Can Federal Judges Run Public Schools?

Judicial tyranny, specifically in the American court system, has usurped legislative jurisdiction–and I am so bold as to add Divine jurisdiction–in our Constitutional Republic.

We saw its egregious head again this past weekend after a Mississippi school district canceled Brandon High School’s marching band’s playing of the Christian hymn “How Great Thou Art” during halftime at Friday night’s football season opener.  

The reason?

It was decided that singing a hymn was too similar to a recent ban by U.S. District Judge Carlton Reeves given to the Rankin County School District on July 10, saying it promoted Christianity during school hours after it agreed to stop. So Reeves fined the district $7,500 and again ordered it to stop sponsoring prayers at graduations, assemblies, athletic competitions and other school events, WLBT-TV reported.

“That means administrators, teachers and staff of the Rankin County School District may not participate in any religious activity, or solicit or encourage religious activities at school or while performing duties as a RCSD employee,” Reeves added.

However, this didn’t stop dozens of parents and students and fans from performing “How Great Thou Art” on their own.

Parent Kimberly Moore said: “It bothers me because you look at the schools and all of the school shootings and all the bad things that are happening, and wonder why. It’s because we’re allowing evil to step in.”

Lamentably, America has encouraged this evil for decades. With examples like Engel v. Vitale (1962) and Abington School District v. Schempp (1963), the U.S. Supreme Court established what is now the current prohibition on state-sponsored prayer in schools.

Evil is succinctly summed up by what the Ten Commandments prohibit, and to display this warning sign to potential violators in public was never questioned until the Supreme Court ruling in 1980 of Stone v. Graham that students could not even be permitted, voluntarily or otherwise, to see a display of the Ten Commandments. The majority view stated: “If the posted copies of the Ten Commandments are to have any effect at all, it will be to induce the schoolchildren to read, meditate upon, perhaps to venerate and obey, the Commandments. However desirable this might be as a matter of private devotion, it is not a permissible state objective under the Establishment Clause.”

So, the legal question I present to you is whether this clause has been violated. In other words, does singing a hymn equate to Congress making a law, the effect of which is to establish an official United States religion?

Well, the answer seems to clearly be “NO” for at least two very simple reasons:

  1. Brandon High School is NOT the “Congress”; and,
  2. A hymn being sung is not a “law.” It is simply a song.

In order to find that a hymn sung in Mississippi (or anywhere else) is a violation of the Establishment Clause, the first thing you have to conclude is that Brandon High School is, in legal contemplation, the Congress of the United States.

Crazy, you say?

I agree.  But this is exactly the conclusion the Judge maintains through a “legal fiction” the courts call the “Incorporation Doctrine.”

This unconstitutional usurpation of Federal authority over America’s schools is the source of our issue and something I will expand on more in the weeks to come. You will find out that this overt attack on our students’ faith is part of a bigger plan.

I leave you with the words of founding father Fisher Ames, who provided the wording for the 1st Amendment that every judge I have referenced used as a legal basis to eliminate Biblical references. “The Bible”, said Ames, “is the source of sound morality and behavior in America and that we must never let it be separated from the classroom.”

 

Learn more about your Constitution with Jake MacAulay and the Institute on the Constitution and receive your free gift.

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

The Raping Of America: Mile Markers On The Road To Fascism

“Freedom is never voluntarily given by the oppressor; it must be demanded by the oppressed.”—Martin Luther King Jr.

There’s an ill will blowing across the country. The economy is tanking. The people are directionless, and politics provides no answer. And like former regimes, the militarized police have stepped up to provide a façade of law and order manifested by an overt violence against the citizenry.

Despite the revelations of the past several years, nothing has changed to push back against the American police state. Our freedoms—especially the Fourth Amendment—continue to be choked out by a prevailing view among government bureaucrats that they have the right to search, seize, strip, scan, spy on, probe, pat down, taser, and arrest any individual at any time and for the slightest provocation.

Despite the recent outrage and protests, nothing has changed to restore us to our rightful role as having dominion over our bodies, our lives and our property, especially when it comes to interactions with the government.

Forced cavity searches, forced colonoscopies, forced blood draws, forced breath-alcohol tests, forced DNA extractions, forced eye scans, forced inclusion in biometric databases—these are just a few ways in which Americans continue to be reminded that we have no control over what happens to our bodies during an encounter with government officials. Thus far, the courts have done little to preserve our Fourth Amendment rights, let alone what shreds of bodily integrity remain to us.

Indeed, on a daily basis, Americans are being forced to relinquish the most intimate details of who we are—our biological makeup, our genetic blueprints, and our biometrics (facial characteristics and structure, fingerprints, iris scans, etc.)—in order to clear the nearly insurmountable hurdle that increasingly defines life in the United States.

In other words, we are all guilty until proven innocent.

Worst of all, it seems as if nothing will change as long as the American people remain distracted by politics, divided by their own prejudices, and brainwashed into believing that the Constitution still reigns supreme as the law of the land, when in fact, we have almost completed the shift into fascism.

In other words, despite our occasional bursts of outrage over abusive police practices, sporadic calls for government reform, and periodic bouts of awareness that all is not what it seems, the police state continues to march steadily onward.

Such is life in America today that individuals are being threatened with arrest and carted off to jail for the least hint of noncompliance, homes are being raided by police under the slightest pretext, and roadside police stops have devolved into government-sanctioned exercises in humiliation and degradation with a complete disregard for privacy and human dignity.

Consider, for example, what happened to Charnesia Corley after allegedly being pulled over by Texas police for “rolling” through a stop sign. Claiming they smelled marijuana, police handcuffed Corley, placed her in the back of the police cruiser, and then searched her car for almost an hour. They found nothing in the car.

As the Houston Chronicle reported:

Returning to his car where Corley was held, the deputy again said he smelled marijuana and called in a female deputy to conduct a cavity search. When the female deputy arrived, she told Corley to pull her pants down, but Corley protested because she was cuffed and had no underwear on. The deputy ordered Corley to bend over, pulled down her pants and began to search her. Then…Corley stood up and protested, so the deputy threw her to the ground and restrained her while another female was called in to assist. When backup arrived, each deputy held one of Corley’s legs apart to conduct the probe.

As shocking and disturbing as it seems, Corley’s roadside cavity search is becoming par for the course in an age in which police are taught to have no respect for the citizenry’s bodily integrity.

For instance, 38-year-old Angel Dobbs and her 24-year-old niece, Ashley, were pulled over by a Texas state trooper on July 13, 2012, allegedly for flicking cigarette butts out of the car window. Insisting that he smelled marijuana, he proceeded to interrogate them and search the car. Despite the fact that both women denied smoking or possessing any marijuana, the police officer then called in a female trooper, who carried out a roadside cavity search, sticking her fingers into the older woman’s anus and vagina, then performing the same procedure on the younger woman, wearing the same pair of gloves. No marijuana was found.

David Eckert was forced to undergo an anal cavity search, three enemas, and a colonoscopy after allegedly failing to yield to a stop sign at a Wal-Mart parking lot. Cops justified the searches on the grounds that they suspected Eckert was carrying drugs because his “posture [was] erect” and “he kept his legs together.” No drugs were found.

Leila Tarantino was subjected to two roadside strip searches in plain view of passing traffic during a routine traffic stop, while her two children—ages 1 and 4—waited inside her car. During the second strip search, presumably in an effort to ferret out drugs, a female officer “forcibly removed” a tampon from Tarantino. Nothing illegal was found. Nevertheless, such searches have been sanctioned by the courts, especially if accompanied by a search warrant (which is easily procured), as justified in the government’s pursuit of drugs and weapons.

Meanwhile, four Milwaukee police officers were charged with carrying out rectal searches of suspects on the street and in police district stations over the course of several years. One of the officers was accused of conducting searches of men’s anal and scrotal areas, often inserting his fingers into their rectums and leaving some of his victims with bleeding rectums. Halfway across the country, the city of Oakland, California, agreed to pay $4.6 million to 39 men who had their pants pulled down by police on city streets between 2002 and 2009.

It’s gotten so bad that you don’t even have to be suspected of possessing drugs to be subjected to a strip search.

In the wake of the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in Florence v. Burlison, any person who is arrested and processed at a jail house, regardless of the severity of his or her offense (i.e., they can be guilty of nothing more than a minor traffic offense), can be subjected to a strip search by police or jail officials without reasonable suspicion that the arrestee is carrying a weapon or contraband.

Examples of minor infractions which have resulted in strip searches include: individuals arrested for driving with a noisy muffler, driving with an inoperable headlight, failing to use a turn signal, riding a bicycle without an audible bell, making an improper left turn, and engaging in an antiwar demonstration (the individual searched was a nun, a Sister of Divine Providence for 50 years). Police have also carried out strip searches for passing a bad check, dog leash violations, filing a false police report, failing to produce a driver’s license after making an illegal left turn, having outstanding parking tickets, and public intoxication. A failure to pay child support can also result in a strip search.

It must be remembered that the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution was intended to prevent government agents from searching an individual’s person or property without a warrant and probable cause (evidence that some kind of criminal activity was afoot). While the literal purpose of the amendment is to protect our property and our bodies from unwarranted government intrusion, the moral intention behind it is to protect our human dignity.

Unfortunately, the indignities being heaped upon us by the architects and agents of the American police state—whether or not we’ve done anything wrong—don’t end with roadside strip searches. They’re just a foretaste of what is to come.

As I make clear in my book Battlefield America: The War on the American People, the government doesn’t need to strip you naked by the side of the road in order to render you helpless. It has other methods, less subtle perhaps but equally humiliating, devastating and mind-altering, of stripping you of your independence, robbing you of your dignity, and undermining your rights.

With every court ruling that allows the government to operate above the rule of law, every piece of legislation that limits our freedoms, and every act of government wrongdoing that goes unpunished, we’re slowly being conditioned to a society in which we have little real control over our lives. As Rod Serling, creator of the Twilight Zone and an insightful commentator on human nature, once observed, “We’re developing a new citizenry. One that will be very selective about cereals and automobiles, but won’t be able to think.”

Indeed, not only are we developing a new citizenry incapable of thinking for themselves, we’re also instilling in them a complete and utter reliance on the government and its corporate partners to do everything for them—tell them what to eat, what to wear, how to think, what to believe, how long to sleep, who to vote for, whom to associate with, and on and on.

In this way, we have created a welfare state, a nanny state, a police state, a surveillance state, an electronic concentration camp—call it what you will; the meaning is the same: in our quest for less personal responsibility, a greater sense of security, and no burdensome obligations to each other or to future generations, we have created a society in which we have no true freedom.

Government surveillance, police abuse, SWAT team raids, economic instability, asset forfeiture schemes, pork barrel legislation, militarized police, drones, endless wars, private prisons, involuntary detentions, biometrics databases, free speech zones, etc.: these are mile markers on the road to a fascist state where citizens are treated like cattle, to be branded and eventually led to the slaughterhouse.

If there is any hope to be found, it will be found in local, grassroots activism. In the words of Martin Luther King Jr., it’s time for “militant nonviolent resistance.”

First, however, Americans must break free of the apathy-inducing turpor of politics, entertainment spectacles and manufactured news. Only once we are free of the chains that bind us—or to be more exact, the chains that “blind” us—can we become actively aware of the injustices taking place around us and demand freedom of our oppressors.

 

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

The ‘Gay Marriage’ Gauntlet: Time To Choose

It’s never fun to be proven right when warning of some impending wrong. Many in the pro-family movement have long stressed that the cultural Marxist left’s belligerent push for the judicial fiction that is “gay marriage” was never about gaining “equal access” to this biologically exclusive male-female institution, as they profess–but, rather, is, and has always been, about control.

While there are many layers to unfold, the almost instant explosion in government-sanctioned, anti-Christian extremism on display post Obergefell v. Hodges confirms the poisonous three-fold agenda that underlies the “social justice” mob’s flowery “marriage equality” propaganda. That is: 1) the ultimate destruction of marriage, 2) forced affirmation of sexual deviancy under penalty of law, and 3) the eventual criminalization of Christianity.

The destruction of marriage

Here’s the bottom line: Homosexual activists don’t want the white picket fence; they want to burn down the white picket fence. The endgame is not to achieve so-called “marriage equality” but, rather, to render marriage reality meaningless.

Masha Gessen, a lesbian journalist, activist and author, expressly admitted this fact in a 2012 interview with ABC Radio: “It’s a no-brainer that [homosexuals] should have the right to marry,” she said. “But I also think equally that it’s a no-brainer that the institution of marriage should not exist. … [F]ighting for gay marriage generally involves lying about what we are going to do with marriage when we get there – because we lie that the institution of marriage is not going to change, and that is a lie.”

Homosexual activist and pornographer Clinton Fein echoes Gessen’s candid sentiments: “Demand the institution [of marriage] and then wreck it,” he once wrote. “James Dobson was right about our evil intentions,” he quipped. “We just plan to be quicker than he thought.”

The goal is to water down marriage until marriage is pointless. And as evidenced by the burgeoning legal push for polygamous and incestuous “marriages” – even for the “right” to “marry” a robot – sexual anarchists are well on their way to achieving this goal.

Forced affirmation of sexual deviancy

Here’s what Christian America is already experiencing from coast to coast. On Wednesday, civil rights law firm Liberty Counsel filed a request for a stay and an appeal of U.S. District Judge David Bunning’s opinion ordering Rowan County Clerk Kim Davis to issue same-sex “marriage” licenses both in violation of her First Amendment right to religious free exercise and the biblical mandate that she must not participate in this explicitly sinful activity. Davis had been sued by the ACLU and two lesbian political activists.

“The plaintiffs in this case only sought licenses from Ms. Davis after learning of her religious objections to same-sex ‘marriage,’ and they refuse to obtain a license elsewhere,” said Mat Staver, founder and chairman of Liberty Counsel. “Just as Justice Alito predicted in his dissent in Obergefell, secularists are trying to ‘stamp out every vestige of dissent’ by targeting people of faith who do not agree with same-sex ‘marriage.’”

Judge Bunning wrote: “Davis remains free to practice her Apostolic Christian beliefs. She may continue to attend church twice a week, participate in Bible study and minister to female inmates at the Rowan County Jail. She is even free to believe that marriage is a union between one man and one woman, as many Americans do. However, her religious convictions cannot excuse her from performing the duties that she took an oath to perform as Rowan County Clerk,” the ruling said.

“Judge Bunning’s decision equated Kim’s free exercise of religion to going to church. This is absurd!” responded Staver. “Christianity is not a robe you take off when you leave a sanctuary. The First Amendment guarantees Kim and every American the free exercise of religion, even when they are working for the government.

“Kim Davis did not sign up as a clerk to issue same-sex ‘marriage’ licenses. Her job duty was changed by five lawyers without any constitutional authority. At a minimum, her religious convictions should be accommodated,” concluded Staver.

Indeed, Davis’ oath as county clerk was to defend and protect the U.S. Constitution and the constitution of Kentucky. As Chief Justice John Roberts rightly observed in his Obergefell dissent, the activist majority’s opinion actually hijacks the democratic process and is in no way rooted in the Constitution: “[D]o not celebrate the Constitution,” he said. “It had nothing to do with it.”

The fact is that if Ms. Davis were to issue counterfeit same-sex “marriage” licenses, she would not only be disobeying God and directly participating in expressly sinful activity; she would be violating her constitutional oath.

The criminalization of Christianity

To her credit, Ms. Davis is standing her ground while the decision is appealed. Predictably, many leftists are now clamoring for her imprisonment. They want her held in contempt of court and thrown in jail for refusing to at once affirm homosexual sin and violate God’s commands. This is the new pagan orthodoxy. It’s “here, it’s queer, get used to it.”

Meanwhile, Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF) reports on “a Colorado Court of Appeals decision Thursday in Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Craig, regarding a cake artist who declined to use his artistic abilities to promote and endorse their same-sex ceremony even though other cake artists were willing to do the job.”

“Americans are guaranteed the freedom to live and work consistent with their faith,” observed ADF attorney Jeremy Tedesco. “Government has a duty to protect people’s freedom to follow their beliefs personally and professionally rather than force them to adopt the government’s views. Jack (C. Phillips, the cake artist) simply exercised the long-cherished American freedom to decline to use his artistic talents to promote a message with which he disagrees. The court is wrong to deny Jack his fundamental freedoms.”

The court affirmed an earlier order wherein Phillips and his Christian staff were not only ordered to bake homosexual “wedding” cakes against their will, but were additionally forced into pro-homosexual “sensitivity” propaganda classes.

And if they refuse?

Then they go to jail.

That’s how it works. Christian free exercise isn’t outlawed all at once. Judges across our fruity plain simply order from the bench that millions of Christians, just like Kim Davis and Jack Phillips, must either deny recognition of God’s natural order and Christ’s admonition to “go and sin no more,” or face prison for “contempt of court.”

Welcome to 2015 America, where evil is good, men are women, judges are tyrants, and Christians are persona non grata. There is no more in between. The anti-Christ left has thrown down the “gay marriage” gauntlet. It’s either God or man.

“But if serving the LORD seems undesirable to you, then choose for yourselves this day whom you will serve. … But as for me and my household, we will serve the LORD” (Joshua 24:15).

Whom will you serve?

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

Why Is Government Even Regulating Marriage?

In America, the state, not the Bible nor the church, regulates, defines, and redefines marriage. Americans cannot be legally married without complying with and gaining the government’s permission.

Yet prior to the 16th century, this was not the case. No government regulated marriage; only churches and synagogues recorded and regulated birth, marriage, sex, and death. In fact, the overwhelming misunderstanding of the First Amendment and the concept of “separation of church and state” contribute to overall confusion as to why the American government institutionalized marriage.

Understanding America’s historical roots provides significant insight. In the early 1600s, English Puritans immigrated to America in part because they rejected the Church of England’s position on marriage. The Puritans asserted that marriage was a civil contract, not a religious ceremony.

Once they arrived in the New World, the Puritans instituted their own marriage laws—which became the customary model for marriage throughout New England. They legally required marriages to be “agreed” or “executed” (not “performed” or “solemnized”) by a magistrate, not a minister. They also legalized divorce if the terms of the marriage agreement were broken.

Unlike its European counterparts that instituted civil marriage in the 18th and 19th centuries, the United States left the issue of marriage to the states, resembling a mélange of western Christian marriage traditions within a federalist system. Other colonial regions followed different traditions: Virginian law modeled the Anglican position on marriage; Quakers brought their version to Delaware, and Catholics in Maryland and other states.

All of these traditions were significantly impacted by the Protestant Reformation, whose leaders overhauled previously existing and long-held quasi-church-state authority over marriage. The early American settlers followed the example of the reformers who had transferred the “ordinance of marriage” (previously overseen by the Roman Catholic Church) to the secular state.

Martin Luther, the Catholic priest who initiated the Protestant Reformation in Germany, argued marriage was a “worldly thing … that belongs to the realm of government.” John Calvin, his Swiss counterpart, remodeled Christian marriage by enacting the Marriage Ordinance of Geneva, which regulated and enforced “the dual requirements of state registration and church consecration to constitute marriage.”

Nearly five centuries later, Protestants continue to insert government into marriage, demanding it be regulated in the civil realm. In 1996, former president Bill Clinton signed the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) into law, which was partially dismantled in 2013 and fully rejected on June 26, 2015 by the Supreme Court.

The federal government did not codify marriage until 1996; such licensing had always been determined by the states. Since 2004, the majority of states have granted marriage licenses to same-sex couples. However, in many cases, such as in Iowa or Alabama, licenses for same-sex unions were administered despite state statutes or constitutions prohibiting it.

Unelected judges began overruling the majority will of the people, first in California with Proposition 8 and later in Iowa. Marriage became a legal and political quagmire that could have been avoided.

If the early settlers had followed the early church’s example evidenced throughout the New Testament, perhaps biblical marriage would not have been transformed into a regulated government institution.

If marriage had been left to the church, its leaders could marry only its members who practice and follow its beliefs. Civil unions and legal matters among any parties could be left to the government in order to provide the full range of civil liberties citizens in a quasi-democratic republic expect.

Granted, 17th century Puritans rightly viewed the government as agents of God’s authority; yet they morphed this belief with aspects of legalism and reinforced some of the same mistakes and compromises the 16th century protestant reformers made. Five centuries later, the consequences of those decisions, and the failure of their descendants to change them, resulted in the confusion that today validates the government’s authority to regulate and redefine marriage.

This column was originally published by Constitution.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

Oklahoma Demands The Removal Of This Monument Depicting One Of Christianity’s Most Important Doctrines

A controversial ruling by the Oklahoma Supreme Court this week has sparked controversy among those on both sides of a recurring First Amendment issue. Months after a new Ten Commandments memorial was erected on State Capitol grounds to replace a similar monument destroyed in an automobile crash, the court determined such a display violates the state’s constitution.

Capture

KWTV reported that, in a 7-2 decision Tuesday, the court dictated that the monument was unconstitutional and must be taken down. The decision was met with widespread criticism among many Oklahomans, including state officials like Attorney General Scott Pruitt.

In a statement released shortly after the court’s ruling, he stated bluntly that the majority “got it wrong.”

Pruitt cited the historical context of the Ten Commandments as a valid reason to permit such a monument to be displayed on state property.

“The court completely ignored the profound historical impact of the Ten Commandments on the foundation of Western law,” he stated, asserting that the latest decision contradicted previous constitutional interpretations by the same court.

In response, he confirmed that his office “will file a petition with the court for a rehearing in light of the broader implications of this ruling on other areas of the law.”

In the meantime, Pruitt is asking that enforcement of the court’s order be delayed until a decision is made regarding the requested rehearing.

Many social media critics echoed Pruitt’s sentiment regarding the Ten Commandments’ relevance.

Capture

Should displays of the Ten Commandments be banned on public property? Share your thoughts in the comments section below.

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