Jail Time For Christians: No Longer A Hypothesis

Articles: Jail Time for Christians: No Longer a Hypothesis

So this is how the game is played.  Leftist operatives in the courts (supreme and state) create unconstitutional laws to further their anti-God agenda.  Then leftists say those who disobey their lawless laws are not behaving like Christians and good Americans.  Many on our side fall for it.

The SCOTUS' ruling on Obamacare and homosexual marriage means the Constitution will now say whatever leftists want it to say.  Folks, do you realize that based on this new precedent, the left can make anything they want a law?  Incest, pedophilia, bestiality, and so on?

Before you call me crazy, leftists are already clamoring for the normalization of these sins.  Have you heard of NAMBLA (North American Man Boy Love Association)? 

Meanwhile, it goes without saying that Obama is the most lawless president in U.S. history, refusing to obey laws he dislikes.  Sanctuary cities run by Democrats defiantly disobey federal immigration law at the cost of endangering and even killing American citizens.  It is insane to allow these conniving vipers to claim the moral high ground over us, lecturing us about obeying the law.

Christians with their heads not buried in the sand knew that jail time was coming for Christians who refuse to bow down and worship homosexuals' false god.

In response to the SCOTUS ruling on homosexual marriage, a mega-church pastor said he hoped it would not infringe upon our religious freedom.  I thought, "Well, duh!"  That is the purpose of the attacks and lawsuits: to criminalize biblical standards.

Wedding chapels, cakes, flowers, and everything else needed for homosexuals to marry are readily available to them.  Homosexuals' ultimate mission is to force Christians to rubber-stamp their behavior, thus betraying the true God.

This is why I get upset with Christians who still do not get it – labeling any pushback as intolerant and un-Christian, lecturing fellow Christians about showing these passive, humble homosexuals more love.  I want to scream, "This ain't about that!"  This is about saying no to being bullied into embracing anti-biblical behavior.

The radical homosexual movement is a form of the Mark of the Beast.  In essence, any business or household that does not display the homosexual rainbow flag over its doorway will not be permitted to exist.  Remember the pro football player who was fined and forced into sensitivity training for tweeting his disapproval of two men kissing on national TV.

Kim Davis realizes that the Creator's Law trumps the creation's law.  This is why she has the strength to in essence say, "Y'all can have a fit and even throw me in jail – I will not bow down and worship your god."  Trust me: the forces of evil are outraged.  Note that all the vitriol is coming from the left, not from Christians.

Christian abolitionists disobeyed the law, helping blacks to escape slavery via the underground railroad.  They also broke the law by teaching blacks to read.

Daniel was a high-ranking, highly respected government (King Darius) employee.  A new law said everyone must pray only to King Darius.  Daniel disobeyed, continuing to pray to the God of Israel.  He was arrested and thrown into the lion's den.  When interviewed by reporters from the Stone Tablet Times, I suspect some Christians trashed Daniel for noncompliance to the king's law.

Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego were government (King Nebuchadnezzar) appointees.  The king built a golden statue, proclaimed it god, and decreed that all must bow down and worship it.  Faithful to the true God, the three Hebrew boys disobeyed the law, refusing to bow down or worship the government's statue.  They were arrested and thrown into a fiery furnace.

Like Kim Davis, Daniel and the three Hebrew boys believed that the consequence of betraying God is eternal: heaven or hell.  It is hard to believe that Christians are now forced to make such a choice in the United States of America.

God bless GOP presidential contender Sen. Ted Cruz for standing up for religious freedom.

I stand with Kim Davis. Unequivocally. I stand with every American that the Obama Administration is trying to force to choose between honoring his or her faith or complying with a lawless court opinion.

In dissent, Chief Justice Roberts rightly observed that the Court's marriage opinion has nothing to do with the Constitution. Justice Scalia observed that the Court's opinion was so contrary to law that state and local officials would choose to defy it.

Please click this link to read the rest of Sen Cruz's powerful statement.

Frankly, GOP presidential contender Carly Fiorina saying Kim Davis should issue the license or resign smells of more GOP caving to the left – we-don't-have-your-back politics as usual.  This makes me a bit nervous envisioning Fiorina in the big chair in the Oval Office.

Fiorina's behavior takes me back to an article I wrote titled "Which GOP Presidential Contender will Keep Their Word in the White House."

Again, thank you, brother Cruz, for leading the charge for religious liberty and We the People.

Articles: Liberalism and Optional Law

Essentially the question is should conservatives accept rule of law for conservatives but not for liberals?

The sad reality is that rule of law -- that the laws apply equally to all Americans -- no longer exists in America. Obama’s imperial presidency, sanctuary cities, and the liberal establishments refusal to enforce laws they don’t like means that the law does not apply equally, even in principle, to all Americans.

Some cite the Constitutional remedies such as impeachment but the reality is that the liberal politicians have no honor and will support their own no matter what, as they did when Bill Clinton committed perjury to protect himself from sexual-harassment charges.

Remember that in contrast, when Nixon did illegal things, conservatives condemned him.

Effectively both impeachment and amending the Constitution are nearly impossible to achieve unless conservatives have overwhelming majorities since liberals have no honor. The Supreme Court can issue rulings and Obama can use his pen far faster than legal remedies can be implemented, giving those who think the law does not apply to them a big edge. 

The question then is: is it worse to accept chaos? Liberals and conservatives both ignoring certain laws, or tyranny, only liberals get to ignore the laws they don’t like.

But ceding only to liberals the right to break the law with impunity gives them a huge leg up on converting the country to the liberal run “paradise” they desire.

For example, if that philosophy had been in place in 2000, then Al Gore would have been president since only votes in Democrat-leaning districts would have been “recounted”.

We’ve seen this sort of asymmetry before where laws were passed that prohibited peaceful protests in front of abortion mills but allowed protests in front of military bases. That asymmetry however did not result in people losing their jobs or being ghettoized.

If we accept the ruling on Kim Davis we face a serious potential problem in a number of other areas. Liberals have fought for example to force doctors and nurses to participate in abortions and to require doctors to learn abortion procedures in medical school.

If we accept the fact that conservatives must bow to the law even though liberals don’t, it will set the stage for laws compelling nurses at public hospitals and in the VA to participate in abortions since they too are “government employees”.

We’ve already seen Catholic adoption organizations with great records for helping kids shut down because they won’t put kids into gay “families”.  Just recently a Catholic organization with an amazing record of helping women who were being sex trafficked was forced to stop because it wouldn’t refer those women for abortions.

We also see this in the cases where gay bakers aren’t required to bake a cake saying "homosexuality is bad" but Christian bakers are required to bake cakes for gay “weddings”.

Given that liberals have no problem using the full force of the government against anyone who objects to unjust laws our options are either acceptance of second-hand citizenship for the American people or standing up to the liberal elites and saying no moreThe issue of gay “marriage” is clear-cut. The Constitution never mentions marriage but it does say that whatever the Constitution does not cover is reserved to states. That’s why the 14th Amendment had to be passed -- to ensure that blacks were treated fairly -- and why an act of Congress was required to grant Native Americans citizenship. As a result it’s clear that Chief Justice Roberts is right when he wrote:

The majority’s decision is an act of will, not legal judgment. The right it announces has no basis in the Constitution or this Court’s precedent.

We all know that if the Supreme Court should someday rule that being gay is a crime -- which also has no basis in the Constitution -- that liberals would get away with not enforcing that with impunity.

When deciding how we should address the case of Kim Davis, we need to keep in mind that liberals have demonstrated that they don’t believe in the rule of law. We’re not fighting with honorable men but with people who believe they are better than the rest of us.

We are in an ideological conflict with liberals who are at heart monarchists or oligarchists. Liberals reject the rule of law because they believe that they are right and that we should all be forced to live as liberals wish us to live. That’s why liberals have no problem forcing American schoolchildren to eat what liberals say they should.

The question we face is what is the best path to get us back to an America where the rule of law applies to everyone and where laws come from the political process not judicial edicts.

While the answer is not obvious it would seem true to say that it’s easier to get to freedom from chaos than from tyranny since in chaos neither side has the full power of government while in tyranny one side does.

Blog: Is a right invented by a judge the same as the law of the land?

Again, what law is Kim Davis violating?

As Ed Streaker posted here yesterday, the U.S. Constitution does not say anything about regulating marriage.  This is why my marriage license was issued in Dallas County and not the United States.

The Supreme Court cannot and did not make a law[.] ... They only made a ruling on a law. Congress makes the laws. Because Congress has made no law allowing for same-sex marriage, Kim does not have the Constitutional authority to issue a marriage license to homosexual couples.

The "tolerant" left will demonize Kim Davis and call her every name under the sun.  She will soon appear in placards dressed like Hitler and mocked by the PC culture. 

However, Kim Davis is forcing us to think about something: what law is she violating?  

Are judges now going to settle every complicated issue that the left does not want to debate in the political arena?  Is that what the Founding Fathers had in mind when they created three equal branches?

As many wrote a few months ago, we'd be in a much better place today if Justice Kennedy had joined the dissent and sent this issue back to the states and the people.  Such a decision would have forced legislatures to debate same-sex marriage and to pass laws the way that the Founding Fathers intended.

So what law is Kim Davis violating?  I can't find one, unless we are now a nation governed by justices who invent rights not enumerated in the U.S. Constitution.