Here’s How America Could Restore Constitutional 3-Branch Government And The Rule of Law Virtually Overnight…

Many are celebrating the Governor of Texas’ recently issued exemption for Christians whose religious conscience won’t allow them to take part in so called same-sex unions. Ironically, in his statement, Republican Governor Greg Abbott acknowledges that the Obergefell opinion isn’t law and doesn’t trump the 1st Amendment.

But what he flagrantly failed to mention was that the immoral, illegal, and unconstitutional Obergefell opinion (that there is a Constitutional right to so-called same-sex marriage) is not “the law of the land” and doesn’t trump or invalidate in any way the Texas marriage statutes, Texas Constitution, and God’s Immutable and Infallible Word (which ALL define marriage as the exclusive union of one man and one woman).

Allowing marriage licenses to be illegally altered and issued to same-sex couples in Texas is not a “victory for religious liberty.” It’s a massive defeat for the Constitutional Rule of Law and what remains of our Republican form of Civil Government.

If Americans truly want to restore Constitutional Checks and Balances and the Rule of Law, we must demolish the toxic liberal lie of Judicial Supremacy (that Rule of Judges equal the Rule of Law). And that has the best chance of occurring at the state level.

Here is what Governor Abbott should have said:

The Supreme Court is not the Supreme Being. As governor I have a solemn obligation to enforce the laws and statutes of the state of Texas in obedience to the Texas and U.S. Constitutions. The marriage statutes in Texas and our Constitution limit marriage to one man and one woman in accordance with God’s Word and can never be amended or altered in any way.

Therefore, I will not enforce the immoral and unconstitutional Obergefell opinion and will not authorize any alterations to or issuance of marriage licenses to same sex couples in Texas. This is not as much an issue of religious liberty as it is an issue of the preservation of the Rule of Law. And here in Texas, Constitutional oaths and the Rule of Law still matter and I will not violate my oath.

And in addition to not authorizing the issuance of marriage licenses to same sex couples in Texas, I will also be shutting down all Planned Parenthood Abortuaries in Texas since killing pre-born babies blatantly violates the 5th and 14th amendments which both guarantee that all innocent human persons not be deprived of due process and equal protection of the laws. Neither Roe nor Obergefell are the “law of the land”; and here in Texas, I as governor will protect marriage and life and reject them both as the legal nullities they are. Period!

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

Who Has Control Over The Government’s Budget?

I was recently contacted by a concerned Texan regarding a town hall meeting she attended with her Congressional representative. Her email to me reads as follows:

I have a constitutional question. At a town hall yesterday, we had a heated discussion with our Congressional representative Mike Conaway. Our question was why isn’t the House withholding funds for Obama’s overreaches? Conaway’s reply was the House can’t do that alone, it also takes the Senate. I have been under the impression the House alone controlled the purse strings. Am I correct?

I wanted to respond to this email publicly since it involves an important constitutional issue. I fear that many are confused on this vital check and balance; and because of our ignorance of this principle, we are losing one of the most important controls on government incorporated into the Constitution.

Article 1, section 7 of the Constitution is the governing text regarding this issue of spending. It reads:

All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with amendments as on other Bills.

Since the Constitution is a contract, pursuant to contract law we must look to the drafters of the contract when we need clarity. James Madison explains exactly what we need to know in Federalist 58:

The House of Representatives cannot only refuse, but they alone can propose, the supplies requisite for the support of the government…This power over the purse may, in fact, be regarded as the most complete and effectual weapon with which any constitution can arm the immediate representatives of the people, for obtaining a redress of every grievance, and for carrying into effect every just and salutatory measure.

Madison also explains that one of the main reasons the House was vested with this important power was to reduce “the overgrown prerogatives of the other branches of government” as the people may demand.

On May 15, 1789, Madison, then a federal representative to his District in Virginia, had a conversation with fellow Virginia Representative Alexander White during the ratification debates:

Mr. White said: “The Constitution, having authorized the House of Representatives alone to originate money bills, places an important trust in our hands, which, as their protectors, we ought not to part with.  I do not mean to imply that the Senate are less to be trusted than this house; but the Constitution, no doubt for wise purposes, has given the immediate representatives of the people a control over the whole government in this particular, which, for their interest, they ought not let out of their hands.”

It is interesting to note that Alexander White is repeating the principle of the power of the purse Madison identified in Federalist 58, that it is the duty of the House to have a “control over the whole government” to reduce “the overgrown prerogatives of the other branches of government.”

Madison replies to White with confirmation:

The principle reason why the Constitution had made this distinction was, because they (the House) were chosen by the people, and supposed to be the best acquainted with their interest and ability.

It is clear, according to the drafters of the Constitution, that the House alone was vested with the power of purse. Pursuant to Article 1 section 7, the Senate may propose amendments and may concur, but their assent is not necessary. As both White and Madison stated, this power rests in the House alone because it is the House that is chosen directly by the people as their representatives, and best suited to redress their grievances and reduce and control all the other branches as the people see fit. If the House proposes a budget that the Senate refuses to vote upon, then the House budget stands. If the Senate proposes an amendment to the budget, and the House doesn’t want it, then the original House budget stands. It is also important to note that constitutionally speaking, the president has no veto power over a budget.

Some may confuse the procedure for passing a law with the procedure for passing a budget. A very important distinction must be recognized; a budget expires, but a law does not. A law must follow the procedure of both houses of Congress, with veto power by the president because in order to get rid of a law, it must be repealed. Budgets, however, expire and must be renewed by each congressional session. No future Congress is ever bound by a past congressional budget. That is why the Senate is not necessary and the President is procedurally excluded from the budget process.  

We must also remember that one of the chief purposes for vesting this power in the House was to reduce the overgrowth of the other branches of government. It is counterintuitive to ask the House to exercise that control over the Senate, the Executive, and the Judiciary and then require those branches to concur with that control. It is highly unlikely that our founders would create such an absurdity with the Constitution.

The current budget procedures, invented outside the boundaries of the Constitution by past Congresses, have achieved exactly what both Madison and White have warned about; they have let this vital power out of their hands and placed it into the hands of those not constitutionally fit to fulfil the demand. We need educated and principled leaders in Congress to stand against this usurp of the greatest check and balance on governmental overreach.  

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

Ben Carson Infuriated Liberals With Muslim And Sharia Law Comments

Video Transcript:

Ben Carson has done well at infuriating liberals after saying he wouldn’t support a Muslim for president.

On Wednesday, Carson said he wasn’t surprised by the overreaction.

I have come to be familiarized with the [political correctness] culture, and I’m willing to fight it. Somebody has to stand for who we are.

From both sides of the aisle, critics have pointed to the Constitution, which prohibits a religious test for entry into office.

Josh Earnest: The views articulated by Dr. Carson are entirely inconsistent with the Constitution that does actually guarantee the freedom of religion in this country…there will be consequences.

Lindsey Graham: I think this shows that Dr. Carson is not ready to be commander in chief.

Carly Fiorina: You know, it says in our Constitution that religion cannot be a test for office.

Ted Cruz: You know, the Constitution specifies, that there shall be no religious test for public office.

But Carson never said they couldn’t run. He just wouldn’t support them, or their Islamic ideology that is counter to the American way. If the media tried to ensnare Carson, it failed. His comments have only boosted his donations.

The money’s been coming in so fast, it’s hard to even keep up with it.

It’s hard to argue with Carson’s logic. If any Muslim holds to Sharia law, they hold to beliefs that are contrary to the U.S. Constitution.

Rush Limbaugh: Sharia law is so inconsistent with the U.S. Constitution, Ben Carson could not be more right. Sharia law is the law which is used to behead women in Islamic countries who have been raped. Sharia law is the reason women in Islamic countries can’t drive.

Carson seems focused on cutting through today’s politically correct culture. And isn’t fearing a media backlash.

Do I not have a right to support what I want to support? I want to support what made this nation great and what made us unique. If it costs me politically, it does.

Do you agree with Ben Carson? Would you support a Muslim president? Share and comment below.

Author Weighs In On Muslim Obama Controversy In A Way That Everyone Should See

President Barack Hussein Obama could be a Muslim, according to one author who wrote a book on the president’s early life and his evolving thought on politics and America.

Betty Sue Prollock, author of The Abominations of the Obama-Nation, said in an exclusive interview that she can’t really know for sure where the president’s faith lies. However, there is evidence to suggest that those who think Obama is secretly a Muslim aren’t as crazy as the mainstream media portrays them.

“You have to understand that, without being able to see his mind and his heart, it’s all speculation,” Prollock said.

Obama’s faith has been fodder in recent days after a man posed a question to Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump in a New Hampshire rally. The question was prefaced with comments that Obama was a Muslim. Then, another GOP front-runner, Dr. Ben Carson, said in an interview that he would not advocate for a Muslim to be president unless that person disavows Sharia Law.

Another Republican presidential candidate, Mike Huckabee, stated this week that Obama has supported many actions that prohibit religious liberty and are contrary to the Christian faith, even though the president claims to be a Christian.

“I’m less concerned about what faith the person has. I’m more concerned about the authenticity of their faith and how that plays out in their politics … I’m also concerned about a guy that believes he’s a Christian and pretends to be and then says he is, but then does things that makes it very difficult for people to practice their Christian faith,” Huckabee said in a televised interview.

Prollock said a key point is that Muslims think the president is, in fact, of the Islamic faith. His father was Muslim and, under Islamic customs, that makes the president a Muslim.

“Islam is possessive. They believe once a Muslim, always a Muslim. Because of their disbelief in free will, they believe you can’t change your mind and be something else,” Prollock said.

Islamic tenets allow, and even encourage, lying to non-Muslims, she said. Lying is particularly encouraged to expand Islam. Prollock said Muslims can then assume, without judgment, that Obama is lying to the nation when he states he is a Christian in order to advance Islam.

“They see deceit as an art form. It’s obligatory. They revere it as a skill that should be perfected,” she said.

While Prollock said she can’t judge Obama’s faith, his actions have raised questions about whether he is a sincere Christian. In that respect, she agrees with Huckabee.

“Obama has a bit of a disregard, even a disdain, for Christianity. If you go by the things he says, the things he does, his behavior, everything, it’s quite contradictory to what Christians believe in,” she said.

Prollock’s opinion is that the president probably doesn’t hold to any one religion.

“I don’t think he has respect for any one faith. He doesn’t advocate one over another. He doesn’t see the importance of any faith,” she said.

Prollock added that Obama appears to be more sympathic to Muslims than people of other faiths. She credits the fact that he was raised in Indonesia, which is heavily Muslim, for his attitudes toward them now.

“I think he is more comfortable being around Muslims. That’s why there are so many of them in our government,” Prollock said.

Prollock said Obama’s mother and his early days as a child in Indonesia fostered Obama’s worldview. She believes he doesn’t have respect for America as its president because of his mother’s views and Indonesian influence.

“I think he perceived America the way he sees any industrialized country, as in Europe,” she explained. “I think he sees this as a greedy industrial power preying on third world countries, preying on their resources for industrial growth,”

As far as comments from the Republican candidates are concerned, Prollock said Trump isn’t responsible for defending the president. Carson has a valid point in that a devout Muslim could not adequately defend the Constitution, even though the Constitution allows for anyone of any faith to run for president, she said.

The reason a devout Muslim shouldn’t ever be president is simple, Prollock concluded. A devout Muslim would put Sharia Law above the Constitution.

“The Constitution is based on the precepts of Christianity. They are in total conflict to each other,” she explained. “Our Constitution opposes the establishment of a state religion. Islam operates as a theocracy. They think everyone should be Islamic.”

Rush Reveals What Makes Liberal Outrage About Carson’s Comments Beyond Hypocritical

Media uproar over Republican presidential candidate Ben Carson’s statement that a Muslim should not be president shows the hypocrisy of liberals, radio commentator Rush Limbaugh said this week.

“There’s nothing intolerant about what Ben Carson said,” Limbaugh said.

“It’s rooted in Sharia law.  Sharia law runs counter to the US Constitution.” he explained, noting that Sharia law justifies beheading rape victims and forbidding women from driving. “Ben Carson could not be more right. And the question he was asked was in that context. ‘Well, do you believe that Islam is consistent with the Constitution?’ Well, Sharia law isn’t.”

Limbaugh saved his biggest dose of scorn for liberals who have defended the concept of a Muslim president–but not an evangelical Christian one.

“How many times do you remember various leftists saying we ought not ever have a Christian as president?  Specifically an evangelical Christian.  … Remember Pat Robertson ran for the presidency once?  All the people running, ‘We can’t have that in the White House, what if he imposes his religious views on the country?’ Which meant anti-abortion,” Limbaugh said.

“There have been countless Republican presidential candidates who have been open and honest about their evangelical Christianity, and the media, various Democrats, commentators, pundits, have written gazillions of words warning everybody about the calamity that could happen to this country if we were to ever elect an evangelical Christian,” Limbaugh said. He noted that after Carson’s comments, “all hell is breaking loose, by the same people who say, no, no, no, way to an evangelical Christian, even though we’re a Christian nation, as founded.”

“The furor over this, it’s totally manufactured and made up,” Limbaugh said. “And the furor is not about this specifically, but it’s about giving the media another chance, or better stated, the media taking another opportunity to point out in their minds that Republicans are bigots.”

Limbaugh noted the difference between support for Islam and Christianity.

“We have a nation filled with apologists for Islam, as you know,” he said. “9/11 happens, militant Islam kills 3,000 Americans, and all of a sudden there’s a giant Islamic apologist group in this country that grows and grows and grows.”

h/t: Mediaite