Down With The Constitution!

It has been quite an eventful and productive couple of weeks for the forces of statism in the former “land of the free, and home of the brave.”

The federal government’s highest court has enshrined “perversity” into law, guaranteeing untold amounts of future litigation while infringing on the right of freedom of association and, just as important, “disassociation” for those who rightly consider sodomy an abomination which wantonly mocks the Author of the natural law.

Prior to its cultural wrecking decision on “gay marriage,” the Court ensured that socialized medicine would become a permanent feature of American life, upholding a key provision of Obamacare.

While the Supreme Court was issuing its heinous decisions, the two other federal branches of government were also actively augmenting the American Leviathan. After considerable arm twisting, threats, payoffs, and a large dose of GOP support, President Obummer was able to secure passage of the TPA fast-track legislation–one of, if not, the greatest piece of “crony capitalism” legislation ever conceived. Of course, in the current statist era, the exact details of this monstrous law have not, as of yet, been made public; however, what has been made known is quite chilling.

While these liberty-defying acts were being committed, a prior provision of the American police state was renewed by Big Brother Barack and his Congressional Commissars. The National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), which outlines the budget and expenditures of the U.S. DefenseOffense Department, has since 2012 contained the provision (section 1021) “which allows the Federal government, through military force, to arrest anyone, including American citizens, without a warrant, and hold them indefinitely without charges or due process – habeas corpus.”

Naturally, there was considerable outrage among freedom groups and those within the alternative media over the latest expansion of federal power. The responses, however, were typical with calls for “taking back the country from the globalists,” “restoring the Constitution,” and “electing liberty-loving candidates to office.” The latter cry was spoken about the most with the Presidential election around the corner, with some commentators speculating on which candidate could best “turn things around.”

Such talk and the tactics promoted to combat totalitarian America have been trumpeted so many times that they have long lost their appeal. They are not only worn out, but they would not work even if successfully implemented–simply because they are not directed at the source of the problem.

The recent judicial decisions, the many wars, the debasement of the currency, spying, the fomentation of racial violence, and the ruination of the economy are the result of a single institution – the United States federal government – which was surreptitiously created with the “ratification” of the Constitution in 1789 against, as most historians agree, the will of the American majority for which it would tyrannically rule over ever since.

“The Miracle at Philadelphia” was a “miracle” only in the sense that the event has been viewed as some sort of liberty-defining watershed where individual rights would be safeguarded and state power held in check by the Constitution. Few historical fantasies have been believed for so long!

Instead of a federated system where power is decentralized between national and local governments, the Constitution created a highly centralized state through the document’s often vague terminology “for the general welfare,” and its explicit grants of power–“federal statute is the supreme law of the land.”* The highly lauded system of “checks and balances” between the three branches of government have rarely, if ever, stemmed the growth of state power.

Yet, despite the suzerainty of the federal state, “patriots” and all those opposed to the regime still believe the system can be “reformed.” Even when the national government is controlled by those supposedly sympathetic to liberty, government power continues to expand while any previous welfare or draconian measure enacted are never curtailed, much less abolished.

Attempts at reform or working within the “political process” are a gigantic waste of time. Instead, such efforts should be directed at secession, the goal of which is the dismemberment of the Federal Union into sovereign, independent entities–the greater in number, the better.

Until the Constitution is recognized for what it is, the chances of ending the American police state, economic recovery, and the cessation of the myriad of global conflicts, wars, and hostilities in which the U.S. is actively fomenting are next to nil.

The dissolution of the U.S. “federated” Republic is not only necessary for the well-being of Americans, but for the peoples of the globe, millions of which have been murdered, intimidated, plundered, and spied upon by the Leviathan residing on the shores of the Potomac. Likewise, as the Constitution has served as a model in the development of nation states throughout the last three centuries, so its demise will provide an example for the rest of the world to hopefully emulate.

* Kenneth W. Royce, Hologram of Liberty: The Constitution’s Shocking Alliance with Big Government.  Javelin Press, 2nd ed., 2012, pp. 105-106.

Antonius Aquinas@AntoniusAquinas

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

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

Right After The Supreme Court’s Gay Marriage Ruling, This Man Attempted Something Shocking

Within days of the Supreme Court ruling that same-sex marriage is a constitutional right, Montanan Nathan Collier went to his county clerk’s office to seek recognition of his polygamist marriage. The clerk’s office has now responded to his request.

Collier, in the eyes of the state, has been married to Victoria Collier since 2000, but also seeks legal recognition of his second wife, Christine Collier, who he married in a religious ceremony in 2007. “We just want to add legal legitimacy to an already happy, strong, loving family,” he told KRTV.

The Colliers have appeared in an episode of TLC’s show “Sister Wives.”

Yellowstone Deputy County Attorney Kevin Gillen refused their request: “I am not in the business of speculating as to what types of consequences (and new laws) may flow from the recent Supreme Court case,” he wrote.

“However, until such time that laws change, the law of the State of Montana is that bigamy and polygamy are illegal arrangements and, consequently, the Yellowstone County Clerk of District Court is unable to issue such a marriage license.”

Christine said she was disappointed but expected this outcome: “We kind of anticipated that the answer would be no,” she said. “It was predictable based on how the laws are written. There’s no distinction between polygamy and bigamy in the written law. To us, polygamy is consensual, where bigamy would be non-consensual.”

Vicki Collier added that the family was disappointed with the decision: “This affects people’s lives. It was heartbreaking, and I tried to prepare Christine for that because there’s always that small glimmer of hope.” She also noted: “I just don’t understand why the government would label a law a Marriage Equality Act and then discriminate against other forms of marriage.” | Great Falls, Montana
As reported by Western Journalism, Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito saw the strength of Nathan’s argument if the court ruled there is a “fundamental right” to marry the person one chooses that is not guided by the millennia old definition of one man and one woman.

During oral arguments in the same-sex marriage case in April, Alito asked Mary Bonauto, counsel for the same-sex couples, that if the court rules in her clients’ favor and overturns state laws defining marriage as between one man and one woman, how others who believe they are not being treated equally by the current definition could realistically be denied the right to marry. He offered the example of polygamy.

Bonauto responded that the law could keep the definition as being only between two people because there is usually some form of coercion in polygamist relationships.

He questioned the attorney further: “Well, what if…these are four people, two men and two women… And let’s say they’re all consenting adults, highly educated. They’re all lawyers. What would be the ground under – under the logic of the decision you would like us to hand down in this case – what would be the logic of denying them the same right?”

Bonauto replied: “Number one, I assume the states would rush in and say that when you’re talking about multiple people joining into a relationship, that that is not the same thing that we’ve had in marriage, which is on the mutual support and consent of two people…”

And that is where Alito revealed her contradiction: “But, well, I don’t know what kind of a distinction that is because a marriage between two people of the same sex is not something that we have had before.”

He expounded that if the court adopted Bonauto’s “mutual support and consent” definition of marriage, there really is no place to stand against all-comers demanding their “fundamental right” to marry.

Chief Justice John Roberts wrote in his dissent in the Supreme Court’s 5-4 decision to establish same-sex marriage as a constitutional right: “One immediate question invited by the majority’s position is whether States may retain the definition of marriage as a union of two people.”

He explains: “If not having the opportunity to marry ‘serves to disrespect and subordinate’ gay and lesbian couples, why wouldn’t the same ‘imposition of this disability’ serve to disrespect and subordinate people who find fulfillment in polyamorous relationships?”

“It’s about marriage equality,” Nathan Collier told the Washington Times. “You can’t have this without polygamy.”

“We’re not even asking for acceptance,” Nathan added. “We’re just asking for tolerance. Let us live our lives together without fear.”

He and his wives plan to pursue their case in court.

h/t: IJReview

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

For The Last Time, Jerusalem Is The Capitol Of Israel

Many Americans – including Christians – scoff at a spiritual imperative to recognize Jerusalem as the capitol of Israel and Israel as the capitol of God’s Kingdom on earth. They affirm a cuddly Jesus who loves children and awaits our arrival at the heavenly buffet table while denying Him as a warrior King who embodies His Father’s call to let justice roll like a mighty river and sets people free from bondage to embodied evil by shedding His own blood. This fiercely loving Christ is very present in our world while yet rooted in the much larger world of His Holy Spirit. This Spirit world – like the material world so many believe to be all there is – will be fully redeemed with His return in glory. In the meantime, it is populated by the goodness of God and the deprivation of good that is all evil can ever be. Ignoring it makes us as vulnerable to danger as it leaves us bereft of great opportunities to know and be known by our God in His own neighborhood.

When I was in Israel in 2012, I spent my last full day in the old Jerusalem. Visiting the Western Wall, I was literally struck dumb by the overwhelming presence of the Lord in His Spirit as I placed my hands and head on the ancient masonry. I was so overtaken I could not speak. While my forehead was placed against the wall, I could scarcely breathe. But that was not the only spiritual experience I was given that day.

While walking to the Western Wall, I become lost in the maze of Jerusalem alleys and byways leading to the Temple site. A Palestinian offered to guide me to my destination. I explained I was out of money and would be unable to pay him; he assured me he wanted only to serve. He led me to a rooftop overlooking Temple Square and asked me for money. When I reminded him he had agreed to no charge, he began to scream obscenities at me. But that was not all. “I know who you are,” he shrieked. “I know you! You are a priest! You are all alike, you priests!”

I am an Anglican priest. That day, I was dressed in an Aloha shirt and jeans – as I so often am. There was not the slightest indication of my calling in my appearance or speech. Yet the spirit in this man recognized the Spirit in me. A collision was inevitable.

This is not – by the way – the whole story of the spiritual world as it reflects Arab and Palestinian people. During my time in Israel, I met a young man named Omar who helped me that day and the restaurant owner named Abba in whose establishment I dined. God hangs out in the worlds He has made. He is not the sole inhabitant of the spirit world, but He is the owner. One day, His Word will be the only word spoken; and it is already the only one we need to hear and heed.

That said, the United States Supreme Court – in June 2015 – declared Jerusalem to be not the capitol of Israel. In my lifetime, I have never before encountered such colossal arrogance as instructing a sovereign nation on locating its capitol. The Supreme Court has backed the administration, saying the Congress is not constitutionally authorized to conduct foreign affairs, striking down the 2002 federal law. The Court conveniently forgets it has no problem with statutes like the War Powers Act – a clear limitation by Congress of the President’s ability to unilaterally conduct foreign affairs.

The Constitution explicitly authorizes Congress to advise, consent, and limit the President in the conduct of foreign affairs. The Supreme Court again trashes its responsibility to interpret – not re-fashion – law and constitution. There is more at stake.

The Lord our God is on His throne, in the material and spiritual worlds He created. There are other entities who are doomed by the sacrifice of His life undertaken by Yeshua, a sacrifice continuing to unfold in our world and the other. These doomed entities remain capable of manifestation. They recognize the spirit in each of us. They get along with some; they shriek at those bearing the Spirit of Christ. We Americans have an opportunity to bear with a little shrieking for the surpassing glory of knowing and being known by our returning King. The arrogance of the Supreme Court will be replaced by humiliation when we finally grasp Whom we have insulted.

Jerusalem is the capitol of Israel. Israel is the capitol of God’s Kingdom on earth.

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

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

Judgment Coming On Supreme Court Trifecta Of Sin And Rebellion

June 2015 will be remembered as the month America finally slammed the door on God and opened the door to judgment. We also saw the final vestiges of constitutional government discarded. Three decisions by the Supreme Court poked fingers in God’s eye, going directly against His Word. But those pointing this out are dismissed as fear-laden Neanderthals who don’t belong in the modern world.

The Court first declared that Jerusalem is not part of Israel. There’s probably no city in the world associated for a longer time with any people than Jerusalem is with the Jews. After the reestablishment of a Jewish state, Congress recognized it as Israel’s capital through the Jerusalem Embassy Act; yet the Executive branch took a contrary position and refused to implement the law. It’s the first time in history the Court ruled against Congress on a foreign policy matter; and it did so for political, not legal reasons.

Next, they overturned North Carolina’s abortion statute, requiring ultrasounds. This regulation wasn’t burdensome, but caused some women to change their minds. In the last decade, ultrasound has saved over 200,000 children. Given the millions of abortions, this shouldn’t have been a threat to abortion advocates. Yet anything that impinges on the right to destroy the unwanted results of sexuality is taboo in this culture and to this Court. Their reasoning again was political; the law had “ideological” intent and violated doctors’ “free speech.”

Finally, despite clear constitutional language that any issue not specifically addressed was reserved to the states, the Court overturned the age-old, God-given definition of marriage, replacing it with a human standard tethered to nothing, opening the door for anything else men deem acceptable in a culture in moral freefall.

Arrogance has replaced humility; politics has replaced law, not only in our leaders but in the population as a whole. They’re not demonstrating enlightenment; they’re merely wallowing in sin and rebellion. Maybe critics are right when they say that Bible believers don’t belong in this modern world. We’d prefer a world where respect for God brings wisdom, humility, modesty, charity, and respect for life. That’s what made America prosperous and created a society people eagerly entered.

For more information on this story and other topics pertaining to biblical prophecy, visit and click on the tab that says: John McTernan’s Insights Blog.

Or visit: Facebook/JohnMcTernansInsights

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

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

Keep Your Hands Off My Raisins: Court Invalidates Antiquated Raisin Grab

Laura and Marvin Horne are raisin farmers. Early one morning in 2002, a truck appeared at their business–and the drivers demanded a whopping 47 percent of their raisin crop. The truck was sent by the federal government, and those demanding Horne’s raisin crop claimed to be operating under a “marketing order” first put in place in 1937 as part of President Franklin Roosevelt’s effort to shore up agricultural prices. Amazingly, this antiquated scheme lasted for over 65 years—well past the agricultural crisis of the Great Depression.

By 2002, the Hornes had endured enough of these raisin grabs. They refused to turn over what amounted to nearly half of their crop. The federal government assessed a fine of $480,000 for the missing raisins and another $200,000 in civil penalties against the Hornes. The Hornes fought the government through the courts and finally landed in the U.S. Supreme Court.

The Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act of 1937 allowed the secretary of agriculture to issue marketing orders to stabilize market prices for certain agricultural products, including raisins. Under this order, raisin producers could be forced to relinquish a portion of what they produced to the government without any compensation. The percentage of the crops that had to be relinquished in a given year was determined by the Raisin Administrative Committee. The plan was that the government would keep these reserve raisins off the domestic market—a reduction in supply—to help to shore up prices. This system was originally part of the New Deal aimed at aiding farmers whose agricultural products had fallen steeply in price. Unfortunately, as with most government programs, it remained in effect despite the passing of the immediate economic emergency which spawned it.

In a recent decision, Chief Justice John Roberts and the majority agreed with the Hornes. Roberts stated that the Fifth Amendment requires that property cannot be taken by the government for public use without the original owner being properly compensated. Part of the Fifth Amendment, often dubbed the “takings clause,” has been interpreted to mean that when the government takes a private citizen’s property for a public purpose—such as, for example, for the building of a road—the owner must be paid a reasonable amount for the seized property. Here, even though the property (raisins) could be regarded as having been taken for a public use—the stabilizing of agricultural prices during an economic crisis—there was virtually no compensation being paid to raisin growers like the Hornes.

In a fitting tribute to the 800th anniversary of the great document of English liberties—Magna Carta—Roberts traced the origins of the Fifth Amendment’s takings clause to that charter and concluded that “the reserve requirement imposed by the Raisin Committee is a clear physical taking. Actual raisins are transferred from the growers to the Government. Title to the raisins passes to the Raisin Committee. The Committee disposes of what become its raisins as it wishes, to promote the purposes of the raisin marketing order.”

The government unsuccessfully argued that the takings clause did not apply to personal property, but the court roundly rejected that contention. Furthermore, the Department of Agriculture claimed that if the government successfully sold the seized raisins as exports, for example, growers like the Hornes might receive a residual payment which would amount to compensation. Again, the court said that the mere possibility of a residual payment was not equivalent to compensation. It was simply too contingent and indeterminate.

Other U.S. citizens are still subjected to a bevy of similar antiquated, unnecessary regulations. They should make ample use of the court’s holding here to challenge these governmental restraints and reintroduce the fresh air of freedom into markets for goods and services.

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

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