Monday, February 18, 2019

AUTOPSY OF A DEAD COUP



This article was so on point that I felt I had to republish it in my Blog. Make no mistake about it, WE ARE WITNESSING THE LARGEST SCANDAL IN AMERICAN POLITICAL HISTORY.

During the Obama administration, Hillary Rodham Clinton and both the FBI and CIA were likely the most corrupt government agents/agencies ever to have taken part in our government. As an attorney myself familiar with the legal issues surrounding what took place, I can say that what we saw in the fake email investigation overseen by the now disgraced James Comey was the stuff of Hollywood. The closing of nvestigations into the Clinton Foundation and the Foundation's dissolution is an obvious attempt at starting the clock to the destruction of all of their corporate records within 7 years. It's simply idiotic to think otherwise. The idea is simple: If they can buy enough time, they will be able to legally destroy all the evidence of the blatant selling of our government to foreign powers through this organization. None of these foreign governments who gave millions to the Clinton Foundation did so out of some sense of philanthropy. To anyone but those with serious mental issues, this was just buying influence - pure and simple. This is why the donations suddenly stopped once Hillary was out of office (or potential office). In terms of Hillary's criminality, the FBI contorted statutory interpretation suggesting required "intent" and changed words used for the simply purpose of saving her from sure jail time.

Consequently, any sense of justice and decency was literally thrown out the window during this administration. The Justice Department, IRS, FBI, and the CIA were weaponized for partisan interests and have suffered incredible and irreversible harm in the eyes of the public they are sworn to serve. The most recent statements by Andrew McCabe in his infamous "60 Minutes" interview are proof positive of how corrupt and just low our FBI sunk. The FBI was acting like more of a "mafia" than a law enforcement agency.

David really does a great job at summarizing several aspects of this historic scandal in the article below. Read it and weep - Rev. Mario Gonzalez Jr., J.D., Esq.

*****

Picture by Kevin Dietsch/Pool | Getty Images

Article by Paul Victor Davis Hanson

The illegal effort to destroy the 2016 Trump campaign by Hillary Clinton campaign’s use of funds to create, disseminate among court media, and then salt among high Obama administration officials, a fabricated, opposition smear dossier failed.

So has the second special prosecutor phase of the coup to abort the Trump presidency failed. There are many elements to what in time likely will become recognized as the greatest scandal in American political history, marking the first occasion in which U.S. government bureaucrats sought to overturn an election and to remove a sitting U.S. president.

Preparing the Battlefield
No palace coup can take place without the perception of popular anger at a president.

The deep state is by nature cowardly. It does not move unless it feels it can disguise its subterranean efforts or that, if revealed, those efforts will be seen as popular and necessary—as expressed in tell-all book titles such as fired FBI Directors James Comey’s Higher Loyalty or in disgraced Deputy FBI Director Andrew McCabe’s psychodramatic The Threat.

In candidate and President Trump’s case that prepping of the battlefield translated into a coordinated effort among the media, political progressives and celebrities to so demonize Trump that his imminent removal likely would appear a relief to the people. Anything was justified that led to that end.

All through the 2016 campaign and during the first two years of the Trump presidency the media’s treatment, according to liberal adjudicators of press coverage, ran about 90 percent negative toward Trump—a landmark bias that continues today.

Journalists themselves consulted with the Clinton campaign to coordinate attacks. From the Wikileaks trove, journalistic grandees such as John Harwood, Mark Leibovich, Dana Milbank, and Glenn Thrush often communicated (and even post factum were unapologetic about doing so) with John Podesta’s staff to construct various anti-Trump themes and have the Clinton campaign review or even audit them in advance.

Some contract “journalists” apparently were paid directly by Fusion GPS—created by former reporters Glen Simpson of the Wall Street Journal and Susan Schmidt of the Washington Post—to spread lurid stories from the dossier. Others more refined like Christiane Amanpour and James Rutenberg had argued for a new journalistic ethos that partisan coverage was certainly justified in the age of Trump, given his assumed existential threat to The Truth. Or as Rutenberg put it in 2016: “If you view a Trump presidency as something that’s potentially dangerous, then your reporting is going to reflect that. You would move closer than you’ve ever been to being oppositional. That’s uncomfortable and uncharted territory for every mainstream, non-opinion journalist I’ve ever known, and by normal standards, untenable. But the question that everyone is grappling with is: Do normal standards apply? And if they don’t, what should take their place?”

I suppose Rutenberg never considered that half the country might have considered the Hillary Clinton presidency “potentially dangerous,” and yet did not expect the evening news, in 90 percent of its coverage, to reflect such suspicions.

The Democratic National Committee’s appendages often helped to massage CNN news coverage—such as Donna Brazile’s primary debate tip-off to the Clinton campaign or CNN’s consultation with the DNC about forming talking points for a scheduled Trump interview.

So-called “bombshell,” “watershed,” “turning-point,” and “walls closing in” fake news aired in 24-hour news bulletin cycles. The media went from fabrications about Trump’s supposed removal of the bust of Martin Luther King, Jr. from the Oval Office, to the mythologies in the Steele dossier, to lies about the Trump Tower meeting, to assurances that Michael Cohen would testify to Trump’s suborning perjury, and on and on.

CNN soon proved that it is no longer a news organization at all—as reporters like Gloria Borger, Chris Cuomo, Eric Lichtblau, Manu Raju, Brian Rokus, Jake Tapper, Jeff Zeleny, and teams such as Jim Sciutto, Carl Bernstein, and Marshall Cohen as well as Thomas Frank, and Lex Harris all trafficked in false rumors and unproven gossip detrimental to Trump, while hosts and guest hosts such as Reza Aslan, the late Anthony Bourdain, and Anderson Cooper stooped to obscenity and grossness to attack Trump.

Both politicos and celebrities tried to drive Trump’s numbers down to facilitate some sort of popular ratification for his removal. Hollywood and the coastal corridor punditry exhausted public expressions of assassinating or injuring the president, as the likes of Jim Carrey, Johnny Depp, Robert de Niro, Peter Fonda, Kathy Griffin, Madonna, Snoop Dogg, and a host of others vied rhetorically to slice apart, shoot, beat up, cage, behead, and blow up the president.

Left wing social media and mainstream journalism spread sensational lies about supposed maniacal Trump supporters in MAGA hats. They constructed fantasies that veritable white racists were now liberated to run amuck insulting and beating up people of color as they taunted the poor and victimized minorities with vicious Trump sloganeering—even as the Covington farce and now the even more embarrassing Jussie Smollett charade evaporated without apologies from the media and progressive merchants of such hate.

At the same time, liberal attorneys, foundations, Democratic politicians, and progressive activists variously sued to overturn the election on false charges of rigged voting machines. They sought to subvert the Electoral College. They introduced articles of impeachment. They sued to remove Trump under the Emoluments Clause. They attempted to invoke the 25th Amendment. And they even resurrected the ossified Logan Act—before focusing on the appointment of a special counsel to discredit the Trump presidency. Waiting for the 2020 election was seen as too quaint.

Weaponizing the Deep State
During the 2016 election, the Obama Department of Justice warped the Clinton email scandal investigation, from Bill Clinton’s secret meeting on an airport tarmac with Attorney General Loretta Lynch, to unethical immunity given to the unveracious Clinton aides Huma Abedin and Cheryl Mills, to James Comey’s convoluted predetermined treatment of “likely winner” Clinton, and to DOJ’s Bruce Ohr’s flagrant conflict of interests in relation to Fusion GPS.

About a dozen FBI and DOJ grandees have now resigned, retired, been fired, or reassigned for unethical and likely illegal behavior—and yet have not faced criminal indictments. The reputation of the FBI as venerable agency is all but wrecked. Its administrators variously have libeled the Trump voters, expressed hatred for Trump, talked of “insurance policies” in ending the Trump candidacy, and inserted informants into the Trump campaign.

The former Obama directors of the CIA and National Intelligence, with security clearances intact, hit the television airways as paid “consultants” and almost daily accused the sitting president of Russian collusion and treason—without cross-examination or notice that both previously had lied under oath to Congress (and did so without subsequent legal exposure), and both were likely knee-deep in the dissemination of the Steele dossier among Obama administration officials.

John Brennan’s CIA likely helped to spread the Fusion GPS dossier among elected and administrative state officials. Some in the NSC in massive and unprecedented fashion requested the unmasking of surveilled names of Trump subordinates, and then illegally leaked them to the press.

The FISA courts, fairly or not, are now mostly discredited, given they either were willingly or naively hoodwinked by FBI and DOJ officials who submitted as chief evidence for surveillance on American citizens, an unverified dossier—without disclosure that the bought campaign hit-piece was paid for by Hillary Clinton, authored by a discredited has-been British agent, relied on murky purchased Russian sources, and used in circular fashion to seed news accounts of supposed Trump misbehavior.

The Mueller Investigation
The Crown Jewel in the coup was the appointment of special counsel Robert Muller to discover supposed 2016 Trump-Russian election collusion. Never has any special investigation been so ill-starred from its conception.

Mueller’s appointment was a result of his own friend James Comey’s bitter stunt of releasing secret, confidential and even classified memos of presidential conversations. Acting DOJ Attorney Rod Rosenstein appointed a former colleague Mueller—although as a veteran himself of the Clinton email scandal investigations and the FISA fraudulent writ requests, Rosenstein was far more conflicted than was the recused Attorney General Jeff Sessions.

Mueller then packed his investigative team with lots of Clinton donors and partisans, some of whom had legally represented Clinton subordinates and even the Clinton Foundation or voiced support for anti-Trump movements.

Mueller himself and Andrew Weissmann have had a long record of investigatory and prosecutorial overreach that had on occasion resulted in government liability and court mandated federal restitution. In such polarized times, neither should have involved in such an investigation. Two subordinate FBI investigators were caught earlier on conducting an affair over their FBI-issued cell phones, and during the election cycle they slurred the object of their subsequent investigation, ridiculed Trump voters, and bragged that Trump would never be elected. Mueller later staggered, and then hid for weeks the reasons for, their respective firings.

The team soon discovered there was no Trump-Russian 2016 election collusion—and yet went ahead to leverage Trump campaign subordinates on process crimes in hopes of finding some culpability in Trump’s past 50-year business, legal, and tax records. The point was not to find who colluded with whom (if it had been, then Hillary Clinton would be now indicted for illegally hiring with campaign funds a foreign national to buy foreign fabrications to discredit her opponent), but to find the proper mechanism to destroy the presumed guilty Donald Trump.

The Mueller probe has now failed in that gambit of proving “collusion” (as even progressive investigative reporters and some FBI investigators had predicted), but succeeded brilliantly in two ways.

The “counterintelligence” investigation subverted two years of the Trump presidency by constant leaks that Trump soon would be indicted, jailed, disgraced, or impeached. As a result, Trump’s stellar economic and foreign policy record would never earn fifty percent of public support.

Second, Mueller’s preemptive attacks offered an effective offensive defense for the likely felonious behavior of John Brennan, James Clapper, James Comey, Andrew McCabe, Bruce Ohr, Peter Strzok, and a host of others. While the Mueller lawyers threatened to destroy the lives of bit players like Jerome Corsi, George Papadopoulos, and Roger Stone, they de facto provided exemption to a host of the Washington hierarchy who had lied under oath, obstructed justice, illegally leaked to the press, unmasked and leaked names of surveilled Americans, and misled federal courts under the guise of a “higher loyalty” to the cause of destroying Donald J. Trump.

The Palace Coup
All of the above came to a head with the firing of the chronic leaker FBI Director James Comey (who would lie to the president about his not being a target of an FBI investigation, lie to House investigatory committees by pleading amnesia and ignorance on 245 occasions, and repeatedly lie to his own FBI bureaucrats).

In May 2017, acting FBI director Andrew McCabe took over from the fired Comey. His candidate wife recently had been a recipient of huge Clinton-related campaign PAC donations shortly before he began investigating the Clinton email scandal. McCabe would soon be cited by the Inspector General for lying to federal investigators on numerous occasions—cynically stooping even to lie to his own New York FBI subordinates to invest scarce resources to hunt for their own nonexistent leaks as a mechanism for disguising his own quite real and illegal leaking.

The newly promoted McCabe apparently felt that it was his moment to become famous for taking out a now President Trump. Thus, he assembled a FBI and DOJ cadre to open a counterintelligence investigation of the sitting president on no other grounds but the fumes of an evaporating Clinton opposition dossier and perceived anger among the FBI that their director had just been fired. In addition, apparently now posing as Andrew McCabe, MD, he informally head counted how many of Trump’s own cabinet members could be convinced by McCabe’s own apparent medical expertise to help remove the president on grounds of physical and mental incapacity under the 25th Amendment. This was an attempted, albeit pathetic, coup against an elected president and the first really in the history of the United States.

At one point, McCabe claims that the acting Attorney General of the United States Rod Rosenstein volunteered to wear a wire to entrap his boss President Trump—in the manner of Trump’s own attorney Michael Cohen’s entrapment of Trump, in the manner of James Comey taking entrapment notes on confidential Trump one-on-one meetings and leaking them to the press, and in the manner of the Department of Justice surveilling Trump subordinates through FISA and other court authorizations.

McCabe was iconic of an utterly corrupt FBI Washington hierarchy, which we now know from the behavior of its disgraced and departed leadership. They posed as patriotic scouts, but in reality proved themselves arrogant, smug, and incompetent. They harbored such a sense of superiority that they were convinced they could act outside the law in reifying an “insurance policy” that would end the Trump presidency.

The thinking of the conspirators initially had been predicated on three assumptions thematic during this three-year long government effort to destroy Trump:

One, during 2016, Hillary Clinton would certainly win the election and FBI and DOJ unethical and illegal behavior would be forgotten if not rewarded, given the Clintons’ own signature transgressions and proven indifference to the law;

Two, Trump was so controversial and the fabricated dossier was so vile and salacious, that seeded rumors of Trump’s faked perversity gave them de facto exemptions to do whatever they damned pleased;

Three, Trump’s low polls, his controversial reset of American policy, and the general contempt in which he was held by the bipartisan coastal elite, celebrities, and the deep state, meant that even illegal means to continue the campaign-era effort to destroy Trump and now abort his presidency were felt to be moral and heroic acts without legal consequences, and the media would see the conspirators as heroes.

In sum, the Left and the administrative state, in concert with the media, after failing to stop the Trump campaign, regrouped. They ginned up a media-induced public hysteria, with the residue of the Hillary Clinton campaign’s illegal opposition research, and manipulated it to put in place a special counsel, stocked with partisans.

Then, not thugs in sunglasses and epaulettes, not oligarchs in private jets, not shaggy would-be Marxists, but sanctimonious arrogant bureaucrats in suits and ties used their government agencies to seek to overturn the 2016 election, abort a presidency, and subvert the U.S. Constitution. And they did all that and more on the premise that they were our moral superiors and had uniquely divine rights to destroy a presidency that they loathed.

Shame on all these failed conspirators and their abettors, and may these immoral people finally earn a long deserved legal and moral reckoning.

Content created by the Center for American Greatness, Inc. is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a significant audience. For licensing opportunities for our original content, please contact [email protected].

Tuesday, February 12, 2019

LAW SCHOOL CASE SUMMARY OF ROE V. WADE, 410 U.S. 113 (1973)


Below please find my law school case summary of Roe v. Wade. I thought it would be great to share this with people who have not had the opportunity to read the actual case law. It also breaks down the case from a legal point of view giving the reader a look into a lawyer's perspective of the case. 

[Right to Unencumbered First Trimester Abortion] Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973)

[Appellant Jane Roe, a pregnant mother who wished to obtain an abortion, sued on behalf of all woman similarly situated in an effort to prevent the enforcement of Texas statutes criminalizing all abortions except those performed to save the life of the mother.]


STATUTES THAT MAKE CRIMINAL ALL ABORTIONS EXCEPT WHEN MEDICALLY ADVISED FOR THE PURPOSE OF SAVING THE LIFE OF THE MOTHER ARE AN UNCONSTITUTIONAL INVASION OF PRIVACY.

Facts: Texas statutes made it a crime to procure or attempt an abortion except when medically advised for the purpose of saving the life of the mother. Appellant Jane Roe sought a declaratory judgment that the statutes were unconstitutional on their face and an injunction to prevent defendant Dallas County District Attorney from enforcing the statutes. Appellant alleged that she was unmarried and pregnant and that she was unable to receive a legal abortion by a licensed physician because her life was not threatened by the continuation of her pregnancy and that she was unable to afford to travel to another jurisdiction to obtain a legal abortion. Appellant sued on behalf of herself and all other women similarly situated, claiming that the statutes were unconstitutionally vague and abridged her right of personal privacy, protected by the First, Fourth, Fifth, Ninth, and Fourteenth Amendments.
Issue: Do the Texas statutes improperly invade a right possessed by the appellant to terminate her pregnancy embodied in the concept of personal liberty contained in the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause, in the personal marital, familial, and sexual privacy protected by the Bill of Rights or its penumbras, or among the rights reserved to the people by the Ninth Amendment?
Holding – Disposition: The right to personal privacy includes the abortion decision, but the right is not unqualified and must be considered against important state interests in regulation.

Roe wins – the district court judgment is affirmed.
Hallford loses – the district court judgment is reversed.
The Roes lose – the district court judgment is affirmed.

Rationale: Court opined – “The Constitution DOES NOT explicitly mention any right of privacy. [But] the Court has recognized that a right of personal privacy, or a guarantee of certain areas or zones of privacy, does exist under the Constitution. In varying contexts, the Court or individual Justices have … found at least the roots of that right in the First Amendment; in the 4th and 5th Amendments; in the penumbras of the Bill of Rights [Griswold]; in the 9th Amendment [id.]; or in the concept of liberty guaranteed by the 14th Amendment [Meyer]. These decisions make it clear that only PERSONAL RIGHTS that can be DEEMED “FUNDAMENTAL,” or “IMPLICIT IN THE CONCEPT OF ORDERED LIBERTY,” [Palko] are included in this GUARANTEE of personal privacy. They also make it clear that the right has some extension to activities relating to marriage, procreation [Skinner], contraception [Eisenstadt], family relationships, and child rearing and education [Pierce; Meyer].

·      This “right of privacy,” whether it be founded in the 14th amendment’s concept of personal liberty as we feel it is, or as the District Court determined, in the 9th , is broad enough to encompass a woman’s decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy.
·      Blackmun went on to opine that there were inherent difficulties in the court’s “denying choice altogether,” including the effects such a ruling would have on the physical and psychological well-being of the mother.
·      [In light of the inherent difficulties], “… appellants and some amici argue that the woman’s right is absolute and that she is entitled to terminate her pregnancy at whatever time, in whatever way, and for whatever reason she alone chooses. With this, we do not agree. [A] state may properly assert important interests in safeguarding health, in maintaining medical standards, and IN PROTECTING POTENTIAL LIFE… At some point in pregnancy, these respective interests become sufficiently compelling to sustain regulation of the factors that govern the abortion decision.” Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973)
·      “All this… persuades us that the word “person,” as used in the 14th Amendment, does not include the unborn” - [Texas argues] that the fetus is a “person” within the language and meaning of the 14th Amendment. [If so], the appellant’s case, of course, collapses, for the fetus’ right to life is then guaranteed specifically by the Amendment. Use of the term “person” in section 1 of the 14th Amendment, as well as in other parts of the Constitution, only use the term postnatally [duh]. None indicates, with any assurance, that it has any possible “pre-natal” application.
·      “The State does have an important and legitimate interest in preserving and protecting the health of the pregnant woman [and] it has still another important and legitimate interest in protecting the potentiality of human life. These interests are separate and distinct…. Each grows as the woman approaches term, and at a point during pregnancy, each becomes ‘compelling.’”

When does the interest become “compelling” for…
The mother? “[In light of present medical knowledge] It becomes compelling approximately at the end of the first trimester – until this point, mortality in abortion is less than that in childbirth.”
The unborn child [fetus]? “The compelling point is at viability. This is so because the fetus then presumably has the capability of meaningful life outside of the mother’s womb, [the protection having] both logical and biological justifications.”

Three reasons have been advanced for the historical enactment of criminal abortion laws.

(1)   The first is that the laws are the product of a Victorian social concern to discourage illicit sexual conduct, but this argument has been taken seriously by neither courts nor commentators.
(2)   The second reason is that the abortion procedure is hazardous, therefore the State’s concern is to protect pregnant women. However, modern medical techniques have altered the situation, with abortions being relatively safe particularly in the first trimester.
(3)   The third reason is the State’s interest is in protecting the prenatal life. However, this is somewhat negated by the fact that the pregnant woman cannot be prosecuted for the act of abortion.

Court’s Bottom Line on State’s Interests over the Fetus

If the State is interested in protecting fetal life after viability, it may go so far as to proscribe abortion during that period [period starting upon the viability of the fetus], except when it is necessary to preserve the life or health of the mother. Measured against these standards, “the Texas law sweeps too broadly and cannot survive the constitutional attack made upon it here.”

Court Holding in Roe v. Wade Based on Fetus’ Stages of Development

Legal Stage 1 - For the stage prior to the approximate end of the first trimester, the abortion decision must be left to the medical judgment of the pregnant woman’s attending physician, and may not be criminalized by statute.

Legal Stage 2 - For the stage subsequent to the approximate end of the first trimester, the State may regulate abortion in ways reasonably related to maternal health based upon the State’s interest in promoting the health of the mother.

Legal Stage 3 - For the stage subsequent to viability, the State may regulate and even proscribe abortion, except where necessary for the preservation of the mother’s life, BASED UPON THE STATE’S INTEREST in the potential of the potential life of the unborn child.

Concurrence - Justice Stewart [other concurrences filed by Douglas and Burger.]: “The Griswold decision [in some manner resurrecting the doctrine of substantive due process killed in Ferguson v. Skrupa] can be rationally understood only as a holding that the Connecticut statute substantively invaded [“liberty”]. “The liberty protected by [due process] covers more than those freedoms explicitly named in the Bill of Rights. [In Eisendadt], we recognized ‘the right of the individual, married or single, to be free from unwarranted governmental intrusion into matters so fundamentally affecting a person as the decision whether to bear or beget a child.’ That right necessarily includes the right of a woman to decide whether or not to terminate her pregnancy.

Dissent – Justice White, joined by Justice Rehnquist: Court simply fashions and announces a new constitutional right for pregnant mothers and, with scarcely any reason or authority for its action, invests that right with sufficient substance to override most existing state abortion statutes.

Dissent – Justice Rehnquist:
·      A transaction resulting in an operation as this is not private.
·      Though the concept of “liberty” encompasses more than rights explicitly mentioned in the Bill of Rights, deprivation of that liberty is only precluded if executed without “due process of law.”
·      Social and economic legislation [such as the one in question] is tested by analyzing whether the law challenged has a rational relation to a valid state objective.
·      Court’s sweeping invalidation of a first-trimester abortion is impossible to justify under “Lee Optical” test.

·      As in Lochner and similar cases applying substantive due process standards to economic and social welfare legislation, the adoption of the compelling state interest standard will inevitably require this Court to examine the legislative policies and pass on the wisdom of these policies in the very process of deciding whether a particular state interest put forward may or may not be “compelling.”


Monday, January 21, 2019

FAMILY - A MODERN DAY GOLDEN CALF IN THE CHURCH?

Exodus 32:23-24 "They said to me, ‘Make us gods who will go before us. As for this fellow Moses who brought us up out of Egypt, we don’t know what has happened to him.’ So I told them, ‘Whoever has any gold jewelry, take it off.’ Then they gave me the gold, and I threw it into the fire, and out came this calf!”
If you say that God is first, then He must be first in your devotional life, your family life, and your professional life. God simply will not allow himself to be placed first on a list that we've concocted based on our own secular psychological paradigms regarding the overriding significance of family rather than on how Scripture presents family. When we visualize a spiritual hierarchy where God is first, the family is second and ministry is third, we necessarily place family as a barrier between ministry and God in our lives.
God is first - period. If He's our God, then He must be first everywhere. Ministry, to the extent that it reflects God's calling on our lives (which is the definition of ministry), forms the basis of a significant part of our daily conversations with God and to a large extent serves to identify who we are called "to be" in Him. I don't stop being a pastor when I get home. If anything, I need to be a pastor there more than I am anywhere else.
Contrary to popular Christian belief as espoused from countless pulpits around the globe, we are not placed on earth so that God can bless us. We're put here to do His will and to build His kingdom and not our own. We are here to serve others and to give ourselves away just like our Savior did before us (Matt. 20:28; John 13:6-9). It is what shows God that we truly love Him (John 21:15-17).
That said, it is so critical that we understand the part that the family plays in all of this. Below is an amazing article from Christianity Today that speaks to this, while bursting some bubbles we have long regarded as sacrosanct. It will challenge how you think about this thing we define as "Christianity".
Let's not, like Aaron, try to sell God a "bill of goods". Calves didn't make themselves then and they still don't make themselves now.
https://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2019/january-february/russell-moore-putting-family-first-puts-church-odds-jesus.html
Blessings, Rev. Mario Gonzalez Jr., Esq., J.D.

Monday, January 7, 2019

DEMOCRATS FLEE FROM REASON ON “THE WALL”



So what’s this “wall” stalemate really all about? One word: politics.
Okay, so when did walls become immoral? Are doors likewise immoral? What about roofs? The answer is that, at least in America, they have never been and never will be “immoral”, except within the context of talking points drafted by a party dead set on delegitimizing a president they believe they would otherwise have a hard time beating at the polls. Which, of course, is a pretty embarrassing state of affairs when that President is Donald J. Trump.
I understand the political reality here, but what really annoys me are the idiotic talking points being sold to the American public by both parties. No, we don’t have zillions of criminals looking to infiltrate our southern border. Are there at least some trying to do so? This, of course, is quite likely, though not provable. If I left a thousand dollar bill on the counter at a store, I may not be able to state, with 100% certainty, that someone will steal the bill, but I can definitively say is that it is highly likely that someone will. Which of course is the entire point behind a physical barrier – a Wall. It’s why, even in the best of neighborhoods, we have doors to our homes and why we generally lock those doors, at least at night.
Everyone knows that Democrats previously legislatively supported the construction of border walls and/or barriers as part of our overall U.S. immigration strategy. They did so because they are simply a logical part of ANY plan to protect a country’s national safety and integrity. This has been true for thousands of years. So why are Democrats so unwilling to support the exact same legislation now? The answer is simple – This stalemate is all about preventing the President from fulfilling a key campaign promise in the hope that, as a result, enough of his people will not vote for him so as to give the Democrat party a chance to take the presidency in 2020. Nothing more and nothing less.
That said, is erecting a physical barrier (fence, wall, etc.) at our southern border a national crisis at this juncture? Yes.
We recently witnessed thousands of foreigners converge on soft spots around the U.S. southern border attempting to enter into the U.S. illegally. In at least one encounter, border agents who were being attacked were forced to disperse a crowd which included women and children with tear gas. Encounters like these occur because the perpetrators believe there is at least a chance of success. Most of these immigrants are banking on our catch and release posture, where they are detained given a court date and then released into the U.S. general population with a court date. Based on the most recent data, only about 6 out of every 10 immigrants actually show up to their court date. An immovable physical barrier serves to lessen both the violators confidence and resolve while preventing the need for active and hostile physical engagement with violators by border agents which serves to endanger the safety of both the perpetrators and the officers trying to stop them.
Are Asylum claims being made generally legitimate? No.
As is made clear by countless videos taken by news agencies interviewing the recent want-to-be immigrants at the southern border, the majority are attempting to enter the U.S. not because they are fleeing real or imminent persecution in their home countries, but because those countries do not offer the financial opportunities available to citizens and legal immigrants in the United States.
As an immigration attorney who helps the immigrant community, I know this to be the case first hand. That said, do at least some of them have “reasonable fear of future persecution on account of race, religion, national origin, political opinion, or membership in a social group”? Of course. But based on our past experience [cold, hard facts], the number of immigrants that ultimately are allowed into the country after filing an asylum claim is only about 20%. Basically, 8 out of 10 asylum applications simply fail.
Another critical legal factor is that there is a discretionary bar to granting asylum to any noncitizen who has already been offered the opportunity to live permanently in a third country before entering the U.S. Mexico has in fact done that. So as a matter of law, asylum can legitimately be denied to everyone seeking asylum in the U.S. who has tried to do so from the Mexican/U.S. border.
Wasn't Mexico supposed to "pay for the wall"? Yes.
To a large extent, they are. Trump's recent U.S. favorable trade arrangement with Mexico along with Mexico's offer of asylum to these noncitizens, indirectly will help to fund the wall by virtue of tariffs collected, a reduction in the trade deficit, and cost savings resulting from Mexico's asylum grants.
In sum,
Because there is really not only NO IMPETUS for Democrats to seek a middle ground with President Trump on the all-important “wall” issue, but rather an extremely STRONG INCENTIVE TO DENY THE PRESIDENT any semblance of victory in all areas including this one at all costs, the President really has no choice, in terms of what he has to do. It appears that President Trump will have to use his Constitutionally granted Presidential powers to go around Congress and build the wall as a matter of national security, while simultaneously ending the stalemate involving federal workers. He wins on both counts with this decision.
Bendiciones, 
Mario

Saturday, June 23, 2018

ANDY STANLEY - A MARCIONIC HERETIC?

"For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine, but according to their own desires, because they have itching ears, they will heap up for themselves teachers; and they will turn their ears away from the truth, and be turned aside to fables. But you be watchful in all things, endure afflictions, do the work of an evangelist, fulfill your ministry." - The Apostle Paul (2 Tim. 4:3-5)

I start by saying that I am pretty shocked right now. To be honest with you, I'm actually in pain right now.

Based on the alleged quotes from Andy Stanley's preaching series called "Aftermath" below, it would clearly appear that Andy Stanley, son of the respected teacher Charles Stanley and mentor to beloved teacher Craig Groeschel of Life Church, has now embraced and is promoting the latest form of heretical Marcionism - an ancient heresy recently revived and promoted by false teachers like Darrin Hufford, writer of The Misunderstood God.

Below I am quoting excerpts from a blog that I just read written by Steven Kozar. Steven's blog seems well written, well structured and thoroughly logical. Though I do not personally know Steven, his words below are sufficient, in and of themselves, to warrant distribution. I will be hearing the series myself personally in order to test the veracity of the quotes offered by Steven below:

*** BEGINNING OF EXCEPTS
"In Andy Stanley's latest series, called "Aftermath," he suggests that Christians can unhinge their faith from the Bible while attaching their faith to the historically reliable resurrection of Christ (which is something we learn about from the Bible). Along with propagating doubt in God's Word, Andy Stanley is teaching a modern version of Marcionism, which is an ancient heresy that eliminates the Old Testament. Here are some recent articles that explain this in greater detail:

Here are some direct quotes from this truly bizarre and confusing "sermon" series:

“Jesus’s most devout first-century followers never owned a Bible, never read a Bible, they couldn’t have read the Bible if there was a Bible because most of them couldn’t read and there was no Bible to read. And yet, these men and woman turned the world upside down, they’re the reason we’re here today worshipping Jesus but they never held a Bible because there was no Bible until the fourth century. Why are you so quickly persuaded to walk away from faith because of a book that didn’t exist when Christianity began?”
— Andy Stanley, Aftermath Part 1, April 14, 2018

“In order to remain irresistible, I noticed something we needed to address. And it had nothing to do with how we do church, it had everything to do with how we talk about the Bible, and specifically what we point to as the foundation of faith, which for most Christians, unfortunately, is the Bible. ”
— Andy Stanley, Aftermath Part 1, April 14, 2018

“Many of you-I’m in this group-we were raised to believe that the foundation of our faith is the Bible; that as the Bible goes, so goes our faith, and if some of it’s not true then none of it can be trusted; it’s a house of cards.”
— Andy Stanley, Aftermath Part 1, April 14, 2018

It only took about ten minutes into the first sermon for Stanley to dismantle the authority of the Bible and give high praise to the sincerity and intelligence of atheists like Sam Harris, but then he spends the rest of the "sermon" talking about the ministry of Jesus and the early church while quoting from the Bible. But the obvious question should be: why is he using the Bible at all?

Here are some more direct quotes:

“The first-century Christians had a very different kind of foundation for their faith than many of us have. Many of us were raised to believe that the foundation of our belief is the Bible, but they didn’t have a Bible, the Bible wouldn’t come until the early fourth century. What they based their faith on was an event-specifically the resurrection of Jesus, and this should be the reason we choose to follow as well.”
— Andy Stanley, Aftermath Part 2, April 21, 2018

“When Paul’s eyes were opened he had extraordinary clarity around the incompatibility of the Old and New Testaments.”
— Andy Stanley, Aftermath Part 2, April 21, 2018

“The Bible teaches that God mostly loves Jews AND the Bible teaches that God loves everybody; they are two incompatible covenants.”
— Andy Stanley, Aftermath Part 2, April 21, 2018

“I’m telling you, you take Old Testament values and imperatives and you mix them with New (Testament values and imperatives), you end up with a mess, and you end up with a message that unnecessarily drives people away from the Gospel. And once upon a time this wasn’t all that big of a deal, because once upon a time nobody knew that much about the Bible and they couldn’t find out much about the Bible unless they went to a library, but now everybody is one click away from whatever information they need to dismiss their faith, including your children and grandchildren.”
— Andy Stanley, Aftermath Part 2, April 21, 2018

“(On the public display of the Ten Commandments:) Jews aren’t for this, and it’s their law. You don’t see Jewish groups saying ‘We need the Ten Commandments on the courthouse lawn!’ Jewish people are like: ‘It’s over, it’s over...’ and the Christians are like: ‘No! It’s not over, we wanna keep it alive!’ And the Jewish people are like ‘I don’t think you’ve read it carefully.’ Cause they’re smarter than us about THEIR scripture.”
— Andy Stanley, Aftermath Part 2, April 21, 2018

“The gig is up. The truth is out there. We can’t hide anymore. So let me be super honest: We can’t hide behind the Ten Commandments anymore because everybody has discovered that the Ten Commandments aren’t the only commandments; the Ten Commandments are the table of contents for the whole Jewish law.”
— Andy Stanley, Aftermath Part 2, April 21, 2018

“Originally in my notes I was gonna put a screen up here that said ‘In other words that means thou shalt not obey the ten commandments,’ but I knew someone would take a picture of that and it would define me for the rest of my life, so I’m not gonna put that up there...”
— Andy Stanley, Aftermath Part 3, April 28, 2018"

*** END OF STEVE'S BLOG EXCERPTS

I am in utter shock in reading this. Though I knew the church was in trouble, I had no idea that this spirit of Amalek/Jezebel had already done this much damage.

We must return to fasting and prayer guys. We are fighting huge principalities here.