Connect with us

Chief Justice Roy Moore’s Top Lawyer Says ‘Public Officials Are Ministers Of God’

Published

on

“You must pick — God or Satan.” The top attorney working for the Chief Justice of the Alabama Supreme Court apparently has never read the first Amendment.

“Jesus Christ is Lord of all.”

That’s how a letter to the Governor of Alabama, written by the top lawyer for State Supreme Court Chief Justice Roy Moore, began.

Win Johnson is Moore’s top lawyer and serves as the director of the legal staff of the Administrative Office of Courts, running Alabama’s court system, headed by Moore. Johnson sent a scathing letter for Alabama Gov. Robert Bentley, that in part claims, 

“Public officials are ministers of God assigned the duty of punishing the wicked and protecting the righteous. You cannot serve two masters: you must pick — God or Satan.”

and

“The criminal laws against homosexual sodomy are for the protection of the righteous, particularly the young, the weak, the vulnerable, who need the law to teach them right from wrong when in a vulnerable state. The U.S. Supreme Court, although it claims to have done so in 2003, cannot take something that God calls a crime and declare it not a crime.”  

The religious and caustic missive was sent directly to David Byrne, Gov. Bentley’s legal adviser, in response to Gov. Bentley’s statement Alabama would honor the Supreme Court’s ruling on same-sex marriage. It was long and filled with fire-and-brimstone warnings, and even Nazi references.

“Will you stand up for the law of Alabama, for the people, for the weak and vulnerable, for the law of God?  Or will you capitulate?  Will you become complicit in the takeover by the wicked?,” Johnson asks in his letter.

“‘I must follow the law,’ you say. Law? What law? There is no law anymore, there’s just opinion. One day this, one day that. When the law becomes merely the opinion of a handful of people on the courts, there is no longer any law. There is tyranny.  There is chaos. But there is no law.”

Judge Moore spent Monday delivering false statements about the Supreme Court’s ruling in a clear attempt to sow confusion, fear, and frustration in same-sex couples as well as the probate judges responsible for issuing marriage licenses and officiating weddings.

Here is the full, rambling, hysterical, text of Win Johnson’s screed, via AL.com:

Time for Public Officials to take their stand one way or the other

Jesus Christ is Lord of all. He came to save the world by His death and resurrection. That world includes you, me, the family, the civil government, all the institutions of life. He came to advance His Father’s kingdom, not watch man run rampant upon the earth as if Christ had never come. As if it were the days of Noah!

Public officials are ministers of God assigned the duty of punishing the wicked and protecting the righteous. If the public officials decide to officially approve of the acts of the wicked, they must logically not protect the righteous from the wicked. In fact, they must become protectors of the wicked. You cannot serve two masters; you must pick – God or Satan.

The criminal laws against homosexual sodomy are for the protection of the righteous, particularly the young, the weak, the vulnerable, who need the law to teach them right from wrong when in a vulnerable state. The U.S. Supreme Court, although it claims to have done so in 2003, cannot take something that God calls a crime and declare it not a crime.  

We’re facing something even worse now, the civil government taking a new step and actually requiring the approval and sanctifying by the state of an evil behavior. Five justices on the U.S. Supreme Court have now opined that the States of this country and all of us must approve of so-called marriages of same sex couples.

Therefore, the civil government must now become a persecuting power; you cannot avoid it. The civil government must protect what it approves of. It must protect the advocates’ employment, their business dealings, their lives in every way. Against whom? Against those who think their lifestyle is evil. That’s you and me, bible-believing Christians, the Church, etc.

Public official, what will you do? Will you stand up for the law of Alabama, for the people, for the weak and vulnerable, for the law of God? Or will you capitulate? Will you become complicit in the takeover by the wicked?  

“I must follow the law,” you say. Law? What law? There is no law anymore, there’s just opinion. One day this, one day that. When the law becomes merely the opinion of a handful of people on the courts, there is no longer any law. There is tyranny. There is chaos. But there is no law.

The young and the weak, those that are caused to stumble by courts that approve of what is evil, are those whom Jesus referred to when he said, “It were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and he cast into the sea, than that he should offend one of these little ones.” Luke 17:2. You don’t want to be complicit in allowing such stumbling blocks.

Don’t use the Nazi war-crimes trial defense: “My superiors (or the courts) told me to do it.” You’re not standing for the rule of law when you capitulate to a law that defies God and exposes people to the wicked. You’re just a coward making excuses!

Or will your conscience cause you to resign? Why would you leave the people of this State, their children, your children and grandchildren to the wolves, those who would rend the society apart with their denial of what’s good and evil?

Your duty is to stand against the ravages of a superior authority that would go beyond its rightful power and force upon the people something evil. That’s what the founders of our country did when Parliament exceeded its powers. That’s what the Puritans in civil government in the 1600’s did when the King exceeded his powers.

On Judgment Day, you won’t stand in front of the media, the advocates of “Equality,” or even the federal courts; you’ll stand before the King of Kings, the Judge and Ruler over the Kings of the Earth, Jesus Christ. His law is not subject to the vote of man, and He, asthe good and loving author of that law, does not exempt any nation from it. The law’s author, speaking of Himself as “the stone which the builders rejected,” said, “Whosoever shall fall upon that stone shall be broken; but on whomsoever it shall fall, it will grind him to powder.” Luke 20:18.

What can you do? You have authority as an elected official. You also are sworn to uphold the U.S. Constitution and Alabama Constitution. Find a way to do so. Don’t acquiesce to the takeover (actually the takedown)!  Use your authority and every legal angle to oppose the tyrants!  If necessary, just say, “No.” It is not rebellion for you to say, “Your interpretation of the Constitution is wrong, beyond your authority, and detrimental to this nation.” In fact, it’s your duty. You’re not opposing the rule of law, you’re upholding it by saying that.

 

Image via Facebook

Continue Reading
Click to comment
 
 

Enjoy this piece?

… then let us make a small request. The New Civil Rights Movement depends on readers like you to meet our ongoing expenses and continue producing quality progressive journalism. Three Silicon Valley giants consume 70 percent of all online advertising dollars, so we need your help to continue doing what we do.

NCRM is independent. You won’t find mainstream media bias here. From unflinching coverage of religious extremism, to spotlighting efforts to roll back our rights, NCRM continues to speak truth to power. America needs independent voices like NCRM to be sure no one is forgotten.

Every reader contribution, whatever the amount, makes a tremendous difference. Help ensure NCRM remains independent long into the future. Support progressive journalism with a one-time contribution to NCRM, or click here to become a subscriber. Thank you. Click here to donate by check.

ANALYSIS

‘Nightmare Scenario’ for Democracy: ‘Desperate’ GOP May Sink to New Depths to Fight Election Reform – With SCOTUS’s Help

Published

on

While Republicans in state legislatures are proposing voter suppression bills all around the U.S., Democrats are pushing the For the People Act at the federal level — a comprehensive voting rights bill that has passed in the U.S. House of Representatives but now faces a steep uphill climb in the U.S. Senate. Democrats have a narrow majority and must contend with the filibuster for most legislation. Far-right pundits have been railing against the act, known as HR1, on conservative media outlets like Fox News, Fox Business and Newsmax, and observers warn Republicans will take extreme efforts to fight any such reforms.

Some of these tactics were highlighted analysis by Crooked Media’s Brian Beutler and on the Democracy Docket website.

Beutler contemplates various scenarios and how they could affect voting rights if they come to pass. Some scenarios to consider, Beutler writes, include 82-year-old Justice Stephen Breyer’s seat on the U.S. Supreme Court becoming available, Democrats losing their narrow Senate majority, and the court attacking voting reforms if Democrats somehow manage to get them passed in the Senate.

“Here’s a nightmare scenario I encourage everyone — but particularly, Breyer and Senate Democrats — to imagine having to endure,” Beutler writes. “Through illness or untimely death, Democrats’ 50-50 Senate ‘majority’ becomes a 49-50 Senate minority. They don’t retain the seat. Joe Biden loses reelection. We’re all left hoping Breyer can survive into his 90s so that the Supreme Court doesn’t swing from 6-3 to 7-2. Mitch McConnell gets Charlie Kirk fitted for a robe.”

He continues: “Now consider this less speculative nightmare scenario. Democrats let bygones be bygones, leave court reform out of their larger democracy-reform project, change the filibuster rules, pass both HR 1 and the John Lewis Voting Rights Act — and the existing Supreme Court takes a hatchet to it. We should know to expect this, because Republicans declared the For the People Act ‘unconstitutional’ sight unseen, as a kind of bat signal to their allies on the courts to make sure democracy reform can’t take effect.”

Beutler adds, “We can’t know in advance which provisions of these bills the Supreme Court would invalidate, but it’s trivially easy to step into the shoes of conservative justices and extend the same pseudo-constitutional arguments they’ve used to degrade American election law over the last decade to new reforms. Campaign-finance regulations? Well, those obviously violate the 1st Amendment. Non-partisan gerrymandering? The federal government can’t dictate that kind of thing to the states!”

But Democrats don’t just face dangers from the right-wing Supreme Court. Republicans controlling key state legislatures, oftened heavily gerrymandered to protect their majorities from swings in public opinion, are actively considering how to thwart efforts to make elections fairer.

Democracy Docket, in a “legislation alert” published this week, describes Texas House Bill 4507 — which has been proposed by Republicans in the Texas House of Representatives and would “essentially create a two-tiered voter registration system, in an effort to evade federal voting rights protections that could pass into law this year.”

Democracy Docket explains, “HB 4507 establishes two different registration processes: one for federal elections, which would be required to comply with national legislation such as the For the People Act — and one for state elections, which Texas Republicans claim could ignore these federal requirements. Any voter registering to vote in a federal election would not be automatically registered for local and state elections, unless they meet the much stricter and more exclusionary requirements of Texas’ election code. Instead, they would have to apply and register again separately for their local elections.”

On Twitter, attorney Marc E. Elias, founder of Democracy Docket, described HB 4507 as an example of “how desperate Republicans are to prevent all voters from participating in elections”:

After liberal Washington Post columnist Greg Sargent tweeted Beutler’s Crooked Media column, law professor and election law expert Rick Hasan noted:

Image via Shutterstock

 

Continue Reading

RELIGIOUS HYPOCRISY

Scandalous Scion Jerry Falwell Jr. Sued for $10 Million by Liberty University

Published

on

Jerry Falwell, Jr. is being sued by the school his father founded. Liberty University has filed a $10 million complaint against its former president.

“The new suit, which alleges breach of contract and fiduciary duty, claims that Mr. Falwell withheld scandalous and potentially damaging information from Liberty’s board of trustees, while negotiating a generous new contract for himself in 2019 under false pretenses. Mr. Falwell also failed to disclose and address ‘his personal impairment by alcohol,’ the suit alleges, according to The New York Times.

But according to Talking Points Memo, which published the entire complaint, the lawsuit is far more scandalous.

“The evangelical institution claims in the suit, filed in Lynchburg Circuit Court in Virginia, that Falwell concealed his relationship with Giancarlo Granda from the university.”

“Had Liberty’s Executive Committee known in 2018 and 2019 that Granda was attempting to extort Falwell Jr. and thus planning to damage Liberty, and had it known the full circumstances of Granda’s extortion of Falwell Jr., then the Executive Committee would have refrained from entering into the 2019 Employment Agreement,” the suit states.

“The actions of Falwell Jr. and Granda have injured Liberty’s enrollment, impacted its donor base, disrupted its faculty, enabled the 2019 Employment Agreement that proved detrimental to Liberty’s interests, and damaged Liberty’s reputation,” the suit reads.

The suit also adds that “Granda had plenty of information that could have been deeply  damaging to Falwell Jr. in the eyes of the evangelical community.”

Falwell, Jr.’s social media posts are infamous, and some are included in the lawsuit.

In August of 2020 before leaving Liberty, Falwell said his wife had had a “fatal attraction” extramarital relationship with the man identified as Giancarlo Granda.

“Becki had an inappropriate personal relationship with this person, something in which I was not involved – it was nonetheless very upsetting to learn about,” Falwell claimed.

But Granda responded by accusing Falwell of being involved in that relationship.

“Jerry enjoyed watching,” Granda alleged.

This is a breaking news and developing story.

Continue Reading

RIGHT WING EXTREMISTS

WH Press Secretary Jen Psaki Brilliantly Smacks Down Newsmax Reporter Trying to Get Black UN Ambassador Fired

Published

on

White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki responded to a reporter from the right wing website Newsmax who asked if President Joe Biden will fire the U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations.

Ambassador Linda Thomas-Greenfield joined the U.S. Foreign Service four decades ago, in 1982. Her extensive resume includes serving as United States Assistant Secretary of State for African Affairs, Director General of the United States Foreign Service and Director of Human Resources, United States Ambassador to Liberia, Deputy Assistant Secretary, Bureau of Population, Refugees and Migration, and Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for African Affairs, among others.

She was confirmed for her current post by a highly partisan U.S. Senate in a strongly bipartisan 78–20 vote.

Newsmax White House Correspondent Emerald Robinson suggested President Joe Biden should bow down to any criticism or attacks from China, telling Psaki that Ambassador Linda Thomas-Greenfield “essentially said that white supremacy is woven into our founding documents and principles.”

“This statement,” Robinson claimed, “is getting widely criticized as essentially parroting Chinese Communist Party talking points. So is the President going to remove her from her position as the representative before that body to promote United States values?”

Psaki, calmly, told her no.

“Is the President going to remove an African American woman with decades of experience in the Foreign Service who is widely respected around the world from her position as Ambassador to the UN? He is not,” Psaki replied. “He is proud to have her in that position. She is not only qualified, he believes she is exactly the right person in that role at this moment in time. I have not seen her comments, I will say that there’s no question that there has been a history of institutional racism in this country, and that doesn’t require the UN ambassador to confirm that.”

Robinson, apparently trying to shape U.S. foreign policy from the press briefing room, complained thast Ambassador Robinson’s remarks are “essentially the same lecture though that the Chinese delegation gave Secretary Blinken in Alaska last month. So does the President think our founding documents are racist?”

Undeterred, Psaki again responded, saying: “I would say that, I will, I will leave my comments to speak for themselves, and certainly I think most people recognize the history of systemic racism in our country, and she was speaking to that.”

As most Americans known, the founding documents are inherently racist, including but hardly limited to allowing slavery and counting slaves as only three-fifths of a person.

Watch:

 

Continue Reading

Trending

Copyright © 2020 AlterNet Media.