TheFrontPageCover
~ Featuring ~
Another Judge Targets Christianity,
Discards Constitution
by ALAN KEYES
.
Pirro: At some point, Trump ‘absolutely
must’ get involved in DOJ investigations
{ conservativeinstitute.org } ~ Pirro began by calling attention to the fact that, for over a year now, Trump, correctly, has allowed the Department of Justice’s investigation into himself to continue unimpeded... and he has done so despite what has been unearthed. To briefly recap, investigators have found that the investigation was prompted by former FBI director scumbag-James Comey who, upon being fired, leaked classified memos of his communications with the president. They found that scumbag-Comey’s successor, Robert Mueller, who continues to head the inquiry, put together a so-called “dream team” consisting mostly of individuals harboring anti-Trump sentiments. This included FBI lovers Lisa Page and Peter Strzok, who were let go following the discovery of text messages in which they voiced their anti-Trump bias, although Mueller kept this hidden from the public for some time...
Lack of FISA court hearings on
Carter Page warrants sparks fierce debate
by Daniel Chaitin.
Iran Moving Ballistic Missiles Into Iraq, As Predicted
by J.E. Dyer.
Trump Will Challenge Mueller’s Conclusions
With a “Counter-Report”
{ patriotnewsdaily.com } ~ According to President Trump’s personal lawyer, Rudy Giuliani, the president’s legal team is preparing to create a “counter-report” to refute whatever findings Special Counsel Robert Mueller may present to the Deputy Attorney General, Congress, or the American people... Giuliani still maintains that a report is essentially the furthest that Mueller can go with his investigation; DOJ experts believe that it would not be within Mueller’s authority to indict a sitting president. As such, Giuliani’s “counter-report” would act as a measuring device, seeking to undermine the special counsel’s findings by pointing out the myriad problems with Mueller’s team, the initiation of the Trump/Russia investigation, and the bias of the former FBI director himself. In an interview with The Daily Beast, Giuliani said that at least part of the report would focus on the question of whether the investigation itself was create in a “legitimate” way – a question that has been shrouded in doubt for months. The former New York mayor said that the bulk of the report would be based on open-source information. “I don’t think there’s anything in it that isn’t publicly available in some form or another,” he told the site. “There is no secret grand jury material here…It’ll be our report, put out on personal stationary, and it would be in response to their report. We may have to use it in court or Congress.” The Beast spoke to a retired federal prosecutor named Glenn Kirschner who said “it was highly unusual for a rebuttal report” to be issued in this fashion. “This sounds to me like pure PR nonsense,” he said. “They are making an announcement that they will issue a rebuttal to a report that we don’t know when it is coming out or what it will contain.”...
Congress waits, waits, waits for Sally Yates documents
by Byron York.
Another Judge Targets Christianity,
Discards Constitution
by ALAN KEYES
{ wnd.com } ~ Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; (United States Constitution, Amendment I)
The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. (The U.S. Constitution, Amendment IX)
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people. (The U.S. Constitution, Amendment X)
No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; … nor shall any state … deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. (The U.S. Constitution, Amendment XIV, Section 1)
Judge Denise Casper has ruled against a Christian’s access to a program that routinely hoists privately owned flags over a city building, concluding that other flags are acceptable because they’re not religious. “The city’s policy of excluding non-secular flags is viewpoint neutral because it excludes religion as a subject matter of speech on the flagpole. … The city has permissibly chosen to exclude religion as a subject matter, rather than as one perspective among many on other subjects.” “Judge endorses ban on Christian flag”
There are times when a federal judge’s blatant disregard for the unambiguously plain language of the U.S. Constitution defies all reason and common sense. Because this is an assertion about the Constitution, Americans who are not lawyers much less, constitutional scholars often assume that they are forbidden from using their common sense to criticize some judge’s idiocy. However, the Constitution relies, directly or indirectly, on the reason and common sense of ordinary citizens to perform the most important function of sovereign power, which is to choose the people responsible for its use. American citizens have to make judgments about all the officials in the governments national, state and local who are supposed to represent them.
People often remark on the fact that, in comparison with all the written constitutions subsequently produced, the U.S. Constitution is remarkable for its brevity and, with few exceptions, its use of language readily understood by ordinary folks. Tragically, self-serving elitists determined to impose oligarchic rule on the people of the United States, have encouraged the view that constitutions, laws and other legal documents are simply beyond the purview of untrained minds. They have become, like the arms of medieval knights, totems of power, upon which those uninitiated in the arcane mysteries of the legal profession may only look upon from afar and never presume to touch.
I supposed this is why federal judges like Denise Casper assume their errant nonsense will not be closely scrutinized by members of the sovereign body of the people charged, in their capacity as voters, with overseeing through their elected representatives the use and abuse of government powers derived, according to America’s founding premises, from their consent. In the case we are considering, Judge Casper pretends to treat religious speech as one subject matter and non-religious speech as a matter of various perspectives. Given the great variety of religions, this is a distinction that makes no difference, except to provide cover for blatantly prejudicial discrimination against any and all religious perspectives.
But it also distracts from the most relevant fact, which is that the U.S. Constitution forbids interference with the free exercise of religion. This prohibition applies to religious expression, whether as subject matter or as a matter of perspective. One could argue that this prohibition forbids imposing this or that religious perspective upon conscience, by force of law. But it does not forbid interfering with religion in general as the subject matter of speech. However, when the people of the United States who ratified the Constitution, Christianity was the predominant religion among them. Christ parted from his followers with the command to “Go and teach all nations.” Teaching requires speech. Therefore, the use of speech to share religious subject matter is essential to the free exercise of the Christian religion.
Ages before Americans produced the U.S. Constitution, Christ’s imperative made it right according to God to preach the Christian religion. Christians did so as individuals. But they also did so as communities. Hence the fact that constitutions adopted by the various states before the U.S. Constitution, including that of Massachusetts, referred to God’s authority. More to the point, they implemented the Christian understanding that God’s authority, by his endowment of right, substantiates the meaning of justice i.e., determines its content. Most states referred to this fact in their constitutions, flags and other tokens of sovereign authority. Their power to do so was a matter of unalienable right, endowed by God. It was therefore among the powers not delegated to the United States Congress shall make no law, etc. and therefore “reserved to the states, respectively, or to the people.”
But it was also clear evidence that, before ratification of the U.S. Constitution, Americans possessed the individual right freely to honor God, according to their Christian religious conscience, in speech, writing and other forms of expression. The Ninth Amendment explicitly forbids any construction of the enumeration of rights in the Constitution that denies or disparages the retained and therefore antecedent rights of the people. This immunity from interference this prohibition entails, first attested in the context of the government of the United States, is then affirmed in respect of the states, by the 14th Amendment.
The logic that makes nonsense of Judge Casper’s decision is not rocket science. It is not some arcane mystery fathomable only to legal initiates. It was and is the common sense of the American people, rooted in reverence for the pre-eminence of God. Without which, the whole idea of our self-government as a people has no logically reasonable foundation in principle. Soon and very soon, we must fully awaken to this truth, or it will perish.
Comments