover, as there is no burden on plaintiffs’ freedom of speech, free exercise or other constitutional right, there is simply no basis for an opt-out,” he added.

He then appealed to a First Circuit ruling, in which he noted, “If all parents had a fundamental constitutional right to dictate individually what the schools teach their children, the schools would be forced to cater a curriculum for each student whose parents had genuine moral disagreements with the school’s choice of subject matter.”

That, my friends, is statism, plain and simple. But, of course, the schools can push any depravity, historical revisionism and even religion they want to, so long as the state agrees that it is so.

Parents, the state does not own your children. They are a gift to you from God (Psalm 127-28). You are to teach them diligently (Deuteronomy 6), not the state. The more you send your children to state indoctrination, the more they will think like statists, and, like the communist Chinese, they will turn your children against you. I have already provided sources and means for you to begin educating your precious children on your own for free… and you can do it!

This judge’s previous ruling and the ruling against Mrs. Davis demonstrates that he should be impeached, charged and justice be brought down upon him… and if those who took the oath to uphold the law, namely Sheriff Jack Carter won’t carry out the enforcement of the law, then it is up to the people to carry it out. What will you do people of Rowan County Kentucky?

sonsoflibertymedia.com/2015/09/judge-who-jailed-kim-davis-also-ordered-opposition-to-sodomites-to-be-re-educated/

Curt Schilling Tweets About Muslim Extremists, ESPN FREAKS OUT!

Lindsey Bruce FOR DCGAZETTE

CURT

It’s said that the truth will set you free, well in this case, it will get you fired. ESPN has suspended the often outspoken Curt Schilling after he tweeted a statistic about Muslim extremists. The tweet went as follows…

TWEET

“It is said that only 5-10% of Muslims are extremists . . . In 1940, only 7% of Germans were Nazis. How’d that go?”

Almost instantly a firestorm erupted. ESPN removed Schilling from its Little League broadcast team following the tweet, saying in a statement it had removed the former hurler and implied that further action could be taken “pending further consideration”.“Curt’s tweet was completely unacceptable, and in no way represents our company’s perspective.” ESPN wrote.

Schilling later caved and tweeted that he accepts his suspension: “I understand and accept my suspension. 100% my fault. Bad choices have bad consequences and this was a bad decision in every way on my part.”

So was his tweet politically correct? Okay no, but it does speak to a powerful issue that is too often ignored. Muslim extremism is a very dangerous subject. We are talking about a religion that has yet to seriously condemn the radical Islamists, even when they kill!

We all know how evil the Ku Klux Klan is, but Islamic terrorists murder more people every DAY than the Ku Klux Klan has in the last 70 years! 30 out of the 32 criminals on the FBI’s most wanted list are Muslim. The other two are left-wing liberal nut jobs, go figure.

We shouldn’t be afraid to point out statistics like this. This is a religion that KILLS people for being gay, yet no LGBT group will confront them. This is a religion that RAPES and MURDERS women for not properly obeying men, yet no feminist group will dare take them on. Why? Why are we so afraid to speak the truth when it comes to Islam?

Are all Muslims terrorists? Of course not. As the religion of peace.com explains,

“If our years of dialogue with literally hundreds of Muslims have taught us anything, it is that, irrespective of their confidence, most have only a superficial understanding of their religion. Some are secular and very few made the choice to even be Muslim. As with all religion, there are widely varying degrees of seriousness with which the teachings of Islam are taken.

As Ayaan Hirsi Ali put it, “Muslims as individuals can choose how much of their religion they practice.”

But to be punished for simply acknowledging the radical parts of this religion is ludicrous. It doesn’t sound like freedom of speech to me.

SUPREME COURT (THOMAS!) KICKS THE FIRST AMENDMENT TO THE CURB

By Cheryl Chumley
June 25, 2015
NewsWithViews.com

The U.S. Supreme Court has pretty much kicked the First Amendment’s freedom of speech clause to the curb – and you can blame one of the most conservative voices for that, Justice Clarence Thomas.

In a ruling just handed down Monday, the court found in Texas Department of Motor Vehicles Board v. Texas Division of the Sons of Confederate Veterans the government does indeed have the authority to regulate political speech.

Yes, that’s the ruling: The government can now legally regulate private citizens’ political speech.

The justices should have glanced at the statements of one of their colleagues, Justice Thurgood Marshall, who in 1972 made it clear: “Above all else, the First Amendment means that government has no power to restrict expression because of its message, its ideas, its subject matter, or its content. To permit the continued building of our politics and culture, and to assure self-fulfillment for each individual, our people are guaranteed the right to express any thought, free from government censorship. The essence of this forbidden censorship is content control.”

Content control, indeed. And content control on the part of the government toward the free American citizen is what we now have.

The court case began as a spat over what constituted a proper license plate in Texas. The Sons of Confederate Veterans thought a little emblem of the rebel flag to the left of the tag number would be OK – especially since the state’s Department of Motor Vehicles Board regularly and with seeming abandon pretty much approved all the other requests for specialty plates – roughly 350 of them.

But the Texas DMV Board, to paraphrase, said, “No, Sons of Confederate Veterans, your confederate flag is offensive.” So the two sides went to court. And the Sons of Confederate Veterans argued what would seem to be the obvious: that the government board was breaking First Amendment free speech provisions. One court found in favor of the DMV Board; another, for the vet group. Enter the U.S. Supreme Court.

In an opinion written by Justice Stephen Breyer, the court’s conclusion was the government just “would not work” without having the right to determine what constitutes rightful and proper free speech. He then posed from left field: “How could a state government effectively develop programs designed to encourage and provide vaccinations, if officials also had to voice the perspective of those who oppose this type of immunization?”

Can you say, whaaat?

But he clarifies: Allowing the Confederate flag on the license plates could give the impression the Texas government endorses the rebel emblem, Breyer said.

Sanity seems to have made a brief appearance, on the wings of Justice Samuel Alito who wrote in his dissenting opinion: Dude, that’s just stupid. Referencing the license plates in Texas that carry Dr. Pepper and NASCAR emblems, Alito asked, “Would you really think that the sentiments reflected in these specialty plates are the view of the State of Texas and not those of the owners of the cars?”

But it was too late. Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan had already cast their constitutional caution to the wind and joined with Breyer – and, in a shocker to a conservative’s core, so didd Thomas. One can only guess he had personal reasons and a personal vendetta against the rebel flag, because constitutionally speaking – the ruling just bites.

Think this is a license plate matter confined to Texas? Or maybe a cause for silently applauding the court’s boldness in booting that much-hated Confederate flag?

Well, it’s not. It’s a massive First Amendment ding. And now we’re already feeling tremors elsewhere. Right after the Supreme Court released its horrific Texas ruling, a federal judge in Manhattan issued one of his own, putting the halt on Pamela Geller’s American Freedom Defense Initiative to post ads on city buses and subway cars of a menacing man with a masked face alongside warnings about radical Islamists. The case of Geller versus the Metropolitan Transportation Authority had traversed a similar path as the Sons of Confederate Veterans – it led to a court fight about so-called offensive speech, which led to a First Amendment win for Geller, which led to the MTA’s sulky decision to quit posting any and all political ads.

Now curiously, right after the Supreme Court decided government can in fact control political speech, the same judge who previously found in Geller’s favor then ruled that the MTA ban on all ads moots his earlier support of her cause based on the First Amendment. That means she can’t put up her political ads after all. As Geller’s attorney rightly raged: So the government gets to break the First Amendment and then simply change its rules to “avoid the consequences of its unlawful behavior?”

They’re vowing to pursue the matter all the way to the Supreme Court. Let’s hope Thomas has recovered his senses when they arrive.

© 2015 Cheryl Chumley – All Rights Reserved

Forget Jade Helm: Obama quietly implementing OUTRAGEOUS rule against gun owners

My Comments: I am not a fan of Allen West for many reasons, and I do not wish to forget about FEMA, Jade Helm, etc., but this article on our 2nd amendment rights is important, and yes, we have to get outraged about this.  Will you wake up and send this to everyone, and get them on the phone to their reps and the State Department?  Our idiot Congress is sitting there allowing this dictatorship to continue!!!!!  We MUST SCREAM!  See Allen West, Another Neo-Con?

Written by Allen West for ALLENBWEST.COM

GUNS

The Second Amendment to our U.S. Constitution states, “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

That statement is pretty clear to understand and comprehend, yet some folks just can’t seem to get over it. There are liberal progressive folks of the left who feel it is their mission in life to relegate the Second Amendment as meaningless. Now, what I am about to say will probably anger some people but so be it.

I’m often asked about FEMA camps along the interstate, Walmart stores closing, and the impending Operation Jade Helm. I continue to tell people that while you’re running around with your hair on fire concerning yourself about these stories, the Obama administration is doing the “Kansas City Shuffle” — you look right while they go left.

Get a load of THIS quiet assault going on – not just on our Second Amendment, but our First as well.

As reported by the Washington Examiner, “Commonly used and unregulated internet discussions and videos about guns and ammo could be closed down under rules proposed by the State Department, amounting to a “gag order on firearm-related speech,” the National Rifle Association is warning.

“In updating regulations governing international arms sales, State is demanding that anyone who puts technical details about arms and ammo on the web first get the OK from the federal government — or face a fine of up to $1 million and 20 years in jail. According to the NRA, that would include blogs and web forums discussing technical details of common guns and ammunition, the type of info gun owners and ammo reloaders trade all the time.”

“Gunsmiths, manufacturers, reloaders, and do-it-yourselfers could all find themselves muzzled under the rule and unable to distribute or obtain the information they rely on to conduct these activities,” said the NRA in a blog posting. “This latest regulatory assault, published in the June 3 issue of the Federal Register, is as much an affront to the First Amendment as it is to the Second,” warned the NRA’s lobbying shop. “Your action is urgently needed to ensure that online blogs, videos, and web forums devoted to the technical aspects of firearms and ammunition do not become subject to prior review by State Department bureaucrats before they can be published,” it added.”

The result is that the Obama administration is going to assault the First Amendment in order to undermine the Second. Once again the bureaucratic regulatory state has reared its ugly head, developed a rule and posted it to the Federal Registry without the consent and knowledge of the American people, nor their Representatives. This is yet another means by which the Obama administration — aka, the liberal progressive left, is seeking to infringe upon the right of the people to keep and bear arms.

Of course you’re asking, how can this be done and what does the State Department have to do with this?

As the Examiner writes, “At issue is the internet. State is updating International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR), which implement the federal Arms Export Control Act (AECA). The rules govern everything from guns to strategic bombers. The NRA said that the rules predate the internet, and now the federal government wants to regulate technical arms discussions on on the internationally available web.”

As typical for the government gobbledegook, it took State Department 14-pages to explain but the NRA sought to encapsulate their overreach: “With the new proposal published on June 3, the State Department claims to be ‘clarifying’ the rules concerning ‘technical data’ posted online or otherwise ‘released’ into the ‘public domain.’ To the contrary, however, the proposal would institute a massive new prior restraint on free speech. This is because all such releases would require the ‘authorization’ of the government before they occurred. The cumbersome and time-consuming process of obtaining such authorizations, moreover, would make online communication about certain technical aspects of firearms and ammunition essentially impossible.”

Now of course the Obama defenders will say what does this have to do with infringing on the right to keep and bear arms — much ado about nothing. But here is the objective: the government is seeking to restrict the free speech of American gun owners and the gun industry in sharing information pertaining to their ability to keep arms. Furthermore, the government is using regulatory coercion and threat of imprisonment to create behavior modification — not exactly a positive reflection on our governing system.

In addition, the Obama administration is seeking to surrender U.S. Constitutional gun ownership rights to international code — a violation of the sovereignty of our Republic. It’s just another attempt to chip away at our liberty by circumventing the legislative process and our rule of law. THAT is why this matters.

We’re entering that dangerous area of critical mass where America has an executive branch and a president who in their final eighteen months together will complete their fundamental transformation — by any means necessary.

The Obama administration and the progressive socialist left have effectively become “da man.” And because they’ve gone down that path, we may be entering a time of warranted civil disobedience. To think, that if I, Allen West, a law-abiding American citizen, were to write technical details or make a video about my Bushmaster AR-15 on this website without prior approval of the State Department, I could face a $1 million fine or 20 years in jail is simply beyond belief and comprehension. Welcome to the new America, courtesy of your friendly neighborhood liberal progressives.

Message to State Department: first of all, teach John Kerry how to ride a bike, then leave us the heck alone and stop trying to undermine our individual rights.

Message to President Obama: get a strategy to defeat ISIS, because we are not going to allow you to disarm our citizenry so your Islamist pals can overtake us here in our homeland. And I say that fully aware that PSD-11 demonstrates the Obama administration’s collusion with the Muslim Brotherhood — and we know exactly what the Brotherhood has intended for America in their Explanatory Memorandumwritten in 1991 by Mohammed Akhram. In case you don’t know, a secret directive called Presidential Study Directive-11, or PSD-11 was produced in 2011 and outlines administration support for the Muslim Brotherhood. Of course, no one is allowed to actually read it.

So please folks, instead of FEMA camps, Walmarts, and Jade Helm, study the ITAR and realize how the Obama administration is doing everything possible to slowly undermine your right to keep and bear arms.

Then, flood State Department phone lines demanding they rescind the unconstitutional rule or face the wrath of American gun owners who will not comply.

 

The Johnson Amendment and the Agenda to Silence Christians

By  from DAVE FIORAZO.COM

AMENDMENT

We did not get here overnight. Attacks on religious freedoms and on the speech of Christians in America did not just appear in the last several years. The attempted muzzling of Christian churches and religious groups has gradually increased since a pivotal law was passed by a shrewd politician to intimidate people of faith. The repercussions have been devastating.

The 1954 Johnson Amendment passed by Congress stated that non-profits (read: Christian churches and organizations) could not speak in favor of any political candidate. Was this even constitutional?

This key but forgotten event paved the way for the increased squelching of free speech and because of the confusion and misinformation about the law, many religious leaders have been unnecessarily self-censoring for decades.

The following is an excerpt from the chapter, “The Separation of Christianity and State” in the book, The Cost of Our Silence:

“Texas Democrat, Lyndon B. Johnson, was a powerful politician running for reelection as Senator, but two anti-communist, tax-exempt groups were opposing him and passing out literature during the campaigns. He contacted the IRS and found the group’s activity was legal, so he sought other options to fight them.

Johnson shrewdly appeared on the Senate floor on July 2, 1954, and offered his amendment to a pending, massive, tax code overhaul bill. The bill was supposed to modernize the tax code. Records indicate an absence of committee hearings on the amendment. No legislative analysis took place to examine the effect the bill and the amendment would have, particularly on churches and religious organizations. The amendment was simply created to protect Johnson.

The Johnson Amendment was passed by Congress as an amendment to section 501(c)(3) of the federal tax code… stating entities that are exempt from federal income tax cannot “Participate in, or intervene in (including the publishing or distributing of statements), any political campaign on behalf of – or in opposition to – any candidate for public office.”

1954 johnson amendment

The Left uses this to bully Christian pastors and groups with threats of losing their nonprofit status should they dare talk about the Bible as it relates to cultural, political, fiscal, and social issues, which all fall under the category of moral issues.

Erik Stanley, author and Senior Legal Counsel of the Alliance Defense Fund, explained the Johnson Amendment was a bill that got inserted into the tax code through back-room deals made by a powerful Senator seeking reelection at any cost. As a result of the bill, freedom of speech and the free exercise of religion have been trampled. Stanley stated:

We have grown up with a generation of churchgoers that believe it is illegal for their pastor to address candidates and elections in light of Scripture or church doctrine when there is no valid justification for believing that.

Johnson knew how to use the political process to silence his enemies. The new amendment not only protected him from the conservative nonprofit groups opposing him, but many pastors stopped speaking about any issue from the pulpit that might be deemed political either out of ignorance of the new law or out of fear. By this self-censoring, the church has chosen to ignore open immorality in culture and in government while at the same time neglecting to call attention to those political leaders who do strive to live according to Christian morals and values.

One might conclude Lyndon B. Johnson not only silenced America’s churches, his legislation has turned many of them into agents of the state. What about labor unions, liberal churches, and leftist organizations? Why have many of them apparently been allowed to not only endorse and support political candidates, but openly fund their campaigns? This is the hypocrisy of selective law enforcement by the (in)Justice Department and the IRS, a partisan government agency recently exposed in the targeting of conservative groups…

Have we also hesitated to address the severe persecution of our Christian brothers and sisters around the world due to radical Islam? I have to believe we all care about Christian suffering and the fact millions have lost their lives because of their faith in Jesus Christ. What I also want to believe is that religious leaders in America are not afraid to talk about why this is happening.

In an article for American Thinker, Bill Warner wrote about persecution in Islamic nations “caused by Muslim jihadists who are following the Islamic doctrine of jihad against the Christian as found in the Koran, Sira, and Hadith.” Warner points to pastors and church leaders who have become comfortable operating their churches more like 501(c)(3) institutions that have meetings on Sunday. They have a corporate mentality which he believes is one of the reasons for the denial of Christian suffering.

If you are willing to see the doctrinal roots of the ongoing murder of Christians by Muslims, then you might have to speak about it from the pulpit, and that could be seen as political speech. In spite of the fact that there has never been a 501(c)(3) revoked because of political speech by a minister, the imagined loss silences ministers. Hmmm… if a minister is worried about the IRS revoking his 501(c)(3), then whom is the minster serving? Caesar or Christ?

Are these harsh words any less true of at least a small number of religious leaders in America? If your pastor resembles more of a business person or CEO than a military leader preparing his troops for battle, it may be time to approach him in love and encourage him to address persecution, sin, the culture war, and politics from time to time.

Because many misunderstand why politics were supposedly forbidden in church, some Christians have mistakenly assumed that the process of voting and electing America’s leaders is either unbiblical or unimportant. Only about 25 percent of Christians vote in elections today. Some pastors do talk about their own obligation to impact society by equipping the saints, and do address the controversial issues of today. We need to pray for and rally around Christian leaders such as these.

Though the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment will continue to be wrongly applied to cases involving religion, we can help by raising awareness. We can also elect representatives who revere the Bible they place their hand on when taking their oath of office. Enemies of Christianity and of America have become emboldened, and people of faith need to be reminded we are provided the freedom of religion and its expression under the Constitution.

Our ultimate allegiance and responsibility however, is to the Word of God.

The truth is churches have a tremendous amount of freedom. From the pulpit, actual limitations include: Pastors cannot openly endorse a particular candidate, tell people whom to vote for, or contribute church money to a campaign. A pastor is absolutely free to do so as an individual outside the church. Pastors, churches, and nonprofits can lawfully speak in detail about all biblical issues. They may also quote any Scripture in the Bible, discuss unethical abortion funding and the protection of marriage, and distribute voter guides and information as well as register folks to vote. Churches can invite politicians to come in and speak to their congregations as long as they extend an invitation to both parties.

I do understand the concern some pastors have about mixing religion and government, but we cannot divorce our faith from our politics. If we do, we’d have to leave Jesus at home or outside when we enter the voting booth if that were even possible. Politics affect many areas of our lives, and the Bible has answers and instructions for every single one. Christians must have a voice when it comes to who is elected, what policies get promoted, and which laws get passed.

Someone’s legislation and worldview will surely be enacted and enforced in America – so will it be those who oppose Christianity or those who support it?

Are we willing to remind and inform this generation about who we are and what America once was? Are we willing to speak the truth about Christ and culture no matter how unpopular we may become? The nation has not yet declined to a point of total ungodliness and destruction, and our government needs our prayers and our participation to generate a revival. Concerned Christians must unite again. Every believer should see the need to speak up with a sense of urgency whether you are a parent, a pastor, or a person in the public square.

The Reverend Don Wildmon, founder of the American Family Association, has been instrumental in fighting for the family and Christian values in our country. He wrote the following over ten years ago:

Today, 4,000 innocent precious lives of unborn babies were snuffed out . . . And 300,000 pulpits are silent . . . The networks make a mockery of Christians, the Christian faith and Christian values with nearly every show they air. Greed, materialism, violence, sexual immorality are standard fare. Program after program, movie after movie contains anti-Christian episodes and plots. News articles condescendingly refer to the “fundamentalists, right-wing Christians.” Those who speak out for the sacredness of life are branded as extremists. And 300,000 pulpits are silent.

Teenage suicide is the highest it has ever been . . . Christian morality cannot be taught in schools, but atheistic immorality can . . . And 300,000 pulpits are silent. Rape has increased 700 percent in the last fifty years, and that takes into consideration the population growth . . . And 300,000 pulpits are silent.

Rock music fills the airwaves and our children’s minds with music which legitimizes rape, murder, forced sex, sadomasochism, adultery, satanic worship, etc. And 300,000 pulpits are silent. A majority of states now have lotteries [gambling has been legalized, no longer a crime]. And 300,000 pulpits are silent.

Perhaps your pastor or church leader has in fact been speaking out on these and many other problems in our society. Thank him and encourage him! You are blessed to have him and the church in America needs more like him. Our hope is for Christian leaders to do what Dietrich Bonhoeffer and the Confessing Church in Germany chose to do; put the Word of God above all things. We must not have any gods besides the one true God. Real faith cannot be silenced by government orders.

If we do nothing and the majority remains silent, the secular progressives win. Then, with God removed from all aspects of American society, they will be the ones to rule, deciding what is right and wrong, true and false, moral and immoral.

As the great Reverend Charles Finney once said,

“God will bless or curse America depending on the course Christians take in politics; they must vote for honest men and take consistent ground.”

We have been losing ground because Christians have not first been firmly established in their faith, and second; we have not been openly preaching and living the Word of God without compromise. I admit my past failures in this area and have confessed them to the Lord; how about you?

The most important thing is not winning battles for culture or country, but winning eternal battles for the kingdom of God. To win the souls of men, the whole truth of the whole gospel must be proclaimed. True Christianity cannot be confined behind the walls of any church…

Franklin Graham: 'Draw Muhammad' event went too far

My comments in Red: I am not a fan of Franklin Graham, nor have I ever been a fan of his father, Billy Graham (See Dr. Cathy Burn’s book, BILLY GRAHAM AND HIS FRIENDS: A HIDDEN AGENDA?) As for Franklin, he very much sounds like an appeaser in this article, although he does state on his Facebook page that Islam does not worship the same God Christians worship.  Graham’s close alliance and promotion of Rick Warren’s books, also gives great reason to wonder about Graham’s knowledge of the Bible.
By Cheryl Chumley, Reposted from WND
franklin
Franklin Graham, one of the world’s best-known Christian evangelists and the head of the nonprofit Samaritan’s Purse, said in a Wednesday morning Fox & Friends interview the “folks in Garland were wrong” to hold their “Draw Muhammad” event. ”
As a Christian, I don’t like it when people mock my Lord and Savior Jesus Christ,” he said. “What this event was doing in Texas was mocking Islam. I disagree with [them].” Graham said today’s society is lacking in civility and the “folks in Garland were wrong” to further that tone. “I think we need to show respect and civility,” he said.
We need to respect one another … and those that believe differently [from my faith], I’m not going to mock them.”
Graham then condemned the radicalized element of Islam for attacking those outside their faith, and doubled down on remarks made earlier – reported by WND – that the United States should put a hold on allowing anyone into this country who’s coming from a nation with known terrorist cells.
“It’s wrong to prefer violence, period,” he said. “The Muslims have no right to go around shooting people because someone mocks them. … We should not be allowing immigration into this country from any countries that have active terrorist cells.”
Just Tuesday, Graham weighed in on the Texas shootings with a Facebook post saying the god of Islam is not the “God of the Bible,” or of Christianity.
“One of the Muslim gunmen in Garland, Texas, said he had come there to die, believing that this pleases his god and he would go to heaven,” Graham wrote. “The god of Islam and the God of the Bible are not the same.” One key difference? “The god of Islam wants you to die for him,” he said.
“The God of the Bible sent His Son to die for us.” Graham then wrote: “Jesus said, ‘I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.’ Only if we put our faith and trust in Him, can we spend eternity in Heaven. I wish all Muslims could know the truth. They can find what their hearts are searching for only through Jesus Christ.” Graham has said in previous interviews he wanted Muslims to hear the new that “God loves them and he will accept them through faith and through his son, Jesus Christ,” Christianity Today reported.
On Wednesday on Fox & Friends, Graham called for more prayer for the nation, and for the nation’s leaders. “We need to pray for this country,” he said, “that it turns back to the God of our fathers. We need God today in this country and we need His help. And we need to love one another … love them and respect them.”
 
 
 
 

Franklin Graham: ‘Draw Muhammad’ event went too far

My comments in Red: I am not a fan of Franklin Graham, nor have I ever been a fan of his father, Billy Graham (See Dr. Cathy Burn’s book, BILLY GRAHAM AND HIS FRIENDS: A HIDDEN AGENDA?) As for Franklin, he very much sounds like an appeaser in this article, although he does state on his Facebook page that Islam does not worship the same God Christians worship.  Graham’s close alliance and promotion of Rick Warren’s books, also gives great reason to wonder about Graham’s knowledge of the Bible.

By Cheryl Chumley, Reposted from WND

franklin

Franklin Graham, one of the world’s best-known Christian evangelists and the head of the nonprofit Samaritan’s Purse, said in a Wednesday morning Fox & Friends interview the “folks in Garland were wrong” to hold their “Draw Muhammad” event. ”

As a Christian, I don’t like it when people mock my Lord and Savior Jesus Christ,” he said. “What this event was doing in Texas was mocking Islam. I disagree with [them].” Graham said today’s society is lacking in civility and the “folks in Garland were wrong” to further that tone. “I think we need to show respect and civility,” he said.

We need to respect one another … and those that believe differently [from my faith], I’m not going to mock them.”

Graham then condemned the radicalized element of Islam for attacking those outside their faith, and doubled down on remarks made earlier – reported by WND – that the United States should put a hold on allowing anyone into this country who’s coming from a nation with known terrorist cells.

“It’s wrong to prefer violence, period,” he said. “The Muslims have no right to go around shooting people because someone mocks them. … We should not be allowing immigration into this country from any countries that have active terrorist cells.”

Just Tuesday, Graham weighed in on the Texas shootings with a Facebook post saying the god of Islam is not the “God of the Bible,” or of Christianity.

“One of the Muslim gunmen in Garland, Texas, said he had come there to die, believing that this pleases his god and he would go to heaven,” Graham wrote. “The god of Islam and the God of the Bible are not the same.” One key difference? “The god of Islam wants you to die for him,” he said.

“The God of the Bible sent His Son to die for us.” Graham then wrote: “Jesus said, ‘I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.’ Only if we put our faith and trust in Him, can we spend eternity in Heaven. I wish all Muslims could know the truth. They can find what their hearts are searching for only through Jesus Christ.” Graham has said in previous interviews he wanted Muslims to hear the new that “God loves them and he will accept them through faith and through his son, Jesus Christ,” Christianity Today reported.

On Wednesday on Fox & Friends, Graham called for more prayer for the nation, and for the nation’s leaders. “We need to pray for this country,” he said, “that it turns back to the God of our fathers. We need God today in this country and we need His help. And we need to love one another … love them and respect them.”

 

 

 

 

Gov’t Reportedly Ordered Church to Remove Pro-Life Signs Within 10 Days or Face a Potential Fine. What Happened Next Has Officials Reversing Course.

By from THE BLAZE

conservative legal firm is claiming victory after government officials reportedly dropped their demand that a Virginia church remove two pro-life signs that were being displayed on its property.

Photo credit: Shutterstock

 

The Rutherford Institute, the legal firm that represented Valley Church of Christ in Harrisonburg, Virginia, said in a press release that zoning officials recently levied criminal charges against the house of worship over the signs.

Church leaders received an April 20 letter informing them that someone had complained about the signs, which the city initially claimed were displayed in violation of an ordinance governing banners.

One of the banners includes a quote from Mother Teresa that reads, “It is a poverty to decide that a child must die so that you may live as you wish,” along with a photo of a fetus; the other includes a scripture from Jeremiah 1:5, which reads, “Before I formed you in the womb I knew[a] you, before you were born I set you apart; I appointed you as a prophet to the nations.”

The congregation was reportedly given 10 days to comply with the ordinance or possibly face a Class 1 misdemeanor, which the Rutherford Institute said could have led to up to a year in jail and a $2,500 fine.

But zoning officials subsequently backed away from demanding that the signs be taken down after attorneys with the Rutherford Institute stepped in and argued that the First Amendment bars content-based discrimination when it comes to signage, according to a press release.

“Under the First Amendment, the government has no authority to pick and choose what type of speech it approves,” Rutherford Institute president John W. Whitehead said in a statement.

Harrisonburg officials are currently examining the ordinance to explore which signs are appropriate for display, WHSV-TV reported.

“The city’s intent was not to regulate the content of the sign, simply to ensure the structure and material of the sign met the requirements of the ordinance,” read a statement from the local government.

The signs continue to be on display outside Valley Church of Christ.