“We Must Not Confuse Dissent With Disloyalty….”

Given the current situation in our country, food for thought.  The parallels are undeniable; what is troubling is that they primarily involve not a senator, but a sitting president.

9 March 1954, CBS studios, “Tonight See it Now” program, Edward R Murrow’s closing monologue:

“Senator McCarthy succeeded in proving that Reed Harris had once written a bad book, which the American people had proved twenty-two years ago by not buying it, which is what they eventually do with all bad ideas. As for Reed Harris, his resignation was accepted a month later with a letter of commendation. McCarthy claimed it as a victory.

“The Reed Harris hearing demonstrates one of the Senator's techniques. Twice he said the American Civil Liberties Union was listed as a subversive front. The Attorney General's list does not and has never listed the ACLU as subversive, nor does the FBI or any other federal government agency. And the American Civil Liberties Union holds in its files letters of commendation from President Truman, President Eisenhower, and General MacArthur.

“Now let us try to bring the McCarthy story a little more up to date. Two years ago Senator Benton of Connecticut accused McCarthy of apparent perjury, unethical practice, and perpetrating a hoax on the Senate. McCarthy sued for two million dollars. Last week he dropped the case, saying no one could be found who believed Benton's story. Several volunteers have come forward saying they believe it in its entirety.

“Today Senator McCarthy says he's going to get a lawyer and force the networks to give him time to reply to Adlai Stevenson's speech.

“Earlier, the Senator asked, ‘Upon what meat does this, our Caesar, feed?’ Had he looked three lines earlier in Shakespeare's Caesar, he would have found this line, which is not altogether inappropriate: ‘The fault, dear Brutus, is not in our stars, but in ourselves.’

“No one familiar with the history of this country can deny that congressional committees are useful. It is necessary to investigate before legislating, but the line between investigating and persecuting is a very fine one and the junior Senator from Wisconsin has stepped over it repeatedly. His primary achievement has been in confusing the public mind, as between internal and the external threats of Communism. We must not confuse dissent with disloyalty. We must remember always that accusation is not proof and that conviction depends upon evidence and due process of law. We will not walk in fear, one of another. We will not be driven by fear into an age of unreason, if we dig deep in our history and our doctrine, and remember that we are not descended from fearful men -- not from men who feared to write, to speak, to associate and to defend causes that were, for the moment, unpopular.

“This is no time for men who oppose Senator McCarthy's methods to keep silent, or for those who approve. We can deny our heritage and our history, but we cannot escape responsibility for the result. There is no way for a citizen of a republic to abdicate his responsibilities. As a nation we have come into our full inheritance at a tender age. We proclaim ourselves, as indeed we are, the defenders of freedom, wherever it continues to exist in the world, but we cannot defend freedom abroad by deserting it at home.

“The actions of the junior Senator from Wisconsin have caused alarm and dismay amongst our allies abroad, and given considerable comfort to our enemies. And whose fault is that? Not really his. He didn't create this situation of fear; he merely exploited it -- and rather successfully. 

“Cassius was right. ‘The fault, dear Brutus, is not in our stars, but in ourselves.’

“Good night, and good luck.”

History Repeating….

 So Biden is once again trying to force medical practitioners to perform procedures that violate their First Amendment right to religion, their beliefs, and their sincerely held religious convictions.

“Congress shall make no law . . . prohibiting the free exercise thereof [of religion - NOT WORSHIP, as Barack and Hillary tried to spin it, RELIGION].”

Congress can make no law infringing on this right, and the president cannot set it aside through executive order. 

The Supreme Court determined generations ago that any law affecting First Amendment rights must apply strict scrutiny. Strict scrutiny means the government must prove that the law meets a compelling government interest based on OBJECTIVE, QUANTIFIABLE DATA, and that the regulation is being implemented using the least restrictive means possible. It is the most difficult benchmark to satisfy. While the government may argue that it has a compelling interest in making abortion or other objectionable procedures accessible, the least restrictive standard means individual practitioners may not be compelled to violate their religious convictions; an individual is free to find other practitioners who are willing to provide the desired procedure. It is that simple.

Michigan Vaccine Waivers….

OK, folks.  I'm going to weigh in on this controversial topic.

We NEED to maintain free access to vaccine waivers.  I know that some of the medicos with whom I am friends may disagree with me, but I have already heard the medical profession's side of this issue.

Now it is MY turn.

There are two very basic reasons why we need to maintain free access to these waivers here in Michigan.

First, is the issue of Constitutionality.

The First Amendment of the US Constitution and Article 1 Sections 2 and 4 of the Michigan Constitution both guarantee freedom of religion - NOT WORSHIP; this is a critical distinction.

First Amendment: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances," emphasis added.

Article 1 Section 2: "No person shall be denied the equal protection of the laws; nor shall any person be denied the enjoyment of his civil or political rights or be discriminated against in the exercise thereof because of religion, race, color or national origin. The legislature shall implement this section by appropriate legislation," emphasis added.

Article 1 Section 4: "Every person shall be at liberty to worship God according to the dictates of his own conscience. No person shall be compelled to attend, or, against his consent, to contribute to the erection or support of any place of religious worship, or to pay tithes, taxes or other rates for the support of any minister of the gospel or teacher of religion… The civil and political rights, privileges and capacities of no person shall be diminished or enlarged on account of his religious belief," emphasis added.

 Our Constitutions guarantee us the right to follow the dictates of our INDIVIDUAL CONSCIENCES with regard to religious belief and practice.

As this applies to this particular issue, many of us believe the Bible teaches, and I have posted regarding this before, that life originates with the creative act of God.  We believe, and is taught in the Psalms, that life begins at the moment of conception.  Everything necessary for the formation of a new human life is present at that moment, and that life has been ordained by God.

As a result, we refuse to participate in anything related to abortion.

That includes certain vaccines.

As can be seen in the two photos, the following vaccines have their origins in the cells and tissues of aborted babies:

Polio

MMR

Varicella/chicken pox/shingles

Rabies

Hepatitis-A

Cell lines originating in abortion are also in use for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis, cystic fibrosis and severe sepsis.

Of these vaccinations, ethical, non-abortion alternatives are only available for polio and rabies.

Because of this, many of us are going to request vaccination waivers so that we are not forced to participate in the encouragement of abortion by using vaccines having their origins in abortion.  We object due to our religious convictions.  According to the two Constitutions, we cannot be discriminated against or demeaned in any way for the free exercise of those convictions, nor can our right to practice our religious convictions be limited in any way by the government (http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/first_amendment).

Second, waivers must be kept freely available due to problems with the SCIENCE underlying these abortion-related vaccines.

Yes, that's right, problems with the medical science.

Of the required vaccinations, box inserts for five of the name brands disclose measurable quantities of human DNA fragments and tissue (accompanying the viruses when harvested for processing) in each dosage.  Now, it is not required under federal law that manufacturers disclose this particular information, so it is entirely likely that other vaccines may also contain measurable quantities of human DNA fragments and tissue, but the manufacturer has chosen not to disclose it.

Why is this important?

There is a small body of research that indicates that what is happening with autism spectrum dysfunction is an immune response that causes inflammation of the brain.  The research postulates that it is these DNA fragments and quantities of human tissue, remnants of the human tissue matrices upon which the viruses used in the manufacture of vaccines are grown, are foreign proteins that trigger an immune response that, in turn, triggers inflammation of the brain and may lead to autism.

The operating hypothesis of the research stands to reason.

One cannot receive blood transfusions or tissue/organ transplants unless they are appropriately typed to the person receiving it.

Why?

Because transplanting or transfusing an individual with tissue or blood that doesn't match their own blood type can cause an immune response - rejection.  Yet, we are supposed to believe that vaccines containing human DNA fragments and tissue can be injected into the bodies of individuals UNIVERSALLY, regardless of the blood type of the recipient, and no immune reaction will occur.  This runs completely contrary to established, documented scientific medical research.

As parents, we must maintain the ability to determine what is best for our own children, not because the UN Conference on the Rights of the Child, or the Michigan Department of Health and Human Services, or the county health department have made a determination, but because WE as parents, in accordance with our own religious convictions and research, have made that decision.  That is our right under both the United States and Michigan Constitutions.

One last thought.

Having a right under the Constitution or a sincerely-held religious conviction does not give you the right to send your children to school sick.

To the contrary, it means that you have a responsibility to insure, to the best of your ability, that the practice of your conviction or right doesn't jeopardize the health of those around your children.

Yes, I know this gets difficult considering the need to take time off from work to care for sick children, but that is where God is responsible to meet the resulting need as you faithfully live your conviction.  If He has led you to it, He will also provide.

S. Truett Cathy, 1921 - 2014

Thank you, sir, for standing true to our Savior and His Word!

Democrats in Senate Committee Approve Limitations To The First Amendment - An Open Letter to Legislators….

A proposed amendment that would limit election funding protected by the First Amendment has been passed in committee by Senate Democrats.

S.J.RES.19 -- Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States relating to contributions and expenditures intended to affect elections. (Introduced in Senate - IS)

SJ 19 IS

113th CONGRESS

1st Session

S. J. RES. 19

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States relating to contributions and expenditures intended to affect elections.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

June 18, 2013

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico (for himself, Mr. BENNET, Mr. HARKIN, Mr. SCHUMER, Mrs. SHAHEEN, Mr. WHITEHOUSE, Mr. TESTER, Mrs. BOXER, Mr. COONS, Mr. KING, Mr. MURPHY, Mr. WYDEN, Mr. FRANKEN, Ms. KLOBUCHAR, and Mr. UDALL of Colorado) introduced the following joint resolution; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

---

JOINT RESOLUTION

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States relating to contributions and expenditures intended to affect elections.

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled (two-thirds of each House concurring therein), That the following article is proposed as an amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which shall be valid to all intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States:

`Article--

`Section 1. To advance the fundamental principle of political equality for all, and to protect the integrity of the legislative and electoral processes, Congress shall have power to regulate the raising and spending of money and in-kind equivalents with respect to Federal elections, including through setting limits on--

`(1) the amount of contributions to candidates for nomination for election to, or for election to, Federal office; and

`(2) the amount of funds that may be spent by, in support of, or in opposition to such candidates.

`Section 2. To advance the fundamental principle of political equality for all, and to protect the integrity of the legislative and electoral processes, each State shall have power to regulate the raising and spending of money and in-kind equivalents with respect to State elections, including through setting limits on--

`(1) the amount of contributions to candidates for nomination for election to, or for election to, State office; and

`(2) the amount of funds that may be spent by, in support of, or in opposition to such candidates.

`Section 3. Nothing in this article shall be construed to grant Congress the power to abridge the freedom of the press.

`Section 4. Congress and the States shall have power to implement and enforce this article by appropriate legislation.'.

This proposed amendment most still be passed in both Houses of Congress, as well as by the majority of States before it takes effect, but the fact remains that it was approved in committee in the first place.

I am writing to tell you that I am fundamentally opposed to SJ Res 19, and I EXPECT you to vote against it when it comes out of committee for a vote.  Although election funding remains a touchy subject, the Supreme Court has ruled that it is protected speech under the First Amendment.  SJ Res 19 represents the most transparent attempt on the part of the democrats to control how election funding is achieved - and WHO will receive that funding. This resolution gives you the ability to allow funding for those issues and individuals with whom you agree, while limiting or denying funding to those who oppose your agenda.  It will allow you to continue to receive funding from George Soros, Warren Buffet or Bill Gates, while excluding the Koch Brothers or the DeVoses from funding issues or individuals that you deem to be ideologically unacceptable.

I am opposed to this proposed Constitutional Amendment.

Chuck Schumer: Choose One, Your Faith Or Your Business; You Can't Have Both...

"You’re born with a religion or you adopt a religion. You have to obey the precepts of that religion AND THE GOVERNMENT GIVES YOU a wide penumbra – you don’t have to form a corporation," Schumer said (emphasis added).

Wrong answer. THE GOVERNMENT GIVES US NOTHING!!! The Constitution PROTECTS what is already ours.

"Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other," John Adams.

According to Schumer, John Adams had no idea what he was talking about.

This is one more attack on our First Amendment rights by the administration, which is seeking to re-interpret the First Amendment as a "freedom to worship," rather than freedom of religion.

Schumer: religious americans pick one your faith or your business

SCOTUS RULES AGAINST CONTRACEPTION MANDATE!!!

MICHIGAN PASSES ABORTION OPT-OUT!!!

By a vote of 62-46 in the House, and 27-11 in the Senate, Michigan has passed the abortion opt-out!!! It failed to achieve a 2/3 majority by just a few votes, so it goes into effect 90 days after the close of this legislative session instead of taking immediate effect.

This vote makes Michigan the 24th state to opt-out of mandatory abortion coverage, meaning that women who desire such coverage must elect to receive it and pay for it themselves, instead of forcing EVERY insurance customer to pay for a medical procedure that is reprehensible morally and Biblically.

THANK YOU, LORD!!!