“But if the watchman
see the sword come, and blow not the trumpet, and the people be not warned; if
the sword come, and take any person from among them, he is taken away in his
iniquity; but his blood will I require at the watchman’s hand.” [Ezekiel 33:6]
.
“For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but
against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of
this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.” [Ephesians 6:12]
Presbyterians Week Headlines
-----
WASHINGTON, June 26,
2018 /Christian Newswire/ -- Today,
the U.S. Supreme Court handed the pro-life movement a victory in the case of
NIFLA v. Becerra, stating that the California law, called the Reproductive Fact
Act, forcing pro-life help centers to promote abortion was unduly burdensome to
free speech rights and was therefore unconstitutional.
The following quote is attributable to Troy Newman, President of Operation Rescue:
The following quote is attributable to Troy Newman, President of Operation Rescue:
We are grateful that the
First Amendment Right to Free Speech has prevailed and that pro-life pregnancy
centers will be protected from forced promotion of abortion. Those of us with
deeply held beliefs that abortion is a moral injustice now cannot be forced to
capitulate to an unjust government demand that we promote this human rights
abuse.
We are grateful to Tom Glessner and the National Institute of Family and Life Associates (NIFLA) for bearing the burden of challenging this unconstitutional law.
We are grateful to Tom Glessner and the National Institute of Family and Life Associates (NIFLA) for bearing the burden of challenging this unconstitutional law.
+ Christian News Wire, 2020
Pennsylvania Avenue Northwest, Washington DC
20006, 202-546-0054, newsdesk@christiannewswire.com
+ Operation
Rescue, Post Office Box 782888, Wichita, Kansas 67278, 800-705-1175, Fax:
916-244-2636, info@operationrescue.org
MONTGOMERY,
Ala., June 26, 2018 /Christian
Newswire/ -- The Foundation for Moral Law ("the
Foundation"), an Alabama-based nonprofit corporation dedicated to
religious liberty and the strict interpretation of the Constitution as intended
by its Framers, applauded Tuesday's U.S. Supreme Court decisions in National
Institute of Family and Life Advocates (NIFLA) v. Becerra and Trump v. Hawaii.
"Today is a great day for America and for the Foundation for Moral Law," said Foundation President Kayla Moore. "The Court upheld the Constitution today in two very important cases in which we had filed amicus briefs. We are pleased that the Court rebuked California for trying to force right to life advocates to speak a 'pro-abortion' message and that the Court defended the President's prerogative to keep this country safe, by certain restrictions on travel from other countries."
NIFLA v. Becerra
In NIFLA, the Court ruled in a 5-4 decision that a California law requiring pro-life crisis pregnancy centers to provide information about how to obtain state-sponsored abortions violated the First Amendment's Free Speech Clause. Justice Clarence Thomas wrote the majority opinion, holding that the law was unconstitutional because it regulated the content of the pro-lifers' speech and made them speak a message with which they disagree. Justice Thomas noted that the Court sometimes allows the government to require medical providers to disclose certain information, but that is permissible only when the information is factual and noncontroversial, which was not the case here. Justice Thomas's decision aligns with the Foundation's amicus brief, which argued that the law was a content-based restriction on free speech and also a form of compelled speech.
Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote a concurrence, joined by Chief Justice Roberts, Justice Alito, and Justice Gorsuch, expressing alarm that the California law appeared to target only the pro-life viewpoint and was therefore an attempt by the government to suppress a particular message with which the government disagreed. Justice Kennedy emphasized that "Governments must not be allowed to force persons to express a message contrary to their deepest convictions." Justice Kennedy's arguments aligned with the Foundation's argument that the law was not only a content-based regulation of speech but also targeted the speakers because of their viewpoint.
John Eidsmoe, Foundation Senior Counsel who authored the brief, said, "Of all the forms of free speech violations, forcing someone to say something controversial with which they deeply disagree is perhaps the worst. Through the course of history, people have chosen to suffer and even die rather than betray their convictions. The Supreme Court's decision today reaffirms that freedom of speech is still alive and well in the United States."
Matthew Clark, the Foundation attorney who submitted the Foundation's amicus brief, added, "The Court's decision not only upheld the right to free speech, but it also indirectly upheld the religious rights of many of these pro-life advocates who do their work because they believe life is a gift from God. The Foundation believes that also, and we are pleased that the Court's decision today will help save innocent lives."
Trump v. Hawaii
In Trump, the Court upheld in a 5-4 decision a proclamation by President Trump restricting travel to and from countries that pose a national security risk to the United States. Chief Justice John Roberts wrote the majority opinion, rejecting the argument that President Trump's proclamation was really a "Muslim ban" and reaffirming that the Court must grant great deference to the President's decisions on national security matters.
Chief Justice Roberts's decision reflected the Foundation's argument that the President's travel ban was not an Establishment Clause violation. Foundation Senior Counsel John Eidsmoe said, "The original purpose of the Establishment Clause was to prevent the government from coercing people to violate their religious beliefs. That wasn't the purpose of the President's proclamation. As we established in our brief, the ban applied only to certain nations that were centers for terrorism and failed to 'vet' terrorists. Most Muslim nations and 86% of the world's Muslim population are not affected by the ban, which also included two non-Muslim nations (Venezuela and North Korea). This really was a national security case, not an Establishment Clause case. We are pleased that the Court agreed."
In a concurring opinion, Justice Clarence Thomas addressed the fact that the Hawaii district court issued a nation-wide injunction in this case, arguing that the constitutionality of nation-wide injunctions is "dubious." Justice Thomas argued that judicial power is the power to settle disputes between the parties to the case, which is different than giving orders that bind the entire nation. The Foundation raised the same point in its amicus brief.
Explaining that point, Foundation attorney Matthew Clark said, "If an unelected and unaccountable federal district judge can issue an order that binds not just the parties to the case but everyone in the country, including those who live outside the district court's jurisdiction and who have no opportunity to be heard in the case, then we no longer have a constitutional republic but a dictatorship. The Supreme Court needs to address whether nation-wide injunctions are unconstitutional, and we are glad that Justice Thomas is calling the Court's attention to the problem."
"Today is a great day for America and for the Foundation for Moral Law," said Foundation President Kayla Moore. "The Court upheld the Constitution today in two very important cases in which we had filed amicus briefs. We are pleased that the Court rebuked California for trying to force right to life advocates to speak a 'pro-abortion' message and that the Court defended the President's prerogative to keep this country safe, by certain restrictions on travel from other countries."
NIFLA v. Becerra
In NIFLA, the Court ruled in a 5-4 decision that a California law requiring pro-life crisis pregnancy centers to provide information about how to obtain state-sponsored abortions violated the First Amendment's Free Speech Clause. Justice Clarence Thomas wrote the majority opinion, holding that the law was unconstitutional because it regulated the content of the pro-lifers' speech and made them speak a message with which they disagree. Justice Thomas noted that the Court sometimes allows the government to require medical providers to disclose certain information, but that is permissible only when the information is factual and noncontroversial, which was not the case here. Justice Thomas's decision aligns with the Foundation's amicus brief, which argued that the law was a content-based restriction on free speech and also a form of compelled speech.
Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote a concurrence, joined by Chief Justice Roberts, Justice Alito, and Justice Gorsuch, expressing alarm that the California law appeared to target only the pro-life viewpoint and was therefore an attempt by the government to suppress a particular message with which the government disagreed. Justice Kennedy emphasized that "Governments must not be allowed to force persons to express a message contrary to their deepest convictions." Justice Kennedy's arguments aligned with the Foundation's argument that the law was not only a content-based regulation of speech but also targeted the speakers because of their viewpoint.
John Eidsmoe, Foundation Senior Counsel who authored the brief, said, "Of all the forms of free speech violations, forcing someone to say something controversial with which they deeply disagree is perhaps the worst. Through the course of history, people have chosen to suffer and even die rather than betray their convictions. The Supreme Court's decision today reaffirms that freedom of speech is still alive and well in the United States."
Matthew Clark, the Foundation attorney who submitted the Foundation's amicus brief, added, "The Court's decision not only upheld the right to free speech, but it also indirectly upheld the religious rights of many of these pro-life advocates who do their work because they believe life is a gift from God. The Foundation believes that also, and we are pleased that the Court's decision today will help save innocent lives."
Trump v. Hawaii
In Trump, the Court upheld in a 5-4 decision a proclamation by President Trump restricting travel to and from countries that pose a national security risk to the United States. Chief Justice John Roberts wrote the majority opinion, rejecting the argument that President Trump's proclamation was really a "Muslim ban" and reaffirming that the Court must grant great deference to the President's decisions on national security matters.
Chief Justice Roberts's decision reflected the Foundation's argument that the President's travel ban was not an Establishment Clause violation. Foundation Senior Counsel John Eidsmoe said, "The original purpose of the Establishment Clause was to prevent the government from coercing people to violate their religious beliefs. That wasn't the purpose of the President's proclamation. As we established in our brief, the ban applied only to certain nations that were centers for terrorism and failed to 'vet' terrorists. Most Muslim nations and 86% of the world's Muslim population are not affected by the ban, which also included two non-Muslim nations (Venezuela and North Korea). This really was a national security case, not an Establishment Clause case. We are pleased that the Court agreed."
In a concurring opinion, Justice Clarence Thomas addressed the fact that the Hawaii district court issued a nation-wide injunction in this case, arguing that the constitutionality of nation-wide injunctions is "dubious." Justice Thomas argued that judicial power is the power to settle disputes between the parties to the case, which is different than giving orders that bind the entire nation. The Foundation raised the same point in its amicus brief.
Explaining that point, Foundation attorney Matthew Clark said, "If an unelected and unaccountable federal district judge can issue an order that binds not just the parties to the case but everyone in the country, including those who live outside the district court's jurisdiction and who have no opportunity to be heard in the case, then we no longer have a constitutional republic but a dictatorship. The Supreme Court needs to address whether nation-wide injunctions are unconstitutional, and we are glad that Justice Thomas is calling the Court's attention to the problem."
+ Christian News Wire, 2020
Pennsylvania Avenue Northwest, Washington DC
20006, 202-546-0054, newsdesk@christiannewswire.com
+ Foundation for Moral Law, Post Office Box 4086, Montgomery, Alabama
36103, 334-262-1245, Fax: 334-262-1708,
Info@morallaw.org
By Emmanuel Ogebe,
Special to ASSIST News Service
NIGERIA
(ANS – June 25, 2018) -- In a 60-hour killing spree that began last
weekend about 200 Christians were slaughtered in Plateau State even as the US
Ambassador At Large for IRF was departing Nigeria.
Ambassador
Sam Brownback’s one-week visit was pockmarked with 6 suicide bombings by Boko
Haram in one day (the largest single day detonations), deadly Shiite clashes
with the police, altercations between local Muslims and a community and
continuing killings by Muslim Fulani Herdsmen.
The
grand finale of this perfect storm of violence was the triple digit massacre in
Plateau State. https://viewpointnigeria.com/despair-as-death-toll-of-barkin-ladi-killings-reaches-106/?_e_pi_=7%2CPAGE_ID10%2C7541351262
Overnight,
I have been inundated with photos too gruesome to share here of horribly
mutilated bodies of children brutally macheted to death and macheted still
after death for maximal horror effect, charred corpses and bodies stacked in
mass graves.
Already
the Fulani have justified this heinous crime against humanity http://scannewsnigeria.com/news/plateau-killings-are-retaliatory-says-miyetti-allah/
The
sad thing is this is not the first time nor the last. In 2012 when Fulani’s
massacred over 60 Christian villagers in Plateau State, an executive of the
same cattle rearers group said the same thing. I wrote to the Attorney General
and asked, “This man has admitted the crime. Why hasn’t he been picked up?” He
is still free till today. After the New Year Massacre in Benue State, again
they admitted it. No one has been arrested.
Worse
still, some of the communities attacked this weekend were attacked previously.
In fact one of them was part of the notorious 2010 Dogo Na Hawa Massacre in
which 500 Christians were killed. That massacre 8 years ago spurred me to
launch the Justice For Jos project and that has evolved to covering Boko Haram
atrocities. Ironically the Herdsmen atrocities have continued unabated while
Boko Haram hogged the spotlight.
Sadly
all of this occurred while Nigeria’s President Buhari was busy holding a party
convention in his bid for re-election. Early last week I got distress messages
from of our local workers that he was trapped outside the orphanage because of
an ongoing Herdsmen attack. However President Buhari deployed over 5000
policemen for his security at the party convention and the killings built up
until the massacre despite the early warnings.
We
hear reports that mass burials are being ordered by the authorities to hide the
true casualties.
At
this point the Plateau massacre this weekend looks likely to be the third worst
in the 8 years in which I have tracked Herdsmen attacks.
1. Dogo Nahawa 500 killed March
2010 Plateau State
2. Agatu 300 killed February
2016 Benue State
3. Barkin Ladi about 200
Plateau State June 2018
Mourners
at a funeral were also killed https://www.skyrockdaily.com/2018/06/24/news/confusion-suspected-herdsmen-killed-plateau-mourners-witness-says-120-police-confirm-11/?utm_source=&utm_medium=&utm_campaign=
Again not for the first time.
It
is disconcerting that a small Muslim minority can so terrorize Christian majorities
in Benue and Plateau state because of their monopoly of violence. The great
danger is if Christians choose not to take it anymore. Friends and family have
been appealing for evacuation since last night as Muslims are amassing.
However, Plateau is where most Christians from the far north flee for safety so
where does everyone one now go?
One
of my learned colleagues informs me that Rocket Propelled Grenades were used in
these attacks. I am waiting on the evidence but if true, this is not the first time
either.
I
will keep you updated while I ask your prayers for this unraveling situation.
+ Assist USA,
Post Office Box 609 , Lake Forest, California 92609
