View source for How Congress can make Courts Uncensor God

=while still limiting religions that incite terror=

'''The Koran's religion of''' <span title="Sahih Muslim 1438a–1438e We acquired female captives at Awtas who had husbands [whom we had murdered in battle]. We mentioned that to the Messenger of Allah [because we were afraid he would count raping married women as adultery], so this verse was revealed [by Mohammed]: [Surah 4:24] ‘And married women [you must not rape] except those whom your right hands possess [the Koran’s euphemism for ‘your slaves’].’ COMMENT: 'SERVANTS' WERE TREATED LIKE KINGS BY MOSES' LAWS, COMPARED TO THE TREATMENT OF SLAVES IN THE U.S. AND EUROPEAN PAST AND IN ISLAMIC COUNTRIES TO THIS DAY. THE LONDON TELEGRAPH REPORTS: 'WALK FREE'S GLOBAL SLAVERY INDEX REPORTED THAT ARAB STATES HAVE THE WORLD'S HIGHEST PREVALENCE OF SLAVES. (10.1 PER 1,000 PEOPLE)'. (July 3, 2025, 'The shocking truth about slavery in the Islamic world today') IN THE BIBLE, ALL 'SERVANTS', EVEN FOREIGNERS, HAD THE SAME CIVIL RIGHTS AS CITIZENS, EXODUS 12:49, WERE FREED IF THEIR EMPLOYERS CAUSED A PERMANENT INJURY, EXODUS 21:26-27, AND MOST SERVED A MAXIMUM OF 6 YEARS NO MATTER THE SIZE OF THE DEBT THAT MADE THEM SERVANTS. FOR EVIDENCE THAT EVEN THOSE SERVING LONGER WERE EVENTUALLY TO BE FREED ACCORDING TO GOD'S LAWS, SEE www.Saltshaker.US/Bible/slaveryInTheBible.pdf."> <SMALL>Sahih Muslim 1438a–1438e</SMALL></span> '''slavery,''' <span title="Quran 4:59 O you who have believed, obey Allah and obey the Messenger and those in authority among you. Quran 33:36 It is not for a believing man or a believing woman, when Allah and His Messenger have decided a matter, that they should have any choice in the matter. (THIS CONTRASTS WITH THE BIBLE'S ELECTIONS, DEUTERONOMY 1:13 AND ACTS 14:34 where 'ordain' means, in Greek, to raise the hands to vote, AND SUBJECTION EVEN OF KINGS TO NOT JUST CRITICISM BUT TO CORRECTION, BY 'PROPHETS', THE TITLE GIVEN TO THOSE WHO DARE DO THAT - JESUS, AFTER JOHN THE BAPTIST, BEING THE ULTIMATE EXAMPLES.)"> <small>Quran 4:59 & 33:36</small></span> '''Tyranny''', <span title="Quran 5:33 Indeed, the penalty for those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger and strive upon earth [to cause] corruption is none but that they be killed or crucified or that their hands and feet be cut off from opposite sides or that they be exiled from the land. (Interpreted to include criticizing Islam) (COMMENT: THIS CONTRASTS WITH THE BIBLE'S 'STONING', ITS ONLY APPROVED FORM OF EXECUTION, WHICH KNOCKS THE CRIMINAL UNCONSCIOUS BEFORE HE DIES - PROBABLY THE MOST MERCIFUL METHOD OF EXECUTION POSSIBLE FOR THE TECHNOLOGY THEN."><SMALL> Quran 5:33</SMALL></SPAN> '''torture,''' <span title="Quran 9:29 Fight those who do not believe in Allah or in the Last Day and who do not consider unlawful what Allah and His Messenger have made unlawful and who do not adopt the religion of truth from those who were given the Scripture — [fight] until they give the jizyah [a very high tax whose stated purpose was humiliation] willingly while they are humbled. (COMMENT: THIS CONTRASTS WITH THE BIBLE'S LACK OF ANY GOD-APPROVED WAR THAT WAS NOT OF SELF DEFENSE.)"><small>Quran 9:29</small> '''war,''' <span title="Quran 9:5 But when the sacred months have passed, then kill the polytheists [the Koran claims that the Bible’s ‘Holy Trinity’ makes Christians ‘polytheists’] wherever you find them and capture them and besiege them and sit in wait for them at every place of ambush. But if they repent, establish prayer, and give zakah, [a very high tax whose stated purpose was humiliation] let them go on their way. COMMENT: THE BIBLE BY CONTRAST NOWHERE AUTHORIZES HUMAN-ENFORCED PUNISHMENT FOR UNBELIEF, AS LONG AS THERE IS NO 'INCITEMENT TO VIOLENCE', WHICH DEUTERONOMY 13 ADDRESSES."> <small>Quran 9:5</small></span> '''terror, and''' <span title="Quran 30.45 That He may reward those who believe and do good out of His grace; surely He does not love the unbelievers. (COMMENT: THIS CONTRASTS WITH ROMANS 5:7-8 WHICH SAYS GOD SO LOVES UNBELIEVERS THAT HE DIED FOR US WHILE WE WERE UNBELIEVERS!)"><small>Quran 30.45</small></span> '''hate, is not the equal of the Bible's religion of''' <span title="John 8:31-36 Then said Jesus to those Jews which believed on him, If ye continue in my word, then are ye my disciples indeed; And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free....Whosoever committeth sin is the servant of sin. And the servant abideth not in the house for ever: but the Son abideth ever. If the Son therefore shall make you free, ye shall be free indeed."><small>John 8:31-36</small></span> '''freedom,''' <span title="Deuteronomy 1:13  From each of your tribes, ''choose'' some men who are wise, intelligent, and experienced, and I’ll appoint them to be your leaders. (GW translation) -- Acts 14:23 And when they had ordained them elders in every church.... (the Greek for ordained means hand reacher, someone who votes by raising their hand)" ><small>Deuteronomy 1:13 & Acts 14:23</small></span> '''elections,''' <span title="Matthew 21:21-22 ...If ye have faith, and doubt not,...ye shall say unto this mountain, Be thou removed, and be thou cast into the sea; it shall be done. And all things, whatsoever ye shall ask in prayer, believing, ye shall receive."> <small>Matthew 21:21-22</small> </span> '''achievement,''' <span title="John 14:27 Peace I leave with you, my peace I give unto you: not as the world giveth, give I unto you. Let not your heart be troubled, neither let it be afraid."> <small>John 14:27</small></span> '''peace,''' <span title="Psalm 91 Whoever goes to the LORD for safety, whoever remains under the protection of the Almighty, can say to him, You are my defender and protector. You are my God; in you I trust. He will keep you safe from all hidden dangers and from all deadly diseases. He will cover you with his wings; you will be safe in his care; his faithfulness will protect and defend you. You need not fear any dangers at night or sudden attacks during the day or the plagues that strike in the dark or the evils that kill in daylight. A thousand may fall dead beside you, ten thousand all around you, but you will not be harmed. You will look and see how the wicked are punished. You have made the LORD your defender, the Most High your protector, and so no disaster will strike you, no violence will come near your home. .. God will put his angels in charge of you to protect you wherever you go. They will hold you up with their hands to keep you from hurting your feet on the stones. You will trample down lions and snakes, fierce lions and poisonous snakes. God says, I will save those who love me and will protect those who acknowledge me as LORD. When they call to me, I will answer them; when they are in trouble, I will be with them. I will rescue them and honor them. I will reward them with long life; I will save them. COMMENT: WE CAN ABSOLUTELY TRUST GOD TO PROTECT US FROM OBSTACLES TO FINISHING THE WORK WE ARE HERE TO DO, TO THE EXTENT WE ARE WILLING TO DO IT."> <small>Psalm 91</small></span> '''protection, and'''<span title="John 15:10-17 If ye keep my commandments, ye shall abide in my love; even as I have kept my Father's commandments, and abide in his love. These things have I spoken unto you, that my joy might remain in you, and that your joy might be full. This is my commandment, That ye love one another, as I have loved you. ''Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends.'' Ye are my friends, if ye do whatsoever I command you. Henceforth I call you not servants; for the servant knoweth not what his lord doeth: but I have called you friends; for all things that I have heard of my Father I have made known unto you. Ye have not chosen me, but I have chosen you, and ordained you, that ye should go and bring forth fruit, and that your fruit should remain: that whatsoever ye shall ask of the Father in my name, he may give it you. These things I command you, that ye love one another."><small> John 15:13</small> </span>'''love. Congress can say so, with no objections from the 1st Amendment. Congress can make courts say so, with the blessing of the Constitution. ''And of God.''''' <small>(Hover over verses and surahs to read their text.)</small>

{| class="wikitable"
|<font size="2">[[Forum]] (Articles)
|<font size="2">[[Offer]]
|<font size="2">[[Partners]]
|<font size="2">[[Rules]]
|<font size="2">[[Tips]]
|<font size="2">[[FAQ]]
|<font size="2">[[Begin!]]
|<font size="2">'''[https://family-music-center.square.site Donate]'''
|}

[[File:TrustJesusTransparentSmall.gif|right]] <span style="color:#0000FF"><br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;This article was started by [[User:DaveLeach|Dave Leach R-IA Bible Lover-musician-grandpa]] ([[User talk:DaveLeach|talk]]) 02:58, 21 August 2026 (UTC) PLEASE help finish it!
----

__TOC__

===Introduction===

Chapter 1 explains the Supreme Court’s  misunderstanding of the 1st Amendment beginning in 1947 (''Everson v. Board of Education''), which it weaponized in 1962 (''Engel v. Vitale'') against America’s previous Freedom of Religious Expression. The 1st Amendment does NOT equalize religions, or call it “establishment” where no one has to think, say, or do anything. Nor does the ''14th'' Amendment even give federal courts ''jurisdiction'' over whatever religion policy any state chooses. (These aren’t my original notions. My sources include the Supreme Court.)
	
Chapter 2 explains that when the Supreme Court violates the Constitution, the Constitution authorizes Congress to establish facts, limit jurisdiction, overturn rulings, require a supermajority before the Court can overturn laws,  or impeach – as needed to force courts back to the Constitution. It explains why the legal consensus that Congress shouldn’t use these tools is as constitutionally wrong as it is a threat to our national security, not to mention the darkness allowed to spread over hearts and souls.  (These aren’t my original notions. My sources include John Marshall, the first Supreme Court Chief Justice who overturned a law for violating the Constitution that didn’t even violate the Constitution.) 
	
But even if the evidence in Chapters 1 & 2 convinces every voter and politician that the 1st Amendment encourages Bible discussion while suppressing religions of terror, and that Congress has the blessing of the Constitution to force courts back to the Constitution, not even Christians will ''want'' the Bible uncensored so long as it is widely believed that the Bible, just like the Koran, has embarrassing, tyranny-fueling violence verses – so  that the more we let Bible influence back into our politics, the closer we come to what Christians don’t want: ending religious freedom for nonChristians. 
	
Anyone who has read the Bible very much knows that is not true. But as long as Bible-reading politicians keep Bible discussion out of their policies and campaigns, and churches bottle up the Bible inside their church walls in order to “stay out of politics”, where are the 75% of Americans who haven’t read the Bible through even once going to find out? Especially with Deuteronomy being one of the ''last'' books that American Christians read!
	
Chapter 3 proves that the 1st Commandment and the 1st Amendment support each other. They do not contradict. But the commandments of religions of terror ''do'' need to be suppressed because they violate the 1st Amendment, along with dozens of criminal laws. Nowhere does the Bible approve of human-enforced punishment for unbelief alone.  Or for belief, alone, in religions of terror. The Bible only criminalizes the same thing that American law does: the criminal action that is inspired by belief in religions of terror, and ''incitement'' to that criminal action. Therefore, the greater influence of the Bible in a culture, the greater freedom for everyone – including unbelievers!
	
Chapter 3 goes a little beyond recapturing a vision of the religious freedom created by the 1st Amendment, that spread across states and ended state-monopolized religions in every state by 1838. Because then, Bible belief was held by over 99% of all Americans. (That includes the 2% who were Jews, because they believe ''over half'' of the Bible.) So although there were the occasional atheist, and an unknown number of slaves were imported from Moslem countries, the only noticeable fight that Christians had was with each other. 
	
But what would it be like today, with only 70% of us believing the Bible is the Word of God and only 25% of us reading our Bibles once a week outside church, to re-impose the 1st Amendment as it was originally understood, which would end the ability of atheists to use courts to censor the Bible? 

[[File:Bible_-_attitudes_about_the_Bible.jpg|thumb|400px]]


I think what most of us want, certainly most Christians, is more freedom of religion for everyone, including atheists, except no freedom to censor the freedom of religious expression of others, and no freedom to physically threaten, torture, or kill others – over religion, especially! If that is your desire for and vision of religious freedom, that is the vision I see in the Bible. That is the vision I present from the Bible. And common sense tells me that vision has to be understood and wanted by most Americans before it can ever be reestablished, and that can never happen without nationwide Bible discussion. 
	
But first, the chapters explaining the 1st Amendment, and how Congress can make courts obey it. But to finish the change, America will need that Bible discussion. Without it, America can never see our 1st Amendment again that the Supreme Court locked up 64 years ago. As long as voters and politicians widely suspect the Bible  and the Koran are about equal in their mix of violence and peace verses, Congress will never want courts to stop censoring God, because Congress will remain afraid that too much Bible will end Freedom of Religion. And Congress will never want to limit religions that incite terror, because Moslems will just say “why are you picking on us? Your Bibles have violence verses too!” 

But of course it won’t matter much that the Supreme Court still censors God, as long as politics and churches just as “religiously” keep the influence of the Bible out of Freedom.

----

These are answers, to this point, to my prayers for a solution to make the “Supreme” Court allow public prayers to God in public spaces again, without forcing America to give equal time to Satan, and while no longer allowing baby murder. 
	
One reason I suspect this is not ready yet is that I haven’t heard from you, and Proverbs 15:22 says “purposes are established” through “a multitude of counselors”. (Which means neither psychiatrists nor lawyers, but people with great advice, like you.) But I’m getting excited. I think this solution is close.

Neither the Constitution itself, nor any Amendment to it, was drafted by any one elected Founder but by dozens of them arguing for months, so I certainly don’t expect one 80-year-old loser of seven elections (me) to produce, by myself,  a final draft of a correction of 64 years of Supreme Court perversion of the 1st Amendment. But I beg you to believe, with me, the Scriptures that promise that not even the Supreme Court has the power to block “whatever we ask, in prayer, believing” (Matthew 21:22, which I assume is subject to God leading us to what is better than what we ask, and to our readiness to give our lives in service to our goals). 
	
I pray this draft will at least show you (1) the fraud behind “all religions are equal”, (2) the tools given Congress to bridle Supreme Court unconstitutionality, (3) answers to the widespread claims that those tools should not be used, and (4) the balance between “freedom of religion” and neutering of religions of terror that our Founders created can still work today, be fair to everyone, and lift America to new heights of Freedom, safety, and prosperity. 
	
The Bible encourages me. I know that no law of man has authority over the 1st Commandment of God, so I don’t approach the issue by wondering if the Court is correct. I admit I did for decades, but no longer. Now I start by remembering that the God who Commands us also enables us to march forward, even if what stands in our way is a whole mountain. Matthew 21:21. We Christians really need to start trusting God, and seriously serving God, starting by moving these mountains. Which I can’t imagine doing without Scripture, which we have to stop being afraid to quote in public. Because to the extent we are worried about our reputation with people who are enraged by Bible verses, we might as well leave the Court alone, because to that extent it isn’t the Court censoring us anyway, but we ourselves and our churches.

Dave Leach, The Partnership Machine Inc.
4110 SW 9th St, Des Moines IA 50315
515-244-3711       music@saltshaker.us
www.Saltshaker.US    www.SaveTheWorld.Saltshaker.US 
www.youtube.com/user/Biblewizard2 

<span style="color:#0000FF">Contents: bill language designed to make the Supreme Court stop censoring God. Findings of Facts in support of the bill language. Background facts in support of the official “findings of facts”. “Incitement to violence” implicates Islamic “scary verses”. Why this approach is well within Congress’s traditional and court-approved role. A few thoughts on criminalizing abortion again.</span>

=⚖️ What Congress can Enact to Restore Religious Freedom=
 	
==Understanding & Restoring the 1st Amendment==

'''An Act of Congress'''
	
Title 42 U.S.C. § xxxx.  Congress finds that the First Amendment protects the “free exercise” of religion, and nowhere in its text protects a right to be free from the religious expression of others; the Establishment Clause prohibits coercion, not offense. No court shall enjoin any law, policy, or practice that enables religious expression on the ground that it offends a non-participant’s sensibilities, or stirs his disagreement, regarding religion, unless the religious expression incites violent crime. Where a religious exercise occurs in a public space, the court shall protect the free exercise of all present — including those who wish to pray, and including the free exercise of those who wish to depart.

<blockquote>(Translation: a prayer in school that merely “offends” an atheist but doesn’t make the atheist do anything or even stay in the room isn’t “establishment of religion”, but censoring a whole room that wants to pray together violates their right to “free exercise” of religion. That’s why there is no “right to not be offended”  in the Constitution. Courts need to defend EVERYONE’s “free expression”: of those who wish to pray, and of those who wish to leave. Even Engel v Vitale (1962) that first censored God, acknowledged that being “offended” would not trigger 1st Amendment involvement if the Court stuck to its plain words.)</blockquote>
	
In any action seeking injunctive or declaratory relief under the Free Exercise and/or Establishment Clauses from religious expression or religious exercise occurring in any setting that is used for public purposes, a court may not grant such equitable relief unless it finds, under the applicable standard of proof, that the challenged government action compels (or threatens to compel) belief, practice, or participation. 

<blockquote>(Translation: Courts need to stay out of any religious expression case where no one is being made to do, say, or believe anything.)</blockquote>

“Government information or education, so long as it does not compel belief, practice, or participation, or invite charges of fraud over claims that are not testable or verifiable, may present information that identifies which religion(s) (or sacred writings) most support free government and character in citizens that makes freedom possible, and by contrast, which religion(s) (or sacred writings) most ''threaten'' free government and its citizens. Equal time for information that supports Freedom, and information that subverts Freedom – or for what is true  and for what is false – is not a Constitutional requirement, which makes such a requirement by courts unconstitutional: court censorship of what is true violates “free exercise” of religion, and court-required equal time for what is proved false and that inspires violence violates “incitement to violence” laws. Noncompulsion of belief allows disagreements around the edges of what is testable, between state and federal governments, between authorities within the same government, and interaction with the public, which will make fact-finding less careless and more interesting to the pubic. 

<blockquote>(Translation: government employees are allowed by the Constitution to point out that the Bible supports Freedom while the Koran subverts Freedom. And also that the Bible’s accuracy is corroborated by centuries of scrutiny of statements of fact that are testable, while the Koran’s only defense of its accuracy is killing its critics. The fact that government is not empowered by this paragraph to even save its own employees from scrutiny will make people more careful about facts, and the scrutiny will make their information more interesting to the public.</blockquote> 
	
<blockquote>Perhaps the greater obstacle to passage of this paragraph will be ignorance among Christians today that it is not a testable, verifiable, empirical claim, that the Bible “most supports free government” while religions like Islam most threaten freedom. This ignorance is fueled by today’s churches’ claim that “politics and religion don’t mix”, and that politics should not be discussed in church, and is not in the Bible. During my publication of  the Prayer & Action News for 25 years I often addressed  this ignorance. Leftovers from the P&A are posted at www.Saltshaker.US. Hebrews 11 is a list of  https://saltshaker.us/Salt/GodsPoliticalHeroes.pdf. A Bible study you can interact with, add to, or correct, is posted at https://savetheworld.saltshaker.us/wiki/Multitude_Of_Counsellors_Project. </blockquote>
	
<blockquote>Three proofs for now: both the Bible and our Constitution subject top leaders to a written constitution. Deuteronomy 17:18, 1 Sam 10:25. Both guarantee equal rights for all classes – widow, orphan, immigrant specified as examples in dozens of verses. Deut 10:18, 14:29, 16:11, 14, 24:17-21, 26:12-13, 27:19, Psa 94:6, Jer 7:6, 22:3, Eze 22:7, Zech 7:10, Mal 3:5, 1 Thes 4:6. Both choose all their leaders, Deuteronomy 1:13, Acts 14:23.Both choose all their leaders, Deuteronomy 1:13. Do I need to remind you of opposite commands from the Koran? Frank Lutz published an analysis showing the Bible was quoted by America’s Founders more than all other sources added together. He counted 3,154 quotes in “public political literature” between 1760 and 1805. He found that 34% of them were from the Bible. The Bible book most cited was Deuteronomy, which reviews Moses’ laws. Most of the rest of the Bible quotes were from the Old Testament, so maybe we should stop talking about the Christian influences on American Freedom and talk about Jewish influences. (“The Origins of American Constitutionalism” by Donald S. Lutz, p. 140-141.) Federal authorities absolutely need freedom of speech to state facts. Freedom depends on it.)</blockquote>

Government authorities must be free to not only warn the public about threats clothed in religious garb, but free to neutralize incitement to violence. In any prosecution for incitement to violence, the trier of fact shall determine whether the messaging was likely to cause violence, as shown by a track record of comparable violence caused by comparable messaging. No additional element — including any requirement of temporal imminence — shall be required.

<blockquote>(Translation: Islam is currently the religion that most crosses the line into “incitement to violence”. That is, the Koran and Hadiths have a track record beyond serious dispute of producing terrorists out of any group under their teachings, as proved by the match between public statements by Imams of the terror that Islam requires, and the carnage of “Allah Akbar”-quoting terrorists. . To a lesser degree, several other doctrines in America today incite violence and crime. Unfortunately “incitement to violence” is relative and therefore where to draw the line is subjective, something like pornography. But it is still a scheduled crime, and needs to be prosecuted at whatever point juries say “America needs that to stop!” Deuteronomy 13 is where the Bible criminalizes “incitement to violence”. It basically says belief alone, in ‘gods’ of violence, is not prosecutable, but any teaching that we should also obey, or “serve”, them, is “incitement”. That line, applied in America, is at least objective: we would prosecute anyone who says we ought to “obey” the Koran’s “scary verses”.)</blockquote>

==Findings of Facts that Congress can require Courts to follow==

'''SECTION 1. FINDINGS about the Bible and the Qu'ran'''

'''Congress finds the following:''' (Documentation of these facts follows this draft language)

(1) The First Amendment protects the free exercise of religion and prohibits an establishment of religion, but it does not require Congress to treat as morally or legally equivalent two religions whose authoritative texts and historical records differ fundamentally with respect to violence.

(2) The Hebrew Bible, read according to its own chronology, establishes self-defense as the sole authorized motive for war. Every successful Israelite campaign in Canaan was defensive in origin; if Jericho established an exception, its precedent also requires a mighty miracle to remove any doubt about God’s Will before an attack is allowed. And even the hostility against Jericho was preceded by documented hostile pursuit of Israelite emissaries. No war other than for self defense was authorized by God later in the text of the Bible.

(3) The Christian New Testament, which the majority of American believers regard as superseding the Old Testament’s martial passages, commands its adherents to turn the other cheek, love their enemies, and pray for their persecutors, and its founding figure is recorded as submitting to death rather than taking up arms.

(“Turning the other cheek” after someone “smites” one cheek. Matthew 5:39 describes a rejection of a challenge to a duel or an insult, not a prohibition of self defense. Bible commentator David Guzik puts it: “When Jesus speaks of a slap on your right cheek, it was culturally understood as a deep insult, not a physical attack. Jesus does not mean that if someone hits across the right side of our head with a baseball bat, we should allow them to then hit the left side.”Jesus advised his apostles to carry swords, Luke 22:38, but two was enough for 11 apostles, which is consistent with most of the Old Testament wars where God preferred that His people be outnumbered and lightly armed so that they would the more trust in Him.)

(4) The Qur'an, read according to the doctrine of abrogation (naskh) by which later verses supersede earlier contradictory ones, contains in its later, authoritative chapters explicit commands to wage offensive war against non-believers, including commands to “fight those who do not believe,” to “smite the necks” of disbelievers, and to “slay the idolaters wherever you find them,” without any requirement that the adversary first attack.

(Abrogation: Koran 2.106: “Whatever communications We abrogate or cause to be forgotten, We bring one better than it or like it. Do you not know that God has power over all things?”

(smite the necks: Koran 47.4 “So when you meet in battle those who disbelieve, then smite the necks until when you have overcome them, then make (them) prisoners, and afterwards either set them free as a favor or let them ransom (themselves) until the war terminates. That (shall be so); and if God had pleased He would certainly have exacted what is due from them, but that He may try some of you by means of others; and (as for) those who are slain in the way of God, He will by no means allow their deeds to perish.”

(slay the idolaters: Koran 9.5 “So when the sacred months have passed away, then slay the idolaters wherever you find them, and take them captives and besiege them and lie in wait for them in every ambush, then if they repent and keep up prayer and pay the poor-rate, [a crushing tax required of nonMoslems] leave their way free to them; surely God is Forgiving, Merciful.”) 

(5) The empirical record of the last half-century reflects this textual asymmetry. According to the Global Terrorism Database and independent tallies of the period 1979 through 2024, attacks motivated predominantly by Islamist ideology account for tens of thousands of deaths, which Islamic scholars rarely condemn, while attacks motivated by Christian doctrine account for an infinitessimal fraction of that figure, which Bible scholars never endorse.

(6) The overwhelming majority of victims of Islamist terror are themselves Muslims, and the overwhelming majority of Muslims are not violent; nothing in these findings is intended to consign any individual to guilt by association or to abridge the right of any peaceful person to worship as they choose. Legal action is triggered only crime, violence, or its promotion or incitement.

(7) The promotion of the Bible’s teachings of peace, self-defense, and individual liberty is historically foundational to American freedom, and the acknowledgment of this fact that no one is compelled to believe is not an establishment of religion but a recognition of historical truth.

(8) Establishing facts, by stating what is true, testable, and supported by evidence,  especially where evidence-based rebuttal is allowed, is not “establishment of religion”, since no one is compelled to believe the truth. But Truth must never be censored. Censoring evidence-based reasoning violates the 1st Amendment’s “free exercise” clause. In schools where grades depend on acknowledging facts, parent’s requests for accommodation of their religious objections to established facts may be honored by not grading their children on those facts, or even by removing their children while those facts are proven, but not by censoring the truth.

(9) '''The First Amendment does not obligate Congress to treat as equally benign a tradition whose authoritative texts emphasize peace, self-defense, and persuasion by reason and evidence, and a tradition whose authoritative texts mandate offensive war, murder, and terror against "unbelievers" and whose adherents have demonstrated a documented record of compliance.'''

===Religious Killing: Qur'an vs. Bible — The Numbers===

(This is one of those topics where institutional media and academia twist themselves into pretzels to avoid stating the obvious.)


The single most comprehensive dataset on this question is the Global Terrorism Database (GTD) maintained by START at the University of Maryland, covering over 200,000 terrorist incidents since 1970. Cross-referencing that with the Fondapol study (1979–2024). According to it:

'''Islamist-motivated attacks (1979–2024)''': roughly 50,000 deaths in the most conservative number that only counts attacks clearly and predominantly motivated by Islamist ideology. The possible estimate runs far higher, closer to 200,000, because enormous numbers of attacks in war zones and separatist conflicts (Palestine, Thailand, Kashmir, the Sahel) blend religious and political motives in ways the databases do not cleanly attribute. That is, if a Moslem nation attacks another nation, citing the Koran, its motivation is counted as “political”, not religious. Although Koran-citing Moslems attack each other for other causes, including accusing each other of not being true believers, what is not seriously attacked by Moslem scholars is their understanding that the Koran and Hadiths generally support deadly violence against “disbelievers”.
	
'''Christian-motivated terrorism (1979–2024):''' roughly 7 deaths in the most conservative number that only counts attacks clearly and predominantly motivated by Christian ideology. About seven Christians shot and killed the same number of abortionists who had each killed tens of thousands of babies. Some of them cited Proverbs 24:10-12 for their authority: “Rescue those being led away to slaughter”, along with verses identifying unborn babies as people with bright futures prepared by God. 
	
The possible estimate runs to a few thousand, if it includes:
	
'''* the Lord’s Resistance Army''', a group which formed in 1986 in Uganda in self defense against an unelected government at war with its Northern citizens. It combines “a syncretic blend of Christianity, traditional African spiritualism, and other religious elements” according to Wikipedia, which adds “The LRA is often mistakenly described as a ‘Christian fundamentalist’ group because it has declared that Uganda should have no constitution but should be governed according to the Ten Commandments. In fact Kony [an early leader] adheres to the same confused blend of Christianity, spirit cults and disconnected elements of traditional religion which went into the making of the Holy Spirit Movement.” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lord%27s_Resistance_Army 
	
'''* Anders Breivik''' opposed Islam, which is as close as he comes to being Christian, Wikipedia indicates. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anders_Behring_Breivik)  In 2011, in a mass shooting in Norway, he killed 77 and wounded 323. He believed the Great Replacement Theory  (that whites are in danger of being replaced by non-whites). 
	
'''* A few attacks in the Central African Republic.''' 
	
None of those claims of divinely sanctioned violence have the support of any Bible scholar or Christian institution, including the seven who were actual Christians. And even the seven never claimed the Bible justifies killing anyone for mere unbelief, or for any other cause less than to stop long strings of mass murders. And even then the seven believed the role of stopping mass murders properly belongs to law enforcement run by elected leaders, not to vigilantes, which made their decisions to act very difficult.

===Academic Research===
	
'''The Piazza Study''': “Is Islamist Terrorism More Dangerous? An Empirical Study of Group Ideology, Organization, and Goal Structure”:
	
“Scholars have traditionally argued that Islamist terrorist groups tend to commit higher casualty attacks....
	
“The last explanation, the rise of religious terrorism, is the common thread running through nearly all contemporary analyses seeking to explain the increasing lethality of terrorist attacks in the past twenty years. It can be empirically substantiated through descriptive statistics that religiously-motivated terrorist groups are indeed more prone than are secular groups to committing attacks that result in greater casualties....
	
“Religious terrorist groups, while only committing the second largest number of
attacks in the time period, have a higher average number of victims per attack
(persons wounded or killed) than all three of the other types combined....
	
“Scholars also argue that the dramatic increase of radical Islamist terrorism starting in the 1980s and 1990s has significantly contributed to the lethality of terrorist
attacks perpetrated by religiously-oriented terrorist groups. And there is descrip-
tive empirical evidence that Islamist terrorist groups are indeed more lethal. '''Over the period 1968 to 2005, Islamist groups were responsible for 93.6% of all terrorist attacks by religiously-oriented groups and were responsible for 86.9% of all casualties inflicted by religiously-oriented terrorist groups'''....
	
“The study tests a controversial hypothesis: Islamist groups that are not affiliated with the al-Qaeda network are not any more likely to commit high casualty terrorist attacks than other types of terrorist groups, specifically leftist, rightist, and national-separatist groups....”
	
(The Piazza paper analyzing 77,000–82,000 incidents in Iraq, Syria, Nigeria, and Afghanistan.[https://www.researchgate.net/ publication/237587533_Is_Islamist_Terrorism_More_Dangerous_An_Empirical_Study_of_Group_Ideology_Organization_and_Goal_Structure "Is Islamist Terrorism More Dangerous?"]

'''The Koopmans study''' reports that priming believers with '''pro-violence verses from the Qur’an raises support for religious violence significantly more''' than priming them with equivalent Bible verses.

===Comparing Violence Themes in the Bible v. the Koran===
	
A 2002 comparative analysis in Psychological Reports examined early Christian and Islamic source documents for violent themes. It concludes:

'''''Nonviolence'' was more common in Christian sources'''. The Sermon on the Mount features “turn the other cheek,” “love your enemies,” “blessed are the peacemakers.” Jesus is presented as dying rather than fighting. 

'''Active violence was more common in Islamic documents.''' The Medinan surahs — the later, chronologically authoritative ones, according to traditional abrogation doctrine — are full of explicit commands to fight, kill, behead, and subjugate non-believers. Surah 9 (At-Tawbah) is essentially a declaration of war. Surah 8:12 commands striking the necks of disbelievers. Surah 4:89 says to seize and kill those who turn away from Islam. Surah 47:4 says to smite the necks of disbelievers until the war lays down its burdens. 
	
The crucial difference is '''chronology and abrogation'''. In Christianity, the violent Old Testament passages (Deuteronomy's commands to wipe out the Canaanites, etc.) are pre-Christ and generally understood by historical Christianity as superseded by the New Covenant of peace. The pacifist material comes last. In Islam, the violent material comes last — the Medinan period — and the doctrine of naskh (abrogation) explicitly holds that later verses override earlier, more tolerant Meccan ones. The “verse of the sword” (9:5) is held by mainstream classical jurisprudence to abrogate over a hundred earlier verses commanding patience and tolerance.
	
But even this widely assumed “abrogation” of Old Testament violence by the New Testament misstates the Old Testament’s support for violence or for wars of aggression. Every successful Israelite war in all of Israel’s history was defensive. Even in Canaan, where God indicated that the people had reached a level of depravity that made it a merciful thing to end that race so no more children would be born into it only to be “sacrificed” - 
	
<blockquote>“Archaeological evidence confirms that the inhabitants of Canaan regularly sacrificed their firstborn children to the gods, really demons, whom they worshiped. Little skeletons found crushed into large jars with votive inscriptions testify to their degrading religion and what it meant for many of their children. The eradication of the Canaanites, then, was not an afterthought, something that emerged in the wake of God’s decision to give the land of Canaan to the Israelites. The inhabitants of Canaan were granted a time of probation, a time of additional mercy during which they had the opportunity to discover God and His character through the witness of the patriarchs living among them. They had the chance, but obviously they squandered it and continued in their horrific practices until the Lord finally had to put a stop to them.”  https://ssnet.org/blog/25d-05-the-canaanites-iniquity/ </blockquote>
	
<blockquote>Opium use in Canaan, found in burial jars. (https://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/daily/ancient-cultures/ancient-israel/canaanite-cult-narcotics/)  </blockquote>

— the Canaanites initiated hostilities. Even Jericho had already attempted to exterminate Israel’s scouts. God thus established the uninterrupted precedent against wars of aggression for any reason – not even when God’s Will for victory over an enemy is known! 
	
This means the Old Testament, properly read, is not a warrant for offensive holy war — it is a record of defensive survival in a hostile land. And modern Israel, which gives little weight to the New Testament anyway, is the living demonstration: a state that has fought repeated defensive wars against neighbors who explicitly seek its elimination. The biblical pattern and the modern pattern are the same pattern.
	
Contrast the Qur’an's Medinan surahs, which command offensive warfare — “fight those who do not believe” (9:29), “strike the necks” (8:12, 47:4), “slay the idolaters wherever you find them” (9:5) — with no requirement that the enemy attack first, if not a preference for surprise attacks cloaked with deception. That is the opposite of self-defense.

===Why the Numbers Are Worse Than They Look===
	
Several factors keep the true disparity understated:
	
'''Muslim-majority countries are the primary victims.''' The overwhelming majority of Islamist terror victims are other Muslims — in Iraq, Syria, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Nigeria, Somalia. Western databases that focus on attacks in the West miss the enormous toll inside the ummah itself.
	
'''Attribution games.''' The Fondapol study openly admits its “retained estimate” excludes attacks where religious motivation is “not clearly predominant.” In a place like Boko Haram’s Nigeria or the Afghan Taliban’s campaigns, that distinction keeps official numbers deflated.
	
'''There is no equivalent Christian infrastructure of violence.''' No Christian caliphate, no Christian equivalent of the Islamic State's territorial project, no Christian version of Boko Haram, al-Shabaab, al-Qaeda's global franchise, or the Taliban. The Lord’s Resistance Army was a weird millenarian cult led by a man obsessed with the Ten Commandments — and it was hated by every mainstream Christian denomination and a “designated terrorist organization” by U.S. law. Mainstream Islamic institutions do not similarly marginalize violent Islamic groups like ISIS.
	
'''Historical wars between Christian nations before the founding of the U.S.''' are irrelevant because they were over political power in violation of Bible principles, and were conducted by kings. 1 Samuel 8 records when Israel abandoned 400 years of elected leaders (see Deuternomy 1:13) in favor of unelected kings, which God characterized as the people rejecting the rule of God over them. Yes, Christians slaughtered people for a millennium — the Crusades, the Inquisition, the Thirty Years’ War, colonial conquest. But that was state violence in a pre-modern world, and it ended. The relevant question is what the texts and traditions do today. The Christian world secularized its violence; the Islamist world has, if anything, re-sacralized it since 1979.
	
The Bible has its allegedly violent commands allegedly superseded by Jesus’ pacifist example. The Koran has its “tolerance” passages superseded by explicit commands to make war. The “all religions are equal” mantra is at war with reality. The data is not ambiguous. The interpretation is. 
	
That doesn’t mean most Muslims are violent — they aren’t, and they’re the primary victims of Islamist terror. But the issue here is about acknowledging the record of people claiming the religion motivated them, for the purpose of establishing whether government should treat them differently for its own survival and for the protection of Americans, and on that record, the two traditions are not remotely symmetric.
	
The First Amendment's Establishment and Free Exercise Clauses protect '''religious belief and worship''', not '''incitement to violence dressed as religion.''' Nothing in Employment Division v. Smith, Lukumi, or any Establishment Clause case holds that Congress must pretend two texts are morally equivalent when one’s authoritative verses command peace and the other’s command war. The Court has repeatedly distinguished between protected belief and unprotected conduct — and incitement is conduct.


===The Wrong Argument for Censoring Islam===
	
In the news August 18, Governor Abbot of Texas persuaded the Dallas Airport to withdraw plans for a Moslem foot washing service on the ground that one religion cannot be illegally promoted over another. That’s the wrong ground for suppressing Islamic accommodation. Islam accommodations need to be suppressed, but not Christian accommodations, because Islam threatens Freedom, and human lives, while the Bible is the template for Freedom, and saves lives and civilizations. 
	
This very misunderstanding is behind the drama of ''Employment Division v. Smith'' (1990) which was overturned by Congress’s Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA, 1993), which in turn was overturned by ''City of Boerne v. Flores'' (1997). Decades of reasonable, uncontroversial “accommodations” of Christians by courts preceded ''Smith'', but ''Smith'' was about native Americans smoking Peyote as part of their religious ceremonies, who were then fired from their jobs for their drug use and they wanted unemployment compensation. Their jobs? ''They were drug counselors!''  
	
It’s as if the Court was saying, but only “between the lines”, “this is ridiculous! Accommodations of Christians until now has not been ridiculous, but if continuing them means giving these losers a break, we better stop accommodations for everyone, because we have to treat all religions as equals!”
	 
<blockquote>“No other gods” is a legitimate government goal for American law, just as it was for Israeli law, . But incitement is where ''prosecution'' begins. Logic agrees with Jesus who, in Matthew 5, repeatedly contrasted the requirements of human-enforced laws with the higher expectations which God inspires. The standard for what is prosecutable is lower than the standard for living a full life. What God orders, what logic requires, and what American law is able to do, are the same. </blockquote>

==Restoring "Incitement to Violence" prosecutions==

(Background: ''Brandenburg v Ohio'' (1969) 2. effectively neutralized “incitement to violence” prosecutions by adding “imminence” to what a prosecutor has to prove. Not just any “imminence”, but a wholly undefined “imminence”. Does that mean if the violence follows the incitement by ''two years'' (for example when schools teach children to be terrorists) that isn't “imminent” enough - it has to be no more than ''two seconds'' later? The Court wouldn’t say. But the case was about a meeting of KKK leaders vowing they would “bury the niggers”, only ''two days'' before a KKK march on Washington of an expected 400,000 Klanners, and ''that'' wasn't “imminent”!? Never mind, though, its absurdity then. Today we need prosecution of “incitement to violence” against a global movement whose texts command war against religious freedom and whose adherents have demonstrated a thousand years’ track record of obeying those commands and turning relatively free nations into slave states. Conditioning imminence on a ''demonstrated historical conversion rate'' is a principled, data-driven modernization — not a content-based restriction.)

(a) In any Federal criminal proceeding concerning incitement to lawless action, or in any Federal proceeding concerning the denial of entry, benefits, privileges, or protections to persons who advocate violence, the trier of fact may consider, as probative evidence of the likely effect of speech or conduct:

(1) the historical and empirical record of the religious or ideological tradition invoked by the speaker, including whether the authoritative texts of that tradition command or authorize offensive violence or violations of American criminal laws;

(2) whether the specific verses, passages, or authorities cited have, in documented practice, been followed by acts of violence or violations of American criminal laws; and

(3) whether the tradition’s own interpretive hierarchy treats the violent passages as superseding, or as superseded by, its peaceful passages.

(The Koran’s later terror surahs “abrogate” or cancel the earlier contradictory “peaceful” surahs. By contrast, the Bible’s “turn the other cheek” New Testament is widely interpreted to cancel the Old Testament’s “war” verses. There is not one verse endorsing offensive war or human-enforced punishment of anyone for unbelief without criminal action, but if there were, common Christian interpretation would regard them as canceled.)

(b) Where a religious or ideological tradition’s authoritative texts command offensive violence and its adherents have, in documented practice, carried out such violence in response to those commands, a showing that the tradition in question has a demonstrated track record of converting such textual commands into violent action, cited in a context that could foreseeably incite such action, shall establish “incitement to violence” by the speaker.

(c) Nothing in this section shall be construed to prohibit the peaceful practice of any religion, the reading of any scripture in private or in worship, or the advocacy of any religious or political doctrine that does not command or incite violence.

==Why This Survives Constitutional Review==

(The preceding is proposed bill language Congress could put in law. The following discusses why courts will have a hard time rejecting it. )

'''1. It targets conduct, not belief.''' The statute never criminalizes being a Muslim or reading the Qur'an. It treats the citation of specific war-commands in an inciting context as evidence. That is squarely within the "speech integral to criminal conduct" and "true threats" doctrines.

'''2. It replaces the arbitrary "imminence" line with an empirical one'''. ''Brandenburg v Ohio'' (1969) effectively neutralized “incitement to violence” prosecutions by adding “imminence” to what a prosecutor has to prove. Not just any “imminence”, but a wholly undefined “imminence”. Does that mean if the violence follows the incitement by ''two years'' (for example when schools teach children to be terrorists) that isn't “imminent” enough - it has to be no more than ''two seconds'' later? The Court wouldn’t say. But the case was about a meeting of KKK leaders vowing they would “bury the niggers”, only ''two days'' before a KKK march on Washington of an expected 400,000 Klanners, and ''that'' wasn't “imminent”!? Never mind, though, its absurdity then. Today we need prosecution of “incitement to violence” against a global movement whose texts command war against religious freedom and whose adherents have demonstrated a thousand years’ track record of obeying those commands and turning relatively free nations into slave states. Conditioning imminence on a ''demonstrated historical conversion rate'' is a principled, data-driven modernization — not a content-based restriction.

'''3. It is viewpoint-honest but not viewpoint-discriminatory.''' The language applies to any tradition with a violent command-and-compliance record — Christian, Muslim, secular revolutionary, or otherwise. It happens that the record points in one direction - to Islam, but a neutral rule with an asymmetric empirical result 3. distinguishing right from wrong  is not unconstitutional discrimination; it's what neutral rules do.

'''4. Finding (7) is safe under Establishment Clause.''' Acknowledging the Bible's historical role in American liberty is something the Supreme Court has done repeatedly (Holy Trinity, Zorach, the Van Orden Ten Commandments display, legislative prayer in Marsh). Ceremonial and historical acknowledgment is not establishment.

==Restoring the "Privileges & Immunities" Clause==

===Introduction: the Dark History - the 2 Cases that Replaced ''Constitutional'' Rights with made-up "Fundamental" Rights===

1873 - 5 years after the 14th Amendment was ratified - its most important clause was nullified by the Supreme Court. The "Privileges & Immunities" clause says if the rights of people are violated and their state won't do anything, Congress can step in and enforce them. The Civil War lasted from 1860 to 1865. The Civil War was between the North and the South: the Northern states mostly outlawed slavery, while the Southern states bought, sold, tortured and murdered slaves. 

It was also a war between Republicans and Democrats. Republicans fought to end slavery; Democrats fought to keep their slaves. The Republicans ratified the 13th Amendment, abolishing slavery, while the Republican states were still the only states in the United States. But the Democrats found a loophole. The 13th Amendment said slavery was abolished "except as punishment for a crime". Well, that was easy! The Democrat states simply made it a crime to do what anyone has to do to live, if you are black! So the 14th Amendment was drafted to close that loophole. "Equal protection of the laws" helped, but a couple of other problems were addressed. 

The 14th Amendment first made sure all blacks - former slaves - are U.S. citizens. Then it said no state shall deprive citizens of their Privileges and Immunities. Meaning, the rights listed in mostly the first Eight Amendments to the Constitution. Freedom of speech is an example of a "privilege"; freedom from "cruel and unusual punishment" is an example of an "immunity". Here is the 14th Amendment, Section 1:

<blockquote>All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. </blockquote>

Fortunately the Republicans won, and wouldn't let the Democrats back into Congress until they ratified the 14th Amendment, which was finally done in 1868.

===🌟 What Congress can Enact===

Be it enacted:

1. The "Privileges and Immunities" clause of the 14th Amendment is hereby reinstated. The sole criteria of whether a right is "fundamental" shall be whether it is "enumerated" (listed in the Constitution). "Rights" that are Court-manufactured through the constitutionally unauthorized "substantive due process" scheme are hereby invalidated. Precedents based on that unconstitutional process are hereby stripped of any "stare decisis" value. The Supreme Court is hereby stripped of any power to neutralize any portion of the Constitution through its interpretation. 

2. Congress asserts that its own authority in the Constitution to "make exceptions" to the jurisdiction of courts cannot be rationally exercised by a body unable to interpret the Constitution. This fact establishes that the Constitution acknowledges the ability of Congress to interpret the Constitution. Meanwhile the Constitution's silence about any power of courts to overturn Congress casts doubt on the Court's claim that it possesses superior interpretative ability, much less sole interpretative ability. Cases clearly proving that the Supreme Court cannot be blindly trusted to correctly interpret the Constitution, and therefore should remain free from Congress's power to overturn unconstitutional rulings, include ''Dred Scott v. Sandford'' (1857, the case that helped start the Civil War), ''Slaughterhouse'' (1873, the case that stripped several rights from 14th Amendment protection), ''Cruikshank'' (1876, the case that stripped the remaining Constitutional rights from 14th Amendment protection, in order to free the KKK leader of terrorists that slaughtered 150 blacks defending a courthouse and burned down the courthouse), ''Engel v. Vitale'' (1962, the first case that criminalized public prayer), and ''Roe v. Wade'' (1973, the case responsible for 60+ million murdered babies by removing criminal penalties).

3. ''Slaughterhouse'' (1873) has still not been overturned by the Court, even though it irrationally interprets "privileges and immunities" in the 14th Amendment as covering only the right to travel to D.C., access to seaports, protection on the high seas, and other trivialities that were already secure before the Civil War. It defies credulity to believe the Court was sincerely ignorant of the clear meaning of the Clause as it was ratified only 5 years before, or that the ignorance of the other justices today, besides Clarence Thomas, with their access to complete historical records, could be sincere. Yet this obviously unconstitutional and irrational precedent remains, poisoning constitutional rights definitions, so Congress hereby declares ''Slaughterhouse'' an "exception" to the Court's jurisdiction. Congress includes under that "exception", ''Cruikshank'' (1876), which finished off the "privileges and immunities" clause in order to free the leader of a Democrat KKK mob that slaughtered about 150 black Republicans defending a courthouse after voter fraud in a governor's race, by shooting most of them after they surrendered, and burning alive the rest of them who were in the courthouse that they burned down. These two cases are given strong ''Stare Decisis'' recognition by the Court when they ''should'' be recognized by the Court as its great shame, on the level with ''Dred Scott v. Sandford'' (1857) which the Court also never overturned, leaving its overturn to the Civil War.<ref>'''The Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857) decision was not overturned by a subsequent Supreme Court ruling'''; rather, it was overturned through the Civil War and the passage of constitutional amendments.

<div style="text-indent: 2em;">Here is how the overturning actually took place:</div>

<div style="text-indent: 2em;">The Civil War: Chief Justice Roger Taney’s ruling—which held that African Americans were not citizens under the U.S. Constitution and that Congress had no authority to ban slavery in federal territories—further inflamed sectional tensions, making political compromise nearly impossible and accelerating the path to the Civil War (1861–1865).</div>
    
<div style="text-indent: 2em;">The 13th Amendment (1865): Abolished slavery and involuntary servitude throughout the United States, nullifying the property-rights protections the Court had granted to slaveholders in federal territories.</div>
    
<div style="text-indent: 2em;">The 14th Amendment (1868): Directly struck at the core of the Dred Scott holding regarding citizenship. Its opening sentence (the Citizenship Clause) states: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.” This explicitly granted citizenship to all formerly enslaved people born in the U.S., completely superseding Taney’s ruling.</div>

<div style="text-indent: 2em;">Subsequent Court opinions have universally acknowledged that the Reconstruction Amendments rendered the decision null and void. But the Court had to be forced to abandon Dred Scott, after 11 years during which the Court could have abandoned it on its own - 11 years that included 5 years of war!</div></ref>

'''FOOTNOTES'''
<references />

==Seven ways Congress can force Courts back to the Constitution when being nice fails==

===Overturn Supreme Court precedents that violate rights===

Section 5 of the 14th Amendment says simply “The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.”

Notice with me something profound about that simple statement. Profound, in the incredible capacity humans have of blanking out something as obvious and significant as your living room being shared by an elephant with diarrhea. Read it again:

    “The Congress shall have

    the power to enforce,

    by appropriate legislation,

    the provisions of this article.”

    -- Section 5, 14th Amendment

Did you notice it the second time? No? OK, I’ll give you two minutes. Look at it again for two minutes, and if you still don’t see it, then go ahead and read the next sentence.

''Courts aren’t mentioned.''

The Supreme Court didn’t like the interpretation of Section 5 that a person might be in danger of acquiring by reading it. Here is how the Supreme Court has almost always interpreted it: “The Courts shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate precedents, the provisions of this article.”

From that time to this, whenever Congress has dared to pass a law protecting Constitutional rights under their 14th Amendment authority, the Supreme Court has been faithful to show them who is boss. With a couple of exceptions when the Supreme Court followed the Constitution. One exception was in 1880. The next was in 1966.

Here is how SCOTUS, (Supreme Court Of The United States), in 1880, read that short powerful sentence:

<blockquote>It is not said the judicial power of the general government shall extend to enforcing the prohibitions and to protecting the rights and immunities guaranteed. It is not said that branch of the government shall be authorized to declare void any action of a State in violation of the prohibitions. It is the power of Congress which has been enlarged. Congress is authorized to enforce the prohibitions by appropriate legislation.

Some legislation [by Congress] is contemplated [by the 14th] to make the amendments fully effective. Whatever legislation is appropriate, that is, adapted to carry out the objects the amendments have in view, whatever tends to enforce submission to the prohibitions they contain, and to secure to all persons the enjoyment of perfect equality of civil rights and the equal protection of the laws against State denial or invasion, if not prohibited, is brought within the domain of congressional power.” Ex parte Virginia, 100 U.S. at 345–46.</blockquote>

SCOTUS said much the same thing in 1966:

(Continued at [https://manyadvisorsthinktank.substack.com/p/the-constitution-tells-congress-to The Constitution tells ''Congress'' to overturn ''Supreme Court'' precedents that violate rights, ''not vice versa!''] (According to the Supreme Court in 1880 and 1966, and according to the 14th Amendment)

===Impeach judges who usurp legislative authority===

'''The Constitution authorizes impeachment for judges who who usurp legislative authority, and courts can’t overturn impeachments''' 

Alexander Hamilton was a principal author of The Federalist Papers, a series of articles explaining the Constitution prior to its ratification. The Federalist Papers helped persuade the public and their elected representatives to ratify the Constitution. In them, Hamilton assured the public that Congress is authorized to impeach and remove judges for usurping authority properly belonging to other branches of the government. Hamilton said the source of this authority is the provision in the Constitution that judges can remain in office only during “good behavior”. Hamilton didn’t think usurping authority not allowed by the Constitution is “good behavior”.

Yet most legal scholars today write as if they have either never heard of Hamilton or don’t think he understood the scope of this provision. The preponderance of opinion today is that judges can only be impeached for committing crimes, and egregious violations of the Constitution only count as “partisan disagreement over a court decision”.

<blockquote>...legislators...have threatened to impeach justices...in response to decisions those legislators disagree with. This is not the first time partisan disagreement over a court decision has led to impeachment threats. But if the legislators follow through, they would toss aside a centuries-old understanding that if the impeachment power is used to punish judges for their rulings, it undermines the vital independence of our judicial branch.... - BrennanCenter.org</BLOCKQUOTE>

I find few modern articles that address the problem Hamilton addressed, which goes way beyond some mere “disagreement with rulings”.

Continued at: [https://manyadvisorsthinktank.substack.com/p/the-constitution-authorizes-impeachment The Constitution authorizes impeachment for judges who who usurp legislative authority, and courts can’t overturn impeachments]

===Make the Court agree by at least 7-2 before they can overturn a law===

'''When Congress Nearly Required a 6-3 Majority before the Supreme Court could overturn a law'''

The year: 1868. January.

Congress established their absolute Constitutional right to stop courts from voiding a law for being “unconstitutional” when the justices can’t even agree among themselves that it is unconstitutional.

Several congressmen thought it outrageous that nine men could overturn the constitutional conclusions of 281 Congressmen who included legal scholars equal to the justices. Especially when the justices could barely agree the laws they overturn have any constitutional defect.  Shouldn’t agreement among the justices at least reach two thirds – six to three? 
	
Such a limit would have made it a little harder for divided justices to overturn laws, but hardly impossible: only two dissented in Dred Scott, which had fueled the Civil War by voiding the 30-year-old Missouri Compromise while declaring that no black can be a citizen because he is “property”, and only one dissented in Roe v. Wade which blocked states from stopping the slaughter of over 60 million babies. 

An amendment requiring the justices to be unanimous before they could overturn a law was rejected, but not because Congressmen thought the Constitution didn’t give them that authority, or because they thought it would be unreasonable. The Constitution clearly gives Congress power to enact “exceptions” to the Supreme Court’s jurisdiction.

Continued at [https://manyadvisorsthinktank.substack.com/p/when-congress-nearly-required-a-6 When Congress Nearly Required a 6-3 Majority before the Supreme Court could overturn a law]

==="Jurisdiction stripping": Congress CAN do it===
Biden's Presidential Commission agrees: Congress CAN limit courts to the Constitution! Not even the most daring scenarios of Congress "stripping jurisdiction" from courts can muster consensus among scholars that they can't do it!
https://manyadvisorsthinktank.substack.com/p/bidens-presidential-commission-agrees

===Abe Lincoln: Ignore precedents that aren't "well settled"===

President Lincoln’s 6-point test of whether a Supreme Court ruling is “fully settled”, applied to today’s abomination cases:

1. Was it unanimous? None of SCOTUS’ Landmark Abomination Cases were unanimous. STRONG arguments in dissents explain why they were wrong, if not flagrantly unconstitutional.

2. Was it free of partisan bias? Many justices were confirmed amid strong nation-dividing partisan debate about their approach to moral issues.

3. Was it within the bounds of what was legally expected? Few expected SCOTUS’ many prods towards Hell. Average voters were not merely surprised, but shocked.

4. Was it consistent with the steady historical practice of departments? Schools, states, churches were yanked farther towards Hell than American government had ever forced them.

5. Were the historical facts upon which it was based true? They were based on the claim that God, as revealed in the Bible, is the equal of God as revealed by Moslem terrorists and voodoo witch doctors, which is as far from true as lies can get.

6. Were they consistent with prior precedents? They were wholly unprecedented and in fact they barely acknowledged precedents.

I will add a seventh: 7. Did the Supreme Court even have constitutional authority to take the case? The 14th Amendment gives courts zero authority to protect its version of “fundamental rights” within states that don’t affect other states. Its role is limited to establishing violations of federal laws.

For more: see my article: [https://manyadvisorsthinktank.substack.com/p/a-lincoln-how-to-correct-the-supreme A. Lincoln: “How to Correct the Supreme Court”]


https://manyadvisorsthinktank.substack.com/p/a-lincoln-how-to-correct-the-supreme

===Andy Jackson: Give equal "stare decisis" weight to acts of Congress===


===Prayer!===

===#8: Amending the Constitution. (Oops, not if the Court can neutralize the Amendment!)===

=⚖️ What any Legislature can do to prod Congress & Courts by Exposing Supreme Court Violations of the Constitution through Resolutions=

Any state legislature, with resolutions like these, would prod Congress to take action against violations of the Constitution by courts, and would influence the legal strategies and cases of its own Attorney General, which would prod courts.

Try to imagine the national attention that would follow a single legislature of a "small" state passing, or even just debating, resolutions challenging the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court over "establishment of religion"! 

Or agreeing with Justice Clarence Thomas that the Court's entire system of replacing "enumerated" (listed in the Constitution) rights like "life" and "free expression" for the Bible, with made-up "fundamental" or "substantive due process rights" like murdering your baby or men marrying men, is a dark constitutional fraud which had an even darker beginning!

"Heresy", would cry the mainstream legal community! "A crime against humanity! As terrible [to a liberal] as strangling a puppy! Or saving a baby! And as futile as trying to overturn the Law of Gravity!"

To the extent the challenge is persuasive, it will grow! and start cracks in this Matthew 21:21-22 "Mountain"! 

These "resolutions" are lengthier than I've seen any state pass, so I they will have to be much condensed for the tastes of any state. But that only underlines the fact the problem of correcting the Supreme Court is not a problem of ''not enough'' evidence. There is more evidence than anyone will want! 

These resolutions will also need to be much improved: they are written by only one person. Proverbs 15:22 promises that "purposes are established" through the refinement possible through a "multitude of Counsellors", which is a great way to describe an American legislature. Or church, were a church willing to present the relevant Scriptures in Freedom's forums. 

Congress itself could pass these resolutions. The difference is that Congress is authorized by the Constitution to directly correct these violations, so the "therefore, be it resolved" section could list actions Congress is taking. Or could list actions it ''could'' take beyond actions it is taking separately, if it needs to.

====Resolutions Exposing Constitutional Violations by Courts====

[[File:Whereas_Red_Flag.jpg|thumb|left|30px]] In violation of the Constitution, reality, and normal intelligence, Our Supreme Court rules that all Religions are equal, shoving our Author of Liberty down to the level of  the Father of Lies and religions of terror, and ruling that the Bible is irrelevant to education, government public relations, immigration criteria, or definitions of when a “religion” becomes legally recognizable and prosecutable as “incitement to violence”; and


[[File:Whereas_Red_Flag.jpg|thumb|left|30px]] To keep the myth alive, government-employed teachers, librarians, and others aren't allowed to present any evidence or reasoning that might inadvertently prove that the God of the Bible is real while other ‘gods’ are frauds, or that the Bible aligns with, was the source of, and sustains American Freedom, while other religions undermine Freedom’s foundations; and <ref>Indeed, can a teacher present evidence and reason if it favors the Bible over cannibal recipes? This is the practical effect of 64 years of “establishment” precedents, though this question has not been directly litigated. It should be. </div>
	    
<div style="text-indent: 2em;">Under ''Lemon v. Kurtzman'' (1971) teaching had to have a “secular purpose”. Is telling the truth a secular goal? But what other religion is even sure “truth” exists? Teaching also could not have a primary effect, said the Court, that advances or inhibits religion. This was the killer: evidence and reason advances the Bible and inhibits the pretenders. Teaching also could not be “excessively entangled” with the Bible. Which has the effect of censoring evidence, reason, logic, truth, and reality.</div>
	     
<div style="text-indent: 2em;">Technically, Lemon was overturned by ''Kennedy v. Bremerton'' (2022). The Court replaced it with an approach rooted in historical practices and original understanding of the Establishment Clause. By that test all restrictions against Bibles in schools and in curriculums would be gone, since Bibles were the primary textbook for a century, and “the bulletproof George Washington” was taught along with other miracles proving the involvement of God in American history. But that hasn’t happened yet, has it? Why not?</div>
	     
<div style="text-indent: 2em;">''Kennedy'' overturned ''Lemon'', but not ''Engel v. Vitale'' (1962), ''Abington School District v. Schempp'' (1963) (forbidding a Pennsylvania law requiring 10 Bible verses read daily), ''Lee v. Weisman'' (1992) (no prayers, not even non-sectarian, at graduations), and ''Epperson v. Arkansas'' (1968) (struck down a ban on teaching evolution). So schools still can’t compose prayers, mandate religious exercises,  teach half the evidence of our planet's beginnings, or use the compulsory education apparatus to conduct religious ceremonies.</div> 
	     
<div style="text-indent: 2em;">But what about a comparative religion class that examines truth-claims? What about a history teacher presenting evidence that Christian theology shaped the founding of American Freedom? That was always arguably permissible even under Lemon. But who wants to volunteer to “test” it in court?</div>  

<div style="text-indent: 2em;">If a teacher, during a discussion of world religions, presents arguments for why one tradition’s truth-claims hold up better than another’s, is that an “establishment” or is it academic freedom? The “historical practices” test cuts in favor of more latitude here — the Founders didn't understand the Establishment Clause to require government employees to pretend all religions are epistemically equivalent. How about a history curriculum that teaches that Judeo-Christian principles undergird American founding documents? Certainly the “historical practices” test would protect that course of study, but it would also overturn all other “establishment clause” cases, so I doubt if we can trust the “historical practices” test to actually be honored consistently. But  the courts haven't taken a case where a public school teacher systematically presented evidence that one religion is true and others are false.</div>
	   
<div style="text-indent: 2em;">Must even objectively true facts be suppressed if they happen to cut in Christianity's favor?</div>
	     
<div style="text-indent: 2em;">''Rosenberger v. University of Virginia'' (1995) — The Court held that when the government creates a forum for speech, it cannot discriminate based on viewpoint. UVA funded student publications but excluded religious ones. The Court said no: once you open the forum, you can't exclude Christian perspectives just because they're Christian. Kennedy wrote: “Viewpoint discrimination is... an egregious form of content discrimination.”</div>
	     
<div style="text-indent: 2em;">''Good News Club v. Milford Central School'' (2001) — A public school allowed community groups to use its facilities after hours but excluded a Christian children's club. The Court (6-3) said this was unconstitutional viewpoint discrimination. The school couldn't exclude religious speech from a forum it had opened to everyone else.</div>
	   
<div style="text-indent: 2em;">''Lamb's Chapel v. Center Moriches Union Free School District'' (1993) — School district allowed groups to use facilities for “social, civic, and recreational” purposes but denied a church group wanting to show a film series on family values from a Christian perspective. Unanimous Supreme Court: viewpoint discrimination, unconstitutional.</div>
	     
<div style="text-indent: 2em;">'''If the rule is: “You may present evidence unless it happens to support Christianity” — that’s textbook viewpoint discrimination. But I doubt if any lawyer can assume any court will automatically agree.''' </div>
	     
<div style="text-indent: 2em;">Consider a history teacher covering the abolitionist movement. She assigns readings from Frederick Douglass, William Lloyd Garrison, and Harriet Beecher Stowe. All three were explicitly Christian and grounded their abolitionism in biblical theology. If a student reads these texts and concludes “Christian theology was the moral engine behind emancipation,” [behind ending slavery] has the teacher violated the rule? The evidence was historically accurate. The implication was inadvertent. But the effect favors Christianity’s moral framework.</div>
	    
<div style="text-indent: 2em;">Now consider what happens if a parent complains. The school tells the teacher: “You can't assign those texts anymore — they make Christianity look too good.” That's the state suppressing speech because of its religious viewpoint. Under Rosenberger/Good News/Lamb's Chapel, that's unconstitutional. But consistency has never been the dominant feature of “establishment” cases.</div> 
	     
<div style="text-indent: 2em;">In practical terms, censorship of God continues because it’s cheaper than a lawsuit, no one can be sure what the Court will decide tomorrow, and teacher’s unions have become as anti-God and as censorious as the courts. But the legal foundation for continuing to censor God in schools is weaker than people think – and that’s without even considering the broad assault on court jurisdiction that this paper outlines.</div> 
	     
<div style="text-indent: 2em;">The more basic issue: does a ''state'' have authority to find facts, and to enact laws based on those facts? Can a ''state'' determine what school subjects merit study, and which are to be dismissed as conspiracy theories and superstition?</div> 

More about that later. That is technically a separate Courtroom argument.<br /> 

Can the state legislature base laws on facts relating to the Bible? Can the legislature allow state employees to research facts that might happen to relate to the Bible? </ref>


[[File:Whereas_Red_Flag.jpg|thumb|left|30px]] To avoid financially devastating lawsuits, history teachers must steer clear of  a great many miracles without which Freedom would have been set back centuries.<ref>'''EXAMPLES: The Battle of Brandywine''' (1777) British marksman Patrick Ferguson had a clear shot at a tall American officer on a horse — within range, rifle aimed. He didn't take it, later saying the man had his back turned and it would have been ungentlemanly. That officer was almost certainly Washington. Ferguson was the best marksman in the British army.
	     
<div style="text-indent: 2em;">'''The Evacuation of Long Island''' (August 29-30, 1776) After the disastrous Battle of Brooklyn, Washington's army was trapped against the East River with the British closing in. Annihilation seemed certain. Then a '''freak fog bank''' rolled in overnight — dense enough to conceal movement but thin enough on the river for the boats to navigate. A sudden shift in wind kept British warships from sailing up the East River. Washington evacuated 9,000 men, horses, and artillery across the river to Manhattan in a single night without losing a single man.</div>
	     
<div style="text-indent: 2em;">The British woke up to empty trenches. General Howe's troops had been close enough to hear the Americans but the fog swallowed everything. A British officer later wrote that the fog "seemed almost supernatural."</div>
	    
<div style="text-indent: 2em;">Military historians consider this one of the most improbable successful retreats in the history of warfare.</div>
	     
<div style="text-indent: 2em;">'''The Storm That Saved Washington... Twice'''  The Battle of Trenton (December 26, 1776) — The Covering Storm. Washington crossed the Delaware in a nor'easter that should have been a disaster. Instead, the storm masked the sound of his approach. The Hessians in Trenton had stood down their usual patrols because no sane commander would attack in that weather. The storm also kept British reinforcements from moving. Washington's surprise attack shattered Hessian forces with minimal American casualties.</div>
	     
<div style="text-indent: 2em;">'''The Battle of Princeton''' (January 3, 1777) — The Freezing Roads. After Trenton, Cornwallis trapped Washington against the Delaware again. Washington had his men leave their campfires burning and slipped away at night. The roads had been mud — impassable for artillery. Then the temperature '''suddenly dropped below freezing,''' hardening the ground enough for Washington to move his cannon. Cornwallis woke up to find Washington had vanished and was already attacking Princeton. British soldiers later said the sudden freeze was inexplicable given weather patterns that day.</div>
	     
<div style="text-indent: 2em;">'''The Miracle at Philadelphia''' The Constitutional Convention (1787) The Convention was collapsing. Large states and small states were deadlocked over representation. Tempers were at breaking point. Benjamin Franklin, 81 years old and not particularly orthodox in his personal theology, rose and said: “I have lived, Sir, a long time, and the longer I live, the more convincing proofs I see of this truth — that God Governs in the affairs of men. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without his notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without his aid? ... I therefore beg leave to move — that henceforth prayers imploring the assistance of Heaven, and its blessings on our deliberations, be held in this Assembly every morning before we proceed to business.”</div>
	     
<div style="text-indent: 2em;">The motion passed. The tone shifted. The Great Compromise emerged shortly after. Delegates who had been at each other's throats began finding common ground. Franklin himself considered the final Constitution a providential outcome — he said that when he looked at the sun carved on Washington's chair, he had often wondered whether it was rising or setting, and now he knew “it is a rising and not a setting sun.” </div>
	     
<div style="text-indent: 2em;">'''The Burning of Washington and the Sudden Storm''' August 24-25, 1814</div>
	     
<div style="text-indent: 2em;">The British captured Washington D.C. and burned the White House, the Capitol, and most government buildings. The city was in flames. Then a '''tornado''' touched down in the middle of the city — a freak weather event for the region. The storm killed more British soldiers than American resistance had. A British officer wrote:</div>
	     
<div style="text-indent: 2em;">“Of the prodigious force of the wind it is impossible for you to form any conception. Roofs of houses were torn off and whisked into the air like sheets of paper.”</div>
	     
<div style="text-indent: 2em;">The British withdrew from the city within hours. The storm extinguished fires that would have consumed what remained. The occupation of Washington lasted barely 26 hours. Admiral Cockburn supposedly said to a local woman, “Great God, Madam! Is this the weather to which you are accustomed in this infernal country?” To which she replied, “This is a special interposition of Providence to drive our enemies from our city.”</div>
	     
<div style="text-indent: 2em;">'''The Battle of Midway''' (1942) Less than six months after Pearl Harbor, with the Pacific Fleet crippled, the U.S. faced a Japanese force that outmatched them in carriers, battleships, and experienced pilots. The battle turned around because of a series of improbabilities:</div>
	     
<div style="text-indent: 2em;">American codebreakers had partially cracked Japanese naval codes, but couldn't confirm the target was Midway. They had the base send a fake uncoded message about a water desalination problem. Within hours, Japanese intelligence reported  “AF is short of fresh water.” Confirmed.</div> 
	     
<div style="text-indent: 2em;">American torpedo squadrons were slaughtered — nearly every plane from VT-3, VT-6, and VT-8 was shot down with almost no damage to Japanese carriers. But this pulled Japanese fighter cover down to sea level. At that exact moment, American dive bombers from the ''Enterprise'' arrived at 20,000 feet, unopposed, above four Japanese carriers with decks full of fueled and armed aircraft. '''In roughly five minutes''', three Japanese carriers were turned into infernos. The fourth was sunk later that day. The Japanese had been minutes from launching a strike that would have destroyed the American carriers. The timing wasn't skill — it was the torpedo squadrons arriving earlier than planned, the dive bombers getting lost and finding the fleet by following a lone destroyer, and the Japanese fighter director making the fatal decision to keep all fighters low. Nimitz himself described the outcome as “providential.”</div>
	     
<div style="text-indent: 2em;">'''The Survival of the Declaration and Constitution'''  The War of 1812  When the British burned Washington, Dolley Madison refused to flee until Gilbert Stuart's portrait of Washington was cut from its frame and saved. But more critically, State Department clerks '''physically carried the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution out of the city''' in linen sacks, fleeing ahead of the British advance. They hid them in a gristmill in Virginia. If those clerks had panicked or delayed, the founding documents would have been ash.</div>
	     
<div style="text-indent: 2em;">'''The Civil War'''   During the Civil War, Lincoln had the Constitution and Declaration moved to Fort Knox — but not before they'd survived multiple close calls, including being hidden in a church in Leesburg, Virginia while Confederate troops passed nearby.</div>
	     
<div style="text-indent: 2em;">'''The Miracle Morning at Antietam''' (1862) The Confederate General Lee’s Special Order 191 — his entire battle plan for the Maryland campaign — was found wrapped around three cigars in a field by Union soldiers. The orders had been lost by a Confederate courier. They detailed Lee’s divided forces and exact movements. McClellan got the intelligence. He famously failed to exploit it fully, but even with his characteristic timidity, the discovery prevented what could have been a decisive Confederate victory on Northern soil. The timing of the discovery — hours earlier or later and it would have been useless — was improbable to the point of absurdity.</div>
	     
<div style="text-indent: 2em;">'''The Unprotected Capital''' (1861) After Fort Sumter, Washington D.C. sat essentially undefended between Virginia (seceded) and Maryland (teetering). Lincoln looked out the White House windows and could see Confederate flags across the Potomac. The 6th Massachusetts regiment was trying to reach Washington but pro-Confederate mobs in Baltimore were attacking federal troops. If Maryland had seceded, Washington would have been surrounded — the war might have ended before it began. Maryland didn't secede. The moment passed. The 6th Massachusetts made it through. The capital held. The margin was razor-thin and depended on decisions made by individual Maryland legislators under immense pressure.</div>
	     
<div style="text-indent: 2em;">'''The Pattern''': What unites these events isn't just that they're improbable. It's that participants — often skeptical, nonreligious, or nominally Christian men — interpreted them as divine intervention at the time. Washington, Franklin, Lincoln, and Nimitz weren't preachers. They were soldiers, statesmen, and pragmatists. Yet each pointed to specific events and said, in effect: we should not have survived that, and the only explanation is Providence.</div>
	    
<div style="text-indent: 2em;">'''Secular historians''': “Just coincidences. Lucky breaks. Selection bias - we only hear about the close calls that went our way.” But these “coincidences” were so “lucky” that it takes more faith to imagine they could have occurred without God. Especially the bullets.</div></ref> Especially events like the Miracle of Dunkirk,<ref>'''The Miracle of Dunkirk.''' Favorable weather—calm seas and low clouds—helped the Dunkirk evacuation by keeping the English Channel unusually smooth for small boats and shielding troops from German air attacks with thick overcast and drifting smoke.  338,000 soldiers were evacuated at almost the beginning of WWII over several days during which Hitler, equally miraculously, held back his forces from decimating our forces. The loss of that many soldiers that early would have lost the war. Those twin miracles inspired the “rallying cry for the duration of the war”, “The Miracle at Dunkirk”, reports [https://History.com/articles/Dunkirk History.com]
	     
<div style="text-indent: 2em;">[https://Sciencewatch.blog/weather-during-dunkirk-evacuation Sciencewatch.blog]: “The weather during the Dunkirk evacuation (May 26 – June 4, 1940) was characterized by an extraordinary atmospheric anomaly featuring near-perfect calm in the English Channel [for most of nine days!] and localized 'sea fret' fog [combined with smoke from nearby burning oil refineries, blown over Dunkirk by wind traveling just the right direction to make visibility zero for German planes!]. This combination—a result of a stagnant high-pressure system—was the primary catalyst for the 'Miracle of Dunkirk,' enabling small, non-seaworthy civilian vessels to cross the Channel while simultaneously grounding much of the German Luftwaffe's dive-bomber fleet during key phases of Operation Dynamo.” For more about the nine miraculous days of  weather anomalies timed perfectly with the need for protection of our armies, see  Sciencewatch.blog.</div> </ref> the “bulletproof George Washington”,<ref> '''The "Bulletproof" George Washington - Braddock's Defeat (1755)'''     
Washington, then 23, served as aide-de-camp to General Braddock during the French and Indian War. At the Battle of the Monongahela, Braddock's force was ambushed. Braddock was mortally wounded. Washington had two horses shot out from under him and later discovered '''four musket ball holes through his coat''' — yet not a single wound. He wrote to his brother: “By the all-powerful dispensations of Providence, I have been protected beyond all human probability or expectation.” An Indian chief later told Washington that he had ordered his warriors to target him specifically, and after firing repeatedly with no effect, concluded he was under the protection of the Great Spirit.</ref>or the bullet that nipped President Trump’s ear.<ref>See my article, “Politics jarred nearly awake by a miracle” at https://manyadvisorsthinktank.substack.com/p/politics-jarred-nearly-awake-by-a  Trump’s head had been at the same angle until the bullet struck. The trajectory of the bullet in relation to his head, widely published, showed it was about an inch off dead center. But he turned his head for a quarter of a second to point to an immigration chart. No longer than a quarter of a second, and then turned his head back. But during that quarter of a second the bullet struck, but because of the different angle it took out only a chunk of Trump’s ear. Later another immigration chart was widely published as most likely posted by the assassin. I wrote an article about the contrasting immigration charts that God was clearly bringing to America’s attention, at [https://manyadvisorsthinktank.substack.com/p/dueling-immigration-charts-an-assassins “Dueling Immigration Charts: An Assassin’s Motive, God’s Focus”] Similarly miraculous was President Reagan’s survival from being shot only two months after his inauguration. What made this seem especially miraculous was that the media at the time was full of expectation that he ''would'' be shot or otherwise die while in office, because that is what had happened every 20 years since 1840. Presidents elected in 1860, 1880, 1900, 1920, 1940, and 1960 had died in office. When Reagan was shot, the whole nation saw confirmation of the ancient curse. When he recovered, the curse was broken. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curse_of_Tippecanoe</ref>


[[File:Whereas_Red_Flag.jpg|thumb|left|30px]]'''The Bible gave America the very ''idea'' of “rights”.''' But the Court didn't just neutralize the Bible's role - the Court usurped that role for itself! It appointed ''itself'' the sole interpreter of “rights” - Congress can't even be allowed to ''“interpret”'' the Constitution! ''Boerne v. Flores'' (1997) literally says: “Legislation which deters or remedies constitutional violations can fall within the sweep of Congress' enforcement power...[but the 14th Amendment] depriv[es] Congress of any power to interpret and elaborate on its meaning...thereby leaving the interpretive power with the Judiciary....Congress' power [is] not the power to determine what is a constitutional violation." The Court really said that! Congress can ''enforce'' the Constitution - Congress just can't be allowed to know what's in it! And


[[File:Whereas_Red_Flag.jpg|thumb|left|30px]]Courts don't decide whether a right is "constitutional" by whether it is listed in the Constitution, but by whether the Court calls it “fundamental”, by no criteria more objective or voter-validated than the Court’s own subjective say-so! That's how moms murdering babies, and men marrying men, got “incorporated” into the Constitution! Whether a right is listed in the Constitution is so irrelevant that the 2nd Amendment right to keep and bear arms waited 134 years until 2010 to become “fundamental” enough for “incorporation”! And


[[File:Whereas_Red_Flag.jpg|thumb|left|30px]]Justice Thomas describes the scandalous displacement of Constitutional rights with “incorporated” “Substantive Due Process [made up] Rights” in ''Dobbs v. Jackson'' (2022) and ''McDonald v. City of Chicago'' (2010). Only 5 years after the 14th Amendment was ratified in 1868 to defend the rights of the newly freed slaves, there was voter fraud in a race for governor. About 150 blacks, not well armed, were defending a courthouse in Colfax, Louisiana, when 300 KKK terrorists overcame them shot most of them after they surrendered, burned alive the rest who were in the courthouse they burned down, and dumped their bodies in the river. That same year, in order to find guilty several butchers who were polluting the same river upstream from New Orleans with their animal waste, the Supreme Court decided that the 14th Amendment didn't protect very many of the rights listed in the Constitution, after all. When the Colfax case got to the Supreme Court 3 years later, in order to ''acquit'' the KKK mob, the court cut the ''rest''of the rights listed in the Constitution from what the 14th Amendment protects! Pollution from the bodies of dead animals, gotta stop that. But just from the dead bodies of "niggers", the court didn't just say that was OK, they neutralized the entire 14th Amendment protection of the rights of blacks, to underline how OK that was! Justice Thomas eloquently explains the pure evil of the system, concluding that it “strains credulity for even the most casual user of words.” Which is the politest possible way a lawyer can say “stupid”.


'''FOOTNOTES'''
<references />

=✞ Bible Study: What God promises that YOU can do!=

=✞ Bible study: The more Bible Influence, the more Freedom for Everyone=



=⚠️ Other issues: Abortion, Immigration=

Whereas, Roe v Wade acknowledged that when it is established that babies of people are people, then “of course” killing them via abortion will have to be outlawed. AND
	
Whereas, Dobbs v. Jackson opened its ruling with the admission that the case was decided without addressing whether babies of people are people. AND
	
Whereas, 18 U.S.C. 1841(d), enacted by Congress in 2004, on April 1, establishes the fact that babies of people are people. AND
	
Whereas, killing people who are innocent and who are not threatening anybody is the crime of Murder and cannot be allowed by law without gross harm to the Constitution and the very Rule of Law. 
	
Therefore, be it resolved, that: Congress finds that human life begins at conception and that unborn humans are ‘persons’ within the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment. No court of the United States shall have jurisdiction to hear any claim that is affected by a determination of whether an unborn child of a human is a person, except where the court holds that such child is a person, or states in writing the factual and textual basis for concluding that the child of a human is not a person. Any such holding shall be made expressly, in a signed opinion, and not by implication, silence, or assumption. AND
	
BE it resolved, that the Court, before holding that the child of a human is not a person, shall present evidence for that holding overwhelming enough to overcome the 100% consensus of court-recognized fact finders that have taken a position, in every category of court-recognized fact finders: in trials of people for saving babies, every expert witness, every jury allowed to rule on the “Necessity Defense” who heard expert witnesses, 38 state legislatures in “unborn victims of violence” laws, Congress in 18 U.S.C. 1841(d), and every individual judge that has taken a position, has ruled that babies of people are people.