Phil Robertson stated to the press a statement wrapped up in the writings of St. Paul.

Almost immediately the GLBT were offended and sued the Christians for promoting h**e speech.

Well I h**e to admit it but this is the area that Christians will be attacked next so it must be declared what is h**e speech and what is not h**e speech.

In 1942, Justice Frank Murphy summarized the case law: "There are certain well-defined and limited classes of speech, the prevention and punishment of which have never been thought to raise a Constitutional problem. These include the lewd and obscene, the profane, the libelous and the insulting or “fighting” words – those which by their very utterances inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace."

Traditionally, however, if the speech did not fall within one of the above categorical exceptions, it was protected speech. In 1969, the Supreme Court protected a Ku Klux Klan member’s r****t and h**e-filled speech and created the ‘imminent danger’ test to permit h**e speech. The court ruled in Brandenburg v. Ohio that; "The constitutional guarantees of free speech and free press do not permit a state to forbid or proscribe advocacy of the use of force, or of law violation except where such advocacy is directed to inciting imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action."

This test has been modified very little from its inception in 1969 and the formulation is still good law in the United States. Only speech that poses an imminent danger of unlawful action, where the speaker has the intention to incite such action and there is the likelihood that this will be the consequence of his or her speech, may be restricted and punished by that law.

In R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul, (1992), the issue of freedom to express hatred arose again when a gang of white people burned a cross in the front yard of a black family. The local ordinance in St. Paul, Minnesota, criminalized such r****t and h**e-filled expressions and the teenager was charged thereunder. Associate justice Antonin Scalia, writing for the Supreme Court, held that the prohibition against h**e speech was unconstitutional as it contravened the First Amendment. The Supreme Court struck down the ordinance. Scalia explicated the fighting words exception as follows: “The reason why fighting words are categorically excluded from the protection of the First Amendment is not that their content communicates any particular idea, but that their content embodies a particularly intolerable (and socially unnecessary) mode of expressing wh**ever idea the speaker wishes to convey”. Because the h**e speech ordinance was not concerned with the mode of expression, but with the content of expression, it was a violation of the freedom of speech. Thus, the Supreme Court embraced the idea that h**e speech is permissible unless it will lead to imminent h**e violence. The opinion noted "This conduct, if proved, might well have violated various Minnesota laws against arson, criminal damage to property", among a number of others, none of which was charged, including threats to any person, not to only protected classes.

In 2011, the Supreme Court issued their ruling on Snyder v. Phelps, which concerned the right of the Westboro Baptist Church to protest with signs found offensive by many Americans. The issue presented was whether the 1st Amendment protected the expressions written on the signs. In an 8-1 decision the court sided with Phelps, the head of Westboro Baptist Church, thereby confirming their historically strong protection of h**e speech, so long as it doesn't promote imminent violence. The Court explained, "speech deals with matters of public concern when it can 'be fairly considered as relating to any matter of political, social, or other concern to the community' or when it 'is a subject of general interest and of value and concern to the public."

Now this is the test for h**e speech and the reasoning behind it. Therefore, if a Christian in defense of his faith, uses the bible as a warrant against sin, should not be considered h**e speech, for the expression has the warrant to evangelize for the saving of souls. This is not h**e but love. Although I am against the methods of the Westboro Baptist Church, the fact of the matter is that their protest is within the compliance of the first amendment.

"Fighting words and expression" can be applied to the burning of the American f**g as a protest against the Government of the United States, but as the first amendment protects against Government interference during a legal protest against the Government, and can be protected by the use of the Second Amendment, it is justified and allowable. However, it is an extreme example of "fighting words." For as a veteran, I am offended that anyone should have the gaul to burn the f**g, however it is the persons right, and I must protect the right over the f**g.

In the same manner, and I expect the homosexuals to conduct themselves with the same discipline, if I were to protest this Supreme Court ruling on same sex marriages, if I were to quote Leviticus 20:13 they should show the same restraint, as I show for those who burn the f**g in protest.

Expression of the Christian faith in accordance with a free conscience, and Christian forbearance should be protected. And if this right is not protected, then it should be protected with the use of the second Amendment. For if the Amendment is not protected then the government has reverted to tyranny and therefore, the purpose of the second amendment is to keep the government honest, in respect to these inalienable rights.

Therefore, h**e speech is any speech that turns a peaceful situation into a violent situation. It is this speech that is unlawful. Should a Christian use the Bible in a manner that provokes violence, then that Christian should be arrested and tried as the law states. However, if the Christian is evangelizing, which the government cannot prohibit, then it follows that the government must protect the individual from needless violence that comes upon the person because of the disagreeing view points.

Let those who are wise, listen.

Therefore, I caution all Christians when evangelizing to keep the discipline of our Lord Jesus Christ in mind. Use temperance, and self-restraint, however, what is written is written, and was written for love and not for h**e. Therefore we must exercise the greatest power of our love towards our countrymen however we must chastise the ones who err, it is here that there should be no offense, unless they do not live up to self-control.

If the homosexuals cannot use self-control when the faithful exercise their right, then the homosexuals should stay home. But if they come out to counter protest the faithful, then it is to be expected that the government protect both people. Should the government fail in this manner then blood would be shed. And for that matter all are guilty, not of h**e speech but of murder.

All it would take is a look from one side or another to spark a r**t. But both sides have a right to their views and their speech. My fellow Christians be careful with these foreign ideals. For we are in a slippery slope between saving souls and sinning ourselves.

May God help us in this struggle. Amen.

I've been wondering for quite awhile, why we, as conservatives, can't seem to win a break from this democrap administration. We win a landslide in two consecutive midterms, Republican governors head up over thirty states, yet we continually end up bowing down to this administration who says up, when it's down; sideways, when it's vertical; blue sky, when it's raining...well, you get the picture.

The following is a take on just what might be going on:

http://townhall.com/columnists/wayneallynroot/2015/06/30/are-key-republican-leaders-in-dc-being-blackmailed-n2018837

You are an i***t. If you are going to remove the battle f**g, you should also remove everything that incites black on white violence, which is far more prevalent than white on black. This would include anything to do with the NBPP, especially.
B****s are probably more r****t than w****s. Concerning s***ery, I'm getting tired of giving history lessons. Nearly every black that was brought to this country had ALREADY BEEN ENS***ED BY OTHER B****S. Every American owned ship that carried s***es to this country was owned by Northerners. There were NO Southern owned s***e ships. None. In the 1750 years between the Crusades and 1850, more than 20 million b****s were ens***ed by Arabs, and by other b****s. Go b***h about their f**gs.

Senor; Are you that ignorant - " those statistics are just plain lies made up by her political enemies"
I have studied and verified many in the Body count.
Vince Foster being the leading "suicide",found dead in a DC park, with NO mud on his shoes after walking through the mud, No bullet, found, he was ready to spill the beans, etc etc.
Ron Brown's plane hit the side of a mountain, after he threatened to spill the beans. Many many more documented with pics, and articles. It is all there.
Senor and others; Get away from the Talking Heads on the MSM and do your own research, if you really care about getting to the t***h. It takes time and effort, but do it anyway.
Google makes is easy to do. You Tube makes it easy to do. It is all there. T***h wins out when you pursue it.

Professor Issues Sick Threat to Student Who Included Bible Verses in Class Presentation

A University of Wisconsin professor recently threatened one of her students with a failing grade simply because she included Bible verses and religious references in a class presentation.

Rachel Langeberg, a student at University of Wisconsin-Baraboo/Sauk County, said that her anthropology and sociology professor, Dr. Annette Kuhlmann, told her that her inclusion of Bible verses and references to her faith were “inappropriate for (the) presentation,” which dealt with arson and the sociological causes of it.

In her review of Langeberg’s project, Dr. Kuhlmann did note that she appreciated and respected her student’s religious belief.

But not really.

“The University of Wisconsin is a secular institution. Religious contemplations and the bible (sic) belong to a different realm and not academic sources,” she wrote. “So your argumentation along Christian lines, including the slides you designed in relation to it, are (sic) inappropriate for this presentation.”

The professor then went on to say, “You will also fail your presentation if your (sic) discuss religion in connection with it,” a failing grade that would also apply to the other students in the same group as Langeberg.

According to 800Whistleblower, Langeberg ultimately removed the “inappropriate” religious content, before enlisting the help of conservative legal firm Liberty Counsel, who argued that this was a clear-cut free speech issue in which the professor “crossed the line from scholarship to censorship.”

“Students do not lose their First Amendment rights when they sign up for classes at the University of Wisconsin,” said attorney Richard Mast. “It is blatantly unconstitutional to restrict student religious speech or threaten a failing grade for religious content, where the speech or content is otherwise academically appropriate for the assignment.”

Langeberg and her attorney demanded the professor remedy her “unconstitutional hostility” towards her religious views, mainly by issuing an email apology and admission that she made a mistake, as well as allowing the other students in the class to see Langeberg’s original presentation, including the Bible verses.

The school and the professor had until July 3 to — hopefully — make the right decision to rectify this situation.

Please share this on Facebook and Twitter if you understand that just because schools are considered secular institutions, that doesn’t mean that any and all things religious must be barred from discussion.

This is part of the same destruction of religion that the "gay marriage" forced decision is all about

Supreme Court vs. Rule of Law
David Harsanyi | Jun 27, 2015
David Harsanyi



Here is John Roberts, chief oracle of the United States of America, from Thursday's King v. Burwell decision:

"Congress passed the Affordable Care Act to improve health insurance markets, not to destroy them. If at all possible, we must interpret the Act in a way that is consistent with the former, and avoids the latter."

What the statement illustrates is that for Roberts, the law is a subordinate concern.

I know, I know, the Affordable Care Act is moral and decent and that's all that matters. Liberals demand we govern through empathy-based jurisprudence rather than anything resembling the antiquated tenants of founding principles. If you care about the latter more than you do the former, the fact that Supreme Court justices are aping the consequentialist arguments of the left and then working backward to make their legal justifications is probably the worst sign for checks and balances yet.

We're going to be inundated with legal interpretations over the next few days. But imagine for a moment if a Supreme Court justice argued that the Defense of Marriage Act was passed to improve marriage rather than destroy it so we must focus on the former rather than the latter and uphold any retroactive provisions the Bush administration cooked up to make that law work. Or imagine the same for any legislation you disagree with.

Let's concede to Roberts that the intention of every politician is to improve on things. Republicans believe that further nationalizing health insurance is a bad idea and makes markets less competitive and more expensive. By overturning the law, they want to improve health insurance markets, as well. That's why we have legislatures, to debate these points of view and then pass bills. That legislation codifies what a majority can agree on. And we have courts to judge the constitutionality of laws, not to bore into the souls of politicians to decipher their true intent or find justifications to rubber-stamp "democracy" -- as Roberts puts it.

But in every case, it seems, we must respect the role of the legislature and not undo what it has done. A fair reading of the legislation demands a fair reading of the legislative plan.

It was Roberts who helped rewrite Obamacare the first time around, making a penalty into a tax and, for the first time in history, allowing American government to coerce every citizen into buying a product from a private company as part of its power to regulate commerce.

Roberts, abandoning law, laments that Obamacare was drafted in a haphazard and vague way, right before ruling that laws can be implemented in any way the executive branch sees fit, as long as judges deem its intentions righteous.

Once we pass massive pieces of legislation that effectively hand entire industries to regulatory agencies, we are allowing the executive branch to govern in any way it sees fit. That said, it's doubtful that SCOTUS would allow the same rationalizations used for King v. Burwell to be employed for any legislation it found distasteful. Though Republican presidents keep nominating judges who disappoint conservatives, you can be assured that Hillary Clinton would not disappoint liberals with her picks.

But on the political side, this ruling means we can no longer rely on government institutions to check one another or themselves. Conservatives -- or wh**ever party is in the minority -- have to continue to be the check. Any kind of reform should be opposed because any kind of reform, no matter how narrow the focus theoretically is, will be an opportunity for boundless revision and scope. All a political party needs to do is cobble together a temporary majority, push through legislation that expands federal power and then find some clairvoyant judges dedicated to empathy rather than their oath. All of this is fine, according to the Supreme Court, as long as politicians had good intentions.

Another Clinton Associate Found DEAD, Bill & Hillary’s Body Count Increases!
Fascinating information is going v***l about Hillary and Bill Clinton, which exposes just how truly ruthless they are. In many ways they are worse than Obama. One major reason I say this is because the Clintons have a long history of people in their inner-circle dying under mysterious circumstances.

In fact, 46 people who were close to the Clintons have died during their 3 decades of political power. That number should give us all pause. If Hillary Clinton was a Republican, that number would be the question asked by reporters every day.

Now, the latest to be added to the list, maintained by WhatReallyHappened.com, is Walter Scheib. He was hired by the Clinton White House to work as a Chef, and continued to serve the Bush administration. Interestingly, he was reported missing during a hike, and his body was found almost 2 miles away at the bottom of a river.

But the list is far more extensive! For example, Mary Mahoney was a Clinton White House Intern who was executed brutally at a Starbucks she was managing in 1997. As a lesbian, she became close friends with all of the interns of the early Clinton administration, and they would seek her advice after Bill’s sexual advancements. She would have been a star witness during the Clinton impeachment trials.

And don’t forget Clinton White House Council Vince Foster, who was found dead in Ft. Marcy Park in Washington, D.C. He supposedly k**led himself with a shotgun, and was found a few days later with a suitcase that contained a shredded suicide note.

Foster knew the Clintons from his time at Rose Law Firm in Arkansas, and had intimate details of the Clinton’s financial situation. Apparently, he made a phone call to Hillary Clinton just hours before his death. The person who found him never saw a gun. The fact that Hillary was found in Fosters office at 2am stuffing all of Fosters papers into a shredder. Did anyone ever ask her WHY?

Also, you may not have heard of the Clinton’s former lawyer Charles Ruff who died in 2000:

Charles Ruff was one of Clinton’s attorneys during the impeachment trial and was known to have inside information on the White House email scandal as well. Original reports were that he died in an accident in his home although no details were given. Then the report changed to claim that he was found in his bedroom unconscious, then declared dead on arrival at the hospital. The authorities will provide no details other than the usual (and quite premature) assurances that there was no foul play involved.

And don’t forget James McDougal!

Jim McDougal was serving his 3-year sentence for bank fraud at the Fort Worth Federal Medical Center in Texas, a facility operated by the Federal Bureau of Prisons for inmates who need medical attention.

Just prior to another round of testimony before Kenneth Starr’s grand jury, and while the reporters who were covering that story were two hours away covering a standoff situation in Waco that just “went away,” Jim McDougal suffered a heart attack while in solitary confinement. Left alone for too long, when Jim McDougal was taken out of solitary, instead of attempting to defibrillate his heart with equipment on hand at the facility, he was driven to John Peter Smith Hospital. Not the closest hospital to the Fort Worth Federal Medical Center, John Peter Smith Hospital is a welfare hospital, where (in the words of one local) ,”They let interns practice on deadbeats.”

NEW! The Fort Worth Star-Telegram acquired the official report of the McDougal death via a Freedom Of Information Act request, and reported that doctors ignored McDougal’s signs of imminent death.

The Clinton body count is massive and growing. Hillary Clinton will stop at nothing to become President, and death seems to follow her everywhere she goes. It is time to learn the t***h about these murders and expose the Clintons. Instead of the White House, it appears they both belong in prison.

What do you think about the Clinton body count?

Make her our leader and none of us will be safe..

Wow.cto the Black Panthers in Charleston

In the aftermath of the horrific massacre at a predominately black church in Charleston, S.C., race baiters and instigators rushed in to do their usual agitating for unrest.

However, they were quickly told by the locals, in no uncertain terms, that they were quite unwelcome amid the peace and love they were trying to spread.

Amazingly, it would appear that Al Sharpton and his National Action Network clearly received the message and even echoed it, specifically towards the militant New Black Panther Party, which was still trying to stir things up in Charleston.

Wednesday night, local leaders and NAN members joined together for a rally in which they declared that they “will not allow h**e” in the wake of the tragic k*****gs.

This came just a day after NBPP leader Malik Zulu Shabazz called for b****s to rise up and “finish the mission” of k*****g all the white “masters” begun by a s***e revolt in 1822, a key point in the church’s history.

Local NAN member Pastor Thomas Dixon said, “That’s exactly what (accused shooter Dylann Roof) wanted. Why would we, as logical thinking people, African Americans in particular, think that giving Dylann Roof what he wanted is the right way to do this?”

He joined with other local leaders who said they would not tolerate h**e groups trying to cause problems or stir up trouble.

“We are asking them to please leave Charleston with that h**e. We are united, black and white, in the City of Charleston to get over this and to bring solidarity and unity to Charleston,” said local Elder James Johnson, according to Breitbart.

Thankfully, the good people of Charleston have decided to let peace and love reign and have avoided the strife and resentment and violence that has been seen in other cities recently.

Let us pray that it continues, and give credit where it is due — at least Sharpton realized this time that his usual schtick wasn’t going to work.

Please share this on Facebook and Twitter if you are glad that Charleston has chosen to handle this tragedy in a peaceful, loving and forgiving manner, instead of violent r**ts and criminal anarchy.

Share on Facebook

Friday, June 26th, 2015

My question is this. Is our government sane? I am beginning to wonder if any one in the government is looking out for the safety and well being of the American people. What I witnessed at the White House tonight
is nothing short of a slap in the face.

On every news channel, the picture of our White House bathed in the rain bow colors of the gay was shown through out the entire nation.

This was a despicable display of in your face, and I don’t give a s**t what you think is right or not. It was also an affront to all God loving people in this country.

Yet, not one news station that showed this, said not a word about the
meaning of this except to say, oh look, they, the white house, is showing the American people they do not care about your Christian belief. We have won and this is for you.

I watched the Megan Kelly news hour
And she only mentioned it in a flippant way, buy saying “oh, how cute.”

Christians all across this country should be fuming. How dare our government put this in our face. Is there no one in congress that sees this?

Dam them all to hell.

RETW
8-) 8-) 8-) 8-) 8-) 8-) 8-) 8-) 8-) 8-) 8-) 8-) 8-)