It seems that the Donald has now gotten into a beef with the Pope. His holiness said that Trump has committed a non Christian act by proposing a wall separating Mexico and the US.
I am no friend of the Donald. I consider him a lying miscreant that should not be running for office. I believe that he has neither the experience, temperament or morals for the office.
I do admire the Pope as a religious leader and a true Christian. Having said that, the Pope has no business mixing into the politics of the United States.
What do you feel about it?

The color of people's skin, rather than the content of their character, is all the rage!

And it continues: college campuses reversing the dream of Martin Luther King Jr. who hoped that one day, a person's character, not their skin color, would be the distinguishing factor for the human race. But step on campuses like Portland Community College or Northwestern University and be prepared for your skin color to be judged -- especially if you're white.

"Deconstructing Whiteness" is a new weekly workshop begun by Northwestern's Social Justice Education office. It's not just for white people, but anyone who "self-identif[ies] as white." It launched in late-January and the six-part course, held at the women's center, will run through March. It's a voluntary workshop… and students actually signed up.

Attendees are prompted with several rhetorical questions to ponder in pr********n for the class:

What is my role in doing anti-r****t work?

How can I talk about race as a white person?

Why do I have to feel guilty about being white?

What does it mean to be white?

The College Fix received an e-mail from a spokesman for the "prestigious private university" who would only give a brief description of the workshop's purpose: "It’s part of Northwestern’s Social Justice Education effort to create learning opportunities for our students. Beyond that, we don’t have anything more for you on it.”

Yet, Michele Enos, the assistant director for Northwestern's Social Justice Education office, was more vocal to a local paper:

There’s a lot of space on this campus for conversations to happen around issues of privilege and specifically around issues of white privilege.

There is another requirement besides being white: students must commit to attend every week and stay for the duration of the two-hour workshop -- that ensures maximum white-guilt efficiency, no doubt.

The color of people's skin, rather than the content of their character, is all the rage!

And it continues: college campuses reversing the dream of Martin Luther King Jr. who hoped that one day, a person's character, not their skin color, would be the distinguishing factor for the human race. But step on campuses like Portland Community College or Northwestern University and be prepared for your skin color to be judged -- especially if you're white.

"Deconstructing Whiteness" is a new weekly workshop begun by Northwestern's Social Justice Education office. It's not just for white people, but anyone who "self-identif[ies] as white." It launched in late-January and the six-part course, held at the women's center, will run through March. It's a voluntary workshop… and students actually signed up.

Attendees are prompted with several rhetorical questions to ponder in pr********n for the class:

What is my role in doing anti-r****t work?

How can I talk about race as a white person?

Why do I have to feel guilty about being white?

What does it mean to be white?

The College Fix received an e-mail from a spokesman for the "prestigious private university" who would only give a brief description of the workshop's purpose: "It’s part of Northwestern’s Social Justice Education effort to create learning opportunities for our students. Beyond that, we don’t have anything more for you on it.”

Yet, Michele Enos, the assistant director for Northwestern's Social Justice Education office, was more vocal to a local paper:

There’s a lot of space on this campus for conversations to happen around issues of privilege and specifically around issues of white privilege.

There is another requirement besides being white: students must commit to attend every week and stay for the duration of the two-hour workshop -- that ensures maximum white-guilt efficiency, no doubt.

SCOTUS — Better Obstruction Than Destruction

"With the advice and consent of the Senate"

February 17, 2016


"Be not intimidated ... nor suffer yourselves to be wheedled out of your liberties by any pretense of politeness, delicacy, or decency. These, as they are often used, are but three different names for hypocrisy, chicanery and cowardice." —John Adams, 1765

2016-02-17-c5c18410_large.jpg
On Tuesday of last week, Justice Antonin Scalia joined the Supreme Court majority staying EPA regulations proposed by Barack Obama for his so-called "Clean Power Plan." That plan was just the latest SCOTUS objection to Obama's extra-constitutional efforts to bypass Congress and impose his will by regulatory fiat instead of legislation.

On Tuesday of this week, in the wake of Justice Scalia's death, Barack Obama's United Nations climate envoy declared that Obama would ignore the High Court's ruling against his "c*****e c****e" agenda and, moreover, ignore the Constitution's mandate requiring "Consent of the Senate to make Treaties" — as specified in Article II, Section 2, Clause 2 — by signing the UN Climate Treaty.

That announcement was followed by Obama's protests against Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell's assertion that "the American people should have a voice in the se******n of their next Supreme Court Justice. Therefore, this vacancy should not be filled until we have a new president." Obama claims McConnell is an "obstructionist," insisting "the Constitution is pretty clear about what is supposed to happen," and declaring Republicans are violating Article II, Section 2, Clause 2 mandating the "Consent of the Senate to appoint ... Judges of the supreme Court."

Yes, that is the same Article, Section and Clause Obama is himself ignoring when announcing the same day that he would sign the UN Climate Treaty.

Laughably, Obama offered this assessment of constitutional mandates: "These are responsibilities that I take seriously as should everyone [and are] bigger than any one party. They are about our democracy [sic], and they are about the institution to which Justice Scalia dedicated his professional life in making sure it continues to function as the beacon of justice that our Founders envisioned. I'm amused when I hear people who claim to be strict interpreters of the Constitution suddenly reading into it a whole series of provisions that are not there."

However, McConnell is not proposing anything that would be in violation of Article II, Section 2, Clause 2.

On the other hand, while Obama's tenure in office has been characterized primarily by ineptitude, a close second would be his persistent and abject violation of his oath "to Support and Defend" our Constitution, and his willful defiance of Rule of Law whenever Congress fails to do his bidding.

Within hours of Justice Scalia's death, Democratic National Committee CEO Amy Dacey broadcast a nationwide email alert, declaring, "Barack Obama has been very clear: He's going to fulfill his constitutional obligation and nominate our next Supreme Court justice."

Why now? Obama certainly hasn't "fulfilled his constitutional obligations" in any other respect.

Taking Obama's lead, there were plenty of other Democrats making laughable references to our Constitution.

Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid opined, "This constitutional duty has transcended partisan battles because it is essential to the basic functioning of our co-equal branches of government. By ignoring its constitutional mandate, the Senate would sabotage the highest court in the United States and aim a procedural missile at the foundation of our system of checks and balances. Our founders who envisioned a fair, bipartisan process must be rolling in their graves."

This would be the same Harry Reid who, while Senate majority leader, implemented the "nuclear option" allowing the confirmation of judges (but not justices) by a simple majority v**e, effectively eliminating the constitutional provision for filibuster.

Vermont's Patrick Leahy, the top Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee, held up a copy of the Constitution at a press conference and complained, "Republicans are talking about the Republican playbook. ... This is the playbook we should follow, the Constitution of the United States." Clearly, Leahy's copy has never been opened.

Not to be outdone, Democrat wildcard Elizabeth Warren got into the act: "Article II Section 2 of the Constitution says the president of the United States nominates justices to the Supreme Court, with the advice and consent of the Senate. ... Senate Republicans took an oath just like Senate Democrats did. Abandoning the duties they swore to uphold would threaten both the Constitution and our democracy [sic] itself. It would also prove that all the Republican talk about loving the Constitution is just that — empty talk."

Empty talk indeed from another protagonist of the Socialist Democratic Party who has never honored her oath.

So what does the Constitution actually mandate regarding court nominations, and are the Republicans in violation of same?

Article II, Section 2, Clause 2 states, "[The President] shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States."

In other words, in regard to the federal court nominees, the president is required to submit a nominee to the Senate for its approval or rejection.

To better understand what that means, I turn to The Federalist Papers, written by James Madison, Alexander Hamilton and John Jay to promote ratification of the Constitution. The Federalist remains the most definitive resource for legal and historic scholars in search of the original intent of the Framers of our Constitution.

Federalist No. 76 covers the "Appointing Power of the Executive":

"The President is to nominate, and, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to appoint ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, judges of the Supreme Court, and all other officers of the United States whose appointments are not otherwise provided for in the Constitution. ... To what purpose then require the co-operation of the Senate? ... [T]he necessity of their concurrence would ... be an excellent check upon a spirit of favoritism in the President, and would tend greatly to prevent the appointment of unfit characters. ... It will readily be comprehended, that a man who had himself the sole disposition of offices, would be governed much more by his private inclinations and interests, than when he was bound to submit the propriety of his choice to the discussion and determination of a different and independent body, and that body an entire branch of the legislature."

Federalist No. 77 also addresses appointments:

"It has been mentioned as one of the advantages to be expected from the co-operation of the Senate, in the business of appointments, that it would contribute to the stability of the administration. The consent of that body would be necessary to displace as well as to appoint."

In other words, as understood in 1787 and today, Article II, Section 2, Clause 2 provides that the legislative branch (the Senate) has a check on the executive branch (the president) with the objective that the executive not pack the judicial branch (the Supreme Court) with those who would share his prejudices and special interests, rather than abide by Rule of Law as enshrined in our Constitution. The Senate Consent requirement provides some nominal assurance against the threat of prejudicial and special interests nominees.

The principle of separation of powers necessitates that the appointment of judges requires a collaborative effort by the executive and legislative branches. The Senate can either approve or reject an Obama court nominee by scheduling v**es in the Judicial Committee and the full Senate, or defer consideration of that nomination by not scheduling v**es by either the committee or the full Senate.

As constitutional scholar John McGinnis notes:

"The Senate has independent authority in that it may constitutionally refuse to confirm a nominee for any reason. While ideology and jurisprudential 'point of view' were not among the kinds of concerns listed by the Framers as justifying the requirement of advice and consent, nothing in the text of the clause appears to limit the kind of considerations the Senate can take up. ... As the president has complete discretion in the use of his veto power, the Senate has complete and final discretion in whether to accept or approve a nomination."

It is the responsibility of the president to nominate, and the Senate to approve, only those judges who will interpret our Constitution's original intent. As James Madison wrote, "An elective despotism was not the government we fought for; but one in which the powers of government should be so divided and balanced among the several bodies of magistracy as that no one could transcend their legal limits without being effectually checked and restrained by the others."

Justice Scalia, nominated by President Ronald Reagan in 1986 and confirmed soon thereafter by a 98-0 v**e in the Senate, adhered strictly to the doctrine of constitutional originalism — the standard our Founders prescribed — reading the plain language of the Constitution for its original intent, and applying the historical context of the drafters when the plain-language intent was not readily apparent.

Scalia's constructionist interpretation was contrary to those "activist judges" whom Thomas Jefferson warned would treat "the Constitution [as] a mere thing of wax ... which they may twist and shape into any form they please." Scalia provided an effective check against SCOTUS activists endeavoring to usurp individual freedoms with their errant notion of a "living constitution."

Regarding judicial activists, Justice Scalia wrote, "As long as judges tinker with the Constitution to 'do what the people want,' instead of what the document actually commands, politicians who pick and confirm new federal judges will naturally want only those who agree with them politically."

Of course, Obama will put forth a nominee who he believes will "twist and shape" the Constitution to comport with his "progressive" will. And any effort to defer his nominee will elicit cries of "obstruction."

It is worth recalling, however, the level of obstruction Democrats put forth when considering President Reagan's 1987 nomination of the distinguished jurist Robert Bork. After the confirmation of Scalia, Senate Demos were not about to consent to another judge who would interpret the Constitution as our Founders intended. Senator Ted Kennedy protested, "Reagan is still our president. But he should not be able to ... impose his reactionary vision of the Constitution on the Supreme Court and the next generation of Americans. No justice would be better than this injustice."

Soon thereafter, esteemed columnist William Safire coined the word "bork" as a verb, in reference "to the way Democrats savaged Ronald Reagan's nominee, the Appeals Court judge Robert H. Bork." The next jurist Democrats endeavored to bork was a black nominee, Clarence Thomas.

In the upcoming battle for control of the Supreme Court and, by extension, the United States of America, perhaps Senate Republicans should follow Sen. Chuck Schumer's lead and refrain from consideration of any Obama nominee.

In 2003, Schumer, now Harry Reid's heir-apparent as Democrat leader, declared, "We are blocking [Bush nominees] by filibuster. That is part of the hallowed process around here." Indeed, they blocked confirmation of two outstanding judicial nominees, Miguel Estrada (a Hispanic man) and Janice Rogers Brown (a black woman).

More to the point, in 2007, 18 months before George W. Bush left office, Schumer declared: "[F]or the rest of this president's term and if there is another Republican elected with the same se******n criteria let me say this: We should reverse the presumption of confirmation. ... I will recommend to my colleagues that we should not confirm any Bush nominee to the Supreme Court... In the end [we must] ensure that our Court reflects what America wants, rather than what a diminishing clique of conservative ideologues wish for. ... I will do everything in my power to prevent one more ideological ally from joining Roberts and Alito on the court."

Now, however, Schumer insists the Senate has "a constitutional obligation to hold hearings, conduct a full confirmation process, and v**e on the nominee based on his or her merits."

Let's remind Obama that, despite his "obstructionist" protests, of the 16 presidents who once served in the Senate, only he endeavored to filibuster a Supreme Court nomination — the 2006 nomination of now-Justice Samuel Alito. And he was joined by then-Senator Hillary Clinton, who now claims, "[Republicans] are even saying [Obama] doesn't have the right to nominate anyone, as if somehow he's not the real president."

The editors of The Wall Street Journal weighed in with this salient advice: "Ignore any complaints you read about 'unprecedented' GOP 'obstruction.' As Justice Scalia warned, legal progressives made the Court a partisan cause by making value judgments that are best left for v**ers to decide. One result is that Democrats will have to fight and win an e******n in 2016 to replace the greatest contemporary Justice."

Indeed, better to be an "obstructionist" than to consent to a "destructionist."

Pro Deo et Constitutione — Libertas aut Mors
Semper Vigilans Fortis Paratus et Fidelis

PULLING NO PUNCHES
Twitter enlists 'gay' thought police
Exclusive: Matt Barber notes anti-Christian GLAAD now helping to censor site
Published: 1 day ago

image: http://www.wnd.com/files/2012/05/Matt-Barber_avatar.jpg
author-image Matt Barber About | Email | Archive
Matt Barber is founder and editor-in chief of BarbWire.com. He is an author, columnist, cultural analyst and an attorney concentrating in constitutional law. Having retired as an undefeated heavyweight professional boxer, Matt has taken his fight from the ring to the culture war. (Follow Matt on Twitter: @jmattbarber).


This cannot be good for free speech and the open exchange of ideas. Not for Christians and conservatives anyway.

Twitter announced on Wednesday that it has assembled a new “Twitter Trust & Safety Council” to “ensure that people feel safe expressing themselves on Twitter.”

Who’s for safety?

Yay safety!

Still, we need only look to the so-called “safe space” craze on America’s college campuses to gain a glimpse into what Twitter undoubtedly means here. Understand that, for the left, the word “safe” has nothing to do with, well, safety, and everything to do with censorship.

Let’s define the terms. Safe Space: noun, 1. progressive circle of self-entitled, everyone-gets-a-trophy basement-dwellers sheltered from critical thinking, differing opinions, reality and oxygen.

With its new initiative, Twitter says it seeks to “strike the right balance between fighting abuse and speaking t***h to power.”

What, exactly, constitutes “abuse,” “t***h” and “power” remains to be seen, but, based on Twitter’s long history of blacklisting and “unverifying” conservatives from its rolls, I think we all know who gets shafted on this.

“To ensure people can continue to express themselves freely and safely on Twitter, we must provide more tools and policies,” the company claims. “Twitter does not tolerate behavior intended to harass, intimidate, or use fear to silence another user’s voice.”

Color me über-skeptical, but as Daniel Payne observes over at The Federalist, “Twitter already allows its users to either mute or block anyone who is being bothersome or threatening. There is no practical necessity for a ‘council’ to make people feel ‘safe’ on Twitter. Blocking is an effective tool for anyone who needs it. You can always report to the Twitter staff the rare troll who just won’t give up.

“The seemingly superfluous formation of a ‘Trust and Safety Council,’ then, suggests a kind of procedural overhaul of Twitter’s internal speech policy,” concludes Payne.

I agree.

Indeed, to the fragile liberal mind, any disagreement with its rigid, and decidedly one-sided, brand of “tolerance” and “diversity” constitutes “behavior intended to harass” or “intimidate.” To those who cannot win an argument on the merits, the path of least resistance is to silence all dissent.

Yet, if there was any question as to whether Twitter will be adopting the above-referenced definition of “safe space” in its effort to make tweeters “feel safe,” that question is immediately resolved by virtue of whom it has deputized. While there are a handful of legitimate, left-of-center anti-bullying organizations on the “council,” the list is likewise comprised up a rag-tag gaggle of fringe “progressive” groups like Feminist Frequency and GLAAD (formerly the Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation).

Conspicuously absent is even one conservative or Christian organization.

So, what will GLAAD and the rest of the “Tweet Police” be doing? It’s hard to say for sure since Twitter won’t, but, considering what GLAAD already does, we can venture a fair guess.

GLAAD is an extremist homosexual censorship group that, for its defamatory antics, was certified last year by the well-respected American Family Association as an “openly bigoted anti-Christian organization.” GLAAD’s primary purpose is to strong-arm the entertainment industry and news media into presenting unrealistically favorable portrayals of the homosexual and g****r-confused lifestyles, while at once censoring positive portrayals of natural marriage and the natural family, and silencing those who hold biblical values relative to marriage and human sexuality.

One of GLAAD’s most troubling censorship efforts was its Orwellian “Commentator Accountability Project.” This was a desperate effort to “suppress the biblical worldview from media.” Various homosexual activists were conscripted to contact, badger and otherwise intimidate media outlets, such as CNN, Fox News, the New York Times, et al., into blacklisting leading Christian cultural analysts (yours truly included) from providing commentary and political analysis over the airwaves and in print.

While the smear campaign ultimately failed, it did betray, for all the world to see, GLAAD’s overt designs on anti-conservative, anti-Christian censorship. And now it has its grubby little rainbow-hued fingerprints all over one of the world’s largest and most popular social networking sites.

Enjoy your Twitter free speech while you can, conservative Christians. Your tweets are birds on a wire, and GLAAD’s got the pellet gun.


Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2016/02/twitter-enlists-gay-thought-police/#s7miWMYOWestAYhq.99

Going the e-mail rounds.


Canadian Gun Control


Think about this.....it could happen right here......whether you agree or not, it's still in our constitution ....arms......pray that we don't ever loose
that right...."when guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns"....and when seconds count...the police are only minutes away.....

Revolution may be the answer.

GOD FORBID THIS HAPPENS IN THE UNITED

STATES...Watch this one.

Here is what we, in the USA, have to worry

about in the near future.

Canadian gun control. Worth the watch!

Please keep this one going! We must protect our rights for if this happens

Americans will be targets for any criminal for they will have guns. More fearful is we will not be able to protect ourselves from the tyrannical Government, the reason we have the 2nd Amendment.


http://www.youtube.com/embed/03XEUPfD0qM

I'm sorry if you understood me to say I felt the need for forgiveness from some third party entity, but I am satisfied with human to human forgiveness. The pain of regret forestalls repeat offences, so I would not dispense with it to share the lot of the psychopath! Sin is an entirely God oriented concept only vaguely akin to morality, so I have no need for it as a good, empathetic, loving human.

If I believed, I would pray for the amputees. How about praying for just every US Military Veteran amputee who is a Christian to regrow normal human limbs tonight?

Why will you not pray for all US Military Veteran amputees who are Christians to be healed tonight?

Jesus (red letters) said, according to the Bible:
"Ask, and it will be given you; seek, and you will find; knock, and it will be opened to you. For every one who asks receives, and he who seeks finds, and to him who knocks it will be opened. Or what man of you, if his son asks him for bread, will give him a stone? Or if he asks for a fish, will give him a serpent? If you then, who are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father who is in heaven give good things to those who ask him!"

Ask and you will receive. What could be simpler than that?

"For truly, I say to you, if you have faith as a grain of mustard seed, you will say to this mountain, 'Move from here to there,' and it will move; and nothing will be impossible to you."

Since a mustard seed is a tiny inanimate object about the size of a grain of salt, it is easy to imagine that the faith of a mustard seed is fairly small. So, paraphrasing, what Jesus is saying is that if you have the tiniest bit of faith, you can move mountains.

"I tell you the t***h, if you have faith and do not doubt, not only can you do what was done to the fig tree, but also you can say to this mountain, 'Go, throw yourself into the sea,' and it will be done. If you believe, you will receive wh**ever you ask for in prayer."

Mark 11:24:
"Therefore I tell you, wh**ever you ask for in prayer, believe that you have received it, and it will be yours."

John chapter 14, verses 12 through 14, Jesus tells all of us just how easy prayer can be:
"Truly, truly, I say to you, he who believes in me will also do the works that I do; and greater works than these will he do, because I go to the Father. Wh**ever you ask in my name, I will do it, that the Father may be glorified in the Son; if you ask anything in my name, I will do it."

Matthew 18:19 Jesus says it again:
Again I say to you, if two of you agree on earth about anything they ask, it will be done for them by my Father in heaven. For where two or three are gathered in my name, there am I in the midst of them."

Honestly, I wish you would try. I hope it works.

Good night.

Any questions ?

Please distribute widely...


>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>


America's Christian History

America's heritage is built up on the principles of the Christian religion.

Christianity is written on every page of America's amazing history.

Gary DeMar presents well-documented facts which will change your perspective about what it means to be a Christian in America; the t***h about America's Christian past as it relates to Supreme Court justices and presidents; the Christian character of colonial charters, state constitutions and the U.S. Constitution; the Christian foundation of colleges; the Christian character of Washington, D.C.; the origin of Thanksgiving; and so much more.

Three appendixes have been added that further emphasize Christianity's positive influence on America. Additional information includes "Deism and the Founding of America" and also "Jesus Christ and the Founding of America." This is an indispensable book which is needed in a time when even "under God" is coming under fire.

Read more about America's Christian History.

From the founding of the colonies to the declaration of the Supreme Court, America's heritage is built up on the principles of the Christian religion. And yet the secularists are dismantling this foundation brick by brick, attempting to deny the very core of our national life.

You weigh the evidence. Consider the following facts which are being systematically erased from our nation's memory:

In 1892, the Supreme Court of the United States declared, "This is a Christian nation."

During the War for Independence, Congress resolved to import 20,000 volumes of the Bible because "the use of the Bible is so universal, and its importance so great."

The New England Confederation stated that the purpose of the colonies was "to advance the Kingdom of our Lord Jesus Christ and to enjoy the liberties of the gospel in purity with peace."

Harvard College required that each student believe that "the main end of his life and studies is to know God and Jesus Christ which is eternal life."

John Adams wrote, "The Christian religion is...the Religion of Wisdom, Virtue, Equity, and humanity."

Engraved on the metal cap on the top of the Washington Monument are the words "Praise be to God."