Former Federal Judge Says: “U.S. Supreme Court Justices who Performed Same Sex Marriages Should Recuse or Be Impeached”

/13 Comments/in , /by

Within the last couple of years of our nation’s 239-year history, left-wing lawyers clothed in black robes have imposed their twisted view of law and morality on the country with breathtaking speed. As recently as 2010, over two-thirds of these United States had banned homosexual marriage, with Americans overwhelming rejecting same-sex marriage at the ballot box. Incredibly, federal judges have arrogantly reversed the decisions of voters in most of those states, leaving just five states nationwide with bans in place, undisturbed by court ruling. (There are 13 states in which homosexual marriage is still banned. However, for eight of those states, courts have overturned the bans but have stayed their reversal until appeals have run.)

And now, in Obergefell v. Hodges, the U.S. Supreme Court is poised to void the few remaining pro-traditional marriage laws, nationwide.

How did a country, founded on religious freedom by largely God-fearing, Bible-reading patriots reach this point? First, despite the federal judiciary’s near full-body embrace of homosexual marriage, such sexual couplings are not equally accepted by ordinary Americans. To be sure, attitudes are changing – in part due to the increasing inclination to look to “the civil law” rather than God for morality – but the American people by and large reject the idea that any marriage other than that of one man to one woman is a good idea.

The elites have a completely different view. All one need do is look at Hollywood’s hyper-evangelical effort to indoctrinate television viewers and movie goers through the ubiquitous insertion of out-of-place subplots portraying loving, happy homosexuals. One can’t even enjoy watching the apocalyptic showdown between remnants of the human race and hordes of zombies in AMC’s blockbuster Walking Dead without being interrupted by homosexual passion.

The news media plays the same game, with its unrelenting agenda to force cultural acceptance of homosexual marriage. From the predictable prophets of the left, to those who we had once thought were on the right like Fox’s Shepard Smith, almost all champion homosexuality, and suggest no qualitative or moral difference between heterosexual and same-sex marriage. “Family friendly” drag queen contests on military posts sponsored by federal dollars are celebrated. Families with children raised by transgender, bisexual, or homosexual parents are presented as normal. Counseling to address gender identity issues or same-sex attraction is trashed as unscientific and hateful – even, in some places like California, outlawed altogether.

Political elites – both Democrats and Republicans – are no different. Republicans like Majority Leader McConnell and Speaker Boehner will occasionally throw a rhetorical bone to their constituents on the issue, but they’ll never direct real political capital toward efforts to promote traditional marriage or to preserve states’ rights on the issue. Looking at the number of homosexuals working as congressional staff, the acceptance of federal efforts to celebrate homosexuality, and other telling factors, all reflect where the political elites are personally on this issue. And their wholesale silence over the impending Supreme Court decision on homosexual marriage is especially telling.

In the face of a population that has historically embraced traditional marriage and rejected same-sex relationships, what has empowered the homosexual-pushing political and media elites to such an extent that allies of true marriage are running for cover?

Without a doubt, there are a number of enablers, but the federal judiciary is a central driver. As other articles (Part I, Part II, Part III, Part IV, Part V, and Part VI) in the “Building the Resistance to Same-Sex Marriage” series have convincingly explained, the federal judiciary has largely abandoned any pretext of following the drafters’ intent with respect to the Constitution and its Amendments as applied to same-sex marriage. Apparently, these judges believe the oath they have taken requires no deference to the Constitution’s plain meaning.

Granted, some judges believe that they are compelled to follow the dictates of superior (higher) courts, even if those decisions violate the written Constitution. This is a poor excuse, as the judge’s oath is to the Constitution, not to some twisted interpretation of it. While indefensible, this approach stands in contrast to the illegitimacy of other members of the federal judiciary who spin dozens of pages of judicial decisions, ginning up creative and largely illogical reasons for why constitutional language – drafted when homosexuality was criminalized throughout the United States – somehow now compels protection of same-sex marriage and sodomy.

What is even more troublesome are those Justices who have such zeal for the homosexual agenda that they have made supportive public statements and have even voluntarily officiated at homosexual marriages – despite knowing that the question of homosexual marriage would be presented before them for future decision.

There is a Code of Conduct under which federal judges – including U.S. Supreme Court Justices – are bound to comply. (Justice Kennedy stated on March 14, 2013 that he and the other justices of the Supreme Court consider the Code of Conduct to be “absolutely binding.”) Canon 3A(6) of that Code of Conduct requires that a judge “not make public comment on the merits of a matter pending or impending in any court.” Canon 2A of the same Code provides that a judge “should act at all times in a manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary.” Finally, a federal statute, 28 U.S.C. sec. 455(a), further mandates that a federal judge “disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned.”

U.S. Supreme Court Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Elena Kagan have violated these standards. Both justices have presided over same-sex weddings despite their knowledge of pending federal homosexual marriage cases. Justice Ginsburg has been especially vocal, stating in August 2013 regarding an impending homosexual marriage she was presiding over in Washington, D.C., that “I think it will be one more statement that people who love each other and want to live together should be able to enjoy the blessings and the strife in a marriage relationship.”

Again, this past February, Justice Ginsburg said that it “would not take a large adjustment” for Americans to accept homosexual marriage:

“The change in people’s attitudes on that issue has been enormous. In recent years, people have said, ‘This is the way I am.’ And others looked around, and we discovered it’s our next-door neighbor – we’re very fond of them. Or it’s our child’s best friend, or even our child. I think that as more and more people came out and said that ‘this is who I am,’ the rest of us recognized that they are one of us.”

In response to these pro-homosexual marriage statements and actions, a number of conservative groups contended that Justice Ginsburg’s bias on the issue had been publicly and conclusively established, and demanded that she not participate in Obergefell v. Hodges. The Foundation for Moral Law, which filed an amicus brief in support of traditional marriage, also filed a thoughtful Motion for Recusal in the U.S. Supreme Court in April, but the motion has yet to appear on the Court’s Docket Sheet for the case. Instead, ex-ACLU attorney Justice Ginsburg doubled-down, marrying two men in New York City just last month. According to the New York Times, the Justice made a bit of a spectacle of her support for same-sex marriage during this recent ceremony:

“[T]he most glittering moment for the crowd came during the ceremony. With a sly look and special emphasis on the word “Constitution,” Justice Ginsburg said that she was pronouncing two men married by the powers vested in her by the Constitution of the United States.

“No one was sure if she was emphasizing her own beliefs or giving a hint to the outcome of the case the Supreme Court is considering whether to decide if same-sex marriage is constitutional.

“But the guests began applauding loudly, delighted either way. Justice Ginsburg, who has officiated at same-sex weddings in the past, also seemed delighted . . . Justice Ginsburg [later] reigned as belle of the same-sex ball.”

How Justice Ginsburg – whom the left describes as “brilliant” – could think that such actions and past statements would not raise obvious questions of partiality in a case involving the U.S. Constitution and homosexual marriage is especially troubling. And yet she has aggressively continued her participation in Obergefell v. Hodges as reflected by her active engagement in the case’s oral argument just several weeks ago.

Similarly, Justice Kagan’s voluntary officiation over a homosexual marriage (involving her former law clerk) – although arguably less public than her colleague’s antics – also causes her “impartiality [to] reasonably be questioned.”

In 1988, the U.S. Supreme Court in Liljeberg v. Health Servs. Acquisition Corp (486 U.S. 847, 869-870) quoted Justice Frankfurter, explaining that the “‘guiding consideration is that the administration of justice should reasonably appear to be disinterested as well as be so in fact.'” Here, appearance and fact are consonant: Justices Ginsburg and Kagan are vested in their same-sex marriage positions. This partiality also raises real concerns of whether the litigants in Obergefell v. Hodges can receive due process from those who have demonstrated bias.

So what can be done about Justices who ignore the ethical standards in violation of the judicial Code of Conduct and who violate a federal statute barring their participation in a “proceeding in which [their] impartiality might reasonably be questioned”? Obviously, there is no court above the U.S. Supreme Court from which discipline may be applied. Nor is there a mechanism by which other justices can vote a biased colleague off a case. Internal policing doesn’t appear to be working in Obergefell v. Hodges, even though a number of justices have previously disqualified themselves from cases in which they have vested interests or have made public comments.

The only answer for justices who blatantly violate their Code of Conduct, federal law, and their oaths of office is impeachment and removal. Regrettably, a Republican-controlled Congress, more concerned about rescuing Obamacare than resisting yet another activist attack on the Constitution, offers little hope. Unless and until Members of Congress demonstrate real fidelity to the U.S. Constitution, no Ruling Class politicos in either party can be trusted, and none should be supported, by those who seek to restore liberty to our nation.

__________________________

Joe Miller graduated from West Point in the top 1 percent of the Class of 1989. He then served as an armor officer with the 1st Infantry Division, seeing combat in Desert Storm, receiving the Bronze Star and Meritorious Service Medal. After active duty, Joe attended Yale Law School where he earned his Juris Doctorate. He also holds a Master’s Degree in Economics from the University of Alaska. Following his move to Alaska at the age of 30, he was appointed as a State Magistrate (the youngest then serving in Alaska), then appointed an Acting State District Court Judge and, shortly thereafter, U.S. Magistrate Judge in Fairbanks. Again, he had the distinction of being the youngest then serving in that federal position, in the nation. On August 24, 2010, he defeated incumbent Senator Lisa Murkowski in the Alaskan Republican Primary, only to lose a contentious three-way general election. Joe is currently the President of Restoring Liberty, is the radio host of the daily Joe Miller Show, and practices law. He and his wife Kathleen have been married for 23 years and live with their children in Fairbanks, Alaska.

This article is part of a series on “Building Resistance to Same-Sex Marriage.” To enable this important work to continue, contributions may be made to the U.S. Justice Foundation. Permission is freely granted to publish, copy, reproduce, distribute, or excerpt from this article for any purpose.

Government Debt to Reach 107% of US Economy in 2040 but Current Number has Remained Mysteriously Frozen for 90-Days

/0 Comments/in , /by

By Kasia Klimasinska. US government debt held by the public is expected to rise to 107 percent of the economy in 2040 from 74 percent this year, the Congressional Budget Office said, citing an aging population and rising health-care costs.

With debt “already unusually high” relative to gross domestic product, “further sustained increases could be especially harmful to economic growth,” the CBO said in a long-term fiscal report released Tuesday in Washington. “To put the federal budget on a sustainable path for the long term, lawmakers would have to make major changes to tax policies, spending policies, or both.” (Read more from “Government Debt to Reach 107% of US Economy in 2040” HERE)

____________________________________________________________________

90 Days: Treasury Says Debt Has Been Frozen at $18,112,975,000,000

By Terence P. Jeffrey. The portion of the federal debt that is subject to a legal limit set by Congress closed Thursday, June 11, at $18,112,975,000,000, according to the latest Daily Treasury Statement, which was published at 4:00 p.m. on Friday.

That, according to the Treasury’s statements, makes 90 straight days the debt subject to the limit has been frozen at $18,112,975,000,000.

$18,112,975,000,000 is about $25 million below the current legal debt limit of $18,113,000,080,959.35.

The Daily Treasury Statement for March 13 was the first to show the federal debt subject to the limit closing the day at $18,112,975,000,000. Every Daily Treasury Statement since then has reported the same thing: the debt closing the day at $18,112,975,000,000.

Every Daily Treasury Statement since Monday, March 16, has reported the debt beginning and ending each day at $18,112,975,000,000. (Read more from “90 Days: Treasury Says Debt Has Been Frozen at $18,112,975,000,000” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

More Clinton Deceit Comes to Light

/4 Comments/in , /by

News reports today reveal that Sidney Blumenthal, Hillary Clinton’s crony barred from the State Department but worming his way into State via more than two dozen memos, has turned over previously undiscovered emails. As the New York Times notes, this raises “new questions about whether the State Department and Mrs. Clinton have complied with a series of requests from the [Benghazi panel].” Perhaps she put them in the “personal” category before destroying them and wiping her server.

Reacting angrily, Speaker of the House John Boehner (R-Ohio) in a written statement said, “New revelations that the Obama State Department or former Secretary Hillary Clinton withheld emails related to Benghazi and Libya from the Select Committee are outrageous.” He continued, “First she set up a private server to avoid transparency and records law, then she wiped it clean while its contents were under subpoena – and apparently failed to ensure congressional investigators were provided with everything they are entitled to. What in the world is she trying to hide?”

What is not clear is whether she knowingly withheld the documents or whether she was, let’s say, generous in her categorization of some emails as “personal,” and thereby destroyed information that had been requested. Politico notes that she may have been too cute by half:

[A] congressional source did not know whether Clinton had turned over all the new emails to State and State did not provide them, or whether Clinton failed to hand over the correspondence. . . .At the crux of the back-and-forth is whether the committee specifically asked State for all Clinton’s Libya emails or only Benghazi-related correspondence. State says the panel initially asked for Benghazi-only material and only recently expanded that request to include all correspondence on the Middle Eastern nation. The congressional source argued that the initial request for information from Clinton was aimed at all Libya correspondence — and that State was being evasive.

(Read more from “More Clinton Deceit Comes to Light” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Feds Lost $2.8 Billion in Obamacare Subsidies

/1 Comment/in , /by

The federal government cannot verify nearly $3 billion in subsidies distributed through Obamacare, putting significant taxpayer funding “at risk,” according to a new audit report.

The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) Office of Inspector General (OIG) released an audit Tuesday finding that the agency did not have an internal system to ensure that subsidies went to the right enrollees, or in the correct amounts.

“[The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services] CMS’s internal controls did not effectively ensure the accuracy of nearly $2.8 billion in aggregate financial assistance payments made to insurance companies under the Affordable Care Act during the first four months that these payments were made,” the OIG said . . .

The OIG reviewed subsidies paid to insurance companies between January and April 2014. The audit found that CMS did not have a process to “prevent or detect any possible substantial errors” in subsidy payments . . .

According to the OIG, the government still does not have a complete system for approving subsidies distributed though Obamacare. CMS used an “interim process” to distribute subsidies for 2014, and is planning a “permanent process” to be finished by late 2015. The final system is supposed to approve enrollment and payment data “on an enrollee-by-enrollee basis.” (Read more from “Feds Can’t Verify $2.8 Billion in Obamacare Subsidies” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

RINO Boehner Uses Every Game in the Book to Keep Obamatrade Alive [+video]

/2 Comments/in , /by

After suffering a defeat last week when Democrats voted down the trade subsidy component of the trade bill (TAA), Obama and Boehner realized they lacked the votes to pass TPA at this juncture. So, Plan B ensued. Just how far is Boehner willing to go to pass Obamatrade? Boehner had the House Rules Committee draft a resolution enabling leadership to bring up TPA at a moment’s notice on any day through July 31. Today, the House passed the rule 236-189.

Only six conservatives voted against this rule today. Aside from the complications of it being conflated with the intelligence bill, they were sternly warned not to vote against the rule. Last week, 34 Republicans voted against the rule to debate the TPA in the first place and almost defeated the bill – before Pelosi delivered eight Democrats to Boehner’s column and saved the process. Today we learned that three Republicans – Reps. Cynthia Lummis (R-WY), Trent Franks (R-AZ), and Steve Pearce (R-NM) were tossed off the whip team for voting down the rule.

Typically, rules for debate on a specific bill expire after a few days or a week and cannot be brought to the floor without crafting a new rule. Boehner took the unprecedented step of granting Obamatrade this privileged floor status for a full six weeks so that GOP Leadership and Obama can engage in horse-trading in an attempt to secure the necessary votes for passage.

Instead of awarding this status to something that actually addresses a current crisis, like say, an Iran sanctions bill, GOP leadership has proven the only fight they’re willing to engage in is passing Obama’s trade promotion at all costs.

What’s worse is that this rule to grant the trade bill such privileged status was not a standalone resolution. It was attached to a completely unrelated resolution governing the rule for the upcoming bill to reauthorize our intelligence programs. Hence, Boehner engaged in cowardice and deceit by forcing members to support this chicanery or be viewed as blowing up an intelligence authorization bill.

Ironically, the privileged status is not even for the underlying TPA, which already passed both houses of Congress. It is for the liberal Trade Adjustment Assistance program. Leadership needs that program to pass and get enmeshed into the underlying bill so that the final bill will contain the same language as the Senate legislation, thereby paving the road to the president’s desk.

Leadership pursued this strategy for two reasons. First, it gives them six weeks to bribe, threaten, cajole, and horse-trade in order to buy off enough votes to pass the final TPA. And once again, they are not negotiating with conservatives by promising them a strong push on important priorities, such as immigration, Iran, Obamacare, or protecting religious liberty. They are fully negotiating with the Democrats and will promise them almost anything in order to consummate their support for their own leader’s trade deal.

And secondly, passage of this duplicitous rule enables leadership to potentially slam the bill on the floor at any moment between now and the August recess. They have the ability to find a vulnerable time for members and pass the trade assistance (and thereby finalize the broader trade package) with a simple voice vote. Leadership has already employed this tactic before. Conservatives have stood guard on the floor to watch for any attempt to voice vote the TAA into law. Now they will have to post sentries on the floor for six more weeks.

Consequently, an entire group of conservatives will have to divert their time away from critical issues in order to guard against treachery from their own party.

What is GOP leadership doing to address the most pressing issues of our time?

Are they pulling out all the stops to prevent Obama from releasing six Al Qaeda terrorists from Guantanamo Bay, including three former bodyguards of Osama bin Laden? Are they using every must-pass bill to address the emergency created by Obama releasing tens of thousands of criminal aliens from prison, including murders and rapists? Are they planning a full-scale assault against Obama’s appeasement of Iran come June 30?

Not a chance. None of these issues are even on their radar.

Even those conservatives who support the underlying trade agreement must realize that the price of the process and politics being employed by leadership to pass this bill has become too steep. It’s time for all conservatives to unite and shut this down and force leadership to focus on some of the critical national security, economic, and social problems that plague this country.

Or put another way, it’s time for them to actually become the party they campaigned as during the November elections. (“Boehner Uses Every Game in the Book to Keep Obamatrade Alive”, originally posted HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Vatican Speaker and California Governor in Push for Massive Depopulation

/4 Comments/in , /by

The depopulationists are on the move again, pushing hard for the elimination of six billion people on planet Earth in order to bring the planet down to what’s being touted as its “sustainable carrying capacity of one billion people.”

But this time, the depopulation agenda may be codified by the Vatican. Professor John Schellnhuber has been chosen as a speaker for the Vatican’s rolling out of a Papal document on climate change. He’s the professor who previously said the planet is overpopulated by at least six billion people. Now, the Vatican is giving him a platform which many expect will result in an official Church declaration in support of radical depopulation in the name of “climate science.”

“The teaching document, called an encyclical, is scheduled for release on June 18 at Vatican City,” reports Breitbart.com. “Perhaps with the exception of the 1968 encyclical on contraception, no Vatican document has been greeted with such anticipation.”

A new Planetary Court to hold power over all nations… one ring to rule them all

Schellnhuber daydreams about a “Planetary Court” guided by a new “Earth Constitution” which would hold power over every nation and government on the planet. As he explains himself in this document on HumansAndNature.org, he’s a proponent of an all-powerful, climate-focused world government that would rule over the planet… a literal “science dictatorship” based on whatever “science” the climate change proponents can fudge together each year. . .

Interestingly, California Governor Jerry Brown might welcome such a depopulation agenda organized under a new world government. He recently tweeted about California having too many people, saying, “At some point, how many people can we accommodate?” Gov. Brown goes on to say that climate change is the reason the current drought is so much more worse than anything they’ve seen in the past. (Read more from “Vatican Speaker and California Governor in Push for Massive Depopulation” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Dangerous Game?: Feds Say Terror Suspect Eyed Attack on Super Bowl

/0 Comments/in , /by

Authorities said Tuesday that a Phoenix man who helped orchestrate a shootout at last month’s “Draw Muhammad” event in Texas also had aspirations to join ISIS and attack the Super Bowl.

Abdul Malik Abdul Kareem, 43, was arrested last week on charges related to the May 3 attack in Garland, Texas that led to the deaths of two roommates from Phoenix. An indictment filed in federal court in Phoenix says Kareem hosted the gunmen in his home beginning in January and provided the guns they used when they attacked security guards outside the event.

At Tuesday’s hearing, FBI special agent Dina McCarthy described how a witness and a confidential informant learned about Kareem’s intentions to join ISIS, including watching the group’s propaganda videos with the Texas shooters Elton Simpson and Nadir Soofi.

McCarthy said a 2012 investigation into Kareem determined he had a terrorism training document on his computer. She alleged he wanted to attack the Super Bowl when it was in Arizona this year, but didn’t provide the specifics about how serious he was.

The magistrate denied bail for Kareem, who is charged with conspiracy, making false statements and interstate transportation of firearms with intent to commit a felony. (Read more from “Dangerous Game?: Feds Say Terror Suspect Eyed Attack on Super Bowl” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

“Situation Critical”: New Data From NASA Shows How the World Is Running out of Water

/12 Comments/in , /by

The world’s largest underground aquifers – a source of fresh water for hundreds of millions of people — are being depleted at alarming rates, according to new NASA satellite data that provides the most detailed picture yet of vital water reserves hidden under the Earth’s surface.

Twenty-one of the world’s 37 largest aquifers — in locations from India and China to the United States and France — have passed their sustainability tipping points, meaning more water was removed than replaced during the decade-long study period, researchers announced Tuesday. Thirteen aquifers declined at rates that put them into the most troubled category. The researchers said this indicated a long-term problem that’s likely to worsen as reliance on aquifers grows.

Scientists had long suspected that humans were taxing the world’s underground water supply, but the NASA data was the first detailed assessment to demonstrate that major aquifers were indeed struggling to keep pace with demands from agriculture, growing populations, and industries such as mining.

“The situation is quite critical,” said Jay Famiglietti, senior water scientist at NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory in California and principal investigator of the University of California Irvine-led studies.

Underground aquifers supply 35 percent of the water used by humans worldwide. Demand is even greater in times of drought. Rain-starved California is currently tapping aquifers for 60 percent of its water use as its rivers and above-ground reservoirs dry up, a steep increase from the usual 40 percent. Some expect water from aquifers will account for virtually every drop of the state’s fresh water supply by year end. (Read more from “New Data From NASA Shows How the World Is Running out of Water” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

800 Years of the Magna Carta Prove the Constitution is NOT Irrelevant [+video]

/17 Comments/in , , , /by

The Constitution is NOT irrelevant and out dated as the progressives demand. But WE need to know WHY that is a lie.

Happy Birthday Magna Carta and enter in the perfect reason to talk and teach about the history of our Constitution and its relevance today!

THIS VIDEO WILL SET THE STAGE!

This is a brief history as told in detail by the above video:

In 1100 the people of England came together to force King Henry to sign the 1100 Charter of Liberties promising (among other things), that: 1) Government would no longer be evil and oppressive, 2) That the men making and enforcing the laws cannot hold themselves above the law and 3) People would not be forced to buy their inheritance from the government.

In 1215 the people took Liberty into their own hands. They got fed up with King John and his violations of the 1100 Charter of Liberties and they came together to create the Magna Carta of 1215. The Magna Carta provided instructions to the government about how to live up to the 1100 Charter of Liberties. The Magna Carta created a representative style government that put the people over the King. Our 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, & 8th Amendments of our Bill of Rights all come from clauses 38-40 of the Magna Carta. “The Right to Petition the Government For a Redress Of Our Grievances,” the last Liberty identified in our 1st Amendment was first codified in the Magna Carta.

SEE A MODERN DAY MAGNA CARTA: https://goo.gl/wuB9H5

This Magna Carta, put the people in direct control of the government and set the stage for three more advances in Liberty.

1) The Petition of Right of 1628, declaring that Liberty is the inherent possession of men and not the gift of government.

2) The Grand Remonstrance of 1641, recognizing that oppressive government always operates under the same M.O.: Corruption of the Courts, Infiltration of Foreign Law, Government diminishing the property Rights of the people, Government creation of fiat to control the monetary system, and Government disarming the people while keeping the Government armed.

3) The English Bill of Rights of 1689, reinforcing that maintaining Separation of Powers is essential in preserving Liberty. In 1688 they declared that it will be the complete destruction of Liberty when the Executive Branch is allowed to write law, set aside law, and over turn law, when those are powers reserved to the Legislative Branch alone.

These five documents (Charter of Liberties, Magna Carta, Petition of Right of 1628, Grand Remonstrance of 1641, and the English Bill of Rights of 1689) make the Constitution of our Founders. These five documents form the foundation of our Constitution and are the reason why John Adams said in 1765,

“Liberty must at all hazards be supported. We have a right to it, derived from our Maker. But if we had not, our fathers have earned and bought it for us, at the expense of their ease, their estates, their pleasure, and their blood.”

Without the Magna Carta of 1215, there would be no Declaration of Independence, no Constitution, and no Bill of Rights. We have this history to thank for our Liberty today. So let’s celebrate it and teach the truth that can defeat the progressive lies.

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Female Christian Radio Host Offers the Perfect Rebuttal to the Transgender Party Line

/2 Comments/in , /by

LaVern Vivio, a Christian radio host based in Nashville, has offered a compelling personal tale about her own struggle with gender identity, and the insights she offers are at once humanizing and terrifying . . .

“I was having trouble finding comfort in what God made me to be,” she continues. “But that was part of the journey He had for me. It’s a journey I am thankful was accompanied by parents, peers and mentors (who) taught me God does not make mistakes.”

She then offers a litany of scenarios in which vulnerable adolescents and young adults such as she once was could be be shunted down a path that ends at being convinced transgenderism is the answer to their struggles.

“What if I had been raised that the choices for me sexually were vast and practically limitless?” she asks. “What if, in my adolescence, my deep loneliness, a girl had kissed me and I liked it?” . . .

“My concern is for what we are doing to ourselves as we seek to continue down a road that tries to recreate our lives into what we want them to be rather than what God created us to be. The road we are paving for our children is so confusing and hard and it doesn’t have to be.” (Read more from “Female Christian Radio Host Offers the Perfect Rebuttal to the Transgender Party Line” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.