by Political Editors: Donald Trump continues to be the antithesis of a do-nothing political leader. Yesterday, some 22 years after the Jerusalem Embassy Act became law, Trump finally declared Jerusalem the capital of Israel. Trump rightly understands that peace through Jerusalem can be achieved only by exercising Ronald Reagan’s approach to foreign policy: “Peace through strength.” Yesterday’s move definitely puts both Israel and the U.S. in a more fortified position. The following are some important remarks from his speech:We cannot solve our problems by making the same failed assumptions and repeating the same failed strategies of the past. All challenges demand new approaches. My announcement today marks the beginning of a new approach to conflict between Israel and the Palestinians. In 1995, Congress adopted the Jerusalem Embassy Act urging the federal government to relocate the American Embassy to Jerusalem and to recognize that city … is Israel’s capital. This act passed Congress by an overwhelming bipartisan majority and was reaffirmed by unanimous vote of the Senate only six months ago.
Yet, for over 20 years, every previous American president has exercised the law’s waiver, refusing to move the U.S. Embassy to Jerusalem or to recognize Jerusalem as Israel’s capital city. Presidents issued these waivers under the belief that delaying the recognition of Jerusalem would advance the cause of peace. Some say they lacked courage but they made their best judgments based on facts as they understood them at the time. Nevertheless, the record is in. After more than two decades of waivers, we are no closer to a lasting peace agreement between Israel and the Palestinians. It would be folly to assume that repeating the exact same formula would now produce a different or better result.
Therefore, I have determined that it is time to officially recognize Jerusalem as the capital of Israel. While previous presidents have made this a major campaign promise, they failed to deliver. Today, I am delivering. I’ve judged this course of action to be in the best interests of the United States of America and the pursuit of peace between Israel and the Palestinians. … This is nothing more or less than a recognition of reality. It is also the right thing to do. It’s something that has to be done. That is why, consistent with the Jerusalem Embassy Act, I am also directing the State Department to begin preparation to move the American embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. This will immediately begin the process of hiring architects, engineers and planners so that a new embassy, when completed, will be a magnificent tribute to peace.
Notably, what Trump actually did was sign another waiver while making a very strong commitment to begin the process of moving the embassy. Nevertheless, it’s a good strategic move to make real headway on peace in the region. We will have more to say in a detailed analysis tomorrow. Stay tuned.
In other news, Barack liar-nObama compared the Trump era to Hitler’s. No kidding. ~The Patriot Post
https://patriotpost.us/articles/52799
{americasfreedomfighters.com} ~ Evidence is emerging that the Swamp runs even deeper than many Americans ever imagined... As Republicans celebrate the passage of the Senate’s version of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, it seems the Senate made some small changes. Apparently, there have been some very small changes made to the bill’s language that will continue to allow illegal aliens to continue to claim the child tax credit. Yes, you read that correctly. Those that have broken our laws and breached our borders are being given leave to obtain money for their children in a tax credit from a system they do not pay in to in order to obtain money to which they are NOT entitled. All while our Veterans go without necessary care and our elderly have to choose between their life saving and sustaining medicine and food. If you are not outraged? You are not paying attention!... https://www.americasfreedomfighters.com/2017/12/06/washington-elites/?utm_source=America%27s+Freedom+Fighters+Newsletter&utm_campaign=cbe6992db2-RSS_EMAIL_CAMPAIGN&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_e21aa30868-cbe6992db2-159137209
by Louis DeBroux: On Tuesday, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Masterpiece Cake shop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, a case with serious implications for religious liberty in the United States.
At issue is balancing the Constitution’s guarantees of freedom of religion, speech and association with public accommodation laws that prohibit denial of service based on “disability, race, creed, color, sex, sexual orientation, marital status, national origin, or ancestry.”
The facts of the case are straightforward, though often misrepresented. Jack Phillips is the owner of Masterpiece Cake shop in Colorado. A few years ago, Charlie Craig and David Mullins, two homosexual men, were traveling to Massachusetts to get married (this was prior to the Obergefell ruling in 2015), with a reception to be held in Denver. The two approached Phillips about providing a wedding cake, but Phillips politely declined, explaining that his religious convictions prevent him from providing services for same-sex weddings. The couple filed a complaint with the Colorado Commission on Human Rights, which sued Phillips, eventually winning a ruling that required him not only to provide services for same-sex weddings, but mandating he and his employees undergo “compliance training” (in North Korea this is referred to as “re-education camp”).
Lest one think Phillips is anti-homosexual, it should be noted he offered to provide a wedding cake to the couple — just not with any customization. In fact, he has served many homosexual clients in the past, and continues to do so. It should also be noted that his religious convictions prohibit him from providing cakes for Halloween (a pagan holiday) or second marriages, or anything with anti-Christian, anti-American or vulgar messages.
In a pluralistic society like America, this should not be an issue. The plaintiffs admit there were plenty of other bakers who would provide the cake, but this was never about getting a cake. No, it’s about forcing endorsement of the homosexual agenda and punishing a Christian for living by his faith.
Phillips is so committed to living by his faith that, rather than violating it, he stopped offering customized wedding cakes altogether while the litigation process continues, costing him a staggering 40% of his revenue.
The Supreme Court has issued prior rulings coming down on both sides of religious liberty. In West Virginia State BoE v. Barnette (1943), the Court upheld a Jehovah’s Witness’s right not to participate in the Pledge of Allegiance. In Wooley v. Maynard (1977), the Court said New Hampshire could not compel a Jehovah’s Witness to display the state motto “Live Free or Die” on his license plate, as it would violate a citizen’s right “to hold a point of view different from the majority and to refuse to foster … an idea they find morally objectionable.”
On the other hand, in Employment Division v. Smith (1990), a Native American failed to win a religious exemption allowing him to smoke peyote, and of course, in Obergefell v. Hodges (2015), the Court swept aside the duly enacted legislation of the people of three dozen states in codifying marriage as between a man and a woman, compelling acceptance of a redefinition of marriage that two-thirds of states found objectionable.
There is also an undercurrent that reveals an unequal application of the law by government which is hostile to Christians.
For example, the same Colorado Commission on Human Rights that compelled Phillips to bake the cake allowed three bakers to refuse service to customers seeking to buy cakes with messages criticizing same-sex “marriage,” an obvious refutation of the claim that this is about enforcing viewpoint neutrality. The state is punishing speech it finds objectionable.
In fact, a study by the First Liberty Institute, which tracks violations of religious liberty, found a 15% increase in legal cases that affect religious liberty in America. From unequal access to federal funds for churches, to lawsuits demanding removal of Christian symbols and memorials from public spaces, to denying freedom of religion to military service members, to compelling Christian bakers, florists, photographers and other artists to participate in same-sex weddings, a clear trend is evident in the oppression of the religious liberties of Christians.
This is mostly due to the larger debate about rights. For the Right, rights are about individual liberty, and these rights are enumerated in the Bill of Rights. For the Left, “rights” are made up out of whole cloth to serve the desired outcome of some constituency, and, in order for these rights to be exercised, it usually means someone else must be compelled to provide something for the recipient.
The outcome of this case will be far-reaching. In fact, some wonder whether, for example, Christian medical professionals soon will be forced to participate in abortions or assisted suicide, or Catholic Adoption Services forced to place children in homes with same-sex parents. The possibilities are as endless as they are frightening.
The reality is that the plaintiffs suing Christian business owners are not interested in equality, or accommodation, but in government-compelled acceptance of something tens of millions of Americans find religiously and morally objectionable.
Craig and Mullins, the plaintiffs in the Masterpiece case, are just the latest iteration of Eric McKinley, the homosexual man who used the New Jersey Civil Rights Division to bludgeon eHarmony, a Christian dating site, into offering services to homosexuals.
After several years of litigation, and facing the daunting power of the state to cripple its business, eHarmony submitted to the state and began offering dating services to homosexuals. No sooner had McKinley vanquished his Christian foe than he announced that he had no intention of using the site. This was about punishment, not equality.
Marriage is found nowhere in the Constitution, much less a “right” to same-sex marriage. However, the freedoms of religion, speech and association are found in the Constitution, right there in the First Amendment.
If the black-robed oligarchs of the Court (here’s looking at you, Anthony Kennedy) have any respect for the language and intent of the Constitution, Jack Phillips’ freedoms will be protected. There are reasons to be hopeful, but time will tell. ~The Patriot Post
https://patriotpost.us/articles/52757
Comments