December 1, 2015
The comments about obesity are uniformed and prejudicial, but it works as an analogy for the Democrats.
December 1, 2015
The comments about obesity are uniformed and prejudicial, but it works as an analogy for the Democrats.
November 2, 2015
Christians around the world are under increasing pressure and persecution, especially in Islamic countries where many Christians are told to “either convert or die.” The persecution of Christians in Pakistan has increased so dramatically that there is a call for the United States to exert pressure.
Tiffany Barrans, international legal director for the American Center for Law & Justice, told FoxNews.com, “Pakistan is on record as having one of the world’s worst and most widely abused blasphemy laws, which has resulted in abuse of the law through false accusations that prosper under a system of impunity. Blasphemy accusations have resulted not only in the destruction of the lives of the accused but have often been at the root of the destruction of entire Christian communities.”
Fox News Reports that activist warn that Christians may be wiped out in the Middle East. Experts suggest the Islamic State are no different than Nazis, except in power. Their ideology is the same:
Read more about it…
October 17, 2015
Slavery is still with us and is a major global problem. We recommend and offer complete support for Operation Underground Railroad Rescue, which is dedicated to rescuing as many victims as possible.
We encourage everyone to become modern Abolitionist.
Report: January – September 2015
July 30, 2015
Carol Everett has been a vigorous Pro-Life activist for three decades. She was an abortion clinic owner responsible for more than 35,000 deaths of babies. She finally quit the industry, was converted to Christ, and become one of the premier Pro-Life activist in the United States.
Note from Bro. Ignatius Mary: I had the privilege of interviewing Carol on my TV Show, Eyes on Justice, in Iowa City, Iowa. It was our most popular program. It was necessary to move the taping out of our studio to a lecture hall because of the number of people who wanted to come to the live show. I tried to get a pro-abortion person to debate her, but no one would accept the invitation. Carol said on air that this was common with each speaking engagement. Carol simple knew all the dirty little secrets.
Here is her keynote presentation and testimony to the Texas Alliance for Life 2011 Annual Benefit Dinner:
To buy Carol’s book: Blood Money: Getting Rich Off a Woman’s Right to Choose
May 9, 2015
Rabbi Jonathan Cahn brought a chilling warning to America at the U.S. Capital on Wednesday.
It was day after justices heard arguments on whether or not the U.S. government would mandate recognition of homosexual “marriage” across the country, Cahn warned the Supreme Court what redefining marriage in America would mean. Cahn said:
“If this court should overrule the word of God and strike down the eternal rules of order and right that heaven itself ordained, how then will God save it?”Justices, can you judge the ways of God? There is another court and there another judge, where all men and all judges will give account.
If a nation’s high court should pass judgment on the Almighty, should you then be surprised God will pass judgment on the court and that nation? We are doing that which Israel did on the altars of Baal.
We are exchanging our light for darkness.”
“Blessed is the nation whose God is the Lord.” (Psalm 33:12)
Listen to the Rabbi’s fiery speech. It will make you stand up in your own house in ovation.
February 7, 2015
World War III is raging today. The aggressor of this world war is Islam. This war even has a Pearl Harbor, the unprovoked sneak attack on 9/11. Military actions are not the only weapon Islam uses this war. The greatest weapon of Islam is immigration into non-Muslim nations and those nations acquiescence to Islam and even shariah law through so-called hate-speech laws, political correctness, and other social pressures.
Truth is the new hate speech.
We offer here several speeches and documentaries that explains these issues in detail.
Pamela Geller, Founder, Editor, and Publisher of Atlas Shrugs.com and Executive Director of the American Freedom Defense Initiative, speaks to the Sugar Land Tea Party in Sugar Land, Texas. This event was originally to be held at the HyattPlace in Sugar Land but was canceled with less than 30 hours notice after the hotel received one email threatening to protest her appearance. The event was relocated to the Sugar Land Community Center
Free Speech is under attack in England, Canada, and in the United States. This attack comes in the attempt to pass laws and in the discrimination practice of some businesses and Universities.
Here Pamela Geller joined Steve Malzberg on his Newsmax TV show to discuss being banned from Great Britain because she is “not conducive to the public good”.
Books by Pamela:
The Third Jihad
The Third Jihad is a groundbreaking film that exposes the truth and reveals what the media is not telling you about the Jihadist quest to rule America. Based on the accounts of the one person who is not afraid to tell you the truth; Dr. Zuhdi Jasser, former physician to the US Congress and a Muslim American.
Following the FBI release of a radical Islamist manifesto outlining its plan to destroy America from within, Dr. Jasser decided to investigate. The movie The Third Jihad is about what he discovered. Its focus is on a secret manifesto of the American Muslim Brotherhood discovered by the FBI.
It describes the ‘Grand Jihad’ goal of the Islamic Radicals to destroy Western civilization from within by infiltrating and dominating North America. This document outlines how Radical Islamists are taking advantage of our country’s democratic processes, and using them to destroy the American way of life.
(This is the Abridged Version)
Support the makers of this film. Buy the DVD
Fitna: The Movie (Controversial)
This controversial film was produced by Dutch parliamentarian Geert Wilders. The film argues that Islam encourages—among other things—acts of terrorism, antisemitism, violence against women, violence and subjugation of “infidels” and against homosexuals and Islamic universalism. A large part of the film details the influence of Islam on the Netherlands.
The Arabic title-word “fitna” means “disagreement and division among people” or a “test of faith in times of trial”.
A trial of Dutch politician Geert Wilders is ongoing as of this post in the Netherlands in 2010-2011. Wilders is facing five counts of inciting hatred and discrimination for describing Islam as a fascist religion and Moroccan youths as violent and for calling for the banning of the Koran. The judges in the first trial were removed after a perceived bias against Wilders, and a retrial started in February 2011. The Dutch Public Prosecution Service argues that Wilders should be acquitted on all counts.
Wilders is the leader of the Party for Freedom and is known for his criticisms of Islam and what he describes as the Islamization of the Netherlands. In the Netherlands he is being prosecuted on charges that on several occasions in 2007 and 2008 he insulted Muslims and fomented hate and discrimination against them because of their religion. He is also accused of fomenting hate and discrimination against non-Western foreigners, including Moroccans. Wilders portrays himself as “a champion of free speech” and the trial as a test of freedom of speech and hate speech issues.
In 2008, Wilders was also charged by a prosecutor in Jordan with blasphemy and contempt for Muslims for making his anti-Qu’ran film “Fitna”.
In an August 8, 2007, open letter to the Dutch newspaper De Volkskrant Wilders wrote that the Koran, which he called a “fascist book”, should be outlawed in the Netherlands, as is Adolf Hitler’s Mein Kampf. He has stated that “[t]he book incites hatred and killing and therefore has no place in our legal order.” He has also referred to Mohammed as “the devil”.
In 2008, Wilders published the film Fitna that accuses the Qur’an of inspiring terrorism, Islamic universalism, and attempts to draw connections to Islam in the Netherlands.
Here is the film followed by a Jewish response to the film:
Warning: This film contains disturbing images that may not be suited for all audiences.
Jihad in the United States
Radical Muslims are looking for ways to bring sharia law to the United States. Here is a first hand account from David Woods of sharia law in the United States.
OKLAHOMA CITY – A federal appeals court upheld a temporary stop to our state’s ban on sharia law. Voters overwhelmingly passed the constitutional amendment in November 2010, but it still hasn’t gone into effect because of a fierce court battle. The amendment bans state courts from considering international and Islamic – or Sharia – Law, when deciding cases.
The man suing the state says Oklahomans were asked to vote on something that was unconstitutional. Muneer Awad has been fighting for this day for more than a year and the fight’s not over.
“We’re just hopeful that we can carry the momentum to continue to show politicians that this type of legislation, legislation that targets religious minorities, is unconstitutional,” Awad said.
Awad is the executive director of the Council on American-Islamic Relations in Oklahoma. He filed a lawsuit that claims banning Sharia Law targets Muslims. “It demonized Muslims by saying they are somehow a unique threat to the state of Oklahoma. The law says that on its face,” Awad said.
Because of Awad’s lawsuit, the law never took effect. A federal appeals court in Colorado agreed, the law should be put on hold while a lower court decides whether it’s Constitutional. Seventy percent of Oklahoma voters approved the constitutional amendment.
In the ruling, the court admitted, “Federal courts should be wary of interfering with the voting process… but it is always in the public interest to prevent the violation of a party’s constitutional rights.”
“The first amendment is not up for a vote, whether it’s 70% or 90%,” Awad said.
The court concluded Awad made a strong case that the amendment exposes him and other Muslims in Oklahoma to discrimination. It also says he could potentially win in his lawsuit to permanently stop the law. Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt released a statement today, saying “My office will continue to defend the state in this matter and proceed with the merits of the case.”
We also called Senator Anthony Sykes, who authored the bill, and he did not call us back.
What Every Christian Ought to Know About Islam
January 17, 2015
Vatican.va (Rome) – The First “International Day of Prayer and Awareness against Human Trafficking” will be celebrated in all dioceses and parishes in the world, in the groups and schools on 8 February 2015, the Feast Day of Josephine Bakhita, a Sudanese slave, freed, who became a Canossian nun, and was declared a Saint in 2000. The initiative is promoted by the Pontifical Council of Pastoral Care of Migrants and Itinerant People, the Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace and the International Union of Superiors General .
The statement sent to Agenzia Fides highlights that “the primary objective of the International Day is to create greater awareness on this phenomenon and to reflect on the overall situation of violence and injustice that affect so many people, who have no voice, do not count, and are no one: they are simply slaves. Another goal is to attempt to provide solutions to counter this modern form of slavery by taking concrete actions”.The phenomenon concerns the whole world. According to official data roughly 21 million people, often very poor and vulnerable, are victims of trafficking for sexual exploitation, forced labour and begging, illegal organ removal, domestic servitude and forced marriages, illegal adoption and other forms of exploitation.
Each year, around 2.5 million people are victims of trafficking and slavery. On the other hand, for traffickers and pimps, this is one of the most lucrative illegal activities in the world, generating a total of 32 billion dollars a year. It is the third most profitable “business” after drugs and arms trafficking.
October 7, 2014
by Philip Hamburger, Columbia Law School
PHILIP HAMBURGER is the Maurice and Hilda Friedman Professor of Law at Columbia Law School. He received his B.A. from Princeton University and his J.D. from Yale Law School. He has also taught at the University of Chicago Law School, the George Washington University Law School, the University of Virginia Law School, and Northwestern Law School. A contributor to National Review Online, he has written for several law reviews and journals, including the American Journal of Legal History, the Supreme Court Review, the Notre Dame Law Review, and the Journal of Law and Politics. He is the author of Separation of Church and State, Law and Judicial Duty, and, most recently, Is Administrative Law Unlawful?
The following is adapted from a speech delivered on May 6, 2014, at Hillsdale College’s Allan P. Kirby, Jr. Center for Constitutional Studies and Citizenship in Washington, D.C., as part of the AWC Family Foundation Lecture Series.
There are many complaints about administrative law—including that it is arbitrary, that it is a burden on the economy, and that it is an intrusion on freedom. The question I will address here is whether administrative law is unlawful, and I will focus on constitutional history. Those who forget history, it is often said, are doomed to repeat it. And this is what has happened in the United States with the rise of administrative law—or, more accurately, administrative power.
Administrative law is commonly defended as a new sort of power, a product of the 19th and the 20th centuries that developed to deal with the problems of modern society in all its complexity. From this perspective, the Framers of the Constitution could not have anticipated it and the Constitution could not have barred it. What I will suggest, in contrast, is that administrative power is actually very old. It revives what used to be called prerogative or absolute power, and it is thus something that the Constitution centrally prohibited.
But first, what exactly do I mean by administrative law or administrative power? Put simply, administrative acts are binding or constraining edicts that come, not through law, but through other mechanisms or pathways. For example, when an executive agency issues a rule constraining Americans—barring an activity that results in pollution, for instance, or restricting how citizens can use their land—it is an attempt to exercise binding legislative power not through an act of Congress, but through an administrative edict. Similarly, when an executive agency adjudicates a violation of one of these edicts—in order to impose a fine or some other penalty—it is an attempt to exercise binding judicial power not through a judicial act, but again through an administrative act.
In a way we can think of administrative law as a form of off-road driving. The Constitution offers two avenues of binding power—acts of Congress and acts of the courts. Administrative acts by executive agencies are a way of driving off-road, exercising power through other pathways. For those in the driver’s seat, this can be quite exhilarating. For the rest of us, it’s a little unnerving.
The Constitution authorizes three types of power, as we all learned in school—the legislative power is located in Congress, executive power is located in the president and his subordinates, and the judicial power is located in the courts. How does administrative power fit into that arrangement?
The conventional answer to this question is based on the claim of the modernity of administrative law. Administrative law, this argument usually goes, began in 1887 when Congress created the Interstate Commerce Commission, and it expanded decade by decade as Congress created more such agencies. A variant of this account suggests that administrative law is actually a little bit older—that it began to develop in the early practices of the federal government of the United States. But whether it began in the 1790s or in the 1880s, administrative law according to this account is a post-1789 development and—this is the key point—it arose as a pragmatic and necessary response to new and complex practical problems in American life. The pragmatic and necessitous character of this development is almost a mantra—and of course if looked at that way, opposition to administrative law is anti-modern and quixotic.
But there are problems with this conventional history of administrative law. Rather than being a modern, post-constitutional American development, I argue that the rise of administrative law is essentially a re-emergence of the absolute power practiced by pre-modern kings. Rather than a modern necessity, it is a latter-day version of a recurring threat—a threat inherent in human nature and in the temptations of power.
The Prerogative Power of Kings
The constitutional history of the past thousand years in common law countries records the repeated ebb and flow of absolutism on the one side and law on the other. English kings were widely expected to rule through law. They had Parliament for making law and courts of law for adjudicating cases, and they were expected to govern through the acts of these bodies. But kings were discontent with governing through the law and often acted on their own. The personal power that kings exercised when evading the law was called prerogative power.
Whereas ordinarily kings bound their subjects through statutes passed by Parliament, when exercising prerogative power they bound subjects through proclamations or decrees—or what we today call rules or regulations. Whereas ordinarily kings would repeal old statutes by obtaining new statutes, when exercising prerogative power they issued dispensations and suspensions—or what we today call waivers. Whereas ordinarily kings enforced the law through the courts of law, when exercising prerogative power they enforced their commands through their prerogative courts—courts such as the King’s Council, the Star Chamber, and the High Commission—or what we today call administrative courts. Ordinarily, English judges resolved legal disputes in accordance with their independent judgment regarding the law. But when kings exercised prerogative power, they expected deference from judges, both to their own decrees and to the holdings and interpretations of their extra-legal prerogative courts.
Although England did not have a full separation of powers of the sort written into the American Constitution, it did have a basic division of powers. Parliament had the power to make laws, the law courts had the power to adjudicate, and the king had the power to exercise force. But when kings acted through prerogative power, they or their prerogative courts exercised all government powers, overriding these divisions. For example, the Star Chamber could make regulations, as well as prosecute and adjudicate infractions. And defenders of this sort of prerogative power were not squeamish about describing it as absolute power. Absolutism was their justification.
Conceptually, there were three central elements of this absolutism: extra-legal power, supra-legal power, and the consolidation of power. It was extra-legal or outside the law in the sense that it bound the public not through laws or statutes, but through other means. It was supra-legal or above the law in the sense that kings expected judges to defer to it—notwithstanding their duty to exercise their own independent judgment. And it was consolidated in the sense that it united all government powers—legislative, executive, and judicial—in the king or in his prerogative courts. And underlying these three central elements was the usual conceptual justification for absolute power: necessity. Necessity, it was said, was not bound by law.
These claims on behalf of absolutism, of course, did not go unchallenged. When King John called Englishmen to account extralegally in his Council, England’s barons demanded in Magna Carta in 1215 that no freeman shall be taken or imprisoned or even summoned except through the mechanisms of law. When 14th century English kings questioned men in the king’s Council, Parliament in 1354 and 1368 enacted due process statutes. When King James I attempted to make law through proclamations, judges responded in 1610 with an opinion that royal proclamations were unlawful and void. When James subsequently demanded judicial deference to prerogative interpretations of statutes, the judges refused. Indeed, in 1641 Parliament abolished the Star Chamber and the High Commission, the bodies then engaging in extra-legal lawmaking and adjudication. And most profoundly, English constitutional law began to develop—and it made clear that there could be no extra-legal, supra-legal, or consolidated power.
The Rise of Absolutism in America
The United States Constitution echoes this. Early Americans were very familiar with absolute power. They feared this extra-legal, supra-legal, and consolidated power because they knew from English history that such power could evade the law and override all legal rights. It is no surprise, then, that the United States Constitution was framed to bar this sort of power. To be precise, Americans established the Constitution to be the source of all government power and to bar any absolute power. Nonetheless, absolute power has come back to life in common law nations, including America.
After absolute power was defeated in England and America, it circled back from the continent through Germany, and especially through Prussia. There, what once had been the personal prerogative power of kings became the bureaucratic administrative power of the states. The Prussians were the leaders of this development in the 17th and 18th centuries. In the 19th century they became the primary theorists of administrative power, and many of them celebrated its evasion of constitutional law and constitutional rights.
This German theory would become the intellectual source of American administrative law. Thousands upon thousands of Americans studied administrative power in Germany, and what they learned there about administrative power became standard fare in American universities. At the same time, in the political sphere, American Progressives were becoming increasingly discontent with elected legislatures, and they increasingly embraced German theories of administration and defended the imposition of administrative law in America in terms of pragmatism and necessity.
The Progressives, moreover, understood what they were doing. For example, in 1927, a leading Progressive theorist openly said that the question of whether an American administrative officer could issue regulations was similar to the question of whether pre-modern English kings could issue binding proclamations. By the 1920s, however, Progressives increasingly were silent about the continuity between absolute power and modern administrative power, as this undermined their claims about its modernity and lawfulness.
In this way, over the past 120 years, Americans have reestablished the very sort of power that the Constitution most centrally forbade. Administrative law is extra-legal in that it binds Americans not through law but through other mechanisms—not through statutes but through regulations—and not through the decisions of courts but through other adjudications. It is supra-legal in that it requires judges to put aside their independent judgment and defer to administrative power as if it were above the law—which our judges do far more systematically than even the worst of 17th century English judges. And it is consolidated in that it combines the three powers of government—legislative, executive, and judicial—in administrative agencies.
Let me close by addressing just two of many constitutional problems illuminated by the re-emergence of absolutism in the form of administrative power: delegation and procedural rights.
One standard defense of administrative power is that Congress uses statutes to delegate its lawmaking power to administrative agencies. But this is a poor defense. The delegation of lawmaking has long been a familiar feature of absolute power. When kings exercised extra-legal power, they usually had at least some delegated authority from Parliament. Henry VIII, for example, issued binding proclamations under an authorizing statute called the Act of Proclamations. His binding proclamations were nonetheless understood to be exercises of absolute power. And in the 18th century the Act of Proclamations was condemned as unconstitutional.
Against this background, the United States Constitution expressly bars the delegation of legislative power. This may sound odd, given that the opposite is so commonly asserted by scholars and so routinely accepted by the courts. But read the Constitution. The Constitution’s very first substantive words are, “All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States.” The word “all” was not placed there by accident. The Framers understood that delegation had been a problem in English constitutional history, and the word “all” was placed there precisely to bar it.
As for procedural rights, the history is even more illuminating. Administrative adjudication evades almost all of the procedural rights guaranteed under the Constitution. It subjects Americans to adjudication without real judges, without juries, without grand juries, without full protection against self-incrimination, and so forth. Like the old prerogative courts, administrative courts substitute inquisitorial process for the due process of law—and that’s not just an abstract accusation; much early administrative procedure appears to have been modelled on civilian-derived inquisitorial process. Administrative adjudication thus becomes an open avenue for evasion of the Bill of Rights.
The standard justification for the administrative evasion of procedural rights is that they apply centrally to the regular courts, but not entirely to administrative adjudication. But the history shows that procedural rights developed primarily to bar prerogative or administrative proceedings, not to regulate what the government does in regular courts of law. As I already mentioned, the principle of due process developed as early as the 14th century, when Parliament used it to prevent the exercise of extra-legal power by the King’s Council. It then became a constitutional principle in the 17th century in opposition to the prerogative courts. Similarly, jury rights developed partly in opposition to administrative proceedings, and thus some of the earliest constitutional cases in America held administrative proceedings unconstitutional for depriving defendants of a jury trial.
In sum, the conventional understanding of administrative law is utterly mistaken. It is wrong on the history and oblivious to the danger. That danger is absolutism: extra-legal, supra-legal, and consolidated power. And the danger matters because administrative power revives this absolutism. The Constitution carefully barred this threat, but constitutional doctrine has since legitimized this dangerous sort of power. It therefore is necessary to go back to basics. Among other things, we should no longer settle for some vague notion of “rule of law,” understood as something that allows the delegation of legislative and judicial powers to administrative agencies. We should demand rule through law and rule under law. Even more fundamentally, we need to reclaim the vocabulary of law: Rather than speak of administrative law, we should speak of administrative power—indeed, of absolute power or more concretely of extra-legal, supra-legal, and consolidated power. Then we at least can begin to recognize the danger.
March 22, 2014
It is possible to overturn Roe v Wade by Congressional Legislation. We do not have wait until the Supreme Court, who created the “right” to abortion out of thin air in violation of their Constitutional mandate, to correct their arrogance. We can overturn Roe v Wade by legislation.
Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) has introduced and co-sponsored the Life at Conception Act in the Senate (S.583), along with 21 others. In the House Rep Jim Jordan (R-OH) introduced the Life at Conception Act, (H.R.1091) with 124 others.
Life at Conception Act – Declares that the right to life guaranteed by the Constitution is vested in each human being beginning at the moment of fertilization, cloning, or other moment at which an individual comes into being. Prohibits construing this Act to authorize the prosecution of any woman for the death of her unborn child.
This Act establishes what medicine and science has established long ago, that life begins at conception. Establishing this scientific fact into law will overturn Roe v Wade.
Senator Rand Paul explains:
November 23, 2012