The abortion battle in Ohio

I've been watching all the classy pro-abortion ads on TV (trying to enshrine abortion up to the day of birth in our Ohio Constitution). Excellent production values and heart-rending stories. Mega doses of outside money. It has caused me to wonder about all the rights and choices the babies being aborted won't have in their future.

No, women will still be able to get treatment for miscarriages.

No, it will not affect removing a deceased unborn child.

When a woman's life is at risk and the baby is pre-term, medical intervention can possibly save both.

Ectopic pregnancy (embryo implants outside the uterus) interventions are still necessary.  This is not an abortion.

Don't forget, abortion is the direct and intentional killing of a baby in the womb.  In the past, both parties were champions of the weak and helpless.

Thoughts on the upcoming vote in Ohio--Matt. 18:1-9

In Sunday School today we were looking at Matthew 18:1-9 and other verses. Christians in Ohio are divided on what to do about Issue 1 on Tuesday. In fact, Christians are downright hostile towards each other on this issue. A look at these verses could speak to that.

First, Jesus sets a small child in their midst when his disciples (who seem to be slow learners) ask about who is the greatest in his Kingdom. Children in the ancient world had no standing unlike today when entire households and several generations will focus their lives and wellbeing around children and grandchildren, lavishing time and wealth on them. Jesus essentially told them to be needy, powerless and marginalized if they truly wanted status in the Kingdom. Think about it. Who is more needy, powerless and marginalized than an unborn child?

Second, Jesus then goes on to use hyperbole in showing what happens to those who would cause one of the little ones (his followers) to stumble. Really graphic and cruel--being drowned with a heavy weight attached to the neck, having limbs chopped off or eyes poked out. Again, in the ancient world, the disabled and blind would not have much social status.

 
Third, although Jesus is not referencing abortion, the cruel suffering depicted in his hyperbole, is real life and anguish for the unborn in the midst of an abortion. Right here in Ohio. Here in America. Limbs cut off and sometimes scissors jabbed into the skull to make the head small enough so the child is "still born," and not alive at birth. Late term abortion is rare in the U.S.--about 10,000 a year--some say less, some say more. That's a small city of dismembered babies!

 
When Dr. Kermit Gosnell was tried a decade ago for murdering babies in late term abortions who could have survived, only a few minutes (13 minutes and 30 seconds for a 58 day trial) of the grisly testimony ever made it to broadcast news. There will be Christians going to the polls on Tuesday who have no idea what they are voting for, enshrining abortion for any reason at any stage of the pregnancy in our Constitution. But even worse, there will be Christians who do know, yet still cling to the lie it's a "woman's right."

Laying siege to the Institutions--Christopher Rufo

Christopher Rufo is the new "hate on him" guy that the Left loves to ridicule and demean. Why? Because he exposes Wokeism, CRT, trans-agenda, queer theory, intersectionality, etc. with the Sword of Truth, and a clear explanation of their own Leftist/Marxist history and direction. What looks like chaos to you, is well planned."The leftist dream of a working-class rebellion in America fizzled after the ’60s. By the mid-1970s, radical groups like the Black Liberation Army and the Weather Underground had faded from prominence. But the leftist dreamers didn’t give up. Abandoning hope of a Russian-style revolution, they settled on a more sophisticated strategy—waging a revolution not of the proletariat, but of the elites, and specifically of the knowledge elites. It would proceed not by taking over the means of production, but by taking control of education and culture—a strategy that German Marxist Rudi Dutschke, a student activist in the 1960s, called “the long march through the institutions.”

This idea is traceable to Italian communist Antonio Gramsci, who wrote in the 1930s of “capturing the culture via infiltration of schools, universities, churches, and the media by transforming the consciousness of society.”

This march through our institutions, begun a half-century ago, has now proved largely successful. Over the past two years, I’ve looked at the federal bureaucracy, the universities, K-12 schools, and big corporations. And what I’ve found is that the revolutionary ideas of the ’60s have been repackaged, repurposed, and injected into American life at the institutional level." https://christopherrufo.com/laying-siege-to-the-institutions/

Controlling K-12 of public and private education is essential. Why else have the DoJ attack parents? The younger the better. Perhaps the only Biblical principal the Left has learned well, is Proverbs 22:6--"Train up a child in the way he should go, And when he is old he will not depart from it." In my opinion, the Leftists are the losers with old, tired ideas in contrast to our U.S. Constitution (which they hate) has the fresh, recent and revolutionary ideas. The only similarity might be that the 60s Weather Underground and the 2011 Occupy Movement were the white, young, wealthy and best educated; our Founders were also white, young, wealthy and well educated. The difference is the radicals of the 1960s and 21st century were spoiled brats and guilt ridden by their own abundance. Their only desire was/is to create chaos--and the plan now begins in the schools--even pre-K. To create confusion about family, marriage, sex, religion, purpose, meaning, ambition, merit, etc.

Obama's North Star certainly isn't the Constitution

"Obama comes out to get mad about disinformation: Yesterday [April 21] at Stanford, President Obama gave a sweeping speech about disinformation, my favorite thing to complain about people complaining about. He called for more government regulation of platforms (they should be “be required to have a higher standard of care when it comes to advertising on their site”) and criticized big tech’s business model (“inflammatory content attracts engagement”).

“These companies need to have some other north star other than just making money and increasing market share,” the former president said.

We have an idea of what that North Star can be: how about the constitution? There’s a First Amendment in there that seems like a pretty great articulation of what the values of a social media company ought to be."  Nellie Bowles, "Common Sense" April 22, 2022  

It's not science, it's totalitarianism

 December 7th, 2021

A Constitutional Cure for Covid-19

by Marilyn M. Singleton, M.D., J.D.

Covid, Covid, Covid. Variant, variant, variant. Trust me, I’m the government’s highest paid employee, and “I represent science.” Show your papers, wear a mask, take a shot or lose your job. And the beat goes on for an infection where 99.95 percent of infected persons under age 70 years recover. It’s becoming clear that Covid-19 is not merely a disease but an excuse to concentrate power in the government.

It’s time for the political histrionics to stop. Multiple studies have shown that the consequences far outweigh any potential (and illusory) benefits of masks, lockdowns, and school closures. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) Director admitted that the current Covid-19 mRNA vaccines, while helpful in reducing deaths and hospitalizations, do not stop transmission of the virus. “Breakthrough” cases in vaccinated persons are on the rise. Moreover, the current vaccines likely are not effective for the new, likely less lethal Omicron variant. Public health experts opine that the SARS-CoV-2 virus (that causes Covid-19) and its multiple variants are becoming endemic. That means SARS-CoV-2 and its infinite number of variants will not be eliminated, but become a manageable part of the human-viral ecosystem.

Sadly, our government is not responding in accordance with the scientific facts. Instead, federal and some local governments are mandating more vaccines, culminating in proof of vaccination to engage in society and continue living as a normal human being. This is not science. This is nascent totalitarianism.

Two lines from the 1990 Cold War era spy film, The Hunt for Red October foreshadowed our government’s warp speed trajectory to authoritarianism. “Privacy is not of major concern in the Soviet Union, comrade. It’s often contrary to the collective good.” And a White House official casually boasted, “I’m a politician that means I’m a cheat and a liar.”

It didn’t take long for President Biden to tell the big lie. As president-elect, Mr. Biden said there would be no vaccine mandates. Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (the third in line for the presidency) brilliantly illustrated the intersection of lying and privacy. As late as August 2021, Speaker Pelosi said, “We cannot require someone to be vaccinated. That’s just not what we can do. It is a matter of privacy to know who is or who isn’t.”

Without skipping a beat, the executive branch issued three separate vaccine mandates: all federal contractors (including remote workers), an Occupational Health & Safety Administration (OSHA) requirement for businesses with more than 100 employees, and a Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) requirement for employees, volunteers and third-party contractors of health care providers certified by CMS.

The judicial branch is fighting back against the President’s attempt to jettison the Constitution’s separation of powers clauses, a large chunk of the Bill of Rights, and Supreme Court precedents on bodily autonomy with these mandates. On November 9th, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals put the OSHA mandate on hold. The Court reasoned that the mandate “threatens to substantially burden the liberty interests of reluctant individual recipients put to a choice between their job(s) and their jab(s).” And “the loss of constitutional freedoms ‘for even minimal periods of time … unquestionably constitutes irreparable injury.”

Citing the lack of congressional authorization and harm to access to medical care, on November 29th a Missouri federal district court placed a temporary halt on the CMS health care workers “boundary-pushing” mandate. The government planned to enforce the mandate by imposing monetary penalties, denial of payment and termination from the Medicare and Medicaid program. The ruling covers providers in Kansas, Alaska, Arkansas, Iowa, Missouri, Nebraska, New Hampshire, North Dakota, South Dakota and Wyoming.

On November 30th, a Louisiana federal district court blocked the CMS mandate issuing a nationwide injunction in a lawsuit brought by 14 states (Arizona, Alabama, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Montana, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Utah and West Virginia). “If the executive branch is allowed to usurp the power of the legislative branch to make laws, two of the three powers conferred by our Constitution would be in the same hands. … [C]ivil liberties face grave risks when governments proclaim indefinite states of emergency.”

That same day, a Kentucky federal district court issued a hold on the federal government contractors mandate, citing lack of authority of the executive branch—“even for a good cause”. The court reasoned that if a procurement statute could be used to mandate vaccination, it “could be used to enact virtually any measure at the president’s whim under the guise of economy and efficiency.” The ruling covers Kentucky, Ohio and Tennessee.

The mainstream media finally reported on the toxicity and poor results of Dr. Fauci’s “standard of care” treatment, remdesivir. This prompted families to use the courts rather than watch their relatives needlessly die. Victories for patients are growing. A Chicago area judge recently ordered a hospital to “step aside” and allow a physician to administer ivermectin in an effort to save a dying patient. It worked.

People are tired of lies. When Google employees are signing a “manifesto” to fight the mandates, you know the seeds of revolt have sprouted.

Revolutions and the Bible - Os Guinness

At the 2020 Wilberforce Week-end (named for William Wilberforce, famous abolitionist) sponsored by the Colson Center), Os Guinness discusses the deep divisions in modern America. The roots go back to the 5 revolutions of the modern era--England (1642), United States (1776), France (1789), Russia (1917) and China (1949). The first two were Biblical (Exodus), and the last three were anti-Biblical. The French Revolution was based in atheism and was extremely anti-church. Today our current "revolutionaries" follow the French model. Utopian. The American Revolution is based on the idea that mankind is sinful. Utopianism is/was disastrous. It is always filled with violence and force. Our revolution comes from the idea of Covenant, a Hebrew idea. The Constitution is freely chosen consent, a morally binding pledge. It's reciprocal. Therefore it includes the idea of freedom, truth and love. Today's revolutionaries must use the idea of victimhood--wrong answered by revenge--so the feud continues. The Biblical way includes repentance and forgiveness, freedom from the past and therefore freedom in the future. Guinness is a European, an immigrant. If America turns from true freedom, he says, it will be a disaster for the world.

https://youtu.be/Ws2U2DXREDQ

National Sanctity of Human Life Day

What a difference a year makes--or a day. Today is National Sanctity of Human Life Day. President Trump was inclusive. He was all about life, liberty and pursuit of happiness. Now just like that we have totalitarians in charge. Open the border, shut down energy independence and bring back the big lies about our founding dreamed up by a New York Times employee. All while preaching "unity" when what they really mean is "uniformity." The key difference between unity and uniformity is their acceptance of differences; when there is unity, people tolerate and accept differences, but uniformity demands that everyone think and be alike, so there is no room for differences. No differences allowed--you can be cancelled, kicked out, lose your job, your rights and the Constitution.

Our Constitution was bathed in prayer

“America is a nation founded and nurtured on prayer. However, according to a recent Pew Report, prayer in America has “gone rogue.” In other words, anything goes: from spirit drumming to mystical chanting. People across the USA are praying, but most confess they are merely addressing “someone out there.”

“We always pray for you, that our God…may fulfill every resolve for good and every work of faith.”  2Thessalonians 1:11

In 1787, about five weeks into the Constitutional Convention, the framers were frustrated in their attempts to draft the U. S. Constitution. Benjamin Franklin challenged them to return earnestly in prayer to God on behalf of their nation. He asked, “If a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without His notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without His aid? We have been assured that ‘except the Lord build the House, they labor in vain that build it.’”

God is still shaping America’s future in the hearts of those who seek Him. Today, pray specifically for those blindly praying to “someone” that they may discover the true identity of God’s Son, the Lord Jesus Christ; placing all hope for themselves, and for America, in His great power. “ 

Recommended for Further Reading: 1 Timothy 2:1-8

The Presidential Daily Prayer Briefing

The left hates the Constitution of the United States, guest blogger Michael Smith

Deviations from the Constitution will always end in disaster. It reminds me of Thomas Jefferson quote from his letter to Samuel Kercheval in 1816:

"A departure from principle in one instance becomes a precedent for a second; that second for a third; and so on, till the bulk of the society is reduced to be mere automatons of misery, and to have no sensibilities left but for sinning and suffering. Then begins, indeed, the bellum omnium in omnia [the war of all against all], which some philosophers observing to be so general in this world, have mistaken it for the natural, instead of the abusive state of man."

The left hates the Constitution of the United States. They have since the days of Woodrow Wilson. They believe it is a dusty old parchment dreamed up by old slave owning cis-gendered white men to preserve white supremacist patriarchy.

You don't have to believe me - just listen to them when they say the Second Amendment is invalid because there is no way the founders could have foreseen the invention of the AR-15 or when it comes to the radical social engineering they favor, engineering that cannot stand without the coercive force of government being applied.

So, just imagine my chagrin when these same people -people who hate the Constitution - hold up signs saying they want to "defend the constitution" from an "un-American president".
They believe when some leftist justice finds a convoluted way to create some "right" from whole cloth - that is what the Constitution is. It isn't.

Alexander Hamilton wrote in Federalist #78 that "...the judiciary, from the nature of its functions, will always be the least dangerous to the political rights of the Constitution; because it will be least in a capacity to annoy or injure them."

Hamilton also argued that the "Necessary and Proper" clause of the Constitution did not mean the federal government powers were unlimited, that Congress could only enact laws necessary to support the powers enumerated in the Constitution itself.

Boy, I can't imagine the look on old Alex's face if he could see what has happened to his "least dangerous" branch. He had an inkling how despotism could come about - reading a bit further down in Federalist #78, we find this:

"It equally proves that though individual oppression may now and then proceed from the courts of justice, the general liberty can never be endangered from that quarter: I mean so long as the judiciary remains truly distinct from both the legislature and executive; for I agree that “there is no liberty if the power of judging be not separated from the legislative and the executive powers.” And it proves, in the last place, that as liberty can have nothing to fear from the judiciary alone, but it would have everything to fear from its union with either of the other departments."

If we take an honest look at the Supreme Court, over the past century, in addition to its power to interpret the laws, it has assumed the power of the Executive to enforce and the power of the Legislative to regulate. Rather than creating a "union with either of the other departments" the SCOTUS usurped those powers and is shielded from retribution by the idea of "judicial supremacy", a concept twisted from John Marshall's opinion in Marbury v. Madison (1803), elevating the Supreme Court to the single and sloe arbiter of that which is constitutional.

But Marshall's opinion said none of that. Marshall never expressed that SCOTUS should be the ultimate arbiter - he simply held that Congress could not extend the jurisdiction of the Court beyond that which the Constitution had provided. President's all the way through Lincoln saw the three branches as equal in interpretation of the Constitution - essentially saying that the judiciary could be overridden by the other two branches.

The first moves to politicize the courts gained momentum under Woodrow Wilson and continued with FDR trying to pack the Supreme Court when the Republican majority ruled many of his New Deal actions unconstitutional. Conservatives wanted to strengthen the court against FDR's machinations and in doing so, set the stage for things to come.

The first real expression of "judicial supremacy" came about in the Warren court in 1958 when the justices claimed that Marbury v. Madison had “declared the basic principle that the federal judiciary is supreme in its exposition of the law of the Constitution, and that principle has ever since been respected by this court and the country as a permanent and indispensable feature of our constitutional system.”

The Warren Court went a long way toward politicizing and weaponizing the court system and setting SCOTUS up as a super-legislative body that is not co-equal to the other branches but one that sits above them. . . and that is why the progressive left sees control over the Supreme Court as a matter of life or death. For their ideology, it is.

Stop demeaning the Trump supporters as ignorant and uneducated

I was watching the huge crowd of Trump supporters last night as he was being interviewed by O'Reilly. Don't underestimate him by demeaning his supporters (of which I'm not one). They were all ages, genders, ethnicities, incomes, education (it's not cheap to go to those expensive tourist towns to hang out at political events) and all thoroughly fed up with the antics of both parties in Washington. The Republicans don't keep their promises to return us to good values and the Constitution, and the Democrats keep their promises to run up the taxes, regulations and drive us away from the Constitution.

Justice Scalia and Justice Kennedy on the Constitution and our rights—polar opposites

If there was one phrase Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia could eliminate from our vocabulary, it would be "living constitution." "God, I hate that phrase," Scalia said. "I prefer 'enduring Constitution.' " (speaking at Santa Clara University this past week)

Our founders set up 3 branches of government with checks and balances and specific duties, the strongest and most powerful, given the most responsibilities was the House of Representatives because it was "power to the people," something they didn't have in Europe. Now a group of unelected judges, 5 of them liberals, have absconded with our rights, and defiled the constitution.

http://www.mercurynews.com/nation-world/ci_29039405/antonin-scalia-tackles-constitution-at-santa-clara-university

A nod to the Nazis comes from Justice Kennedy. Obey the law or else, even though I made it up.

Responding to a question about marriage and abortion:

The justice responded by pointing out that only three judges resigned during Germany’s Third Reich — the government of Adolf Hitler — and said, “Great respect, it seems to me, has to be given to people who resign rather than do something they view as morally wrong, in order to make a point. However, the rule of law is that, as a public official, in performing your legal duties, you are bound to enforce the law.” “This requires considerable introspection,” he continued, “and it’s a fair question that officials can and should ask themselves. But certainly, in an offhand comment, it would be difficult for me to say that people are free to ignore a decision by the Supreme Court.”

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/426372/justice-kennedy-rule-law-requires-you-enforce-laws-i-made-david-french

The history of mandatory sentencing is tied to slavery.

"Congress also used mandatory minimum penalties in its efforts to end the importation of slaves. The Constitution prohibited Congress from curtailing or abolishing the importation of slaves before 1808. In advance of the 1808 date, and with President Thomas Jefferson’s urging, Congress passed an Act prohibiting the importation of slaves in February 1807. Among other provisions, the 1807 Act prohibited citizens from bringing slaves into the United States or serving on a vessel that transported slaves. These offenses carried mandatory minimum penalties of at least five years and two years of imprisonment, respectively. However, the mandatory minimum penalties were much less severe than the mandatory death penalty many in the House of Representatives wanted to attach to these offenses, on grounds that importing human beings was a crime of morality and akin to murder. Other offenses created by the 1807 Act, such as outfitting slave vessels and purchasing or selling illegally imported slaves, carried only fines.”

 http://www.ussc.gov/sites/default/files/pdf/news/congressional-testimony-and-reports/mandatory-minimum-penalties/20111031-rtc-pdf/Chapter_02.pdf

We may not get what we vote for

Sometimes we the people vote based on the person's record or our values (Candidate was a Democrat, but switches to socialist), or the slogans (hope and change) or the promises (we'll get rid of Obamacare), and then when they get to DC the old private club mentality kicks in. This is why our founders left many decisions like education, social welfare, religion, up to the states. It's easier to keep tabs on what they are doing if you know your community, city, county, and state. The president was not supposed to be more powerful than Congress and the Supremes were not supposed to make laws, but no one reads the instructions any more.

It’s outrageous that they (Republicans) will approve this woman. There is nothing I've read about Loretta Lynch that makes me confident she will be the best top cop Obama can find who is female, black and leftist. Is the bench that shallow? Her record isn't that great and she seems to be a racist who has never read the Constitution or immigration law. Why is she a shoo-in? I've looked at what some leftists have said, but that boils down to the tired, old "you're a racist” if you oppose her.

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/396640/loretta-lynchs-secret-docket-ryan-lovelace

Winding down with the Constitution

Busy early Thursday--house guest, Bible study, fascinating presentation at lunch by Rod Crane talking about the role of volunteers with the Red Cross during Katrina, and a doctor's appointment. Winding down now by reading the U.S. Constitution. It's powerful and short.

I'm always shocked by the short list of responsibilities (6) of the President--which comes after a rather long list (about 25) for the Congress--which the Founders put ahead of the President. 1) Commander and chief of the various military branches, 2) granting reprieves and pardons against the U.S., 3) with the advice and consent of the Senate he can make treaties, 4) with advice and consent of Senate he can appoint Ambassadors and other public officials like judges, 5) fill vacancies that might happen during the Senate recess, and "from time to time" he can give a State of the Union address as he judges necessary and expedient, 6) receive ambassadors and other public ministers. Five of the six really deal directly or indirectly with national security, or relations with other nations.

I can find nothing about child care, free college tuition, health insurance, climate, advocating for any particular fuel system, or chastising citizens for discerning ethnic and religious shortcomings. So why have we and our parents and grandparents allowed this president and those before him to usurp the power of Congress? If the President strays into the Congress' job description, who will do his job?

Where do rights come from? God.

“The tradition of American civil rights is a noble — and fragile — enterprise grounded in the belief that all people have inherent rights. "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights…" Truths? Created? Creator? Almost makes you think the American Founders believed that God exists and that rights flowed from Him.

This declaration is a moral precept grounded in centuries of Western history. But as the Founders and countless others understood, any claim of rights must have at their source the belief that man indeed possesses "inalienable rights." Religion, in other words, is the wellspring of the morality that shapes and guides the culture. In our world, Christianity (and Judaism through it) is that wellspring.

Human rights then, depend on a religion that serves as the source of a shared moral tradition and shapes a consensus on basic matters of right and wrong. If that tradition is abandoned the consensus shatters, and our ideas of what constitutes a human right are shorn from their moral moorings. (Think a moral tradition doesn't matter? Reflect on Islam and see how its notions of rights differ from ours. Not religious? Think of the blood spilled over Nazism, Marxism, and other utopian replacements.)”

This quote is from this article.

King Obama announces he will ignore the Constitution

Joan writes: President Obama’s comments today following his first cabinet meeting of the year should send shivers down everyone’s spines. CBS reports the President said: “We’re not just going to be waiting for legislation in order to make sure that we’re providing Americans the kind of help they need. I’ve got a pen, and I’ve got a phone.” Does this sound constitutional to you? It seems the American system providing for separation of powers, the traditional American system of checks and balances, and the limited government our forefathers set up are fast disappearing.

Obama has not kept his oath of office

We know how he has shredded his own legacy—Obamacare. Supposedly, it is the law of the land, but you’d never know that from the way he has worked around and violated it.  But it isn’t the first time, or the last.

One of Obama’s first acts as president—only a month since he took the oath of office—was to announce his elimination of the Yucca Mountain site in Nevada for storing highly radioactive nuclear waste. He flouted decades of scientific study and countermanded the explicit decisions of Congress set forth in duly-enacted laws over many years. In 1982 Congress directed the government to assume responsibility for commercial nuclear waste. In 1987 it singled out Yucca Mountain for evaluation as the repository because of its remote and dry location. After years of research, Congress in 2002 endorsed the Yucca Mountain site.

Between 1987 and 2009, when Obama put himself above the law by effectively revoking it, $13.5 billion was spent on the program; a five-mile tunnel was bored into the mountain, and hundreds of studies determined the safety of the site for thousands of years. The nuclear industry was also forced to pay $22 billion to the Energy Department for establishment of the repository. Obama is not a scientist, and his decision was not made from a review of the scientific research. But that is not the point, nor is the billions of dollars of taxpayer money that went down the drain.

http://blog.heartland.org/2013/12/obama-vs-the-constitution/

A promise kept

Until the 20th century, virtually all Christian churches taught the same as the Roman Catholic on contraception and abortion. The HHS mandate is intended to end whatever vestige of Biblical teaching is left, and Sebilius a Catholic is leading the way. Not that Protestants have protested.  I’ve certainly never heard a sermon in my church on the sanctity of life, or even marriage for that matter.  Until the current administration, almost all Christian churches and denominations with the exception of a few "mainline" (and poorly attended) agreed on homosexuality. In fact, until the last election, even the President was coy and evasive about same sex marriage, flip flopping as he went to please which ever audience he was addressing.  With the leadership of "Hollywood" and celebrity values and the government's attacks on the first amendment freedoms of speech and religion, and the 4th amendment guarantees of privacy rights, indeed in 5 short years he has fundamentally changed the country. The idea that our Constitution and our Bill of Rights which originally were intended to protect us from an overbearing, oppressive government has been flipped to the government is our friend and buddy here to help us out of all messes and jams. This has pretty much been Obama’s goal. He’s reaching it with the help of Christians.

Constitution Day in Modesto, California

No matter how liberal you think campuses are, it's worse. 62% of colleges and universities have unconstitutional speech codes. This one prevented copies of the Constitution from being distributed on Constitution Day.

A police officer at Modesto Junior College in California told a patriotic libertarian student that it was against college rules for him to hand out copies of the U.S. Constitution on campus.

Ironically, this flagrant violation of the student’s Constitutional rights took place on September 17th: Constitution Day.

The exchange between student Robert Van Tuinen and a campus police officer was captured on video. Tuinen told the officer that he wished to start a Young Americans for Liberty chapter on campus, and hoped that passing out copies of the Constitution would generate interest in that. The officer, however, maintained that Van Tuinen was not allowed to distribute flyers without college authorization.

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2013/09/19/campus-cop-stops-student-from-handing-out-constitutions-on-constitution-day/#ixzz2fTHvEH3c

Hold on to the Constitution . . .

Obama has admitted numerous time he doesn’t like or trust our Constitution—because of the negatives.  It tells the people what the government can’t do to them. 

"Hold on, my friends, to the Constitution and the Republic for which it stands. Miracles do not cluster, and what has happened once in 6,000 years, may not happen again. Hold on to the Constitution, for if the American Constitution should fail, there will be anarchy throughout the world." -- Daniel Webster

http://patdollard.com/2013/04/ted-cruz-obamas-view-of-federal-power-knows-virtually-no-bounds/

http://dailycaller.com/2011/12/04/president-obamas-top-10-constitutional-violations/