Law Center Calls for Immediate Impeachment

/in , , , , , , /by

In my previous column, I lay out exactly why the future of the Republican Party will be determined this November on the single issue of impeachment. In short, congressional Republicans have played dead for six years and unless they take a stand with the people who fund and elect them and impeach, their base will abandon them come November.

In an interview with the Chuck Wilder Show out of L.A. on July 22nd I field questions that should remove any doubts you might have about that. (July 22nd show – second hour at about 54 minutes in.)

After six years of manufactured disaster after purposeful disaster by the most impeachable administration in U.S. history, it all comes down to the Rule of Law or a totally lawless society and congressional Republicans are fast running out of time to choose a side.

As a result, the North American Law Center (NALC) has drafted the most complete and accurate set of Articles of Impeachment to date and is working with pro-American activists across the country to push House Republicans to stand up and fight for our Constitutional Republic and the Rule of Constitutional Law.

Influential Republicans Allen West, Gen. Jerry Boykin and Sarah Palin have all been pounding out the drumbeat of impeachment in recent statements and the North American Law Center is openly calling upon them and others to stand together behind a very carefully crafted set of Impeachment Articles in a joint effort to convince House Republicans to honor their oaths of office and end the assault on all things American.

NALC Lead Counsel Stephen Pidgeon explained the Articles on the July 28th Erik Rush Show:

“Since House Republicans lack the courage and decency to draft proper Impeachment Articles, we did it for them. And if they need thousands of Americans to force them to do the right thing, we will try to do that too”… Pidgeon said. – “Nothing in these Articles is about the so-called “birther” issue. It’s about truth, known facts and the rule of law.”

The NALC proposed Articles of Impeachment are very straight forward and yet, complete. They are broken into three general articles as follows;

ARTICLE I – Usurpation of the Oval Office via criminal identity fraud

“Compelling prima facie evidence exists which demonstrates that Barack Hussein Obama has engaged in false personation and aggravated identity theft and in conspiracy to commit false personation and identity theft in the pursuit of high office and governmental power.”

ARTICLE II – Malfeasance, misconduct and abuse of the Oval Office

“Using the powers of the office of President of the United States, Barack Hussein Obama, in violation of his constitutional oath faithfully to execute the office of President of the United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in disregard of his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, has repeatedly engaged in conduct violating the constitutional rights of citizens, impairing the due and proper administration of justice and the conduct of lawful inquiries, or contravening the laws governing agencies of the executive branch and the purposed of these agencies.”

ARTICLE III – Aiding and Abetting known enemies of the United States

“In his conduct of the office of President of the United States, Barack Hussein Obama – has directly engaged in the covert aiding and abetting of foreign entities via the funding, arming, training and intelligence assistance to the Muslim Brotherhood, ISIS, Al Qaeda, Hamas, the Taliban, the Palestinian Authority, Hezbollah, the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group, the Free Syrian Army and others. He has directly or indirectly through the agencies under his direct command, used American tax dollars and assets to aid and abet known enemies of the United States, including known terror organizations and organizations identified on a Terrorist List established by the United States as enemies to the United States, in Egypt, Libya, Lebanon, Syria, Pakistan, Yemen, Tunisia, Iraq, Afghanistan, Kenya, Iran, Ukraine and North, Central and South America.”

The FULL ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT are available HERE in PDF form, including related laws pertaining to the crimes alleged in the articles.

Despite a growing number of public calls for impeachment in an effort to stop the ongoing destruction of our Constitutional Republic and block the Obama administration from single-handedly granting amnesty to millions of illegal invaders flooding into the country by Obama’s open invitation, Republican members of the House are floating nearly a dozen lame excuses for not keeping their oaths to protect and defend the nation and uphold the Rule of Constitutional Law.

  1. Republicans can’t impeach because it will cost them the 2014 election
  2. Republicans can’t impeach without Democrat support
  3. Republicans can’t impeach because Obama will initiate Martial Law
  4. Republicans can’t impeach because Harry Reid won’t convict
  5. Republicans can’t impeach because Joe Biden is worse than Obama
  6. Republicans can’t impeach because Obama is a usurper
  7. Republicans can’t impeach because they will be called “racists”
  8. Republicans can’t impeach because they will lose the illegal Latino vote
  9. Republicans can’t impeach because Bill Clinton wasn’t removed from office upon conviction
  10. Republicans can’t impeach because blacks will riot in the streets

If you are intent on never doing the right thing, any excuse will serve a tyrant.

The list of lame excuses for why Republicans “can’t” impeach is nearly endless, just like their list of excuses for why they can’t enforce existing immigration laws, or stop unconstitutional ObamaCare, or stop Obama from aiding and abetting known foreign enemies, or even block him from appointing known terror organization members to his cabinet.

Republicans have not even forced this administration to pass one lousy federal budget in six years. So, of course they can think of a dozen reasons not to impeach, or do anything else that matters today. That’s why groups like the North American Law Center have to do it for them! — And that’s why average American citizens feel it necessary to take law enforcement into their own hands on the Southern Border.

Yet there is only one reason needed to impeach…. It’s the right thing to do!

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.–That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, –That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to affect their Safety and Happiness.” – Declaration of Independence

The U.S. Constitution provides the peaceful and constitutional solution when bad actors find their way to power and the people must alter the government in order to protect and preserve freedom, liberty and the rule of law. It’s called impeachment…

“The President, Vice President and all Civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.”

Impeachment was placed in the U.S. Constitution for just the conditions we find ourselves in today. It provides a peaceful and orderly transition of power, from the hands of bad actors guilty of crimes and awaiting trial, and into the hands of those who will stop the disaster from getting any worse.

Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story (1811-1845) explained:

“The offenses to which the remedy of impeachment has been and will continue to be principally applied are of a political nature… What are aptly termed political offenses, growing out of personal misconduct, or gross neglect, or usurpation, or habitual disregard of the public interests.”

James Madison explained impeachment during the debates of the Constitutional Convention of 1787:

“Some provision should be made for defending the community against the incapacity, negligence, or perfidy of the chief magistrate. He might pervert his administration into a scheme of peculation or oppression. He might betray his trust to foreign powers.”

Alexander Hamilton explained in The Federalist Papers (No. 65) that:

“[I]mpeachment of the president should take place for offenses which proceed from the misconduct of public men, or in other words, from the abuse or violation of some public trust. They are of a nature which may with peculiar propriety be denominated political, as they relate chiefly to injuries done immediately to society itself.”

Over seventy-percent of Americans believe that the Obama Administration has abused public power and violated the public trust in so many ways that it would take a few encyclopedia volumes to chronicle it all. Half of Americans are convinced that Barack Hussein Obama is hiding his true identity and the true nature of his anti-American policies.

If ever in U.S. history there was an administration so ripe for impeachment, it is the Obama administration which starts and ends every day with more impeachable offenses. Even members of the black community are calling for impeachment.

But as NALC Lead Counsel Stephen Pidgeon points out, “It’s not enough to impeach, it must be done correctly, in the interest of the United States and the Rule of Constitutional Law.”

To uphold, protect and preserve constitutional law, we must simply follow and enforce constitutional law.

When our representatives in congress lack the decency, courage and good sense to do what must be done, the buck does not stop with them. The buck stops with the American people who sit idle and allow their public servants to behave in such a cowardly self-serving manner with complete impunity.

The buck stops with the American people!  

Before today’s Republicans are going to “do the right thing,” the American people will have to do the right thing first!

The people must stop sitting around on social networking sites whining, complaining and playing armchair political strategist focused on how elect to more politicians that they will never hold accountable after the election. It’s time; no… it’s well past the time to hold our current crop of public servants fully accountable for their actions and their fatal in-actions.

Before members of congress will grow the stones to take a real stand for the United States of America, “We the People” will have to grow the stones first!

It’s up to “the people” to make their representatives represent them.

It only takes one House member to place these Articles of Impeachment into the House Judiciary Committee. Make sure that YOUR House member is that ONE! Send the Articles to your House Representative HERE. All members of congress will be on August recess as of the end of this week. Make sure they don’t have a moment’s peace and quiet in their home districts on recess.

See them while they are at home and hand-deliver the Articles to their local offices.

Make sure that every member of the House Judiciary Committee receives a copy HERE.

Also, if you are working to support a congressional challenger in the 2014 election cycle, make sure that they have a copy. If they will not openly support impeaching the most impeachable administration in U.S. history, why are you supporting their do-nothing challenge of a do-nothing incumbent?

The bottom line is that “the people” must accept personal responsibility for how their public servants behave. If you won’t do the right things, why should they and how can you even expect them to?

Impeachment is not up to them. It’s up to you!

The North American Law Center is a public policy and constitutional law division of The United States Patriots Union. They are requesting support for this action HERE.

Democrat Congressional Campaign Committee: The Impeachment of President Obama is now a real possibility

/in , , , , , /by

The title of this column is the subject of an email sent out by the Democrat Congressional Campaign Committee to Florida supporters. The fund raising email states:

If you’re wondering why you’re getting all this email on a Friday night, it’s simple:

THE IMPEACHMENT OF PRESIDENT OBAMA IS NOW A REAL POSSIBILITY

No other President in history has had to face the prospect of being taken to court by Congress. And the White House alerted us today that it could lead to impeachment.

Johnathan Topaz from Politico reports, “One third of Americans think President Barack Obama should be impeached, a new poll says.” The impeach Obama movement has grown to the point that even Congress is taking notice. The U.S. House of Representatives has decided to restore the balance of powers outlined in the U.S. Constitution. Impeachment is becoming a hot topic for discussion in Washington, D.C.

The U.S. Constitution, Article. I., Section. 1 reads:

All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.

Article. II., Section. 1. states:

The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America.

[ … ]

Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation:—”I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”

Article II., Section 3. states:

 [H]e shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed…

Politico’s Lauren French reports:

Republican-selected witness Jonathan Turley, a George Washington University professor, called the lawsuit a “worthy” effort. He noted that he voted for Obama and supports a national health care system.

“Our system is changing in a dangerous and destabilizing way. We are seeing the emergence of a different model of government in our country — a model long ago rejected by the Framers,” Turley said.

Turley and Elizabeth Price Foley, a professor of law at Florida International University College of Law, argued that the House does have standing to bring a suit against the White House. Citing past case law, Foley described how the draft resolution put forward by House Republicans detailing that case meets a four-pronged test to establish standing.

“When a president unilaterally waives, delays or suspends a law such as the ACA, he squelches any opportunity to have a robust, political debate about the workability of the law, and thereby undermines democracy itself,” she said.

Simon Lazarus, an associate director of public policy for President Jimmy Carter, who testified at the request of Democrats, said the 2013 delay to the employer mandate was a “minor” “course correction.”

This issue will not go away because of a growing grassroots movement to hold all branches of the federal government accountable. The standard against which each branch is held — the United States Constitution. Like with President Nixon, a tipping point will be reached and impeachment proceedings could move forward. What will be a deciding factor? If the Republicans regain control of the U.S. Senate on November 4th, 2014.

RELATED ARTICLES: 

Another Court Rules Against President Obama’s Unilateral Actions
Yet Another High-Profile Conservative Demands Obama’s Impeachment
New IRS Form Proves Obama Lied About Individual Mandate Tax

Miami Judge furthers Gay Agenda — Claims a “new right” for homosexuals to marry

/in , , , , , /by

Judge ignores the Rule of Law, the will of the People of Florida and a Supreme Court of the United States decision by claiming that Florida Marriage Amendment is Unconstitutional.

6a00d83451b26169e201a511485290970cOn Friday afternoon, July 25, 2014 at approximately 5:30 pm, Miami-Dade Circuit Judge Sarah Zabel ruled in favor of the six homosexual couples who served as plaintiffs in the matter of Pareto v. Ruvin.  Gay-rights activist groups organized the lawsuit and “forum shopped” by filing the lawsuit in the most liberal legal jurisdiction in the state with the hope of finding a left leaning judge who would say Florida’s marriage laws defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman are unconstitutional.

This is the second lawsuit this month where an activist judge in Florida is attempting to advance same-sex marriage with the stroke of a pen instead of honoring and respecting the controlling authorities of the highest law of the land. In her 36 page decision, Judge Zabel relied uniquely on Loving vs Virgina where the Supreme Court of the United States in 1967 ruled that the laws prohibiting interracial marriages were unconstitutional.

John Stemberger, President and General Counsel of the Florida Family Policy Council made the following statement regarding the Zabel’s ruling:

“It is fiction to think that Florida’s marriage laws have somehow been declared finally unconstitutional by the local rulings of mere local trial judges.  The fact is that Florida’s marriage laws are still constitutional and in full force.  The Federal Courts, and indeed the Supreme Court of the United States, have not given the final word on this matter and we expect the Miami ruling to be immediately appealed by Florida’s Attorney General Pam Bondi.

Instead of following Florida’s law and constitution, Judge Zabel fell into line with other activist judges around the country who are completely ignoring the rule of law and substituting their own political opinions in place of clear controlling legal authority.  Judge Zabel’s reliance on Loving vs Virginia is completely misplaced.  Race is not an inherent property of marriage but gender is.  Loving affirmed the definition of natural marriage as between one man and one woman by ruling that any man can marry any woman irrespective of race.  We are confident that when the final word comes from the US Supreme Court that they will find that states have the right to define marriage.”

Judge Zabel also stayed her own order which means that in spite of her opinion that Florida’s marriage laws are unconstitutional, the clerk of the court in Miami-Dade County will not be issuing marriages licenses immediately until the matter will be fully heard by the appellate and federal courts.

Florida Appeals Court says “NO” to homosexual “marriage” licenses in the state.

/in , , , , /by

The Christian Family Coalition (CFC) Florida reports that the Florida Democratic League (FDL), and People United to Lead the Struggle for Equality (PULSE), two parties in the homosexual so-called “marriage” lawsuit,  filed more than 6,000 signatures with Miami-Dade County Clerk Harvey Ruvin calling on Miami-Dade Circuit Judge Sarah Zabel to dismiss the pending discriminatory lawsuit.

video platformvideo managementvideo solutionsvideo player

“In a nation of laws, no one can be above the law. What law gives Plaintiffs the right to arbitrarily,  declare a personal behavioral choice, be it sexual or otherwise, a constitutional “right,” and then file a sham lawsuit to force the rest of society to accept it as such?, said Florida Democratic League Chairman Dr. Eladio Jose Armesto.

“Six days ago, Monroe Circuit Judge Luis Garcia shocked voters when he arrogantly trashed the votes of nearly 8 million Floridians. The backlash to that corrupt decision was so great that over the last six days more than 6,000 Miami-Dade residents  signed a letter to Judge Zabel calling on her to dismiss this discriminatory lawsuit”, stated People United to Lead the Struggle for Equality (PULSE) Executive Director Nathaniel Wilcox.

“Undoubtedly, there is a growing backlash to the homosexual so-called ‘marriage’ lawsuit in Miami-Dade when 6,000 of those who elected Judge Zabel signed a letter in just days asking for the sham lawsuit’s dismissal. This is evidence of the growing anti-corruption backlash taking place”, concludes Anthony Verdugo, Founder and Executive Director, Christian Family Coalition (CFC) Florida.

Conflicting Court Rulings May Have Big Implications for Employer Mandate

/in , , , , , , , /by

Within a few hours of each other, two federal appeals courts issued conflicting rulings on Obamacare. The final outcome could have major implications for employers.

The legal question of involves whether the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act allows people to receive subsidies for health plans purchased on federally-run exchanges—covering 34 states and the District of Columbia–or only through state-run exchanges. In a 2-1 decision, the DC Circuit ruled in Halbig v. Burwell that under the law, only those buying through state-run exchanges are eligible.

Judge Griffith wrote in the court’s split opinion:

The fact is that the legislative record provides little indication one way or the other of congressional intent, but the statutory text does. Section 36B plainly makes subsidies available only on Exchanges established by states. And in the absence of any contrary indications, that text is conclusive evidence of Congress’s intent.

Judge Randolph concurred:

[A]n Exchange established by the federal government cannot possibly be “an Exchange established by the State.” To hold otherwise would be to engage in distortion, not interpretation. Only further legislation could accomplish the expansion the government seeks.

A few hours later, in King v. Burwell the 4th Circuit unanimously upheld those same subsidies:

For reasons explained below, we find that the applicable statutory language is ambiguous and subject to multiple interpretations. Applying deference to the IRS’s determination, however, we uphold the rule as a permissible exercise of the agency’s discretion.

Why is it important to know who is eligible for a health plan subsidy? As the DC court’s Judge Edwards explains in his dissent, it triggers the employer mandate, [emphasis mine]:

Specifically, the ACA penalizes any large employer who fails to offer its full-time employees suitable coverage if one or more of those employees “enroll[s] . . . in a qualified health plan with respect to which an applicable tax credit . . . is allowed or paid with respect to the employee.” (linking another penalty on employers to employees’ receipt of tax credits). Thus, even more than with the individual mandate, the employer mandate’s penalties hinge on the availability of credits. If credits were unavailable in states with federal Exchanges, employers there would face no penalties for failing to offer coverage. The IRS Rule has the opposite effect: by allowing credits in such states, it exposes employers there to penalties and thereby gives the employer mandate broader reach.

No subsidies, no employer mandate penalties.

Michael Cannon, the Cato Institute health policy expert, estimates that if the Halbig ruling stands, more than 250,000 firms would not be subject to the employer mandate.

There is no immediate change to the law, since the courts are a long way from settling the subsidies question. There will be appeals, other courts may weigh in with additional rulings, and since two circuit courts issued conflicting rulings, the Supreme Court may hear the case. Also, Congress could pass a bill to clarify the law. Not likely in the current political environment but possible.

What we do know is that the employer mandate imposes complex reporting costs and isn’t necessary. At the same time it gives employers the perverse incentive of either not hiring workers or hiring part-time workers instead of full-time ones. Obamacare is a law packed with problems that needs to be fixed in order to have a health care system that has high quality, expanded access, and lower costs.

Follow Sean Hackbarth on Twitter at @seanhackbarth and the U.S. Chamber at @uschamber.

EDITORS NOTE: The featured image is of President Obama signing the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (A.K.A. “Obamacare”) in 2010. Photographer: Andrew Harrer/Bloomberg.

Daytona Beach, Florida: Black homosexual babysitter rapes 11-year old boy — Caught in the act by father

/in , , , /by

There are those who believe that homosexuals are benign individuals just looking to be treated fairly. There are those who think homosexuals act responsibly when it comes to their sexual urges to engage in sex with others of the same sex. Well one 18-year old homosexual got his due from a father but not until after he raped an 11-year old who he was babysitting.

Initial reports are that the homosexual abuse has been going on since the victim was 8-years old. The little boy was bullied by the homosexual rapist to keep silent about their sexual activities. This trauma will be forever with the 11-year old.

Raymond Frolander (pictured above) is 18-years old and is a pederast, a lover of little boys. All pederasts are homosexuals. Multiple Florida news outlets are failing to properly identify the rapist as black and a homosexual.

BizPacReview reports:

A Daytona Beach father beat an 18-year-old male babysitter unconscious when he returned home to find him sexually abusing his 11-year-old son.

Raymond Frolander was a trusted family friend and neighbor, Daytona News-Journal reported.

According to police, when the father caught Frolander in the bedroom molesting his son, he knocked him out and called 911. Police responded to the call at 1:07 a.m. Friday, according to News-Journal.

[ … ]

Frolander admitted to the abuse, which had allegedly been going on for three years and is being held without bond. Charged with sexual battery, he appeared in court Friday with his face badly beaten and his eyes almost swollen shut.

Video from GlobalNew24:

RELATED ARTICLE: Obama to Sign Order Barring Federal Discrimination against Gays (order contains no religious exemption)

EDITORS NOTE: The featured photo of Raymond Frolander is courtesy of The UK Daily Mail.

BREAKING NEWS: Activist Florida Judge strikes down Marriage Amendment — AG Bondi files appeal

/in , , , /by
l_garciab

Judge Luis M. Garcia

Today, Thursday, July 17, 2014, Monroe Circuit Court Judge Luis M. Garcia released a written order granting Plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment in the matter of Huntsman vs. Heavilin where homosexual bartenders filed suit arguing Florida’s Marriage Protection Amendment was unconstitutional. The Amendment, defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman, was passed by Florida voters in 2008 by a 62% margin.

In his order, Judge Garcia did not “stay” (stop) the issuing of marriage licenses until the federal courts determine the constitutional issues, something many judges have done after similar rulings in other cases around the country.  As a result, the same-sex couple who served as Plaintiff’s and perhaps hundreds of others could be able to obtain marriage licenses in Monroe County, possibly as soon as this Tuesday, July 22, 2014, according to the judge’s ruling.  Unless the court recognizes the appeal filed by the Attorney General of the State of Florida as staying the order, licenses could be issued.  A stay would halt the issuing of same-sex marriage licenses in Monroe County until the federal courts can determine the constitutional issues surrounding this controversy.

Judge Garcia was appointed to the Monroe County Circuit Court by former Governor Jeb Bush in October 2000.

John Stemberger, President & General Counsel of the Florida Family Policy Council, who was the primary force spearheading the campaign to pass Florida’s Marriage Amendment in 2008, issued the following statement:

“Today’s ruling by Judge Garcia, in the Florida Keys, is a stunning act of legal arrogance and raw judicial activism.  With one stoke of a pen, a mere trial judge has attempted to overthrow an act of direct democracy by five million Floridians who defined marriage as the union of one man and one woman.  Judge Garcia has ignored the constitution, ignored the will of the people, and has asserted his own personal views over the rule of law.  This ruling is precisely what voters were trying to prevent when they overwhelmingly defined marriage in the Florida Constitution in 2008 by a 62% vote.

Judge Garcia’s reliance on the Windsor decision by the U.S. Supreme Court in 2012 is wrong sided and completely misplaced. Windsor was a state’s rights decision and affirmed that each state has the right to define marriage.  Instead of relying on the constitution, Garcia joined the judicial stampede of other lower federal judges who have tried to override marriage laws based on no precedent other than their own political agendas.  The judge’s opinion that the motivation for passing the marriage amendment was animus and hatred is simply outrageous and insults five million Floridians.

We thank Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi for filing an immediate appeal to the court to stay its order until the federal courts can rule on the constitutional issues and appeal this insubordinate decision.”

Florida Sheriff would refuse any request from Dept. of Homeland Security to house illegals in his jail

/in , , , , , , , /by

Sherry Smart, a resident of Sarasota County, FL, sent an email to all of her County Commissioners. Smart wrote, “As all of you are aware we have a crisis at our borders and now it is spreading it’s tentacles across the US. Murietta, California learned about their invasion at the last moment with the assistance of their Mayor who was outraged with this Federal overreach. Next came the people of Virginia who learned about the Fed’s plan for an abandoned building and those people prevailed.  Today I read an article where Pasco County is taking in illegals and requesting more beds. I’d like to know if there are any plans in place for North Port and Sarasota County.” See the map below on the three know relocation areas for illegals in Florida.

Christine Robinson, Sarasota County Commissioner responded stating, “Excuse me for the delay in my response, I was traveling this weekend.  Thank you for writing. I am copying our Sheriff who is a separately elected constitutional officer who is solely in charge of law enforcement responsibilities with your concern.” Robinson did not say if the County would agree to house illegals.

However, Sarasota County Sheriff Thomas M. Knight (pictured above) did respond to Smart stating, “My office has a working relationship with the Department of Homeland Security/Immigration and Customs Enforcement.  I have not received any information from that group of intentions to request assistance from the Sheriff’s Office to house illegals in the Sarasota County Jail.  In fact, I would refuse the request if that should come.  I think it would be also important for you to know that since I took office in 2009, the Sheriff’s Office has recognized over 435 criminal illegal aliens who have been booked at the Sarasota County Jail – having them removed and sent to Miami – Dade County for deportation proceedings. Thank you for staying engaged.” [Emphasis mine]

numbers usa map of illegal relocations

Map of relocation areas (in red) by state. Map courtesy of Numbers USA. For a larger view click on the map.

Steve_Southerland,_Official_Portrait,_112th_Congress

Congressman Steve Southerland, II, FL District 2.

Voicing similar concerns, Neil Rice from Perry, Florida sent an email to Congressman Steve Southerland, II, FL District 2. Rice stated, “House republicans stand your ground or lose your seat. No money for illegal immigrants, with out money they can not stay. Close the borders first and completely. Send back All the illegals. DHS IS A UNCONSTITUTIONAL AGENCY AND NEEDS TO BE ABOLISHED. They are corrupt beyond words, doing what ever they wish. and committing EXTORTION against the American taxpayer.”

“This is an election year, and we are forming groups to campaign against any representative that does not abide by the U.S. Constitution, protects our country and it’s people, (no matter who gets it). We have nothing to lose anymore,” notes Rice.

Melissa Thompson, Deputy District Director for Rep. Steve Southerland, II replied, “Steve and the Republican Conference have no plans to give the President more money for the illegals.”

According to Numbers USA Florida has been targeted by the federal government to take illegals. George Fuller, from Sarasota notes, “Kansas Southern owns subsidiary FERROSUR which has two trains that leave southern Mexico every 8 to 10 days headed for the U.S. Border. This has been the most used form of transportation by illegal aliens to get through Mexico. The trains are known as La Beastia.”

There is a growing backlash across Florida and the United States against this illegal alien invasion. Many argue that America’s sovereignty is being violated as well as standing laws ignored. Is lawlessness coming to Florida?

RELATED VIDEO: Zack Interview-Security on the border between USA and Mexico. NAFBPO’s mission is “to contribute to the security and stability of the United States.”

[youtube]http://youtu.be/ZnkSXosZhic[/youtube]

 

RELATED ARTICLES: 

Brooks County, Texas: Ranchers Round Up Illegals Who Skirt Checkpoint
First Five Steps to Solving Southern Border Crisis
On the Border, Activist’s Arrest Rattles the ‘Dreamers’
SESSIONS WARNS ALL OF CONGRESS: OBAMA’S NEW IMMIGRATION STRATEGY ‘THREATENS FOUNDATION OF OUR CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC’

Border Fiasco: “Some in military want to take Obama out”

/in , , , , , , /by
jerry boykin

Lt. Gen. William Boykin, U.S. Army (Ret.)

Obama’s boarder mess, using children to violate the laws of America and holding Obama accountable is a growing cry among Americans. Even black Americans.

According to Political Ears reports, “A retired three star General Officer recently stated he knows of certain unnamed individuals within the Armed Forces of having at least considered the possibility of an armed coup d’état aimed directly at of Barack Obama, as reported by the on-line news portal Government Executive on Nov. 4, 2013.”

“People I’ve spoken to would like to see the military ‘fulfill their constitutional duty and take out the president,’ ” retired Army Lt. Gen. William Boykin told World Net Daily, a website best known for pushing Obama “birther” conspiracy theories. “Our Constitution puts a civilian in charge of the military and as a result a coup would not be constitutional. You’re not going to see a coup in the military.”

“Countless people … will hate the new world order … and will die protesting against it.” — H.G. Wells, The New World Order (1940).

[youtube]http://youtu.be/0pZcru3mZKg[/youtube]

 

RELATED ARTICLES: 

Why Mexico’s Southern Border Security Strategy Is Not Enough
Shovel Ready Judges: The Obama Plan to Address Immigration Backlog
Message to the Feds: We Will Not Host Illegal Children in Our States
WATCH: Krauthammer Slams Obama For ‘Robbing the Military to Inflate the Entitlement State’
The Odd Book One Texas Rancher Found Near the Border (+video)

Black Conservative Joins Palin’s Impeachment Rallying Cry

/in , , , , /by

I have said it before and I will say it again, I love Sarah Palin. Governor Palin has come out strongly calling for the impeachment of President Obama. I say, “Way to go sister!”

During an interview, Sarah expressed the frustrations of millions of patriotic Americans, myself included. Enough with being intimidated and impotent to act because Obama is black. Enough with the smartest pundits’ in the room explanations why it would be politically unwise to challenge Obama’s unprecedented lawlessness. Enough with being politically castrated by fear of the mainstream media.

Palin is calling for Obama’s impeachment simply because it is the right thing to do. Palin cites 25 impeachable offenses by Obama thus far.

While politicians express their shock and awe regarding Obama’s daily acts of lawlessness, a tsunami of illegals are flooding our country with Obama gleefully having ordered the opening of the flood gates. Some say allowing the invasion of illegals to continue will change America forever.

Remarkably, the Administration will not allow the GOP to visit the federal facilities where illegals are being held to assess the situation. This is astoundingly arrogant and totalitarian; the action of a supreme dictator rather than a U.S. President.

We can not allow a lawless imperial president to run rampant wrecking havoc on our great nation for two more years, hoping that his behavior will harm Democrats in elections. Reversing Obama’s vote winning entitlements and laws may be extremely challenging, if not impossible.

And another thing, this Administration’s secrecy, stonewall coverups and iron fist tactics against any individual or institution that challenges or disagrees is outrageous and totally unacceptable. It should no longer be tolerated. It is vitally important that Americans immediately wake up and smell the tyranny and act accordingly.

Here is a recent prime example of this Administration brazenly attempting to bully even the U.S. Supreme Court. Henchman Harry Reid has announced that he intends to punish the “five white guys” on the Supreme Court for ruling in favor of Hobby Lobby.

By the way, one of those so-called five white guys is black, Justice Clarence Thomas. Note the Democrats’ trademark tactic of insidiously playing the race card in Reid’s “five white guys” statement. This man is an awful evil human being; characteristic of the many hit men and women of the Obama Administration; Lois Lerner and Eric Holder to name a few. Remember, leadership emanates from the top down.

Relentless in their efforts to force everyone to yield to king Obama, Reid has basically said screw the Supreme Court ruling. He will continue going after Hobby Lobby.

What more evidence of an out-of-control tyrannical Administration, believing themselves invincible does one need? Obama is king and whatever he says or desires is law. Period.

A movement to impeach Obama has been underway for awhile. Governor Palin as the face of it is the perfect leader to give it legs.

As an individual proud American who happens to be black, I wholeheartedly support Governor Palin’s movement to impeach our imperial president, Barack Hussein Obama.

Woman Business Owner Challenging HHS Contraceptive Coverage Gets Relief from 6th Circuit Court of Appeals

/in , , , , , , /by

Karen Mersino, one of 14 female owners of for-profit companies challenging the HHS Mandate, is finally free to continue offering health insurance to her employees that does not cover contraceptives and abortion causing drugs. Reacting to the 6th Circuit Court’s order, she commented, “It’s a real win for religious freedom.”

Mersinos-300x192

Rod and Karen Mersino

The Thomas More Law Center (TMLC), a national public interest law firm based in Ann Arbor, Michigan, which represents Karen Mersino, her husband Rod, and their business, Mersino Management Company, announced that yesterday the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals, issued an injunction halting enforcement of the HHS Mandate.   The 6th Circuit acted in light of the Supreme Court’s decision in Hobby Lobby and without opposition from the Department of Justice.

Click Here to Read the Order

Erin Mersino, TMLC Senior Trial Counsel, stated, “In the aftermath of the Hobby Lobbydecision, we were able to gain concurrence for immediate relief from the illegal aims of the HHS Mandate that violate our clients’ sincerely held religious beliefs.”

The initial challenge to the HHS Mandate, which forced employers to provide health insurance which included co-pay free coverage for abortion causing drugs and devices or pay crippling IRS fines, was filed by TMLC in March 2013. In all, TMLC represents 10 for-profit companies totaling 30 plaintiffs in challenges to the HHS Mandate.  TMLC is also challenging the HHS Mandate on behalf of 6 non-profit entities.

The Mersinos provide their employees with health care coverage which is superior to coverage generally available in the Michigan market. Based on their deeply held religious beliefs, however, the Mersinos have never offered insurance which included coverage for contraception, sterilization, abortion, or abortion causing drugs and devices. They believe, in accordance with the teachings of the Catholic Church, that these procedures involve gravely immoral practices and the intentional destruction of innocent human life.

All of the Mersinos’ corporate offices display a document that reflects their core value: “Honor God in all we do by serving our customers and employees with honesty and integrity.”

TMLC’s Erin Mersino, reflected, “It has been an honor to represent Karen and Rod Mersino- two individuals who truly live out their faith everyday through the integrity with which they treat others, through their numerous charitable works, and through their overwhelmingly selfless devotion to their community and Church.”

There Used to be Bipartisan Support for Religious Freedom. What Happened?

/in , , , , , , /by

Kelsey Harris the visual editor at The Daily Signal and digital media associate at The Heritage Foundation created the below infographic on religious freedom. I found it meaningful and informative on the push back by Democrats against businesses like Hobby Lobby and the SCOTUS.

140709_1993religfreedom_final-01

For a larger view click on the image.

Breathtaking Lawlessness: The Supreme Court has restrained the Executive Branch — for now by Iain Murray

/in , , , , , /by

America’s federal executive branch has met some setbacks as of late. Two recent Supreme Court rulings have constrained the administration’s impulse to act as it wishes. Yet, the mere fact that the administration has overreached as it has—and would have continued to do so had the court not stopped it—should send us a clear warning: The instincts of executive power are always toward accumulating more power. In both cases, the court found, the administration clearly ignored the express instructions of the Constitution in favor of its own convenience.

The first decision concerned an attempt by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to restrict the emission of greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide under the Clean Air Act. But the Clean Air Act’s emissions strictures posed a problem, because they would require the agency to restrict emissions above a certain threshold from stationary sources. Carbon dioxide is emitted in large amounts from even small sources, so applying the Clean Air Act would mean subjecting schools, hospitals, and apartment buildings to the same standards as industrial power plants.

The EPA, realizing how unpopular this would be, took it upon itself to rewrite the law, issuing what it called a “tailoring rule,” a scheme my colleague Marlo Lewis described as an act of “breathtaking lawlessness.” The attempt to amend, in the absence of congressional intent, clear, numerical, statutory provisions was a stark usurpation by the executive branch. Remember, the Constitution vests all legislative power in Congress.

The court agreed. Writing for the court, Justice Antonin Scalia said that it was “patently unreasonable—not to say outrageous—for EPA to insist on seizing expansive power that it admits the statute is not designed to grant.” The court said the EPA was “laying claim to extravagant statutory power over the national economy,” and that if the court agreed with it, it “would deal a severe blow to the Constitution’s separation of powers.” Yet this shot of good sense came with a bitter chaser (more on that later).

In the second decision, just last week, the court found unconstitutional President Obama’s recess appointments of some members of the National Labor Relations Board whose nominations had been blocked in the Senate, because the Senate had not declared itself to be in recess. The administration argued that it was entitled to use the power whenever “the Senate is not open for business.”

The court rejected that view unanimously. As Case Western University law professor Jonathan Adler observed, “None of the justices were willing to accept the position of the Obama Administration, which was unnecessarily extreme. In choosing to make the recess appointments in the way it did, such as by not following precedents set by prior administrations (including Teddy Roosevelt) and filling some Board spots that the Senate never had time to fill, the Administration adopted a stance that was very hard to defend, so it could not attract a single vote.” (My organization, the Competitive Enterprise Institute, filed an amicus brief in the case before it reached the Supreme Court.)

The administration’s expansive view of its own enumerated powers is disturbing. But it should not be surprising. It is in the nature of executive power to seek to accrue more power. Throughout history, executives have claimed more power for themselves, whether by imperial decree or the new variant of “pen and phone.” And they’re not just raiding the legislature. Executives have a tendency to usurp judicial power too, whether by Star Chamber or administrative court.

This is why free societies must always be on guard against executive “mission creep.” As James Madison said, “There are more instances of the abridgment of freedoms of the people by gradual and silent encroachment of those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations.”

Now, about that chaser. In its decision on the EPA rule (where the court only slightly limited the agency’s ability to regulate emissions from stationary sources), four of the nine justices agreed that the EPA should have the power to rewrite the law. When the English Parliament gave Henry VIII such a power in 1539, the philosopher David Hume later said that it “made by one act a total subversion of the English constitution.” In other words, basic freedom from executive law-making survived by just one vote last week.

So, while the idea of liberty is extremely resilient, its practical restraint on government by such means as constitutions is always fragile. The question therefore must be whether we can develop “antifragile” institutions of liberty.

Perhaps. The developing “sharing economy” might be seen as a “sharing constitution” in its early stages. Uber’s righteously defiant reaction to the Commonwealth of Virginia’s “cease and desist” orders may be an indicator of a way forward. Yes, the road from Virginia traffic court to constitutional convention is a long one, but could we be seeing an “application revolution” in action that increases citizens’ power over runaway executive magistrates?

ABOUT IAIN MURRAY

Iain Murray is vice president at the Competitive Enterprise Institute.

EDITORS NOTE: The features image is courtesy of FEE and Shutterstock.

Unleashed Upon America: Obama Unchained!

/in , , , , , , , /by

My fellow Americans, we are all bit players in the making of a metaphoric slasher movie, “Obama Unchained” starring Barack Hussein Obama.

Here is a summary of the movie. It is a heartwarming tale about how the mainstream media and Democratic Party suckered America into electing their extreme far-left dream president; a Trojan Horse in the form of a black man.

Once in the Oval Office, Obama began incrementally implementing his socialist/progressive agenda and iron-fist pressure on Americans to conform. Everyone, including a 175 year old order of elderly Catholic nuns were forced to comply to Obama’s decreed anti-biblical new moral standards or face termination. Only donors, labor unions and favored friends of his royal Obamaness totaling over 2000 are unlawfully granted exemptions from his tyrannical overreaches hidden in Obamacare.

Unchained from pretending to be a moderate to get reelected, Obama is releasing his judgment and rage upon America; wielding his executive pen sword, causing a bloody massacre of our economy, national security, world standing, freedoms, liberty and culture.

Now totally unrestrained, with lawless abandonment, Obama dishes out what he believes is well-deserved revenge on America for her crimes against the rest of the world. Obama is delivering the retribution spoken of by his former pastor, Rev. Jeremiah Wright who said, “America’s chickens have come home to roost.”

Pundits say Obama is merely incompetent. They site highly unfavorable approval polling to conclude that Obama’s presidency is in deep trouble. Political analysts believe dismal poll numbers will force Obama to back away from his intensely focused savage attack on America as founded; his vowed fundamental transformation of America. These sycophant, apologist or naive talking heads are missing the point. Obama does not give a rat’s you know what about polling. Nor does he fear lawsuits, Congress, impeachment or anything else.

Remember Michael Jackson’s famous line, “I’m not like other guys”? Obama believes he is not like other presidents. I am Barack Obama, the first black president. I can do whatever I please and no one is going to stop me. Period!

“Obama Unchained”, the movie, is directed by Unknown Socialists/Progressives.

Obama’s supporting cast includes Eric (cited in criminal and civil contempt of Congress) Holder as the corrupt partisan head of the DOJ. Lois (Wicked Witch of America) Lerner as the corrupt, vindictive and evil IRS enforcer.  Kathleen (Yes, you will fund abortions against your faith) Sibelius as the totally incompetent head of the botched Obamacare roll-out. Jay (please don’t make me go out there and lie again with a straight face) Carney as Obama’s Press Secretary. This just in, Carney has been replaced by understudy liar, Josh Ernest.

If the metaphoric Socialists/Progressive’s movie were to snag a Best Song nomination, their song would be titled, “I Believe I Can Lie” performed by Barack Obama. A real trailblazer, Obama is the first U.S. President awarded, “Liar of the Year”.

In my metaphoric scenario, the buzz in DC would declare “Obama Unchained” a shoe in for Best Picture. However, the sentimental payback favorite for Best Picture would be “Sixty-Six Years A Liberal” starring Hilary (don’t asked me about Benghazi) Clinton.

Folks, while I have taken a humorous approach to describing Obama’s Revenge War on America, the situation is extremely serious. The solution is quite simple. It is push back, push back, push back politically. While the Tea Party remains fully engaged, what strong courageous conservative will emerge to lead the charge?

We who love America are metaphorically in the process of producing our own movie titled, “November 4, 2014: Independence Day”.

EDITORS NOTE: The featured graphic is courtesy of Heavy Front Page.

Why Are “Gay” Activists Freaking Out over the Hobby Lobby ruling? by Peter LaBarbera

/in , , /by

It’s easy to understand why hard-core feminists with their frenzied, overblown “War on Women” rhetoric would be outraged by the Supreme Court upholding Hobby Lobby’s right as a Christian-run corporation not to be forced to provide abortifacients to its employees through an Obama-care mandate. (See Hillary’s misinformation on the decision HERE.) But why are liberal “gay” activists freaking out over the Hobby Lobby ruling?

The case was never about denying women birth control, but you wouldn’t know that from the “reporting” by liberal media and hyperventilating “progressive” bloggers. Hobby Lobby still provides 16 forms of birth control as a health benefit to its employees, but its founders—along with another Christian-owned corporation, Conestoga Wood Specialists—sued HHS over being forced to provide four contraceptive methods that could terminate a fertilized egg.

Hobby Lobby’s founders, David and Barbara Green, are committed Christians who believe that life begins at conception and should be protected. To quote the Court decision, “Hobby Lobby’s statement of purpose commits the Greens to ‘[h]onoring the Lord in all [they] do by operating the company in a manner consistent with Biblical principles.’” So strong is the Greens’ commitment to Jesus Christ that they have lost countless millions of dollars in profits over the years by closing their 500 craft stores nationwide on Sunday.

Now, one would think that obtaining cheap, subsidized contraception would be low on the priority list for homosexuals, seeing that two men or two women by themselves cannot produce a child. Nevertheless, Big Gay Inc is in a tizzy over the Supreme Court decision—because Burwell vs. Hobby Lobby isn’t really about contraceptives but rather whether Americans like the Greens will be free to live out their religious convictions.

Immediately after the decision, feminists flew into a rage, circulating crude versions of Justice Ginsburg’s dissent and distortions about women being denied birth control by their “male bosses.” Too bad most Americans will never read the actual Hobby Lobby decision—which lays out two diametrically opposed, competing visions about freedom of conscience and the role of government in these United States.

Freedom of conscience vs. Big Government

Hobby-Lobby_store-300x197

Hobby Lobby’s owners, David and Barbara Green, seek to use their business to glorify Jesus Christ. Their 500 stores across the country are closed on Sundays, costing the Greens many millions of dollars in profits.

On the side of preserving and even expanding Americans’ religious liberty were five judges: Alito, Kennedy, Roberts, Scalia and Thomas. In his concurring opinion Kennedy writes:

“In our constitutional tradition, freedom means that all persons have the right to believe or strive to believe in a divine creator and a divine law. For those who choose this course, free exercise is essential in preserving their own dignity and in striving for a self-definition shaped by their religious precepts. Free exercise in this sense implicates more than just freedom of belief….It means, too, the right to express those beliefs and to establish one’s religious (or non-religious) self-definition in the political, civic, and economic life of our larger community.”

On the other side—of Big Government overriding citizens’ religious beliefs, restricting conscience exemptions to federal mandates, and putting federal power behind expanded access to entitlements–were Ginsburg, Sotomayor, Breyer and Kagan. In fact, Ginsburg spends nearly two pages in her dissent [see pp. 24-25] defending the idea that Obama-care’s provision of subsidies for IUD’s (intrauterine devices) –one of the four contraceptives resisted by Hobby Lobby as a potential abortifacient—is a “compelling government interest.”

As much as Ginsburg believes the majority’s “immoderate” reading of Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) is too broad, hers is too narrow: she ends by arguing that exemptions under the RFRA should be limited to explicitly religious organizations—leaving for-profit Christian businessmen like the Greens unprotected.

The bigger government gets–in both its “social justice” mission and the amount of goodies it gives out as “entitlements”—the greater the threat to Americans’ right to freely exercise their faith. This is precisely why homosexual activists are nervous about Hobby Lobby’s victory. If the nation’s highest court grants that even very large “closely held” family businesses like Hobby Lobby (which has more than 13,000 employees) possess a religious liberty claim under RFRA, then surely small family businesses like Elane Photography in New Mexico—owned by Jonathan and Elaine Huguenin—should have the right not to use their creative talents to serve homosexual “weddings,” which violate their Christian faith.

Sure, Justice Alito explicitly states that the Hobby Lobby decision is narrow and does not apply to exemptions from nondiscrimination laws. But reading the majority’s language, it is hard to imagine that the same five Supreme Court judges would force mom-and-pop bakeries—or Christian husband-and-wife photographers like the Huguenins—to violate their faith by forcing them to participate in immoral “gay weddings.”

Ginsburg, on the other hand, is quite ready to deny Christian-owned businesses the freedom to live out their convictions in the public square. Why? Because they make a profit—precisely the legal dichotomy shot down by Alito and his four allies on the Court. Ginsburg specifically cites the Elane Photograpy case as evidence of the slippery slope of RFRA/religious-liberty legal claims that she believes will result from the Hobby Lobby decision.

Some libertarian homosexuals like University of Minnesota law professor Dale Carpenter advocate for limited religious exemptions to pro-homosexual nondiscrimination laws. But other, left-leaning homosexual activists—far more vocal and dominant in the LGBT political sphere—are on record defending the absurd proposition that faith-impelled small businessmen who refuse to serve homosexual “weddings” are the moral equivalent of the KKK, resurrecting an “anti-gay” version of Jim Crow laws.

Because, you see, not being able to use the government to force devout Christians, Orthodox Jews or Muslims to take pictures at or bake a cake for a homosexual “wedding”—when there are plenty of competing wedding businesses that would gladly do so–is analogous to Blacks in the 50’s being denied the use of “Whites Only” public restrooms and water fountains. Right. Go ahead and try making that case to a Black American.

Homosexual militant Wayne Besen denounced Hobby Lobby as one of the worst Supreme Court decisions ever: “Because of this decision, business owners will have enormous leverage to impose their religious beliefs in the workplace, and to coerce employees into abiding by them,” he warned ominously. Besen is hardly alone on the LGBT side in arguing that anyone who enters the stream of commerce—essentially every small business—should be barred legally from “discriminating” against homosexuals.

Last year, the New Mexico supreme court essentially agreed with Besen by unanimously upholding the Huguenin’s “anti-gay discrimination” conviction (including a $6,000 fine) for politely declining to shoot photos at a lesbian “commitment ceremony.” One of the justices, Richard Bosson, asserted in a concurring opinion against the Christian photographers: “In the smaller, more focused world of the marketplace, of commerce, of public accommodation, the Huguenins have to channel their conduct, not their beliefs, so as to leave space for other Americans who believe something different.” That, the judge said, is the “price of citizenship.”

One Nation, under Tolerance?

One wonders: is this the same America that was founded by men and women fleeing religious persecution and government tyranny? Incidentally, the same Wayne Besen above is leading the “gay” activist crusade to ban pro-heterosexual change therapy for minors—succeeding in California and New Jersey. Besen applauded the Supreme Court for denying cert on a legal challenge to the California case, thus paving the way for the ex-“gay” therapy ban in that state. This is yet another LGBT assault on liberty, self-determination and parental rights.

The reality is, religious and moral freedom are in grave danger in the USA. Pro-life advocates must realize that powerful homosexual groups like Human Rights Campaign—who have long worked hand-in-hand with the pro-abortion lobby—are now joining with radical feminists to deny religious Americans their right to refuse pro-abortion and pro-homosexual government mandates.

I believe Burwell vs. Hobby Lobby portends well for the right of small-business-owning traditionalists to preserve at least some of their Christian principles and integrity by not celebrating sexual immorality. However, pro-family advocates should not get too excited about the Supreme Court—which has already seriously constricted Americans’ freedom to organize against pro-homosexual laws. (See Roemer v. Evans, a 1996 Court decision written by Justice Kennedy that struck down Amendment Two, a statewide measure passed by Colorado voters that barred all levels of state government from enacting “special rights” laws based on homosexuality.)

Justice Kennedy: Hero to Homosexuals

The same Justice Anthony Kennedy who sided with the Hobby Lobby majority also wrote theatrocious 5-4 decision in United States v. Windsor eviscerating DOMA , the bipartisan Defense of Marriage Act signed into law by Bill Clinton. That paved the way for pro-homosexual-“marriage” judges across the United States to overturn popular defense-of-marriage amendments and laws in one state after another, most recently in Kentucky.

Kennedy is regarded as a hero by LGBT activists, the brave enforcer of their fallacious ‘homosexuality-as-a-civil-right’ equation. In striking down a core provision of DOMA, he sounded like a “gay “ activist as he arrogantly portrayed opponents of same-sex “marriage”—even the congressional creators of DOMA—as hateful bigots insensitive to the plight of homosexual-led families. Cleary, Kennedy believes that allowing homosexuals to “marry” is a “compelling government interest” —which is why many veteran conservative observers like Maggie Gallagherexpect to see the Supreme Court nationalize “same-sex marriage” when the appeals of judicial take-downs of state marriage amendments collectively reach the Court in the not too distant future.

If Kennedy again aligns with the four judges who dissented on Hobby Lobby to create a federal “constitutional right” for homosexuals to “marry”—thus overriding those state amendments—it will mean that millions upon millions of business owners effectively would be forced to provide marital-type benefits for their homosexual employees. To many people of faith, this equates to rewarding sexual immorality with their company’s hard-earned profits, of which they are stewards and through which they seek to honor God.

Christians and religious-minded citizens don’t leave their faith at home or in church—and they shouldn’t lose their First Amendment liberties—just because they make money. This is the essence of the Hobby Lobby decision, but how will it fare against the rapidly emerging liberal legal consensus of homosexual “marriage” as a supposed constitutionally protected “right”?

Most Americans have not thought through the far-reaching ramifications of legalizing “gay marriage.” For one, every child in a public school will be taught that “marriage” between two men or two women is morally equivalent to the real thing. And if “gay” relationships are equal, according to the Left’s simplistic “Love is Love” formula, then homosexual sex must be taught alongside natural sex in health classes. (Remember: we mustn’t judge!) Social engineering of this sort deeply offends faith-motivated parents and it will surely lead to escalating legal challenges pitting religious freedom against “gay” activism.

The “zero-sum game“ cultural war between First Amendment/religious liberties and homosexual “rights” in America will go on for decades. Homosexual activist lawyers are playing for keeps and expect to win. We should be thankful for the Hobby Lobby victory, but sober about the direction of U.S. courts. For as the Greens, Huguenins and many others like them have learned the hard way, “diversity” is liberal code for mandatory “progressive” conformity, and the New Tolerance isn’t really tolerant after all.

ABOUT PETER LABARBERA

Peter LaBarbera is a former reporter for the Washington Times and is president of Americans For Truth About Homosexuality (AFTAH.org), based outside Chicago. He can be reached at americansfortruth@gmail.com or by phone at 312-324-3787.

RELATED ARTICLE: Corporation wants to know if employees are ‘ally’ of homosexuals