John Chapter 14 KJV:

John Chapter 14 KJV:

Let not your heart be troubled: ye believe in God, believe also in me.

2In my Father’s house are many mansions: if it were not so, I would have told you. I go to prepare a place for you.

3And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again, and receive you unto myself; that where I am, there ye may be also.

4And whither I go ye know, and the way ye know.

5Thomas saith unto him, Lord, we know not whither thou goest; and how can we know the way?

6Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.

7If ye had known me, ye should have known my Father also: and from henceforth ye know him, and have seen him.

8Philip saith unto him, Lord, shew us the Father, and it sufficeth us.

9Jesus saith unto him, Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip? he that hath seen me hath seen the Father; and how sayest thou then, Shew us the Father?

10Believest thou not that I am in the Father, and the Father in me? the words that I speak unto you I speak not of myself: but the Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth the works.

11Believe me that I am in the Father, and the Father in me: or else believe me for the very works’ sake.

12Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me, the works that I do shall he do also; and greater works than these shall he do; because I go unto my Father.

13And whatsoever ye shall ask in my name, that will I do, that the Father may be glorified in the Son.

14If ye shall ask any thing in my name, I will do it.

15If ye love me, keep my commandments.

16And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever;

17Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you.

18I will not leave you comfortless: I will come to you.

19Yet a little while, and the world seeth me no more; but ye see me: because I live, ye shall live also.

20At that day ye shall know that I am in my Father, and ye in me, and I in you.

21He that hath my commandments, and keepeth them, he it is that loveth me: and he that loveth me shall be loved of my Father, and I will love him, and will manifest myself to him.

22Judas saith unto him, not Iscariot, Lord, how is it that thou wilt manifest thyself unto us, and not unto the world?

23Jesus answered and said unto him, If a man love me, he will keep my words: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him.

24He that loveth me not keepeth not my sayings: and the word which ye hear is not mine, but the Father’s which sent me.

25These things have I spoken unto you, being yet present with you.

26But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.

27Peace 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.

28Ye have heard how I said unto you, I go away, and come again unto you. If ye loved me, ye would rejoice, because I said, I go unto the Father: for my Father is greater than I.

29And now I have told you before it come to pass, that, when it is come to pass, ye might believe.

30Hereafter I will not talk much with you: for the prince of this world cometh, and hath nothing in me.

31But that the world may know that I love the Father; and as the Father gave me commandment, even so I do. Arise, let us go hence.

Not covered under the First Amendment- The ACLU is wrong about Trump and incitement to violence:

Not covered under the First Amendment- The ACLU is wrong about Trump and incitement to violence:

A liberal law professor disagrees with the ACLU’s defense of Trump’s speech at a rally where violence occurred



Last week, federal judge David Hale ruled that Trump’s exhortation for the audience at a March 2016 rally in Louisville, Kentucky, to “get ’em [three protesters] out of here” could be incitement. That is unusual enough to make headlines, especially because the defendant is Donald Trump. But the real shocker is that last week, the ACLU publicly defended Trump. The ACLU has defended Trump. The ACLU. Donald Trump. Defended.

I am a professor of law at the University of Louisville. I studied constitutional law with Erwin Chemerinsky at the University of Southern California and I received a PhD in Law at Queen Mary University of London. I have previously written on comparative constitutional law, including freedom of expression. And, I have to say, Judge Hale’s opinion was almost shocking to me. Incitement always seemed to me, from my early days in law school, to be this almost impossible standard that has resulted in a remarkably unchanging doctrine. I haven’t heard of an incitement argument being accepted by a court in years, if not decades.

That all changed earlier this month. The incitement case against Trump, Nwanguma v. Trump, was filed after three protesters said they were physically assaulted at a Trump rally. The three protesters, who stated they were at the rally to protest peacefully, were allegedly shoved and punched by rally attendees. The entire exchange was captured on film and widely broadcast in the media. In their lawsuit, the three plaintiffs have alleged that the violence occurred as a result of Trump’s command to his audience to get them out of the building. Their claim that Trump incited the crowd is part of their argument that Trump’s speech should not be protected by the First Amendment, leaving him open to the rest of their legal claims. [Disclosure: The lawyer representing the plaintiffs in the case against Donald Trump and his supporters has written for Salon.]

What makes the Trump incitement case so unusual is that it concerns political speech, both from the alleged inciter and the victims of the incitement. Political speech, particularly speech at political rallies, is basically the sweet spot for First Amendment protection. You can’t get much more in tune with what the Constitution was meant to protect, at least according to the Supreme Court.

So what happens when political speakers collide, literally? On one hand you have the protesters, silently holding signs that insulted or criticized Donald Trump. (Ms. Nwanguma held a poster of Mr. Trump’s face transposed on the body of a pig.) This is clearly political, protected speech. On the other hand, you have Donald Trump, a fiery presidential candidate, telling adoring masses about his candidacy and how he wants to make the country better. Again, political speech.

Whom is the First Amendment supposed to protect?

According to Trump’s lawyers, Trump did not commit incitement because forcefully ejecting the protesters was not an unlawful act. Why? Because the protesters were trespassing. By conflating property owners and property possessors, Trump’s attorneys actually argue that people who come to a public rally can be subjected to violence if the people who are using the space at the time decide that they don’t want them there. Somehow, it was the trespassers silently holding signs that were breaching the peace and not the people shoving and grabbing at them.

Another argument made by Trump’s lawyers is that when he said “get ’em out of here,” he meant to do it nicely. Apparently, Trump’s later statement “don’t hurt them” proves his intent was for a calm, peaceful removal of the protesters. Again, this intent is belied by the video of the event as well as Trump’s prior statements about protesters. As Judge Hale noted, Trump’s “don’t hurt them” was said much more meekly. Compared to his fiery and repeated prior orders to eject the protesters, this statement does nothing to show that Trump was not getting exactly what he wanted when the crowd forcibly ejected the protesters from the building.

Trump’s attorneys have also attempted to minimize the impact of Trump’s prior statements that advocated violence against protesters, arguing that the plaintiffs identified only three prior speeches that included advocacy of violence against protesters, and no violence occurred then so those speeches don’t provide valuable context for the Louisville rally. However, three prior speeches where a presidential candidate specifically approved of violence against protesters who attended his rallies is actually a lot. Certainly a lot more than other presidential candidates, who generally don’t advocate violence at all. It is disingenuous to ignore the build-up of highly publicized rhetoric or to act as though Trump’s prior statements were not in his fans’ minds that day. Unsurprisingly, Judge Hale did not agree with any of these assertions.

No, it is the ACLU that has jumped to Trump’s defense after Judge Hale issued his decision. According to Lee Rowland, a staff attorney for the ACLU, although a “close” call, Trump’s speech did not amount to incitement.

Rowland actually agrees that what Trump’s supporters did was unlawful because the protesters were not entitled to protest at Trump’s privately run rally. As Rowland notes, Trump had the right to tell them to leave. Unfortunately, that’s not what Trump did. He didn’t talk to the protesters; he spoke to the crowd and told them to eject the protesters. Second, Rowland argues that Trump “disavowed violence” simply by adding “don’t hurt them” later, noting that Trump also told the crowd “I can’t say ‘go get ’em’ or I’ll get in trouble.” Judge Hale found that to be evidence that Trump didn’t really mean to call off the mob; he just didn’t want to be blamed for his own actions. For some reason, the ACLU is a lot kinder to Trump than a federal judge.

The final piece of the ACLU’s defense of Trump, and the one that gets deepest into First Amendment cases, is Rowland’s argument that Trump’s words were not “likely to incite violence.” To make this argument, Rowland brushes off the claims of one of the assailants who counter-sued Trump by arguing that he did take Trump’s words as an order, which he obeyed.

In this Bizarro-World scenario, this bleeding-heart-liberal legal academic has to come out and say something I didn’t think I would ever have to say: I think the ACLU is wrong. I think ACLU has misinterpreted the requirements for incitement.

The seminal incitement cases cited in the ACLU blog were decided in the 1960s and 1970s and involved civil rights issues or anti-war protests. Brandenburg v. Ohioinvolved a filmed speech of a Ku Klux Klan leader burning a cross and giving a speech that denigrated black people and stated that they might need to take “revengeance” against the government if it continued to suppress the Caucasian race. According to the Supreme Court in Brandenburg, that speech was not incitement because, in order to legally incite a crowd, you can’t just be “advocating” for criminal activity, you have to be “preparing a group for violent action and steeling it to such action.”

The other cases cited by the ACLU in its defense of Trump largely say the same thing. Hess v. Indiana (an anti-war protestor who said “We’ll take the fucking streets later”) and NAACP v. Claiborne Hardware (civil rights icon Charles Evers, who threatened to “break the damn neck” of anyone who broke the boycott) both show that threats aren’t enough. It has to be aimed to produce a response, and an immediate one. Hess’s speech wasn’t incitement because there was no immediate call to action. Evers’ speech was also just a threat, and one contingent on someone acting a certain way in the future. Threats, no matter how graphic, do not constitute incitement.

Since then, incitement has been argued in a surprising variety of cases, and almost always unsuccessfully. For example, incitement claims have been unsuccessfully tried against violent video gamesgiving advice on how to be a successful gang member, and requesting (but not possessing) child pornography. It is not unexpected that these — and I’m being charitable here — creative arguments for incitement did not persuade the courts to expand its reach. In those cases, there was no command to violence and the resulting harm (if any was found) was too temporally removed from the speech.

But there have been some recent cases where a court has allowed a claim of incitement to go forward, and those cases shed some light on what is happening here. A 2009 case, United States v. Stewart, found that a spiritual leader’s publicized withdrawal of support for a cease-fire could be seen as “a call to arms” to his followers to commit violence, placing it in the realm of incitement.

Another 2009 case, United States v. Fulmer, found potential incitement where leaders of an animal rights group used their website and email to urge “supporters to participate in [illegal] electronic civil disobedience at a specified time.” The defendants were found to have engaged in incitement because they clearly had control over the timing of the illegal “virtual sit-ins” that clogged websites of targeted companies — they stated when a “virtual sit-in” was to start and, when they announced it had been successful, the “virtual sit-in” stopped.

Both Stewart and Fulmer show how incitement can be found in modern scenarios, and Trump’s speech fits right in. Indeed, Trump’s order to “get ’em out of here” is a much more explicit “call to arms” than the statements made in Stewart. The immediacy of his order — the implied “get them out now” — makes the harm more imminent than in the case of Fulmer.

And the most damning piece of evidence against Trump, and the ACLU’s defense of him, is that his other statements approving of violence against protesters clearly are not incitement. Just looking at two of the most offensive of Trump’s statements made at prior rallies shows the difference — the legally significant difference — between what was said before and what was said in Louisville.

First, at a rally on Feb. 1, 2016, Trump told the crowd “[i]f you see somebody getting ready to throw a tomato, knock the crap out of them . . . Just knock the hell out of them. I promise you, I will pay for the legal fees.”

Like the speech made by Evers in the Claiborne Hardware case, Trump’s words at the February rally were not orders or commands to an audience because they contained a contingency: Act violently only if something specific happens. The contingency is key because it removes the immediacy and the command aspects of the speech. Instead, the speech is just advocacy of potential future violence if certain conditions are met.

At his Feb. 23 rally, which was mere days before the Louisville rally, Trump told the crowd, “[h]ere’s a guy, throwing punches, nasty as hell, screaming at everything else, when we’re talking. . . I’d like to punch him in the face, I tell ya.” This statement is even further from incitement. It’s a statement of approval of violent action, but it isn’t even suggesting that others engage in that behavior.

That’s what makes the Louisville rally so unique. Trump didn’t say “we’ll get them out” or “if they don’t leave, we’ll take them out.” There was no promise of future violence, no contingency upon which violence could occur. He didn’t express a desire to inflict violence or say he hoped that someone would get them out. He told his audience to “get ’em out.” It was a call to act, to get the protesters out of the building. Immediately. According to the complaint, at the Louisville rally, Trump spoke, knowing that violence was likely to occur as a result of his words. And violence did occur.

Rowland’s main point in her article is that we shouldn’t allow our distaste of Trump to allow courts to shrink the protections of the First Amendment. To that argument, I would counter that we shouldn’t allow our love of the First Amendment to blind us to the fact that a man commanded a room to use force against peaceful protesters. Donald Trump’s words don’t deserve First Amendment protection, even under the very stringent Brandenburg standard. What he did was precisely why the incitement doctrine was created — to stop speech that leads directly to violence. This was not advocacy; it was a call to arms.

With all due respect to the ACLU, what Trump did was textbook incitement. The First Amendment should provide him no safe harbor.



Supreme Court rips Trump administration attorney for suggesting someone can lose citizenship for lying:

Supreme Court rips Trump administration attorney for suggesting someone can lose citizenship for lying:

If there’s something the liberal and conservative justices can agree on, it’s piling on terrible arguments

Supreme Court rips Trump administration attorney for suggesting someone can lose citizenship for lying

Less than a week after casting his first vote as a justice of the Supreme Court, Neil Gorsuch and his eight fellow judges listened to President Donald Trump’s assistant solicitor general make an argument about citizenship that many of them felt was over the top.

Assistant to the Solicitor General Robert A. Parker had his work cut out for him when arguing for the Trump administration’s position in Maslenjak v. United States, a case that hinges on whether naturalized American citizens can lose their citizenship in a criminal proceeding if they are discovered to have made an immaterial false statement. Despite his best efforts, Parker seemed incapable of effectively addressing the justices’ increasingly incredulous questions.

Chief Justice John Roberts asked Parker if, “some time ago, outside the statute of limitations, I drove 60 miles an hour in a 55-mile-an-hour zone,” had not been caught and lied many years later after being asked about it, “you can knock on my door and say, ‘Guess what, you’re not an American citizen after all?’”

When Parker responded that this was the case, Roberts couldn’t contain his disbelief. “Oh come on!” he replied. Roberts pressed him on whether the administration was arguing that someone should lose citizenship by leaving out that detail, and Parker insisted, “If we can prove that you deliberately lied in answering that question, then yes.”

Justice Sonia Sotomayor asked whether this logic could be applied to embarrassing childhood nicknames, while Justice Elena Kagan posed a hypothetical possibility that most American can relate to, remarking that she was a “little bit horrified to know that every time I lie about my weight it has those kinds of consequences.”

Parker told her that their interpretation of the law applied to even trivial false statements.

Justice Stephen Breyer pointed out the obvious — namely, that the Trump administration’s interpretation of immigration law was such that it “would throw into doubt the citizenship of vast percentages of all naturalized citizens.”

Roberts added, “If you take the position that not answering about the speeding ticket or the nickname is enough to subject that person to denaturalization, the government will have the opportunity to denaturalize anyone they want.”

Perhaps the most scathing condemnation came from Justice Anthony Kennedy, however, who bluntly told Parker that his argument “is demeaning the priceless value of citizenship. You’re arguing for the government of the United States, talking about what citizenship is and ought to mean.”


3 Characters in The Psychopath’s Love Triangle:

3 Characters in The Psychopath’s Love Triangle:

Think about the amount of calculation & planning it must take to pull this off. They are cunning, cold, and very aware of their own behavior.

There are three main characters in a psychopath’s love triangle. Each with very specific masks they must apply:

1) You: Unlike the normal shame felt during a cheating relationship, the psychopath actually goes out of their way to ensure you know about their infidelities, without ever admitting to them. This involves openly flirting with others (often over Facebook), bragging to you about all of the people who want to sleep with them, and calling you crazy & jealous when you react accordingly. The mask is covert, ambiguous, condescending, pseudo-concerned, and always trying to keep you doubting the relationship.

2) The New Target: Unlike with you, the psychopath is not interested in torturing the new target yet. Instead, they use your pending self-destruction to lure in the next victim, the “favorite”. As they watch you fall apart, it is easy to point at your desperate texts and evoke sympathy from the new target about how crazy you’ve gotten. The psychopath will put the new target on a pedestal, explaining how much happier they feel now. The new target will feel elated, being the one to save the psychopath from their supposedly abusive partner (you). The mask is innocent, sympathetic, pity-filled, and very flattering.

3) The Fan Club: The psychopath also needs to keep a close watch on their supply of friendships. Even the least perceptive person in the world could notice when a relationship coup is happening. So instead of openly cheating and replacing (like they do with you), the psychopath must be more careful. They will engage in serious talks with their friends about how much the current relationship is hurting them, and start to hand out shallow praise as a way to ensure loyalty. This is preemptive damage control, to make sure they remain in a favorable light even after the obvious cheating. They want to be sure their fan club is there to clap louder than ever before when they put the new target on display, showing just how perfect their new life is. Every bit of support they get from their friends is another nail in the coffin to triangulate you and make you wonder how in the world anyone could support this person. The mask is schmoozing, charming, self-victimizing, and ultimately very cheerful when it comes time to parade the new target, receiving all of the support & congratulations they crave.

Think about the amount of calculation & planning it must take to pull this off. They are cunning, cold, and very aware of their own behavior. They take on three different personas in order to make you doubt your own sanity. This is not accidental, and it is not insensitive. It is pure evil.

10 Powerful Scriptures to Pray over Your Family:

10 Powerful Scriptures to Pray over Your Family:

Father, may ______ offer his body to You as a living sacrifice, holy and pleasing to You as an act of true worship.   May he not conform to the pattern of this world, but be transformed by the renewing of his mind. May he test and approve your good, pleasing and perfect will (Romans 12:1-2).

 Lord, may _____ rejoice in You always.  May her gentleness be evident to all.  Help her to not be anxious about anything, but to present her requests to You because You are near.  May Your peace guard her heart and mind.  Help her to think on what is true, noble, right, pure, lovely, admirable, excellent, and praiseworthy.  May she put into practice all that she has learned, received, and heard from Your Word (Philippians 4:4-9).

May _____ clothe himself with compassion, kindness, humility, gentleness and patience. Help him to forgive any one he has a grievance against as You have forgiven him, Lord.  May he love and walk in unity with others.   Let the peace of Christ rule in his heart.  Help him to be thankful.  May Your message dwell in him richly with all wisdom.  May he sing to You with gratitude in his heart. May whatever he does be done in Christ’s name.  (Colossians 3:12-17).

Lord God, help _____ not to be arrogant nor to put her hope in uncertain wealth, but to put her hope in You, her Provider. Help her to be rich in good deeds, be generous and willing to share.  May she lay up spiritual treasure for herself so that she may take hold of the life that is truly life (I Timothy 6:17-19).

Creator God, help ____ to flee the evil desires of youth and pursue righteousness, faith, love and peace, along with those who call on You out of a pure heart. May he have nothing to do with foolish arguments and quarrels (II Timothy 2:22-23).

God, our Defender, help ____ to have a mind that is alert and sober.  May her hope be set on your grace to come.  Help her to be an obedient daughter who does not conform to evil desires, but may she be holy in all that she does (I Peter 1:13-16).

Warrior God, help ______ humble himself under Your mighty hand, that You may lift him up in due time.  May he cast all his anxiety on You.  Help him to be alert and of sober mind.  May he resist the roaring enemy lion and stand firm in the faith.  Remind him and encourage him that the family of believers throughout the world is undergoing the same kind of sufferings (I Peter 5:6-9).

Father, may _____ make every effort to add to her faith goodness, knowledge, self-control, perseverance, godliness, mutual affection, and love.  Help her to be effective and productive in her knowledge of Christ.  May she never become nearsighted and forget that she has been cleansed from her past sins (I Peter 1:5-9).

Lord God, may _____ love You with all his heart, soul, and strength.  May your commandments be impressed on his heart.  May he talk about them when he is at home or on the road, when he lies down and when he gets up (Deuteronomy 6:5-7).

Lord, let the words of _____ ‘s mouth and the meditation of her heart be pleasing in your sight (Psalms 19:14).