Birthright Citizenship and the 14th Amendment: An Overview

Birthright Citizenship and the 14th Amendment: An Overview

Birthright Citizenship

Birthright citizenship is the legal right for individuals born in a country to acquire citizenship regardless of their parents' nationality or legal status. In the United States, this principle is enshrined in the 14th Amendment to the Constitution.

The 14th Amendment

The 14th Amendment, ratified in 1868, was a pivotal addition to the U.S. Constitution. It was introduced during the Reconstruction era following the Civil War and aimed primarily at securing the rights of newly freed slaves. The amendment includes several important clauses, but the Citizenship Clause is particularly relevant to the concept of birthright citizenship.

Citizenship Clause

The Citizenship Clause of the 14th Amendment states: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside." This clause guarantees that anyone born on U.S. soil is automatically granted U.S. citizenship, provided they are subject to U.S. jurisdiction.

Historical Context

The 14th Amendment was a direct response to the Dred Scott v. Sandford decision of 1857, which held that African Americans could not be American citizens, whether enslaved or free. By establishing birthright citizenship, the amendment sought to dismantle the legal framework that had denied millions of people their humanity and legal rights.

Legal Interpretations

The interpretation of the phrase "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" has been a topic of considerable debate. The landmark Supreme Court case United States v. Wong Kim Ark in 1898 affirmed that anyone born on American soil, excluding children of foreign diplomats or enemy soldiers, is subject to U.S. jurisdiction and thus an American citizen.

Contemporary Debates

In recent years, the concept of birthright citizenship has been a focal point of political and legal debates. Some argue that the 14th Amendment's Citizenship Clause should not apply to children of undocumented immigrants or those on temporary visas. However, most legal experts maintain that the amendment's language clearly guarantees citizenship to anyone born in the United States.

Conclusion

Birthright citizenship, as established by the 14th Amendment, remains a cornerstone of American constitutional law. It ensures that anyone born on U.S. soil is granted citizenship, reflecting the nation's commitment to equality and human rights. As debates continue, the principles enshrined in the 14th Amendment will undoubtedly remain central to discussions on immigration and citizenship.

: [MSN](https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/can-trump-end-birthright-citizenship-the-14th-amendment-explained/ar-AA1xAhVs)

: [U.S. Constitution.net](https://www.usconstitution.net/14th-amendment-birthright-citizenship/)

Louisiana Lighting Law: 10 Commandments in Schools

The Intersection of Education and Law: Louisiana's Ten Commandments Mandate

Louisiana has recently passed a law that has sparked a nationwide conversation on the role of historical documents and religious texts in public education. The new legislation requires that the Ten Commandments be displayed in all public school classrooms across the state, from kindergarten through state-funded universities.

This law has been met with a variety of responses, ranging from support to opposition. Proponents argue that the Ten Commandments are not only religious in nature but also hold historical significance as foundational documents of American law and governance. They believe that such displays can provide moral guidance to students and serve as a reminder of the historical underpinnings of the nation's legal system.

On the other hand, opponents of the law raise concerns about the separation of church and state, a principle enshrined in the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. Civil liberties groups have announced plans to challenge the law in court, arguing that it violates the constitutional promise that the government should not favor one religion over another or impose religious practices on its citizens.

The debate is not new; it echoes previous legal battles over religious symbols in public spaces. The Supreme Court of the United States has addressed similar issues in the past, balancing the historical significance of religious texts with the constitutional mandates regarding religion and government.

Louisiana's law also authorizes the display of other historical documents, such as the Mayflower Compact, the Declaration of Independence, and the Northwest Ordinance, in K-12 public schools. These documents, along with the Ten Commandments, are to be accompanied by a context statement explaining their historical relevance to American public education and governance.

As the law is set to take effect by the start of 2025, with posters funded through donations rather than state funds, the nation watches closely. The outcome of the impending legal challenges could have far-reaching implications for the interpretation of the First Amendment and the presence of religious and historical texts in public education.

The situation in Louisiana serves as a reminder of the ongoing dialogue about the role of religion in public life and the enduring question of how to honor the nation's historical heritage while upholding constitutional values. As this conversation unfolds, it will undoubtedly add to the rich tapestry of American legal and educational discourse.

This new law is tricky. While separation of Church and State is NOT found in the Constitution and derives from a letter by Jefferson to a Baptist minister, this law does seem to present a conflict to the idea.  The US Constitution does state that it cannot endorse an official religion.  However, is the display of the 10 Commandments endorsing any religion?  

Law is based on Judeo-Christian principles and philosophies.  There is no denying this. In fact, many courthouses around the United States have images of the Commandments and even Moses. Are they torn down or presented in lawsuits? The answer is no.  These images are allowed to remain as reminders of the origin of the legal system.  

The display of the Commandments in school is a bit different because normally children do not learn the law in public schools. I took paralegal in high school, but this was a special program at the school at the time.  It is no longer offered today to younger students.  That being stated, is it appropriate to display the Commandments in schools?  Some argue that the laws present a sense of morality to students. However, this is difficult to ascertain due to the fact that not every student subscribes to the Commandments of the faiths behind them, namely Judaism and Christianity.  

What about atheist students or Muslims?  What about Buddhists or Pagans?  This is a big problem in a pluralistic society. Moreover, what if some teachers proselytize students into adopting their faith?  This is what led the Knights of Columbus to sue the school system to stop Bible studies. Catholic students in public schools were being proselytized by being taught Protestant heretical biblical views.  

In any event, the motto of the nation is "In God We Trust" and despite many lawsuits, the courts have defended its use. It does not promote religion or faith in God and the "God" in the words can be any deity an American worships.  So this is why the issue is tricky.  Nevertheless, we cannot deny the importance of the Ten Commandments in a historical sense and how it led to the development of the legal system.  As long as this is the intention for the display in schools, then we do not see any issue. However, if school officials use it to preach their personal theologies to students, then that is a problem. 

: [New law requires all Louisiana public school classrooms to display the Ten Commandments](https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/us/new-law-requires-all-louisiana-public-school-classrooms-to-display-the-ten-commandments/ar-BB1owTsA)

: [Trump, late night hosts weigh in on Louisiana putting Ten Commandments in schools](https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/trump-late-night-hosts-weigh-in-on-louisiana-putting-ten-commandments-in-schools/ar-BB1oF3V9)

: [Louisiana lawmaker behind Ten Commandments bill is eyeing more culture war wins](https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/louisiana-lawmaker-behind-ten-commandments-bill-is-eyeing-more-culture-war-wins/ar-BB1oBwlr)

: [Louisiana law requires the Ten Commandments to be displayed in every public school classroom](https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politics-news/louisiana-law-requires-ten-commandments-displayed-every-public-school-rcna157949)

NYC Restricts Constitution to Protect Illegal Aliens

As a New Yorker, born in Manhattan and raised in The Bronx, I am ashamed of my home city. The Twitter account for New York City tweeted out this graphic stating that it is now illegal to "threaten to call ICE" on illegal immigrants and that it is illegal to tell someone to "go back to your country."  They also will penalize anyone who calls illegal immigrants "illegal aliens."  No, this is not satire, the Onion or a parody post. This is for real! 

BREAKING:
New York City has made it illegal to threaten to call ICE based on a discriminatory motive or to tell someone "go back to your country." Hate has no place here. pic.twitter.com/8PaIozjQty

— City of New York (@nycgov) September 26, 2019

The new law is unconstitutional. It violates the first amendment. One does not have to be a Constitutional scholar to see this.  ICE exists to arrest people who are here illegally. They are a federal law enforcement agency. To tell a city that they cannot be called is an affront to the first amendment and the rule of law. Moreover, to make the phrase "go back to your country" is the restriction of free speech by the government. This is a gross attack on freedom of speech which is guaranteed by the first amendment.  The government cannot restrict or dictate the speech of the people.

The news has angered many people, both conservative and liberal who value the United States Constitution. This law will not stand in court. I am sure it will be taken to court.  Citizens have a right and duty to call ICE to report illegal immigrants, especially those who have violated a warrant or committed other crimes. Moreover, while telling someone to go back to their country can be rude, it is not discriminatory.

I invite all New Yorkers and Americans to voice their concerns over this new law and encourage lawyers to take the city to court for this gross violation of the first amendment.


What do you think?  Post below on Disqus.  Be sure to follow the rules for commenting.



UPDATED: 10/1/19
The Twitter account for NYC deleted the original tweet which was stormed with disapproval by many and retweeted it as a pinned tweet.  Here it is.

BREAKING:
New York City has made it illegal to threaten to call ICE based on a discriminatory motive or to tell someone "go back to your country." Hate has no place here. pic.twitter.com/1rgQ52oI68

— City of New York (@nycgov) October 1, 2019

SCOTUS Hears 'Gay-Cake' Arguments

Yesterday, the Supreme court of the United States of America heard arguments in a case that has caused heavy debate regarding freedom and discrimination.  This case involves a baker from Colorado who refused to bake a wedding cake for a same-sex couple in the year 2012. The case has been a topic of debate for years. The premise of the debate is whether or not a business has the right to deny service based on religious convictions. Jack Phillips, the baker from Colorado who was sued by the gay couple argues that he has religious freedom to exercise his conscience in the way that he wants. He felt that baking a cake for a same-sex couple would violate his religious convictions that so-called same-sex marriage is against God and Christian beliefs.  By baking the cake for the same-sex couple, he argued that he would be violating his beliefs by validating the so-called same-sex marriage.

The state of Colorado placed heavy penalties on Pillips for his refusal to bake the cake. Today, Justice Kennedy of the Supreme Court seemed to have given a glimpsed as to where he is going to go in regards to his decision. He questioned lawyers for the same-sex couple as to whether their position was tolerant and fair. He said:

"Counselor, tolerance is essential in a free society. And tolerance is most meaningful when it's mutual.  It seems to me that the state in its position here has been neither tolerant nor respectful of Mr. Phillips' religious beliefs."

Alito also called the actions of Colorado unfair since so-called same-sex marriage was not legal when the baker was targeted by the state's attorneys for alleged discrimination. The court is expected to make a final decision next June in 2018. Many Americans are hoping that they side with the baker because forcing a business to violate religious convictions would be a violation of the Constitution.  The government cannot regulate religion.


Source:

https://www.yahoo.com/news/supreme-court-wedding-cake-case-142726839.html

https://www.yahoo.com/news/m/cc4bf3bb-5b43-31fc-a36c-822d1f6eb742/ss_colorado-baker-case-at.html

https://www.yahoo.com/finance/news/justices-dispute-over-wedding-cake-gay-couple-071047666--politics.html

https://www.yahoo.com/news/m/6b4b06db-5eb3-3339-9416-b1c1e830f429/ss_the-true-statement-about.html

https://www.yahoo.com/news/case-cake-shop-denying-gay-151515173.html

Atheists Sue Animal Shelter Over Blessing

The infamous atheist troll group American Atheists is at it again. This time, they are targeting an animal shelter in Bergen County, New Jersey. The group claims that an animal blessing conducted by Kenneth Reihl, a Lutheran minister who dresses like a Franciscan friar and is part of the  Franciscan Order of the Divine Mercy, violates the first and fourth amendments. They filed a lawsuit in the US District Court in Newark.

American Atheists was notified of the blessing by a local resident who describes herself as a "humanist atheist." A representative of American Atheists Nick Fish claims that government money or taxpayer dollars are being used to promote Christian services.

It will be interesting to see how the court handles this lawsuit. Technically, an animal shelter is not a "government agency" per se as in the case of a public school. Moreover, non-human animals are not considered citizens or persons so a blessing on them would not be unconstitutional because they do not have the rights granted by the Constitution.  I believe this case will be thrown out. It is just an attempt by American Atheists to garner attention in the media.

Note, the Franciscan Order of the Divine Mercy is not affiliated with the Catholic Church or the Order of Friars Minor which is the real Franciscan order founded by St. Francis. Some articles describe Kenneth Reihl and his blessing as "Catholic," this is not accurate. Hopefully, these articles will update their reports with accurate information.

 




Source:

http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/atheists-sue-new-jersey-shelter-over-catholic-blessing-animals-1648272

http://pix11.com/2017/11/21/atheist-group-sues-new-jersey-shelter-over-catholic-blessing-of-animals/

http://www.northjersey.com/story/news/bergen/2017/11/21/animal-shelter-operated-bergen-county-sued-atheists-over-pet-blessings/884146001/

http://dailycaller.com/2017/11/21/atheists-sue-animal-shelter-over-annual-catholic-blessing-of-animals/http://hackensack.dailyvoice.com/news/atheists-file-suit-against-bergen-shelter-over-blessing-of-the-animals/727425/

https://www.rawstory.com/2017/11/atheists-sue-to-halt-annual-blessing-of-the-animals-at-shelter/

http://www.fodmusa.org/index.html

https://www.facebook.com/FranciscanOrderOfTheDivineOrder/

Cuomo: Abortion Fanatic

Andrew Cuomo is really an abortion fanatic. The guy just does not quit trying to push abortion, contraception and the gay agenda on New Yorkers. He participated in a Planned Parenthood event where he announced that he wants an amendment to New York's State Constitution. This amendment will make abortion permanently legal in New York State. The amendment is meant to be a defense against any laws or court decisions that may overturn Roe v. Wade while President Trump is in office.

However, republicans who control the Senate in Albany are saying "not so fast." They are vowing to fight the proposal and want the people of New York to vote on the matter.

Too bad Cardinal Dolan does not publicly rebuke Cuomo by ordering priests not to give him Holy Communion. This would send a strong message to all Catholics and those who are pro-life.  Please protest Cuomo's idea by writing to senators in New York State. Voice your concerns that New York State will not be adhering to the values of America: life, liberty and pursuit of happiness if it endorses abortion in its Constitution.

Contact the State Senators here: https://www.nysenate.gov/senators-committees

Andrew Cuomo is a very disturbed individual who lacks morals. He ignores the growing homeless population in New York and failing schools, yet has time and energy for the lgbt agenda, promoting abortion and illegal immigration.  He is not fit to serve as governor. He needs to be voted out in the next election.

 

Source:


https://www.wsj.com/articles/new-york-gov-cuomo-wants-to-amend-state-constitution-to-protect-abortion-rights-1485818027

http://www.ooyuz.com/geturl?aid=14743885

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/20/nyregion/new-york-abortion-and-contraception-andrew-cuomo.html?smid=tw-share&mtrref=t.co&gwh=25362F0A3E95581518B8223477DD3AB8&gwt=pay

Farewell Obama Speech

Obama gave his "farewell speech' in Chicago today. In it, he recycled his typical rhetoric which relies on doom, gloom and embellishments of what he considers "achievements."  The crowd present cheered him on; however, at the end, they seemed antsy waiting for him to end. Obama praised the idea of illegal immigration, even comparing it to the immigration of the Irish, Italian and Polish. He forgot to mention that the aforementioned came to the United States legally. They did not cross borders nor came in boats.

Obama also forgot to mention how he divided this nation in such a way that reminds older folks of the 1950's and 60's where races relations were not great.  Today, there is a lot of division. Many African Americans have been empowered to take on a hateful and revengeful tone against Whites and others. They see themselves now like victims, instead of a proud people. Police officers have been on the receiving end of this for the most part. Moreover, under Obama, we have seen an increase in mass shootings and riots. Obama has perpetuated an "us vs them" mentality creating a generation of youth that are pusillanimous crybabies seeking the comfort of "safe zones" as well as coloring books and clay.  

Under Obama, a tyrannical minority has gained so much power that now it is protected more than the rights of others. Christians have been targeted by this group. Sued just for adhering to their religious beliefs.  I can go on and on, but I think voters know, hence why Trump won this election.  Furthermore, Obama has not shown himself to be a patriot. He called the Constitution a mere "piece of parchment."To Americans, that is like calling the Bible just another book instead of God's Word.

Farewell Obama indeed!  Good riddance.  Now it is time to repair America.  




Source:

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/10/us/politics/obama-farewell-address-speech.html?_r=0

http://time.com/4631137/president-obama-farewell-speech-highlights/

http://dailycaller.com/2017/01/11/the-ratings-are-in-from-barack-obamas-farewell-speech-last-night/

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/politics/ct-obama-farewell-speech-chicago-0111-20170110-story.html

http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/10/politics/obama-farewell-address/

http://people.com/politics/president-obama-farewell-address-twitter-reactions/

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/443751/obama-farewell-address-self-loving

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/11/us/obama-farewell-address-president.html

Google Censoring Religious Speech

Dear friends, I am once again being targeted for my religious speech, first, it was Twitter in 2013, then Facebook in 2015 and now Google Plus.

On Sunday night, as I was approving some comments that fell into the spam catch in one of my Google Plus communities and was also adding a "nickname," I then moved on to read some comments and replied to one.  When I tried to reply to a Protestant pastor, I got the message that my post cannot be posted.  I found that odd.  I figured it was the G+ app that was buggy.  When I logged on the PC, I got the message that my account was locked.  I was confused.  So I went to the email associated with the account and saw that google sent me an email claiming that I was posting commercial content which is not true.

I replied to them stating that trolls pretending to be atheists had vowed to falsely report me and that I did nothing wrong  In the reply, I included screenshots as proof which is right above.  Later on, I got an email stating that there was a problem with the name I provided.  The email asked me to either update my name or provide information on it.  I replied with information on my pen name "Sacerdotus" and explained why I use it.  Expecting all to be resolved, I checked again and no reply.  I emailed a few more times, a nothing.

Next, I decided to file an appeal using the link Google provides and received an email stating that I was in violation of their policies and had to remove "offending content."

As you can see in the video below, my content is religious with a few reshares from Science organizations.  In fact, my last "offending content" posted was me praying the Liturgy of the Hours and my reflection for the readings on the 21st Sunday of Ordinary Time.  Clearly, Google has a problem with religious speech.

I contacted the Catholic Lawyer's Guild but am hoping a lawyer who reads this post can contact me and help me pro bono.  I think Google needs to be sued for discrimination against Catholics/Religious accounts.  Also, it is not fair that they have an issue with my pen name "Sacerdotus," but do not take action against troll accounts using names such as, "Bacon Pope," or "Ellif D. Wulfe" which are not real names.

Moreover, Google has ignored my complaints about abusive trolls who impersonate me, harass me on a daily basis and threaten me.  It looks as if Google lacks a moral compass and see this as acceptable while classifying prayer and religious reflections on Mass readings as "offending content" triggering suspension  Now, my account says that it is suspended.  Here is the video I captured using Windows' 10 screen recording tool for Xbox.

As you can see, I show my profile and the content I post  It is religious in nature with a few reshares of science related articles.  I then show my activity log on Google Plus. As you can see there, my posts are not abusive nor offensive.  They are religious in nature.  Lastly, I show the emails I received and what I sent to them.   Watch the video and see for yourself that I am not making this up, nor exaggerating.  I am hoping people of all faiths will storm Google with protest just like conservatives did for @Nero (Milo). One of my Twitter friends is also getting Beitbart to cover this situation.  It is an affront to religious freedom and the Constitution.

Please contact Google to protest:

1600 Amphitheatre Pkwy,
Mountain View, CA 94043


Here are tweets showing how I have tried to reach out for help from Google employees and Google ignored.

Why doesn't Google do anything about abusive accounts and harassing blogs? Reports get ignored. No action is taken. @yonatanzunger

— Sacerdotنs (@Sacerdotus) August 9, 2015

@Sacerdotus We take things down all the time. No idea about any particular case you may be thinking about.

— (((Yonatan Zunger))) (@yonatanzunger) August 10, 2015

I posted the blogger links containing libel, abuse and harassment here:http://t.co/7KAD74zMct @yonatanzunger

— Sacerdotنs (@Sacerdotus) August 10, 2015

There are also Google+ accounts who engage in abuse. Reports against them are ignored. They continue their abuse. @yonatanzunger

— Sacerdotنs (@Sacerdotus) August 10, 2015

Sorry to bug, but I would really appreciate if you can help me or forward me to someone at Google re: cyber harassment . @yonatanzunger

— Sacerdotنs (@Sacerdotus) August 21, 2015

Here is a screen shot of what I received today on Google +. There many more accounts like this. @yonatanzunger pic.twitter.com/5te7FjD3sx

— Sacerdotنs (@Sacerdotus) August 10, 2015

@yonatanzunger I need your help ASAP regarding Google/Googleplus. Please DM me.

— Sacerdotنs (@Sacerdotus) August 22, 2016

@Sacerdotus I haven't been on that team in over a year, so the odds aren't good that I can help.

— (((Yonatan Zunger))) (@yonatanzunger) August 22, 2016

@yonatanzunger I complained to Google about trolls targeting me and nothing has been done. Today Google suspended me due to false reports.

— Sacerdotنs (@Sacerdotus) August 22, 2016

@yonatanzunger They vowed to report me for spam, look pic.twitter.com/52HEgThyZW

— Sacerdotنs (@Sacerdotus) August 22, 2016

@yonatanzunger How is it they can be successful getting Google's attention and those targeted by them are ignored? It's not fair.

— Sacerdotنs (@Sacerdotus) August 22, 2016

UPDATE:  This is the message that comes out now.  They claim my name violates their policy, yet they keep "Annoying Orange," "American Scientist," etc up.  Clearly, they are discriminating.  Why does "Sacerdotus" violate their name policy and not the aforementioned or the many troll accounts out there using fake names?

UPDATE:  Google restored my profile on November 17, 2017. 

Supreme Court to Hear Same-Sex Marriage Arguments

Just days after the March for Marriage, the Supreme Court is scheduled to hear the oral arguments for and against so-called same-sex marriage.  Already many have set up campsites outside of the court believing the decision to be "history in the making."

The justices will decide if States have a right to prevent same-sex marriage based on their own constitutions and so forth. It is expected that many will show up at the court supporting same-sex marriage and traditional marriage. A decision by the court in favor of same-sex marriage can affect how a State views and exercises its own sovereignty as well as how Christians and other religious groups can exercise their faith privately and publicly.

In light of the decision of the SCOTUS to knock down DOMA & Prop 8 in 2013, it is believed that they will decide this time in favor for same-sex marriage. According to historians, it has been the trend of the SCOTUS to see where the public moves on an issue before deciding on it. Unfortunately, the media supports same-sex marriage and has fed the people false statistics claiming that a large majority of American favor same-sex marriage when, in fact, that is not true. As Christians, we know that the times will get worse before the final coming, so I will not hold my breath into thinking the SCOTUS will defend traditional marriage.  All we can do is hope, pray and endure the persecution that is to come.

"and you will be hated by all for my name’s sake. But he who endures to the end will be saved." - Matthew 10:22

"I tell you, he will vindicate them speedily. Nevertheless, when the Son of man comes, will he find faith on earth?” - Luke 18:8

"Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness, who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter!" - Isaiah 5:20

"If ever time should come, when vain and aspiring men shall possess the highest seats in Government, our country will stand in need of its experienced patriots to prevent its ruin." - Samuel Adams, USA Founding Father & Patriot (source: "Smoke & Mirrors" pg. 169; Paine, Stephen, http://www.madisonbrigade.com/s_adams.htm; accessed 4/27/15)

Join me tonight at 11:30 P.M. EST Sacerdotus Hangouts: Topic - Same Sex Marriage danger for society. NOTE: there may be a delayed start.   Link: https://plus.google.com/u/0/events/coj9bcklilcvs5f228o9js5adqg

You can also watch here:






Source:

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/04/26/supreme-court-set-to-hear-same-sex-marriage-arguments/

http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/supreme-court/supreme-courts-gay-marriage-debate-puts-ohio-man-jim-obergefell-n347836

http://www.wnd.com/2015/04/supreme-court-justices-warned-to-leave-marriage-alone/

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/apr/26/the-supreme-court-is-scheduled-to-hold-oral-argume/

http://www.al.com/news/birmingham/index.ssf/2015/04/us_supreme_court_takes_up_gay.html

http://www.usnews.com/news/politics/articles/2015/04/26/q-a-whats-at-stake-in-supreme-court-gay-marriage-arguments

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/04/26/supreme-court-gay-marriage_n_7145998.html

Senator: Make Church Attendance Mandatory

News outlets are reporting that senator Sylvia Allen, a Republican from Arizona is trying to pass legislation making it mandatory for citizens to attend church services. She claims that "corrupt souls" are the root of the problems in America, particular, gun violence.  Allen told the state's appropriations committee, "It is the soul that is corrupt and how we get back to a moral rebirth in this country, I don’t know. We are slowly eroding religion at every opportunity that we have. We should probably be debating a bill requiring every American to attend a church of their choice on Sunday to see if we can get back to having a moral rebirth."

I am not sure what to think of this proposal.  First, it would violate the Constitution as the government is not supposed to endorse any religion. Second, what of those people who do not go to church or may be atheists?  Should they be forced to attend church services as well? Lastly, people must be open to going to church and cannot be force. God gives us free will. We can accept or reject Him.  It seems Sylvia Allen is proposing this idea out of nostalgia. She described missing how religion played a big role in society, "People prayed, people went to church, I remember on Sundays the stores were closed.”  I do not see this bill or anything similar even making it to a discussion.  Instead of forcing people to attend church, churches need to go out to them and present their message in a way that is faithful to God and speaks to the people of today.  This is what Pope Francis is doing and calling all Catholics to do.







Source:

http://www.kpho.com/story/28620533/az-senator-church-attendance-should-be-mandatory

http://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2015/03/27/pkg-arizona-senator-church-attendance-mandatory.ktvk

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/arizona-lawmaker-church-attendance-mandatory-article-1.2164602

http://azcapitoltimes.com/news/2015/03/26/nostalgia-but-no-apologies-senator-sylvia-allen-explains-church-law-comment/

Happy 238th USA

Today is the 238th birthday of the United States of America.

We celebrate Independence day. Over two hundred years ago, our American ancestors won the American Revolution defeating the great empire of Great Britain.

This defeat would bring about a new nation never before seen on Earth.  Its ideas would be innovative and radical.  For centuries, societies lived in a social class system with a royal or emperor leading the people.  People were born into a specific social class and could not advance from it because the rules were not set to be fair for all.

The rich took advantage of this and the poor could do nothing but face the consequences of having the rich dominate them.  In Europe, Catholicism was the major religion that dominated.  It was the only Christian faith until the schism where the Eastern Church separated.  Eventually an Augustinian priest named Martin Luther would start a reformation that would further divide the Church.  From this reformation which was more like a deformation, thousands of new sects were born.  Each with specific founders who interpreted Sacred Scripture according to his opinions. Because of this, there were battles among each group with each claiming to be the "true Church" or version of Christianity.

Fallen human nature took over and Christianity became a battlefield.  Those sects with larger numbers, more wealth and political sway dominated the lesser ones.  This forced many of the lesser groups to unite and flee to the "New World" which at the time was considered "discovered" by Christopher Columbus.  These believers left their home to reach this new land.  They purchased contracts with specific companies that would take them aboard ships to this new land.  Once here, they formed their own colonies with their own rules.  Massachusetts bay became the land of Puritans, Pennsylvania the land of the Quakers, Maryland the land of Catholics, etc etc.

Religious freedom was probably the main reason why America even exists. Our ancestors fled their
homelands in Europe to this strange new land in order to set up regions where they can live freely and worship as they believed. Ironically, this land which became a safe haven for religious freedom is becoming the Europe of the time of the early settlers.
Religion is being pushed aside as something that is done in private; something that no one should know of or see.  In a sense, it is being pushed into the category of using the bathroom or showering which are things we do privately and that no one needs to know about in detail.  Religious freedom is one of the fundamental rights human beings have which are given to them by their Creator.  It is no wonder why our Founding Fathers made this clear in the Declaration of Independence.

The recent decision regarding "Hobby Lobby" is a good sign.  Conscience rights and religious rights were placed on the pedestal again.  But more needs to be done to secure these sacred rights given to us by the Creator.  Our government is becoming more and more tyrannical.  It is serving the interest of minority tyrannical groups which seek to devalue life to the point of putting one human's right to exist over another's; deform the institution of marriage which is established in the natural norm; and created a

valueless unjust society where no guiding principles govern the common good of all.  Our nation is wounded.  The Eagle is injured and about to crash onto the hard land.  We need to call on the Holy Spirit to come and help the Eagle fly once again; to sore the Heavens within the presence of Almighty God.  

The Declaration of Independence states that if our rights are pushed aside and our government becomes tyrannical, we the people must abolish it and begin a new government.  Perhaps our Founding Fathers knew that America would begin to implode in the future?  Moreover, is it time for we the people to abolish our current government and form a new one?  Only time will tell.  If things continue to go as they are going in our nation, perhaps it is indeed the time to withdraw the consent of the governed that keeps the government in power.

Let us pray to God to whom our nation is under that He will rescue our nation.  Happy Birthday America!  Happy Fourth of July to all!  May God bless the United States of America and all nations on Earth.    

    

Gun Control

In light of the recent school shooting in Newtown, Connecticut; law officials are now pushing for more "gun control."  They hope to scale back the ability of people to purchase large guns.

The issue is a bit tricky.  I can see the rationale in both sides.

For guns

• The Constitution states we have the right to bear arms.  It does not specify the size.  
• We have the right to bear arms because of our history as Americans.  Colonists needed arms to defend themselves against the tyranny of the British armies during the revolution.
• It is not fair for the government and law officials to have guns and the people remain unarmed.   
• Hunting is a sport and guns are needed.

Against Guns

• Far too many people have died from guns.
• The USA has the highest gun deaths of any nation.
• Why do the people need guns if we have police and armies?
• Guns in the hands of the wrong people can be extremely dangerous..

What do you think?  

Presidential Debate 2012

Tonight's debate was fun to watch.  It started off fine and got more interesting as it went on.  Both candidates were calm and poised at first until the questions began to flow.  Obama was visibly nervous and on the defense after Romney shot at him facts and refuted his points.  As the debate moved on, Obama looked uncomfortable and annoyed.  His arguments were incoherent and at a few instances needed help from the moderator.  There was one point where he even said "I think we should move on to the next question."

Meanwhile, Romney tied every point back to creating jobs and linked it to real people while challenging Obama on his record these past 4 years.  Romney was clearly prepared while Obama was aloof and lost.

Moderator Jim Lehrer was horrible.  He had a difficult time controlling the time and flow of the debate allowing both Romney and Obama to talk past the 2 min limit.

On the topic of government role, Romney stated that rights come from God who is the creator and that we are all the children of the same God.  He also stressed religious freedom indirectly attacking Obama's attack on religious freedom with his policies.   

We are endowed by our creator with our rights, I believe we must maintain our commitment to religious tolerance and freedom in this country. That statement also says that we are endowed by our creator with the right to pursue happiness as we choose. I interpret that as, one, making sure that those people who are less fortunate and can't care for themselves are cared by -- by one another. We're a nation that believes that we're all children of the same god and we care for those that have difficulties, those that are elderly and have problems and challenges, those that are disabled. We care for them. - Romney 

Romney was on target in this debate leaving Obama looking for words with his constant use of non-lexical vocable use of "um" "uh."  The debate looked horrible for Obama who is known for being a good speaker. His train of thought derailed.

Even Obama supporters such as Bill Maher were disappointed in him, Maher posted on twitter:

i can't believe i'm saying this, but Obama looks like he DOES need a teleprompter
— Bill Maher (@billmaher) October 4, 2012

Obama made a lot of great points tonight. Unfortunately, most of them were for Romney
— Bill Maher (@billmaher) October 4, 2012

i must say, of all the Romneys i've seen, this Debate Romney is my favorite
— Bill Maher (@billmaher) October 4, 2012

CNN's Piers Morgan had this to tweet:

WINNERS: Romney, Trump LOSERS: Obama, Jim Lehrer, Big Bird #PMTdebate
— Piers Morgan (@piersmorgan) October 4, 2012

MSNBC's Rachel Maddow on her program foolishly called the debate a tie.  She must have been watching some other thing, not what the rest of the nation and world were watching.

If Romney continues to perform like this, then he will be the next POTUS.




Source:

http://nbcpolitics.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/10/03/14207942-candidates-battle-over-tax-plans-in-first-debate?lite
http://www.cnn.com/2012/10/03/politics/debate-transcript/
http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-pn-live-obama-romney-presidential-debate-2012,0,3871379.story

Obama Flip Flops on "Gay Marriage"

In a move that possibly destroyed his reelection bid, President Obama said in an interview conducted by ABC that he supports so-called "gay marriage."

This became the "breaking news" of the day for some reason.  The media was following this with such fanaticism and made no attempt to mask their slanted reporting and jubilation.

Some reporters commented that Obama is now on the "right side of history" whatever that means.  Others were just elated and compared the news to the Civil rights movement in light of Obama being the first African American president.  It was just embarrassing for the American media.  

It is no surprise that this is all a set up.  North Carolina last night told the LGBT community and its attempt to socially engineer its state to go take a walk.   Moreover, thirty-eight states ban this social construct created by progressives with either its constitutions, statutes or amendments to them.  There is no way all 50 states would legalize so-called "gay marriage."  Even Obama said that he will leave it to the states.  Most of the states have already decided that its a "no thanks."

Only 8 states legalized it and those states are the ones that are run by progressives - surprise surprise.  In New York alone, the protocols used by the senate to pass bills was disregarded in order to make it easy for so-called "gay marriage" bill to pass.  Gov. Cuomo of course was there in person waiting to sign it.  Senator Ruben Diaz, the sole Democrat against it was not allowed to speak.

I remember watching it all on TV and thinking, "is this America?"  A week before, a bill that would've helped low-income residents who rent and the unemployed was stalled in the senate's bureaucracy!  Priority was given to this "gay marriage bill!"  It was preposterous especially in the bad times we are in now.  

It is clear that this social construct is not compatible with American values.  In California, the people voted it down and now the courts are trying to overrule the people!  Talk about tyranny.

President Obama in order to deflect attention from his lack of a good record is now using the LGBT agenda to once again present himself as the "hero" - "the man of hope and change."  Prior to today he refused to support so-called "gay marriage" and said marriage is between a man and a woman.  

He is flip flopping on the issue!  It is so obvious that this man is desperate and is trying everything to present to the American people that he is what he promised to be back in 2008.  

I am extremely disappointed that our president has chosen to support a social construct that only wishes to socially engineer our nation in order to benefit a minority group.  No one, no group is worth throwing away our core values and beliefs.  We lose who we are if we do so.  

This man is not a good leader.  He sinks quickly in any situation and "lends his arm to be twisted." (to borrow from a Puerto Rican elderly lady I heard this from.)  He has no conviction at all and this is needed in a president. 

God help us all if this guy is reelected.  God help America if it continues to adopt social constructs that are contrary to the natural law.  

   

Source:

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-obama-gay-marriage-20120510,0,2388028.story

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/09/obama-gay-marriage-san-francisco_n_1504829.html

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/09/obama-gay-marriage_n_1503245.html

http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory/obama-gay-marriage-support-world-precedent-16315008#.T6syTOhYvyg

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/finally-president-obama-backs-gay-marriage/2012/05/09/gIQAV8ClDU_story.html

Sweet Home Carolina!

In a landslide decision, the great state of North Carolina has voted to protect Marriage.  The state and its voters have decided to amend its constitution in order to make it clear that a marriage is only valid between one man and one woman.  Kudos to North Carolina from a northerner!  The other states must follow!

I hope to see the day when the US. Constitution is amended to protect LIFE from Conception to Natural death and Marriage!



Source:

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/05/amendment-one-north-carolina-anti-gay-marriage-measure-passes/
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Latest-News-Wires/2012/0508/North-Carolina-bans-gay-marriage-with-constitutional-amendment
http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/05/08/11584860-north-carolina-marriage-amendment-could-impact-gay-and-straight-couples
http://www.latimes.com/news/nation/nationnow/la-na-nn-gay-marriage-20120508,0,776172.story
http://www.cnn.com/2012/05/08/politics/north-carolina-marriage/index.html
http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/north-carolina-voters-banned-gay-marriage-civil-unions-011158194.html