Palm Sunday reminds us of the triumphal entry of our Lord Jesus into Jerusalem for the purpose of celebrating the Passover.
The gospels record the arrival of Jesus entering into the city on a donkey, the crowds spread their cloaks and palm branches and shouted “Hosanna to the Son of David” and “Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord” to honor him as their long-awaited Messiah and King. Matthew 21:9
The significance of Jesus riding a donkey while having His way paved with palm branches fulfills the prophecy in Zechariah 9:9. Regional customs called for kings and nobles arriving to ride on the back of a donkey. The donkey symbolized peace; the rider proclaimed peaceful intentions. Laying palm branches indicated that the king or dignitary was arriving in victory.
If you press into God, as in draw near, continuously with purpose and awareness God as it says in James will draw near to you. “Draw near to God, and he will draw near to you…” James 4:8. There is a bit more to that scripture, take a moment and read it, it will serve you well I think.
Contrary to what the leftists rewriting history will have you believe, our Founding Fathers were faithful to Judeo Christian values, and founded the United States of America on those values. Always question a Communist (progressive) when they start to speak of faith. Happy Thanksgiving everyone from the founders and staff of PBN and US Defense League!
Congressional Fast Day Proclamation
Congress proclaimed days of fasting and of thanksgiving annually throughout the Revolutionary War. This proclamation by Congress set May 17, 1776, as a “day of Humiliation, Fasting and Prayer” throughout the colonies. Congress urges its fellow citizens to “confess and bewail our manifold sins and transgressions, and by a sincere repentance and amendment of life, appease his [God’s] righteous displeasure, and through the merits and mediation of Jesus Christ, obtain his pardon and forgiveness.” Massachusetts ordered a “suitable Number” of these proclamations be printed so “that each of the religious Assemblies in this Colony, may be furnished with a Copy of the same” and added the motto “God Save This People” as a substitute for “God Save the King.
If anyone is paying attention to the facts regarding our newest Pope they will realize that he is not only from Argentina but he is also from Italian heritage. The former Cardinal Jorge Mario Bergoglio was unveiled to the world just yesterday March 13th, 2013 at 8:22pm Rome Italy time. Pope Francis chose his new name after St. Francis of Assisi. St. Francis’ birth name was Francesco di Pietro di Bernardone. Prior to his becoming Pope, Cardinal Jorge Mario Bergoglio, was known as a “man of the people” he daily rode the bus to his Parish with the “common” every day working person and refused to live in the Cardinals’ Mansion. He even cooked his own meals. St. Francis birth-name was indeed Francesco di Pietro di Bernardone which translated into English means literally Peter of Rome. If one were to research the book The Prophecy of Malachy there would be a complete understanding that the fulfillment of the final prophecy of the final Pope has indeed just occurred.
If you do not yet have a personal relationship with the living God. We here at PBN encourage you to get to know and accept the Lord Jesus Christ Who is; The Only Son of God Who suffered and died for you! He gave His life laying it down for all Mankind/Womenkind. Jesus is The Only Sinless & Perfect Sacrifice for All Mankind. He conquered death and hell and rose again in fulfillment of scripture. We encourage you to “be still” wherever you are right now. Take a moment and ask the Lord of Lords and King of Kings into your heart to be The Lord of your Life today. Its not too late. It’s never too late if you still have breath. You have not sinned so much that He cant or wont forgive you. But know that your “goodness” will not be able to save you. Apart from Jesus’ Blood covering our sins, the bible says we are “as filthy menstrual rags” YUCK! Our “goodness” can only come from God alone. The Christian God The Father is the same Old testament God of Abraham, Jacob and Issac. He is the Messiah that was predicted to come. He was broken for our transgressions. His name in Hebrew is Yeshua Ha’ Maschiah. The Lord Jesus Christ. Please, will you ask Jesus the Messiah into your heart today? Just ask God to reveal Himself to you. He will. It’s a guaranteed Promise. Do this now: “Confess with your mouth and believe with your heart that Jesus is Lord and you shall be Saved.”
For all Believers in Jesus, the Bible says we are also known as Believers in “The Way”. Current events are historical and prophetic. They are now revealing that The Book of Revelations is underway. “Be ready!”
An author who predicted Pope Benedict XVI would be the first pontiff in nearly 600 years to resign believes the election today of Jorge Mario Bergoglio as the 266th Roman Catholic pontiff lines up with a medieval prophecy that would make him the “final pope” before the End Times.
Tom Horn, co-author with Cris Putman of the book “Petrus Romanus: The Final Pope is Here,” told WND today Bergoglio’s selection was a “fantastic fulfillment of prophecy.”
His book examines St. Malachy’s “Prophecy of the Popes,” said to be based on a prophetic vision of the 112 popes following Pope Celestine II, who died in 1144.
Malachy’s prophecies, first published in 1595, culminate with the “final pope,” “Petrus Romanus,” or “Peter the Roman,” whose reign ends with the destruction of Rome and the judgment of Christ.
Horn has said a pope of Italian descent would fulfill the prophecy, noting Bergoglio is the son of Italian parents and a Jesuit.
“Being a Jesuit is a very important aspect of our prediction in our book,” Horn told WND in an email.
Citing his book, Horn said the name “Petrus Romanus” in the prophecy “implies this pope will reaffirm the authority of the Roman Pontiff over the Church and will emphasize the supremacy of the Roman Catholic Faith and the Roman Catholic Church above all other religions and denominations, and its authority over all Christians and all peoples of the world.”
Horn pointed out the Jesuits order was organized “to stop Protestantism from spreading and to preserve communion with Rome and the successor of Peter.”
He also sees significance in Bergoglio naming himself after Francis of Assisi, an Italian, or Roman, priest whose original name was Francesco di Pietro (Peter) di Bernardone, “literally, Peter the Roman.”
As WND reported, Horn and his co-author, Cris Putnam, predicted in their book Benedict would step down, making way for history’s “final pope.”
Peter the Roman was long ago predicted to be “The Final Pope or The Black Pope” before the End of the Age and Christ’s Final Return as The Warrior and King, at least according to the Prophesy of Malachi. Our newest Pope from Italian heritage, former Cardinal Jorge Mario Bergoglio, chosen just yesterday March 13th, 2013 at 8:22pm Rome Italy time took St. Francis (of Assisi) for his chosen name. St Francis’ given birth name was Francesco di Pietro di Bernardone which translated into English means literally Peter of Rome. We happen to be Believers in “The Way” ~ M. Katherine Orts & Husband Pastor David A. Orts reporting & founders for WorldWideBroadcasters.com “Reaching The Globe With Truth For The Nations” & founders of USDefenseLeague.com “Pushing Back Tyranny With Truth
USA and all of Western Civilization – ask yourself this question. What Christian or Jew would go into a Catholic church or any church or temple and cover a Cross or any Christian or Jewish symbol? None that we know of. But Obama has done such despicable things.
Because he is indeed very much not a Christian. Barak Hussein Obama was raised to be Muslim and as such believes what the Koran states: That all Christians/Catholics/Jews and Non-Muslims are “Infidels” = “Worse than Unbelievers.” – Obama is practicing “Taqiyya” which means “to deceive with approval for the purposes of furthering Islam”. He is fluent in Arabic, reciting Muslim Prayers, and in deciphering the Koran due to his Indonesian & devout Muslim upbringing. Obama reveres the Koran, unlike the Bible, which he seems to abhor (revealed by his order to cover the Christ symbol at Georgetown University in a speech dated April 14th, 2009) See bottom of article for proof and link.
For the record, the Bible was written over 600 years before Mohammad plagiarized the Koran. There is sufficient evidence that the Koran borrowed scripture, which is a crime of forgery, and twisted it by adding the recitations/writings of Muhammad through an alleged vision/trance by a visitation of the “Angel Gabriel”. “Satan comes as an angel of light…” Do not be deceived. “Many deceivers, who do not acknowledge Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh, have gone out into the world. Any such person is the deceiver and the antichrist.” – 2 John 1:7. The true Angel Gabriel’s visitation already announced the True Messiah through the Virgin Mary, the Holy Mother of Jesus born not of man’s will but by God the Father’s through the miraculous overshadowing of the Holy Spirit upon the Virgin Mary’s womb. Jesus, “Emmanuel” means God with Us.
If you’re hungry to read more of the word click here.
Obama, and his profoundly Anti Semitic, Anti-Christian and Anti-Western Civilization Islamic allies within his Administration and elsewhere, have been silently, effectively, aiding and abetting Islamic Terrorists on US Soil and abroad on US Embassy turf. The ongoing cover up of Obama’s lack of leadership in all things Military is transparently clear when using terms like “speed bumps” to expound upon the terror brought to the families of the Benghazi Four. US Citizens died in Benghazi Libya at the Special Diplomatic Mission because of a covert US/Syria Arms deal. We will not stand idly by and watch history attempt to be re-written as it unfolds so that Political Correctness will run rampant with its twisted versions of the “truth”.
The Muslim Brotherhood, founded in 1928, is a militant, pro-sharia law organization that has used both violent and non-violent means to achieve its ultimate goal of restoring the Muslim caliphate and the glory of the Islamic empire. The Muslim Brotherhood has spawned dozens and dozens of organizations across the globe, including the terrorist organizations al Qaeda and Hamas. Today, numerous Muslim organizations in America are either actively connected to the Muslim Brotherhood or owe their existence to the Muslim Brotherhood. In 2004, federal investigators discovered a Muslim Brotherhood memorandum during a search of a northern Virginia home. The memorandum, written by Mohamed Akram for the Muslim Brotherhood’s Shura Council, described a “civilization jihad” aimed at North America. It stated: “The Ikhwan must understand that their work in America is a kind of grand Jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and “sabotaging” its miserable house by their hands and the hands of the believers so that it is eliminated and Gods religion is made victorious over all other religions.” This explanatory memorandum also included a list of 29 Muslim Brotherhood connected organizations in the U.S. The memorandum was entered into evidence at the Holy Land Foundation terrorism financing trial in 2007-2008. Entire Article Here.
Obama is so very Anti Christian that he had instructed White House personnel to have Georgetown University cover all Christian symbols prior to his arrival and his speech there on April 14th, 2009. ~ M. Katherine Orts and husband Pastor David A. Orts founders of USDefenseLeague
Unaltered Alter at Georgetown University Depicting Christian Symbol.
Obama Had Ordered Christian Symbol Covered. It Was Covered Over with Black Painted Wood For Obama’s April 14th, 2009 Speech at Georgetown University.
Obama Speaking, Georgetown University April 14, 2009 Altar Behind Him Now Void of Christian Symbols after he demanded them covered.
Edgar Cayce predicted that there will be one more Pope after John Paul II who will serve a short term.
As we all know ,Pope announced his resignation yesterday . For those of you interested in stuff like this…read and be amazed! He is the first Pope to step down rather than die in the position in more than 600 years
In 1139 AD, a man named St. Malachy was given a prophetic vision. He saw all of the Catholic Popes that would come in the future. He wrote down a short description of each one. Throughout history, each one has been accurate. He foresaw 112 Popes until Jesus returned and that # 111 would see the beginning of the tribulation. The current Pope is # 111. We’ve had 111 since, and are on the verge of seeing No. 112, which Malachy says will be the final pope before the end of the world as we know it.
It gets more interesting.
Papal Prophecies – The End of Religion
Saint Malachy (1094 – November 2, 1148) was known as great prophet. While in Rome in 1139 he received a vision showing him all the Popes from his day to the end of time. According to these prophecies, only two Popes remaining after John Paul II.
St. Malachy was reported to have possessed the powers of levitation, healing, and clairvoyance. While on his way to the Vatican to assume the post of papal legate for Ireland, he fell into trance and saw a line of papal reigns stretching from the successor to Innocent II and extending through centuries to the last of the line, identified as Peter of Rome. Malachy assigned short descriptions in Latin to each pope when he committed his vision to paper. These mottoes usually refer to a family name, birthplace, coat-of-arms, or office held before election to the papacy. Some of the phrases are multiple prophecies, written with ingenious word play.
Through the centuries, his prophecies have turned out to be amazingly accurate, even prophesying the date of his death. In all, 112 popes and their characteristics are listed from 1143 to the alleged end of the world, or perhaps religion as we know it, when truth is inlay revealed about human creation and destiny.
Saint Malachy’s final words were: “Rome, the seat of the Vatican, will be destroyed and the dreadful Judge will judge the people.”
Prophecy of the Popes is a list of 112 short phrases in Latin. They purport to describe each of the Roman Catholic popes (along with a few anti-popes), beginning with Pope Celestine II (elected in 1143) and concluding with a pope described in the prophecy as “Peter the Roman”, whose pontificate will end in the destruction of the city of Rome.
Malachy’s Prophecies – The Last 10 Popes
1. The Burning Fire. PIUS X. 1903-1914. This Pope showed a burning passion for spiritual renewal in the Church.
2. Religion Laid Waste. BENEDICT XV. 1914-1922. During this Pope’s reign saw Communism move into Russia where religious life was laid waste, and World War I with the death of millions of Christians who were carnage in Flanders Field and elsewhere.
3. Unshaken Faith. PIUS XI. 1922-1939. This Pope faced tremendous pressure from fascist and sinister powers in Germany and Italy, but he was an outspoken critic of Communism and Fascism which enraged Hitler.
4. An Angelic Shepherd. PIUS XII. 1939-1958. This Pope had an affinity for the spiritual world and received visions which have not been made public. Peter Bander says Pius XII “has emerged as one of the great Popes of all time,” and he “was in the truest sense of the word an Angelic Pastor to the flock…”
5. Pastor and Mariner. JOHN XXIII. 1958-1963. John was a pastor to the world, much beloved, and the Patriarch of Venice. The connection to “mariner” is thus remarkable.
6. Flower of Flowers. PAUL VI. 1963-1978. Paul’s coat-of-arms depicts three fleurs-de-lis, corresponding to Malachay’s prophecy. His coat of arms included three fleurs-de-lis (iris blossoms).
7. Of the Half Moon. JOHN PAUL I. 1978-1978. John Paul I was elected Pope on August 26, 1978, when there was a half moon. He reigned 33 days, that is, about one month, when he died, although many think he was murdered. He was the 109th Pope – is “De Medietate Lunae” (Of the Half Moon). The corresponding pope was John Paul I (1978-78), who was born in the diocese of Belluno (beautiful moon) and was baptized Albino Luciani (white light). He became pope on August 26, 1978, when the moon appeared exactly half full. It was in its waning phase. He died the following month, soon after an eclipse of the moon.
8. The Labor of the Son. JOHN PAUL II. 1978-2005. Pope John Paul II was the most traveled Pope in history. He circled the globe numerous times, preaching to huge audiences everywhere he went. He survived an assassination attempt. He has written a book which has enjoyed a large circulation. Like the sun which never ceases to labor and provides light daily, this Pope has been incessant. He was born on May 18, 1920. On that date in the morning there was a near total eclipse of the sun over Europe. Prophecy – The 110th Pope is “De Labore Solis” (Of the Solar Eclipse, or, From the Toil of the Sun). Like the sun he came out of the East (Poland).
9. The Glory of the Olive. The Order of St. Benedict has said this Pope will come from their order. It is interesting that Jesus gave his apocalyptic prophecy about the end of time from the Mount of Olives. This Pope will reign during the beginning of the tribulation Jesus spoke of. The 111th prophesy is “Gloria Olivae” (The Glory of the Olive). The Order of Saint Benedict has claimed that this pope will come from their ranks. Saint Benedict himself prophesied that before the end of the world his Order, known also as the Olivetans, will triumphantly lead the Catholic Church in its fight against evil.
10. PETER THE ROMAN – This final Pope will likely be Satan, taking the form of a man named Peter who will gain a worldwide allegiance and adoration. He will be the final antichrist which prophecy students have long foretold. If it were possible, even the very elect would be deceived. The 112th prophesy states: “In the final persecution of the Holy Roman Church there will reign Petrus Romanus, who will feed his flock amid many tribulations; after which the seven-hilled city will be destroyed and the dreadful Judge will judge the people. The End.
FROM THE CLEVELANDLEADER.COM
St. Malachy prophesied that the final pope would be “Peter the Roman”, which is interesting because no pope to date has chosen the name of Peter out of respect for Peter the Apostle. There has also been speculation that the final pope would be black. Even more curiously, there is a black cardinal in Ghana, Peter Turkson, who is believed to be a frontrunner and whose name has come up in previous discussions of papal appointment.
Cardinal Turkson has said in the past that “if God would wish to see a black man also as pope, thanks be to God.” Catholic Church chronicler Rocco Palmo has called Turkson the lone Scripture scholar in the Pope’s “Senate”, and believes that his status as a potential “papabile” has been elevated due to his 2009 appointment as spokesman for the Second Synod for Africa.
Outside of the Church, there are also many who believe that Turkson is the favorite to take over as pontiff. Even the London bookmakers believe he’s the top choice. Odds comparison site Oddschecker.com lists Turkson at best price odds of 4/1, and as short as 2/1 with some firms. Francis Arinze, the Nigerian Cardinal, is also a huge favorite with the bookies.
There are some who insist that Malachy did not say that the last pope he mentioned would be the 112th pope, insisting that he was merely the last, and theorizing that there could be more popes to come between Benedict and “Peter the Roman”. However, this is not a belief that everyone subscribes to and many believe that “Peter the Roman” will be both the 112th and last pope of the Catholic Church.
Malachy’s prophecies are taken very seriously as they’ve been uncannily accurate to date. Will the Catholic Church get its first black pope? Will “Peter the Roman” lead us into the End Times? These questions are set to be answered by Easter, which comes this year at the end of March, when the papal conclave announces their decision.
Pope Benedict XVI announced his decision to step down due to health concerns just days ahead of the start of the Lenten season. He is due to step down officially on February 28. The announcement surprised even his inner circle, who were said to be unaware that he was planning to step down.
Last Updated, 4:54 p.m. Speaking on camera for the first time since she survived an assassination attempt by the Pakistani Taliban last year, the young activist Malala Yousafzai began with the words, “Today you can see that I’m alive.” The 15-year-old, who was shot in the head as she left school in Pakistan’s Swat Valley four months ago, promised that she would continue to be an outspoken advocate of the right for “every girl, every child, to be educated.”
In the brief statement, the young advocate attributed her survival to the prayers of her supporters and urged them to contribute to a fund established in her name to further the cause of education for girls. “Because of these prayers, God has given me this new life,” Ms. Yousafzai said. “And this is a second life; this is a new life. And I want to serve, I want to serve the people.”
A video statement from Malala Yousafzai, a young Pakistani activist who was shot in the head by Taliban militants.
The English-language statement was recorded just before Ms. Yousafzaiunderwent surgery at the Queen Elizabeth Hospital in Birmingham, England, over the weekend to repair damage to her skull caused by the bullet fired into her head at point-blank range in October.
On Monday, the hospital released more video of the young patient, speaking to one of her doctors after the five-hour operation to reconstruct her skull and implant a device to restore hearing to her left ear.
Video of Malala Yousafzai speaking to a doctor in Birmingham, England after an operation on Saturday.
“I’m feeling alright and I’m happy that the operations, both the operations, were successful,” she told Dr. Mav Manji, a critical care specialist at Queen Elizabeth Hospital. Asked about the future, she said, “My mission is the same, to help people, and I will do that.” She also expressed her gratitude to the doctors in Pakistan and Britain who cared for her. “God gave me a new life,” she said, “because of the prayers of people and because of the talent of doctors.”
At a news conference on Monday, Dr. Anwen White, the neurosurgeon who led the reconstructive surgery, and Dr. Dave Rosser, the hospital’s medical director, explained that the titanium cranioplasty, which involved repairing the missing area of her skull with a specially molded titanium plate, “went very well.” (Video of the news conference was posted online by Britain’s Channel 4 News and the hospital uploaded images of the surgery in progress to YouTube.)
An update posted on the hospital’s Web site explained that, after the skull surgery, “Malala then had a cochlear implant fitted – a small, complex electronic device that provides a sense of sound to someone who is profoundly deaf or severely hard of hearing. The cochlear implant is to restore hearing to her left ear after she was left deaf in that ear by the bullet.”
Publisher’s Note: 40 years and over 55,000,000 life ending murders aka “abortions” ago Roe vs Wade and Doe vs Bolton both became victims of fraud. An anniversary should be a joyous celebration, sadly they are not always. It is not a celebratory memory, but it does mark the anniversary of tens of millions of murders of the most precious of us. This marker is a reminder of how vile and evil the blood lusting liberal left are. Monsters do exist. Liberals have made murder of the most innocent “legal” by fraud and lies. You will find at the center of liberal’s evil goals, two pawns, two innocent pro life women who never sought abortions.
It is also the Anniversary of a continuing Farce & Denigration of Our US Constitution and the manipulation of our Supreme Court Judicial System.
How and why?
Due to two false precedents, illegal ones at that. It is indeed a historical fact, though incredulously still not a widely disseminated one, that both the plaintiffs in Roe vs Wade and Doe vs Bolton proceeded on with their pregnancies and gave birth to their babies prior to the courts rulings on their matters making the Supreme Court’s decisions irrelevant and moot. In addition, the plaintiffs’ attorney(s) in both cases allegedly used their names and previous conditions (pregnancies) to obtain standing without their knowledge or consents. “Roe” didn’t learn of the case’s outcome until reading it two years later in the newspaper and “Doe” had no knowledge that a case had even been filed, heard and ruled on, using her name! They are both Pro-Life and are Proponents of the Right to Life for ALL unborn children.
Roe’s attorney Coffee and Weddington never had her appear in court or for that matter explain that an abortion would end the life of the unborn baby. Norma McCorvey (Roe) was duped. The story of Sandra Cano (Mary Doe) here.
Mary Doe was Sandra Cano she says, “Little did I know, going to the Legal Aid was going to result in being a Plaintiff in abortion, which is something I’ve never been for, I’ve been against, I never sought an abortion, never sought to be a plaintiff in this case. I was in the dark about it for a long, long time. I think the public knows more about the case than I do. I was never a participant.”
The Supreme Court’s ruling in both cases were based upon cases which no longer existed and which were brought about via fraudulent and dubious means. Both cases rulings resulted in the violation of the most basic Constitutional Right of any future child’s right to exist, not for those two children but for the millions who never had a chance to be heard. “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” Charters of Freedom here.If you’re pregnant or know someone who is and are thinking about an abortion, do some research, talk to some people, we hope these links will help, may God bless you.-PBN
Good afternoon, Chairman Brownback and Senator Feingold, and thank you very much for inviting me to testify before you and your subcommittee on this important subject.
I am Edward Whelan, president of the Ethics and Public Policy Center. The Ethics and Public Policy Center is a think tank that for three decades has been dedicated to exploring and explaining how the Judeo-Christian moral tradition and this country’s foundational principles ought to inform and shape public policy on critical issues.
The Ethics and Public Policy Center’s program on The Constitution, the Courts, and the Culture, which I direct, explores the competing conceptions of the role of the courts in our political system. This program focuses, in particular, on what is at stake for American culture writ large—for the ability of the American people to function fully as citizens, to engage in responsible self-government, and to maintain the “indispensable supports” of “political prosperity” that George Washington (and other Founders) understood “religion and morality” to be.
1. Why re-examine Roe v. Wade?
Why are we here today addressing a case that the Supreme Court decided 32 years ago, that it ratified 13 years ago, and that America’s cultural elites overwhelmingly embrace? The answer, I would submit, is twofold.
First, Roe v. Wade marks the second time in American history that the Supreme Court has invoked “substantive due process” to deny American citizens the authority to protect the basic rights of an entire class of human beings. The first time, of course, was the Court’s infamous 1857 decision in the Dred Scott case (Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (1857)). There, the Court held that the Missouri Compromise of 1820, which prohibited slavery in the northern portion of the Louisiana Territories, could not constitutionally be applied to persons who brought their slaves into free territory. Such a prohibition, the Court nakedly asserted, “could hardly be dignified with the name of due process.” Id. at 450. Thus were discarded the efforts of the people, through their representatives, to resolve politically and peacefully the greatest moral issue of their age. Chief Justice Taney and his concurring colleagues thought that they were conclusively resolving the issue of slavery. Instead, they only made all the more inevitable the Civil War that erupted four years later.
Roe is the Dred Scott of our age. Like few other Supreme Court cases in our nation’s history, Roe is not merely patently wrong but also fundamentally hostile to core precepts of American government and citizenship. Roe is a lawless power grab by the Supreme Court, an unconstitutional act of aggression by the Court against the political branches and the American people. Roe prevents all Americans from working together, through an ongoing process of peaceful and vigorous persuasion, to establish and revise the policies on abortion governing our respective states. Roe imposes on all Americans a radical regime of unrestricted abortion for any reason all the way up to viability—and, under the predominant reading of sloppy language inRoe’s companion case, Doe v. Bolton, essentially unrestricted even in the period from viability until birth. Roefuels endless litigation in which pro-abortion extremists challenge modest abortion-related measures that state legislators have enacted and that are overwhelmingly favored by the public—provisions, for example, seeking to ensure informed consent and parental involvement for minors and barring atrocities like partial-birth abortion. Roedisenfranchises the millions and millions of patriotic American citizens who believe that the self-evident truth proclaimed in the Declaration of Independence—that all men are created equal and are endowed by their Creator with an unalienable right to life—warrants significant governmental protection of the lives of unborn human beings.
So long as Americans remain Americans—so long, that is, as they remain faithful to the foundational principles of this country—I believe that the American body politic will never accept Roe.
The second reason to examine Roe is the ongoing confusion that somehow surrounds the decision. Leading political and media figures, deliberately or otherwise, routinely misrepresent and understate the radical nature of the abortion regime that the Court imposed in Roe. And, conversely, they distort and exaggerate the consequences of reversing Roe and of restoring to the American people the power to determine abortion policy in their respective States. The more that Americans understand Roe, the more they regard it as illegitimate.
Reasonable people of good will with differing values or with varying prudential assessments of the practical effect of protective abortion laws may come to a variety of conclusions on what abortion policy ought to be in the many diverse states of this great nation. But, I respectfully submit, it is well past time for all Americans, no matter what their views on abortion, to recognize that the Court-imposed abortion regime should be dismantled and the issue of abortion should be returned to its rightful place in the democratic political process.
2. Roe v. Wade
In Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973), the Court addressed the constitutionality of a Texas statute, “typical of those that have been in effect in many States for approximately a century,” that made abortion a crime except where “procured or attempted by medical advice for the purpose of saving the life of the mother.” Id. at 116, 118.The seven-Justice majority, in an opinion by Justice Blackmun, ruled that the Texas statute violated the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment (which provides that no state shall “deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law”). The Court ruled that the Due Process Clause requires an abortion regime that comports with these requirements that the Court composed:
“(a) For the stage prior to approximately the end of the first trimester, the abortion decision and its effectuation must be left to the medical judgment of the pregnant woman’s attending physician.
“(b) For the stage subsequent to approximately the end of the first trimester, the State, in promoting its interest in the health of the mother, may, if it chooses, regulate the abortion procedure in ways that are reasonably related to maternal health.
“(c) For the stage subsequent to viability, the State in promoting its interest in the potentiality of human life may, if it chooses, regulate, and even proscribe, abortion except where it is necessary, in appropriate medical judgment, for the preservation of the life or health of the mother.” Id. at 164-165.
Merely describing Roe virtually suffices to refute its legitimacy. One of the two dissenters, Justice Byron White—who was appointed by President Kennedy—accurately observed that Blackmun’s opinion was “an exercise of raw judicial power” and “an improvident and extravagant exercise of the power of judicial review.” 410 U.S. at 222 (combined dissent from Roe and Doe v. Bolton).
Here are typical criticisms of Roe—from liberals who supporta right to abortion:
“What is frightening about Roe is that this super-protected right is not inferable from the language of the Constitution, the framers’ thinking respecting the specific problem in issue, any general value derivable from the provisions they included, or the nation’s governmental structure. Nor is it explainable in terms of the unusual political impotence of the group judicially protected vis-à-vis the interest that legislatively prevailed over it.… At times the inferences the Court has drawn from the values the Constitution marks for special protection have been controversial, even shaky, but never before has its sense of an obligation to draw one been so obviously lacking.” John Hart Ely, The Wages of Crying Wolf: A Comment on Roe v. Wade, 82 Yale L.J. 920, 935-937 (1973).
“One of the most curious things about Roe is that, behind its own verbal smokescreen, the substantive judgment on which it rests is nowhere to be found.” Laurence H. Tribe, The Supreme Court, 1972 Term—Foreword: Toward a Model of Roles in the Due Process of Life and Law, 87 Harv. L. Rev. 1, 7 (1973).
“As a matter of constitutional interpretation and judicial method, Roe borders on the indefensible.” “Justice Blackmun’s opinion provides essentially no reasoning in support of its holding. And in the almost 30 years sinceRoe’s announcement, no one has produced a convincing defense of Roe on its own terms.” Edward Lazarus, The Lingering Problems with Roe v. Wade, and Why the Recent Senate Hearings on Michael McConnell’s Nomination Only Underlined Them, Oct. 3, 2002 (at http://writ.corporate.findlaw.com/lazarus/20021003.html). (Mr. Lazarus was a law clerk to Blackmun and describes himself as “someone utterly committed to the right to choose [abortion]” and as “someone who loved Roe’s author like a grandfather.”)
“[Roe’s] failure to confront the issue in principled terms leaves the opinion to read like a set of hospital rules and regulations…. Neither historian, nor layman, nor lawyer will be persuaded that all the prescriptions of Justice Blackmun are part of the Constitution.” Archibald Cox,The Role of the Supreme Court in American Government 113-114 (1976).
Roe “is a lousy opinion that disenfranchised millions of conservatives on an issue about which they care deeply.” Benjamin Wittes, Letting Go of Roe, The Atlantic Monthly, Jan/Feb 2005.
The defects of Justice Blackmun’s majority opinion in Roeare manifest and legion. A brief review of lowlights is nonetheless warranted:
Blackmun’s rambling world-history tour of “man’s attitudes toward the abortion procedure over the centuries,” 410 U.S. at 117, wanders from the ancient Persian Empire to the position of the American Public Health Association in 1970 and of the American Bar Association in 1972. Yet, even apart from how unreliable and misleading Blackmun’s tour has been shown to be, it fails to address squarely the most relevant history—the state of abortion regulation at the time of the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment in 1868. As then-Justice Rehnquist’s dissent points out, as of 1868 “there were at least 36 laws enacted by state or territorial legislatures limiting abortion,” including the Texas statute the Court struck down in Roe. See 410 U.S. at 174-175 & n. 1.
Blackmun’s opinion modestly states:
“We need not resolve the difficult question of when life begins. When those trained in the respective disciplines of medicine, philosophy, and theology are unable to arrive at any consensus, the judiciary, at this point in the development of man’s knowledge, is not in a position to speculate as to the answer.” 410 U.S. at 159.
But while feigning not to decide the question of when a human life begins—a question that is in fact rather simple as a matter of biology—the Court in essence ruled illegitimate any legislative determination that unborn human beings are deserving of protection from abortion.
A critical step in Roe is the bare assertion, unsupported by any argument or authority, that the “right of privacy” protected by the Fourteenth Amendment “is broad enough to encompass a woman’s decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy.” 410 U.S. at 153.
In explaining the abortion regime that he was inventing, Blackmun stated:
“This holding, we feel, is consistent with the relative weights of the respective interests involved, with the lessons and examples of medical and legal history, with the lenity of the common law, and with the demands of the profound problems of the present day.” 410 U.S. at 165.
This language openly reveals that Roe is a policymaker’s balancing of considerations, not an authentic judicial interpretation of the Constitution.
3. Doe v. Bolton
The same day that the Court decided Roe, it rendered its decision in Doe v. Bolton, 410 U.S. 179 (1973). As the Court said in Roe, Roe and Doe “are to be read together.” Roe,410 U.S. at 165. Doe presented the question whether Georgia’s abortion legislation, patterned on the American Law Institute’s model legislation, was constitutional. 410 U.S. at 181-182. Among other things, the Georgia statute provided that an abortion shall not be criminal when performed by a physician “based upon his best clinical judgment that an abortion is necessary because [a] continuation of the pregnancy would endanger the life of the pregnant woman or would seriously and permanently injure her health.” Id. at 183. In the course of upholding this provision against a challenge that it was unconstitutionally vague, Justice Blackmun’s majority opinion determined that the
“medical judgment [as to health] may be exercised in the light of all factors—physical, emotional, psychological, familial, and the woman’s age—relevant to the wellbeing of the patient. All these factors may relate to health. This allows the attending physician the room he needs to make his best medical judgment.” Id. at 192.
It is not entirely clear what Blackmun’s garbled discussion is intended to mean. The predominant assumption appears to be that Blackmun was construing the Georgia statute’s health exception in accord with what he regarded as its natural legal meaning (or, alternatively, in a way that he thought necessary to salvage it from invalidation on vagueness grounds). Under this reading, the authority thatRoe purports to confer on states to “regulate, and even proscribe, abortion” after viability is subject to the loophole ofDoe’s health exception. See, e.g., Women’s Medical Professional Corp. v. Voinovich, 130 F.3d 187, 209 (6th Cir. 1997)(“Roe’s prohibition on state regulation when an abortion is necessary for the ‘preservation of the life or health of the mother’ must be read in the context of the concept of health discussed in Doe” (internal citation omitted)). Because the practical meaning of this loophole would appear to be entirely at the discretion of the abortionist, it would swallow any general post-viability prohibition against abortion.
Under an alternative reading, Blackmun’s language should be understood merely as construing the Georgia statute and not as speaking, directly or indirectly, to the meaning of the post-viability health exception in Roe. See, e.g., Voinovich v. Women’s Medical Professional Corp., 523 U.S. 1036, 1039 (1998) (opinion of Thomas, joined by Rehnquist and Scalia, dissenting from the denial of certiorari) (“Our conclusion that the statutory phrase in Doe was not vague because it included emotional and psychological considerations in no way supports the proposition that, after viability, a mental health exception is required as a matter of federal constitutional law. Doe simply did not address that question.” (emphasis in original)).
4. Myths about Roe
Myths about Roe abound, and I will not strive to dispel all of them here. One set of myths dramatically understates the radical nature of the abortion regime that Roe invented and imposed on the entire country. Roe is often said, for example, merely to have created a constitutional right to abortion during the first three months of pregnancy (or the first trimester). Nothing in Roe remotely supports such a characterization.
A more elementary confusion is reflected in the commonplace assertion that Roe “legalized” abortion. At one level, this proposition is true, but it completely obscures the fact that the Court did not merely legalize abortion—itconstitutionalized abortion. In other words, the American people, acting through their state legislators, had the constitutional authority before Roe to make abortion policy. (Some States had legalized abortion, and others were in the process of liberalizing their abortion laws.) Roe deprived the American people of this authority.
The assertion that Roe “legalized” abortion also bears on a surprisingly widespread misunderstanding of the effect of a Supreme Court reversal of Roe. Many otherwise well-informed people seem to think that a reversal of Roe would mean that abortion would thereby be illegal nationwide. But of course a reversal of Roe would merely restore to the people of the States their constitutional authority to establish—and to revise over time—the abortion laws and policies for their respective States.
This confusion about what reversing Roe means is also closely related to confusion, or deliberate obfuscation, over what it means for a Supreme Court Justice to be opposed toRoe. In particular, such a Justice is often mislabeled “pro-life.” But Justices like Rehnquist, White, Scalia, and Thomas who have recognized that the Constitution does not speak to the question of abortion take a position that is entirely neutral on the substance of America’s abortion laws. Their modest point concerns process: abortion policy is to be made through the political processes, not by the courts. These Justices do not adopt a “pro-life” reading of the Due Process Clause under which permissive abortion laws would themselves be unconstitutional.
5. Planned Parenthood v. Casey
In 1992, the Supreme Court seemed ready to reverse Roeand to end its unconstitutional usurpation of the political processes on the abortion question. Instead, in Planned Parenthood v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833 (1992),Justices O’Connor, Kennedy, and Souter combined to produce a joint majority opinion so breathtaking in its grandiose misunderstanding of the Supreme Court’s role that it makes one long for the sterile incoherence of Blackmun’s opinion inRoe.
In Casey, the Court relied on the combined force of (a) its “explication of individual liberty” protected by the Due Process Clause and (b) staredecisis to reaffirm what it described as (c) the “central holding” of Roe. 505 U.S. at 853. Each of these elements warrants scrutiny.
The core of the Court’s explanation of the liberty interests protected by the Due Process Clause is its declaration, “At the heart of liberty is the right to define one’s own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life.” 505 U.S. at 851. This lofty New Age rhetoric should not conceal the shell game that the Court is playing. What the Court’s declaration really means is that the Court is claiming the unconstrained power to define for all Americans which particular interests it thinks should be beyond the bounds of citizens to address through legislation.
Even with this infinitely elastic standard, the authors of the joint opinion are not ready to assert that Roe was correctly decided. Instead, they rest their reaffirmation of Roe on an understanding of stare decisis, and of the role of the Court generally, that betrays a remarkably profound confusion. I cannot quote the full discussion, but these passages are all too typical:
“Where, in the performance of its judicial duties, the Court decides a case in such a way as to resolve the sort of intensely divisive controversy reflected in Roeand those rare, comparable cases, its decision has a dimension that the resolution of the normal case does not carry. It is the dimension present whenever the Court’s interpretation of the Constitution calls the contending sides of a national controversy to end their national division by accepting a common mandate rooted in the Constitution.” 505 U.S. at 866-867.
“To all those who will be so tested by following [the Court], the Court implicitly undertakes to remain steadfast, lest in the end a price be paid for nothing. The promise of constancy, once given, binds its maker for as long as the power to stand by the decision survives and the understanding of the issue has not changed so fundamentally as to render the commitment obsolete.” 505 U.S. at 868.
“Like the character of an individual, the legitimacy of the Court must be earned over time. So, indeed, must be the character of a Nation of people who aspire to live according to the rule of law. Their belief in themselves as such a people is not readily separable from their understanding of the Court invested with the authority to decide their constitutional cases and speak before all others for their constitutional ideals. If the Court’s legitimacy should be undermined, then, so would the country be in its very ability to see itself through its constitutional ideals. The Court’s concern with legitimacy is not for the sake of the Court but for the sake of the Nation to which it is responsible.” 505 U.S. at 868.
It is probably not possible to improve on Justice Scalia’s devastating responses to the joint opinion’s bizarre assertions:
“The Court’s description of the place of Roe in the social history of the United States is unrecognizable. Not only did Roe not, as the Court suggests, resolve the deeply divisive issue of abortion; it did more than anything else to nourish it, by elevating it to the national level where it is infinitely more difficult to resolve. National politics were not plagued by abortion protests, national abortion lobbying, or abortion marches on Congress, before Roe v.Wade was decided. Profound disagreement existed among our citizens over the issue—as it does over other issues, such as the death penalty—but that disagreement was being worked out at the state level.” 505 U.S. at 995.
“Roe fanned into life an issue that has inflamed our national politics in general, and has obscured with its smoke the selection of Justices to this Court in particular, ever since. And by keeping us in the abortion umpiring business, it is the perpetuation of that disruption, rather than of any pax Roeana, that the Court’s new majority decrees.” 505 U.S. at 995-996.
“The Imperial Judiciary lives. It is instructive to compare this Nietzschean vision of us unelected, life tenured judges—leading a Volk who will be ‘tested by following,’ and whose very ‘belief in themselves’ is mystically bound up in their ‘understanding’ of a Court that ‘speak[s] before all others for their constitutional ideals’—with the somewhat more modest role envisioned for these lawyers by the Founders.
‘The judiciary . . . has . . . no direction either of the strength or of the wealth of the society, and can take no active resolution whatever. It may truly be said to have neither Force nor Will but merely judgment . . . .’ The Federalist No. 78.
“Or, again, to compare this ecstasy of a Supreme Court in which there is, especially on controversial matters, no shadow of change or hint of alteration … with the more democratic views of a more humble man:
‘[T]he candid citizen must confess that if the policy of the Government upon vital questions affecting the whole people is to be irrevocably fixed by decisions of the Supreme Court, . . . the people will have ceased to be their own rulers, having to that extent practically resigned their Government into the hands of that eminent tribunal.’ A. Lincoln, First Inaugural Address (Mar. 4, 1861).” 505 U.S. at 996-997.
While abandoning Roe’s trimester framework, the Caseyjoint opinion then reaffirmed what it characterized as Roe’s central holding: “a State may not prohibit any woman from making the ultimate decision to terminate her pregnancy before viability.” 505 U.S. at 879. It also stated that it reaffirmed Roe’s holding (which, as discussed above, apparently was to be read with Doe’s malleable definition of health) that even after viability abortion must be available “where it is necessary, in appropriate medical judgment, for the preservation of the life or health of the mother.” Id. In addition, it adopted a subjective and amorphous “undue burden” standard for assessing incidential abortion regulations before viability. Id. at 878.
6. Stenberg v. Carhart
The Supreme Court’s decision in 2000 in Stenberg v. Carhart, 530 U.S. 914, provides special insight into the Court’s abortion regime. That case presented the question of the constitutionality of Nebraska’s ban on partial-birth abortion.
This case crossed my mind five months ago as my daughter was being born and her head was first starting to emerge.
Pardon me as I briefly describe what partial-birth abortion is: It’s a method of late-term abortion in which the abortionist dilates the mother’s cervix, extracts the baby’s body by the feet until all but the head has emerged, stabs a pair of scissors into the head, sucks out the baby’s brains, collapses the skull, and delivers the dead baby.
According to estimates cited by the Court, up to 5000 partial-birth abortions are done every year in this much-blessed country.
In the face of a division of opinion among doctors over whether partial-birth abortion is sometimes safer than other methods of abortion, the Court, by a 5-4 vote, deferred to the view of those who maintained that it sometimes is and invalidated the Nebraska statute banning it.
I don’t have much else to say about this case. I don’t dispute at all that its result can reasonably be thought to be dictated by Roe and Casey. And I certainly don’t contend that what partial-birth abortion yields—a dead baby—is any different from what other methods of abortion yield.
I would instead merely submit that this case ought to make manifest to any but the most jaded conscience the sheer barbarity being done in the name of the Constitution in a country dedicated—at its founding, at least—to the self-evident truth that all human beings “are endowed by their Creator” with an unalienable right to life.
Despite the fact that the abortion issue was being worked out state-by-state, the Supreme Court purported to resolve the abortion issue, once and for all and on a nationwide basis, in its 1973 decision in Roe. Instead, as Justice Scalia has correctly observed, the Court “fanned into life an issue that has inflamed our national politics” ever since. In 1992, the five-Justice majority in Casey “call[ed] the contending sides [on abortion] to end their national division by accepting” what it implausibly claimed was “a common mandate rooted in the Constitution.” Thirteen years later, the abortion issue remains as contentious and divisive as ever.
As Justice Scalia suggested in his dissent in Casey, Chief Justice Taney surely believed that his Dred Scott opinion would resolve, once and for all, the slavery question. But, Scalia continued:
“It is no more realistic for us in this case, than it was for him in that, to think that an issue of the sort they both involved—an issue involving life and death, freedom and subjugation—can be ‘speedily and finally settled’ by the Supreme Court, as President James Buchanan in his inaugural address said the issue of slavery in the territories would be.… Quite to the contrary, by foreclosing all democratic outlet for the deep passions this issue arouses, by banishing the issue from the political forum that gives all participants, even the losers, the satisfaction of a fair hearing and an honest fight, by continuing the imposition of a rigid national rule instead of allowing for regional differences, the Court merely prolongs and intensifies the anguish.
“We should get out of this area, where we have no right to be, and where we do neither ourselves nor the country any good by remaining.” 505 U.S. at 1002.
As increasing numbers of observers across the political spectrum are coming to recognize, Justice Scalia’s prescription in Casey remains entirely sound, both as a matter of constitutional law and of judicial statesmanship. If the American people are going to be permitted to exercise their authority as citizens, then all Americans, whatever their views on abortion, should recognize that the Supreme Court’s unconstitutional power grab on this issue must end and that the political issue of whether and how to regulate abortions should be returned where it belongs—to the people and to the political processes in the states.
Publisher’s Note: We respect all differences of opinion within all cultures and races within our great Republic of the United States of America however we must adamantly warn against the “Islamization” of America. It is not purely an opinion but a political militant ideological attack on all of our Constitutionally Protected Freedoms. We believe this author’s exposé is an example of “A Misguided Muslim’s Approach to understanding our United State’s Constitutionally Protected Free Speech”-PBN
Understanding Taqiyya ― The Islamic Principle of Lying for the Sake of Allah
“Taqiyya” literally means: “Concealing, precaution, guarding.” It is employed in disguising one’s beliefs, intentions, convictions, ideas, feelings, opinions or strategies. In practical terms it is manifested as dissimulation, lying, deceiving, vexing and confounding with the intention of deflecting attention, foiling or pre-emptive blocking. It is currently employed in fending off and neutralizing any criticism of Islam or Muslims.
Here is an example of Taqiyya in action from this very WaPo author you are about to read, and be sure to check out the cartoon. Oh the irony! -PBN
“Islam promotes the principle of uniting mankind and cultivating love and understanding among people.” –Harris Zafar
The difference between Islam’s view on free speech and the view promoted by free speech advocates these days is the intention and ultimate goal each seeks to promote. Whereas many secularists champion individual privileges, Islam promotes the principle of uniting mankind and cultivating love and understanding among people. Both endorse freedom for people to express themselves, but Islam promotes unity, whereas modern-day free speech advocates promote individualism.Let me explain.The ultimate goal of Islam is to unite mankind under a single banner of peace. The Koran– Islam’s holy scripture – says God created everyone in unity, but our own man-made differences has compromised our unity (2:214). In order to unite mankind, Islam instructs to only use speech to be truthful, do good to others, and be fair and respectful. It attempts to pre-empt frictions by prescribing rules of conduct which guarantee for all people not only freedom of speech but also fairness, absolute justice, and the right of disagreement.The Koran instructs people to speak the truth (33:71), to speak in a manner that is best (17:54), to speak to others kindly (2:84) and to refrain from inappropriate speech (4:149). With Islam’s guidance to purify our intentions, it promotes free speech when our intention is to serve a good purpose, promote peace, bring people closer to God and unite mankind. If, however, our intentions are to insult others or promote disorder or division, we should refrain.The most vocal proponents of freedom of speech, however, call us towards a different path, where people can say anything and everything on their mind. With no restraint on speech at all, every form of provocation would exist, thereby cultivating confrontation and antagonism. They insist this freedom entitles them the legal privilege to insult others. This is neither democracy nor freedom of speech. It fosters animosity, resentment and disorder.Rather than focusing on privileges, Islam focuses on the principle to avoid speech that causes separation and conflict. Our words should have a positive impact on people’s lives, promote truth and promote justice. We agree with former U.S. President Dwight Eisenhower, who once said: “A people that values its privileges above its principles soon loses both.” Treating speech as supreme at the expense of world peace and harmony is an incredibly flawed concept. No matter how important the cause of free speech, it still pales in comparison to the cause of world peace and unity.Opponents of Islam claim it denies freedom of speech and censors those who insult Islam. This is factually incorrect. Islam does not prescribe any worldly punishment for unseemly speech. So people who insult should not be persecuted. Islam grants everyone the right to express disagreements with others. After all, the Prophet Muhammad called differences of opinion a blessing in society and never sought to censor or threaten those who verbally attacked him.According to the Koran, disbelievers called him “a mad man,” “a victim of deception,” a “fabricator” and treated him as a liar. Some claimed he was taught by another person instead of receiving revelations from God.
They called the Koran “confused dreams” and “mere stories of the past” and even tore it into pieces.
Through this all, he courageously endured all verbal assaults. Rather than calling for any punishment, the Koran instructs us to “overlook their annoying talk” and “bear patiently what they say.” The lesson here for all Muslims is that we are not to be afraid of insults. Rather, we must have the same courage as our Prophet to face such insults in the eye and respond with forbearance and calm, righteous speech. Muslims must learn how their faith instructs them to respond when they are verbally attacked. No riots; no violence. We respond to speech with speech, but our speech is to be better and more dignified.
So while antagonists and enemies of peace create slanderous videos, cartoons or advertisements – like the “Innocence of Muslims” film, Pamela Geller’s new ignorant NYC subway ads and Charlie Hebdo’s cartoon about Prophet Muhammad – let us not fall for their claim that an individual’s privilege to say whatever they want is more important than the higher principle of uniting people and saving this planet from a path of animosity, hatred and destruction. Rather than falsely accusing Islam of censorship, let us understand the beauty of giving higher consideration to mankind over our own personal privileges. And let us listen to the wisdom of the Khalifa of Islam, His Holiness Mirza Masroor Ahmad, who said: “Let it not be that in the name of freedom of speech the peace of the entire world be destroyed.”
By Harris Zafar
Harris Zafar is National Spokesperson for Ahmadiyya Muslim Community USA – among the eldest Muslim organizations in America – and a frequently lecturer about Islam throughout the country. He can be contacted by email (email@example.com) and followed on Twitter (@Harris_Zafar).
When we are alone, quiet and honestly seeking Truth in all things we will surely find it or rather Him. It is a spiritual principal just as physical laws exist in physics. Let us all be reminded of The Republic of The United States of America’s true history as a nation founded on God for His Glory. Let us likewise be reminded of the founding of our nation’s earliest most highly esteemed and influential Universities which helped to refine the destinies of some of the greatest minds of all time for the greater good of mankind and for the Glory of God through His Only Son, the Perfect Sacrificial Lamb of God Slain for our sins. The Risen Jesus Christ -PBN
Our President is a disgusting liar. Here is an excerpt of liar Obama regarding the Arab Spring. Read full transcript below video. -PBN
More broadly, we’ve seen the extraordinary courage of Muslim women during the Arab Spring — women, right alongside men, taking to the streets to claim their universal rights, marching for their freedom, blogging and tweeting and posting videos, determined to be heard. In some cases, facing down tanks, and braving bullets, enduring detentions and unspeakable treatment, and at times, giving their very lives for the freedom that they seek — the liberty that we are lucky enough to enjoy here tonight.
Remarks by the President at Iftar Dinner
8:40 P.M. EDT
THE PRESIDENT: Thank you, everybody. (Applause.) Please, please have a seat. Good evening, everyone. And welcome to the White House.
Of all the freedoms we cherish as Americans, of all the rights that we hold sacred, foremost among them is freedom of religion, the right to worship as we choose. It’s enshrined in the First Amendment of our Constitution — the law of the land, always and forever. It beats in our heart — in the soul of the people who know that our liberty and our equality is endowed by our Creator. And it runs through the history of this house, a place where Americans of many faiths can come together and celebrate their holiest of days — and that includes Ramadan.
As I’ve noted before, Thomas Jefferson once held a sunset dinner here with an envoy from Tunisia — perhaps the first Iftar at the White House, more than 200 years ago. And some of you, as you arrived tonight, may have seen our special display, courtesy of our friends at the Library of Congress — the Koran that belonged to Thomas Jefferson. And that’s a reminder, along with the generations of patriotic Muslims in America, that Islam — like so many faiths — is part of our national story.
This evening, we’re honored to be joined by members of our diplomatic corps, members of Congress — including Muslim American members of Congress, Keith Ellison and Andre Carson — as well as leaders from across my administration. And to you, the millions of Muslim Americans across our country, and to the more than one billion Muslims around the world — Ramadan Kareem.
Now, every faith is unique. And yet, during Ramadan, we see the traditions that are shared by many faiths: Believers engaged in prayer and fasting, in humble devotion to God. Families gathering together with love for each other. Neighbors reaching out in compassion and charity, to serve the less fortunate. People of different faiths coming together, mindful of our obligations to one another — to peace, justice and dignity for all people — men and women. Indeed, you know that the Koran teaches, “Be it man or woman, each of you is equal to the other.”
And by the way, we’ve seen this in recent days. In fact, the Olympics is being called “The Year of the Woman.” (Laughter.) Here in America, we’re incredibly proud of Team USA — all of them — but we should notice that a majority of the members are women. Also, for the very first time in Olympic history, every team now includes a woman athlete. And one of the reasons is that every team from a Muslim-majority country now includes women as well. And more broadly — that’s worth applauding. (Applause.) Absolutely.
More broadly, we’ve seen the extraordinary courage of Muslim women during the Arab Spring — women, right alongside men, taking to the streets to claim their universal rights, marching for their freedom, blogging and tweeting and posting videos, determined to be heard. In some cases, facing down tanks, and braving bullets, enduring detentions and unspeakable treatment, and at times, giving their very lives for the freedom that they seek — the liberty that we are lucky enough to enjoy here tonight.
These women have inspired their sisters and daughters, but also their brothers and their sons. And they’ve inspired us all. Even as we see women casting their ballots and seeking — standing for office in historic elections, we understand that their work is not done. They understand that any true democracy must uphold the freedom and rights of all people and all faiths. We know this, too, for here in America we’re enriched by so many faiths, by men and women — including Muslim American women.
They’re young people, like the student who wrote me a letter about what it’s like to grow up Muslim in America. She’s in college. She dreams of a career in international affairs to help deepen understanding between the United States and Muslim countries around the world. So if any of the diplomatic corps have tips for her — (laughter.) She says that “America has always been the land of opportunity for me, and I love this country with all my heart.” And so we’re glad to have Hala Baig here today. (Applause.)
They are faith leaders like Sanaa Nadim, one of the first Muslim chaplains at an American college — a voice for interfaith dialogue who’s had the opportunity to meet with the Pope to discuss these issues. We’re very proud to have you here. (Applause.)
They are educators like Auysha Muhayya, born in Afghanistan, who fled with her family as refugees to America, and now, as a language teacher, helps open her students to new cultures. So we’re very pleased to have her here. (Applause.)
They are entrepreneurs and lawyers, community leaders, members of our military, and Muslim American women serving with distinction in government. And that includes a good friend, Huma Abedin, who has worked tirelessly — (applause) — worked tirelessly in the White House, in the U.S. Senate, and most exhaustingly, at the State Department, where she has been nothing less than extraordinary in representing our country and the democratic values that we hold dear. Senator Clinton has relied on her expertise, and so have I.
The American people owe her a debt of gratitude — because Huma is an American patriot, and an example of what we need in this country — more public servants with her sense of decency, her grace and her generosity of spirit. So, on behalf of all Americans, we thank you so much. (Applause.)
These are the faces of Islam in America. These are just a few of the Muslim Americans who strengthen our country every single day. This is the diversity that makes us Americans; the pluralism that we will never lose.
And at times, we have to admit that this spirit is threatened. We’ve seen instances of mosques and synagogues, churches and temples being targeted. Tonight, our prayers, in particular, are with our friends and fellow Americans in the Sikh community. We mourn those who were senselessly murdered and injured in their place of worship. And while we may never fully understand what motivates such hatred, such violence, the perpetrators of such despicable acts must know that your twisted thinking is no match for the compassion and the goodness and the strength of our united American family.
So tonight, we declare with one voice that such violence has no place in the United States of America. The attack on Americans of any faith is an attack on the freedom of all Americans. (Applause.) No American should ever have to fear for their safety in their place of worship. And every American has the right to practice their faith both openly and freely, and as they choose.
That is not just an American right; it is a universal human right. And we will defend the freedom of religion, here at home and around the world. And as we do, we’ll draw on the strength and example of our interfaith community, including the leaders who are here tonight.
So I want to thank all of you for honoring us with your presence, for the example of your lives, and for your commitment to the values that make us “one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.” (Applause.)
God bless you. God bless the United States of America. (Applause.)
Hobby Lobby is a respected and very successful business that is privately owned by a family who have sought to honor God in their personal lives and in their business. Their generosity to missions, to the relief of poverty around the world, to Christian education, and to their employees is legendary and exemplifies the kind of business principle that should be applauded and appreciated.