BREAKING: The Supreme Court Just Made A HUGE Move That Threatens Dem Campaign Cash

In a surprise move that could pose a major threat to organized labor — a key Democrat constituency that supports liberal candidates with vast amounts of campaign cash — the U.S. Supreme Court has just said it will hear a controversial case out of California. USA Today reports that the justices have agreed to consider the case of Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association, “challenging the requirement that teachers contribute to unions, even if they don’t join them or agree with their positions on issues.”

The USA Today article points out that, in the most recent case to come before the court in which the forced union dues have been challenged by people who don’t support what those dues have paid for politically, a sharply divided court ruled against the union policy.

“…the court ruled 5-4 along ideological lines that home-care workers in Illinois do not have to pay dues to public employee unions. The workers said the unions lobbied the government, often on issues the workers oppose — thereby abridging their First Amendment rights.”

In the California case that will bring the critical issue back before the Supreme Court in late fall, two lower courts have upheld the demand by the California Teachers Association that teachers contribute to the union, even if they don’t belong to the union or don’t agree with the group’s position of issues.

The Los Angeles Times article on the high court’s taking up the case notes just how important the eventual outcome of the matter could be to public employee unions and the causes, candidates and campaigns they support with massive amounts of money. What makes this pending decision even more critical is its timing as the 2016 election cycle moves into high gear.

The case is likely to be seen as crucial test of public employee unions, which have under political attack in several Republican-led states. The outcome may well have a political impact as well, because these unions have been reliable supporters of the Democratic Party.

The Times coverage notes just how much money the public-sector union collects from each member and non-member. “The lawsuit said full dues for teachers who join the union are about $1,000 a year, but non-members still have to pay about $650 on average for their share of the cost of collective bargaining….”

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

Judicial Tyranny And Dark Days In America

What should we do when laws are passed or upheld that go against our faith and conscience?

Not surprisingly, the Supreme Court has ruled that same-sex couples have a right to marry in all 50 states, a historic decision striking down gay marriage bans and defying nature, biology, reason, and the Constitution.

First, the Obamacare ruling.

With the Supreme Court issuing its second major decision upholding abortion funding in Obamacare, we again have an opportunity to speak, act, or simply do nothing. Their decision in King v. Burwell says that millions of Americans can receive taxpayer subsidies allowing them to purchase health care plans under the [Un]Affordable Care Act.

Inconvenient pregnancy? No problem. American citizens will pay for your abortion. Next up: redefining God-ordained marriage as deviance or whatever you want it to be.

It doesn’t matter that the majority of people oppose Obamacare and homosexual behavior. We have surpassed the point in America where government power trumps the will of the people. Moreover, it was wrong of Supreme Court justices Ginsburg and Kagan not to recuse themselves from this case–seeing they gladly participated in same sex “marriage” ceremonies in the past.

Five progressive Supreme Court justices have now redefined marriage – the only definition of marriage known throughout history – completely ignoring 51 million American voters who have cast ballots in favor of biblical, natural marriage in state constitutional amendments.

In an 1820 letter to militia officer William Jarvis, Thomas Jefferson wrote:

You seem … to consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions; a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy … Their power is the more dangerous as they are in office for life and not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective control.

Jefferson was one of several who warned that the courts could gain power little by little, advancing like a thief “until all shall be usurped from the states.” We truly do not give America’s Framers and Founders enough credit for their wisdom and foresight.

More than 30 states have voted to ban same-sex marriage in recent years; but homosexual activists have won numerous court battles recently, including today’s daunting decision.

When something good, moral, and biblical is eliminated or removed, something bad, immoral, and unbiblical often replaces it. (Look at what has been ushered into government schools.)

Francis Schaeffer said:

We as Bible-believing evangelical Christians are locked in a battle. This is not a friendly gentleman’s discussion. It is a life and death conflict between the spiritual hosts of wickedness and those who claim the name of Christ.

Opposition is guaranteed. Most of us understand that living our faith in public will attract resistance, ridicule, and even hatred. If we remember our struggle is not against flesh and blood (Ephesians 6:12), we will not take it personally when people come against us.

Religious leaders in America should be bracing for a cultural and legal assault on churches, ministries, and religious schools. Non-profits holding to Christian values must prepare as well.

Our founders realized that if sinful men violated their God-given parameters as well as the constitutional limits of their office, government could become abusive. Since they established a system in which all three government branches were accountable to the people, they would be astonished today that the citizens the Constitution was written to protect have done little to resist the corruption, growth, and immorality of the United States government.

We are continuing to witness the consequences of Christians taking the path of least resistance. The world often interprets our silence as approval, so we must speak up about all sin as well as the need for repentance–and live the truth regarding marriage. We also must pray for a country that has turned its back on Almighty God, and for a lukewarm church in desperate need of revival.

The stakes have been raised. God is watching, and He knows those who are His.

For the Lord is our judge, The Lord is our lawgiver, The Lord is our king; He will save us. Isaiah 33:22

David Fiorazo is author of the new book, The Cost of Our Silence.

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

Huckabee Says He Will Do This Epic Thing As President Since Obama Lit Up White House With Rainbow Lights

In a recent interview with ABC’s George Stephanopoulos, Republican presidential candidate Mike Huckabee reacted to the prevailing news story of recent days. He criticized the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision to redefine marriage on a federal level, going on to cite Barack Obama’s reaction as especially inappropriate.

“We’ve seen something, though, that is, I find, very interesting,” he said. “When the president lit up the White House the other night with rainbow colors, I guess that’s his prerogative. If I become president, I just want to remind people that please don’t complain if I were to put a nativity scene out during Christmas and say it’s my house, I get to do with it as I wish despite what other people around the country may feel about it.”

Capture

Huckabee went on to lament the ostensible hypocrisy with which leftists treat the judicial branch. He couched his point in the narrative of a hypothetical scenario.

“We’re also going to say that every unborn person is in fact a person,” he said, “and is absolutely guaranteed due process. And therefore we would strike down the idea of abortion from conception forward. Is the left going to be OK to let the Supreme Court make that decision? Because, based on the response this week, I think they have to say, ‘Yes, that’s fine. When five lawyers on the Supreme Court make that decision, we’re OK with it.’”

Huckabee has spoken out against judicial activism in the past, weighing in last month on the expected Supreme Court decision regarding gay marriage.

“When it comes to prayer,” he asserted, “when it comes to life, and when it comes to the sanctity of marriage, the court cannot change what God has created.”

Did Obama act inappropriately by promoting gay marriage with the recent rainbow light show? Share your thoughts in the comments section below.

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

Supreme Court Provokes The Wrath Of God

“Do not be deceived: God cannot be mocked. A man reaps what he sows.”  Galatians 6:7

“The LORD is gracious and compassionate, slow to anger and rich in love.”  Psalm 145:8

“Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life, but whoever rejects the Son will not see life, for God’s wrath remains on them.”  John 3:36

Certain people insist Jesus never said a word about homosexuality. The truth is he affirmed the entire Judeo-Christian Scripture, even foreseeing the writing of the New Testament. That ultimate moral authority prohibits all sexual behavior outside monogamous, heterosexual marriage. All such behavior is called sin, including fornication, adultery, homosexuality, bestiality, polygamy, sodomy, and pedophilia. Therefore, Jesus calls homosexuality sin. Despite the Supreme Court, there is no denying this fact.

God in His wisdom says ‘yes’ to some things and ‘no’ to other things. He does so for our own good. Sin is a killer, a destroyer, the evil force, harmful in all its manifestations. Consequently, our loving heavenly Father says no to sin, urging us to shun it, even sending his Son to deal with it that we might live in health in this world, and forever in the next. The homosexual lifestyle is terribly unhealthy by any measure. Promoting it is not an act of love. Warning people about the temporal and eternal consequences is an act of love, the true path to liberty, contrary to what Obama stated.

A time comes when God’s patience will wear out, when people who actively promote sin are given over to their lusts, when judgment descends revealing His wrath. That time rapidly approaches.

Mere man cannot violate the laws of nature and of nature’s God without suffering terrible consequences.

When the state comes along forcing a sin agenda, it provokes both the wrath of God and the sentiment of the majority. The activist/legislative Supreme Court (violating the very Constitution the Justices are sword to uphold) affirmed same sex marriage in its ruling June 26. Think of it: the Supreme Court mocked God. Wrath and judgment will follow.

We did not learn during the last 30 years watching millions of people die from HIV/AIDS. In 2013 alone, 1.5 million men, women, and children died from HIV/AIDS. Europeans affirmed same sex marriage long ago, and now you see massive demonstrations in France and Italy against it, and growing opposition in Scandinavia. Still, we do not learn.

If trends continue, we will not learn in the next 30 years. Read about the judgment to come in Revelation.

Revelation 6

Revelation 16

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

Government Hegemony Expands To Meaning Of Words!

This past week, the Supreme Court struck another major blow to common sense and the English language. In a ruling upholding the subsidies afforded to policies purchased on the federal insurance exchange, the SCOTUS opened a veritable Pandora’s Box of legal interpretation, and expanded power not only of the judiciary, but of the federal government itself.

Seven times throughout the Affordable Care Act (ACA), references are made to policies or individuals who are “enrolled in through an Exchange established by the State under section 1311 of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act…” In each case, the context is citing policies purchased through insurance exchanges established and operated by the respective states. But the court ruled the actual legal language, and even the context, didn’t matter. What mattered was the “intent” of the Congress. So reading “tea leaves” now has greater weight with our legal system than the literal words of legal documents!

To be clear, the case was brought to the court on that very issue, whether the literal meaning of the words of the statute were legally binding. The decision was not regarding the efficacy of the ACA, or whether it’s feasible. The decision was on whether the law could be interpreted to support federal subsidies for states with no insurance exchange or only those states that had established their own exchange.

Even Chief Justice John Roberts, who wrote the majority decision, conceded that a strict reading of the Act clearly meant only policies purchased through individual state exchanges were eligible for federal subsidies. He wrote: “While the meaning of the phrase…may seem plain when viewed in isolation, such a reading turns out to be untenable in light of the statute as a whole. Those credits are necessary for the Federal Exchanges to function like their State Exchange counterparts, and to avoid the type of calamitous result that Congress plainly meant to avoid.”

The Court has historically ruled on constitutionality of statute. With this decision, however, the Court has clearly become a proactive partner with Nancy Pelosi’s 111th Congress in writing the wholly inappropriately-named Affordable Care Act. Seven times, the Act described, in context, that subsidies would be available through Section 1311-sanctioned State Exchanges. Yet the Court by a 6-3 majority became a partner in writing the law, ex post facto, by redefining a key component of it.

Obviously, legislative intent is now more consequential than legal wording. This means that even legal documents generated by the government, which establish the rule of law by the selection and utilization of specific words and phrases, will not necessarily be judged based on what they actually say, but what the intent was. And since intent can be interpreted far beyond the scope of actual legalese, taking the government to court on any matter of law will now be a potentially arbitrary and spurious crapshoot.

To illustrate the absurdity of such a notion, imagine if the same principle applied to our legal documents regarding wills, property ownership, and child custody issues. If the Supreme Court’s logic, or illogic, were to be applied to our legal documents, what they say literally becomes inconsequential; for the intent is what is meaningful, not the words. We can claim that we didn’t intend to break the law when charged, but that doesn’t matter. But if we broke the law, what our intent was becomes inconsequential. Yet now, the government claims the plenipotentiary authority to claim that intent matters more than the actual law, and the language that created it. A government should never be able to do what an individual citizen can’t.

It’s common to take such a cavalier attitude towards what people or organizations say or write. They can say something, and then apologize for it, claiming that wasn’t their intent. But for government, this is a new low. It now has legal precedence to make the same claim with regard to statute and laws, if their intent was different than the actual wording of a law!

Justice Antonin Scalia illustrated the absurdity of the ruling in his dissent. “I wholeheartedly agree with the Court that sound interpretation requires paying attention to the whole law, not homing in on isolated words or even isolated sections. Context always matters. Let us not forget, however, why context matters: It is a tool for understanding the terms of the law, not an excuse for rewriting them…

“Far from offering the overwhelming evidence of meaning needed to justify the Court’s interpretation, other contextual clues undermine it at every turn. To begin with, other parts of the Act sharply distinguish between the establishment of an Exchange by a State and the establishment of an Exchange by the Federal Government….Provisions such as these destroy any pretense that a federal Exchange is in some sense also established by a State…

“The Court has not come close to presenting the compelling contextual case necessary to justify departing from the ordinary meaning of the terms of the law. Quite the contrary, context only underscores the outlandishness of the Court’s interpretation. Reading the Act as a whole leaves no doubt about the matter: ‘Exchange established by the State’ means what it looks like it means.”

This ruling is not dissimilar from the 2012 ruling upholding the mandate of Obamacare. That ruling sustained the Act by identifying the “mandate” as a “tax.” It would appear with two major SCOTUS decisions upholding the Act that the only way it can be deemed constitutional is by the Court’s new precedence of reinterpreting and changing what the words actually say, legally. In other words, jumping through logical and linguistic hoops to make it so. As Senator Rand Paul said, “This decision turns both the rule of law and common sense on its head.”

The omnipotent authority of the government over individual lives is now complete, when words can mean whatever the government chooses to make them mean. Alexander Hamilton, upon the founding of the nation, declared: “It’s not tyranny we desire; it’s a just, limited, federal government.” When government can arbitrarily change, reinterpret, and alter statute, after the fact, it is no longer just, or limited. It is totalitarian and hegemonic!

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