Christie Dead Wrong About NSA Spying

New Jersey Governor Chris Christie gave an impressive performance this week, glorifying the unconstitutional NSA program collecting and recording every American’s digital communication.

Standing in front of flowing waters at the Portsmouth, N.H., shipyard, Christie strongly delivered a litany of lies:

Christie: “The vast majority of Americans are not worried about the government listening in on them.”

Reality: Nearly all polls reveal the vast majority of Americans believe the NSA program of spying on Americans goes too far. The majority of Americans in most polls say they want the collection of their personal and professional digital communications to stop.

Christie: “It hasn’t happened.”

Reality: Christie is pretending we don’t understand how the program works. The NSA records and collects all digital communication and stores the millions of gigabytes for future searches. He’s not fooling anyone by pretending NSA agents aren’t actually “listening” 24/7. This is Clinton-style weasel-wording.

Christie: “What happens if we don’t catch the bad people who want to harm our country? So here’s how we catch ’em. We need to toughen our terror mechanisms to do their job.”

Reality: The NSA program has caught no domestic terrorists. None. Nada.

Christie: “Over the last couple of years our allies including Great Britain, France, Canada and Australia have announced plans to toughen their laws to better detect terrorism and extremism.”

Reality: Christie is using the liberal reasoning that “everyone else is doing it, so we should, too.” This is the foot-stomping, childish logic used to argue for a failing government-controlled national health care policy.

Christie: “This is a big debate in congress right now and courts have expressed their views.”

Reality: True. The program has been ruled “unconstitutional” by U.S. District Judge Richard Leon, who said the National Security Agency’s bulk collection of metadata – simply phone records of the time and numbers called without any disclosure of content – violates privacy rights.

Judge Leon famously declared, “I cannot imagine a more ‘indiscriminate’ and ‘arbitrary invasion’ than this systematic and high-tech collection and retention of personal data on virtually every citizen for purposes of querying and analyzing it without prior judicial approval. Surely, such a program infringes on ‘that degree of privacy’ that the Founders enshrined in the Fourth Amendment.”

Christie: “Right now that debate is dominated by intellectual purists worried about theoretical abuses that have not occurred.”

Reality: The NSA’s Inspector General was compelled by Republican Charles Grassley to admit numerous agents have been caught using the NSA surveillance tools to spy on their lovers and spouses. Some resigned, some were fired, others reprimanded and demoted.

These include cases of NSA employees actually listening to their paramours’ conversations in addition to listening to recordings and reading emails. Yes, they can be doing this right now with your communications.

Christie: “If you’re an ordinary, hardworking American, this law has no effect on you..”

Reality: Unless it does.

Christie: “It could prevent the next attack from taking place and killing our fellow citizens.”

Reality: Former NSA Director Keith Alexander admitted he lied when he said surveillance data collected by the NSA program provided the initial tips to “unravel the threat stream” of 53 plots.

When presented with studies that showed no plots were uncovered by the NSA program, Alexander mewled, maybe “one or two” plots were uncovered. No, none were. Not one, not two. None.

Researchers analyzed cases involving 225 people recruited by al-Qaeda or other terrorist groups and charged in the U.S. since the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. The majority of cases started with traditional techniques, such as use of “informants, tips from local communities, and targeted intelligence operations.”

Bulk collection of American communications has had no discernible impact on preventing acts of terrorism and only the most marginal of impacts on preventing terrorist-related activity, such as fundraising for a terrorist group,

Christie has succeeded in differentiating himself from House Republicans who have come to recognize the program’s unconstitutionality.

He now stands with Hillary, Mitch McConnell, and Obama.

Not good company.

This commentary appeared at CagleCartoons.com.

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

Can Hillary Still Be Impeached? The Answer May Surprise You…

Recently, I wrote an open letter to Trey Gowdy​ that invoked quite a bit of ire from loyal Gowdy supporters. If you haven’t read the letter, please do.

In this letter, I point out that Hillary Clinton MUST be held accountable and that Congress needs to stop making political excuses for her criminal behavior. I even offer up the suggestion that Mr. Gowdy and Congress should be looking to Article 2, Section 4 of the Constitution for the solution to the Hillary problem. Many loyal Gowdy commentors didn’t understand this application of impeachment, and I fear that Mr. Gowdy doesn’t either–so let me explain…

Article 2, Section 4: “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.”

Hillary Clinton, as Secretary of State, is a civil officer; and because of the numerous documented instances of misconduct while in office, she MUST be impeached.

Some may try to argue that because Hillary resigned, she is no longer eligible for impeachment. That is simply not true, and precedent has been established to the contrary.

William Belknap served as Secretary of War under Ulysses S Grant from October 25, 1869 – March 2, 1876. While Secretary of War, Belknap’s extravagant lifestyle came into question. You see, Belknap only made $8k a year but was known for his extravagant lifestyle and expensive parties. Congress launched an investigation into his finances and found corruption that extended back to 1870.

According to Senate records, in 1870, “Belknap’s luxury-loving first wife assisted a wheeler-dealer named Caleb Marsh by getting her husband to select one of Marsh’s associates to operate the lucrative military trading post at Fort Sill in Indian territory. Marsh’s promise of generous kick-backs prompted Secretary Belknap to make the appointment.  Over the next five years, the associate funneled thousands of dollars to Marsh, who provided Belknap regular quarterly payments totaling over $20,000.”

Some of the accusations against Belknap included indirectly selling weapons to France and accepting illicit kickbacks in exchange for making political appointments. Gun-running, kickbacks, political deals for financial gain…isn’t that exactly what evidence strongly suggests Hillary Clinton is or was involved in?

According to Senate records, “On March 2, 1876, just minutes before the House of Representatives was scheduled to vote on articles of impeachment, Belknap raced to the White House, handed Grant his resignation, and burst into tears.”

Belknap’s resignation did not stop his impeachment. “Later that day, members voted unanimously to send the Senate five articles of impeachment.” What was Congress’ chief accusation against Belknap?  Answer: “criminally disregarding his duty as Secretary of War and basely prostituting his high office to his lust for private gain.” I have never heard a better description of the tenure of Hillary Clinton. Yet what does Congress do today? NOTHING, but make excuses. I missed the Constitutional Amendment that changed the Congressional power exercised in 1876 into the powerless and excuse-ridden Congress of today. By the way, impeaching Hillary would preclude her from holding any future public office, ever.

But Congressional responsibility doesn’t end with Hillary Clinton. According to James Madison, the father of the Constitution, their responsibility to impeach Hillary is not only established but also invokes an even bigger responsibility…to impeach the President, as well.

“It is very possible that an officer, who may not incur the displeasure of the President, may be guilty of actions that ought to forfeit his place.  The power of this may reach him by the means of impeachment, he may be removed even against the will of the President…[the president will be] in a peculiar manner, responsible for their conduct, and subject him to impeachment himself, if he suffers them to perpetrate with impunity high crimes or misdemeanors against the United States, or neglects to superintend their conduct, so as to check their excuses.” (The Writings of James Madison: 1787-1790, James Madison, G.P. Putnam’s Sons, 1904)

Congressional hearings USED to actually have consequences. Congress USED to exercise real power. Congressmen USED to know their duty to the Constitution, their obligation to preserve Liberty, and their obligation to control the executive branch. Nothing about the Constitution or the power of Congress has changed since 1876, so what has changed? What has changed is the knowledge and courage of Congressmen!

If the President of the United States has direct power over his agents, is directly accountable for their actions, and can be impeached himself for failing to govern proper Constitutional control over his agents, shouldn’t Congress also be held accountable for their failure to govern proper Constitutional control over the executive branch? Isn’t it time We The People start requiring real Constitutional proficiency, instead of simply accepting the flowery speeches and rhetoric as chief political qualification?

 “No people will tamely surrender their Liberties, nor can any be easily subdued, when knowledge is diffused and virtue is preserved. On the Contrary, when People are universally ignorant, and debauched in their Manners, they will sink under their own weight without the Aid of foreign Invaders.”–Samuel Adams

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

Police Militarization Is More Than Tanks And Rifles: It’s A Cultural Disease

“If we’re training cops as soldiers, giving them equipment like soldiers, dressing them up as soldiers, when are they going to pick up the mentality of soldiers? If you look at the police department, their creed is to protect and to serve. A soldier’s mission is to engage his enemy in close combat and kill him. Do we want police officers to have that mentality? Of course not.”— Arthur Rizer, former civilian police officer and member of the military

Talk about poor timing. Then again, perhaps it’s brilliant timing.

Only now—after the Departments of Justice, Homeland Security (DHS), and Defense have passed off billions of dollars worth of military equipment to local police forces, after police agencies have been trained in the fine art of war, after SWAT team raids have swelled in number to more than 80,000 a year, after it has become second nature for local police to look and act like soldiers, after communities have become acclimated to the presence of militarized police patrolling their streets, after Americans have been taught compliance at the end of a police gun or taser, after lower income neighborhoods have been transformed into war zones, after hundreds if not thousands of unarmed Americans have lost their lives at the hands of police who shoot first and ask questions later, after a whole generation of young Americans has learned to march in lockstep with the government’s dictates—only now does President Obama lift a hand to limit the number of military weapons being passed along to local police departments.

Not all, mind you, just some.

Talk about too little, too late.

Months after the White House defended a federal program that distributed $18 billion worth of military equipment to local police, Obama has announced that he will ban the federal government from providing local police departments with tracked armored vehicles, weaponized aircraft and vehicles, bayonets, grenade launchers, camouflage uniforms, and large-caliber firearms.

Obama also indicated that less heavy-duty equipment (armored vehicles, tactical vehicles, riot gear, and specialized firearms and ammunition) will reportedly be subject to more regulations such as local government approval, and police being required to undergo more training and collect data on the equipment’s use. Perhaps hoping to sweeten the deal, the Obama administration is also offering $163 million in taxpayer-funded grants to “incentivize police departments to adopt the report’s recommendations.”

While this is a grossly overdue first step of sorts, it is nevertheless a first step from an administration that has been utterly complicit in accelerating the transformation of America’s police forces into extensions of the military. Indeed, as investigative journalist Radley Balko points out, while the Obama administration has said all the right things about the need to scale back on a battlefield mindset, it has done all the wrong things to perpetuate the problem:

  • distributed equipment designed for use on the battlefield to local police departments,
  • provided private grants to communities to incentivize SWAT team raids,
  • redefined “community policing” to reflect aggressive police tactics and funding a nationwide COPS (Community Oriented Policing Services) program that has contributed to dramatic rise in SWAT teams,
  • encouraged the distribution of DHS anti-terror grants and the growth of “contractors that now cater to police agencies looking to cash DHS checks in exchange for battle-grade gear,”
  • ramped up the use of military-style raids to crack down on immigration laws and target “medical marijuana growers, shops, and dispensaries in states that have legalized the drug,”
  • defended as “reasonable” aggressive, militaristic police tactics in cases where police raided a guitar shop in defense of an obscure environmental law, raided a home looking for a woman who had defaulted on her student loans, and terrorized young children during a raid on the wrong house based on a mistaken license plate,
  • and ushered in an era of outright highway robbery in which asset forfeiture laws have been used to swindle Americans out of cash, cars, houses, or other property that government agents can “accuse” of being connected to a crime.

It remains to be seen whether this overture on Obama’s part, coming in the midst of heightened tensions between the nation’s police forces and the populace they’re supposed to protect, opens the door to actual reform or is merely a political gambit to appease the masses, all the while further acclimating the populace to life in a police state.

Certainly, on its face, it does nothing to ease the misery of the police state that has been foisted upon us. In fact, Obama’s belated gesture of concern does little to roll back the deadly menace of overzealous police agencies corrupted by money, power, and institutional immunity. And it certainly fails to recognize the terrible toll that has been inflicted on our communities, our fragile ecosystem of a democracy, and our freedoms as a result of the government’s determination to bring the war home.

Will the young black man guilty of nothing more than running away from brutish police officers be any safer in the wake of Obama’s edict? It’s unlikely.

Will the old man reaching for his cane have a lesser chance of being shot? It’s doubtful.

Will the little girl asleep under her princess blanket live to see adulthood when a SWAT team crashes through her door? I wouldn’t count on it.

It’s a safe bet that our little worlds will be no safer following Obama’s pronouncement and the release of his “Task Force on 21st Century Policing” report. In fact, there is a very good chance that life in the American police state will become even more perilous.

Among the report’s 50-page list of recommendations is a call for more police officer boots on the ground, training for police “on the importance of de-escalation of force,” and “positive non-enforcement activities” in high-crime communities to promote trust in the police such as sending an ice cream truck across the city.

Curiously, nowhere in the entire 120-page report is there a mention of the Fourth Amendment, which demands that the government respect citizen privacy and bodily integrity. The Constitution is referenced once, in the Appendix, in relation to Obama’s authority as president. And while the word “constitutional” is used 15 times within the body of the report, its use provides little assurance that the Obama administration actually understands the clear prohibitions against government overreach as enshrined in the U.S. Constitution.

For instance, in the section of the report on the use of technology and social media, the report notes: “Though all constitutional guidelines must be maintained in the performance of law enforcement duties, the legal framework (warrants, etc.) should continue to protect law enforcement access to data obtained from cell phones, social media, GPS, and other sources, allowing officers to detect, prevent, or respond to crime.”

Translation: as I document in my book Battlefield America: The War on the American People, the new face of policing in America is about to shift from waging its war on the American people using primarily the weapons of the battlefield to the evermore-sophisticated technology of the battlefield where government surveillance of our everyday activities will be even more invasive.

This emphasis on technology, surveillance, and social media is nothing new. In much the same way the federal government used taxpayer-funded grants to “gift” local police agencies with military weapons and equipment, it is also funding the distribution of technology aimed at making it easier for police to monitor, track, and spy on Americans. For instance, license plate readers, stingray devices, and fusion centers are all funded by grants from the DHS. Funding for drones at the state and local levels also comes from the federal government, which in turn accesses the data acquired by the drones for its own uses.

If you’re noticing a pattern here, it is one in which the federal government is not merely transforming local police agencies into extensions of itself but is in fact federalizing them, turning them into a national police force that answers not to “we the people” but to the Commander in Chief. Yet the American police force is not supposed to be a branch of the military, nor is it a private security force for the reigning political faction. It is supposed to be an aggregation of the countless local civilian units that exist for a sole purpose: to serve and protect the citizens of each and every American community.

So where does that leave us?

There’s certainly no harm in embarking on a national dialogue on the dangers of militarized police, but if that’s all it amounts to—words that sound good on paper and in the press but do little to actually respect our rights and restore our freedoms—then we’re just playing at politics with no intention of actually bringing about reform.

Despite the Obama Administration’s lofty claims of wanting to “ensure that public safety becomes more than the absence of crime, that it must also include the presence of justice,” this is the reality we must contend with right now:

Americans still have no real protection against police abuse. Americans still have no right to self-defense in the face of SWAT teams mistakenly crashing through our doors, or police officers who shoot faster than they can reason. Americans are still no longer innocent until proven guilty. Americans still don’t have a right to private property. Americans are still powerless in the face of militarized police. Americans still don’t have a right to bodily integrity. Americans still don’t have a right to the expectation of privacy. Americans are still being acclimated to a police state through the steady use and sight of military drills domestically, a heavy militarized police presence in public places and in the schools, and a taxpayer-funded propaganda campaign aimed at reassuring the public that the police are our “friends.” And to top it all off, Americans still can’t rely on the courts, Congress, or the White House to mete out justice when our rights are violated by police.

To sum it all up: the problems we’re grappling with have been building for more than 40 years. They’re not going to go away overnight, and they certainly will not be resolved by a report that instructs the police to simply adopt different tactics to accomplish the same results—i.e., maintain the government’s power, control, and wealth at all costs.

This is the sad reality of life in the American police state.

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

How To Fight The Bureaucratic State

Is there anything more clear in the Constitution than the fact that “All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States”? Nevertheless, there are currently about 23,000 pages of federal laws passed by Congress and almost 80,000 pages of regulations by executive bureaucracies.

Until recently, no one seemed to care. But in 2010, House Republicans appealed to the rising Tea Party movement by pledging to “require congressional approval of any new federal regulation that has an annual cost to our economy of $100 million or more.” In 2011, Rep. Geoff Davis introduced just such a bill; the “Regulations from the Executive In Need of Scrutiny” (REINS) Act passed the House with the support of all 237 Republicans, and four Democrats. But President Barack Obama pledged to veto it, and a similar bill sponsored by Sen. Rand Paul died in the Democratic Senate.

Congress, of course, has always been able to override bureaucratic rules even without REINS. However, as the Heritage Foundation’s James Gattuso has noted, the process is cumbersome. To try and address this, Congress adopted “expedited resolutions of disapproval” in 1996, to encourage up-or-down votes to reverse counterproductive bureaucratic regulations. Since that time, however, Congressional reluctance to override the president and the politicians’ fears of taking responsibility for controversial regulatory acts has resulted in only one such disapproval passing Congress, allowing all other rules to go into effect. REINS is aimed at forcing legislative responsibility by requiring every rule with a large economic impact to obtain specific approval from each house, without which the regulation would never go into effect.

With newfound Republican control of the Senate following the 2014 elections, there has been a renewed interest in passing such a bill. Of course, President Obama would still veto it; and Democrats will make it very difficult to corral the 60 votes needed to pass the Senate. With this solution stymied, top regulatory expert Wayne Crews proposes creating a bipartisan commission to identify regulations that must be voted upon by Congress to remain in effect. Even that has met substantial opposition, including from some frightened Republicans.

Substantive objections to requiring Congressional approval are few and weak. The best that the progressive Center for Effective Government could do was to warn that this would allow Congress to “second-guess agency expertise and science on food safety, worker safety, air pollution, water contamination, and a host of other issues.” But even disregarding the fact that bureaucratic expertise in these areas is often more in the promise than in performance, is not voting on such issues precisely what the Founders expected Congress to do?

As Crews notes, the number of federal regulations has been exploding. “While an utterly imperfect gauge, the number of pages in the Federal Register is probably the most frequently cited measure of regulation’s scope, which unintentionally highlights the abysmal condition of regulatory oversight and measurement. At the end of 2014, the page count stood at 78,978, the fifth highest level in the Register’s history.” He estimates the real cost (mostly hidden in “guidance’ and sotto-voice threats) could be higher than the formal debt of $18 trillion.

In an important Frazer Institute essay published in What America’s Decline in Economic Freedom Means for Entrepreneurship and Prosperity, Crews notes the baleful results:

An astounding 92 million Americans are not working, positioning labor-force participation at a 36 year low, with nearly 12 million having dropped out during the Obama administration. Data point to high debt per capita, and to the highest part-time and temporary-job creation rates in contrast to full-time career positions. A popular blog laments the “slow death of American entrepreneurship.” Headlines tell painful tales, like that of January 2015 in Investor’s Business Daily reporting on businesses dying faster than they’re being created, a circumstance the Washington Post had noted in 2014. Likewise, a Brookings study on small business formation noted declining rates, as did a Wall Street Journal report on reduced business ownership rates among the young. One recruiter described to the Wall Street Journal how regulations undermine employment, while others point to an inverse correlation between regulation and innovation.

The World Economic Forum’s “burden of government regulation” places the U.S. the 87th most onerous of 144 nations globally on complying with administrative regulations on business.

Indeed, Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas has recently questioned the entire logic and wisdom of regulatory delegation. First, in Perez v. Mortgage Bankers, he asked whether the Court’s precedent in Seminole Rock, requiring judicial deference to executive interpretation of regulations, improperly “represents a transfer of judicial power to the Executive Branch.” He says that decision “precludes judges from independently determining” the meaning of laws and unfairly favors the executive against the legislative branch in interpreting the law.

In Department of Transportation v. Association of American Railroads, Thomas even demanded judicial review of the Court’s whole existing standard, which delegates rulemaking to the executive as long as there is an “intelligible principle” in the law to guide the executive. Thomas argues, to the contrary, that that principle has become “boundless” today, undermining the original constitutional understanding of legislative power.

Pretty much everyone knows the regulatory system is broken and probably unconstitutionally so; but nothing ever changes. The executive loves to boss folks around, Congress is afraid to act, and the courts are so isolated they actually think the regulators know what they are doing.

Just in time to prevent despair, however, the nation’s most inventive social scientist, Charles Murray, has written another ground-breaking book, mischievously titled By the People: Rebuilding Liberty Without Permission. Murray concludes that the government is incapable of changing its ingrained irresponsibility, so he suggests that reform should be initiated by the people themselves.

Murray starts with the fact that there are so many federal regulations on so many daily behaviors that it is impossible for the regulators to enforce them. The traffic police can issue tickets on rural roads, but they cannot enforce reasonably-over-the-speed-limit driving on crowded highways. It is the same with regulators. They can only effectively police when few disregard the rules. They can then come down good and hard on them. Most settle without a trial, knowing that bureaucratic courts are rigged against them.

Murray would create a Madison Fund named for the father of the Constitution to provide legal assistance to the public, which is encouraged to simply ignore the screwiest regulations. If Americans refused to obey irrational regulations and were backed by an insurance-like fund that would provide legal support to, and publicity for, those unreasonably harassed, regulators themselves would soon learn not to enforce indefensible rules.

Murray believes it would only take a few wealthy contributors to get the Fund established, and that trade associations might get into the business too. Congress might even find enough courage to act constitutionally, if enough people get involved. There are many devils in the details, but sign me up anyway.

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

If Only Christians In America Today Would Sing Louder!

When the hypocrites and accomplices to Adolph Hitler (Matthew 7:21-23) would sing praises to Jesus in the protestant churches in Germany, they would sing louder to drown out the noise of the Jews, Gypsies, and dissidents who were crying out for help while they were being hauled off in cattle cars to concentration camps–or even worse, extermination camps (Psalm 78:9).

When church services were over, they would find their cars toppled with the ash of the bodies that were burned in the incinerators.

To further the atrocities of these traitors to Christ, they were the ones handing off their youth groups to do Hitler’s killing for them.

These professors loved Jesus so much that they simply disobeyed His commandments with every opportunity they had (1 John 2:4).

I am sure most of you have heard:

“First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out—Because I was not a Socialist.
Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out— Because I was not a Trade Unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out— Because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.”

– Martin Niemöller

Martin Niemöller is perhaps best remembered for this quotation. I have heard this quote many times before, but it was just recently that I learned that the man who said it was a prominent protestant pastor during the time of Hitler and the Nazis. It was learning this fact that made all the difference in the world in understanding where this quote stemmed from.

This quotation stemmed from Niemöller’s lectures during the early postwar period. His point was that Germans and, in particular, the leaders of the Protestant churches had been complicit through their silence in the Nazi imprisonment, persecution, and murder of millions of people.

Martin Niemöller was one of the first Germans to talk publicly about the broader complicity in the Holocaust and guilt for what had happened to the Jews. In his book, published in English as “Of Guilt and Hope” in January of 1946, Niemöller wrote:

Thus, whenever I chance to meet a Jew known to me before, then, as a Christian, I cannot but tell him: ‘Dear Friend, I stand in front of you, but we cannot get together, for there is guilt between us. I have sinned and my people has sinned against thy people and against thyself.’

Although he did suffer, spending the last seven years of Nazi rule in concentration camps, he still recognized his own guilt for not speaking out against tyranny.

In fact, we could rewrite Niemöller’s quote quite well for today’s church leaders. It would probably go something like this:

First they came for prayer in school, and I did not speak out—Because I was not a student. Nor did I ever look into the fact that the Supreme Court is not above the law (Article 3, Sections 1 of The United States Constitution (Ephesians 6:18)).

Then they came to murder the unborn in their mother’s womb, and I did not speak out— Because I was not an unborn child. After all, I was told that the Supreme Court could sanction the murder of the innocent in the womb by simply calling it a woman’s choice (Proverbs 6:17).

Then they came for the legalization of two men or two woman getting “married” to upend America’s sovereignty and I did not speak out (as if to say the Supreme court injustices have a God given right to redefine what God Himself designed)— because I did not want to be called a hater or a bigot (Leviticus 18:22, 20:13, Romans 1:24)

Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak out for me, because I never spoke out for anyone else (let alone God) (Ezekiel 3).

It is disgraceful what we are not seeing from the pulpits in America today. Rather than seeing a thunderous barrage of righteous indignation against murder of the unborn, and zeal against tyranny, injustice, immorality, we are hearing virtually nothing from over 300,000 pulpits…silence (Zechariah 1:15).

“To sin by silence, when we should protest, makes cowards out of men.”

We hear Church leaders (1 Corinthians 12:28) say, “Well, I don’t speak out against anything political.” The murder of innocent children, political? Homosexual marriage, political? A corrupt, wicked, and lawless administration that means to destroy your country and religious freedom, political?

Here we see in Niemöller a man who could not change the destruction that took place in the lives of millions of people. Prevention would have been better than curing. He could not go back in time and right the wrongs, but America still can.

If not now, then when? If not you, then who?

Together, we can turn this destruction around; but if you choose to remain silent, don’t be surprised when they come for you and there is no one left to speak out. And at that point, you can rest assured that others may sing loud enough to drown out your cries.

Study The Past:

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