Armed FBI Raid Terrorizes Innocent Catholic Family of Nine

Armed FBI Raid Terrorizes Innocent Catholic Family of Nine

Have you heard the latest in government tyranny, excess, and overreach, using a heavily-armed FBI SWAT team to effectuate a simple arrest of a conservative, religious, family man?

Read this article.

Or this one.

Mark Houck, a devout Catholic, conservative writer, sidewalk preacher (someone who preaches the word of God on a sidewalk in front of a place such as an abortion clinic) and founder of a men’s anti-pornography ministry called The King’s Men was arrested last Friday at his rural Pennsylvania home. In front of his children. By more than 25 armed FBI agents. For a made-up crime.

Mark’s crime? LifeSiteNews describes them as follows:

On several occasions when Mark went to sidewalk counsel last year, he took his eldest son, who was only 12 at the time, she explained. For “weeks and weeks,” a “pro-abortion protester” would speak to the boy saying “crude … inappropriate and disgusting things,” such as “you’re (sic) dad’s a fag,” and other statements that were too vulgar for her to convey.

Repeatedly, Mark would tell this pro-abortion man that he did not have permission to speak to his son and please refrain from doing so. And “he kept doing it and kind of came into [the son’s] personal space” obscenely ridiculing his father. At this point, “Mark shoved him away from his child, and the guy fell back.”

The FBI’s warrant and subsequent indictment claimed that a Planned Parenthood escort was injured when he fell to the ground, but the family says the only injury the man suffered was very minor and required only “a Band-Aid on his finger.” Following the incident, both the Philadelphia police department and the district attorney declined to press any charges, as Mark’s act was deemed self-defense.

The escort even sued Houck by filing a private criminal complaint in Philadelphia Municipal Court, but the case was dismissed after the escort failed multiple times to even attend a court hearing.

The incident in question occurred on October 13, 2021, nearly one year before the FBI’s intrusion in to the Houck home. Apparently Joe Biden’s Department of Justice disapproved of the decisions of a major police department, a district attorney and a municipal court and felt that Mark Houck belongs in jail.

So they acted, with around 25 armed FBI agents against a humble family man, in his home on a Friday morning. Mark’s wife, Ryan-Marie, shared the following about the arrest:

Ryan-Marie, who is a homeschooling mother, described how the SWAT team of 25 to 30 FBI agents swarmed their property with around 15 vehicles at 7:05 a.m. this morning. Having quickly surrounded the house with rifles in firing position, “they started pounding on the door and yelling for us to open it.”

Before opening the door, she explained, her husband tried to calm them, saying, “‘Please, I’m going to open the door, but, please, my children are in the home. I have seven babies in the house.’ But they just kept pounding and screaming,” she said.

When he opened the door, “they had big, huge rifles pointed at Mark and pointed at me and kind of pointed throughout the house,” Ryan-Marie described.

When they came in, they ordered the kids to stay upstairs. “Our staircase is open, so [the kids] were all at the top of the stairs which faces the front door, and I was on the stairs as well, coming down.”

“The kids were all just screaming. It was all just very scary and traumatic,” she explained.

The Justice Department has charged Mark with a violation of what is called the Freedom to Access to Clinic Entrances Act (or “FACE Act”), “which makes it a federal crime to use force with the intent to injure, intimidate, and interfere with anyone because that person is a provider of reproductive health care.” See Press Release by United States Attorney’s Office, Eastern District of Pennsylvania.

Court documents claim that Mark twice assaulted this escort because he was a volunteer reproductive health care clinic escort. No mention was made of the fact that this escort was verbally abusing Mark’s son and encroaching on his personal space. Neither was any statement made that both the police department and district refused to press charges against Mark for his very legitimate actions.

No, Biden’s Justice Department decided to arrest Mark Houck, at gunpoint, in front of his wife and children, nearly a year later, for what they claim is a simple assault.

Preposterous! Tyrannical! Wrong!

Even if there were merit to the government’s claim that Mark violated this FACE Act (which there does not appear to be), or even if you disagree with how Mark chooses to make his point in front of abortion clinics, you cannot look at the government’s actions and think they are okay.

Our federal government has armed so many of its departments with high-end weaponry that no one is safe anywhere. The FBI has long used firearms in pursuit of bad guys, as it should, but has moved on to doing the same for any arrest, even of non-violent offenders or those who have never made any sort of physical threat against others. The USDA, the Post Office, the IRS and nearly every other federal agency has its own armed police force used to enforce civil violations.

This problem is not new, but the way the Biden Administration is acting is new. It seems that in Biden’s America, the federal government is stepping up its tyrannical efforts to ensure that citizens of the United States comply with whatever the feds say, want or determine to be in the best interest of the government.

Fear. That is what Biden wants you to feel.

These actions must stop. Mark Houck and his family are only the latest in examples of the federal government’s overreaching and illegal intrusion on our liberty.

Take a stand. Call your Senators and Congressional representatives to demand a stop to these government actions that terrorize our children and families!

The Constitution – a Document for the Ages

The Constitution – a Document for the Ages

Today, September 17, is Constitution Day, the day that commemorates the signing of the United States Constitution in 1787. This author reveres the Constitution as a God-inspired document that has protected the nation’s citizens, abolished slavery and freed the slaves (although it took quite a few decades to get Democrats to understand just how terrible slavery really was), allowed for freedom of thought and belief, and provided a path for every single citizen to pursue life, liberty and happiness.

Sadly, not everyone believes this.

In a recent article published in the New York Times, “The Constitution is Broken and Should Not Be Reclaimed,” two ivy league law professors argue that the U.S. Constitution should be overthrown through court packing, legislation and just plain ignoring the founding document of our nation. If you are interested in their drivel, read the article here.

Ryan D. Doerfler of Harvard Law and Samuel Moyn of Yale Law stated that:

“When liberals lose in the Supreme Court — as they increasingly have over the past half-century — they usually say that the justices got the Constitution wrong. But struggling over the Constitution has proved a dead end. The real need is not to reclaim the Constitution, as many would have it, but instead to reclaim America from constitutionalism.”, August 19, 2022

Reclaim America from constitutionalism? The Constitution has preserved and protected our nation for 235 years and was written to protect America from any other form of government. What’s to reclaim, if you truly have the best interests of the United States and its citizens at heart.

These authors are law professors, charged by what are considered the pinnacle of higher education institutions, with educating and preparing their students to go forth and protect the Constitution and the Rule of Law. (Even though many, if not most, of the law professors in the nation believe the same progressive poppycock, I’d recommend anyone considering law school to find somewhere other than Harvard or Yale to attend!)

Another gem from their article:

“It’s difficult to find a constitutional basis for abortion or labor unions in a document written by largely affluent men more than two centuries ago. It would be far better if liberal legislators could simply make a case for abortion and labor rights on their own merits without having to bother with the Constitution.”, August 19, 2022

Back to the Constitution.

The Constitution was not only the founding, organizing document of the fledgling United States of America, but was intended to endure as the supreme law of the land, limiting forever the power and authority of a federal government.

Far too many citizens believe the Constitution to be ancient, outdated, and unnecessary. They could not be more mistaken, whether intentionally and deceitfully like the authors of the article referenced above or ignorantly like so many others who just do not understand the realities of the value and importance of the Constitution.

Many of our nation’s leaders, media commentators, reporters, and even teachers speak of the United States as a democracy, claiming “our democracy” must be protected at all costs. In reality, the framers of the Constitution very intentionally and carefully drafted a document that created anything but a democracy.

The Constitution formed a republic, a constitutional, democratic republic. A union of states who needed a federal government for a limited and delineated purpose. Those who call this nation a democracy seek a strong, overpowering, controlling national government with weak states, and seek the destruction of both the Constitution and the United States of America as we have known it all our lives.

On the final day of the Constitutional Convention, it is said that a woman asked Benjamin Franklin (who presided over the convention) whether they had created a republic or a monarchy. Mr. Franklin replied that they had created “a republic, if you can keep it.”

Beware when a wolf in sheep’s clothing tries to tell you otherwise.

In the coming weeks, we will discuss the United States Constitution in depth on this page and hopefully help clarify and remind everyone that adherence to its principles is just as necessary today as it was on September 17, 1787.

As you read and ponder the importance of the Constitution, which you can do here, thank God that He allowed such a document to be written and enacted for the founding and preservation of the freest nation on earth. Reeducate yourself on its core provisions, on the powers of the federal government and on the guarantees and protections set forth in the Bill of Rights, which you can read here.

Let’s begin a national discussion and reclaim our Constitution from those seeking to destroy it.

Dobbs – The Supreme Court’s Constitutional Decision

Dobbs – The Supreme Court’s Constitutional Decision

With the Supreme Court’s Dobbs decision a few days behind us, lets talk about some very apparent truths.

The Supreme Court did not abolish or ban abortion.

Anyone who says otherwise is mistaken or lying – do not believe them. The SCOTUS decision was about constitutional law, not abortion, health care, or women’s rights. Neither was it about some long-held constitutional right to abortion that SCOTUS decided to take away from women. It was about the Constitution, plain and simple. Nothing more; nothing less. Yes, the subject matter that brought about the case was a Mississippi law related to abortion, but the case did not address the overall legality of abortion. The Court held that the Constitution says nothing about abortion, privacy or anything else conjured up by the previous court in Roe v. Wade. The Roe Court was just plain wrong; they made it up. The Court further said it takes no position on the legality or illegality of abortion as regulated by the individual states.

SCOTUS did say this:

Roe, however, was remarkably loose in its treatment of the constitutional text. It held that the abortion right, which is not mentioned in the Constitution, is part of a right to privacy, which is also not mentioned. And that privacy right, Roe observed, had been found to spring from no fewer than five different constitutional provisions—the First, Fourth, Fifth, Ninth, and Fourteenth Amendments.” 

Dobbs vs. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, 9

And this:

Roe was also egregiously wrong and deeply damaging. For reasons already explained, Roe’s constitutional analysis was far outside the bounds of any reasonable interpretation of the various constitutional provisions to which it vaguely pointed. Roe was on a collision course with the Constitution from the day it was decided, Casey perpetuated its errors, and those errors do not concern some arcane corner of the law of little importance to the American people. Rather, wielding nothing but “raw judicial power,” the Court usurped the power to address a question of profound moral and social importance that the Constitution unequivocally leaves for the people. Casey described itself as calling both sides of the national controversy to resolve their debate, but in doing so, Casey necessarily declared a winning side. Those on the losing side—those who sought to advance the State’s interest in fetal life—could no longer seek to persuade their elected representatives to adopt policies consistent with their views. The Court short-circuited the democratic process by closing it to the large number of Americans who dissented in any respect from Roe. “Roe fanned into life an issue that has inflamed our national politics in general, and has obscured with its smoke the selection of Justices to this Court in particular, ever since.” Together, Roe and Casey represent an error that cannot be allowed to stand.”

Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, 44

As such, SCOTUS overturned both Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey purely and simply on the fact that the previous courts had no constitutional grounds to mandate the legality of abortion throughout individual states.

Read the Dobbs ruling here. It just makes sense. Both the Roe and the Casey were not just wrong, but made up with no basis in constitutional law.

Dobbs was not about abortion.

The result of this decision is that the subject of abortion reverts to the states, where it rightfully and constitutionally stood until the Roe decision in 1973.

Isn’t it interesting that liberals and progressives who go so far as to wrongfully call the United States a democracy now do not trust that same democratic process, or the scales of justice when they do not tilt their way? Their trust and reliance go only so far as “democracy” supports their ideals.

This time they lost. They lost because there should be no place in constitutional law for issues not included or addressed in the Constitution. The progressive courts have been wrong for far too long. True trust in the democratic process should motivate supporters of any cause to advocate with their state legislatures for passage of laws allowing, protecting, or preventing what they seek.

Did you see a meme over the weekend that looked something like this?

There is no merit to this statement. Any rational thinker cannot possibly believe “guns have more rights than women in America.”

The Dobbs decision found absolutely nothing in the Constitution that would allow require abortion on a national level and thus said the issue belongs to the states, as required by the 10th Amendment (“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”)

Really, it is a very clear holding. If you did not click above, you can read it here.

The New York State Rifle & Pistol Association case, found here, decided just a few days prior to Dobbs, appears to contrast very distinctly, but really is rooted in the same principal. SCOTUS held that states cannot withhold concealed carry permits from individuals who otherwise qualify under the law, using some unnamed exceptional need standard. The 2nd Amendment protects citizens’ rights of self-defense, holding that individuals possess rights to protect themselves and others in places other than just their homes. This holding does not grant a gun any protection, but the individual. This right is specifically set forth in the Constitution.

Thus, comparing these two decisions, they are very similar in that they support the specific and original intent of the Constitution – one because the specific right is set forth in the 2nd Amendment  (“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”) and the other because nowhere in the Constitution is there an explicit or even implicit right to an abortion.

Both are constitutional decisions and do not conflict with each other at all.

This is why you must beware of most memes you see, both for or against your position, because quite often they are created by individuals who have no idea what they are saying, or who are intentionally seeking to deceive.

In sum, the Dobbs case is rooted in constitutional issues, not issues related whatsoever to abortion. You cannot believe otherwise if you truly revere and honor the Constitution. An honest constitutionalist (whether pro-choice or pro-life) would accept the ruling as a true, strict interpretation of the Constitution and head directly to her or his state representative and advocate for whatever relief they seek.

Let’s stop the bickering about the Supreme Court. They did their job and they did it well.

Another Win for the Constitution

Another Win for the Constitution

The constitutional right to bear arms in public for self-defense is not “a second-class right, subject to an entirely different body of rules than the other Bill of Rights guarantees.” We know of no other constitutional right that an individual may exercise only after demonstrating to government officers some special need. That is not how the First Amendment works when it comes to unpopular speech or the free exercise of religion. It is not how the Sixth Amendment works when it comes to a defendant’s right to confront the witnesses against him. And it is not how the Second Amendment works when it comes to public carry for self-defense.

New York State Rifle & Pistol Assn., Inc. v. Bruen, 597 U. S. __ (2022)

Yesterday’s Supreme Court decision, New York State Rifle & Pistol Assn., Inc. v. Bruen, provides yet another “win” for the Constitution. You can read it here, in all its 135 pages.

Short Summary:

The state of New York requires the showing of extraordinary cause, more than those required by most common situations before it will issue a concealed carry permit to carry a pistol or revolver for self-defense or other reasons. Consequently, New York rarely grants such permits to any of its residents, even in cases of vital need. In stark contrast to most states, who maintain “shall issue” or “constitutional carry” (no permit required) policies, the constitutional rights of New Yorkers are strongly and blatantly curtailed. Other similar states affected by this ruling include California, Hawaii, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey and the District of Columbia.

Why Does this Matter:

As we stated here yesterday concerning funding of private, sectarian schools by a state, even if you do not care about the subject matter (private, religious schools, free speech, concealed carry of pistols), you cannot help but applaud the fact that the Supreme Court is recognizing and honoring the Constitution in a way that says – this document matters.

In his opinion, Justice Thomas thoroughly outlines the history of concealed carry laws and restrictions as they relate to the Constitution and it is worth the read if you like reading legal opinions.

But, if you’d rather read the summary, this is it:

The Second Amendment is no less important than the other amendments found in the Constitution. The rights it protects merit just as much respect and dignity as those protected the other amendments in the Bill of Rights.

Plain and simple.

The Constitution matters. The Bill of Rights matters. Our rights matter. A state cannot legally take or infringe on those rights willy-nilly without a compelling governmental interest, and then only after strictly scrutinizing the reasons and the rights being infringed upon.

Justice Thomas’ opinion ended on this very true statement:

New York’s proper-cause requirement violates the Fourteenth Amendment in that it prevents law-abiding citizens with ordinary self-defense needs from exercising their right to keep and bear arms.

New York State Rifle & Pistol Assn., Inc. v. Bruen, 597 U. S. __ (2022)

Dobbs – The Supreme Court’s Constitutional Decision

Religious Liberty – Let’s Talk This Out


“This Court continues to dismantle the wall of separation between church and state that the Framers fought to build.”

Associate Justice Sotomayor, dissent in Carson v. Makin, U.S. Supreme Court, June 21, 2022.  

No, Justice Sotomayor, the current court, as well as the decision handed down this week do no such thing. Rather, this decision tells governments everywhere they can no longer discriminate against religion and religious believers, hiding behind and misrepresenting the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.


Here’s the short story –

Due to the very rural nature of the state of Maine, apparently not all counties in the state provide education/schools for children otherwise required to attend school under state law. Rather, Maine’s law provides for the payment of school tuition and fees to private schools anywhere (even outside the state) for families who either do not have access to public schools or who choose a private education for their children. Private schools must receive certain accreditations and teach certain courses, but other than this, tuition assistance is available to most private schools Maine students desire to attend.

Most private schools, that is, except sectarian schools who teach religion as part of their education.

Discrimination, pure and simple.

Maine justifies its discrimination as its attempt to avoid the establishment of religion through direct funding of religious schools, completely ignoring both the rights of its residents to freely exercise their religion and the churches themselves to provide religious and doctrinal instruction.

Yeah, right!

Two families, who could not afford to educate their children in private schools, but who had no access to public education, filed suit and ultimately ended up appealing their cases to the U.S. Supreme Court.

In short (very short), earlier this week, the Supreme Court held that if the state pays for some private schools, it cannot withhold the same benefits to people of faith seeking a faith-based education for their children, thus reiterating and reaffirming the vital protections afforded by the First Amendment.

Read the opinion here.

Why this matters to you:

“So, what, I do not live in Maine.”

“Who cares, my kids attend public schools.”

The Constitution was created and drafted to severely and strictly limit the actions of the federal government, and later (through adoption the Fourteenth Amendment) of the states, but NEVER was it intended to restrict the rights and freedoms of U.S. citizens.

Furthermore, the Bill of Rights (the first ten amendments to the Constitution) ensures protection of our God-given liberties, including free exercise of religion.

So, this case matters to you because it reiterates exactly that the Constitution protects the citizen, not the government. These two families were prohibited from educating their children in the manner they saw fit because Maine discriminated against them based on their religious beliefs.

Further, this matters to you in more ways than education. This ruling demands recognition that if the government provides a service to one group, it cannot withhold that same service from another group. If certain organizations provide certain services allowed by law, the government cannot prohibit a religion or church from doing the same. The government cannot attempt to mandate a church to close or limit its services if it does not do the same for all other organizations.

In other words, this ruling upholds the free exercise of religion for all (legal) religious acts that are allowed to others.

It is not about just religion. It is not about just school. It is about the Constitution!

What can I do about this:

It’s been said that we should never discuss certain issues at the dinner table, including politics and religion. Do you wonder why your children are straying from your religious and political ideals? One primary reason is that far too many parents do not talk about these vital topics, especially at the dinner table.

Have dinner tonight with your family. During your time together, mention this case (other very important cases will be handed down this week, so plan lots of dinners) and talk about why it is important that the government stop infringing on our constitutional rights. If you are not religious, talk about free speech, peaceable assembly, the bearing of arms, equal rights, etc.

It is the same – infringement is infringement.

Teach your children the importance of the Constitution and talk about what makes their lives better because our natural, God-granted freedoms and liberties are protected.

Read the Constitution. Find it here.

Then talk about what happens when those same freedoms and liberties are taken. Use the case we just discussed as the basis for your discussion. Regardless their religion, these families were blocked from educating their children because the state of Maine refused to treat them equally and fairly under the law.

Also, do not be afraid to voice your opinion to friends and neighbors when the topic arises.

Let’s talk this out!

HTML Snippets Powered By :