Bring them back





Subject: FW: Bring them back

Sent from Mail for Windows 10

 
With Trump as President, we might be able to get this passed let's send it  across the country!       Will I Get Three Replies?

I’m sending this to a variety of friends & family to see what kind of opinions this might bring forth.


SOME STATES (Maryland, Michigan and Arizona) ARE ALLOWING MUSLIM STUDENTS TO PRAY DURING SCHOOL HOURS.

IF THEY ALLOW THAT, THEN WE SHOULD BRING BACK OUR FLAGS INTO THE CLASSROOMS AND ALLOW OTHERS TO PRAY TOO! TIME FOR THE CHRISTIANS TO SPEAK UP AND DEMAND THEIR RIGHTS.

When we get 100,000,000, that's one hundred million, willing Christians to BOND together, voice their concerns and vote, we can take back America with God's help.


Become one of the One hundred million.  Then let's get 200 million. It can be done just by sending this email to your friends.

Do the math.  It only takes a single willing heart and a fed-up SOUL.

God Bless America and Shine your light on Her!

In 1952 President Truman established one day a year as a "National Day of Prayer.”

In 1988 President Reagan designated the first Thursday in May of each year as the “National Day of Prayer.”

In June 2007, then Presidential Candidate Barack Obama declared that the USA "Was no longer a Christian nation.”

In May 2009 President Obama dismissed our 21st annual National Day of Prayer ceremony at the White House under the ruse of "not wanting to offend anyone."


Sept. 25, 2009, a Muslim Prayer Day was held on the West front of the U.S. Capitol Building, the site where U.S. Presidents have been inaugurated since 1981.  There were over 50,000 Muslims in D.C. that day.  President Obama dismissed our National Day of Prayer and now it is okay for an event at our capitol for Islamists?


I for one was offended.  But wait, it did not stop!

February 17-19, 2015, a Muslim prayer was recited at the start of the second day of the White House summit on “Countering Violent Extremism,” but no other religious text was presented during the portion of the event that was open to the press.  Imam Sheikh Sa’ad Musse Roble, president of the World Peace Organization in Minneapolis, Minn., recited a “verse from the Quran” following remarks by Obama administration officials and Democrat members of Congress.


Former President Obama encouraged schools to teach the Quran for extra credit, while at the same time, we cannot even talk about the Bible, God, pray, or salute the American Flag.


The direction this country was headed should strike fear in the heart of every Christian.

How refreshing and beautiful our First Lady Melania Trump was in Melbourne, Florida, on February 18, 2017.  Instead of the normal “pumping up” of the crowd, Melania chose to start the rally off with the Lord’s Prayer  It sounded more like the start of a football game after the National Anthem rather than what we would expect to hear after a prayer.


Make a “Joyful noise unto the LORD thy GOD!” 

Because of the “sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity” of Madeline Murray O’Hair and ACLU efforts in 1962, "School Prayer was removed from the U.S. public education system by slowly changing the meaning of the First Amendment through a number of court cases Several court cases should be confronted and reversed.

 

Send this to ten people, or one hundred and ten, and send it to the person who sent it to you!  To let them know that indeed, it was sent out to many more.

 

   

Thank you in behalf of our country. 

 

 

 

 

Obama, Clinton 9th Circuit Judges Suspend Bill of Rights Until Coronavirus is Cured


The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on Friday ruled that Democratic California Gavin Newsom's ban on in-person church services during the Coronavirus pandemic can stand.

The lawsuit, filed by South Bay United Pentecostal Church in San Diego, prevents that church from reopening, according to the Los Angeles Times

The "constitutional standards that would normally govern our review of a Free Exercise claim should not be applied," wrote the two judges in the majority opinion.

https://www.frontpagemag.com/point/2020/05/obama-clinton-9th-circuit-judges-suspend-bill-daniel-greenfield/





Federal Judge Rules: Way Trump Uses Twitter Is Illegal

by George Upper


There’s been a lot of theorizing about the effect of social media on the 2016 presidential election, most of it — in the establishment media, anyway — focused on how Donald Trump’s campaign, with or without the help of the Russians, “stole” the election from Hillary Clinton by selectively planting “fake news” on Facebook.

But Trump’s social media advantage during the campaign was never on Facebook; it was always on Twitter, from his announcement through the election and inauguration.

And, while it wasn’t obvious at the time, that’s when swamp water began seeping into Trump’s online presence, with the ultimate result being that federal judge ruled Wednesday that President Donald Trump cannot block users from access to his Twitter account without violating the First Amendment to the Constitution after seven plaintiffs — we don’t have their names, but I’m guessing they don’t hail from right-of-center heartland America — sued over the practice.

The judge ruled that, because blocking accounts that disagree with him on Twitter prevents those users from expressing their disagreement with him on what was essentially a public forum amounted to government suppression of their right to free speech, according to The New York Times.

Now, given the circumstances, the judge could hardly have decided anything differently. It’s not the judge in the wrong here; it’s the circumstances surrounding the judge’s decision.

Essentially, Federal District Court Judge Naomi Reice Buchwald ruled that, because Trump and Dan Scavino, the White House social media director, “exert governmental control over certain aspects of the @realDonaldTrump account,” the account is an official government account and blocking the seven plaintiffs from it because of their political views violated their First Amendment rights. 

Again, that’s true. But that’s not the problem.  The problem is that this should never have been an “official government account” in the first place. 

Donald Trump — with the help of media experts in his employ, one would imagine — built his following on Twitter long before he ever ran for office, and he continued to build it — and expertly so — during his campaign.  If the account had remained under his personal control, he could block or not block anyone he chose.

But that’s not what happened.

“The viewpoint-based exclusion of the individual plaintiffs from that designated public forum is proscribed by the First Amendment and cannot be justified by the president’s personal First Amendment interests,” the judge, who was appointed by President Bill Clinton in 1999, wrote in her decision.  The White House is apparently considering an appeal, although the basis for such an action was not mentioned and remains unclear, given the present circumstances.  

“We respectfully disagree with the court’s decision and are considering our next steps,” said the Justice Department, which is representing the president in the case.

‘The right thing for the president and his social media director to do would be to log into the president’s account and unblock everyone who has been blocked on the basis of viewpoint,” said Jameel Jaffer, the plaintiffs’ attorney and the executive director of the Knight First Amendment Institute, which joined the case as a plaintiff itself.

The court, however, did not order the president to take such an action which would, on the face of it, appear to mean that any government employee or elected official with a social media account funded with taxpayer money would have to take the same action or face similar lawsuits.  Again, since White House staffers became involved, free speech is a legitimate issue in this case. But was it really necessary for that to happen? Isn’t the president’s Twitter account really that, a personal account?  

And the president should be able to communicate directly with the American people without the intervention of federal bureaucrats. Shouldn’t he?

The court, however, did not order the president to take such an action which would, on the face of it, appear to mean that any government employee or elected official with a social media account funded with taxpayer money would have to take the same action or face similar lawsuits.  Again, since White House staffers became involved, free speech is a legitimate issue in this case. But was it really necessary for that to happen? Isn’t the president’s Twitter account really that, a personal account? 

And the president should be able to communicate directly with the American people without the intervention of federal bureaucrats. Shouldn’t he?


Alert: Fed Court Says Criticism of Islam Can Be Punished

by Benjamin Arie

 

The First Amendment guarantees that the government cannot suppress free speech or favor a religion — but a court in New Jersey is violating both of those promises.

According to a report from the Thomas More Law Center, residents of Bernards Township, New Jersey, have been banned from bringing up the topic of Muslims or Islam at an upcoming public hearing.

That public forum is intended to determine whether a mosque should be built in the community.  You read that right: Authorities have essentially banned citizens from uttering the words “Muslim” or “Islam” at a public debate that centers on that very religion.   The controversy is focused on a settlement order from a district court, which appears to blatantly violate free speech protections “ No commentary regarding Islam or Muslims will be permitted,” states a legally binding court order about the mosque hearing.

That public forum is intended to determine whether a mosque should be built in the community.  You read that right: Authorities have essentially banned citizens from uttering the words “Muslim” or “Islam” at a public debate that centers on that very religion.   The controversy is focused on a settlement order from a district court, which appears to blatantly violate free speech protections “ No commentary regarding Islam or Muslims will be permitted,” states a legally binding court order about the mosque hearing.

Violators, it seems clear, will be punished by being prohibited from speaking. It’s a tactic that smacks of the Shariah-controlled lands of the Middle East, or other totalitarian societies like communist nations under Soviet domination — not an American township in the state of New Jersey.

In response to the controversial order, the Thomas More Law Center has filed a lawsuit on behalf of Christopher and Loretta Quick, who live just 200 feet away from the proposed mosque site.

“TMLC’s lawsuit alleges that Bernards Township’s settlement agreement constitutes a prior restraint on speech based on content, as well as, a violation of the (First Amendment) Establishment Clause because it prefers Islam over other religions,” the law center explained.    The lawsuit claims that preventing local citizens from voicing their concerns about the “Islamic” nature of the mosque is not only unfair, but also unconstitutional.

“The Quicks reside within 200 feet of the proposed mosque construction in a zoned residential area. Yet, the settlement agreement prohibits them from describing the many unique features of Islamic worship,” the Thomas More Law Center stated.

Additionally, the lawsuit argues that the Islamic Society of Basking Ridge, or “ISBR,” is permitted to make any sort of comments about Jews or Christians without restriction, but the government is actively suppressing free speech in the other direction.  “While claiming that the ownship had a religious animus against Muslims, ISBR hid from the public view its animus toward Christians and Jews, by not only hiding anti-Christian and anti-Semitic verses published on its website, but also hiding its significant ties to ISNA [Islamic Society of North America],” attorney Richard Thompson explained in a news release.

“Instead of standing up to defend its citizens against ISBR’s hate-filled anti-Semitic and anti-Christian bias, the Township colluded with ISBR’s ‘Civilization Jihad’ by capitulating to payment of millions of dollars to ISBR, allowing the constructon of the new mosque and Islamic center in violation of zoning codes, and now even suppressing speech concerning Islam or Muslims at a public meeting,” Thompson continued.

True enough, the court-ordered settlement which forbids citizens from bringing up their concerns about Islam is clearly printed for anyone to see.  The free discussion of ideas, even if they are critical or controversial, is one of the fundamentals of American liberty.  After all, the First Amendment wouldn’t be necessary at all if everyone shared identical opinions. Protecting the right to hold views with which some group — or the government — disagrees  is the very reason speech protections exist in the first place.

It is hard to imagine the Founding Fathers forbidding the open debate of a specific topic.

Hopefully, freedom of speech will prevail… or our country may have deeper problems than we realize. 

Please share this article on Facebook if you believe that free speech is an unalienable right!