Breaking: Officer Shot And Killed Near Major U.S. City – Manhunt Under Way

According to developing reports, an Illinois police officer was fatally shot Tuesday morning during a traffic stop.

Shortly before 8 a.m., the Lake County officer pulled over three individuals for what he deemed “suspicious activity,” a department source revealed. According to the latest reports available, authorities are looking for one black male and two white males in the area, using both ground and air surveillance. Police arrived on the scene following an interruption in radio communication. They found him with a gunshot wound and, according to multiple sources, he has since died from the injury.

As for the suspects, at least six law enforcement agencies are involved in the search. Local residents are being asked to stay inside until the manhunt has concluded.

Police dogs have reportedly been deployed in one area already densely populated by heavily armed officers.

The shooting came just days after Texas Deputy Darren Goforth was fatally shot at a gas station.

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Equipping You With The Truth

Why The Supreme Court Is Not Supreme

“Judicial activism occurs when judges write subjective policy preferences into the law rather than apply the law impartially according to its original meaning.”– The Heritage Foundation

To vocal opponents of judicial activism, this comes as little surprise. The U.S. Supreme Court has suffered a major credibility blow in the wake of its politically motivated 5-4 Obergefell v. Hodges “gay marriage” opinion. In it, they presumed to do the impossible – both redefine the age-old institution of natural marriage and to give this fictional definition precedence over freedoms actually enumerated in the Bill of Rights. According to Rasmussen, only “36 percent of Likely U.S. Voters still think the high court is doing a good or excellent job.”

Incredibly, even the Chicago Tribune had this scathing assessment of the high court:

We must confess we are shocked at the violence and servility of the Judicial Revolution caused by the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States. We scarcely know how to express our detestation of its inhuman dicta, or to fathom the wicked consequences which may flow from it. … This decision has sapped the constitution [sic] of its glorious and distinctive features, and seeks to pervert it into a barbarous and unchristian channel … Jefferson feared this Supreme Court, and foretold its usurpation of the legislative power of the Federal Government. His prophecy is now reality. The terrible evil he dreaded is upon us.

As many of us warned, this opinion is already being used to crush Americans’ constitutionally guaranteed freedoms. This was not lost on the Tribune, which added: “To say or suppose, that a Free People can respect or will obey a decision so fraught with disastrous consequences to the People and their Liberties, is to dream of impossibilities. No power can take away their rights. They will permit no power to abridge them.”

The New York Tribune was equally dismissive: “The decision, we need hardly say, is entitled to just as much moral weight as would be the majority of those congregated in any Washington bar-room.”

OK, I’ll come clean. The above quotes are not in reference to Obergefell. But they might as well have been. These quotes addressed the Supreme Court’s equally illegitimate 1857 Dred Scott decision. Whereas, in Dred Scott, the justices defied natural law and presumed a “right” for whites to own blacks, the court’s 2015 Obergefell decision likewise defied natural law and presumed to deconstruct and redefine the institution of marriage.

Both decisions are illegitimate, and here’s why. For the U.S. Supreme Court to justifiably overturn some law duly passed by the United States Congress, its opinion must be deeply rooted in one or more of the following:

  1. A clear reading of the U.S. Constitution;
  2. Some prior court precedent;
  3. History and the Common Law;
  4. Our cultural customs or traditions;
  5. Some other law enacted by Congress.

As the high court’s four dissenting justices rightly observed in Obergefell, the “five attorneys” who invented this newfangled “right” to “gay marriage” failed, abysmally, on each and every requirement.

The same was true of Dred Scott.

And so both opinions should be summarily ignored.

As President Andrew Jackson famously quipped of a Supreme Court opinion he thought usurped his executive authority, “[Chief Justice] John Marshall has made his decision; now let him enforce it!”

After the Dred Scott decision was released, Sen. William Pitt Fessenden, R-Maine, who later served as Abraham Lincoln’s secretary of treasury, said this: “[It is charged] that I am undermining the institutions of the country by attacking the Supreme Court of the United States! I attack not their decision, for they have made none; it is their opinion.”

Over the last few decades, the other two branches of government, the legislative and the executive, have, for some inexplicable reason, acquiesced to the notion of judicial supremacy – a dangerously dominant concept that erroneously regards the United States Supreme Court as the final arbiter of all things public policy. If this is so, then these nine unelected lawyers are ultimately unaccountable to anyone or anything; and the other two branches of government are but toothless figurehead bodies merely spinning their wheels while spending our dollars.

This flies in the face of the framers’ intent. It’s also the very unfortunate reality under which we live. It is fully within the constitutional authority of the other two branches of government to rein in these judges gone wild.

Article III, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution gives Congress the authority to “check” judicial activism, up to and including when justices illegitimately legislate from the bench: “[T]he Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make.”

Our Republican-led Congress, from a regulatory standpoint, has the absolute constitutional authority to smack down this rogue Supreme Court. Unfortunately, to date, it has either been unwilling or unable to do so.

Still, it’s not Republicans alone who must halt this judicial imperialism. Freedom-loving Democrats, to the extent that such an animal yet exists, must also join the fight. After the Dred Scott opinion, they did.

“[F]orthwith we are told that the Supreme Court of the United States has become the appointed expounder of Democratic principles. Since when?” asked Sen. George Pugh, D-Ohio. “Who constituted the judges of the Supreme Court the makers or expounders of Democratic principle? Certainly not Thomas Jefferson, who pronounced them the sappers and miners of the Constitution; certainly not Andrew Jackson, who told them he would interpret his own oath, as well as his own principles, according to his views of the Constitution. … When we get to going by courts, it seems to me we have departed from the whole spirit and principle of the Democratic Party.”

My, how the Democratic Party has changed.

In the vast majority of their writings, the Founding Fathers were explicit that the judicial branch of government is effectively the weakest of the three. Regrettably, such is not the case with today’s modern misapplication. Americans currently live under what is, for all intents and purposes, a counter-constitutional judiciocracy led by nine unelected, unaccountable, black-robed autocrats.

No, five extremist lawyers don’t get to decide “the law of the land.” Only the legislature can do that. The high court merely issues opinions.

And then the other two branches decide what, if anything, to do with them.

The Declaration of Independence acknowledges that true rights are God-given and unalienable.

Religious free exercise is sacrosanct.

“Gay marriage” is pretend.

And the Supreme Court is not the Supreme Being.

(Note: Dred Scott quotes from Kutler, Stanley I., ed., “The Dred Scott Decision: Law or Politics” (Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1967), 59.)

The views expressed in this opinion article are solely those of their author and are not necessarily either shared or endorsed by WesternJournalism.com.

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Equipping You With The Truth

Pope Francis Just Made A Startling Announcement About Abortion That Has Everyone Talking

Pope Francis announced Monday that priests will be able to forgive anyone who has had an abortion if their hearts are “contrite.” Catholic teaching vehemently opposes abortion.

In a letter published Tuesday on the Vatican’s website, the pope wrote about the “tragedy of abortion” which has “led to the loss of the proper personal and social sensitivity to welcome new life.”

The pope made the announcement to go with the church’s upcoming Holy Year of Mercy, an extraordinary jubilee in the Catholic Church which will run from December 8 through November 20, 2016. Pope Francis announced the jubilee year last March from St. Peter’s Basilica.

The pontiff also noted that in his experience, many women believed they had “no other option” when resorting to abortion.

I am well aware of the pressure that has led them to this decision. I know that it is an existential and moral ordeal. I have met so many women who bear in their heart the scar of this agonizing and painful decision. What has happened is profoundly unjust; yet only understanding the truth of it can enable one not to lose hope. The forgiveness of God cannot be denied to one who has repented, especially when that person approaches the Sacrament of Confession with a sincere heart in order to obtain reconciliation with the Father.

“I have decided, notwithstanding anything to the contrary, to concede to all priests for the Jubilee Year the discretion to absolve of the sin of abortion those who have procured it and who, with contrite heart, seek forgiveness for it,” the pope continued. “May priests fulfil this great task by expressing words of genuine welcome combined with a reflection that explains the gravity of the sin committed, besides indicating a path of authentic conversion by which to obtain the true and generous forgiveness of the Father who renews all with his presence.”

The official teaching of the church, the Catechism of the Catholic Church, teaches that: “Human life must be respected and protected absolutely from the moment of conception. From the first moment of his existence, a human being must be recognized as having the rights of a person — among which is the inviolable right of every innocent being to life.”

As the Catholic News Service pointed out, church law generally mandates a priest obtain a special dispensation to grant absolution to a potential penitent for an abortion from his local bishop. These are known as faculties. Vatican spokesman Rev. Federico Lombardi told reporters that this announcement “highlights the wideness of God’s mercy” but is “not in any way minimizing the gravity of the sin” of abortion.

The Catholic Church has held a holy year every 50 years since 1300. Since 1475, an ordinary jubilee has been held every 25 years so that every generation can experience at least one. The last extraordinary jubilee was called in 1983 by Pope John Paul II to commemorate 1,950 years of redemption, while the most recent ordinary jubilee was in 2000.

h/t: UPI

Do you know someone who has had an abortion? Share your thoughts in the comments section below.

 

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Equipping You With The Truth

Watch: Black Politician Issues Huge ‘Black Lives Matter’ Challenge To Obama EVERYONE Should See

A video featuring Joe Evans, the former vice-chairman and executive director of the Jefferson County Republican Party in Texas, calling on President Barack Obama to denounce the Black Lives Matter movement has gone viral. 

TheBlaze reports that Evans, who is running for county commissioner, posted the clip on Facebook on Saturday, after learning of the cold-blooded murder of Deputy Darren Goforth in nearby Harris County (Houston metro area) the previous night.

As he began his approximately minute-long video, Evans notes that many people will blame the deputy’s murder “on us not taking a serious approach to mental health, or we need stricter gun laws.” He demises that in this instance, stating: “I think we should start by denouncing the black lives movement.”

“I challenge every leader, starting with the president down to myself, to denounce the black lives matter movement,” he continues. “It’s a racist movement — racist to the core — and it will only cause more division and more hate among Americans.”

In his posting of the video on Facebook, Evans gave an even more pointed call to President Obama to take this step:

The President needs to come out and denounce the ‪#‎Blacklives‬ matter movement. The movement is racist to the core and in my opinion it has simultaneously led to a violent war between blacks and whites, and police and blacks.

The President is a former community organizer, and he knows that through organization many social outcomes can be manipulated, but this is wrong and has led to a nuclear uprising here in America. In fact all black leaders need to denounce that movement, and any other movement that separates people. My life is worth no more or less than anyone else’s life and I know that! On this day I denounce the ‪#‎BlackLivesMatter‬ movement.

Harris Country Sheriff Ron Hickman shared a similar sentiment to Evans at a press conference on Saturday following the murder of Deputy Goforth.

“When the rhetoric ramps up to the point where calculated, cold-blooded assassination of police officers happen, this rhetoric has gotten out of control,” Hickman said. “We’ve heard ‘Black Lives Matter,’ ‘All lives matter.’ Well, cops’ lives matter too. So why don’t we just drop the qualifier, and just say ‘Lives Matter,’ and take that to the bank.”

His sheriff’s department later posted that thought on its Twitter page on Saturday. 

Do you think Joe Evans and Sheriff Ron Hickman are right? Share your thoughts below. 

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Equipping You With The Truth

Arab Coalition Succeeds To Quell Iran-Backed Houthi Rebellion In Yemen

After having successfully driven Iran-backed Houthi militia out of the southern port city of Aden, Yemen’s pro-government forces now brace for a key battle in the central Marib province that must open the road to Yemen’s capital of Sana’a, which has been occupied by Houthi militia since September 2014.

The recent successes of exiled President Abd Rabbuh Mansur Hadi’s forces would not have been possible without the support of a Saudi Arabia-led coalition of Arab countries which launched an air campaign against the Houthis and forces of former Yemeni President Saleh at the end of March this year. Hadi has been living in Saudi Arabia since March of this year.

Nine Arab countries, among them Egypt, Kuwait and Jordan, helped pro-government forces turn the tide in the civil war with a devastating campaign of air strikes that left more than 2,000 civilians dead, according to the U.N.

Just yesterday, residents of the northern province of Al-Hajjah reported coalition airplanes killed 36 civilians in what Saudi Arabia said was an air strike on a Houthi factory for explosive devices. Houthi spokesmen, however, said the factory produced bottles.

In July, thousands of soldiers from the United Arab Emirates (UAE), equipped with tanks and other heavy weapons, joined the pro-government forces and were the driving force behind the Houthi defeat in Aden.

Their arrival followed a secretive operation by UAE Marines who landed in a small fishing harbor close to Aden a couple of weeks earlier. This intervention prevented the Iran-backed Houthi militia from fully taking over Aden.

During a visit to Sudan on Saturday, President Mansur Hadi said his forces had succeeded in “stopping Iranian expansion in the region.”

“We are currently leading a war based on stopping Iranian expansion in the region. Iranian expansion is present now in Iraq, Syria, Lebanon,” Hadi said during a press conference with President Omar al-Bashir of Sudan, who joined the coalition in April.

“Now there are few provinces where battles are still going on. There is fighting in Taez, and Ibb and Hodeida and Marib,” he added.

If the pro-government forces succeed in driving the Houthis out of Marib, they could advance rapidly to the Houthi stronghold of Saada in the north of Yemen.

The pro-government forces will get the help of hundreds of freshly-trained Yemeni fighters who received military training in Saudi Arabia, which has a vested interest in stopping the Iranian expansion in Yemen.

As Western Journalism has reported, Iran tried to take over Yemen in order to destabilize Saudi Arabia.

The ultimate goal of the Iranian actions in this part of the Middle East was the conquest of the holy Muslim cities of Mecca and Medina. Another goal was the seizure of Bab-el-Mandeb, the strategic waterway from which the entrance to the Red Sea, and ultimately all naval traffic to the Israeli port city of Eilat, can be controlled.

Up to now, Saudi Arabia has not joined the ground war against the Shiite rebels. Instead, the Saudi Army repeatedly conducted small incursions across the border in response to Houthi attacks on its soil.

“Sometimes you have to move and not be static on your defensive line. You move, find where the attack comes from, find the target. It happens from time to time but is not significant,” coalition spokesman Brig. Gen. Ahmed Asseri told the Lebanese paper The Daily Star

After failing to reach a temporary ceasefire in June with Yemen’s government, the Houthi rebels now seem to be on the way to their defeat.

The UAE forces have already begun to think about the day after the war when Yemen has to be rebuilt.

“We did not come here to occupy. We came here to rebuild and reconstruct. We don’t need another Libya or Somalia,” General Oteibi, the commander of the UAE forces, told the Wall Street Journal.

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Equipping You With The Truth